Clevis IR7275 Inner race question

[Ken_Shea]

My apologies for a first post asking for help.

Does anyone have or able to find what the Clevis bushing 306-2 alternate (2991-1) dimensions are?
Or how they differ from the 306-2
Length - 1.320"
OD - 1.188
ID - .625

These are required when replacing the 34466 Inner Race with a IR7275.
B2B Parts manual page 5 item# 10

Thanks for any help.

Ken

[bryancobb]

Ken, I have an AutoCAD drawing on my computer at home where I mic'd all those parts and drew them in TRUE SIZE.

Do you have the ability to open an AutoCAD 2000 drawing?

[Ken_Shea]

Hi Bryan,
If those are .dxf or .dwg then pretty sure I can open the AutoCad 2000 files in my CAD, worth a try.
I suspected they may require thin shoulders.

If is simpler for you the file can be sent to ken (at symbol) on target sports online . com (no spaces)

Thanks much
Ken

[bryancobb]

I pulled up the JPG and quickly scaled it and sketched it based on a 5/8 diameter bolt with 0.002" oversize on the I.D for the bolt to go in.

Then I traced the bushing and pulled a few dim

[Ken_Shea]

Hi Bryan,
It looks like the scaling is not giving proper dimension.

Taking your .050 bushing flange thickness + the 1.260 width of the IR7275 equals 1.360 which is .038 wider then what the original width (1.322) of the RBC 34466 inner race is and the bushings were essentially flush with them both sides.

Seems like we would need a flange width of .0315 to equal the width of the original inner race with bushing.

I don't want to eat up a bunch of your time helping. but what do you think ?
Ken

[9121u]

HI KEN if you want give me a call at 724-601- 4471 I Can probably help you out on this matter i do not want to post any thing on maintenance items .so if you want give me a call ......thanks tom

[bryancobb]

Don't see harm in posting Maintenance Stuff on the Servicing & Maintaining Header?
These are actual dim's taken from my new ones.

[Ken_Shea]

The OD, flange OD and ID are exactly what I was expecting, however, the .038 flange width is still in conflict with previous width measurements, they are factory bushings so I may have to re-measure to double check where my error is at.

Had/have you installed them to a complete clevis assembly?

Ken

[bryancobb]

They were installed in about 2005ish. It seems like the newer bearings were a different length than the original ones.
That flange probably made up the difference? I can't remember. I'll look at the drawing again and see if I drew-in
the old bearings also, so I could compare?

[bryancobb]

hrtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

[Ken_Shea]

Doing it right now Bryan.

Yes, the original RBC 34466 were 1.322 width where the IR7275 are 1.260 but as you can see the difference is .062 and not the .076 of the two flanges


Thanks
Ken

[bryancobb]

When I place 2 of my bushings, AS DRAWN, firm against the NEW inner race, it comes out at 1.325"

My new inner race length was mic'd to be 1.250".
My new needle bearing was mic'd to be 1.230"

Not sure of the part numbers that Brantly Parts Dept. sent me but the inner races came in the 6 light blue cube shaped boxes on the left.
The Bearings came in the shiny blue Torrington Boxes.

I bought the LAST 3 new DPP-10's known to exist. I had to buy the cups and bearings already assembled by Brantly to get them. About $300 each!!

[Ken_Shea]

That's strange, posted a reply earlier and it is now gone.

Got the drawings Bryan, thanks.

Not sure why you had bearing measurements that differ from the bearing specifications.
The SJ7275SS specs at 1.250 in width and the IR7275 specs at 1.260 nominal +.000 - .005
The grouped width would seem right at the 1.325 though.

I have a new set of the DPP-10, well, they were new in 1985
Seems I paid under $20 a piece for them from Brantley at the time.

[bryancobb]

The additional $280 each was for the machined cups they were in.