Originally Posted by
PDR1
What a load of drivel!
Right. So someone developing a commercial drone spraying operating needs to read the regulations, read the label and then develop and qualify a system to meet those requirements to the satisfaction of the regulator. This is just engineering, not rocket surgery. How do you think the original aeroplane-based systems were developed in the first place?
So the drone developer will either use the same nozzles & feed system or develop and qualify a new one to the same spec (whichever was more cost effective). Again, just engineering, not brain science.
Only if it was designed by a moron. But if you were doing it as a commercial operation you would just develop a system that delivered to the specs.
This is a fictitious strawman, read technophobic gibbon!
The drone approach has disadvantages in terms of payload per flight, delivery rates and flight duration, but advantages in terms of more accurate delivery, faster turnaround and ability to operate in much tighter spaces. Short duration can be offset with frequent battery changes. Differential GPS-based control allows both the flight and the spray to be delivered withim a foot or two without markers. "pilot" skills come down to thorough training in the procedures and a a few hours familiarity with the vehicle. Flight doesn't have to be autonomous (with all the regulatory difficulties that currently involves) - it can be line-of-site with FPV guidance with the operator just sitting on a chair bolted to the top of a van.
All the smokescreen about drift safety is twaddle as well. There is no reason why drone-delivered spray would be any greater risk, and several reasons why it would be a lesser risk given that in the limit the drone could fly lower and/or slower if needed.
€0.0007 supplied,
PDR
Let us know when you have developed said systems. Hint - they tell me wind tunnels are quite expensive to hire.
Many chemicals are not registered for application by air simply because the research is too costly for the manufacturer to bother.
Too costly for the likes of (insert name of huge multi - national corporation here)
Why has the system not been built to comply from the outset? The regs are clear, build to that spec.
GPS guidance and sub meter accuracy is standard in aircraft and has been for over twenty years. Where have you been?
The "smokescreen" about drift safety is not. It is science based. Droplet behaviour is well documented.
But this is all just "twaddle".
The real limiting factor is how much work can be achieved by said tech and what one can charge for said work.
That is, if the machine is capable of doing say one hectare per hour and you are able to charge say $30 per hectare. If $30 an hour is enough to run you, your machine, support vehicle, insurance etc etc then good luck.