Standard vs. "max capacity" bearings for mains?

I think this was discussed a while back around here, and I'm not positive my cross reference data is correct, but I believe the New Departure bearings used for mains in a 22-36 [and I think 15-30, 10-20 ect.] cross to the max capacity series.

It also seems a couple parts houses have noted that many people are using a slightly lighter bearing [I presumed this meant Standard Capacity as I don't know if 'light' is even made in bearings of this size] with good results.

Now for my quandry, I happened across a pair of bearings at a nice price, front: max capacity, rear: standard [however, a "high performance" version within the "standard" classification]. Comparing the rear to it's max capacity version, the dynamic load is nearly identical: good; static load is maybe 2/3 but so great it doesn't matter: OK. The fatigue load, however, is also about 2/3 of a max capacity bearing; yet neither is under my expectations for even idle conditions, so I'm thinking this should be a non-issue as well (i.e. neither will run "infinitely" so dynamic load rating again becomes the life predicting factor for the application and the life is near identical or at least "absolutely fine")?

I know, I know, this tractor will probably never see a single 12hour day, let alone pulling 3 16s through hard soil the whole time, so I'm over-analyzing, but I hate to underdo things anyway. Any opinions confirming or negating my estimate [the high performance 'standard' bearing should be as good as the 'max capacity' in this case]?

Still waiting on a couple other parts, so I haven't got back to the crankshaft yet. However, I'm still beating this around my head: the standard style has less issue with thrust [dynamic not static] than max due to the ball-insertion slots on a max, so that's not a bad thing, yet the front bearing [barring the fact the press fit exceeds the clutch disengage force] would take the axial load making that mute.

On the other hand; with more balls, maybe the max type is better suited to the cyclic forces of an engine? :?

Maybe I should improve it, and go with cylindrical! Of course, then ALL the thrust will have to be on the front, if someone drives into a wall, I can see the crankshaft pushing right out the back and binding rods, and, and,,,,

I know, I know, if I'd just scrounged up a New Departure or exact cross reference in the first place, instead of being soooo positive there was an economical & superior alternative, I wouldn't be chasing my tail right now! :lol: