The Combine Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
The guy that owns that combine is a member on this site.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
Quote:i cant beleive it doesnt break an axel or something from all the weight

Matt

Just noticed.
This is the 40,000 post on this forum!
I'm sure Alex has some huge prize for you fordboy.

Dam, 39,999

Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Not very much hp for the capacity that he says that thing has. And thats a really slow unloading rate, only 2.5 bushels per second, especially for unloading a 360+bushel bin. That'd be about like waiting for an old Big 12 auger wagon to unload. SLOW!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,381 Posts
Connor, I only WISH the old 7700 had a 2.5 bu/sec unloading rate. Go back and read the specs for this model. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I do remember something like 1.3 or 1.5. For its day, that was competitive. Also remember that the Model 7700 began as the world's largest combine, too. As soon as the Massey-Ferguson 760 went into production, the J.D. 7700 became the world's second-largest combine, which again, was nothing to scoff.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,295 Posts
A 2004 9660 Walker has an unload rate of 2.2bu/sec, 2.5 is still slow tho.

Very cool combine, needs a bit more hp, although probably doesn't have the cleaning capacity for it anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Interesting comments here about hp and capacity.

I had a 7720 in the shop the other day and just for the fun of it meassured the width of its feeder house. To no surprise it was exactly the same width as our modern day STS's have.

What makes some think that this particular 7700 needs more than 200hp to push a 6 row corn head? The old 9600 high power version had 265hp and pushed a 12 row corn head right to the limit of its clean grain elevator.

The STS only needs so much hp, because it is expected to cram 3 or 4 times the material through a 7700 size feeder house and than through a power hungry rotor. The cleaning shoe on an STS is hardly any wider. We have to remember that the STS is a narrow body combine like the 9500 and 7700 have been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,381 Posts
Quote:
I had a 7720 in the shop the other day and just for the fun of it meassured the width of its feeder house. To no surprise it was exactly the same width as our modern day STS's have.


That is interesting, Ralf. I've never been around the STS enough to notice anything like such, but for a single rotor bine, that IS a rather wide feeder house. Typically, with an axial or longitudinal configuration, the rotor's diameter only needs a feeder as wide as it.


My amazement was in 1981, upon seeing one of the first Axial-Flows in Tarrant County, Texas, was how that really narrow neck kept up with a 24-foot header without slugging itself. I knew then, that it had to run at a higher speed, more slats per linear foot or both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,712 Posts
However, I don't think any of the manufacturers of single rotor machines match their rotor width with their feedhouse, the feedhouse is always larger since it is assumed that the material is going to blanket an area the circumference of the cage/concave area, rather than only a single shot at the concave like in a conventional.

I'm seeing that although case has a 30 inch rotor in everything, the 88's have a 45 inch feedhouse and the 10's have a 54. The STSs are at 55 with a 30/33, and the small masseys have a 44 inch wide one for 27.5 inches of rotor. The 9895 has a 31.5 incher and a 55 inch feedhouse.

The idea is to have a thick, narrow crop mat moving up the feedhouse rather than a thin wide one to cut down on mechanical damage. However, it is definitely true that in some conditions having a bigger hole to try to jam a higher hp machine to capacity would be nice.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
Quote:I knew then, that it had to run at a higher speed, more slats per linear foot or both.
Actually combiness more slats make feeding worse and the higher the slat speed the worse it is. I've been around 4,6, and 8 pin spacing attachments and the worse the conditions, tough short straw or any dirt on feeder floor, less slats are better.
The thing that can really affect feeding and this only applies to one higher side serrated and a smooth edge on the other half, is when they install it back wards. We ran TR's from 78 to 96 and until 89 NewHolland installed the feeder chain back wards. In short 2 row barley straw the combine was unusable. Take the feeder off, reverse the feeder chain, reattach feeder, feeding fixed. NH installed it back wards for 15 years!
And I blame you corn guys for that. I get the feeling the feeding of corn to the feeder house is an almost can't go wrong preposition. Certainly not the case in cereals.

Don
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,712 Posts
2588s are at 44 inches about. same for all the 80 and 88's from the 1480s on. I'm not sure about the smaller ones, but I imagine that they aren't that big, since the rotor is smaller.

The TRs were small, especially if its a stupid macdon draper with a hydraulic driven slat beater trying to jam fluffy durum or abbey heads in that little hole. Oh yeah, and the canvases are too close together too! A winning combination of dumb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Hey Ralf, when you say that the feederhouse on your 7720 is the same width as an STS are you talking about overall width or width of the actual opening. Because all Deere combines from the past 30+ years have the same width of feederhouse on them. That's mainly so newer combines can still hook up to the older heads. But each model has a defferent width for the actual throat, or opening. Our 9650 has a smaller throat than a 9750 and so on, but same feederhouse. And 2366's have a smaller one than a 2388. So does a 7720 compared to an 8820 or an M2 to an L2. But they can all hook up to the same heads offered from the manufacturer.

And while 2.5 bushels per second may be good for this 7700, since as combiness says it originally came with 1.5 or so, its still very slow by todays standards. And this guy is making it sound like this combine can run with the biggest and baddest on the market right now as far as capacity. So if it has that kind of capacity I say that 200 hp and 2.5 bushels per second isn't quite enough, especially compared to combines today. But for a 7700 I'm sure its quite a bit.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top