596 Cereal Implements 9850 Pull-Type Combine

596 Cereal Implements 9850 Pull-Type Combine
Printed: May, 1989
Tested at: Humboldt
ISSN 0383-3445
Group 4c
Evaluation Report
596
Cereal Implements 9850 Pull Type Combine- Series 64005
A Co-operative Program Between
ALBERTA
FARM
MACHINERY
RESEARCH
CENTRE
PAMI
PRAIRIE AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY INSTITUTE
CEREAL IMPLEMENTS 9850 PULL-TYPE COMBINE
- SERIES 64005
MANUFACTURER:
Vicon Western Canada
1000 - 6th Avenue North East
Portage la Prairie, Manitoba
R1N 0B4
Phone: (204) 239-7011
DISTRIBUTOR:
Cereal Implements
1000 - 6th Avenue North East
Portage la Prairie, Manitoba
R1N 0B4
Phone: (204) 239-7043
RETAIL PRICE:
$92,500 (March, 1989, f.o.b. Humboldt, with “Super 8” Victory
pickup and straw chopper).
FIGURE 1. Cereal Implements 9850: (1) Cylinder, (2) Concave, (3) Rear Beater, (4) Straw
Walkers, (5) Cleaning Shoe.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Capacity: In the capacity tests, the MOG feedrate* at 3%
total grain loss was 490 lb/min (13.3 t/h) in Argyle barley and
345 lb/min (9.4 t/h) in Harrington barley. In Katepwa wheat,
combine capacity was 445 and 610 lb/in (12.2 and 16.6 t/h) at
3% total grain loss.
The capacity of the Cereal Implements 9850 at 3% loss was
about 1.2 times the capacity of the Reference II combine in Argyle
barley, about 0.9 times its capacity in Harrington barley, and 0.9
and 1.1 times its capacity in the two Katepwa wheat crops.
Quality of Work: Pickup performance was very good in
all crops. It picked cleanly at speeds up to 6 mph (9.6 km/h)
and moved material smoothly to the table auger. Feeding was
very good in most crops and conditions. The table auger was
aggressive and seldom plugged. However, in tough flax, the table
auger frequently wrapped.
The stone trap provided good stone protection. Objects up to
3 in (75 mm) in diameter were emptied from the trap. A few small
stones went through the combine and caused minor concave
damage.
Threshing was good. Unthreshed loss was very low in
easy-to-thresh crops, but very aggressive cylinder and concave
settings were required to minimize unthreshed loss in hard-tothresh crops. The concave blanks helped reduce unthreshed loss
and “white caps” in the clean grain sample. Grain damage was
low in all crops.
Separation of grain from straw was good, although, in both
barley and wheat, grain loss over the straw walkers limited
capacity.
*MOG feedrate (Material-Other-than-Grain Feedrate) is the mass of straw and chaff
passing through the combine per unit of time.
Page
2
Cleaning shoe performance was very good. In barley and
wheat, shoe loss was usually very low over the entire operating
range. The chaffer and cleaning sieves tended to “spear” with
straw. In all crops, the grain tank sample was very clean.
Grain handling was good. The 225 Imp bu (8.2 m³) grain tank
filled evenly in most crops. Unloading a full tank of dry wheat took
about 130 seconds. The unloading auger had ample clearance
for unloading into all trucks and trailers encountered. The
high discharge resulted in some loss when unloading in windy
conditions.
Straw spreading was good. Straw was spread up to 25 ft
(7.6 m) in a fairly uniform pattern. Converting the chopper to dropstraw was very quick and convenient.
Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of hitching was
fair. Initial hook-up took one person about one day. A three-point
hitch adapter had to be attached to the tractor drawbar and the
combine PTO shaft had to be cut to fit. Operator comfort and
visibility depended on the tractor used.
Instrumentation was good. The digital display indicated
cylinder and fan speed. Warning to indicate a slowdown of critical
shafts was clearly shown on the control console. The controls
were fair. The control switches were difficult to identify and
operate while harvesting. The optional remote header control kit
greatly improved the ease of operating the header controls.
The loss monitor was fair. Full width loss sensors were located
under the end of the straw walkers and at the back of the chaffer
sieve. Like most loss monitors, the reading was meaningful only
if compared to actual loss. However, in some conditions, the
monitor adjustment did not provide an adequate response for
normal loss levels.
Lighting supplied by the combine for nighttime harvesting
was good. Additional light from the tractor was required for proper
lighting.
Handling was very good. The unique hitch of the Cereal
Implements 9850 enabled very sharp cornering without PTO
vibration. The hydraulic hitch-pole positioning made it very easy
to switch to field or transport position.
Ease of adjusting the combine components was very good.
All components were easy to adjust. Ease of setting to suit
crop conditions was very good. After initial adjustments, some
fine-tuning was usually required. This was easy as the effect of
adjustments was easy to see and check.
Ease of unplugging was good. The feeder reverser backed out
most table auger and feeder obstructions. Severe feeder plugging
had to be cleared by hand. A plugged cylinder could usually be
cleared by lowering the concave fully and powering the slug
through. The tailings return plugged frequently when operating
in weedy conditions or damp flax. Ease of complete cleaning was
good. The grain tank retained very little grain; however, the sump
door was difficult to open. Cleanout doors were provided for the
clean grain and return elevator cross augers.
Ease of lubrication was very good. The few daily grease
points made lubrication quick and easy. Ease of performing
routine maintenance was good. Most drives were easily accessed
for checking and adjusting. Main power belt tension was easily
checked, but adjustment took about 10 minutes and required
large wrenches.
Power Requirements: The manufacturer’s recommended
optimum tractor size of 165 PTO hp (123 kW) was suitable.
Measured input power in Katepwa wheat was 105 hp (78 kW) at
capacity. Extra power was required to pull the combine and for
auxiliary functions.
Operator Safety: The operator’s manual emphasized
operator safety. No safety hazards were apparent on the Cereal
Implements 9850. However, normal safety precautions were
required and warnings had to be heeded.
Operator’s Manual: The operator’s manual was fair.
Information was vague and often incomplete. Different names
were used for the same component from one reference to another,
and some information was incorrect.
Mechanical History: Several mechanical problems occurred
throughout the test.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the manufacturer consider:
1. Modifications to improve the ease of identifying and operating
the combine controls.
2. Modifications to provide a more regulated pickup speed and
cylinder speed control response.
3. Modifications to provide a greater adjustment range on the
grain loss monitor.
4. Modifications to the grain tank sump door to enable easier
more convenient opening.
5. Modifications to improve the ease of disconnecting the header
hydraulic lines to permit quicker, more convenient feeder
removal.
6. Revising and reorganizing the operator’s manual to provide
complete and correct information in a logical format.
7. Modifications to eliminate repeated failure of the secondary
power belt idler arm tensioning springs.
8. Modifications to prevent hydraulic oil leakage in the control
bay.
Station Manage: J.D. Wassermann
Project Manager: L.G. Hill
Project Engineer: C.A. Hanson
THE MANUFACTURER STATES THAT
With regard to recommendation number:
1. Alternate combine control designs are being considered for
future production.
2. A service bulletin has been issued to Cereal Implements
dealers describing simple, inexpensive solutions, which can be
implemented where required.
3. Modifications to provide greater grain loss monitor adjustment
will be an inherent part of the control redesign mentioned in
Reply 1.
4. A service bulletin has been issued to Cereal Implements
dealers describing a technique to ease opening the grain tank
sump door, which can be implemented when required.
5. Cereal Implements feels that this is not a serious problem
since feeder house removal is usually infrequent; however, the
recommendation will be considered for future production.
6. The operator’s manual will be revised for future production.
7. Cereal Implements will monitor secondary power belt idler
springs and will take corrective action if necessary.
8. Leakage past blind plugged ports in the hydraulic filter base
will be sealed. Leakage in the valve block area can occur from
hairline cracks in the fittings. These cracks are caused by
overtightening. Replacement and correct torquing of the fitting
will eliminate this.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Cereal Implements 9850 is a power-take-off driven, pulltype combine. It has a transverse-mounted, tangential threshing
cylinder, concave, rear beater, straw walkers with stirring tines,
and a cleaning shoe. The open design cylinder has six rasp bars
with the ribs on alternate bars having the opposite angle. A bar
and wire concave is matched to the cylinder. The eight wing beater
has a finger-bar grate. There are five, multi-step, open bottom
straw walkers. The cleaning fan is a six blade paddle fan, and the
adjustable lip chaffer, tailings and cleaning sieves move in unison.
Crop is fed from the feeder to the cylinder where, upon contact,
threshing begins. The crop is pulled between the cylinder and
concave where further threshing takes place and grain separation
begins. The crop is stripped away from the cylinder by the beater
and directed onto the straw walkers for further separation. The
separated material is carried to the shoe by reciprocating grain pans.
The grain is cleaned by a combination of pneumatic and sieving
action. Tailings are returned to the front of the cylinder.
The test combine was equipped with a 13 ft (3.9 m) header,
12 ft (3.7 m) Victory “Super 8” four roller belt pickup, straw chopper,
and optional accessories as listed on page 2.
The Cereal Implements 9850 has a unique hitch which permits
turning while keeping the PTO drive in line. Power is transferred
from the front mounted gearbox to the combine through a multi-vee
belt enclosed in the hitch tube.
The combine has a self-contained hydraulic system, with most
functions controlled electronically from a cab-mounted console.
Separator, header and unloader drives, header height, hitch and
unloader swing, cylinder speed and pickup speed are all actuated
electrohydraulically. Fan speed, header reverser and combine
lights are controlled electrically. Front and rear concave clearance,
concave blank engagement, windboard position, and sieve settings
are adjusted externally on the machine. Tailings may be sampled
from a spring loaded door in the bottom of the tailings elevator.
Important component speeds and harvest functions are displayed
electronically on the console.
Detailed specifications are given in APPENDIX I.
SCOPE OF TEST
The main purpose of the test was to determine the functional
performance of the Cereal Implements 9850. Measurements and
observations were made to evaluate the Cereal Implements 9850
for rate of work, quality of work, ease of operation and adjustment,
power requirements, operator safety and the suitability of the
operator’s manual. Although extended durability testing was not
conducted, mechanical failures, which occurred during the test were
recorded.
The Cereal Implements 9850 was originally evaluated during
the harvest of 1987, and Evaluation Report #575 was subsequently
published in the spring of 1988. The manufacturer has since made
several modifications and updates which will be applied to all
machines. To provide a current report, these changes were evaluated
during the 1988 harvest. This report covers the performance with the
changes and replaces the original report.
The Cereal Implements 9850 was operated for a total of
Page
3
123 hours while harvesting about 1090 ac (443 ha) of various crops.
In addition, capacity tests were conducted in two wheat crops and
two barley crops.
The operating conditions for the season are shown in TABLES
1 and 2.
TABLE 1. Operating Conditions
Crop
Variety
bu/ac
t/ha
ft
m
ac
ha
bu
t
Barley
Argyle
Herrington
25-50
55-80
1.4-2.7
2.9-4.3
24
20, 50
7.3
6.1,15.2
16
20
120
135
49
55
4400
7700
96.0
168.0
Canola
Tobin
Westar
15-20
20-35
0.8-1.0
1.1-2.0
20,21
20,25
6.1,6.4
6.1,7.6
11
17
135
140
55
57
2200
3300
50.0
75.0
Flax
Norlin
10-25
0.7-1.5
18,30,
50
5.5,9.1
15.2
16
105
42
1600
41.5
Lentils
Laird
11
0.7
25
7.6
2
20
8
200
6.0
1.6-2.6
20,25
30,40
6.1,7.6
9.1,12.2
12
70
29
2000
50.0
1.1-2.0
25,50
60
7.6,15.2
18.3
29
365
148
9400
256.5
123
1000
443
30800
743.0
Rye
Musketeer
Wheat
Katepwa
Yield Range
25-40
15-30
Width of Cut
Sep.
Hours
Total
Field Area
Crop
Harvested
TABLE 2. Operation in Stony Conditions
Field Conditions
Hours
Stone Free
85
Field Area
ac
ha
785
318
Occasional Stones
38
305
125
Total
123
1090
443
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TERMINOLOGY
MOG, MOG Feedrate, Grain Feedrate, MOG/G Ratio and
Total Feedrate: A combine’s performance is affected mainly by the
amount of straw and chaff it is processing and the amount of grain
or seed it is processing. The straw, chaff, and plant material other
than the grain or seed is called MOG, which is an abbreviation for
“Material-Other-than-Grain”. The quantity of MOG being processed
per unit of time is called “MOG Feedrate”. Similarly, the amount of
grain being processed per unit of time is the “Grain Feedrate”.
The MOG/G ratio, which is the MOG Feedrate divided by the
Grain Feedrate, indicates how difficult a crop is to separate. For
example, MOG/G ratios for prairie wheat crops may vary from 0.5
to 1.5. In a crop with a 0.5 MOG/G ratio, the combine has to handle
50 lbs (22.7 kg) of straw for every 100 lbs (45.4 kg) of grain
harvested. However, in a crop with a 1.5 MOG/G ratio for a similar
100 lbs (45.4 kg) of grain harvested the combine now has to handle
150 lbs (68.1 kg) of straw -- 3 times as much. Therefore, the higher
the MOG/G ratio, the more difficult it is to separate the grain.
Total feedrate is the sum of MOG and grain feedrates. This
gives an indication of the total amount of material being processed.
This total feedrate is often useful to confirm the effects of extreme
MOG/G ratios on combine performance.
Grain Loss, Grain Damage, Dockage and Foreign Material:
Grain loss from a combine can be of two main types: Unthreshed
Loss, consisting of grain left in the head and discharged with the
straw and chaff, or Separator Loss which is free (threshed) grain
discharged with the straw and chaff. Separator Loss can be further
defined as Shoe Loss and Walker (or Rotor) Loss depending where
it came from. Loss is expressed as a percentage of the total amount
of grain being processed.
Damaged or cracked grain is also a form of grain loss. In this
report the cracked grain is determined by comparing the weight of
the actual damaged kernels to the entire weight of a sample taken
from the grain tank.
Dockage is determined by standard Canadian Grain
Commission methods. Dockage consists of large foreign particles
and of smaller particles that pass through a screen specified for
that crop. It is expressed as a percentage of the weight of the total
sample taken.
Foreign material consists of the large particles in the sample,
which will not pass through the dockage screens.
Page
4
Capacity: Combine capacity is the maximum rate at which a
combine, adjusted for optimum performance, can process crop at a
certain total loss level. PAMI expresses capacity in terms of MOG
Feedrate at 3% total loss. Although MOG Feedrate is not as easily
visualized as Grain Feedrate, it provides a much more consistent
basis for comparison. A combine’s ability to process MOG is relatively
consistent even if MOG/G ratios vary widely. Three percent total
loss is widely accepted in North America as an average loss rate
that provides an optimum trade-off between work accomplished and
grain loss. This may not be true for all combines nor does it mean
that they cannot be compared at other loss levels.
Reference Combine: It is well recognized that a combine’s
capacity may vary greatly due to differences in crop and weather
conditions. These differences make it impossible to directly
compare combines not tested in the same conditions. For this
reason, PAMI uses a reference combine. The reference combine is
simply one combine that is tested along with each combine being
evaluated. Since the test conditions are similar, each test combine
can be compared directly to the reference combine to determine
a relative capacity or “capacity ratio”. This capacity ratio can be
used to indirectly compare combines tested in different years and
under different conditions. As well, the reference combine is useful
for showing how crop conditions affect capacity. For example, if the
reference combine’s capacity is higher than usual, then the capacity
of the combine being evaluated will also be higher than normally
expected.
For 10 years PAMI had used the same reference combine.
However, capacity differences between the reference combine and
some of the combines tested became so great that it was difficult
to test the reference combine in the conditions suitable for the
evaluation combines. PAMI changed its reference combine to better
handle these conditions. The new reference combine is a larger
conventional combine that was tested in 1984 (see PAMI report
#426). To distinguish between the reference combines, the new
reference will be referred to as Reference II and the old reference
as Reference I.
RATE OF WORK
Capacity Test Results: The capacity test results for the Cereal
Implements 9850 are summarized in TABLE 3.
The performance curves for the capacity tests are presented
in FIGURES 2 to 5. The curves in each figure indicate the effect of
increased feedrate on walker loss, shoe loss, unthreshed loss and
total loss. From the graphs, combine capacity can be determined
for loss levels other than 3%. The rate at which loss changes with
respect to feedrate shows where the combine can be operated
effectively. Portions of loss curves, which are “flat” or slope gradually
indicate stable performance. Where the curves hook upward sharply,
small increases in feedrate cause loss to increase greatly. It would
be difficult to operate in this range of feedrates without having widely
varying loss.
Both of the barley crops used for the test were from uniform
stands and were laid in well formed single windrows. The Argyle
barley windrow was nearly as wide as the feeder of the Cereal
Implements 9850, while the Harrington barley windrow was slightly
wider than the feeder. Heads were evenly distributed across the
windrow in both crops. The crops were mature, the grain dry and
the straw tough. In the Argyle barley, straw break-up was relatively
low, and the lower MOG/G ratio meant that high grain feedrates
accompanied relatively low MOG feedrates. The Harrington barley
had average straw break-up and a somewhat higher MOG/G ratio.
In both crops the grain threshed easily and the awns broke off
readily.
Capacity in barley, at 3% loss, was 345 and 490 lb/min (9.4 and
13.4 t/h) MOG, respectively, for the Harrington and Argyle crops.
Total loss was very low at MOG feedrates up to 350 to 400 lb/min
(9.6 to 10.9 t/h) in the Argyle barley and 250 to 300 lb/min (6.8 to 8.1
t/h) in the Harrington barley (FIGURES 2 and 3). At higher feedrates
walker loss increased rapidly, limiting capacity.
Both Katepwa wheat crops were from uniform stands, and were
laid in well formed side-by-side double windrows. The heads were
uniformly distributed over each windrow, and together the windrows
were much wider than the feeder on the Cereal Implements 9850.
Both crops were mature and the straw dry. The grain was dry for the
first crop but tough for the second. The straw was short and the yield
TABLE 3. Capacity of the Cereal Implements 9850
Crop Conditions
Width of Cut
Crop Yield
Results
Moisture Content
MOG Feedrate
Crop
Variety
ft
m
bu/ac
t/ha
Straw %
Grain %
MOG/G
lb/min
t/h
bu/h
t/h
lb/min
t/h
Grain
Cracks
%
Barley
Barley
Wheat
Wheat
Argyle
Harrington
Katepwa”A”
Katepwa”B”
24
20
40
60
7.2
6.0
12.2
18.3
69
78
30
37
3.7
4.2
2.0
2.5
12.9
12.4
7.4
8.4
13.1
10.2
12.4
14.8
0.72
0.85
0.59
0.63
490
345
445
610
13.3
9.4
12.1
16.6
850
505
755
970
18.5
11.0
20.5
26.4
1170
750
1200
1580
31.8
20.4
32.6
43.0
0.3
1.8
0.8
1.1
about average, which resulted in low MOG/G ratios, thus, the MOG
feedrates were accompanied by high grain feedrates.
Grain Feedrate
Total Feedrate
Dockage
%
Foreign
Material
Loss
Curve
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.2
2
3
4
5
loss increased rapidly. This meant that once the practical separating
limit had been reached increasing ground speed or encountering
heavier crop caused a disproportionate increase in loss. This is
typical of many conventional combines and suggests that operating
at higher loss may be impractical.
FIGURE 2. Grain Loss in Argyle Barley.
FIGURE 5. Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat “B”.
Average Workrates: TABLE 4 shows the range of average
workrates achieved during day-to-day operation in the various crops
encountered. The table is intended to give a reasonable indication
of the average rates most operators could expect to obtain, while
acknowledging the effects of crop and field variables. For any given
crop, the average workrates may vary considerably. Although a
few common variables such as yield and width of cut are included
in TABLE 4, they are by no means the only or most important
ones. There are many other crop and field conditions which affect
workrate; as well, operating at different loss levels, availability of
grain handling equipment and differences in operating habits can
have an important effect.
FIGURE 3. Grain Loss in Harrington Barley.
In wheat, the capacity at 3% loss was 445 and 610 lb/min (12.2
and 16.7 t/h) MOG. The higher feedrate in the second crop was
most likely the result of the wider windrow and the more weathered
condition of the crop.
Loss was very low for MOG feedrates up to 350 to 400 lb/min
(9.6 to 10.9 t/h) in the first wheat crop and 500 to 550 lb/min (13.6 to
15.0 t/h) in the second wheat crop (FIGURES 4 and 5).
FIGURE 4. Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat “A”.
In both barley and wheat, total loss increased gradually with
feedrate up to about 1.5%. At higher MOG feedrates, straw walker
TABLE 4. Field Workrates
Crop
Range
Grain
Feedrate
Area Rate
Width of
Cut
Yield
Variety
bu/h
t/h
ac/h
ha/h
ft
m
bu/ac
t/ha
Barley
High
Low
Avg.
540
180
335
11.7
4.0
7.3
10.0
6.5
7.0
4.0
2.7
2.7
50
24
15.2
7.3
53
27
48
2.9
1.5
2.6
Harrington
Argyle
Canola
High
Low
Avg.
345
95
195
7.8
2.2
4.4
10.0
5.5
10.0
3.9
2.2
4.0
25
20
7.6
6.1
35
18
20
2.0
1.0
1.1
Westar
Westar
Flax
High
Low
Avg.
155
80
105
4.0
2.0
2.7
8.0
5.0
6.5
3.3
2.2
2.7
18
50
5.5
15.2
19
15
16
1.2
0.9
1.0
Norlin
Norlin
Lentils
Avg
100
2.5
9.0
3.6
11
0.8
Laird
Rye
High
Low
Avg.
230
80
160
5.8
2.1
4.0
7.0
2.0
5.5
2.8
0.8
2.2
20
25
6.1
7.6
32
40
28
2.1
2.6
1.8
Musketeer
Musketeer
Wheat
High
Low
Avg.
490
175
325
13.4
4.8
8.9
17.0
10.5
12.5
7.1
4.4
5.1
60
25
18.3
7.6
29
17
26
1.9
1.1
1.8
Katepwa
Katepwa
The effect of the variables, as indicated in TABLE 4, explains
why even the maximum average workrates may be considerably
lower than the capacity results, which are instantaneous workrates.
Clearly, TABLE 4 should not be used to compare performance
of combines. The factors affecting average workrates are simply
too numerous and too variable to be duplicated for each combine
tested.
Comparing Combine Capacities: The capacity of combines
tested in different years or in different crop conditions should be
Page
5
compared only by using the PAMI reference combines. Capacity
ratios comparing the test combine to the reference combine are
given in the following section. For older reports where the ratio is not
given, a ratio can be calculated by dividing the MOG feedrate listed
in the capacity table by the corresponding MOG feedrate of the
reference combine listed in APPENDIX II for that particular crop.
Once capacity ratios for different evaluation combines have
been determined for comparable crops, they can be used to
approximate capacity differences. For example, if one combine has
a capacity ratio of 1.2 times the reference combine and another
combine has a capacity ratio of 2.0 times the reference combine,
then the second combine is about 67% larger [(2.0 - 1.2) / 1.2 x
100 = 67%]. An evaluation combine can also be compared to the
reference combine at losses other than 3%. The total loss curves
for the test combine and reference combine are shown in the graphs
in the following section. The shaded bands around the curves
represent 95% confidence belts. Where the bands overlap, very
little difference in capacity exists, where the bands do not overlap a
significant difference can be noticed.
PAMI recognizes that the change to the Reference II combine
may make it difficult to compare test machines, which were compared
to Reference I. To determine a relative size it is necessary to use a
ratio of the two reference combines. Tests indicated that Reference
II had about 1.50 to 1.60 times the capacity of Reference I in wheat
and about 1.40 to 1.50 times Reference I’s capacity in barley.
Capacity Compared to Reference Combine: The capacity
of the Cereal Implements 9850 was comparable to that of the PAMI
Reference II combine. At 3% total loss, the Cereal Implements 9850
had about 1.2 times the capacity of the Reference II combine in
Argyle barley, about 0.9 times its capacity in Harrington barley, and
0.9 and 1.1 times its capacity in the two Katepwa wheat crops.
FIGURES 6 to 9 compare the total losses of both combines in
wheat and barley.
was increased in poorly supported windrows by increasing pickup
speed and reducing pickup angle. The pickup occasionally picked a
few smaller stones when operating in stony conditions.
FIGURE 8. Total Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat “A”.
FIGURE 9. Total Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat “B”.
FIGURE 6. Total Grain Loss in Argyle Barley.
FIGURE 7. Total Grain Loss in Harrington Barley.
QUALITY OF WORK
Picking: Pickup performance was very good.
The pickup was normally operated at about a 30° angle to the
ground with the gauge wheels adjusted so the teeth just touched
the ground. The draper speed was set slightly faster than ground
speed. With these settings, a well supported windrow was picked
cleanly at speeds up to 6 mph (9.6 km/h). Picking aggressiveness
Page
6
The transfer draper behind the picking drapers moved material
smoothly to the table auger. The windguard was effective in directing
material under the table auger, and could be easily positioned to
provide adequate clearance for bushy canola windrows.
The pickup was wide enough to pick around most corners.
Feeding: Feeding was very good.
As with all conventional combines, to fully utilize the threshing
and separating ability at the cylinder and concave it was necessary
to feed windrows that were at least as wide as the width of the
cylinder and concave and that had the heads evenly distributed
across the width. In narrower windrows and windrows with the
heads concentrated in one area, it was best to center the windrow
or heads on the feeder opening.
The table auger, which used a smaller tube and deeper
flighting than most North American combines, fed crop smoothly to
the feeder even when the crop was fed slightly above the centerline.
The table auger was aggressive and seldom plugged but did wrap
frequently in tough flax. No adjustment stopped the wrapping.
The feeder conveyor was aggressive and plugged only
occasionally. Backfeeding down the feeder occurred only when
large wads were taken in.
Stone Protection: Stone protection was good.
The stone trap, located directly in front of the concave, was
effective, stopping most stones. Hard objects were driven into the
pocket when contacted by the rasp bars. Objects up to 3 in (75 mm)
in diameter were emptied from the trap. The stone trap was most
effective if emptied regularly to prevent grain and dirt from hardening
in the trap. Some small stones did go through the combine, and
caused minor damage to some concave wires (FIGURE 10).
Threshing: Threshing was good.
In all crops and conditions crop fed smoothly into the cylinder
and concave area. There was no evidence of backfeeding around
the cylinder.
In most crops, the cylinder speeds used were much faster than
those for many conventional combines. Even though the cylinder
diameter of the Cereal Implements 9850 was smaller, the speed
of the rasp bars was still considerably higher. Concave clearances
TABLE 5. Crop Settings
Crop
Cylinder
Concave Clearance
Front
Barley
Canola
Flax
Rye
Wheat
Sieve Openings
Rear
Chaffer
Fan Speed
Tailings
Cleaning
Windboard
Setting
rpm
in
mm
in
mm
in
mm
in
mm
in
mm
rpm
Top
Bottom
1200 - 1500
700 - 800
1500 - 1600
1000 - 1200
1300 - 1500
9/16
23/32
13/32
1/2
13/32
15
18
10
13
10
3/16
7/16
1/32
7/32
1/32
5
11
1
5
1
5/8
1/2
3/8
3/8
5/8
18
13
10
10
18
3/4
5/8
9/16
9/16
3/4
20
19
15
15
20
7/16
3/16
1/8
1/4
5/16
11
5
3
6
8
700 - 950
530 - 700
550 - 600
750 - 850
850 - 950
1
1
1
3
2-3
2
2
2
4
3
*Refers to the Hole Number from the Top.
used were usually slightly wider than those for other conventional
combines.
have been responsible for the “spearing”, it did not “work” the straws
through. Slight reductions in chaffer sieve openings decreased
“spearing” but also increased shoe loss.
FIGURE 10. Concave Damage.
FIGURE 11. Straw “Spearing” on Chaffer.
In barley and other easy-to-thresh crops unthreshed loss was
usually very low. In hard-to-thresh crops such as wheat or damp
cereal crops, it was necessary to use very aggressive settings to
minimize unthreshed loss. In some wheat crops, engaging the
concave blanks (disawning plates) helped reduce unthreshed loss
and “white caps” in the clean grain sample.
Grain damage was quite low even though aggressive threshing
settings were used. Grain damage was primarily affected by the
cylinder speed and the concave blanks. Concave clearance had
little effect.
TABLE 5 shows the settings PAMI found to be suitable for
different crops.
Separating: Separation was good.
In all crops, material flowed smoothly over the concave and
straw walkers. No plugging or bridging occurred.
In both barley and wheat, grain loss over the straw walkers limited
capacity. This occurred even though the combine was equipped
with “stirring tines” to aid separation on the straw walkers and
aggressive cylinder and concave settings were used. Typical of
many conventional combines, the straw walker loss was very low
until the separating capacity was reached, then loss increased very
rapidly.
The minimum front concave clearances on the Cereal
Implements 9850 were relatively wide compared to other conventional
combines. It is possible that reducing the front concave clearance
from the original linkage adjustment may have slightly increased
separation at the concave.
In canola and flax, loss over the straw walkers was low and did
not limit capacity. In flax, even with the concave blanks engaged,
loss over the straw walkers was low. However, in clamp flax with the
concave blanks in, material hardened in the section of the concave
over the blanks. This made it important that an operator check for
concave plugging after using the concave blanks, as concave blanks
or a plugged concave greatly reduced separation in cereal crops.
Settings used in the different crops are shown in TABLE 5.
Cleaning: Cleaning shoe performance was very good.
Shoe loading was usually even except when harvesting narrow
windrows or feeding off-center.
Straw tended to “spear” through the chaffer and cleaning sieves
(FIGURE 11). A moderate amount of spearing had little effect on
shoe loss but could eventually cause increased shoe loss. Although
the unison movement of the chaffer and cleaning sieves may not
In barley and wheat, shoe loss was usually very low over the
entire operating range even at high grain feedrates. In canola and
flax where total loss over 1 to 1.5% is often considered unacceptable,
reasonable feedrates were attained when shoe loss was between
0.5 and 1%.
In all crops the Cereal Implements 9850 produced a very clean
sample when set for minimal shoe loss. TABLE 5 shows the settings
PAMI found suitable for the crops encountered.
Clean Grain Handling: Grain handling was good.
The open grain tank filled evenly in most crops however, in
some crops the front of the grain tank did not fill completely. The four
adjustable flighting segments on the leveling auger helped distribute
the grain, but were too small to provide uniform distribution.
A full grain tank held about 225 bu (8.2 m³) of dry wheat.
Adjustable sensors in the tank warned the operator when the grain
level reached “near full” and “full”. In addition, a window in the front
of the grain tank allowed the operator to visually monitor grain flow
and tank level while operating. If overfilled, grain spilled over the
back and the right side of the tank.
The unloading auger was hydraulically positioned which helped
when “topping” loads. However, the steep slope of the unloading
auger meant that as the auger was swung back the clearance height
was reduced and caution was required.
The unloading auger had ample clearance for unloading into
all trucks and trailers encountered (FIGURE 12). Although unloading
auger reach was adequate for trucks to drive under from behind, it
was difficult for the operator to drive into position for unloading into
a stationary truck, especially if the tractor was equipped with dual
wheels. The combine did have the advantage that it could be easily
swung into transport position which enabled driving past the truck to
unload rather than backing in.
The auger discharged grain in a compact stream and unloaded
a full tank of dry wheat in about 130 seconds. In windy conditions
the unloading auger had to be swung back to reduce the discharge
height to minimize grain loss.
Straw Spreading: Straw spreading was good.
The straw chopper on the Cereal Implements 9850 had
adjustable stationary knives and sharpened hammers. Even with
the stationary knives completely retracted, the straw was very finely
cut.
Page
7
and feeder while both the grain and truck were easy to see while
unloading.
FIGURE 12. Unloading.
The chopper tail plate adjustment was suitable for all conditions.
Under ideal conditions, a spread width of up to 25 ft (7.6 m) was
achieved. Straw distribution was usually fairly uniform over the
entire spread width.
Converting the chopper to drop straw was very quick and
convenient. No tools were required and the conversion took one
person only about 3 minutes. Windrow forming tines concentrated
the straw into a narrow windrow, which was ideal for baling.
The chaff was not spread with the straw.
EASE OF OPERATION AND ADJUSTMENT
Hitching: Ease of hitching was fair.
Initial hook-up took one person about one day. The control
console was mounted in the tractor cab and electrical wires routed.
An adapter to substitute for a three-point hitch was installed on the
tractor drawbar and the combine PTO shaft was cut to fit.
Initial hitching would have been easier if the tractor had been
equipped with a three-point hitch. Unhitching was easy, however,
the adapter had to be removed to use the drawbar. Switching from
one tractor to another may be inconvenient since different makes
and models may require the purchase and fitting of a new PTO
shaft.
A tractor with either a standard 1.38 or 1.75 in (35 or 44 mm)
spline, 1000 rpm PTO and a 12 V negative ground electrical system
was required. No remote hydraulic circuits were required as the
combine was equipped with its own hydraulic system.
Operator Comfort: Operator comfort and visibility depended
on the tractor used.
The most practical location for the control console was in the
right rear corner of the tractor cab (FIGURE 13). Arm room was
restricted for operating the controls and the operator had to sit in a
turned position. This was awkward and made prolonged operation
uncomfortable.
The optional remote header control kit (FIGURE 14) was
positioned further forward. This provided convenient control of the
frequently used header functions, and permitted the operator to sit
in a more comfortable position most of the time.
FIGURE 13. Control Console in Tractor Cab.
The windrow was clearly visible as it entered the pickup
Page
8
FIGURE 14. Console with Remote Header Control.
The noise from the gearbox did not raise the noise level in the
cab appreciably.
The tractor’s power shift transmission was well suited to the
Cereal Implements 9850’s capacity. The working speeds were well
spaced and on-the-go shifts maximized the combine’s harvesting
ability.
Instrumentation: Instrumentation was good.
The instruments were located in the control console. A digital
display indicated cylinder or fan speed while an audible alarm and
indicator lights signalled slowdown of important shafts.
The instruments worked well. There were no false alarms and
the shaft speed alarm would cancel once a shaft had returned to
its proper speed. The digital display was easy to see; however, the
shaft speed indicators were small and hard to quickly distinguish.
Controls: The controls were fair.
The combine controls were located on the cab-mounted
console. The 24 switches controlling combine function were
located under the touch sensitive membrane keypad. These control
switches were difficult to identify and operate while harvesting. The
number of controls hampered quick identification, and the similarity
of many of the symbols made them hard to distinguish at a glance.
As well, activating the switches required precise finger placement,
which was difficult when harvesting. The membrane type switches
provided little indication that contact had been made, thus the
operator had to visually confirm the reaction. It is recommended
that the manufacturer consider modifications to improve the ease of
identifying and operating the combine controls.
The optional remote header control kit contained mechanical
switches for header height and header clutch disengagement. This
kit provided much more convenient and positive control for the
header functions.
The response of the cylinder speed and pickup controls
was too fast which made fine adjustment difficult. The valve that
controlled cylinder speed was adjusted for the slowest response,
but the speed still changed too fast. Several attempts were required
to achieve a desired speed and best results usually occurred
when slowing the cylinder to the desired speed rather than when
increasing it. Similarly, the pickup speed was also difficult to set
as it also changed too quickly within the normal operating range.
It is recommended that the manufacturer consider modifications to
provide more regulated cylinder speed and pickup speed control
response.
Loss Monitor: The loss monitor was fair.
Full width loss sensors were located under the end of the straw
walkers and at the back of the chaffer sieve. A bar graph display for
each sensor was located on the control console. The display was
easy to see in all light conditions.
Individual display range adjustments were provided for both
the straw walker and cleaning shoe loss. Like most loss monitors,
these adjustments were intended to calibrate the meter display to
the actual loss from the combine. Normally, calibration adjustments
must provide a wide enough range to accommodate the range of
loss levels normally accepted by different operators. In some crops,
the meter could be calibrated for acceptable response at 2 or 3 %
loss, but often, the adjustment did not provide an adequate response
for higher or lower losses. It is recommended that the manufacturer
consider modifications to provide a greater adjustment range on the
grain loss monitor.
As with all grain loss monitors, loss readings were useful only if
compared to actual losses behind the machine.
Lighting: Lighting supplied by the combine for nighttime
harvesting was good.
Two combine lights shone forward to provide lighting for the
windrow and header. This forward lighting was marginally adequate
and additional lighting from the tractor was essential for proper
forward and rearward lighting.
Lights were supplied for the grain tank and for the unloading
auger. The auger light was originally mounted on the rear side of
the unloader discharge spout, which provided poor illumination of
the discharge stream and truck box. The light was moved to the
front side of the unloader discharge spout, which improved its
effectiveness.
The control console was equipped with a work lamp. The light
was located at the end of a flexible arm, and could be adjusted to
shine on the face of the console. This was essential for viewing.
Four warning flashers and a single taillight were provided to aid
in safe road transport.
Handling: Handling was very good.
The unique hitch of the Cereal Implements 9850 (FIGURE 15)
enabled very sharp cornering without PTO vibration.
and rear concave clearances were easy to access and quick and
convenient to adjust. Five concave blanks could be easily engaged
with levers on the side of the combine. The shoe was split down the
center with left and right chaffer sieves and cleaning sieves, which
had to be set independently. Chaffer and cleaning sieve adjustment
was easy. Both could be adjusted from outside the combine without
opening access panels. Changing the windboard settings by shifting
levers in index holes was quick and easy.
Field Setting: Ease of setting to suit crop conditions was very
good.
Some fine tuning was usually required after initial adjustments
but ease of access for checking performance made this relatively
easy. The large number of adjustment combinations meant that
some experimenting was required to determine the effects in various
crops.
Threshing and separation were easy to set for. The straw
chopper was easily converted to drop straw for checking loss and
the convenient adjustment of front and rear concave clearance
enabled flexibility of adjustment for fine tuning.
Setting the shoe was very easy. Chaff was discharged in a
slow “lofting” pattern. The effects of changing the fan blast, sieve
openings or windboard position were easy to see. Clear access to
the rear of the shoe made catching effluent easy, thus determining
the amount and pattern of shoe loss was straightforward.
Returned tailings were easily and safely sampled (FIGURE 16)
using the spring loaded chute at the bottom of the tailings elevator.
FIGURE 16. Tailings Sampling Chute.
FIGURE 15. Hitch and Drive.
This was possible since the PTO shaft remained in-line with the
front gearbox even while turning. During the turn, the hitch pivoted
about the vertical output shaft of the gearbox. Since the output of the
gearbox was a belt drive the rotation had an insignificant effect.
The unique hitch enabled picking around 90° corners with
ease. However, the hitch adapter lengthened the drawbar and since
the hitch pole was quite heavy, it was necessary to add front weights
to the tractor to maintain suitable handling characteristics. Without
the front weights, the wheel brakes were often required for turning.
A width of cut of about 24 ft (7.3 m) was required to enable a
tractor with dual wheels to drive between windrows and feed the
windrow centered on the feeder.
As with most pull-type combines, caution was required when
crossing ditches or washouts. The straw chopper could easily
contact the ground. The danger of ground contact and damage was
even greater when the tailplate and windrow forming tines were in
position for dropping straw.
The hydraulic hitch-pole positioning made it very easy to
switch to field or transport position. In transport position the
Cereal Implements 9850 transported well at speeds up to 20 mph
(32 km/h).
Adjustment: Ease of adjusting the combine components was
very good.
Pickup, cylinder and fan speeds were adjusted from the control
console in the tractor cab, while concave spacing, sieve openings,
and windboard settings were adjusted externally on the combine.
Auger finger timing and auger clearance were easily set
and didn’t need to be changed once properly adjusted. Both front
Unplugging: Ease of unplugging was good.
An electric feeder reverser was supplied for unplugging the
table auger and feeder. Nearly all table auger obstructions were
easily backed out with the reverser. Only severe feeder plugging
had to be cleared by hand.
A plugged cylinder could usually be cleared by lowering the
concave fully and powering the obstruction through. For severe
cylinder plugging, a breaker bar was supplied for reversing the
cylinder. The bar was easy to use and effectively cleared a severely
plugged cylinder.
Operation in weedy conditions and damp flax often resulted
in tailings elevator plugging. Tailings elevator plugging was usually
easy to clear if the operator responded promptly to the alarm.
Machine Cleaning: Ease of complete cleaning was good.
Cleaning the grain tank was easy, as there were few ledges to
hold grain. The sump retained only about 2 quarts (2 L) of grain;
however, removing the sliding sump cleanout door was difficult and
required a hammer and drift (FIGURE 17). It is recommended that
the manufacturer consider modifications to the grain tank sump door
to enable easier more convenient opening.
The sieves were easy to remove, and the tailings and clean
grain auger troughs could be easily accessed through doors on the
bottom of the auger troughs. The front of the grain pan under the
concave was accessible through the large side panels, but the rear
portion of the pan was difficult to reach for cleaning. Some chaff and
dust built up on ledges on the combine and inside shields (FIGURE
18) but was not difficult to remove. The outside of the combine was
easily cleaned. Dust and chaff stuck to oil that leaked from hydraulic
fittings in the control bay, resulting in an accumulation that could only
Page
9
be properly removed with a high pressure washer.
(FIGURE 19) at 610 lb/min (16.6 t/h) MOG, which was the combine’s
capacity for that crop.
FIGURE 19. Power Requirement in Katepwa Wheat.
FIGURE 17. Sliding Sump Door.
Additional tractor power was required to pull the combine with
a full grain tank, especially in hills or soft ground. As well, extra
power was required for hydraulic functions, harvesting tough crop,
and unloading on-the-go. PAMI suggests that a tractor with at least
150 PTO hp (112 kW) is needed to adequately power the Cereal
Implements 9850 in typical harvest conditions.
During the tests, the combine was powered with a two-wheel
drive tractor rated at 165 PTO hp (123 kW). This tractor had
adequate power for all conditions.
FIGURE 18. Chaff Inside Shields.
Lubrication: Ease of lubrication was very good.
Daily lubrication was quick and easy. There were only a few
lubrication points and most were easily accessible. The combine
had 46 pressure grease fittings. Thirteen required greasing at
10 hours, seventeen at 50 hours, an additional thirteen at 100 hours,
and three more at 500 hours. Gearbox and hydraulic oil levels
required regular checking.
Maintenance: Ease of performing routine maintenance was
good.
The Cereal Implements 9850 was assembled with metric
hardware.
Most drives on the combine had hinged shields, which enabled
quick, easy access for checking and adjusting. However, a few
shields were bolted or latched which made access inconvenient.
A tension gauge on the main drive belt idler provided a quick
method for checking belt tension. Adjusting the tension on the main
drive belt required a 24 mm and a 30 mm metric wrench. Adjustment
took about ten minutes.
Slip clutches protected the PTO, table auger and feeder
drives.
The table was easy to remove but complete table and feeder
assembly removal was inconvenient. To detach the feeder, the steel
pickup drive hydraulic lines had to be disconnected at the control bay.
This necessitated draining the hydraulic reservoir. Once the lines
were disconnected, feeder removal was easy. It is recommended
that the manufacturer consider modifications to improve the ease of
disconnecting the pickup hydraulic lines to permit quicker and more
convenient feeder removal. With the feeder removed, the cylinder
and concave were accessible and easy to remove and install.
POWER REQUIREMENTS
The manufacturer recommended a minimum tractor size of
130 PTO hp (97 kW) and suggests an optimum size of 165 PTO hp
(123 kW). These recommendations are appropriate.
Input power measured in Katepwa wheat was 105 hp (78 kW)
Page
10
OPERATOR SAFETY
No safety hazards were apparent on the Cereal Implements
9850. However, normal safety precautions were required and
warnings had to be heeded.
The operator’s manual emphasized operator safety. The
Cereal Implements 9850 had warning decals to indicate dangerous
areas. All moving parts were well shielded.
A header lift cylinder safety stop was provided and should be
used when working near the header or when the combine is left
unattended.
The combine was equipped with hitch safety chains, a slow
moving vehicle sign, warning lights, and a taillight to aid in safe road
transport. However, care had to be taken when transporting as rear
visibility was restricted.
If the operator must make adjustments or work in dangerous
areas, all clutches should be disengaged and the tractor engine shut
off. A fire extinguisher, class ABC, should be carried on the combine
at all times.
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
The operator’s manual was fair.
The manual was fairly well organized, but contained many
vague, incomplete, and incorrect references. Several major
components were referred to by different names. This often
occurred from one statement to another, even on the same page.
Some information was needlessly repeated, both within specific
sections, and from one section to another. It is recommended that
the manufacturer consider revising the operator’s manual to provide
complete and correct information in a logical format.
MECHANICAL HISTORY
The intent of the test was evaluation of functional performance.
Extended durability testing was not conducted. However, TABLE
6 outlines the mechanical history of the Cereal Implements 9850
combine for the 123 hours of field operation during which about
1090 ac (443 ha) of crop were harvested.
Tensioning Spring Failures: Two springs maintained idler
tension on the secondary power belt idler arm. Usually, a failure
of one of these springs had little adverse effect on belt tension, but
failure of both made continued operation impossible. No apparent
cause for the repeated failures was found, and it is recommended
that the manufacturer consider modifications to eliminate repeated
failure of the secondary power belt idler arm tensioning springs.
Solenoid Failure: The solenoid, which controlled the separator
clutch failed and caused a subsequent failure of the corresponding
electronics. To be able to continue harvesting the solenoid valve
was manually activated by turning a screw on the back of the valve
block. The separator stayed engaged and was controlled by the
PTO clutch. This procedure was not in the Operator’s Manual.
Hydraulic Leaks: Oil leaked from several fittings and around
the hydraulic oil filter mount. Despite several attempts to stop the
leaks, they continued. It is recommended that the manufacturer
consider modifications to prevent hydraulic oil leaks in the control
bay.
TABLE 6. Mechanical History
Item
Drives
-The secondary power belt idler arm tensioning spring
failed and was replaced at
-A gib key on the header drive shaft sheared off and
damaged the shaft and pulley hub. It was replaced at
Electrical
-The unloading auger light wiring contacted some
moving belts under the grain tank and was damaged.
The wiring was repaired and rerouted at
-The cylinder speed sensor loosened in its bracket
causing erratic cylinder speed indication. The sensor
was retightened at
-Dirt or corrosion caused the contacts in one of the
grain tank level sensors to become intermittent.
Repeated manual activation of the sensor restored
contact continuity at
-The solenoid and associated electronics which
engaged the separator failed and was replaced at
ac
(ha)
47, 95, 101
480, 860, 910
(194, 347, 368)
88
819
(331)
16
110
(44)
50
505
(204)
70
695
(281)
115
1020
(413)
Hydraulic
-The hydraulic oil filter housing and valve stacks
leaked oil from various points into the control bay
-The reworked unloading auger drive cylinder, which
was installed at 102 hours, initially failed to activate
the drive unless another hydraulic function was
momentarily activated at the same time. After a few
hours of operation, it functioned properly
Miscellaneous
-The spot welds on the straw chopper drive shield
hinges failed and were rewelded at
-The table auger finger crank roll pin sheared and was
replaced at
-The set screw that keyed the hydraulic pickup speed
control valve to its activating motor loosened causing
loss of pickup speed control. The setscrew was
secured in place at
-One side of the feeder chain “jumped” one tooth on
its drive sprocket and was realigned at
-A loose bolt and weld failure allowed the end of one
rasp bar to contact the concave, damaging both at
Field Area
Operating
Hours
Throughout the Test
For the remainder of the Test
30
254
(103)
56
545
(221)
59
564
(228)
75
750
(304)
89
823
(333)
Page
11
MAKE:
MODEL:
SERIAL NUMBER:
MANUFACTURER:
APPENDIX I
SPECIFICATIONS
Cereal Implements Pull-Type Combine
9850 - Series 64005
Header - 263478
Body - 64005-00010
Cereal Implements
Box 3200, 1000 - 6th Avenue N.E.
Portage la Prairie, Manitoba
R1N 3R3
WINDROW PICKUP:
-- make
-- type
-- pickup width
-- number of belts
-- type of teeth
-- number of rollers
-- height control
-- speed control
-- speed range
HEADER:
-- type
-- width
- table
- feeder house
-- auger diameter
-- feeder conveyor
-- conveyor speed
-- picking height range
-- number of lift cylinders
-- raising time
-- lowering time
-- options
STONE PROTECTION:
-- type
-- cleaning
CYLINDER:
-- type
-- number of bars
-- diameter
-- width
-- drive
-- speed range
CONCAVE:
-- type
-- number of parallel bars
-- number of wires
-- width
-- radial length
-- wrap
-- total area
-- open area
-- grain delivery to shoe
BEATER:
-- type
-- diameter
-- speed
-- grate
- type
- area total
STRAW WALKERS:
-- type
-- number
-- length
-- walker housing width
-- separating area
-- crank throw (radius)
-- speed
-- grain delivery to shoe
-- straw curtain
SHOE:
-- type
-- speed
-- chaffer sieve and tailings sieve
- type
- louvre spacing
-travel
-- cleaning sieve
- type
- louvre spacing
-- area
-- travel
Page
12
Victory “super 8”
rubber draper and transfer belts
12 ft (3.7 m)
8
plastic
4
castoring gauge wheels
electric over hydraulic
0 to 600 ft/min (0 to 3.05 m/s)
CLEANING FAN:
-- type
-- diameter
-- width
-- drive
-- speed range
6 blade undershot
24 in (610 mm)
49.4 in (1255 mm)
variable pitch belt
450 to 980 rpm
ELEVATORS:
-- type
-- clean grain (bottom drive)
-- tailings (bottom drive)
roller chain with rubber paddles
6.4 x 9.3 in (163 x 236 mm)
4.6 x 8.9 in (117 x 224 mm)
GRAIN TANK:
-- capacity
-- unloading time
-- unloading auger diameter
-- unloading auger length
225 Imp bu (8.1 m³)
130 s
11.5 in (292 mm)
189 in (4.8 mm)
STRAW CHOPPER:
-- type
-- width
-- speed
-- option
hammer and knife
52.4 in (1330 mm)
3125 rpm
straw spreader
CLUTCHES:
-- header
-- separator
-- unloading auger
hydraulic belt tightener
hydraulic belt tightener
hydraulic belt tightener
NUMBER OF CHAIN DRIVES:
5
NUMBER OF BELT DRIVES:
17
NUMBER OF GEARBOXES:
3
LUBRICATION POINTS:
-- annual 10 h
-- annual 50 h
-- annual 100 h
-- annual 500 h
13
17
13
3
TIRES:
two, 23.1 x 26, R3
centre feed
12.8 ft (3.9 m)
50.4 in (1280 mm)
22.6 in (574 mm)
3 roller chains with undershot slatted
conveyor
590 ft/min (3.0 m/s)
+64 to -27 in (+1626 to -686 mm)
2
4.7 s
4.2 s
non-retracting auger fingers, flighting
extensions
sump
manually operated access door
rasp bar
6
17.8 in (451 mm)
51.3 in (1303 mm)
variable pitch belt, torque sensitive
tensioning
630 to 1490 rpm
bar and wire
12
103
51.7 in (1313 mm)
19.2 in (487 mm)
106°
991 in² (0.64 m²)
558 in² (0.36 m²) (56%)
reciprocating grain pan
drum with 8 triangle bats
15 in (383 mm)
1105 rpm
finger bar, 0.3 x 9.9 in (8.2 x 252 mm)
- 643 in² (0.41 m²) open - 354 in² (0.23 m²)
(55%)
formed steel, multi-step, oblong openings
5
14.3 ft (4.4 m)
52 in (1320 mm)
8944 in² (5.77 m²)
1.8 in (45 mm)
220 rpm
closed bottom under last step of each walker
and reciprocating grain pan
1, adjustable
sieves move in unison
302 rpm
adjustable louvre, regular tooth
1.15 in (29 mm) hinge, 0.87 in (22mm)
teeth total 2542 in² (1.64 m²), tailings
868 in² (56 m²)
0.63 in (16 mm) vertical, 1.42 in (36 mm)
horizontal
adjustable louvre, regular tooth
1.15 in (29 mm) hinge, 0.4 in (10 mm) teeth
2480 in² (1.6 m²)
0.63 in (16 mm) vertical, 1.42 in (36 mm)
horizontal
OVERALL DIMENSIONS:
-- wheel tread
11.8 ft (3.6 m)
-- transport height
12.1 ft (3.7 m)
-- transport length
41.3 ft (12.6 m)
-- transport width
16.7 ft (5.1 m)
-- field height
12.1 ft (37 m)
-- field length
40.3 ft (12.3 m)
-- field width
20.2 ft (6.2 m)
-- unloader discharge height
12.0 ft (3.7 m)
-- unloader reach (in line with hitch pin) 5.5 ft (1.7 m)
-- unloader clearance
10.9 ft (3.3 m)
WEIGHT:
-- right wheel
-- left wheel
-- hitch
TOTAL
7,650 lb (3,470 kg)
8,228 lb (3,732 kg)
1,265 lb (574 kg)
17,143 lb (7,776 kg)
APPENDIX II
PAMI REFERENCE COMBINE CAPACITY RESULTS
TABLE 7 and FIGURES 20 and 21 present the capacity results for the PAMI
reference combines in barley and wheat crops harvested from 1984 to 1987.
FIGURE 20 shows capacity differences in barley crops for 1984, 1986 and 1987.
The 1987 Argyle barley crop shown in TABLE 7 had average grain and straw yield and
average straw and grain moisture.
FIGURE 21 shows capacity differences in wheat crops for the three years. In 1987,
the Katepwa wheat crops had below average straw yield, and average grain yield. They
also had average grain moisture and slightly below average straw moisture content.
Results show that the reference combine is important in determining the effect
of crop variables and in comparing capacity results of combines evaluated in different
years.
TABLE 7. Capacity of the PAMI Reference Combines at a Total Grain Loss of 3%
Yield
Crop Conditions
Width of Cut
Variety
ft
m
bu/ac
t/ha
Straw %
Grain %
MOG/G
Ratio
lb/min
t/h
bu/h
t/h
lb/min
t/h
Grain
Cracks
%
Dockage
%
Foreign
Material
%
Barley
1
Barley
9
Wheat
8
Wheat
7
Wheat
Wheat
Argyle
Harrington
Columbus
Katepwa”A”
Katepwa”B”
Katepwa”C”
24
20
25
40
60
60
7.2
6.4
7.6
12.2
18.3
18.3
69
79
43
31
37
31
3.5
4.3
2.9
2.2
2.6
2.1
12.6
7.7
5.0
6.9
8.3
12.8
13.0
10.8
13.4
12.9
14.5
16.0
0.82
0.81
1.16
0.65
0.64
1.07
395
370
540
520
580
630
10.8
10.1
14.7
14.2
15.8
17.2
600
570
465
800
905
590
13.1
12.4
12.7
21.8
24.6
16.1
876
825
1005
1320
1485
1220
23.8
22.5
27.4
35.9
40.4
33.2
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1 Barley
9 Wheat
8 Wheat
6
Harrington
Columbus
Katepwa
56
56
29
17.0
17.0
8.9
62
51
49
3.3
3.4
3.3
10.5
8.8
6.5
10.8
16.7
14.0
0.64
1.14
1.32
424
647
644
11.6
17.7
17.6
828
568
488
18.1
15.5
13.3
1090
1210
1135
29.7
33.0
31.0
0.4
1.5
1.8
0.3
4.6
1.7
0.2
3.5
1.0
1
9
8
4
Bonanza
Bonanza
Neepawa
Neepawa
42
24
44
22
12.8
7.3
13.4
12.8
52
77
36
44
2.8
4.1
2.4
3.0
15.0
11.3
6.3
8.7
11.2
11.6
10.9
10.2
0.70
0.66
1.32
1.18
363
352
539
601
9.9
9.6
14.7
16.4
648
687
408
509
14.1
14.6
11.1
13.9
875
880
950
1110
23.8
24.0
25.9
30.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
4.5
1.0
1.0
5.5
7.0
1 Barley
9 Wheat
8 Wheat
6
Harrington
Columbus1
Katepwa
28
42
29
8.5
12.8
8.9
59
32
50
3.7
2.2
3.4
10.5
11.8
7.5
9.2
14.7
14.1
0.56
1.09
1.33
294
438
420
8.0
12.0
11.5
656
402
316
14.3
11.0
8.6
820
835
735
22.3
22.8
20.1
0.8
1.2
1.3
0.5
4.9
1.5
0.2
3.0
0.7
1
9
8
5
Barley
Barley
Wheat
Wheat
Argyle
Bonanza
Neepawa
Katepwa
60
55
42
41
18.0
16.8
12.8
12.5
75
83
42
82
4.0
4.5
2.8
4.2
25.5
21.0
23.7
24.8
11.4
15.0
18.0
18.5
0.94
0.76
1.43
0.95
293
285
391
435
8.0
7.7
10.7
11.9
390
469
273
458
8.5
10.2
7.5
12.5
600
660
660
890
16.4
18.0
18.0
24.3
2.0
1.0
4.9
2.5
1.0
1.7
2.3
1.3
0.4
1.2
0.2
0.2
1
9
8
4
Barley
Barley
Wheat
Wheat
Wheat
Bonanza
Bonanza
Neepawa
Neepawa
Neepawa
42
24
44
42
42
12.8
7.3
13.4
12.8
12.8
68
85
42
41
23
3.7
4.8
2.8
2.8
1.8
18.5
12.0
6.7
8.5
7.2
12.9
12.1
11.8
10.3
12.5
0.74
0.62
1.47
1.17
0.99
275
213
308
356
345
7.5
5.8
8.4
9.7
9.4
464
429
209
304
348
10.1
9.4
5.7
8.3
9.5
645
550
510
655
695
17.6
15.0
13.9
17.9
19.0
Crop
R
E
F
II
R
E
F
Capacity Results
I
Barley
Barley
Wheat
Wheat
Crop Yield
Moisture Content
FIGURE 20. Total Grain Loss for the PAMI Reference Combines in Barley.
MOG Feedrate
Grain Feedrate
Total Feedrate
FIGURE 21. Total Grain Loss for the PAMI Reference Combines in Wheat.
Page
13
APPENDIX III
REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR CAPACITY RESULTS
Regression equations for the capacity results shown in FIGURES 2 to 5 are
presented in TABLE 8. In the regressions, U = unthreshed loss in percent of yield, S = shoe
loss in percent of yield, W = walker loss in percent of yield, F = the MOG feedrate in lb/min,
while ln is the natural logarithm. Sample size refers to the number of loss collections.
Limits of the regressions may be obtained from FIGURES 2 to 5 while crop conditions are
presented in TABLE 3.
TABLE 8. Regression Equations
Crop - Variety
Figure Number
Regression Equations
U = 0.11 + 5.55 x 10-4F1
S = 0.10 + 1.84 x 10-15F5
W = -0.02 + 8.77 x 10-14F5
Simple Correlation Coefficient
Variance Ratio
Sample Size
0.36
0.93
0.99
3.41
75.692
481.702
8
Barley - Argyle
2
Barley - Harrington
3
U = 0.12 + 2.58 x 10-14F5
S = 0.26 - 8.61 x 10-10F3
lnW = -3.43 + 1.25 x 10-2F
0.88
0.15
0.95
35.342
0.85
95.832
8
Wheat - Columbus
4
lnU = -2.01 + 4.57 x 10-3F
S = 0.17 + 5.16 x 10-15F5
lnW = -7.62 + 1.83 x 10-2 F
0.67
0.92
0.85
10.141
56.792
27.412
8
Wheat - Katepwa
5
lnU = -7.37 + 9.54 x 10-1lnF
S = 0.23 + 2.63 x 10-15F5
lnW = -41.56 + 6.60lnF
0.34
0.71
0.89
2.57
12.051
41.632
8
1
2
Significant at P O 0.05
Significant at P O 0.01
APPENDIX IV
MACHINE RATINGS
The following rating scale is used in PAMI Evaluation Reports:
Excellent
Fair
Very Good
Poor
Good
Unsatisfactory
Page
14
SUMMARY CHART
CEREAL IMPLEMENTS 9850 PULL-TYPE COMBINE - Series 64005
RETAIL PRICE
$92,500.00 (March, 1989, f.o.b. Humboldt, Sask.)
CAPACITY
Compared to Reference Combine
- barley
- wheat
MOG Feedrates
- barley
- Argyle
- Harrington
- wheat
- Katepwa “A”
- Katepwa “B”
490 lb/min (13.3 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 2
345 lb/min (9.4 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 3
445 lb/min (12.1 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 4
610 lb/min (16.6 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 5
QUALITY OF WORK
Picking
Feeding
Stone Protection
Threshing
Separating
Cleaning
Grain Handling
Straw Spreading
Very Good; picked cleanly, moved material smoothly to table auger
Very Good; feeding was aggressive, some wrapping in tough flax
Good; stone trap stopped most stones
Good; aggressive settings required for some conditions, Iow unthreshed loss
Good; walker loss limited capacity
Very Good; low loss, clean tank sample
Good; tank filled unevenly in some crops
Good; spread up to 25 ft (7.6 m)
EASE OF OPERATION AND ADJUSTMENT
Hitching
Operator Comfort
Instruments
Controls
Loss Monitor
Lighting
Handling
Adjustment
Field Setting
Unplugging
Cleaning
Lubrication
Maintenance
Fair; required three-point hitch adapter
Depends on tractor
Good; indicated slowdowns of critical shafts
Fair; difficult to identify and operate, some controls respond erratically
Fair; useful when calibrated to combine loss, lacks adequate adjustment range
Good; forward, grain tank and unloader lighting provided
Very Good; unique hitch enabled sharp turns
Very Good; all adjustments convenient
Very Good; fine tuning easily performed
Good; reverser effective
Good; grain tank unobstructed and most areas accessible
Very Good; all lubrication points accessible
Fair; components accessible but feeder inconvenient to remove
POWER REQUIREMENTS
The manufacturer recommends a 165 PTO hp (123 kW) tractor as optimum
OPERATOR SAFETY
All moving parts were shielded
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
Fair; inconsistent and incomplete, some incorrect references
MECHANICAL HISTORY
A few mechanical problems
0.90 to 1.20 x Reference II, 1.30 to 1.70 x Reference I
0.90 to 1.10 x Reference II, 1.40 to 1.70 x Reference I
Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute
Head Office: P.O. Box 1900, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
Telephone: (306) 682-2555
3000 College Drive South
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 1L6
Telephone: (403) 329-1212
FAX: (403) 329-5562
http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/navigation/engineering/
afmrc/index.html
Test Stations:
P.O. Box 1060
Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada R1N 3C5
Telephone: (204) 239-5445
Fax: (204) 239-7124
P.O. Box 1150
Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
Telephone: (306) 682-5033
Fax: (306) 682-5080
This report is published under the authority of the minister of Agriculture for the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior
approval of the Alberta Farm Machinery Research Centre or The Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising