Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:42:59.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of a Helicopter Spraying Machine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. E. Ripper  and
P. Tudor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments were carried out to study the possibilities of using ground or crop interference with the spray laden slip-stream of a helicopter flying slowly in the ground cushion to obtain a high dynamic catch of spray droplets. Experiments were carried out in 1945 and 1946 with a Sikorski type Y.R.4.B. helicopter and experimental spraying gear designed for the purpose.

The forward portion of the slip-stream annulus was explored by means of spraybars placed in three different positions. The position in the sector between angles of 15° and 45° with the direction of forward flying was found to give the best all-round cover and was the position in which the spray deposit was less influenced by alterations in the control-surfaces of the helicopter.

To obtain a fairly wide swathe of approximately 70 ft., the equivalent of two rotor diameters, the forward speed of 6–8 m.p.h. was found to be optimal, and it was observed that not only was good cover of the upper surfaces of the leaves obtained but the spray-laden slip-stream also gave a good cover of the vertical surfaces of the plants outside the rotary periphery and, in certain boom positions, descended and in rebounding produced a cover of the lower surfaces.

In order to obtain maximum dynamic catch and a good cover of the lower surfaces of leaves, spray-bars must not be more than 6 ft. above ground.

Helicopter spraying is wind dependent and in wind velocities above 12 m.p.h. uniform cover of spray deposit does not appear to be feasible.

The performance of the flattened out slip-stream and rebound depends on the type of crop, and as this affects the dynamic catch to a considerable degree, this phenomenon will be the subject of a special investigation.

The forward portion of the slip-stream was found to give a more even spray deposit than the aft portion because in the latter case vortices are caused by the rotor blades which affect the spray deposit.

In view of its limitations as regards speed and dependence on wind velocity, economic application of spray chemicals by helicopter at a degree of efficiency and workmanship equal to that of ground machines is only possible with a heavy load-carrying helicopter. A specification for such a machine has been issued to the manufacturers of rotory wing aircraft.

It is hoped that this report will be followed by a report on the performance data of the new spraying apparatus designed for the Sikorski S.51 which is based on the results of these investigations.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , May 1948 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brook, A. (1947). The drifting of poisonous dusts applied by aeroplanes and hand rigs.—Agric. Engineering, 28 (B) pp. 233–239.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1934). A method to determine the surface area of trees covered by spray fluid and to obtain a permanent record of the degree of fineness of the deposit.—J. S. E. agric. Coll., 34, pp. 252–253.Google Scholar
Kelley, F. H. (1947). Chemical application by helicopter.—Agric. Chemicals, 2, pt. 7, pp. 36–39.Google Scholar
Potts, S. F. (1939). Spraying woodlands with an autogyro for control of Gipsy Moth.—J. econ. Ent., 32, pp. 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripper, W. E. (1944). Improved means of aerial spraying B.P. 564771.Google Scholar
Sebora, L. H., Deonier, C. C., Wisecup, C. B., Husman, C. N. & Longcoy, O. M. (1946). Performance of aerial spray equipment used to disperse DDT at Orlando, Florida.—Mosq. News, 6, pp. 169–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Whitten, R. R., Potts, S. F. & Francis, E. H. (1941). Concentrated spray applied with an autogiro for control of cankerworms.—J. econ. Ent., 34, pp. 692–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuill, J. S., Deonier, C. C., Wisecup, C. B. & Girdler, G. W. (1946). Development of new spraying apparatus for HSN-1 Helicopter.—J. econ. Ent., 39, pp. 729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuill, J. S., Madden, A. H., Linquist, A. W. & Mackey, J. R. (1946). DDT sprays applied from a helicopter against adult mosquitos.—Proc. 14th Conf. Calif. Mosq. Contr. Ass., pp. 44–52, 93.Google Scholar
Yuill, J. S., Parker, D. E. & Gershoitz, D. (1946). Special report on application of spray containing DDT by helicopter.Google Scholar