Poll: Aftermarket B-series loader plans interest?

[Kent]

I'm trying to work with Paul, the guy from PF Engineering who has the alternative blueprints for a build-it-yourself loader on a Cub (not the CAD-plans single arm loader, but a dual arm). Ironically he lives about 20 miles away from me (Thanks, Woody!), and is at least willing to consider modifying his plans to fit an old Simplicity/AC. See his link below. Rob Baumuller has kindly agreed to drop off his B-112 with factory L-112 loader temporarily so that Paul can check out the subframe and take any needed measurements. I have a couple of questions for other club members.... 1) Would you be seriously interested in buying a copy of this guys plans if he modifies them to fit the old B-series or Simplicity equivalent? He charges $50 for the Cub plans, but I don't know what he'd want for the Simp/AC plans, though I can't imagine it would be anywhere close to the CADplans price... 2) Are you interested in the short-frame (B-10, Big Ten, B-12 or B-110 or Simplicity 9HP Landlord through 3110) version for the 3-speeds or the long-frame (B-112, B-210 or B-212 Allis or Simplicity 3112, 3210 or 3212) version with the variable speed or hydrostatic tranny? Please post your responses below, since we'd like some indication of possible future plans sales, assuming he's willing and able to modify the Cub plans as needed.... By the way, in addition to the "micro-hoe" he's currently working on a set of loader plans that uses a single, larger cylinder in the center of the bucket to tilt/dump the bucket, like the L-12 did. This should make the loader both easier and cheaper to build with no significant difference in the way it operates.... Thanks! Kent[A href='http://www.p.f.engineering.50megs.com']http://www.p.f.engineering.50megs.com[/a]

[HTews]

I would be interested in plans for a B-1/B-10. I would buy the plans. Howard

[Guest Jef]

Deal me in Kent My 3114V (aka3112V) is anxiously waiting.

[McGill]

I'll take a set.

[Kent]

Which tractor Dennis?

[ReedS]

Kent, I've looked at those plans and I would be interested in a set for my landlord. Keep up the good work!! Reed

[JDSnyder]

Kent & all. I purchased a set of plans from Paul recently, the ones for the Cub Cadet. I haven't decided which tractor to build for yet. I have a Landlord 101, a John Deere 110, a Wheel Horse 875 hydro and a Wheel Horse 857 3 spd. I have been concerned in reading previous posts about the connection between the frame and the bevel gear box on my Landlord and the stress a loader might put on it. The Wheel Horse 875 mounts the same way to the hydro. I really don't want to add reinforcements that would modify the originality of the tractors. The JD looks like it may have the strongest frame for a loader. I would be interested in plans for a Simplicity subframe, though I don't need to buy the whole set of plans again. Maybe the stress on the BGB can be mitigated by the design. The thing about Paul's loader that got my interest was he built the whole thing using a 110 amp wire feed welder. The only thing he farmed out was the bending of the metal for the bucket. I have an email he sent me about the details of the welding if anyone wants me to scan it and send it. I haven't started on my loader yet. Jeff Snyder

[Kent]

Jeff, I liked his plans because it has two lift arms (CADPlans has one -- which would seem to twist the tractor). I share your concern about "breaking the tractor" at the BGB given his current design. I'm hoping we can come up with a bolt on subframe like that for the Simplicity 515 loader below... ideally one that you can leave on while operating other attachments, just like you could with the OEM one. In the original loader, the front end of the tractor was also "tied" to the loader's towers, much like Paul's. But, those towers mounted on a subframe that connected to the tractor at front axle's wishbone and behind the bevel gear box. It spread the weight and downforce to points almost over each axle -- not in the center of the tractor... Kent[A href='http://www.simpletractors.com/operation/515_loader/front_loader_515.htm'][img src='http://www.simpletractors.com/images/515_loader/510_parts_small.gif'][/a]

[UCD]

Kent How about plans for 7100 series Maynard aka/UCD

[Kent]

Maynard, Other than needing to fabricate reinforcements to bridge the gap from the tractor's frame to the rear transmission frame arms (to offset the stress on the bevel gear box), I'd think the current plans he has could be adopted pretty readily to the 7000 or 7100 series... I don't know, since my only experience with these later models was to cannibalize it for the Sundstrand rearend. It would seem to be more compatible with his current plans though -- a center mount for the loaders arms that could bolt to the sides of the tractor's frame, and driving the hydraulic pump from underneath the tractor.... Kent

[MPH]

Kent, I'd be interested in plans for the B-112..MPH

[beamer]

Kent, I would be interested for a B210. Beamer

[johnmonkey]

Kent I would for a 700/725 or maybe a 3410 or ac710. John H

[Dave-Saratoga]

Kent- right now, i'd be interested in the set for the big 10/b110 series. but would it be all that much for him to include in the proposed plans modifications for either series? Seems that the only major differences are in length.

[Dave-Saratoga]

another thought (or 2)- will he include plans to beef up the front axles as for the cubs? and what about beefing up the bevel gear box?

[Kent]

Dave, The way they mount to the rear frame arms is also quite different... the long-framed ones suspend the rear mounts from a large round tube/rod that goes througn existing holes in the two frame arms, while the short-framed ones have a bracket that bolts onto each frame arm. I'm hoping we can figure out a way to mount the rear subframe that won't require wheel spacers -- we'll see! If he is interested, I can obviously provide a "test tractor" to mount it to in each size. But, I can't provide him an example of the short-framed tractor's subframe for him to go on -- unless someone else in New England is willing to loan their tractor/loader for a few days. Right now, he has NOT committed to a specific design -- much less both. That's why I'm trying to get an idea of interest in each one.... Kent

[JimDk]

Kent,I would be interested in a set of plans if a full length subframe with mounting points for a counter-weight were developed. As a suggestion,Paul could offer subframe plans as a separate item for both the long frame or the short frame tractor. Jim

[McGill]

Kent I'd Like a set for either my B110 or B112 . First choice is B110.

[DanielB]

Kent, As you know I have made a sub-frame and weight box to adapt the AC L10 loader on my Simplicity 3112H. The task was not as straight forward as one might think. I started with most of the L10's loader frame parts and quickly found out that many changes would be need. Not only are the frames 4 inches longer but my wheels are larger, the hydro rear mount is through the holes in the BGB/HYDRO frame not bolted on. The hydro doesn't have the mounting holes like on the B10. If you like I can help with the project. I also have a B10 and 725 if you want to come down to CT to measure them up. I also have the L10 frame pieces if you need to measure them also. Dan Bohn, Bristol CT.

[Kent]

Daniel, Are you saying that there is less clearance between the wheels and the frame on a tractor with 10" wide wheels? I have quite a bit of clearance on my B-210 with Sundstrand, but I'm running 8.50 rear tires on the narrower rims. I understand the difference between the rear mounting points, but of course don't know the specific measurements. I'm hoping we can use tubular steel or strong vertical pieces (no angle) for the rear of the subframe to avoid the wheel spacer complications. I may want to borrow your subframe pieces for the rear mount to "duplicate them." That would seem to be the easiest way, since you're not even using them. By the way folks, my rearend out of a 7016H has the same round holes in the rear frame arms that the 3210 had. This is where the "crossbar" runs for the rear mounting point of the loader subframe. This is encouraging for a 700/7000 series adaptation -- but then we'd have to deal with those danged running boards in the way... :<) Kent

[Dutch]

Kent, If I ever put a loader on one of my tractors, I'd remove the running boards. Then I could stand on the ground like you "B" guys. That would take some weight off the poor tractor, or I could help lift the load with my shoulders.

[Kent]

Dutch, Since you already have a loader capable of picking up small houses or big pickup trucks, I doubt that'll happen.... Can you really relate with those of us who must rely on our "puny, little 7, 9, 10 or 12HP tractors"... bet yours also has running boards, doesn't it? And, no, I don't want a loader just so I can use the subframe for running boards.... :<) Kent

[MPH]

Kent, not sure if the rims are different size or not but the 8in now on my 112 have a 3 inch inside reverse as do my 10.5 lugs for it and the 10.5's on the 3314. The 6 inch on the 725 only have 1 3/4 in reverse.. Hope thats some help..MPH

[DanielB]

Kent, Yes, the clearance between the inside of the rears and the tractor is much closer. If i put the origanal wheel spacers on the tractor, the rear tires would stick way outside the 42" bucket width. As for the running boards, one thing to remember, if you ever get your leg between the sub-frame and the ground and need to stop, you might have a broken leg! Dan Bohn

[Woodydel]

I would be interested in plans but of the Simplicity design. My reason is Simple. I trust the engineers at Simplicity and it is a proven design. I would be interested in the long frame version. My reason being those tractors seem stronger for the intended task especially when travelling with a load. I like running boards while working but I prefer foot pegs for the looks. MadManX