Crop dusters: 2011 technology and 1920 engines
Royal Flying Service owner-operator Jock Warren and his Thrush airplane. It is propelled by a single 1,200 horsepower Wright Cyclone engine.
There's an old saying that there are old crop dusters and bold crop dusters, but no old, bold crop dusters. If that's the case, says Jock Warren, then he must not be very old.
Using airplanes to apply chemicals has some definite advantages for hay and forage growers, according to Warren, such as speed of response and of course the lack of wheel tracks. The airplane can apply chemical on wet ground and really shines when a new seeding of a crop needs chemical. Any other method would tear up the tender seedlings. Warren has also done some aerial seeding in the past. His recommendation is to use a heavier seed rate than for other methods of seeding. For aphids in hay, Warren says that systemic products - pesticides that are absorbed by the plants rather than merely sprayed on the outside of them - are best if there is time for them to work. If the aphids show up just before harvest, there are other products that work faster.
Some growers have been using a fungicide called Headline on corn crops. While the Midwest has a real problem with fungus, Warren says, the crops treated just do better here in Washington. In fact, Kelly Callahan, who won the com silage contest at the World Ag Expo, did it with corn treated with Headline.
What about the planes that deliver the materials? "Those radial (engines) are 1920s technology that we just keep rebuilding and flying. We maintain them right here in the shop and only send them out for a full overhaul," Warren explained. One is a Pratt and Whitney 1340 that puts out 600 horsepower. The other is a Wright Cyclone that is good for 1200 horsepower. The Cyclone is the same basic engine that powered the B-17 bombers in World War II. The smaller engine bums 38 gallon of gas per hour while the Cyclone takes 55. The plane the Cyclone is on has a 500 gallon tank for chemical versus 400 gallon for the other plane.
The technology stems from World War I, which saw giant leaps in the development of the airplane. The first use of aircraft as aerial applicators was in New Zealand in 1906, but really took off in Germany in the pre-war years. After the war ended, surplus World War I aircraft were used both there and in other countries. "They were kind of crude airplanes but they got the job done," Warren added. The whole scene was crude at the start. One of the first stateside uses of aerial application consisted of the pilot flying the plane and another person dumping bags of arsenic powder over the side, to treat a pest in the catalpa trees in Florida.
Warren got his first flying experience flying float planes in Canada. He's been a fixture of Royal City for a good many years now, with 42 years as an aerial applicator. He credits Leland Snow with making the first purpose-built airplane for aerial application in the 1950s. For a number of years Grumman, Piper and Cessna built specialty aircraft as applicators. Currently Thrush and Air Tractor are the two manufactures of Ag aircraft. Warren uses the Thrush aircraft himself but speaks well of the other planes.
When asked about turboprop engines, Warren explained that they were interesting when jet fuel was cheaper than aviation gasoline, but now that they are both around $4 per gallon, the advantages are less. Jet fuel is very similar to diesel and the only aviation gasoline available now is 100 octane low-lead. He mentioned that some of the applicators who had gone to the turboprops are moving back to the old radial engines.
Flying the airplane is the easy part, Warren said. Knowing when to tum on and tum off the valves is the hard part. "Each load here, if mistakenly applied, could be a potential lawsuit," he said. GPS units are helpful, but old-fashioned smokers are still used to check wind direction. He said that one procedure at the edge of a field is to tum off the spray boom on one side of the plane and let the prop wash get the chemical to the edge of the field.
Warren's training as an agricultural applicator was in the front seat of a Piper Cub airplane with the instructor in the back seat. He said there is an Ag flight school in Georgia and he employs one of its graduates. He mentioned that Air Tractor makes a two-seat side-by-side plane specifically for use training Ag flight students.
Isn't it dangerous to fly so close to the ground? "Altitude is your best friend," said Warren. "At least you have time to think. When you are flying at application altitude and something happens, there is no time to think something through." He listed mistakes, mechanical issues, and striking birds as potential dangers, as well as less-common things he's experienced, like hitting a shovel handle someone had left standing up in the field. He's been successful getting a wounded aircraft back home on a number of occasions. "When you do something like blow a cylinder on an engine, it sounds really bad and blows a lot of oil but you can usually get back home."
"The time once was that aerial applicators followed the crops. Any more almost all of us have a solid home base. Things have changed over the years," Warren added.
Warren has dropped water on wild land fires occasionally, but not on a regular basis. "The insurance company limits the number of hours I can do that," he explained. He added that a single-seat fire bomber has been developed from an ag applicator plane. It carries 800 gallons of water or fire suppressant and is very popular as a first response to a fresh fire.
Of course, pesticides have ben the subject of plenty of controversy and more than a few misconceptions. "How do you address ignorance and stupidity?" asked Warren. Activists who have no understanding of agriculture or where food comes from, and judges who do not have enough fortitude to throw out frivolous lawsuits are two of Warren's pet peeves. He added that maybe one percent of the produce imported into this country is actually inspected. The countries of origin neither have nor enforce the environmental constraints agriculture has to live with in this country.
The Clean Water Act is another thing that gets Warren riled up. "With the buffer zones they want, if you have a 120 acre field with a ditch on three sides, that leaves maybe 20 acres you can apply chemical to. So far Washington State requires a 300-foot buffer between chemical application and salmon-bearing streams."
Become a Subscriber!
You have read all of your free articles this month. Select a plan below to start your subscription today.
Already a subscriber? Login
