Downeaster's Tractor Overhaul Thread.

I need to find out the front PTO speed (540 RPM or 1000 RPM are standard). Once I know that, I may consider a blower, altho I have a 5 foot model for my Kubota, and the Kubota has a heated cab...

A generator or a water pump are also possibilities. In any event, it'll make a great Trailer Tugger.
 
Fiddling with the tractor some more - built a tach mount so I could use the tach from the Shibaura.

In the process, discovered something I've suspected. The PTO Rated RPM on the Yanmar was 3350 RPM. The Shibaura maxes out at around 2500. That means the PTO will be running at about 75% of rated speed.

Tractor doesn't have a rear PTO (though they were available as an option - $$$!!!) and the front PTO is rated at 2000 RPM for the Yanmar. That means it would be running around 1500 at WOT on the Shibaura. Still usable with the right attachment.

I screwed up by parting with the front hydraulic hitch. I sold it along with the power broom, shoulda kept it. Turns out it's the standard set up for ALL front-mounted attachments for that tractor. Poop.

Looked into a 3 point hitch attachment for the rear. Also $$$, assuming you can find one.

I guess the next step is to pony up for the steering arm ends. The steering is VERY approximate at the moment.
 
One of the many problems this tractor had was that the outer tie rod ends were literally held on with baling wire because they were so worn the balls would fall out of the sockets. Not surprisingly the tractor wandered badly, requiring frequent and large steering inputs to stay between the lines.

I'd ordered and received new ends some time back but the shop project took up all my time. Had some time this morning so I put the new ones on. I left the jam nuts pretty much where they were and screwed the new ends on and reinstalled the tie rods. A test drive revealed MUCH better steering, but still a small tendency to wander.

"Toe-in issues" sez I, so I measured it. 2-1/2 inches! Pretty sure that's too much. Adjusted it down to about an inch and had to wander off on other duties so didn't test drive it. Just occurred to me that I have the PDF of the service manual, so I checked the spec...1/4 inch!

Gee, Scooter, you think maybe that contributes to the problem?
 
Downeaster said:
Gee, Scooter, you think maybe that contributes to the problem?
Click to expand...

I worked in a fleet garage for a large lumber company , one of our mechanics was working on the steering of a Peterbuilt truck that was out in the parking lot, he removed the tie rod and took it in the shop to work on it. About that time our shop superintendent, thought the truck was finished and he jumped in it to take it for a test drive. The steering box was hooked up to the left front wheel and would steer, but the right wheel was not attached to the steering. Somehow he managed to drive it out of the yard and was heading down the road and building up speed when suddenly the right front wheel hit a bump and made a sharp right turn. :laugh2: He walked back to the shop and boy was he mad! :cussing:
 
upload_2021-6-17_10-29-16.png

Fortunately, in my work we always used a big red plaque to hang over the throttles. AIRCRAFT OUT OF SERVICE
 
jetmechmarty said:
View attachment 193401
Fortunately, in my work we always used a big red plaque to hang over the throttles. AIRCRAFT OUT OF SERVICE
Click to expand...
From the they'll just make smarter idiots department.

Written by To The Point News
Friday, 16 May 2008

The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever
built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of
airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) on November 15, 2007 to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground,
such as engine run-ups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all
four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having
read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600
really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had
all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were
trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the
Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.

This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft
rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature
so that pilots can’t land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle
back the engines from their max power20setting, so the $200 million
brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totalling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news
blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
ab1.jpg


ab2.jpg
 
gggGary said:
From the they'll just make smarter idiots department.

Written by To The Point News
Friday, 16 May 2008

The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever
built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of
airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) on November 15, 2007 to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground,
such as engine run-ups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all
four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having
read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600
really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had
all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were
trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the
Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.

This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft
rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature
so that pilots can’t land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle
back the engines from their max power20setting, so the $200 million
brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totalling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news
blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
View attachment 193406

View attachment 193407
Click to expand...
A 757 will jump the chocks with the brakes set and both engines at TO power. It can ground loop with one engine at idle and the other at TO. Pilots don't learn this, but mechanics must. Both the P&W and RR engines make tremendous thrust.
 
gggGary said:
From the they'll just make smarter idiots department.

Written by To The Point News
Friday, 16 May 2008

The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever
built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of
airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) on November 15, 2007 to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground,
such as engine run-ups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all
four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having
read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600
really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had
all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were
trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the
Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.

This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft
rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature
so that pilots can’t land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle
back the engines from their max power20setting, so the $200 million
brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totalling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news
blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
View attachment 193406

View attachment 193407
Click to expand...

And they never thought to throttle back the engines?
1FCC05F8-D8CB-4459-B3B9-EA674E310DC5.gif
 
Mailman said:
And they never thought to throttle back the engines?
Click to expand...
For the record, those engines go to what you select. So, if you push the throttles to TO power and quickly change your mind before the engines spool up, and you pull them back, they're going to go to TO power anyway, even if briefly. That's a whole lotta thrust!
 
gggGary said:
From the they'll just make smarter idiots department.

Written by To The Point News
Friday, 16 May 2008

The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever
built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of
airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) on November 15, 2007 to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground,
such as engine run-ups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all
four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having
read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600
really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had
all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were
trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the
Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.

This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft
rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature
so that pilots can’t land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle
back the engines from their max power20setting, so the $200 million
brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totalling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news
blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Here's another from the "computers are only as smart as the programmers" file.....
'95-ish. Brand new Airbus A320 arrived for acceptance check... don't recall the airline it was going to. Total number of people on our crew trained on the A320.... = 0. The higher ups decided that the crew that delivered it would give 2 guys on our crew a quick fam (familiarization) class on operating the 320. The lead (Jeff) and yours truly went to school. Two hrs later they deemed us "qualified" and went their merry way. I'll jus' point out here that the factory fam class was 80hrs long.
So... armed with the Flight Manual and acceptance cards... we started checking off boxes. A half dozen cards in and we had both engines at idle. There was a few air conditioning (PAC) checks that called for advancing the throttles to >80% So... facing the hanger, nose wheel chocked, parking brake set and feet flat on the floor, we advanced both throttles. Unbeknownst to us (because it was overlooked in our rushed training), the computer in charge of all things flight-wise... was programed to automatically release the parking brake whenever both throttles were advance past 80%.... on the assumption the pilot was an idiot who forgot to release the brake for taxi.
Quicker than it takes to say oh shit, we jumped the chocks and started rapidly closing in on the hanger door about 40ft in front of us. Jeff and I both white knuckled the throttles back to idle while stomping on the brakes. We stopped with about 10ft 'tween us and the door.
We shut the aircraft down, climbed out, chewed out the supervisor that dreamed up this whole cluster f&ck and refused to set foot on the aircraft again until we'd had our 80 hrs of fam training.
I (we) learned a hard lesson on when to say NO!
 
Last edited:
I've always rather flown on Boeing planes than Airbus. Only because I watched a documentary about a couple of Airbus crashes. Cause was the pilots couldn't override the computer. If I remember right the computer caused them to "Dolphin". Glitch in the program that under the exact wrong circumstance caused it to happen. It took several crashes before Airbus admitted the problem and fixed it. I've dealt with enough programmers to know how head strong they can be. Never liked the idea of a computer having total control. And yes I program industrial equipment, operators cause a lot of problems blamed on the programing. But you never take all control out of their hands and you need to fix the program if it is the cause. Many times I've had to raise my hand and say I found the problem in my code. As has been said many times the program is no smarter than it's programmer. That is very true. It's hard to foresee every variable that can happen. That's what testing is for. Test,test and retest.
I know from experience when equipment crashes it's not easy to get to the root cause. It can be training, operator error (rat bastards take it out of auto, get things in the wrong places and throw it back into auto), mechanical problems (people love to blame the program for mechanical problems), engineering problems or program problems.
I've done service calls on systems that have been running for 10 + years for "program issues" a few times they were right 98% of the time it's mechanical or new under trained operators.
 
GLJ said:
Never liked the idea of a computer having total control.
Click to expand...
Better stay on the ground then. All modern airliners use "fly by wire" computerized flight controls with no mechanical backup. On the Airbus, there was 5 flight control computers... with a minimum of 2 required to fly the airplane. Never worked on a Boeing fly by wire, but I'm sure it's similar in redundancy.
 
Jim said:
Better stay on the ground then. All modern airliners use "fly by wire" computerized flight controls with no mechanical backup. On the Airbus, there was 5 flight control computers... with a minimum of 2 required to fly the airplane. Never worked on a Boeing fly by wire, but I'm sure it's similar in redundancy.
Click to expand...
Don't mind a computer flying the plane. Just don't like the idea of a pilot not being able to to take control when needed. I guess I'll never have a self driving vehicle.
 
GLJ said:
Don't mind a computer flying the plane. Just don't like the idea of a pilot not being able to to take control when needed. I guess I'll never have a self driving vehicle.
Click to expand...
It is unnerving to see tray tables in front of the pilots instead of control yokes.
 
Back
Top