Contact

Watched a few hours of AN-2s being used in European / Russian etc. aerial application work.

Seems to be done a lot different from any I have ever watched in the Calif. Central Valley for 18 yrs. Or as you describe in your book. Did not see anything that looked lower than 50 to 100 ft. Usually well above trees, wires, haystacks etc. No apparent "downwind" or "P" turns. I used to watch and wish on. Most just kept making wide right turns all the time. I have helped work on an AN-2 so know the office is up there a bit.

Hoping you may know why they do it that way or maybe interested in finding out.

Curious Chris

I want to fly one. An AN-2, that is.

Chris,

Satloc (GPS) has changed the way most spray here as well. It allows a race track pattern economically. When we used flaggers, it would have required four flaggers to race track a field or even two fields. That is why we almost always sprayed back and forth. So we mostly used the P turn to fall off the target (last swath run) downwind coming out of the field and use the headwind in the base to final to line up with the next swath 36 feet upwind. They still start on the downwind border, in the race track pattern, but every other turn will be a downwind turn. This gets dangerous, in high wind, but lots of younger pilots just go farther out to make the awkward downwind turn in order to stay with the racetrack.

We old guys fuss, "that the height of the spray pattern depends on the price of the airplane." I don't know what AN-2s cost nowdays, but a new AT 802 is near two million. In some cases the pilot will be fired if the wheels get below the trees.

Keep watching to make sure they keep the sticky side down.

Contact

American spray pilots, in the jet turboprops, like to make left turn race tracks because of left turning tendencies of clockwise rotating props. That would be right turns, because of counterwise rotating props, in an AN-2.

Finally, additives, what we used to call snake oil, have improved a great deal. Drop Zone and similar products make the droplets bigger and wetter so that the spray goes down better and stays liquid better. When we actually dusted with DDT, we used a lot of dry DDT per acre. To get enough on the crop, even more hit the ground. With six ounces of active product in one gallon total volume spray, it just won't work dried out much at all. The wetting agent helps, but it is still better to get down to six inches AGL.

Hi Chris,

I know you're question was directed to Contact, but I have an idea about some of it.
As to the turns ;
In ag work flown appropriately turns and patterns are generally selected by wind conditions, and field shape (and a few other lesser concerns). Consequently what you may see at one location, doesn't really mean it is how it should be flown at another. Of course everyone has a favorite, and many people get so stuck on flying that favorite, forcing it to work where a more appropriate pattern or direction would more yield efficiency, safer turns, and less flying through their own drift… but the repetition factor breeds habit, and old habits die hard.

Height again is born on many factors. I suspect in contacts earlier days, if your wheels were not tickling the crop you were not flying low enough. In todays world we have the technology to test the entire spray system utilizing dyes, and optimize many factors such as height, boom length, nozzle size and location, pressure etc etc… all of these impact droplet size, which is huge contributor to drift management. I suspect in the AN2 earlier days (and even today in areas where things are less controlled) things like drift management were of pretty little concern. However, again height is dictated by many factors, and there are still many things flown high. Mosquito abatement, dry chemicals, and seeding are just a few that come to mind.

Hope this helps, and I too am interested in contacts insight.
Take care, Rob

Whoops… took me long enough to get that out that contact already posted

Contact, like most of todays guys I lean heavily on the racetrack, but have no illusions about what using it inappropriately does to my efficiency, safety, or drift. Consequently, even though I'd rather be beaten with a stick than turn right, I don't hesitate to fly back to back in a steeper wind, fly a reverse race track or squeeze when appropriate, or even use a multi back to back (this is actually my personal favorite pattern) when conditions warrant.

contactflying wrote:We old guys fuss, "that the height of the spray pattern depends on the price of the airplane." I don't know what AN-2s cost nowdays, but a new AT 802 is near two million. In some cases the pilot will be fired if the wheels get below the trees….
Contact

I've personally never experienced anything like this, but I have experienced what flying a 60' wing too low does to the pattern

And yes, I agree on todays chemical science. I am continually amazed (sometimes that should read dismayed ) by just how accurate a line can be painted with todays chemicals!

Take care, Rob

I sell this drift reduction agent called Interlock, it was used on something like 70 million acres worldwide last year. The stuff flat works, I've watched guys spray with 30 mph winds and the chemical will lay within 15 ft downwind of the boom. Crop dusters love it, they'll recommend it to farmers that don't even do business with us, and they'll come get it.

Maybe the AN-2's were using an electrostatic boom? Seems like a lot of the pilots that use it here will fly treetop level when spraying pesticides with it.

contactflying wrote:....American spray pilots, in the jet turboprops, like to make left turn race tracks because of left turning tendencies of clockwise rotating props. That would be right turns, because of counterwise rotating props, in an AN-2.....

Not necessarily. I believe the AN2 uses a knockoff of the Wright 1820 Cyclone radial engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shvetsov_ASh-62
Unless it was re-engineered or refitted, they probably still turn CW (from the pilot's seat).

Contact and Rob

Thanks for the answers - I do remember seeing that the "solution" appeared ti be getting to the ground.

Just seemed strange after all the years I used to watch them in the Central Valley like almost DAILY old time radio adventures. They, and the Forest Service planes were what made me write my high school paper on what career I wanted. Was supposed to 500 words minimum or you wouldn't graduate. Small towns have lots of limitations. Best I could find left me writing 153 words about why I wanted to be a pilot. I handed it over and told my senior adviser that if she wanted me back next year that was her problem.

Still Wannabe one

PS: The AN2 I helped get our of Livermore had a 1,000 HP engine and when we tried to hand prop it with two on the front blade and my son on the follow through blade - it went the same as all others I had ever hand propped. When that did not work HM went and bought a gas powered generator and we went to lunch.

The AN-2 was initially designed as an AG plane and the transport and troop versions came later. Then there were floats and skiis. Until it was eclipsed by the C-130 the AN-2 had the longest continuous production record of any transport aircraft.

The engine is the Soviet version of the Wright engine that was on the Soviet licensed DC-3, the IL-2. 1,000 HP.

As with most Soviet aircraft of that era (1945 or so) all you needed to work on them was a pair of pliers and a rock.

TD

CenterHillAg wrote:I sell this drift reduction agent called Interlock, it was used on something like 70 million acres worldwide last year. The stuff flat works, I've watched guys spray with 30 mph winds and the chemical will lay within 15 ft downwind of the boom. Crop dusters love it, they'll recommend it to farmers that don't even do business with us, and they'll come get it.

Honestly? calling bullshit on that... Try and get away with that shit in California. Mike

I advised the Kingsley's to get the best they could find, no matter the price. Still, wind management is extremely important. Lawyers cost a lot, even when you win. "Avoid Drift," on every label, is interpreted by the government as zero drift, zero parts per million. I was sued over .008 parts per million of 2-4-5-T, used for killing deciduous trees. The state man doing the testing said I would be fined, but that he would testify in court that .008 parts per million wouldn't kill or hurt anything or cause any human harm. I paid the $1,200 fine and won the suit. My insurance said preparing for the suit, which was dropped, cost $2,500. That was in the 70s.

RoughAir wrote:

CenterHillAg wrote:I sell this drift reduction agent called Interlock, it was used on something like 70 million acres worldwide last year. The stuff flat works, I've watched guys spray with 30 mph winds and the chemical will lay within 15 ft downwind of the boom. Crop dusters love it, they'll recommend it to farmers that don't even do business with us, and they'll come get it.

Honestly? calling bullshit on that... Try and get away with that shit in California. Mike

Well... considering we spray all day/every day down here where it's blowing 25 mph, yes you could probably get away with it in California. Unless it causes cancer in field mice or something . That's with ground rigs, I should've clarified that.

Tom D

Thanks for the info of AN-2 originally an AG plane. Spent another couple hours reviewing history.
The one I worked on was uncomfortably set up for passengers, but did have a head.

As for tools - we had the pliers and rocks, but only two of three others needed.
1: - Two - two story x 24 foot scaffolds.
2. - One or more pitchforks.
3. - BUT - NO local hay baler. - Lots of pickup truck trips to the dump. Ten yrs. of Seagulls and others.

Did not Wannabe on top wing duty, but having grown up on a farm I got the job.

I've seen Interlock as one of the ingredients, on my bill, when my friend sprayed soybean aphids with his Air Tractor. He did pick a time when the wind wasn't blowing too much.

I remembered this video after re reading this thread. Ground loop.

"Farmers who care, spray by air." Bumper sticker I saw in Texas a lot.

On the crosswind video: That big plane with all that wing area goes pretty slow. I would think it could use an angle across a wide runway.

Most of the videos I found yesterday were of the old style hundred acres or so of open field.
Very little with pavement. Maybe the video above should have utilized some of the prescribed IFR descent for the AN-s which is, since it allegedly won't stall, would have been as Contact stated with the cross runway approach, and the iIFR let down which is to hold the yoke all the way back at idle and the plane sill simply settle down at about the rate of a good parachute - then ease off the yoke with a throttle bump just before crossing the runway at a good angle.
My friends FIRST LANDING ever in his AN-2 was at Minden - allegedly used some unpaved area and crossed at least one runway so they could land into the wind.

Chris C