As gas power began replacing horse power in the fields, the binder engine leading the way was the Cushman engine. How did competitors like Fairfield stack up?
One hundred years ago, horses were the primary power source on farms. The time period from 1900 to 1930 was one of great technology changes. Many inventions brought improvements to farming allowing farmers to do more with less effort. New power sources were being harnessed. These were slowly starting to bring some relief to horses and allow for greater production on farms.
Field work was primarily the domain of horse power. Plows, planters, and cultivators were pulled by horse or oxen. Later in the season, horses pulled the reapers or binders to cut the crops in the field for harvest.
The reaper was invented in the 1830s by Cyrus McCormick and Obed Hussey. This revolutionary machine allowed horses to pull a powered sickle bar to cut the grain and then gather the grain into a row in the field. In the 1870s, this evolved into the binder, which added a tying operation to create sheaves or bundles, depositing these in a row in the field. The bundles were then placed into shocks in the field to dry. The first binders used wire as the binding medium while later versions used twine. The mechanism of the reaper and binder was driven by a bull wheel that required the movement of the machine. As can be imagined, this brought many problems with difficult start-ups, machine clogs, and even broken binders due to jerks and stops.
Separating the power for the mechanism of the binder from the power to pull it was a logical solution. The advent of the small gas engine at the dawn of the 20th century provided that logical power source for the binder. Early farm journals provide examples of letters from farmers adding a gas engine to their binder. The evolution was one of need, and farmers invented many ways to make the equipment work better.
Engine makers no doubt saw these letters and photos in the journals of engines being adapted. One of the first engine manufacturers to create an engine specific to this need was Cushman, of Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1910. The Cushman engine design was great for the binder application, as it was lightweight at only 190 pounds and developed ample power (initially rated at 3hp, but soon increased to 4hp). It was successful in the market from the start, and Cushman sold tens of thousands of the engines over its many years of production.
Other engine makers also worked to seize the opportunity of the opening binder market. Some of the new entrants were adaptations from their existing engine designs. Many of these adopted elements of the Cushman design including a single flywheel and a clutch mechanism on the opposite side of the engine. Most of the offerings were vertical engines. They took up a smaller footprint and delivered more power for their size.
A few companies introduced new engines that had little in common with their existing lines. The new engines were closely modeled after the Cushman and, at a glance, could be confused as one. Makers of these similar engines included Dempster Mill Manuf. Co. of Beatrice, Nebraska; Emerson-Brantingham Co. of Rockford, Illinois; and Fairfield Engine Co. of Fairfield, Iowa. All three of these companies introduced light-weight, single-flywheel, vertical engines during the mid-teens specifically aimed at the binder market. Dempster and E-B were established engine manufacturers with large and varied lines of engines in production. Fairfield was unique as its new engine was its first engine design the company had produced.
Cushman tried to discourage others from competing in the binder engine market and held a few patents specific to the binder engine and application of an engine to the binder. Engine patents included US1207248 for a carburetor and US1008309 for a friction clutch. Cushman also attempted to block competitors from duplicating mounting an engine to the binder with patent US1073099. The patents were highlighted in the company’s catalogs as a warning to competitors to stay away.
A Cushman engine catalog highlights 1915 as the year the company was unable to meet the needs of the market. There was an extremely wet season and it was impossible for Cushman to supply the demand for binder engines, leaving thousands disappointed. It states that many farmers turned in desperation to other engine solutions to get them through. Farmers made the most of a bad situation, but under ordinary conditions they would not have been happy with the other engines. Cushman continued to market itself as the original and most successful binder engine, even though the wet season of 1915 provided openings for other producers. The boom was fully underway, and the late-1910s continued to be good for the binder engine market.
The early-1920s saw a slow down as the economy retracted following World War I. Also underway was a revolution in tractor design, with the smaller 2- and 3-plow tractors becoming the norm. Implement manufacturers were also beginning to market designs specific for these small tractors. The decline of horses as power on the farm had started. Several of the companies that had brought binder engines to market struggled and failed.
The 1930s saw more farmers adopting tractors, resulting in a more rapid drop in the use of horses. The late-1930s also saw the first early combines brought to market. By 1940, the market for mounted engines on binders had declined. Specialized engines specific for binder applications were no longer in demand. Manufacturers now offered newer, standard engines that could be adapted to binders. It was the end of the golden age of binder engines.
Cushman Engine compared to a competitor – the Fairfield
Fairfield Engine
Horsepower: 4-1/2
Bore (in.): 4-1/4
Stroke (in.): 4-1/2
Speed (rpm): 300-1,500
Weight (lbs): 180
Cushman Engine
Horsepower: 4
Bore (in.): 4
Stroke (in.): 4
Speed (rpm): 450-9050
Weight (lbs): 190
Cushman was by far the market leader in binder-type engines. The company entered the market early, and the Cushman engine was the standard by which competitors were judged. As Cushman production was quite large, Cushman engines have survived in great numbers. The same cannot be said for its competitors. Surviving examples of most competitors are quite scarce, in some cases numbering only a few examples. Although a small number in comparison to Cushman, the Fairfield binder-type engine probably stands in second place in number of survivors.
At first glance, the Fairfield and Cushman look alike. Let’s take a closer look at the comparison of the two engines and highlight the differences.
Cushman had a few patents, but those were insufficient to keep Fairfield from producing a binder engine. As seen in the comparison, the Fairfield had several features uniquely different from the Cushman. Still visually, the Fairfield looks very similar to the Cushman. Trade dress protection did not become available until after the U.S. Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), so it was not an option for Cushman at the time of binder engine production. Cushman had no legal means to stop the Fairfield engine.
Fairfield Engine
Valves: Side-by-side exhaust & intake mechanically operated
Carburetor: Holley Model K
Spark plug brand: Splitdorf
Ignition: Battery and coil Dixie magneto option
Crankshaft diameter (in.): 1-1/2
Counterbalance: Counterweights on crank throws
Main bearings: Babbit cast in bronze shell
Gears: Spiral cut
Gear location: Flywheel side
Flywheel: Split hub, 1 bolt – keyed
Clutch pulley and sprocket: Yes, with lever
Governor: Throttling 2 weight
Cooling system: Forced pump with screen cooling tank
Gas tank location: Mounted to engine
Cushman Engine
Valves: Vertical stack exhaust mechanical, intake automatic
Carburetor: Schebler
Spark plug brand: Monarch
Ignition: Battery and coil magneto option
Crankshaft diameter (in.): 1-1/4
Counterbalance: Counterweights on crank throws
Main bearings: Die-cast babbit with felt wick
Gears: Spur cut
Gear location: Pulley side
Flywheel: Solid – keyed
Clutch pulley and sprocket: Yes, with lever
Governor: Throttling 2 wieght
Cooling system: Forced pump with screen cooling tank
Gas tank location: Mounted on cooling tank
Contact author Barry Tuller: btengines@gmail.com.