Ransome plough

[rick_vandal]

problem then would be the top link would be out of line unless you modify that as well, but you would have a long plough which would be much more erratic to keep under control

Crucial to keep the top-link inline so a sliding headstock with a rose-jointed link to the back is determined. Plough length is not an issue if you look to your betters with trailer ploughs. Vertical forces can be adjusted using ballast and sideways forces are landslide issues. With divergent lower links, there is a virtual draught point under your engine (in plan view).

 

[madmatt]

Thanks for all the comments folks really appreciate them,

Now then cross shafts! Before we even get as far as best way to make a winder, i have beem following Mr Noo's thread on cross shaft settings and read the comments about cross shaft lengths, so bearing in mind my 59 will run behind a 20 and hopefully one day a 35 these will be category 1 linkage so would you build the plough with a robin shaft at 27" or the 59 shaft at 32"?

 

[wuddy]

Thanks for all the comments folks really appreciate them,

Now then cross shafts! Before we even get as far as best way to make a winder, i have beem following Mr Noo's thread on cross shaft settings and read the comments about cross shaft lengths, so bearing in mind my 59 will run behind a 20 and hopefully one day a 35 these will be category 1 linkage so would you build the plough with a robin shaft at 27" or the 59 shaft at 32"?

As long a shaft as you possibly can!

 

[rick_vandal]

As long a shaft as you possibly can!

Amen, even consider a Cat2 shaft for 2 reasons. More scope for movement and to exaggerate the divergent lower links to bring the virtual towing point backwards. Also, has anyone made the cross-shaft twist adjuster part of the tractor lower link instead of part of the plough since it pivots in the ball-ends?

 

[madmatt]

Thanks for the replies guys.

The 32" shaft can be cat one or two its just a case of poping the ends off and bolting cat 1 ends on.

Reading the ts59 cross shaft thread the linkage geometry of the arms should meet under the middle of the front axle where as with a wider cross shaft the meeting point is more under the fly wheel. Some say that makes little odds some say it makes a huge difference?

 

[madmatt]

Amen, even consider a Cat2 shaft for 2 reasons. More scope for movement and to exaggerate the divergent lower links to bring the virtual towing point backwards. Also, has anyone made the cross-shaft twist adjuster part of the tractor lower link instead of part of the plough since it pivots in the ball-ends?

I have seen a picture somewhere on here where someone looks to have profiled a plate to sit tight against the lower link. For the width adjuster threaded bar to go to.

I am also looking at the wheel set up and as i intend the plough to slide back and forth i am going to make a support for the wheel handle off the plough frame rather than bring it to the headstock.

 

[Howard150]

Thanks for the replies guys.

The 32" shaft can be cat one or two its just a case of poping the ends off and bolting cat 1 ends on.

Reading the ts59 cross shaft thread the linkage geometry of the arms should meet under the middle of the front axle where as with a wider cross shaft the meeting point is more under the fly wheel. Some say that makes little odds some say it makes a huge difference?

Made the mounting brackets under the back axle wider apart on my 780 so that when at rest they converge exactly on the front axle centre when used with a 32” cross shaft. The plough definitely runs truer and straighter but be prepared to do much much more winding of the furrow width adjuster as the reaction is virtually halved. On balance a good move. Discussed it at length with an engineer from David Brown.
You can get too much of a good thing. Don’t make your cross shaft any wider than 32”.
Hope this helps.

 

[rick_vandal]

Made the mounting brackets under the back axle wider apart on my 780 so that when at rest they converge exactly on the front axle centre when used with a 32” cross shaft. The plough definitely runs truer and straighter but be prepared to do much much more winding of the furrow width adjuster as the reaction is virtually halved. On balance a good move. Discussed it at length with an engineer from David Brown.
You can get too much of a good thing. Don’t make your cross shaft any wider than 32”.
Hope this helps.

PS Early David Browns had parallel lower links which converge at infinity. (it was a copyright problem).

 

[Howard150]

PS Early David Browns had parallel lower links which converge at infinity. (it was a copyright problem).

They did indeed
Forgive me for making so bold Rick, but parallel lines will never converge, at infinity or otherwise, they are parallel and equidistant at either end. If by virtue of heat or optics they become bent then yes, at some point either negative or positive they may converge, the curvature of the earth may have some bearing on this.
Not ideal being parallel as the balls remain equidistant from the tractor. With converging linkages then the effect of twisting the cross shaft is exaggerated by virtue of the arms having a different effective length as the plough moves across. If the plough moves to the right when viewed from the rear as should all linkages for descriptive purposes, the right hand lower link becomes closer to the tractor, the left hand further away, not by a vast amount but enough to make a difference. If some generous soul proposed to give me a stack of £50 notes having the same depth as that value, then I would accept it graciously, as would a good number of others on here!

 

[Tonym]

Made the mounting brackets under the back axle wider apart on my 780 so that when at rest they converge exactly on the front axle centre when used with a 32” cross shaft. The plough definitely runs truer and straighter but be prepared to do much much more winding of the furrow width adjuster as the reaction is virtually halved. On balance a good move. Discussed it at length with an engineer from David Brown.
You can get too much of a good thing. Don’t make your cross shaft any wider than 32”.
Hope this helps.[/QUOlTE]

Been going to widen the mounting points and also try longer arms to improve the geometry and also get more clearance for the front disc as it is behind the point at the moment.
Maybe I will make some brackets this winter and try some Nuffield arms I have which are approx 3" longer.
Already changed the winder for a notched lever so not a problem there

 

[Howard150]

Been going to widen the mounting points and also try longer arms to improve the geometry and also get more clearance for the front disc as it is behind the point at the moment.
Maybe I will make some brackets this winter and try some Nuffield arms I have which are approx 3" longer.
Already changed the winder for a notched lever so not a problem there

Have 1200 arms on my 780. Could never enjoy ploughing with either my 995 or a 275 / 414 / 434 as the plough is too close to the tractor. Had some bits for the 995 which were 150mm longer but sold it before I changed it. Set back off a bit makes a big difference. Used to enjoy ploughing with a New Performance Super Major, 4000 and a 165, all of which have the benefit of a bit of room infront of the plough.

 

[arcobob]

Have 1200 arms on my 780. Could never enjoy ploughing with either my 995 or a 275 / 414 / 434 as the plough is too close to the tractor. Had some bits for the 995 which were 150mm longer but sold it before I changed it. Set back off a bit makes a big difference. Used to enjoy ploughing with a New Performance Super Major, 4000 and a 165, all of which have the benefit of a bit of room infront of the plough.

Arms are too short on a 275. David the Bishop told me to get some DB arms but I never did. I could extend the existing ones but then have to alter the top link or its mounting. Its too late in the day to bother now I am afraid.

 

[Howard150]

Arms are too short on a 275. David the Bishop told me to get some DB arms but I never did. I could extend the existing ones but then have to alter the top link or its mounting. Its too late in the day to bother now I am afraid.

Must have been designed by somebody living closer to me than you Bob. Short arms usually accompanied by deep pockets!

 

[rick_vandal]

They did indeed
Forgive me for making so bold Rick, but parallel lines will never converge, at infinity or otherwise, they are parallel and equidistant at either end. If by virtue of heat or optics they become bent then yes, at some point either negative or positive they may converge, the curvature of the earth may have some bearing on this.
Not ideal being parallel as the balls remain equidistant from the tractor. With converging linkages then the effect of twisting the cross shaft is exaggerated by virtue of the arms having a different effective length as the plough moves across. If the plough moves to the right when viewed from the rear as should all linkages for descriptive purposes, the right hand lower link becomes closer to the tractor, the left hand further away, not by a vast amount but enough to make a difference. If some generous soul proposed to give me a stack of £50 notes having the same depth as that value, then I would accept it graciously, as would a good number of others on here!

Even the most anal of scientists would accept that rays of light from the sun can be considered parallel along a known distance yet infinity is a lot further away! We humans think we understand the value of zero, are happy to work with the square root of minus one but only Buzz Lightyear understands the concept of Infinity.
PS Are £50 notes thinner than fivers?

 

[Kenham]

Three point linkage, never catch on, ploughs should have three wheels and a drawbar.

 

[Ley253]

Three point linkage, never catch on, ploughs should have three wheels and a drawbar.

Indeed they should! Whoever thought that it was easier to position three pins instead of one!

 

[rick_vandal]

Three point linkage, never catch on, ploughs should have three wheels and a drawbar.

Exactly so! One point linkage is a reminder of how a plough wants to run. Crabbing and tight check chains are a symptom of dis-ease. Turning sods to the right requires an equal and opposite force be it a slack MF wheel or a proper land-slide. That cranked cross-shaft only compensates for a pee'd tractor.

 

[Howard150]

Even the most anal of scientists would accept that rays of light from the sun can be considered parallel along a known distance yet infinity is a lot further away! We humans think we understand the value of zero, are happy to work with the square root of minus one but only Buzz Lightyear understands the concept of Infinity.
PS Are £50 notes thinner than fivers?

And beyond!..........according to Buzz
Hellish Rick - by gum but you know some stuff. That head o’ yours must have worn two bodies out!

 

[Petetheploughman]

Have 1200 arms on my 780. Could never enjoy ploughing with either my 995 or a 275 / 414 / 434 as the plough is too close to the tractor. Had some bits for the 995 which were 150mm longer but sold it before I changed it. Set back off a bit makes a big difference. Used to enjoy ploughing with a New Performance Super Major, 4000 and a 165, all of which have the benefit of a bit of room infront of the plough.

Do you use any check chains or stabilisers?

 

[Howard150]

Do you use any check chains or stabilisers?

Neither - apart from stopping the lower links fouling the tyres. Did you mean when I am ploughing or when I am writing?