LPGS For Kubota B2910

[ovrszd]

I say as far apart as your sides practically allow. My thought is the farther apart, the more leveling force is applied. :confused3:

 

[Rustyiron]

I am thinking that if the front/rear positioning should be equal reguardless of the blade spacing to take advantage of the "wheelbase" of the skids. Maybe divide the skid length by 3 for before (the 1st blade), in between (the 2 blades), and after (the back blade) all being equal??:confused3:

 

[ovrszd]

I am thinking that if the front/rear positioning should be equal reguardless of the blade spacing to take advantage of the "wheelbase" of the skids. Maybe divide the skid length by 3 for before (the 1st blade), in between (the 2 blades), and after (the back blade) all being equal??:confused3:

Very good. I concur.

 

[rswyan]

Thanks ... that makes sense and sounds good to me.

I'll have 54" on the ground ... so that first blade @ 18" in and the second @ 36" in.

That would do several things, all of them good as far as I can see:

1. It will reduce the about of steel (and the weight) to connect the blade carriers together, and

2. Allows me to get both pieces needed to connect the blade carriers out of a single drop, and

3. It would probably allow the blades/side rails to moved forward, in relation to the 3PH frame, reducing the weight behind the pins.

Not sure exactly what it will do as far as mounting locations for the hydraulic cylinders ... will go down into the studio and check it out on the model here in a few.

 

[rswyan]

Got the blade carriers trimmed to length yesterday:

Made them 70 7/8" to allow for the 1/2" thick bars on either side that will connect them ... plus a little (1/8") for clearance.

 

[rswyan]

Just checked and I'm picking up an additional 30 lbs by using 6" x 3 1/2" x 1/2" ... versus using 4" x 4" x 1/2" ...

Need to keep an eye on the weight.

 

[Ford850]

With your skids overlapping the rear wheels, you are limiting the tractors this can be used on. What if you weld the 3PH frame to plates (4 total) which can be bolted to the top of the skids, rather than welding the frame directly to the skids? Then you could move the 3PH frame forward or rearward if needed to better balance the LPGS on smaller tractors, but also have the ability to move it all the way up front and use it on tractors with wider wheel spacing. Just a thought, since this is going to be a great scraper built to last decades. You never know what you might want to use it on years from now.

 

[jenkinsph]

With your skids overlapping the rear wheels, you are limiting the tractors this can be used on. What if you weld the 3PH frame to plates (4 total) which can be bolted to the top of the skids, rather than welding the frame directly to the skids? Then you could move the 3PH frame forward or rearward if needed to better balance the LPGS on smaller tractors, but also have the ability to move it all the way up front and use it on tractors with wider wheel spacing. Just a thought, since this is going to be a great scraper built to last decades. You never know what you might want to use it on years from now.

There are some definite advantages to being able to adjust the frame placement as you mentioned.
My concern still is the overall width and weight is pushing the limits of a 1700 lb. tractor. By the time the rear gate and adjustable blade height is added to this 72" land plane it will be more than the 2910 can handle in all but the best conditions.

My smaller land plane has 60" skids and 48" blades and I know from using it that it would be close to a perfect match for the 2910. My x749 is about 1300 to 1400 lbs. 4x4 and at times it struggles to pull the 48" lpgs. If I were to build a custom lpgs for the 2910 I would cut the blades down to 56 inches and use 60 to 66 inch skid length with the ski shape and set the blades where they had optimum clearance for trash to flow through. Add a top hydraulic link and be in great shape.

For a more generic fit a 60" lpgs will work well but longer skids would be better.

 

[rswyan]

With your skids overlapping the rear wheels, you are limiting the tractors this can be used on.

Yes I am ... mine ...

What if you weld the 3PH frame to plates (4 total) which can be bolted to the top of the skids, rather than welding the frame directly to the skids? Then you could move the 3PH frame forward or rearward if needed to better balance the LPGS on smaller tractors, but also have the ability to move it all the way up front and use it on tractors with wider wheel spacing.

That's actually a worthwhile idea, but unfortunately somewhat hard to implement.

The problem with it is, is that all the base end attachment points for the hydraulic cylinders are on the 3PH frame.

Start sliding the lower portion (skids) around - relative to the 3PH frame - and all of sudden hydraulic cylinders don't fit ... or have a very different range of motion.

Just a thought, since this is going to be a great scraper built to last decades. You never know what you might want to use it on years from now.

That's true ...

It doesn't really look like I'll be getting another tractor ... but that could change I guess ...

The distance from outside to outside on my rear tires is > 54" ... I have 72" between the skids/side plates.

That's an additional 9" on either side.

Of course, a larger tractor will have larger diameter tires and a wider track (side to side width) ... but the setback on the 3PH lift arms may be greater as well.

 

[rswyan]

There are some definite advantages to being able to adjust the frame placement as you mentioned.

Indeed ... I wish it was relatively straight forward and easy to implement.

Unfortunately, as I have designed this LPGS, it isn't.

And I don't think it would be all that easy to redesign the hydraulic attachment points so that it isn't an issue ... at least not without adding bunches of weight.

My concern still is the overall width and weight is pushing the limits of a 1700 lb. tractor.

Throw the FEL and bucket (797 lb) on and that 1740 lb tractor instantly becomes a 2600 lb tractor.

Add an 800 lb implement on the rear and it's now a 3400 lb tractor.

By the time the rear gate and adjustable blade height is added to this 72" land plane it will be more than the 2910 can handle in all but the best conditions.

Perhaps ...

I will have the ability to vary my "bite" instantly tho' ... with a simple push of a lever ...

My smaller land plane has 60" skids and 48" blades and I know from using it that it would be close to a perfect match for the 2910. My x749 is about 1300 to 1400 lbs. 4x4 and at times it struggles to pull the 48" lpgs.

Understandable ... but it is a considerably smaller tractor than the B2910.

FWIW, my rears stand at 37 1/2" tall: 12.4-16R4's ...

If I were to build a custom lpgs for the 2910 I would cut the blades down to 56 inches and use 60 to 66 inch skid length with the ski shape and set the blades where they had optimum clearance for trash to flow through.

Makes sense ... just wide enough to cover the tracks and longer length for better smoothing ... :thumbsup:

I asked this once before but I'm sure if you answered or not:

What is the skid length on your 8' wide unit ?

I have made a couple of changes that reduce the weight a little and provide more clearance for the trash flow. See what you think:

Add a top hydraulic link and be in great shape.

I'll be interested to see just how well my top link works, with the weight that will be hanging back there on this one ...

For a more generic fit a 60" lpgs will work well but longer skids would be better.

There's little doubt (in my mind anyways) that longer is better ... since length coincides with the direction of travel.

But there is also an issue - at least for me and my equipment - of weight past the pins on the 3PH ...

It's always a series of trade-offs ...