Horsepower Performance Plays Part In Case Heritage Celebration At Pawnee And In Mt. Pleasant Activities 1987

gas tractors and steam engines. This was carefully done with the
help of several of the Caterpillar tractor exhibitors who furnished
a Cat for the smooth regulated load, which enabled us to make the
tests.

Part 1: The Pawnee Show

The Case Heritage event at Pawnee has already been well covered
and it is here added that the Case engine performances played a big
role in impressing thousands of spectators.

The Hill Climb event by Chaddy Attebury with that fine 40 Case,
assisted by Helen Brigham, continued as spectacular as ever! That
40 Case and particularly two other Case engines along with the
Martens’ fine 98 Nichols & Shepard and other makes, made up
a long list of HP performance exhibits. As always, the engines were
smoothly and carefully tested with no sudden loads and no overloads
to pull them too hard so that safety and not straining the engines
was foremost in our minds.

In view of the Case Heritage event at Pawnee, I cover mainly
Case performance there, and for the Mt. Pleasant Show I emphasize
other makes.

At Pawnee the Case 50 owned by Thomas Gingell of Emmetsburg, MD
performed at 251 Brake RPM and at 80.3 HP, one of several readings.
This engine was a pleasure to test and to observe its true
performance.

Then there was a 6 HP Case and a Case 65 which truly ‘stole
the show’!

The 6 HP Case owned by Bill Raische of Louisville, KY and Byron
Leatherman of Lexington, IN, was being brought by Pawnee on its way
to a new home in Kentucky and it put on an exceptional show for us.
With somewhat reduced pressure, the engine made its run as
follows:

Case 6 HP Portable Engine
	scale wt.	brake rpm	HP
1.	95	229	21.7
2.	105	225	23.6
3.	115	220	25.3
4.	120	219	26.2
5.	125	215	26.8
6.	130	212	27.5
7.	135	208	28.0
8.	140	205	28.7
9.	145	197	28.6
10.	150	191	28.7
11.	155	187	28.9
12.	160	180	28.8
13.	165	175	28.8
14.	170	165	28.0
15.	175	155	27.1

Note particularly how the HP curve from reading no. 5 through
no. 14 is superior to the latest and highly advertised Cummins and
Cat engine high torque rise models. To make it a more simple
comparison, make the no. 5 brake 215 rpm compare to 2150 diesel rpm
and do the same through no. 14 brake rpm of 165 compare to 1650.
Now compare the % HP rise of this Case 6 to those for the proud
diesels and the Case 6 will be the better one.

During the entire performance time the boiler steamed easily and
with reserve capacity. We particularly note how the governor held
excellent speed control. The weight increase on the scale and loss
of rpm balanced out so that over a wide range of scale weight
increase the HP stayed at 28 HP. This fine little engine was a
pleasure for many to observe and it was clearly evident how handy
and useful this simple engine must have been for many of the farm
power needs of its day.

Now we report on the famous Case 65! This was the last of the
Case designs and its reputation would surely go along with the last
and best of Case engineering. Its 10 x 11 cylinder moved Case from
the squares of the 10 x 10, the 11 x 11, and 12 x 12 and back to a
longer stroke than bore, which in the final analysis thousands of
steam engine models including railroad locomotives, Case 6, 9, 40,
50 and other makes of traction engines, proved to be the best. The
65 too showed that once again. This 65, owned and operated by
Chaddy Attebury, is in first class condition. So with one of the
last Case designs in excellent condition and operated by Chaddy
(being the top flight engineer he is), we truly saw excellent
performance!

We report on a lengthy run with the engine at about 20 to 25 rpm
high. It was commonly practiced by numerous companies at Winnepeg
as they used some extra rpm to obtain a few additional HP. Every
diesel and gas engine builder tries to utilize more rpm to produce
added HP. Whereas automobile engine ratings are at such ridiculous
high speed rpm ratings that cannot be used, the steam engine people
added only 30 or 40 rpm. We use about 20 to 25 rpm more but even
that is quite an assist. So, with this, with an excellent governor,
with good valve action and opening, with smooth steam flow and with
no back pressure, we made the following run:

Case 65 (864 cu. in.) 3 May 1987
owned by: Chaddy Attebury, Pawnee, OK
	scale wt.	rpm	HP
1.	200	275	55.0
2.	215	273	58.6
3.	225	272	61.2
4.	235	271	63.6
5.	245	271	66.3
6.	255	272	69.3
7.	265	271	71.8
8.	275	271	74.5
9.	285	270	76.9
10.	295	269	79.3
11.	305	269	82.0
12.	315	270	85.1
13.	325	271	88.1
14.	335	270	90.4
15.	345	271	93.5
16.	355	271	96.2
17.	365	271	98.9
18.	375	270	101.2
19.	385	270	103.9
20.	395	280	110.6
21.	405	280	113.4
22.	415	280	116.2
23.	425	279	118.6
24.	435	277	120.4
25.	445	263	117.0
26.	455	269	122.4
27.	465	258	119.9
28.	475	251	119.2
29.	480	250	120.0
30.	485	248	120.3
31.	490	247	121.0
32.	495	245	121.3
33.	495	268	132.6
34.	505	262	132.3
35.	515	253	130.3
36.	525	243	127.6
37.	535	231	123.5

There are several interesting and important points to be noted
from this chart:

1) Note the engine was not pulled down to lug, which would have
resulted in less HP anyway.

2) The governor was superb! Reading 1 through 19 when HP
increased from 55 to 103.9 and valve gear hooked up there was a
speed change of only 1.8%.

On diesel engines it is extremely difficult to obtain 2%
regulation on a generator set with a mechanical governor and here
it is 1.8%. Compare this further the 8-9 and even 10% regulation on
farm tractors in our modern world. If we carry this one step
further and take the Case 65 rated HP which was obtained at 271
brake rpm. And follow all the readings through #19 the brake is at
270 rpm producing 103.9 HP. One rpm drop from 65 to 103.9 HP is
simply fantastic! Reading 20 through 32 the valve lever was moved
one notch and reading 33 through 37 the valve gear was at full open
setting. Most efficient was 1 through 19 while 20 through 32 was
less efficient and 33 through 37 far less efficient. The last two
valve settings gained little HP compared to the increased steam and
coal usage. The exhaust was much louder too. Mr. LeRoy Blaker used
to call these wo settings, ‘Blasting the Sky’, and rightly
so.

3) During the entire test run, Chaddy was never rushed as he
calmly fired and could easily lift the pop when he so desired to
use the boiler reserve.

4) Loads were slowly added and slowly released for slow and
smooth temperature changes.

The Martens Nichols & Shepard 98 again made an excellent
showing. Last year it performed well even as compared to the Case
110, and particularly when compared in cubic inch displacement. It
was the same this year, but it must be added that in cubic inch
displacement, the Case 65 also outperformed the 110 by a large
amount.

The Martens 98 Nichols & Shepard performance run:

30-98 Nichols & Shepard 895? : cu in owned by Marten Bros. 3 May 1987
	scale wt.	rpm	HP
1.	300	266	79.8
2.	320	262	83.8
3.	340	262	89.1
4.	360	262	94.3
5.	380	263	99.9
6.	400	260	104.
7.	420	259	108.8
8.	430	258	110.9
9.	440	257	113.1
10.	450	255	114.7
11.	460	255	117.3
12.	470	255	119.8
13.	480	254	121.9
14.	490	251	123.0
15.	500	249	124.5
16.	510	246	125.4
17.	520	240	124.8
18.	530	240	127.2
19.	540	230	124.2
20.	545	228	124.2
21.	550	215	118.2

Here too is an excellent governor action and performance. Note
that at 266 rpm in no. 1 producing 79.8 HP, at 257 rpm in no. 9 the
HP was 113 with only a speed drop of 9 rpm or 3.3% drop.

This rpm range was slower than the Case 65.

In closing this Pawnee portion of the report, it must be said
that an engine in good condition, whether it be a Case 65 or the 98
N & S as shown here, will usually perform fairly comparable to
its displacement if the valves are right, the governor is right,
there is no back pressure and the steam flows freely. In this
situation the N & S has 895? cu. in. displacement and the 65
has 864 cu. in. Note that at similar rpms such as the following,
the performance is very close together:

Nichols & Shepard
rpm	wt	HP
230	540	124.2
240	530	127.2
251	490	122.9
Case 65
rpm	wt	HP
231	535	123.5
243	525	127.5
251	475	119.2

The difference of displacement is similar to the difference in
performance. Can it be then that the Link Valve after all gives
about the same performance as the Wolf?

Part 2: The Mt. Pleasant Show 1987

The horsepower performance exhibit was a popular event with a
long list of tractors, steam engines and models participating and
too numerous to here list in detail. There were 32 runs on the
Prony Brake. The drawbar tests were made on 14 tractors and engines
with a total of 39 readings taken. The tractors and engines at
times lined up for their turn. The models, the Kitten engine, the
Woods engine, the Huber engine, the Keck Gonnerman engines, the
several Oil Pulls, the Aultman Taylor, the Case 50, the 40, the
Reeves, the Advance Rumely and more, all performed smoothly and
without any excess loads.

The main performers on the Prony Brake were:

1)  Robert Tippet/Advance Rumely 20 from Monmouth,
IL.
2)  LeRoy McClure/Kitten engine from Colchester, IL.
3)  John Sheppard/Woods Bros, engine from Drakesville,
IL.
4)  LeRoy McClure/Huber engine from Colchester, IL.
5)  LeRoy McClure/Birdsell engine from Colchester, IL.
6)  LeRoy McClure/20 Jumbo engine from Colchester, IL.
7)  Larry Nelson/Keck Gonnerman 22 from Muscatine, IA.
8)  Roy Larson/Keck Gonnerman 19 from Fairview, IL.
9)  Robert Higton/40 Case from New London, IA.
10) Louis Van Mark/50 Case from Pella, IA.
11) Aultman Taylor engine.
12) Various models and gas tractors.

The Keck Gonnerman 30-60 tractor owned by Bob Balzar of West
Burlington, IA stood out as an excellent performer both for its
good governor action and for the power it produced. Also a truly
outstanding performer was the M Rumely model owned by Tom Turnbull
of Rushville, MO. This model did an excellent job at Pawnee,
too.

The drawbar HP testing at Mt. Pleasant was based on the standard
formula MPH times the drawbar pounds pull divided by 375. The
criticism of that formula last year is here by answered to say that
it really doesn’t matter how the calculations are made as long
as the correct answer is obtained! If you want to use something
other than pounds pull or miles per hour and if several more steps
are desirable, please do so as long as 1 drawbar HP ends up being
33,000 lbs. moved 1 foot per minute–in the criticism, the fixed
375 figure I had defined as a ‘constant’ was not liked.
Please call it anything you like! You may wish to call it
‘always the same’ or ‘can always be used in the formula
with mph and pounds pull’, ‘always correct’ or whatever
else you like. We shall use the formula of it is correct every
time. Now to more important things!

(DBPP x MPH)/375= DBHP.

We appreciated the help of many in making the drawbar pulls
possible, especially the gas tractor men who provided the
Caterpillar tractors for the movable and regulated anchors to make
the variable load possible. Some of the tractors and engines pulled
were tested as follows:

1. Oil Pull 30-60 built in 1927, owned by Gary Fick of
New London, IA.
6000 lbs pulled    2.5 MPH 40 DBHP
6500 lbs pulled     2.3 MPH 39.86 DBHP
7000 lbs pulled     2.1 MPH 39.20 DBHP

2. Avery 20-40
4500 lbs pulled     1.62 MPH 19.44 DBHP
4800 lbs pulled     1.5789 MPH 20.21 DBHP

3. Aultman Taylor 30-60
6000 lbs pulled     1.88 MPH 30.0 DBHP
6500 lbs pulled     1.818 MPH 31.51 DBHP

4.  Case 50
6000 lbs pulled     2.222 MPH 35.5 DBHP
6500 lbs pulled     2.143 MPH 37.15 DBHP

5. Advance Rumely 20
6500 lbs pulled     2.68 MPH 46.45 DBHP
7000 lbs pulled     2.5 MPH 46.66 DBHP
7500 lbs pulled     2.4 MPH 48.0 DBHP
8000 lbs pulled     2.069 MPH 44.1 DBHP

6.  Cat RD 6
8000 lbs pulled     1.721 MPH 36.1 DBHP
8500 lbs pulled     1.62 MPH36.756 DBHP

7. Cat FIFTY
7000 lbs pulled     2.222 MPH 41.48 DBHP

8.  16 Reeves
7000 lbs pulled     1.818 MPH 33.963 DBHP

9. Oil Pull 30-60
7500 lbs pulled     1.47 MPH 29.40 DBHP
8200 lbs pulled     1.28 MPH 27.9 DBHP

(Returning to Oklahoma for a moment, the Nichols 98 and Case 65
both pulled 57-60 drawbar HP. More on that later.)

We appreciate and thank the pullers. Several, as Mr. Tippett
made a number of pulls and cooperated to the fullest. This event
has lots of potential and we look forward to expanding the interest
and enjoy it together.

In closing, one word about hooking up the valve gears and the
great saving in steam and fuel that can be achieved. A separate
article will be devoted to that subject. Not mentioned in this
article, the Case 65 at Pawnee also pulled in excess of the 65 HP
rating with the reverse lever hooked up to the first notch from
center.

Looking forward to those coming events in 1988