Your favourite Ag Aircraft?

[M18bloke]

What is your favourite Ag aircraft out of the ones being flown on "Ag" or "airwork" at the moment & why is it your favourite?
Explain the type of work you do, eg cotton, rice, broadacre, super, baiting, oil spill, fires, survey, seeding, day or night, sugar cane spraying, forestry etc etc.
I like the S2R-34DC Ayres Thrush as an allrounder(except on super). I have done rice, cotton, broadacre, super.:} :ok:

[currawong]

It hasn't been invented yet.

But I envisage it will be equiped with a jacuzzi, dancing girls and a well stocked bar.:E

Errr... and me flying it:ok:

This ought to be an interesting thread!

[Rowen the Raver]

With my varied experience from the 150 Pawnee to the Clumbersome 8, you still cannot beat the S2R-G10. The range of Thrush Aircraft are the safest, deliver the most uniform of spray patterns and are the most pleasurable to fly of all. The G-10 range are faster than the 8 and only slightly behind in productivity. If you happen to jump back into a 5 typically a comparable aircraft you quickly remember your sagwagon days. Take a look at the following:

Thrush models currently produced have been flight tested and structurally substantiated to the following weights (without restrictions): S2R-T660 at 12,500 pounds, and the S2RHG-550 at 10,500 pounds. (Note that the S2RHG-550 gross weight will be raised in the current year to 11,500 pounds.)
By contrast, certain of our competitor’s aircraft have been certified without restrictions to the following weights: AT802 at 12,500 pounds; AT 602 at 9,200 pounds and AT 502 at 8,000 pounds.
However, attention should be called, to the fact that brochures published by AT and the flight manual and FAA Type Data Sheets for these aircraft show the operational gross weight to be 16,000 lbs. for the 802, 12,500 lbs. for the 602 and 9,700 lbs. for the 502!
While these ambitious numbers appear to give an advantage to these three aircraft, their flight manuals, call for significant airspeed limitations, and G load reductions when operations are conducted in an over load condition.
As an example, in the Flight Manual for the 802, the following appears: The “…never exceed speed at 12,500 lbs or less is 222 mph IAS”. The flight manual continues to say: “… at weights above 12,500 lbs, the never exceed” speed is 162 mph IAS….”or a 60 mph reduction!
The flight load factor limit of the 802 at 12,500 lbs is 3.25; and, at 16,000 lbs, the flight load factor is 2.54 – thus not complying with FAA’s formula as required in FAR 23, sec. 23.337. Similar non-compliance with FAA’s FAR 23, sec. 23.337 applies to the other aircraft.
Though this conflicting data leads to significant confusion on the part of the reader, it is Thrush Aircraft’s carefully considered opinion that fatigue cracking is really a very simple issue to understand and address.
Simply stated, the more you overload an aircraft, the faster fatigue cracking takes place -- thus shortening the wing life.

We at Thrush Aircraft, Inc have and will continue to adhere to the policy of complying with FAA’s formula FAR 23, sec. 23.337 and structurally substantiate all models of aircraft that we produce to the maximum gross weight that the aircraft will operate -- with zero restrictions on airspeed and G loads.
For these reasons we at Thrush firmly believe we build the strongest, least expensive- to-operate and safest airplanes offered today.
We at Thrush challenge our friendly competitor to follow our lead of focusing on safety, reliability and low operating costs as we continue to develop tomorrow’s aircraft for the Ag Industry.

[enginair]

that was a sales pitch , wasn't it ?

[M18bloke]

You make some interesting points, I too have worked the Pawnee, which is a good little ride, I agree the 5 is nothing special. The G10 is a great machine, it is handy to have a rental engine at the ready however & they need a rudder trim, the G10 is NOT faster then an 802 or any where near as productive. The 802 is clumbersome to the inexperenced pilot. When you get used to them they are not clumbersome, they are just like a big Thrush to fly, even the G10 seems gutless after you have sat in an 802 for a while. :ok:

[M18bloke]

I believe aircraft not invented yet are not part of the current fleet in use. Can you offer an opinion or do you not fly Ag aircraft?:yuk:

[Formally Known As]

Ag Husky for me. Real nice to fly.

[flyboyike]

I know it's not strictly an Ag aircraft, but as "rural" planes go, I'll always love this one.

http://www.lkpd.site.cz/Ostatni/AP'05/AN2OKRIE_05062005.2.jpg

[enginair]

the cherokee six , can't think of any plane as productive doing hairy buffel seeding

the ag wagon might be the pick of the small ones except for the cessna 180

a 502 on the rice is hard to beat

a G10 thrush for spraying is a mean machine (and sounds like it) may be a thrush with a PT6 -45

the 802 for the big acres

the turbine drom , carries a big load and burns less fuel ( i suppose it has to , not real big fuel tanks )

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ok, thats great guys, now tell us the worst machine you have ever worked.

[HyFlyer]

Gotta be the Embraer Ipenema...... (for best)

Drinks Alcohol....and flies on it as well !!!!!!

[airag3]

Mr M18 bloke may I suggest you apologise to Currawong for your outburst as he has been a valuable contributer to these forums for quite a few years ( 485 posts) and most likely flown more Ag' machinery than you or I ever will.

[3 way valve]

Mr M18 bloke may I suggest you apologise to Currawong for your outburst as he has been a valuable contributer to these forums for quite a few years ( 485 posts) and most likely flown more Ag' machinery than you or I ever will.

Airag3 what you say about currawong may well be true, but he did make a pretty stupid comment. He has been a valuable contributor in the past, however, he certainly wasn't this time.

I have flown most small pistons and the range of Turbine Thrush and Air Tractors and I think my favourite for handling characteristics and rock solid stability is the S2R-34 500 gal Thrush. It's quicker than a 502, lower profile and flys hands off.

[currawong]

So you don't like my angle on fatigue management?

Fair Enough:ok:

I (incorrectly) anticipated this thread would turn into a Ford/Holden type pi$$ing competition that would get nasty quickly as with the "Dromader Question" thread.

So, if in attempting to steer posts in a more friendly direction I have offended anyone, then you have a full and unreserved apology.;)

[M18bloke]

Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on what you have flown for how many hours airag3.

But then again dear old Currawong may worry that the thread turns into a Ford/Holden caper.

[Big Nasty]

802 is the best ag plane in the world by a long way

[Ag2A320]

My Favourite Hands down - 1450Hp Thrush S2R-1820 not the Bull Thrush Built by the factory - too heavy but a originial 600 light frame thrush modified with Wright R-1820-76 engine by Serv-Aero, 400gal hopper,100 gals of fuel,extwings,v/g's, 33D50 prop, :- It out performs everything else:- will haul 400gals of liquid fert @11lbs per gal,200lb pilot,18gals of oil,100gals avgas,for AUW of 10,500lbs out of a 2000ft grass strip allday in 96F temps and you can even leave the load hose attached it will rip the hose lose and trail all 40ftof hose(a hungover co-worker found this out one morning, the ground crew all had cardiac arrests:eek:,still if flew ) behind the aircraft and still climb at 600-800ft a min,

Will out work in our environment all other aircraft be it Ag-Cat,KingCat, Weatherley, AT802,AT602,AT501,AT-402,S-2R-T65,T34,G10,M-18, Drom-T45, sure it burns 136gals an hr at max takeoff @45" but it will haul anything you can fit into the hopper, best performing ag aircraft, i have ever flown, great hot, and high performance, sadly after operating them for over 23yrs the cost of avgas has made the economics unfeasible, now operate second best in my opinion 1980 Ayres S-2R -T34 w/ 400gal hopper, fabric tail,extwings, v/g's,100gals of gas and basic empty weight of 3800lbs it still is no Viper1200 but i'll make due:E Due to the terrain here in Jamaica, we need the climb performance being surrounded by 2-7000ft mountains hence light overpowered aircraft with the abillity to turn!!! have worked 510galthrushes (t-34,45,65,G6,G10,R1820) never ever had to use flaps on them still tad too heavy for the mountainous terrain , can say the same for the AT series, dont get me wrong I love ol Leland,but the AT series doesnt cut it for most of the ops in the banana world, then again most operators here(Caribbean,Lat Am) are partial to the Thrush because of how well it was designed by Leland, and the fact that CropCulture UK ltd operated them in 39 countries and had purchased a couple sets of factory jigs from leland, kind influenced the market to the Thrush, He fondly remembers our company pestering him to build an 1820 powered At-401, with his usual reply:- i've lightened the 401 so much that engine will shake the airframe to bits on it first flight

Worst I have ever flown AT-301 w Ag-1 prop and orginial short rudder a real dawg:yuk:, Leland made some great airplanes but, the 301,401 are flatland aircraft, i see that he met his design goals a lighter, better performing aircraft with the ability to haul more on less Hp- the only way to do that lightenen the airframe and optimise the wing , but with as with most operators working bananas we stick with the Thrush, more stable ie cadillac; vs sporty ie corvette AT series, I'd rather crash in a Thrush than anyother Ag-type im baised i guess, never written one off came close:ouch:, made a couple of off-field landings,hit the odd tree, marker, etc.

Enjoy turbine reliability, miss the rumble of a round engine, the cool blue flame on an early morn dep- dont miss the amount of times that Damn 1820 tried to kill me, but to its credit i have never had a engine fail to make power even while spitting chunks of the internals out the exhaust, always had enough to make it to a realitively safe landing site;a company pilot flew for 25mins on 6 broken conrods; the only way you knew a jug had blown was you need 1" more manifold pressure, on a 1340 you'd be dumping the load and praying to make it back before it quit.

The all time worst Ag Aircraft never flew it but is the general consensus among my associates worldwide is Eagle DW-1/EA-1

[Big Nasty]

my maths is not all that good however how can a 400 g radial out work a 800g turbine ???????

[100% Ng]

If its got 500 gallons and a PT6, I'm as happy as a pig in s**t. Don't go much on those noisy engines. Nothing worse than having a garrett screaming at you all day.

[Ag2A320]

As stated due to the mountainous terrain one cannot effectively haul 800 gals unless your planning runs over 1/2 mile very few farms have runs over 1 mile in fact i can only think of 1 and it has 7200 ft mountains on the northside and narrows into a bottle neck then the aircraft is to heavy to maneouver, and is effectively limited to approx 500 gals, hence wasted capacity, Go to AG-airupdate.com website , the article on our ops in jamaica is listed in Aug or Sept 97, with pics, After over 40yrs of aerial spraying here We know our conditions,newbies come in with Heavy iron ie At-802,Drom, - those aircraft are flatland high volume work, hence a 400gal overpowed light aircraft will out perform and out work other aircraft its a climbing and turning environment, question for you whats the turn radius of a loaded 802 and how much would you attempt to haul when your very first run is into a box canyon at the bottom of a 2000ft valley, and you need to climb a min of 600 feet so you can reverse the turn and not hit the other valley wall. We arent working in the horizontal with gobs of space to complete the p-turn, terrain dictates that i work in the vertical plane , start my dive at 600ft agl keep my speedup to convert it back to Altitude so i dont hit the terrain. Additionally i rarely do Firebombing where i can dump everthing in one pass i do ULV work on bananas 1-3 gals per acre, how many runs do think i would need to get out 800gals plus to have to fight that heavy pig around the mountains, better to spilt it into 400gal loads I work faster cause im more manueoverable. Have the same problem with Sugar and rice, bought a couple 510 gal thrushes 5500lbs BOW new in the 1990's allthe bells and whistles, for Fertilizing and Rice, and guess what we gained by hauling the extra 110 gals i lost in tiptoeing around the terrain.

FOR ME AND OUR OPERATIONS a 400gal Airplane is the best aircraft for the job, hence with the demise of the 1820's we bought early light frame thrushes with less than 3600TTAE and new -34's which in my conditions will out perform any larger capacity aircraft. If you're ever on my side of the world feel free to drop in i'll show you my reality and the fact that an overpowered 400gal can out work a 800gal ship.

[Rowen the Raver]

Ag2A320,
Your coments sound very true to myself, and hopefully to the rest of the girls.
The turning radius of the 802, at times fully loaded with fuel and chemical I am sure a Boeing727 would turn on the inside of you. They would be absolutely a hopeless aircraft to operate in your enviroment, they are at times only just what you say flat land operations aircraft.

[Lowlevldevl]

And a 1200hp radial 400gal machine would be equally as hopeless spraying broadacre cotton.
The aircraft that can do it all has never and will never be invented.
I've only ever flown Pawnees, Braves (the Tiara was a standout) and the AT range. If I had to pick one out of those it'd be the 802. It's the quietest, fastest, best endurance/range, best load carrying and will turn as fast as the others when the load gets down. I'd rather turn a little slower for the first half of the load than be ferrying back for that second 400 anyhow. AND you can legally land with the full 16,000 lbs if you need to.

[currawong]

Thanks for taking the time, Ag2A320. Makes an interesting read.

Have you run into any fatigue or component life issues with your hot rods?

[Ag2A320]

In some of the valleys, one would never make it out for the second load with any full 800gal airplane,in the sixties my oldman would never carry more than 300gals in the S-2C,D's when the S-2R model came out the still had areas that would never carry more than 325gals, the problems was they kept running the R-1340@ 500-600Hp all day and the resulting engine failures and accidents took ot toll hence our decisions as stated before.

Having Flown the 802 its everything Leland intended it to be,JUST wont work for me besides the heyday of bananas is over in jamaica. I can afford an 802 but one airplane cant be in three places at the same time, for the same money i can have four 400gal ships that will work faster and be more value for my money

and as for landing at 16,000lbs, as an Operator with both AME/A&P/IA its too hard on the airframe, to do that id need a nice hardsurface with terrain that will allow me a nice stabilized touchdown so as not damage the frame ,ok so it can do it, which airstrip do think you i can stop at that weight in all of my strips are 2-3000ft max, to attempt that i would have go to the international airports :eek:, and they just love to see me turn up and humbug their ops!

Mr. Snow and his agents have always been generous to allow us to test/demo his latest models, but each time we say thanks, it a great aircraft, but we'll stick with the Thrush; give him our comments and then start shooting the breeze about the good old days the 60-80's

[Trev007]

Why has no one said that the dro is the way to go ????

[Ag2A320]

Mr Currawong,
Labour is cheap, have 2 mechs per aircraft, used to get 2-3000 hrs out the bottom end of the Wrights with a good overhaul; however had engines blow up at 3hrs and 50hs TTIS, cheap unreputable firms, best round engine shop in the ag business - Airmotive , Clinton Arkansas, - Roger Pickett, builds great engines. The R-1820 chaffed the side panels, cracked some of the lighter tubing, but no fatigue cracking in the wings as per the ad, performed eddy current inspects every 2yrs, and the fact that most of the work is non corrosive materials, in 25yrs of operation no cracks in the spars noted on any of the 28 aircraft operated over the years, We have one 1200 with minor cracks it has about 7000hrs and had Bill Lavender but it on its nose and incurr some wing damage when he owned it , we knew about those cracks when we bought it in 84 they havent progressed since then 5000hrs later, As for components we're on condition - used to go through tire and brake pads, broken a couple tailwheel springs, but nothing out of the ordinary, switched to turbines all i do now is put gas and oil in, washout the airframe everyday it works and perform the routine inspections in fact now have to look for work to keep my mechanics and myself occupied.

Trev 007,As for the Dromader, tried it HATED IT, the drom only puts out 1000hp vs my modified 1200's putting out closer to 1400hp climbing ability is key , the Drom is an overgrown thrush, handles not so well and has wing cracking problems, spent a while in Cuba with their ops even stole their chief engine and prop mechanics, after twenty years on Droms they preferred working on the thrush, both my self and the cuban pilots that have worked for me prefer the thrush, we also evaulated the AN-2 in cuba - one word flies like you're mixing cement.

[tinpis]

:rolleyes:


http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austa2/vhati.jpg

[maxspeed]

Thats five words:bored:

[fitternturner]

Yes LLD, but you have to ferry twice (or more) as far to find a strip large enough for your 8' to work from:yuk:

[camel jockey]

I think most operators have it nutted to what works best for thier area whether it be a radial powered AT or a tubine thrush for me I love the G10 Thrush it's a very forgiving, can fit all places you can put a ag wagon and you can do a big day in it,coming home and not wanting to top yourself. The place where i started my career was plastered with power lines and small hill's/ small paddocks and small piston powered air craft were very much suited to the area but to use an ag wagon to service fifteen thousand acres of cotton, i think not.

[Lowlevldevl]

Yes LLD, but you have to ferry twice (or more) as far to find a strip large enough for your 8' to work from:yuk:
My favourite is obviously not your favourite, therefore I must be wrong. My sincere apologies.:hmm:

[fitternturner]

No Not at all LLD, they are a great aircraft for certain jobs in certain places, just saying that each bolt may need a different size spanner, there are other aircraft that can do the same or better job in certain circumstances because they don't have to ferry as far.:ok:

[currawong]

tinpis, your youth is showing .....:}

[M18bloke]

:yuk: [quote=airag3]Mr M18 bloke may I suggest you apologise to Currawong for your outburst as he has been a valuable contributer to these forums for quite a few years ( 485 posts)


Our mutual friend currawong has stated in another thread this week "number of posts does not maketh the man"

This is the first thread I have started. I was not trying to start a Ford Holden thing.

I have enjoyed reading about other points of view. Ag2A320 has made some interesting points. His sort of work sounds like no place for a 150 Pawnee or an 802. LLD also made some valid points.

All jibes aside what is your favourite aircraft currawong?

The AN-2 maybe the machine for you currawong. It looks like it would fit a jacuzzi & dancing girls on board.:ok:

[burnercan]

My personal favourite was the F 111 on the helix advert from many years ago damn fine piece of kit although long runs would be required sweep the wings forward for turns... more kero used than chemical, imagine the noise greenies would love it. TFR for operating just sit there hands off although a few have come unstuck at night trying that. I was just a young lad back then so never got a go and never saw one operating only the one on the ad for helix. One can still dream and imagine....:}

[burnercan]

Saw a 727 do a damn fine ag approach into kalgoorlie one time due fog i thohgt it may have been a goer on ag too I seem to remember a pic of a 727 doing a flyby of a tower in the us about 10 ft off the ground at a great rate of knots....oops dreaming again about my fav acft

:} :}

[currawong]

Nothing wrong with the topic M18bloke.

Often thought the AN-2 would would make a damn fine mobile home :D

Some crews spray with them - or used to.

Features I like in a plane - flat plate of tough glass to see through in front.

In the lighties a manual flap handle that works like the collective in a chopper. Especially useful in confined spaces - the more urgent the requirement the faster the flaps come down:}

[tukituki]

It has to be the fu24,after flying lovely planes like agwagon,fattie,180,185 the fu24 just rocks.A real pilots machine,just so nice to fly.Ever so light on the controls and the rudder works so well! In the turn its truely a eye opener ie sowing downhill then up into a "nice gentle rate 1 turn" just using my finger tips.
Maybe you guys over there should flip in your tw aircraft for for what some people thing is the cream of ag planes! and I not joking

Ps the prat who designed the fu24 should be ....:mad: ....

[biggles190]

After nearly 500 hours on the Feltcher I know what FU stands for, F**** you and the 24 is your IQ required for flying it.
I could only discribe it as similar to operatng a dumb loaded shopping trolly with a dodgy wheel but it can carry heavy loads.
It's no wonder the yanks refused to fly it and gave the design away!!

[thrushdriver]

Definately got to be the PT6-34 400 gal Thrush with short wings and VG's. For cost effectiveness we are opperating M601 Walter powered Thrushes. Burns a bit more fuel than the PT6 but is bullet proof and cheap to buy. Suffers a bit with hot and high conditions. Not my favourite, but better than a 1340.

[SNS3Guppy]

I just flew a -11 garrett powered drom a few days ago. Coming from a plain A model with a -45R to that one was an eye opener. It's got the vortex generators and flap gap seals and so on. I only had a couple of days to play with it, but 500 gallon loads were nothing in there. The most interesting feature was the propeller. Pull the power back and that airplane slows down going straight down. Speed control coming down a hillside is a no brainer in that airplane. Landing felt like landing a helicopter, it felt so slow, and go-arounds and slow work was a lot slower and a lot more solid than the A model with the pratt on it. They advertise slightly less horsepower and similiar torque (derated for the airframe), but the performance and feel is night and day.

The ability to have instant power instead of a delay was nice. And the discussions about landing high idle vs. not are a non-issue because the prop in the normal range is such as effective brake. I forgot to lock the tail on the first landing and didn't need or use reverse, and didn't know the difference as a result.

Compared to other ag aircraft, perhaps or perhaps not such a stellar improvement...but compared to other dromaders, the performance capabilities are really something. For the cost, too...hard to beat. That's my two-day impression. I guess a full season will tell.