Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/1545857
foot draper header averaged about 17-pound boost for our test, while the other combine with a production 27-foot header averaged 19-pound boost cutting at the same ground speed. Bob told us these combines normally were very evenly matched using the same- length conventional headers. CONDITION 4: Hailed crop (projected 60 bushels per acre, actual 20 bushels per acre). The header was on Bob Gattis' N7 with Bob driving. Feeding was excellent at moderate feed rates. At high feed rates, material built up on the center draper until the beater stopped. The feed reverser, unable to reverse the beater and drapers, could not be used to unplug the header. Bob's other N7 with a 27-foot production header fed well at moderate feed rates but when pushed, sometimes lost continuity between the auger and feed chains, and the crop was thrown over the reel. The driver then had to stop until this material cleared. It appeared the feed chains had reached their capacity limit in this fluffy condition. Feed chain capacity may also be the reason the beater plugged on the draper header. CONDITION 5: Short (20-inch) straw, low yield (20 bushels per acre). One corner of the hailed field had poor, low-yielding crop that hadn't been damaged by hail. Feeding was significantly better than with the conventional header because the draper just behind the cutterbar kept material moving into the center. There was some hesitation, however, in extremely short places or anyplace the wheat was being cut just below the head. The vertical face behind the sickle protecting the front edge of the drapers created a "dam," retarding short crop. This step is .75-inch higher than on standard draper headers. MacDon engineers raised the front edge of the drapers in order to start the fore and aft draper as close to the cutterbar as possible. Our testing showed no problem feeding in the center, so the center draper can be shortened and step reduced to normal height. I understand Mac Don built their prototypes for Massey-Ferguson without the extra height and has not encountered any problems. In reviewing videotapes taken in this field, I have observed a lot more heads being thrown over the back of the conventional header than over the back of the draper header. It appears the heads obtain much of their impetus from the conveyor and not solely from the reel bats. Further testing should include evaluation of gathering losses, including head loss over the header back. Roger Patterson and I questioned Bob Gattis quite extensively about his feelings toward the new header. He had reservations about it when he first saw it but was quite impressed with its performance when we got the initial bugs out. He did, however, question its acceptability for custom harvesters. He stated that a custom harvester is looking for a rugged, rough and dirty header that will get the job done without any fanfare while taking a lot of abuse. Losses are only as significant as the farmer makes them. If the farmer doesn't complain, Bob doesn't get excited. Performance would be important if it meant he could cover more acres in a day without sacrificing reliability. Some of Bob's major concerns about the draper header were the reliability and maintenance of the drapers and overall size of the header. He felt it would be hard to load it in his grain trucks. He also pointed out he is one of the better combine operators around (I must admit I have never seen an operator as adept at getting the most out of the machine), and he was constantly working the reel height and speed to get the performance. Most operators do not have these skills. What it boils down to is the marketing people have their job cut out for them even if the header proves to be an outstanding performer. During the week of testing, we found several points on the header that needed attention. First, the tall step behind the cutterbar had little or no effect on performance in tall crop but was always a question mark when material hesitates. DRAPER HEADER SUMMARY: Positive -- Much higher feed rate in tall, standing crop. No clearance adjustments -- conveyor height, straw retarder, etc. Short crop won't lay on the cutterbar; draper pulls it right in -- smooth feeding. Lighter weight -- MacDon prototype weighed 3240 pounds vs. latest 30-foot prototype 4,400 pounds. Feeds head first -- possibly up to 20 percent reduction in power (based on initial field tests), probably will reduce gathering and separating losses, improve threshing. Reduced need for straight header since there is no critical flighting to bottom clearance. Possibility for 36-foot header (or longer). Possibility for header with folding ends. Projected cost will be lower. Potentially much greater capacity in down or leaning rotten straw condition. Better cutterbar visibility. Testing indicates potential for never being feeding limited with an R6 in any standing or leaning small grain regardless of straw length. Negative: Reel position very sensitive. Center Continued on Page 41 37 OLD ALLIS NEWS