Loader Dreamin'

[aaytay]

OK, I've got loader-dreams on the brain. I see a winter-project in my near future.

The first step is to find a suitable pump. Rather than try to belt-drive a pump off the front of the engine, my initial thought was to use a rear-PTO transmission to run one of these:

Here is the smallest PRINCE PTO pump I was able to locate: (I'll be driving this pump with a 14hp Kohler off of a rear-PTO with a hub-city reverser.)

HC-PTO-7A

I know these pumps are a bit more spendy than a smaller belt-driven pump, but the neat thing about using one of these is:
* Easily controlled with rear PTO
* Plenty of GPM to run power-steering and loader at the same time
*No worries about side-loading the pump with a belt and wearing out it's bushings
*Easy to mount with a small welder fabbed bracket

The reason I'm posting this thread is to ask if anyone here has experience with this style of pump. I'm looking for some thoughts on this idea so I don't head down the wrong road with the most important part of the project....the pump!

 

[mgonitzke]

The pump looks fine to me, but why do you want this thing on a gear drive? My loader was on a gear drive when I got it and it was awful. It's MUCH nicer on the 682. Problem #2, you're putting that pump on a PTO that isn't live. Every time you put the clutch in, your hydraulics are gone. I also don't think it is very smart or safe to have power steering controlled by a non-live PTO, as well. You'll lose steering every time you put the clutch in.

 

[pbell]

Another thing to think about is the pump spec's call for a 540 RPM input. The max RPM of a Cub Cadet rear PTO is only 514.28 RPM at 3600 engine rpm. It could get a little "sporty" operating a gear drive wide open all the time just to keep the hydraulic system operating......

 

[aaytay]

Wow.....Great thoughts guys.

Paul-
I LOL'd at your "sporty" comment. So true!

Matt-
I'm glad you mentioned about the rear PTO not being "LIVE", as I didn't consider that point. Like you say, with power-steering, it really doesn't make sense to have a hydraulic system that only works part-time. (Duh!)

The main reason for the gear-drive loader tractor is that I like the look of the low-tunnel (70/100, 71, 72, 73) with "roundy" fenders, and the gear-drive drivetrain (although somewhat clumsy for loader work) would "fix" the issue of two hands trying to steer, control ground speed, and work two loader levers that an unmodified HYDRO tractor would have.

I guess now I'm back to hiding a belt-driven pump inside/under the frame somewhere.

I appreciate the thoughts. Keep 'em coming!

 

[kmcconaughey]

Art, you forgot to mention that you already have a hydro <font color="119911">loader tractor</font>. Or has your father decided it's his to keep?

 

[aaytay]

Kraig-
Yes, you are correct, I do already have a <font color="119911">HYDRO LOADER</font>. (...and you're also correct about WHO has it at HIS house right now!)

This tractor would be for misc. odd jobs. <font size="-2">(Like when I had to hand-carry a 100lb 14hp Kohler to the back garage last week.)</font>

Anyway, getting back to the topic, how can I tell if a pump is able to handle side-loads, like being belt driven off of a Kohler?

 

[mgonitzke]

I would say if either it's obvious there's a ball bearing at the exposed end of the shaft, or there's not a mounting flange-type interface. If you're shopping at surplus center, some of the pumps say the maximum side load they can handle.

 

[dfrisk]

PAUL B. I looked at the spec's on that PTO pump Art showed. Even at idle it's way more than enough GPM to run the loader & P/S, even at reduced rpm. Most people install a priority diverter valve into their system so the P/S gets oil before the loader or whatever. That's how most current add-on P/S systems are put on the letter & early number series FARMALL's with the engine driven hyd pump now, no add-on Saginaw P/S pump.

I've run LOTS of different loader set-ups, from old Caswell loaders run by a non-live belly pump on an M, live 2-way loaders with down force but unfortunately trip buckets like the two loaders I have now. To Case industrial loaders, one small 420 C-K with shuttle-shift reverser, and a newer Case 530 C-K with reverser & torque converter.

Loader work is pretty hard, almost abusive on clutchs. Crowding the bucket when loading you have to keep forward force on the bucket that the torque converter is perfect for, and a hydro should be able to deal with better than a clutch.

Think it was Steve B who gave spec's on Matt's thread about his loader project that are really good advice.

With my FARMALL's I personally do almost ALL my loader work around half rated engine speed, 800-1000 RPM on the Super H which is rated @ 1650 FL and 1800 no-load. With a hydro CC I could see running the engine faster than 1800 rpm, but I wouldn't design the hyd. system for 3600 rpm use, I'm thinking more like 2400-2600 to get Steve's 4-5 second recommended lift time.

Only down side to using a hydro on a loader project is the fact you normally will have one hand on the loader controls, one on the steering wheel, so what controls tractor speed & direction? OR.... You'll have one hand on loader controls, one on hydro control, so what steers? Personally, I'd mount loader controls on whatever side the hydro control is NOT on, depending on what model CC used.

 

[kmcconaughey]

My AC620 is a hand control Hydro but it also has a clutch and 3 range transmission. The clutch has come in quite handy a few times while doing loader work while my hands were busy steering and running the loader. A foot control hydro would be best on a loader tractor IMO.

 

[dfrisk]

KRAIG - I agree that you need to get foot-controlled something for optimum loader performance.

I guess with my experience with old Bobcat skid-steer loaders, it might be easier to make up some sort of foot controls for the loader & bucket than design a foot control for the hydro.

 

[snicklas]

I would have to agree on the foot controls for the loader. When I was younger, I worked for the local township and we had a Versatile 256 Bi-Directional tractor. This was the small articulated tractor and we had a loader for it. The loader was mounted on the "back" (3-point hitch) end of the tractor. It was a hydro that had the control mounted on the wall by the door. When it was in "loader mode" with the steering wheel facing the back glass and the seat on the hood end of the tractor, the hydro control was in your right hand, and the controls for the loader had foot pedals, and redundand hand controls. So it was steering with the left, direction with the right and loader with your feet. Worked really well, and you were not doing double duty with either hand.... like plowing with a hydro....

 

[aaytay]

Hmmm...

Foot mounted loader controls.

Hmm....

 

[kmcconaughey]

I forgot about this until Denny and Scott mentioned foot controlled hydraulics. Back in the late 70's while in high school I was working as a farm hand for a local farmer. I spent a TON of time on his JD windrower cutting hay and oats. It had foot operated hydraulics for the cutting head and pickup reel. In some ways it was kind of fun to operate in other ways it was a pain. The dual steering system which had two levers for close maneuvering which was OK and then there was a steering wheel that I believe controlled a cable operated brake steering system. That steering setup was a pain.

 

[junderwood]

Art,

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200329712_200329712
This is the pump I would look at if you are going the belt drive route. This should give good part throttle performance.

This would be a good pump with a built in Priority valve for the steering circuit. I looks like it should handle side loads but you may want to ask if they have any other specs or find out where IH is using it to determine application.
https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-5055&catname=hydraulic

 

[aaytay]

John-
Thanks for the thoughts. Ironically, I used a similar pump when I rehashed that <font color="119911">OFF-TOPIC</font> loader a few years back. The nice thing about those pumps is that they aren't much bigger than a pop-can, so they fit these small machines nicely.

Looks like I may end up going that route again...

 

[glippert]

Seeing that <font color="119911"> off-topic</font> tractor reminds me of something I taught my 4 year old grandson this summer: He knew that those green tractors (in the fields or on a lawn) were J*hn D**r* but I convinced him that the full name is "just-a-J*hn D**re." Unfortunately, he also thinks the big yellow Caterpillar tractors are Cub Cadets! Of course, in his defense, when those monsters are in the middle of a field a quarter mile away, they do appear to be the same size & color }as grandson's 1250...

 

[dfrisk]

ART - I forget if it was PD #1 or #3 at Big Steve & Steve B's farm there was a 982 if I remember right with a neat little loader. Pump was mounted low front & center to run off the PTO similar to the way MATT G. mounted his. I was amazed at the output those tiny pumps have.

ALSO, someone was working years ago to "reverse" a hydro CC, 129 I think and attach a loader to the BACK of a CC. Might have been Steve B, maybe Kraig would still have pic's.

There was a time back around 1961 or so the Stan-Hoist loader on the '51 M almost got mounted that way. Factory available reversing packages were still available for FARMALL's to reverse direction. The idea was to get the weight of the load in the bucket onto the drive wheels to increase traction as opposed to driving the frt tires into the ground so you were always stuck. The ELWOOD FWA for M's really wasn't practical or strong enough for a loader tractor.

 

[kmcconaughey]

Denny, I believe that was PD4 at Blunier's. Thomas Welborn had a 982 with a loader.

 

[dfrisk]

WOW.... I've been to more PD's than I thought! ;-)

KRAIG - That's the tractor I was thinking of.

 

[kmcconaughey]

Denny,

BTW, PD3 was at Jonathan Luckey's parent's farm in Indiana.