Combines New Massey 9790

If you want a simple combine with 450 bu grain tank, I can tell there is one made. Unfortunately it is only a prototype. No manufacturer ever had the guts to mass produce it. It is at least as simple as the Massey. It has a few belts only on one side of the machine and only one little auger. This combine was made in 1993, with features we can still only dream of today.

Yeah I know where you coming from, I would love to at least demo on of those babies and see if she will keep up with our 75, I know it wont on hillside, maybe they will figure out how to put accelerator rolls in the Massey then she will even be ready to rumble on the hillsides like the Gleaners, that hillside option on the Massey is the only downfall of the machine that I can see. Not thats its not a good idea, just the added expense of the hillside option bites

Actually, I have in my shed a pretty simple combine that will reliably carry 450 bushels. It has only 2 chains on it(one only runs with the tank unload, and the other just idles along if needed to run the feeder reverser) and no 90 degree gear boxes. This being the Massey post, I didn't think I should mention it, however.

Do you still use itIJ. How old is itIJ I don't think the Massey audience would mind you mentioning a different color here. It is not like being on the Deere site.

No surprise, it is a 1997 R72 Gleaner. Many of these are running with the largest Maurer extension around here without trouble(our Gleaner mechanic has not had a final drive repair in over 20 years),and it addresses the weight issue talked about so much as the new R75 is 6000 lbs. lighter than the CR 960 NH. The R72 is over 4000 lbs. lighter than the R75. So my R72 would be more than 10,000 lbs. lighter carrying the same bushels as a CR 960(that's nearly 180 bushels) and is very trim physically in size as well. The newly designed machines from various makes tout their 300 bushel tanks, but Gleaner has had the 330 spec on the R72 for many years, and does not get so unbalanced (high) if you push to higher sizes. I also use the 850_55_42 Trelleborg fronts, that have nearly the carrying area of duals, with much less turning torque on final drives. Only drawback I see is that the current Gleaner design is maxed out at class 7, but I would like to see it bigger all around, and I think it could be done as an 8 or 9, with center feed and straw discharge left and right out back, probably with tracks on the option list.

Our local Gleaner dealer has a customer who had an extension on his R-72 that allowed the tank to hold 540 bushel. He ran it with a 12-30 corn head. They did have to rebuild one final drive after about 5 seasons. It is the only heavy duty Gleaner final drive I've ever heard of going out. Note, last year he traded for a new R-72 but went with a smaller tank extension.

Holy smokes, I knew that the R 72 has a big bin already with small extensions. So I have never seen one putting a Maurer on. The Birotor didn't have any extensions and already over 400bu. Could you imagine what that thing would hold with a big topIJ

All we CAN do is imagine that because it is not a combine I can go out and buy! I never quite saw the intrigue of the bi-rotor, because threshing is done between a concave and rotor moving in relation to each other, and why add the engineering difficulty of trying to move the concave as wellIJ You then must speed up the rotor more to account for the speed of the concave, and what have you gainedIJ To maintain structural integrity of the outer drum_concave(handle rocks, etc.)in a time tested finished product would require way more weight and complexity than it would be worth I would think. $.02 worth.

The design is much simpler than you think. The concave rotates much slower than the rotor. Both are only 4 feet long. There is no concave to be adjusted. There are no threshing bars either. It's all done by adjusting speed and threshing grain against grain. It must have worked, or JD wouldn't have bought the patents to keep it away from the CAT and off the market.