Field Sprayers and Accessories

Summary of Riteway RS-400 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.38 MB)

Functional performance of the Riteway RS-400 field sprayer was fair. Functional performance was reduced by the poor spray pattern at the centre of the spray boom. An extended durability test was not conducted. Durability of the RS-400 during functional evaluation was good.

The RS-400 performed satisfactorily at speeds up to 10 km/h (6 mph) resulting in a field capacity of 18 ha/h (44 ac/h). Severe castor wheel shimmy occurred at higher speeds.

Nozzle distribution patterns were unacceptable at pressures below 310 kPa (45 psi) with the low volume 65° brass nozzle tips supplied as standard equipment. Distribution patterns improved at higher pressures but resulted in excessive spray drift. Although very uniform distribution patterns were possible if the sprayer was equipped with 80° nozzles, the spray pattern directly behind the trailer was poor due to the boom configuration.

Nozzle tip wear increased output by 8% in 61 hours of use. Nozzle check valves occasionally stuck open allowing some nozzles to drip when the boom control valve was closed.

Pump capacity was adequate to agitate and apply most commonly used chemicals. Pressure losses through the plumbing system were minimal.

Filtering was adequate except for occasional plugging of the 100 mesh nozzle screens.

Spraying pressure was easily controlled from the tractor seat but the agitator control could not be reached. Boom height adjustment was inconvenient and boom angle adjustment was very inconvenient. Folding into transport, hitching to a tractor and servicing were convenient.

Transport maneuverability was adequate. There was no tank drain plug. No operator's manual was available.

Several minor mechanical problems occurred during the test. The holes in the radius braces wore, the boom carrier screws loosened frequently and poor routing and fastening of the boom hoses caused hose damage.

Summary of Inland Model FT56 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.09 MB)

Functional performance of the Inland Model FT 56 sprayer was good. An extended durability test was not conducted. Durability of the FT 56 during functional evaluation was good.

The Inland FT 56 performed satisfactorily at speeds up to 11 km/h (7 mph) resulting in a field capacity of 19 ha/h (48 ac/h). The boom castor wheels performed satisfactorily in the field.

Nozzle distribution patterns were unacceptable at pressures below 280 kPa (41 psi) with the low volume 650 brass nozzles supplied as standard equipment. Distribution patterns improved at higher pressures but resulted in excessive spray drift. Very uniform nozzle distribution patterns were possible if the sprayer was equipped with 80° nozzles.

Pump capacity was adequate to agitate and apply most commonly used chemicals. Pressure losses through the plumbing system were minimal. Filtering was adequate, however, the 50 mesh nozzle strainers were too coarse permitting particles to pass and plug the nozzle tips.

Controls could not be reached from most tractor seats. Boom height and angle adjustment were very inconvenient. Folding into transport, hitching to a tractor and servicing were convenient. Lubrication points were accessible. Transport maneuverability was adequate. Although the operator's manual contained some basic instructions it contained no information on calibration and servicing.

Several minor mechanical problems occurred during the test. The hitch ball bolt was too short and loosened, while the hitch coupler was weak and deformed. Both boom support braces broke and the castor wheel end caps wore out.

Summary of Versatile Model 480 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.14 MB)

Functional performance of the Versatile Model 480 field sprayer was very good. An extended durability test was not conducted. Durability of the Versatile 480 during functional evaluation was fair.

The Versatile 480 performed satisfactorily at speeds up to 12 km/h (7.5 mph) resulting in a field capacity of 26 ha/h (64 ac/h). The tandem boom castor wheel assemblies performed well, especially on rough fields, however, excessive whip occurred at the unsupported boom ends.

Nozzle distribution patterns were very uniform at pressures greater than 205 kPa (30 psi) with the 80° stainless steel nozzle tips supplied as standard equipment. Nozzle tip wear was negligible. Nozzle check valves occasionally stuck open allowing some nozzles to drip when the boom control valve was closed.

Pump capacity was adequate to agitate and apply most commonly used chemicals. Pressure losses through the plumbing system were minimal. Filtering was adequate and strainer plugging was infrequent.

Controls were convenient and easy to operate from the tractor seat. Boom height was easily adjusted without the use of tools. Nozzle angle adjustment, folding into transport, hitching to a tractor and servicing were convenient. All lubrication points were accessible. The Versatile 480 was 3860 mm (12.7 ft) wide in transport causing difficulty when going through narrow gates. The operator's manual clearly outlined sprayer operation and calibration.

Some mechanical problems occurred during the test. The tank straps and the outer boom upright assemblies both broke several times. The rocker axles also loosened causing tire and frame damage.

Summary of Melroe Model 103 Spra-Coupe (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.12 MB)

Functional performance of the Melroe Model 103 SpraCoupe was fair. Functional performance was reduced by poor spray patterns, excessive spray drift and a small spray tank. An extended durability test was not conducted. Durability of the Spra-Coupe during functional evaluation was very good.

The Spra-Coupe operated satisfactorily in third gear at 23 km/h (14 mph) on smooth fields, resulting in a field capacity of 36 ha/h (89 ac/h). The Spra-Coupe was difficult to control on rough fields in third gear. Operation in second gear at 13 km/h (8 mph) was satisfactory for all field conditions giving a field capacity of 21 ha/h (51 ac/h).

Since the outer boom ends were unsupported, a large variation in boom height, with resultant irregular spray patterns, occurred on rolling fields. Nozzle distribution patterns were unacceptable at pressures below 345 kPa (50 psi) and above 460 kPa (67 psi). The most acceptable distribution patterns were obtained at 415 kPa (60 psi), however, it was not possible to obtain very uniform distribution patterns. As a result of the high nozzle pressure, spray drift was excessive. The nozzle tips were too small to apply the recommended water for commonly used herbicides. The 4911 (108 gal) supply tank was too small, requiring frequent filling when using larger nozzle tips. Nozzle wear during 73 hours of operation increased output by less than 2%. The nozzle check valves effectively prevented nozzle drip when the spray booms were shut off.

Pump capacity was adequate. Filtering was adequate and strainer plugging was infrequent. The pressure drop through the plumbing system to the booms was high, indicating flow restrictions. There was no pressure drop along the booms, indicating that boom size was adequate.

Controls were conveniently located but pressure adjustment was sensitive. Calibration was easily done by matching ground speed (gear) and nozzle pressure. Nozzle angle was easily adjusted but the boom height could not be changed. The boom lifting levers were convenient in avoiding obstacles. Transporting was convenient. Filling the supply tank was inconvenient and the tank lid leaked, spilling chemical near the operator. The operator's manual was well written and clearly outlined operation, maintenance, service and calibration.

The Spra-Coupe did not turn readily in soft fields and when starting, the front wheel lifted off the ground. The Spra-Coupe was rough to ride with a partially full spray tank.

The engine had sufficient power for all field conditions encountered. Fuel consumption varied from 9 L/h (2 gal/h) in average fields to 18 L/h (4 gal/h) in soft fields. Noise at the operator's ear level was about 89 decibels (A scale).

Only minor mechanical problems occurred during the test. The original spray pump had been run dry and required replacement while pump drive belts broke twice.

Summary of Great Northern Model 902 CE Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.35 MB)

Functional performance of the Great Northern Model 902 CE field sprayer was good. An extended durability test was not conducted. Durability of the 902 CE during the functional evaluation was fair.

The 902 CE performed satisfactorily at speeds up to 12 km/h (7.5 mph) resulting in a field capacity of 21 ha/h (53 ac/h). The tandem boom castor wheel assemblies performed well, especially on rough fields, however, castor wheel shimmy was excessive above 10 km/h (6 mph) unless the castor springs were over tightened. The boom ends were quite stable, however, considerable whip occurred at the centre of each boom.

The 902 CE is sold without spray nozzle tips and the operator's manual advises the user on nozzle tip selection for specific conditions. Nozzle distribution patterns were very uniform at pressures above 205 kPa (30 psi) if 80° nozzle tips were used. Distribution patterns for 65° tips were much less uniform. Low volume 65° tips had unacceptable distribution at pressures below 280 kPa (41 psi).

Pump capacity with the Hypro 7700 pump, supplied as standard equipment, was inadequate for some spraying conditions, depending on nozzle tip selection. The optional, larger Hypro 1700 pump would have sufficient capacity for most conditions. Pressure losses through the plumbing system were minimal. Filtering was adequate and strainer plugging was infrequent. In selecting nozzles, the user must select nozzle strainers which match the nozzle tip size.

Controls could not be reached from most tractor seats. Boom angle was easily adjusted without the use of tools but boom height adjustment was inconvenient. Hitching to a tractor, folding into transport and servicing all were convenient. The 902 CE was quite maneuverable in transport. All lubrication points were accessible. The tank filler and tank drain plug were conveniently positioned. The operator's manual was excellent. It contained a very comprehensive discussion on selection of pumps and nozzle tips for various spraying conditions.

Several mechanical problems occurred during the test: The boom extension fittings and nozzles leaked. The hitch clevis and the castor frames deformed, damaging the booms, boom support and boom extension hoses. The rocker arm grease fittings would not accept grease.

Summary of Wilger Model 804S Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.93 MB)

Functional performance of the Wilger Model 804S field sprayer was very good.

The Wilger 804S performed satisfactorily at field speeds up to 12 km/h (7.5 mph) resulting in a field capacity of 29 ha/h (72 ac/h). The booms and boom wheel assemblies performed well.

Nozzle distribution patterns were very uniform at pressures greater than 285 kPa (41 psi) with the Tee Jet 8002, 80° stainless steel nozzle tips supplied with the sprayer. Nozzle delivery increased 10% after 39 hours of operation. However, test results indicated considerable variability among batches of nozzles, thought to be attributed to quality control problems. A different batch of the same nozzles tested in 1976 had very uniform distribution at pressures above 205 kPa (30 psi) and nozzle delivery increased only 0.6% after 52 hours of operation.

Pump capacity was adequate to agitate and apply most commonly used chemicals. Plumbing system pressure loss was minimal and would not affect sprayer operation or calibration. Strainer and nozzle plugging was infrequent.

Flow to the booms was conveniently controlled with electric switches mounted on the tractor. Nozzle check valves occasionally stuck open allowing some nozzles to drip when boom control valves were closed. The pressure control was difficult to reach and the agitation control could not be reached from the seat of most tractors. Boom height was easily adjusted without the use of tools. Nozzle angle adjustment was inconvenient. Folding into transport, hitching and servicing were all convenient. The operator's manual adequately outlined sprayer operation and calibration charts were provided.

Some minor mechanical problems occurred during the test. The booms could be damaged if specific procedures were not followed when folding into transport. The boom extension hoses were damaged from rubbing against the boom tires and boom frame.

Summary of George White Model SW480 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.65 MB)

Functional performance of the George White Model SW480 sprayer was good. Functional performance was reduced by interference between the boom and tank, and boom height adjusting handle when transporting, and difficulty for some operators to reach the controls.

The George White SW480 performed satisfactorily at field speeds up to 12 km/h (7.5 mph) resulting in a maximum field capacity of 22 ha/h (54 ac/h). The tandem boom castor wheel assemblies performed well, especially on rough fields.

Nozzle distribution patterns were very uniform at pressures above 250 kPa (36 psi) with the TeeJet 6502, 65° brass nozzle tips supplied with the sprayer. Nozzle delivery increased 6.4% after 56 hours of operation.

Pump capacity was adequate to apply and agitate most commonly used chemicals. Plumbing system pressure loss was minimal. Strainer and nozzle plugging was infrequent but pressure gauges supplied with the sprayer were inaccurate.

Controls were difficult to reach from the tractor seat. Nozzle height was easily adjusted without tools and nozzle angle adjustment was convenient. Hitching was convenient and grease fittings were readily accessible. Cleaning the header and the rear of the tank was difficult. No drain plug was provided on the tank or header. Folding to transport was inconvenient since the radius braces had to be held when moving the booms. The 3.7 m (12.2 ft) transport width caused difficulty when going through narrow gates. Brief operating instructions were provided on the tank but an operator's manual was not available for evaluation.

Several mechanical problems occurred during 71 hours of field operation. Vibration caused the pressure gauges to fail. Hoses were not adequately fastened, causing them to drag on the ground. The 64 mm (2.5 in) boom rails were weak and sagged after 50 hours of operation. A 76 mm (3 in) boom rail assembly was supplied and is now standard equipment. Interference between the booms and other sprayer components caused damage to the boom assembly. The front radius rod bracket was damaged by the tractor tire while turning. Spray boom connections leaked and several nozzle clamp bolts broke during the test.

Summary of Demco Model LPW 560 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.23 MB)

Functional performance of the Demco Model LPW 560 sprayer was good. Functional performance was reduced by interference between the tank and middle boom ends during transport, difficulty in adjusting boom height, inconvenient tank filling height, difficulty in adjusting boom pressure, poorly positioned and supported hoses and difficulty in keeping the boom height adjusting assembly tight. Nozzle distribution patterns were acceptable at pressures above 205 kPa (30 psi) with the Delavan LF-2 (80°) stainless steel nozzle tips used during the test. Nozzle delivery increased 3.5% after 86 hours of field use. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low. The nozzle assembly accepted a wide range of standard nozzle tips.

The Demco LPW 560 performed well at field speeds up to 13 km/h (8 mph) resulting in a maximum field capacity of 24 ha/h (59 ac/h). The castor wheel assemblies performed well.

Output of the Hypro C9006 centrifugal pump was lower than the manufacturer's total output. Pump suitability was reduced by its sensitivity to plumbing system restrictions and to tractor engine speed. The pump was adequate to apply and agitate emulsifiable concentrates such as 2,4-D but was not adequate for applying wettable powders since sufficient agitation to keep the tank solution properly mixed was not possible.

Plumbing system pressure loss was minimal from the control valves to the end nozzles. The pressure gauge was accurate and clearly visible from the tractor. Nozzle plugging occurred frequently until nozzle strainers were added.

Application rate was controlled by adjusting ground speed and boom pressure. The control and agitator valves were inconvenient to operate, making boom pressure difficult to adjust. Boom height was difficult to adjust and nozzle angle could not be adjusted. Hitching was convenient and grease fittings were readily accessible. The blunt tow bar pins made folding and unfolding the sprayer inconvenient. Care had to be exercised when turning due to boom interference. The tank was difficult to fill by gravity from a nurse tank since the filler opening was over 1700 mm (67 in) above the ground. The tank was not supplied with a drain, making draining and cleaning the tank inconvenient.

The operator's manual adequately outlined sprayer operation.

Several mechanical problems occurred during the 86 hours of field operation. The line strainer leaked throughout the test. Interference occurred between the tank and middle boom inlet hoses, between the transport bar brackets and the transport bar pin clips, and between the left transport bar bracket and the transport bar. The control valve outlet barbed connectors and tank level indicator tubing were undersized. Most hoses buckled, sagged and wore on sprayer surfaces due to insufficient support. The right castor wheel bracket, hitch clevis, tow bar bracket, transport bar brackets and control panel upright bent during field operation. Several of the nuts and bolts on the boom height adjustment mechanism, pump hanger and hitch loosened and were lost.

Summary of Ag-Chem Equipment Co., Inc. Terra-Gator Model 1603 Flotation Applicator (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 2.20 MB)

Functional performance of the Terra-Gator 1603 floatation applicator when equipped with the liquid system and regular high clearance booms was very good. The special order drop boom was of no beneficial value in normal herbicide application and was deemed unnecessary for prairie crop conditions. Functional performance was reduced by difficulty in adjusting and maintaining boom pressures with special order drop booms, slow responding boom lift, exhaust irritating operators during reloading and inducting chemicals, front drop boom supply hose interfering with the front tire and a leaky hydraulic boom control assembly.

The steering and braking systems were very good. Instruments and controls were conveniently positioned. Most controls were responsive. The cab was adequately pressurized and relatively dust free. The optional air conditioning system performed well. Sound level at the operator station was about 83 dbA.

The engine had ample power for all field and road conditions encountered. Fuel consumption averaged about 18.6 L/h (4.1 gal/h). Engine oil consumption was insignificant.

Boom end visibility was good in the daytime and poor at night. Rear visibility was restricted by the spray tank. Rear view mirror visibility was somewhat restricted by the boom structural members. Liquid level visibility was fair.

Ease of servicing was good. Care had to be exercised when walking on the machine during servicing.

The Terra-Gator 1603 performed well at field speeds up to 30 km/h (18.7 mph) resulting in an average workrate of 35.9 ha/h (88.7 ac/h). Maximum transport speed was 50 km/h (31.1 mph). The Terra-Gator was reasonably stable with a full tank if normal care was used when turning corners on hillsides.

The high and low pressure throttling valves and agitator valve were convenient to operate when using the regular high clearance boom. However, the pressure on the special order drop booms was difficult to adjust and maintain with the throttling valves. Regular high clearance boom height was not adjustable but nozzle height and angle could be adjusted on the drop booms. Adjusting nozzle height on the drop booms was inconvenient. The hydraulically activated booms were convenient in avoiding obstacles. However, the slow lift and drop rate made it inconvenient to quickly return the booms to their proper height after avoiding an obstacle. The Terra-Gator was quickly and easily folded into transport position or placed into field position. Quick couplers and adapters made switching over to the drop booms convenient. Utilization of the inboard pump made filling and adding chemical into the spray tank easy and convenient. The spray tank was easily drained through the reload line and the tank sump allowed for complete liquid removal.

Nozzle distribution patterns were acceptable at pressures above 110 kPa (16 psi) for both the 1/4K-SS15 and TK-SS10 flood jet nozzles used on the regular high clearance boom. Nozzle distribution patterns for the 110°, LP Flat Fan TeeJet 11003 and 11006 nozzles used on the special drop boom assembly were very uniform at pressures above 80 kPa (12 psi). Comparative weed kill trials show that weed kill was equally as good with the regular high clearance boom and floodjet nozzles as with the special drop boom and LP flat fan nozzles. Weed kill behind the front drop boom was very poor due to the front tire absorbing and knocking the chemical off the leaves.

Nozzle distribution patterns were acceptable over a wide range of boom heights. Maximum boom movement in the field did not exceed this acceptable range and overall distribution patterns were not adversely affected by boom movement in the field.

Nozzle deliveries for the floodjet nozzles were from 2 to 4% lower than the manufacturer's rating. The LP TeeJet nozzle delivery was similar to the manufacturer's rating. With the 110°, LP Tee Jet brass nozzles, delivery increased about 2% after field use. The nozzle assemblies accepted a wide range of standard nozzle tips.

The foam marker was a useful aid in reducing overlap or misses and was convenient to use. Marks were readily visible in crops less than 250 mm (10 in) tall. Foam mark quality depended on the amount of soap solution added and on water temperature and softness. Cost of marking solution was about 9 cents/ha (4 cents/ac).

Although there were significant system pressure losses when using high capacity floodjet nozzles on the regular high clearance boom, they were of no consequence to the operator since operating pressures were measured at the boom ends. Nozzle pressures varied slightly from the pressure read on the cab pressure gauge due to pressure loss from the boom end to the nozzles and a pressure loss from the boom end to the cab pressure gauge. Both the pump and boom pressure gauges were in error up to 15 kPa (2.2 psi) at the end of the test. Pressures in the special order drop boom were difficult to adjust and took longer than normal to stabilize upon opening the boom valves.

Filtering was adequate and nozzle plugging was infrequent. Nozzle strainers were added to the drop boom nozzle assemblies.

Soil contact pressure beneath the wheels was about 60% that of an unloaded pickup truck and half that of conventional field sprayer wheels. Crops up to 250 mm (10 in) high could be sprayed with no crop damage or tire marks visible after about three weeks.

Output of the Terra-Gator centrifugal pump closely matched the manufacturer's rating and was more than adequate to apply and agitate all chemicals and liquid fertilizers used during the test.

No serious safety hazards were encountered when operated according to the manufacturer's recommended procedures and in accordance with good chemical practice. Exhaust fumes were irritating to the operator while positioning the valves during tank filling and inducting. Caution was required when opening the pressurized foam marker tank. The narrow cab steps made leaving the cab difficult.

The operator's manual adequately outlined sprayer operation, calibration, servicing, maintenance and parts. However, the manual was confusing and unclear since it applied to a number of Terra-gator models as well as the 1603.

Only minor mechanical problems occurred during the test. The drop boom assembly springs and snap pins bent, the tank lid bushing loosened and got jammed in the pump, and some drop boom hoses were too short.

Summary of George White Model T6100 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.64 MB)

Functional performance of the George White Model T610 field sprayer was fair. Functional performance was reduced by interference between the tandem beam welds and castor wheel forks, castor fork spindle failures, poorly fastened outer front and rear radius rods, rotation of radius rod mounts around the boom rail and inadequately fastened hitchjack.

Nozzle distribution patterns were acceptable at pressures above 95 kPa (14 psi) with the 80° LP Flat Fan TeeJet 8001 stainless steel nozzle tips and above 190 kPa (28 psi) with the 80° standard Tee Jet 8002 stainless steel nozzle tips. Delivery of new LP8001 and standard 8002 nozzle tips was 3.3 and 2.3% higher, respectively, than specified by the manufacturer. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low. The nozzle assembly accepted a wide range of standard nozzle tips.

Output of the Hypro C9006 centrifugal pump was similar to the manufacturer's output. Pump capacity was reduced by its sensitivity to plumbing system restrictions. As a result the pump was not adequate to apply certain chemicals since sufficient agitation to keep the tank solution properly mixed was not possible.

Operating pressure was measured at the middle boom, giving the operator a good indication of nozzle spraying pressure. Plumbing system pressure losses did not affect sprayer operation at normal prairie application rates. Application rates up to 290 L/ha (26 gal/ac) were possible with available nozzles at acceptable nozzle pressures. The pressure gauge read 10 kPa (1.5 psi) high in the normal operating range. The 50 mesh nozzle cup strainers and LP 8001 nozzles plugged frequently.

The George White sprayer was equipped with a monitor, automatic rate controller and boom controller. Application rate was automatically maintained by the motorized control valve which adjusted flow to the booms when changes in ground speed, engine speed and pressure occurred. The boom controller indicated boom pressure and operated the solenoid valves which controlled flow to the three boom sections. All consoles could be conveniently placed on the tractor within the operator's reach. The system functioned well when properly calibrated.

Nozzle height and angle were adjustable. Hitching was convenient but unsafe due to an inadequately fastened hitch jack. Grease fittings were readily accessible. Grease to the trailer spindles was inadequate. Difficulty in holding the height adjustment lever with one hand and interferences between the outer radius rods, boom rail and tandem beams made folding and unfolding the sprayer inconvenient. Rotation of the radius rod mounts around the boom rail also made folding and unfolding the sprayer inconvenient.

Caution had to be exercised when transporting the sprayer due to its 3.9 m (12.8 ft) width. Backing the sprayer was inconvenient.

The sump was supplied with a drain for convenient tank draining and cleaning.

The operator's manual adequately outlined sprayer operation. Information on the compatibility of the automatic rate controller, boom controller and sprayer monitor with the sprayer was inadequate.

Several mechanical problems occurred during the 87 hours of field operation. Interference between the castor forks and tandem beam welds caused the tandem beams to rotate about the boom rail causing damage to the nozzle bodies, radius rod mounts, slow moving vehicle sign, radius rod connecting bars, castor forks, boom uprights and collars. Interference between the connecting bars and linch pins resulted in the loss of the linch pins. Several of the vertical castor fork spindles failed. The hex bolts and retainer pins joining the outer front and rear radius rods were lost due to field vibration. The bolts on the hitch bracket and mounting plates loosened frequently. The tank saddle tore away from the trailer at the weld and the hitch frame twisted.

Summary of Melroe Model 116-78 Spra-Couper (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.25 MB)

Overall Performance: The performance of the Melroe Model 116-78 Spra-Coupe was very good. Performance was highlighted by the convenience of placing the booms in transport and field position, adjusting boom height, adjusting nozzle pressure and reloading the spray tank, as well as the quick acceleration, uniform nozzle distribution patterns, stability on hillsides and maneuverability. Improper indication of nozzle pressure and inadequately secured disc brakes were the main problems encountered with the Spra-Coupe.

Workrate: The Spra-Coupe 116-78 performed well at field speeds up to 14 mph (23 km/h) resulting in an average workrate of 56 ac/hr (22.7 ha/hr). Workrates up to 99 ac/hr (40 ha/hr) were possible in fourth gear under suitable field conditions. The Spra-Coupe's quick acceleration, handling, stability, and the ease of placing the booms in transport and field position resulted in high workrates, even when reloading from a central location.

Engine: The engine had ample power for all field conditions encountered when operated in the first three gears. In fourth gear, inadequate power was available to maintain engine rpm when operating in rolling and hilly fields. Road transport in fourth gear was very good. Maximum transport speed was 22 mph (35 km/h). Fuel consumption averaged about 1.6 gal/hr (7.3 L/hr). Engine oil consumption was insignificant.

Cab: The instruments and controls in the cab were handy, conveniently positioned and responsive. The cab air filtering system adequately filtered dust, but not the chemical fumes. Operator station sound level was about 89 dbA. The operator seat was comfortable. Boom visibility from inside the cab was very good. Rear visibility was slightly restricted by the boom adjusting channel. The liquid level indicator was located inside the cab which made tank liquid level visibility very good.

Controls: The Spra-Coupe was very easy to operate. The throttle, brake and clutch controls were the standard automotive type and very easy to operate and adjust. The brakes responded and performed well. The steering was smooth and responsive, providing very good maneuverability when turning. Flow to the booms was easily controlled by the boom selector valve. Nozzle pressure was easily and quickly adjusted by the in-line throttling ball valve.

Booms: The booms were electrically controlled from inside the cab. The electric boom actuators made nozzle height adjusting, placing booms into transport and field position, avoiding field obstacles and boom contact with the ground very convenient. Quick and convenient placement of booms into transport and field position provided for good maneuverability in confined areas. The boom ends had breakaway joints which prevented serious damage to the booms when contact was made with the ground. Nozzle height could be adjusted from 22 to 53 in (560 to 1346 mm).

Spray Tank: Utilization of the inboard pump and reload system made spray tank reloading quick and easy. The platform at the spray tank filler opening made adding chemical safe and convenient. The spray tank was easily drained through the reload line. The circular shape of the tank and small sump allowed the operator to completely empty the tank. The spray tank was equipped with a jet agitator. Agitation was more than adequate for applying emulsifiable concentrates and wettable powders.

Pump: The Spra-Coupe was equipped with a Hypro 9202C centrifugal pump and was controlled from inside the cab by an electromagnetic clutch. The pump output was similar to the manufacturer's rated output. Pump output was reduced to 29 gal/min (132 L/min) in the Spra-Coupe plumbing system.

Pressure Loss: Pressure loss from the pump to the nozzle was high. However, sufficient nozzle pressure was still available to apply a maximum of 14.6 gal/ac (162 L/ha) at 14 mph (23 km/h). Pressure loss from the selector valve to the nozzles was around 15 psi (100 kPa), when using the TeeJet 730231 nozzles. Since the pressure was measured at the selector valve, the operator had no indication of nozzle pressure, which is considered essential to ensure proper nozzle spraying patterns and to reduce spray drift. The manufacturer's application chart compensated for the pressure loss to ensure proper application rates. However, the pressures indicated on the charts do not represent nozzle pressure and therefore confuse modern spraying procedure. The pressure gauge was accurate in the normal nozzle spraying range.

Nozzle Delivery: The Spra-Coupe 116-78 was equipped with flat fan TeeJet 730231 brass nozzle tips. A variety of other nozzle tips could be used since the nozzle assembly accepted a wide range of standard nozzle tips. The delivery rate of new 730231 brass nozzles was the same as specified by the nozzle manufacturer. Delivery of the used 730231 nozzles increased about 3% after 51 hours of field use. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low when new and used.

Nozzle Distribution: Nozzle distribution patterns were very good above 23 psi (159 kPa) with the TeeJet 730231 brass nozzles. Nozzle distribution patterns were very good at nozzle heights above 16 in (406 mm). To minimize and prevent spray drift when using flat fan nozzles it is recommended that the operator avoid nozzle pressures above 45 psi (300 kPa) and operating the boom at heights above 22 in (560 mm), especially in windy conditions.

Strainers: The Spra-Coupe plumbing system was adequately protected with strainers and nozzle plugging was infrequent. The nozzle check valves stayed open occasionally.

Crop Damage: Soil pressure beneath the Spra-Coupe wheels was about the same as that of an unloaded pickup truck and conventional field sprayer wheels. Crops up to 8 in (200 mm) high could be sprayed with very little crop damage occurring or tire marks visible after a few weeks.

Safety: No serious safety hazards were encountered when operating the Spra-Coupe according to the manufacturer's recommended procedures and in accordance with good chemical practice. The Spra-Coupe was equipped with several warning decals to aid the operator. Chemical fumes entered the cab and were irritating to the operator.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual adequately outlined sprayer operation, calibration, servicing, nozzle selection, maintenance and safety tips. No parts list was supplied.

Mechanical Problems: Some mechanical problems were encountered during the test. The pump by-pass hose became hot and soft, causing it to rupture under spraying pressure. The bolts securing the disc brakes to the axle assembly loosened frequently. The final drive chain housing leaked throughout the test and the accelerator spring broke twice.

Summary of Computorspray Model 647 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.23 MB)

Weed Control: Weed control, when operating at forward speeds high enough to provide adequate pressure to produce acceptable distribution patterns, was very good and similar to that of other conventional flat fan nozzles normally used on the prairies. Weed control was reduced in and around the sprayer wheel tracks due to spray interference with the trailer frame and due to sprayer wheels travelling over the sprayed area. Spraying at rates reduced from those recommended by the chemical manufacturer requires further research. Preliminary results with Buctril M, under the climatic and growing conditions encountered during the test, indicated acceptable weed control at reduced rates and similar to control obtained with conventional flat fan nozzles. However, faster and more complete weed control occurred at the recommended rate. Timely application and environmental and growing conditions have as great an effect on weed control as the type of sprayer used and the chemical application rate. Spraying at rates other than those recommended by the chemical manufacturer would be at the operator's own risk.

Application Rates: Application rate was changed by using one of four available nozzles sizes in conjunction with various pump drive sprocket combinations. The application rate remained constant over a range of forward speeds since the pump was ground driven. However, operating the sprayer within the normally recommended range of pressures for flat fan nozzles, resulted in only a narrow range of acceptable forward speeds. Changes in tire circumference due to liquid level in the tank and field conditions could result in actual application rates varying up to 6%.

Distribution Patterns: Only a narrow range of forward speeds produced acceptable distribution patterns. At low speeds, nozzle pressures were too low for the flat fan nozzle spray pattern to be fully developed. At higher forward speeds, nozzle pressures became excessive and increased the possibility of spray drift. A pressure gauge should be added to allow monitoring of nozzle pressures over the full range of recommended forward speeds.

Nozzle Delivery: The variability of delivery rates among individual nozzles was low.
Workrate: Average workrate for the Computorspray varied from 20 to 49 ac/h (8 to 20 ha/h) depending on field conditions, operator skill and reload time.

Pump: Since the pump was ground driven, pump output was directly proportional to pump speed and therefore proportional to forward speed. Pump wear was negligible after 82 hours of operation.

Agitation: Agitation was inadequate when compared to normally recommended rates. However, without doing an assessment on the agitation effectiveness, taking into consideration factors such as tank shape, agitator type, size, and location within the tank, no conclusions can be drawn with regard to agitation effectiveness. If chemicals had been allowed to settle out, the Computorspray had to be driven a considerable distance to effectively agitate the entire solution again. This was inconvenient and time consuming.

Nozzle Assemblies: The nozzle assemblies could be fitted with nozzle tips other than Computorspray tips. Nozzle tip changing was inconvenient when compared to quick-attach and self-aligning nozzle caps available on the market. The diaphragm check valves usually stopped dripping when forward travel was stopped.

Controls: The Computorspray was easy to operate with the only two controls being a two way agitate/spray control valve and a rope operated pump drive clutch. There was some difficulty engaging and disengaging the pump clutch when the sprayer was moving.

Boom: Boom height was adjustable but not readily changed. Nozzles could not be angled forward. A 45° spraying angle is essential when spraying grassy weeds. The boom suspension quickly stabilized boom movement. The booms were equipped with a convenient "break-away" feature to prevent damage if obstacles were encountered. The booms could easily be placed in either transport or field position in less than four minutes.

Spray Tank: The spray tank was equipped with a reload and chemical inductor system which made adding chemical and water easy and convenient. A nurse tank equipped with an auxiliary pump was required for refilling and flushing. The shape of the tank made it easy to completely empty the tank and solution was provided to the pump in most hilly field conditions.

Strainers: The Computorspray plumbing system was adequately protected with strainers and plugging was infrequent. The thimble strainers in the nozzle assemblies were difficult to remove.

Pressure: No pressure gauge was provided. Operating the sprayer within PAMI's recommended speed range prevented operation at very low and high pressures. A pressure gauge to indicate nozzle pressure would be convenient, since the operator could adjust forward speed to reach a nozzle pressure where spray distribution and droplet size was adequate.

Foam Marker: The foam marker was a useful aid in reducing overlap and misses and was convenient to use. Light foamy marks were readily visible in most field conditions. Less foam solution was used and better qualify foam was produced in the afternoons when the water became warmer.

Safety: No serious safety hazards were encountered when operating the Computorspray in accordance with good spraying practice. The chemical induction system was considered a very good safety feature of the Computorspray.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual adequately outlined spraying principles, operation, trouble shooting, maintenance and optional equipment. A parts list was also included.

Mechanical Problems: Only minor mechanical problems were encountered during the test. Engaging the pump clutch while moving, frequently caused the shear pin to break.

Summary of Micromax Controlled Droplet Applicator (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 2.44 MB)

Weed Control: Field observations and experiments indicated that the Micromax Controlled Droplet Applicator was acceptable in controlling weeds when used at recommended application and chemical rates. However, in general, faster and more complete control was obtained with the conventional flat fan nozzles normally used on the prairies. At best, the Micromax applicator only equalled the performance of flat fan nozzles. Weed control at reduced rates from those recommended by chemical manufacturers requires further research. However, preliminary results indicated reduced weed control with the Micromax applicators at reduced application and chemical rates. Better weed control was obtained with conventional flat fan nozzles at reduced rates. Unacceptable distribution patterns at the applicator spacing used throughout the test were considered to at least partially account for reduced weed control of the Micromax applicators.

Timely application and environmental and growing conditions have as great an effect on weed control as the type of spraying method and the chemical application rate. Spraying at rates other than those recommended by the chemical manufacturer would be at the operator's own risk.

Application Rate: Application rate was controlled by the orifice plate size, pressure, tractor speed and Micromax applicator spacing. Delivery rate of the orifice plates was close to that specified by the manufacturer. Only negligible wear occurred during the test. The delivery rate from the spinning disc was usually less than that delivered by the orifice plates due to irregular flow through the feeder hoses.

Distribution Patterns: Spray patterns from individual Micromax applicators were non-symmetrical and differed noticeably from each other. Flow rates and spinning disc speed significantly affected individual applicator distribution patterns. Also affecting distribution, but to a lesser extent, were applicator angle and height.

The non-symmetrical and non-uniform individual applicator patterns made it impossible to establish one ideal applicator spacing for all flow rates, spinning disc speeds, applicator angles and applicator heights. Most distribution patterns along the boom were unacceptable, regardless of applicator spacing. Optimum applicator spacing varied considerably depending on the desired spraying parameters and none matched the applicator spacing of 40 and 72 in (1016 and 1829 mm) recommended by the manufacturer.

Spinning Disc Speed: The spinning disc speeds at the three pulley combinations depended on supply voltage and flow rate. At 12 volts, the three speeds were 2250, 4150 and 7150 rpm. These were considerably higher than the 2000, 2500 and 5000 rpm nominal speeds specified by the manufacturer. At a typical tractor operating voltage of 14 volts, the three speeds were 2650, 4900 and 8000 rpm.

Droplet Size: The droplet sizes produced by the Micromax applicators depended on flow rate and spinning disc speed. Droplet size decreased as flow rate decreased and spinning disc speed increased. Droplets were more uniform in size than those produced from conventional flat fan nozzles. More research is required to determine how droplet size affects weed control.

Installation: It took one man about 10 hours to install 16 Micromax applicators on a Spra-Coupe 116-78 sprayer. Installation instructions were clear. Selecting proper spacing, as already discussed, was difficult and confusing. The mounting brackets were easy to position and the plumbing assembly inlet hose was easily connected to an existing boom nozzle body. Fastening the bottom nut on the mounting bracket U-bolt was difficult and inconvenient. Extension arms and brace bars had to be used to properly position some Micromax units away from obstructions. Toggle switches and additional electrical wire had to be purchased to set up a control switch near the operator's station.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: The Micromax applicators were easy to operate once installed. The applicators simply had to be turned on and the tractor speed and boom pressure adjusted. Application rate was easily obtained from formulas and graphs provided in the operator's manual after selecting the desired spacing, forward speed and orifice plate size. Four different orifice plate sizes were supplied. Changing orifice plates was easy but inconvenient, messy and unsafe. The Micromax applicators could be rotated at three different speeds, to produce different droplet size spectrums, by changing pulley combinations. Changing speeds was somewhat inconvenient and time consuming. The Micromax mounting bracket provided for convenient applicator positioning at four different forward angles.

Power Requirements: No excessive electrical demands were made on a normal 12V tractor battery and charging system.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, containing much useful information on installation, operation and maintenance.

Mechanical Problems: A few motors failed to operate during the evaluation. Moisture collected inside the motor housing causing the brushes to stick, thus preventing contact with the armature. Some of the pulley shields distorted and interfered with the bottom pulley.

Summary of Ag-Chemical InjectorModel 240 (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.49 MB)

The Ag Chemical injector model 240 could be installed on a sprayer in about 8 hours. Adequate installation instructions and material were provided to install the injection manifold in the sprayer plumbing system and to connect to the tractor electrical system.

The advantages of chemical injection include simple calculations, no chemical or water measurement required, no tank agitation required and convenient flushing and nozzle checking with clean water. All controls and gauges were adequate and convenient except for the thermometer which only measured actual chemical temperature for the top portion of the tank. Chemical flow rate could be conveniently set with the sprayer stationary, before starting to spray. The on/off controls could be located in the tractor cab for remote operation. For high tractor cabs, it may be necessary to elevate the Ag-Chemical injector for improved visibility. Chemical tank filling and draining was convenient.

An adequate range of chemical metering rates was provided for those chemicals used during the test. Chemical metering flow rate, after several modifications, was constant except at very low flow rates. Calibration curves were supplied for many chemicals. Although some calibration curves for some chemicals agreed with curves determined by PAMI, others differed substantially. Many variables, including metering, chemical viscosity, chemical temperature, chemical flowability and pump speed were possible reasons for these differences. More work is required to solve the problems associated with these many variables. Frequent field recalibrations, using a graduated cylinder plumbed into the system by PAMI, made it possible to accurately meter and apply chemical during the test. Both roller and centrifugal sprayer pumps resulted in adequate mixing of the chemical after it had been injected into the water. Response time or time lag for spot spraying was too excessive to be effective. The chemical tank level indicators were inaccurate.

The 12 volt D.C. tractor battery power supply was adequate to run the chemical pumps and solenoid valves.

The Ag-Chemical injector reduced or eliminated many of the safety hazards normally associated with conventional tank-mix systems.

The operator's manual was clear and well written. Only one mechanical problem occurred during the test. A pressure gauge required replacement due to fluid leaking out of the gauge.

Summary of Flexi-coil Model S62 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.00 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at speeds of 5 and 6 mph (8.0 and 9.7 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates of 50 and 59 ac/hr (20 and 24 ha/hr), respectively. At an application rate of 10 gal/ac (111 L/ha), about 83 ac (33.6 ha) could be sprayed with a full spray tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate depended on tractor speed, nozzle size and pressure. The 8002VS stainless steel nozzles supplied delivered 10 gal/ac (111 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h) and nozzle pressure of 40 psi (276 kPa).

The delivery rate of the new 8002VS nozzles was the same as specified by the nozzle manufacturer. Delivery of the used 8002VS nozzles increased less than 1.5% after 107 hours of use. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low when comparing new and used.

Nozzle distribution patterns were very uniform above 32 psi (221 kPa) with the TeeJet 8002VS nozzles. The high capacity 8002VS nozzles produced large spray droplets and operated at 18 in (457 mm) heights that helped minimize spray drift.

Pressure losses were negligible using the nozzles recommended by the manufacturer. The pressure gauge was accurate and reliable.

The strainers were good and adequately prevented nozzle plugging.

The heavy duty 4 in (102 mm) square tubing and the suspension system on the castor wheels reduced boom bounce significantly. Reduced boom movement improved spray distribution and application rate uniformity.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: The sprayer was equipped with a Raven remote control system to operate sprayer controls from the tractor seat. Flow to the spray booms was easily controlled by the solenoid valves. Nozzle pressure was adjusted by the butterfly valve. The valve was difficult to adjust until the operator gained experience.

The castor wheels had to be adjusted for proper boom operation. The adjustments were a trial and error procedure and were easy to perform. Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both field and transport position. The booms were automatically placed into transport or field position which allowed getting in and out of fields quickly.

Nozzle height was controlled hydraulically and could be adjusted from about 15 to 41 in (381 to 1041 mm). Nozzle angle was adjusted manually to a maximum forward angle of 30°. The quick-disconnect and self-aligning nozzle caps made nozzle changing quick and easy.

Utilization of the inboard pump and reload system made spray tank reloading quick. Care had to be exercised to prevent liquid from the spray tank entering the water supply source and running the pump dry during the reloading process. The spray tank was easily drained and the tank sump allowed for complete liquid removal.

Ease of inducting chemical was fair. Although the chemical inductor tank was easily accessible, chemical splashing occurred during pouring. Inducting chemical during reloading was fast and allowed immediate chemical agitation. The pump inlet hose usually collapsed during chemical induction.

Ease of hitching was very good. The hitch jack provided was safe and the hitch was adjustable for levelling the tank trailer.

Ease of cleaning was fair. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick and easy, however, removing the strainers was inconvenient and messy. Cleaning the main line strainer was also messy.

Ease of lubrication was good. The grease points were easily accessible but 20 of the 29 required greasing daily.

Pump Performance: Pump capacity was very good. The pump could deliver up to 27 gal/min (123 L/min) at a 40 psi (276 kPa) nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 33 gal/ac (370 L/ha) at 5 mph (8 km/h).

Agitator output exceeded recommended agitation rates.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual provided useful illustrations and information on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance, adjustments and parts.

Mechanical History: A few mechanical and plumbing problems occurred during the test. The plumbing components leaked and had to be removed and retightened. A few spray boom supports failed and were reinforced.

Summary of Vicon Model LS 2340T Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.42 MB)

Rate of Work: Instantaneous workrates of 42 to 52 ac/hr (17 to 21 ha/h) were possible when operating the sprayer between 29 and 45 psi (200 and 310 kPa). At the application rate of 9.8 gal/ac (110 L/ha), about 51 ac (21 ha) could be sprayed with a full spray tank.

Quality of Work: The Vicon Model LS 2340T sprayer was designed to apply 4.9 and 9.8 gal/ac (55 and 110 L/ha) using Spraying Systems TeeJet 110015 and 11003 nozzles, respectively. Application rate remained constant from about 6 to 10 mph (9.7 to 16.1 km/h) but was about 2% high at the 4.9 gal/ac (55 L/ha) setting and about 2% low at the 9.8 gal/ac (110 L/ha) setting.

To ensure a constant application rate and acceptable nozzle spray distribution patterns, the sprayer had to be operated at pressures from 30 to 64 psi (205 to 440 kPa), indicated by the green zone on the pressure gauge. The operating pressure range corresponded to speeds of about 6.5 to 9.5 mph (10.5 to 15.3 km/h), respectively. This speed range was excessive in some field conditions encountered.

Spraying Systems Tee Jet 11003S stainless steel nozzles produced acceptable spray distribution patterns at all pressures and nozzle heights. The TeeJet 110015S stainless steel nozzles produced acceptable spray distribution patterns only at the 17.7 in (450 mm) nozzle height. Operating the 110015S nozzles below 17.7 in (450 mm) nozzle height is not recommended.

Delivery of the TeeJet 110015S stainless steel nozzles agreed with Spraying Systems rated output. Delivery of the 11003S stainless steel nozzles was 3.7% lower than specified by the manufacturer. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low.

Pressure losses were insignificant since nozzle pressure was measured at the spray boom. The pressure gauge was accurate.

The strainers effectively removed large foreign material. Using dugout water eventually plugged the 110015 nozzles and 100 mesh nozzle strainers.

The high capacity 11003 nozzles were less susceptible to drift because the nozzles produced coarse droplets and could be operated at low nozzle heights.

The self-stabilizing boom system reduced boom movement and kept the boom level when operating in rough field conditions. Even so, the boom ends frequently touched the ground causing large nozzle height variations along the boom. Using the high capacity TeeJet 11003 stainless steel nozzles in rough field conditions ensured acceptable spray distribution patterns since the nozzles produced acceptable spray patterns over a wide range of nozzle heights.

The Vicon sprayer wheels soil contact pressure was about the same as an unloaded one-half ton truck.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of changing application rate was very good because the sprayer was designed to apply either 4.9 or 9.8 gal/ac (55 or 110 L/ha). Therefore, application rate formulas, tractor speed calibrations and knowledge of nozzle sizes were not needed. Flow to the booms was easily controlled by the solenoid valves with the remote control system. Nozzle pressure was adjusted by adjusting tractor speed.

Ease of placing booms in transport and field position was good. The booms were light and took about two minutes to fold and unfold. The sprayer was compact and maneuverability was very good both in field and transport position. The sprayer wheel drive chain had to be removed when transporting at speeds greater than 10 mph (16 km/h).

Ease of changing the self-stabilizing boom system position was fair. Changing the boom position to accommodate the field condition was time consuming, difficult and usually didn't improve boom stability. Balancing the self-stabilizing boom was simple and easy.

Ease of adjusting nozzle height was fair. Nozzle height could be adjusted from 21 to 47 in (533 to 1194 mm) with the winch system provided or the optional hydraulic lift kit. Both systems were inconvenient to use and care had to be exercised when using them. Ease of adjusting nozzle angle was poor. The nozzles behind the tank could not be adjusted forward.

Ease of filling and inducting chemical in the spray tank was good. An auxiliary pump capable of producing about 36 psi (250 kPa) was required to induct chemical. The chemical inductor tube got very dirty during storage and interfered with the reload inlet adapter which made reloading and inducting chemical inconvenient. The spray tank filler lid did not completely seal. The ellipsoid shaped spray tank and sump provided the pump with fluid in all topographical conditions encountered.

Ease of hitching was very good. The hitch jack provided was easy to use and safe. The hitch was adjustable.

Ease of cleaning the nozzles and strainers was fair. The quick-attach nozzle caps and strainer bowls were difficult to remove. Chemical solution splattered on the operator when cleaning the nozzles and strainers. The sprayer had to be towed to flush the plumbing system which was inconvenient. Cleaning the chemical container was very good during reloading using the chemical inductor.

Ease of draining was fair. The operator had to crawl under the spray tank to drain it.

Pump Performance: The piston pump capacity was very good and easily supplied fluid to the 110015 and 11003 nozzles. The roller pump supplied fluid to the agitators. Agitation capacity during spraying was low when compared to normally recommended rates, however no agitation problems were noticed while spraying the same day the tank was filled.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual did not emphasize chemical safety. The chemical inductor system reduced chemical handling.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was good, providing useful information.

Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during the test. The boom lock brackets and boom ends failed a couple of times.

Summary of Computorspray Spot Spraying Chemical Injection Metering System (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.08 MB)

Rate of Work: Chemical injection provides no significant improvement in field work rates.

Quality of Work: The calibration of the injection system was accurate throughout the test providing it was properly maintained. The chemical injector had a wide range of application rates but the size of the chemical tank could limit the system at high application rates. Location of the S.S.C.I.M.S. was inconvenient to the operator and made it difficult to monitor its operation. The accuracy of the injector increases as the application rate increases.

Chemical mixing with sprayer water is effective and the weed kill obtained was comparable to that obtained with a standard tank mixed chemical application.

The S.S.C.I.M.S. operates effectively for spot spraying providing 10 gal/ac (100 L/ha) spray nozzles were used. Smaller nozzles increased the response time.

Ease of Installation: The Computorspray S.S.C.I.M.S. could be installed on a field sprayer in about 1 hour. Installation on makes of sprayers other than Computorspray may require mounting hardware not supplied with the S.S.C.I.M.S.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: The concept of injecting chemical has many advantages over a conventional spraying system. The injection system was easy to set. Monitoring of actual field application rates was difficult. The controls provided were subject to shorting out, were not labelled and gave no indication of whether the system was working or not.

Chemical application rates that can be applied using the S.S.C.I.M.S. are adequate for all standard agricultural chemicals. Chemicals with very low recommended rates should be diluted with water so that higher injector rate settings can be used in order to improve metering accuracy.

Chemical and water volumes must be calculated so that manual checking of the actual applied rate can be confirmed. Mechanical problems limit the usefulness of the system for general field spraying. System failure will not be apparent to the operator and the result can be large field areas with incorrect or no chemical applied.

Filling the chemical tank required the use of a funnel while draining the tank required removing the supply lines.

Power Requirements: A 12 volt DC battery power supply is required to operate the S.S.C.I.M.S. controller. The injector pump is powered through a ground driven drive system. The S.S.C.I.M.S. produced good results when spot spraying a second chemical on specific target areas. A high level of operator awareness and understanding is required in order to produce consistent results.

Operator Safety: The S.S.C.I.M.S. has the potential to reduce operator exposure to chemicals. A few mechanical and system problems have to be overcome before this can be achieved.

Operator's Manual: The manual contained clear instructions on the installation of the S.S.C.I.M.S. but very brief information on the operation and maintenance.

Mechanical Problems: Mechanical problems limited the functional performance of the S.S.C.I.M.S.

Summary of Chem-Ease Chemical Extractor (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.33 MB)

Rate of Work: Time required to transfer liquid chemical varied and depended on the suction head at the pump and viscosity of the chemical. It took about one minute to induct most chemicals from a typical 2.2 gal (10L) chemical container. Viscous chemicals like Lorox L (linuron) took up to 8 minutes. Diluting the chemical by alternating between the rinse and extraction cycle reduced the transfer time.

Quality of Work: Extracting liquid chemical was rated as very good and convenient when all the chemical from the container was needed. When accurately extracting a predetermined amount of chemical from the container the Chem-Ease was rated as fair.

Rinsing effectiveness depended on the sprayer's reload system. Rinsing effectiveness was very good with clean water from the nurse tank and fair when using the tank mix solution. The 12 nozzles at the tip of the Chem-Ease probe made it easy to thoroughly rinse the chemical container.

With the chemical being inducted prior to the pump inlet, chemical agitation was thorough and rated as very good.

The holder for the Chem-Ease probe was very good in that it effectively protected the probe from contamination.

Ease of Operation: Ease of operation was rated as fair, even though the two control valves were color coded and had arrows incorporated into the handles. Operation of the unit was not foolproof and operators tended to occasionally overfill containers or dilute chemical with water. It was important to follow operating instructions very carefully to prevent such occurrences.

Rinsing the interior of chemical containers was very good. The container could be rinsed several times by alternating the operation between the red and blue valves.

Penetration of the probe into metal or plastic containers was very good. The probe was sharp and easily pierced any containers encountered during the test. Care had to be exercised when piercing through the caps of plastic containers. A greater thrust was needed which could carry the probe through to the bottom of the container.

Ease of Installation: Ease of installation was very good. The Chem-Ease components were small, light and easy to install, taking one man about two hours using common farmshop tools. Care had to be exercised to prevent crushing the plastic holder when tightening the U-bolt nuts.

Operator Safety: Operator safety of Chem-Ease was good. The unit was safe to operate when all the chemical in the container was extracted. It eliminated the need to lift chemical containers and pour the chemical into the tanks. The rubber boot prevented chemical splashing and reduced operator exposure to chemical vapour. The operator increased his chances of exposure to the chemical when an accurately measured amount of chemical had to be extracted from the chemical container. A safety decal was provided detailing the proper use of the unit. Care had to be exercised when rinsing to prevent over filling and foaming with some chemicals.

Operator's Manual: The instructions provided were good and provided useful information on installation, safety and operation.

Summary of Summers SF3421 Skid Mounted Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.86 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at average speeds of 10 and 16 mph (16 and 26 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates of 58 and 94 ac/h (23 and 38 ha/h) respectively. At an application rate of 9.8 gal/ac (110 L/ha), about 31 ac (13 ha) could be sprayed with a full spray tank

Quality of Work: Application rate depended on forward speed, nozzle size and pressure. The Delavan LF4-80° nylon nozzles supplied, delivered 9.8 gal/ac (110 L/ha) at an average forward speed of 10 mph (16 km/h) and nozzle pressure of 40 psi (276 kPa). However, forward speed was difficult to keep constant and varied from 7 to 12 mph (11 to 19 km/h), resulting in the application rate varying from 14 to 8 gal/ac (157 to 90 L/ha).

Nozzle calibration was very good. The delivery rate of the new LF4-80° nylon nozzles was the same as specified by the nozzle manufacturer. Delivery of the used LF4-80° nylon nozzles increased about 2% after 67 hours of use. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was low when new and used.

Nozzle spray distribution patterns were very good. The spray distribution patterns were very uniform above 21 psi (145 kPa) with the LF4-80° nozzles. Spray drift was good. The high capacity LF4-80° nozzles produced coarse spray droplets and could operate at a 13.5 in (345 mm) nozzle height that helped minimize spray drift.

The pressure gauge was very good. The pressure gauge was accurate and reliable. Pressure losses were fair. Pressure losses from the control valves to the nozzles were significant, resulting in application rates varying from 9.2 to 10 gal/ac (103 to 112 L/ha) at the outer and center boom nozzles, respectively, using the Delavan LF4-80° nozzle tips.

The strainers were very good in that the 50 mesh strainers and the use of large sized nozzle tips prevented nozzle plugging.

Boom stability was good. The boom swing assembly and the truck suspension system reduced boom bounce. Reduced boom movement improved spray distribution patterns.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rate was good and required the operator to select nozzle size, pressure and forward speed. The operator was required to calibrate truck forward speed. Keeping the truck's forward speed constant and watching the speedometer and path of travel for long periods of time was difficult.

Ease of controlling flow to the booms and nozzle pressure was good. The sprayer was equipped with a Raven remote control system. Flow to the spray booms was easily controlled by the solenoid valves. Nozzle pressure was adjusted by the butterfly valve. The valve was difficult to adjust until the operator gained experience.

The sprayer was compact and maneuverability with the truck was very good both in field and transport position. Turning quickly in field position was easy because the boom swing assembly prevented the boom ends from striking the ground. Ease of placing the booms in transport or field position was good. The booms were light and took one man about two minutes to fold or unfold. The outer end booms were awkward to fold or unfold and care had to be exercised.

Ease of nozzle adjustment was fair. Nozzle angle could not be adjusted. The nozzle height adjustment assembly binded, making it difficult and unsafe to adjust nozzle height. Nozzle height could be adjusted from about 21 to 34 in (533 to 864 mm) in field conditions. Nozzle height range varied depending on field conditions, amount of fluid in the spray tank and truck size. The quick disconnect and self-aligning nozzle caps made nozzle changing quick and easy.

Ease of tank filling was good using a nurse tank with an auxiliary pump. The spray tank filler opening was not easily accessible. Ease of inducting chemical was fair. Care had to be exercised lifting the chemical containers and climbing on the truck box or spray tank.

Ease of installing the Summers sprayer on a truck was very good. The sprayer was light and the dismount jack was convenient to use.

Ease of cleaning was fair. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick and easy, however, removing the strainers was inconvenient and messy. Cleaning the main line strainer was easy.

Ease of draining was poor. The fluid drained on the truck and the spray tank could not be completely drained.

Ease of servicing was good. The motor oil was inconvenient to check and change.

Pump Performance: Pump capacity was good and adequate to supply to Delavan LF4-80° nozzle tips. The pump could deliver about 15 gpm (1.13 L/s) at a 40 psi (276 kPa) nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 15 gal/ac (169 L/ha) at 10 mph (16 km/h).

Engine and Fuel Consumption: The motor performance was very good. The motor had ample power to run the centrifugal pump. Average fuel consumption was 0.35 gal/h (1.6 L/h).

Operator Safety: Care had to be exercised when adjusting nozzle height, adding chemical and placing the outer end booms in field or transport position.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good and provided useful illustrations and information on sprayer assembly, operation and parts.

Mechanical History: The first Briggs and Stratton motor stopped operating frequently and backfired frequently in the dusty conditions encountered. It was replaced and the second motor ran smoothly throughout the rest of the test.

Summary of Brandt Quick Fold Model 70-830 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.00 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at a speed of 5 mph (8 km/h) resulted in an instantaneous work rate of 42 ac/h (17 ha/h). At an application rate of 10 gal/ac (112 L/ha), about 80 ac (32.4 ha) could be sprayed with a full tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate depended on tractor speed, nozzle size and pressure. The 8002VS stainless steel nozzles supplied delivered 10.1 gal/ac (113 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h) and nozzle pressure of 40 psi (276 kPa).

Nozzle calibration was very good. The delivery rate of the new 8002VS nozzles was about 2.0% higher than specified by the nozzle manufacturer. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was about 1.0%.

Nozzle spray distribution patterns were good. Nozzle distribution patterns were acceptable above 34 psi (234 kPa) and very uniform above 42 psi (290 kPa). The Wind Cones did not affect the spray distribution patterns.

The Wind Cones reduced spray drift. In 18.6 mph (30 km/h) winds, off-swath drift from 8001 flat fan nozzles was 3% using the Brandt Wind Cones and 7% using a conventional sprayer.

System pressure was very good with negligible loss using the 8002 nozzles. The pressure gauge was very good and reliable.

The strainers were very good and adequately prevented nozzle plugging.

Boom stability was good. The heavy duty 4 in (102 mm) square tubing and the suspension system on the castor wheels reduced boom bounce. Reduced boom movement improved spray distribution patterns and application rate uniformity.

Trailer and castor wheel soil contact pressure was 31 and 20 psi (214 and 138 kPa), respectively. This is comparable to an unloaded half ton truck which has a soil contact pressure of about 30 psi (207 kPa).

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rate was rated as good. Ease of operating the controls was good. The Spraying Systems' remote control made it easy to regulate pressure and flow from the tractor seat. The agitator and throttle valve had to be adjusted before spraying. Access to the chemical inductor and spray tank valves was slightly obstructed by the chemical inductor tank.

Ease of adjusting the castor wheels for proper boom trailing was good. The adjustments were a trial and error procedure. The adjustment had to be repeated each time the castor wheel bell crank bent or failed.

Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both transport and field position. Backing the sprayer in transport position resulted in the booms gradually spreading outwards since the castor wheels were adjusted slightly toed in.

Ease of boom positioning was good. The operator could place the booms into field and transport position from the tractor seat by backing the sprayer and operating the tractor hydraulic lever. At first, care had to be exercised and constant reference to the folding instructions decal was required to prevent castor wheel and boom damage. The procedure got easier with experience.

Ease of adjusting nozzles was very good. Nozzle angle was adjusted manually and nozzle height was adjusted hydraulically from about 8 to 49 in (203 to 1245 mm). The quick-disconnect and self-aligning nozzle caps made nozzle changing easy.

Ease of filling the spray tank was good utilizing the inboard pump. It took about 20 minutes to fill the 800 gal (3637 L) spray tank. Care had to be exercised to prevent liquid from the spray tank entering the nurse tank.

Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was fair. Although the chemical inductor tank was easily accessible, chemical splashing occurred during pouring. Chemical could be inducted during refilling or agitation. Preference depended on operator skill and time. Chemical induction during agitation was more convenient, but took 4 to 7 minutes, depending on power take-off speed. Chemical induction during refilling took 3 minutes, but required care to prevent chemical from entering the nurse tank.

Ease of hitching was good. The hitch jack provided was safe and the hitch was adjustable for levelling the sprayer trailer. Cranking the hitch jack handle was a little awkward.

Ease of cleaning was fair. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick, however, removing the strainers was sometimes difficult and messy. Removing the main line strainer was also inconvenient.

Ease of draining was fair. The drain plug was located at the rear of the spray tank and not easily accessible. In addition, the main line hose had to be removed to drain the sump.

Ease of lubrication was good. Most of the 20 grease fittings were accessible. The pump drive safety guard had to be removed to grease the pump drive pillow bearings. Lubrication frequency varied for each grease fitting.

Pump Performance: Pump capacity was very good. At a power take-off speed of only 420 rpm, the pump could deliver up to 22 gal/min (11 L/min) at a 40 psi (276 kPa) nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 31.3 gal/ac (351 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h).

Agitator output exceeded recommended agitation rates.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was excellent, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance, adjustments and parts.

Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during testing. The secondary boom universal joints loosened throughout the test, the pump pulley interfered with the pump housing and the radius arm latch binded, not securing the radius arm to the trailer. Damage to the castor wheel bell cranks occurred until adequate experience was gained folding and unfolding the booms.

Summary of Spraymaster Model GN 40-60 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.73 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at speeds between 12 and 22 mph (20 and 35 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 94 and 168 ac/h (38 and 68 ha/h). At an application rate of 5 gal/ac (56 L/ha), about 96 ac (39 ha) could be sprayed with a full tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate accuracy was very good using the application rate controller system. The controller system's flow and speed sensors were both accurate. The application rate controller kept the desired application rate constant over a wide forward speed range. Nozzle pressure varied with forward speed. Nozzle pressures above 15 psi (100 kPa) were used to ensure uniform nozzle spray distribution patterns.

Nozzle distribution patterns were fair using the 110 degree Albuz ceramic nozzle tips at a 15.7 in (400 mm) nozzle height and spacing. The spray distribution pattern coefficient of variation (CV) varied from 12.3 to 20.2% for the Albuz yellow, orange and red nozzle tips. The nozzles only produced acceptable distribution patterns above 55 psi (379 kPa).

Nozzle delivery was very good using the Albuz yellow and red nozzle tips. The delivery rates of the new yellow and red Albuz nozzle tips were within about 2% of the manufacturer's delivery specifications. Delivery of the Albuz orange nozzles was about 4.6% high.

Nozzle wear was minimal and rated as excellent. Delivery of the used Albuz red nozzle tips did not increase after 110 hours of use. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was very good. The CV was about 1.5 %.

No tests were conducted to evaluate spray drift.

Weed control was good. Weed control was reduced in and around the sprayer trailer wheels due to dust. Weed control was also reduced at the boom spring skid and end.

System pressure losses were excessive and rated as fair. Nozzle pressures at the left boom were higher than at the right boom. The pressure indicator on the remote control console did not indicate actual nozzle tip pressure. Knowing actual nozzle pressure is important to ensure proper spray droplet deposition.

The strainers were effective and rated as good. The strainers adequately prevented nozzle plugging. The self-cleaning line strainer was desirable, but frequently plugged the front agitator.

Boom stability was good. The boom spring skid and cable suspension system reduced vertical boom movement.

The trailer wheel soil contact pressure was about 38 psi (262 kPa). The trailer wheel contact pressure was slightly higher than the unloaded three-quarter ton truck used. Most crop damage resulted from the load placed on the truck rear wheels.

Ease of Operation: Ease of adjusting application rate was good. The desired application rate was programmed into the application rate controller console. Changing application rate more than 20% required different sized nozzle tips. Changing nozzle tips was time consuming.

Ease of operating the controls was good. The Computronics International remote control and automatic rate controller consoles made it easy to control and monitor pressure, speed and application rate from the truck seat. Measurement of the sprayer wheel circumference was needed for the rate controller to function accurately. The agitator valve and motor throttle were adjusted before spraying.

Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both transport and field position. Turning radius was 32 ft (9.8 m).

Ease of boom positioning was good. The booms were manually placed into field and transport position in about three minutes. Care was exercised to prevent getting tangled in the boom ropes and that one boom was always secured on the boom support pad before handling the other boom.

Ease of adjusting nozzles was poor. Nozzle angle was not adjustable. Adjusting nozzle height was difficult and time consuming because the adjustment assembly would bind and the boom suspension cables needed adjustment for proper boom tension and position. Nozzle height was adjusted from about 15 to 22 in (381 to 559 mm). Changing and aligning nozzle tips was also time consuming.

Ease of filling the spray tank was good utilizing the reload hose. A transfer pump was needed and took about 20 minutes to fill the 483 gal (2196 L) spray tank.

Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was good. The chemical inducting wand was easy to use and took about 20 to 50 seconds to induct 2.2 gal (10 L) of chemical, depending on chemical viscosity and volume of fluid in the spray tank. The spray tank reload, chemical inductor and main control valves were located far apart, making reloading water and inducting chemical at the same time inconvenient.

Ease of hitching was very good. The hitch jack provided was safe and the hitch adjustable for levelling the sprayer trailer.

Ease of cleaning was very good. The Spraymaster was equipped with a self-cleaning line strainer and compressed air system to clean plugged nozzles and strainers.

Ease of draining was very good. The spray tank drain valve and boom hose cock valves were easily accessible.

Ease of lubrication was very good. The five pressure grease fittings were accessible. Lubrication frequency was not indicated.

Pump Performance: Pump output was very good for application rates below 3.5 gal/ac (40 L/ha). Varying pump speed reduced the pump's performance at high application rates. Agitator output was very good and met recommended agitation rates.

Motor Performance: The Kawasaki motor performance was fair. The motor was difficult to start and stalled during field spraying. Average fuel consumption was 0.37 gal/h (1.69 L/h). Servicing the motor was good. The oil dip stick, gasoline cap and air filter were easily accessible. Changing motor oil was messy.

Marker Performance: Foam mark visibility was very good and foam durability was fair. Some foam marks lasted one hour, but normally lasted about 30 minutes. In hot and breezy weather conditions foam marks lasted less than 10 minutes.

About 200 ac (81 ha) was sprayed with a full foam tank. Operating cost of the foam concentrate was about 10 cents/ac (25 cents/ha). Ease of filling the foam tank was fair. Excessive foaming occurred through the filler opening that spilled on the sprayer and operator, leaving unsightly stains. Operating the foam controls was good. Foam to the booms was controlled by closing the foam tank valve. This was inconvenient and wasted foam. Foam mark placement accuracy was very good in calm weather conditions.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The pump drive assembly was shielded. Accessories like the chemical inductor wand, fresh water container and compressed air system reduced operator exposure to chemical. Adjusting the fifth wheel hitch when levelling the trailer required care. A front end loader was used to support the fifth wheel.

Operators Manual: The operator's manual was good. The information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, sprayer components, maintenance, adjustments, troubleshooting and parts were good.

Mechanical Problems: A few mechanical problems occurred during testing. The self-cleaning line strainer valve and motor start cord failed and the lock collars on the boom spring skids loosened several times.

Summary of Bourgault Model 850 Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.39 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at speeds between 5.4 and 7.7 mph (8.7 and 12.4 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 48 and 78 ac/h (19 and 32 ha/h). At an application rate of 10 gal/ac (112 L/ha), about 85 ac (34 ha) could be sprayed with a full tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate accuracy was very good using the BEE sprayer monitor. The BEE monitor flow sensor was accurate to 2% of the displayed reading. The desired application rate could always be kept constant by adjusting nozzle pressure and forward speed. The application rate using XR110015 and XR11003 stainless steel nozzles was 5 and 10 gal/ac (56 and 112 L/ha), respectively, at a forward speed of 7.6 mph (12.2 km/h) and with a nozzle pressure of 40 psi (276 kPa).

Measured nozzle delivery rate was good. The new Tee Jet XR110015 and XR11003 nozzle deliveries were about 3% higher than specified.by the nozzle manufacturer. Nozzle wear was minimal and rated as excellent. The Tee Jet XR110015 and XR11003 nozzles were used in the field for 46 and 37 hours, respectively. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was very good before and after testing. The coefficient of variation (CV) for the XR110015 and XR11003 nozzles was 1.6 and 1.2%, respectively.

Nozzle spray distribution patterns for Spraying Systems extended range nozzles were very good at Bourgault's recommended nozzle operating height of 15 in (381 mm) and nozzle forward angle of 35°. Spray patterns were very uniform above 14 psi (100 kPa) using the XR11003 nozzles. Spray patterns were acceptable above 17 psi (120 kPa) and very uniform between 20 and 40 psi (138 and 276 kPa) using the XR110015 nozzles.

AFMRC conducted no tests to evaluate spray drift. However, using the extended range Tee Jet XR11003 nozzle tips at a nozzle pressure of 20 psi (138 kPa) and at a nozzle height of 10 in (254 mm) would in fact minimize spray drift during windy conditions.

System pressure losses were rated as fair. The pressure loss from the remote control pressure tap to the nozzles was about 8 psi (55 kPa) using the XR11003 nozzle tips. As a result, the remote control pressure guage did not indicate true nozzle tip pressure. The remote control pressure gauge was very good and reliable.

The strainers were good in preventing nozzle plugging. The small XR110015 nozzle tips plugged frequently when using lake and dugout water.

Boom stability was very good. The 4 in (102 mm) square tubing, front boom truss system and suspension system on the castor wheels reduced boom bounce. Reduced boom movement improved spray distribution patterns and application rate uniformity.

Crop damage was minimal and rated as very good. Trailer and inner castor wheel soil contact pressure was 45 and 21 psi (310 and 145 kPa) respectively.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rate was very good with the optional BEE sprayer monitor and Swivel-Jet dual nozzle body assemblies. The tractor forward speed or nozzle pressure could be adjusted until the desired application rate was displayed on the monitor.

Ease of operating the controls was very good. Spraying Systems remote control and the BEE monitor made it easy to adjust and monitor application rate from the tractor seat. The BEE monitor speed and flow sensors had to be calibrated before spraying. Adjusting the agitator and throttle valves was difficult since the remote control pressure gauge was not readily visible from the sprayer hitch. The chemical inductor and reloading valves were accessible and easy to adjust.

Ease of adjusting the end castor wheels was good. The adjustments were a trial and error procedure and took about 2 hours before the booms trailed or unfolded satisfactory. The castor wheel camber bolts were easier to adjust with the castor wheel assembly raised off the ground.

Sprayer maneuverability was good in both transport and field position. Care had to be exercised when turning into narrow farmyard approaches since the inside boom turned sharply. Backing the sprayer in transport position resulted in the booms gradually unfolding to field position.

Ease of boom positioning was very good. The operator could place the booms into transport position in about 10 s by driving forward while engaging the tractor hydraulics to raise the wet booms. Placing the booms into field position took about a minute and required the operator to back the sprayer until the booms completely unfolded. It took about 100 to 150 ft (30 to 46 m) for the booms to completely unfold. The procedure got easier with experience.

Ease of adjusting nozzles was very good. Nozzle angle was factory set at a forward angle of 35° and was manually adjustable. Nozzle height was adjusted with the hydraulic ram stop from about 8 to 23 in (203 to 584 mm). The Swivel-Jet dual nozzle assemblies made nozzle changing fast.

Ease of filling the spray tank was very good when utilizing the sprayer pump. It took about 20 minutes to fill the 850 gal (3864 L) spray tank. The reloading valves had to be opened and closed in the recommended sequence to prevent chemical solution from entering the water supply source or running the pump dry.

Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was very good using the Chem-Ease chemical extractor. Normally, it took less than one minute to extract chemical from a typical 2.2 gal (10 L) chemical container. Extracting chemical during reloading allowed the operator to rinse the chemical containers with clean water.

Ease of hitching was very good. The hitch jack was safe and the hitch clevis adjustable for leveling the sprayer trailer to the tractor hitch. The four hydraulic lines and two electronic couplers were easy to hook-up.

Ease of cleaning was good. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick, however, the strainers were difficult to remove. Removing the main line strainer was safe and easy.

Ease of draining was very good. The drain line valve was near the outside of the trailer and easily accessible. The spray tank sump allowed for complete draining. The Swivel-Jet diaphragm nozzle assemblies were difficult to drain.

Ease of lubrication was good. All 34 grease fittings were accessible. Sixteen grease fittings were located on the boom and castor wheel assemblies and required greasing daily. The other 18 grease fittings required greasing annually.

Pump Performance: The Hypro 9303C-HM4 pump output was very good. At the maximum hydraulic flow the pump delivered 17.8 gal/min (81 L/min) at a 40 psi (276 kPa) nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 21 gal/ac (236 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h).

Agitator output exceeded recommended agitation rates.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken. The Chem-Ease chemical extractor and Swivel-Jet dual nozzle tips reduced operator contact.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance and adjustments.

Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during testing. The outer radius arm bolts loosened frequently, the boom breakaway shear pins failed in rough field conditions and the castor wheel camber adjustment bolts bent.

Summary of Harmon Model 833 Auto-Fold Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.17 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at speeds between 5.5 and 9.2 mph (8.9 and 14.8 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 56 and 93 ac/h (23 and 38 ha/h). At an application rate of 10 gal/ac (112 L/ha), about 83 ac (34 ha) could be sprayed with a full tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate accuracy was good when tractor speed and pressure were calibrated for and kept constant. Application rate depended on tractor speed, nozzle size and pressure. The application rate using XR110015VS and XR11003VS stainless steel nozzles was 5 and 10 gal/ac (56 and 112 L/ha), respectively, at a forward speed of 7.5 mph (12 km/h) and nozzle pressure of 40 psi (276 kPa).

Measured nozzle delivery rate was very good. The new TeeJet XR110015VS and XR11003VS nozzle deliveries were similar to that specified by the nozzle manufacturer. Nozzle wear was rated as good. Delivery of the used XR110015VS ana XR11003VS nozzles increased 2 per cent after 53 hours of use, indicating nozzle wear. Variability among individual nozzle deliveries was very good when new and used. The coefficient of variation (CV) for the new XR110015VS and XR11003VS nozzles was 2.1 and 0.8%, respectively.

Nozzle spray distribution patterns for Spraying Systems XR110015VS and XR11003VS extended range nozzles were very good at a nozzle operating height of 15 in (381 mm). Spray patterns were acceptable at all pressures and very uniform above 22 psi (150 kPa) using the XR11003VS nozzles. Spray patterns were acceptable above 15 psi (100 kPa) and very uniform above 24 psi (165 kPa) using the XR110015VS nozzles. Both nozzles produced acceptable spray patterns above nozzle heights of 10 in (254 mm).

Alberta Farm Machinery Research Centre (AFMRC) conducted limited tests to evaluated spray drift. Spray drift fraction was 6 per cent of the emitted spray using the XR110015VS nozzles in 19 mph (30 km/h) winds. The extended range TeeJet XR11003VS nozzle tips at a nozzle pressure of 20 psi (138 kPa) and at a nozzle height of 10 in (254 mm) minimized spray drift during windy conditions.

System pressure losses were rated as good, The pressure loss from the remote control pressure tap to the nozzles was insignificant using XR110015VS and XR11003VS nozzle tips.

The remote control pressure gauge indicated 3 psi (21 kPa) high and rated as fair.

The strainers were good in preventing nozzle plugging. The small XR110015VS nozzle tips plugged frequently when using lake and dugout water.

Boom stability was good. The 4 in (102 mm) square tubing, front boom truss system and suspension system on the castor wheels reduced boom bounce. The outer wet booms were not as stable and bounced up to 4 in (!02 mm).

Crop damage was minimal. Trailer and inner castor wheel soil contact pressure was 38 and 23 psi (262 and 159 kPa), respectively.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rate was good. The desired application rate had to be calculated using nozzle formulas and charts. The Swivel-Jet dual nozzle body assemblies made nozzle changing quick and easy.

Ease of operating the controls was very good. Spraying Systems remote control made it easy to adjust and monitor nozzle pressure and flow from the tractor seat. The agitator, chemical easy-fill tank and reloading valves were accessible and easy to adjust.

Ease of adjusting the middle castor wheels was very good. The adjustments were a trial and error procedure and took an hour before the booms trailed or unfolded satisfactory.

Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both transport and field position. Turning into narrow farmyard approaches was easy since the booms followed the sprayer closely. Backing the sprayer in transport position resulted in the booms gradually unfolding to field position.

Ease of boom positioning was good. The operator could place the booms into transport position in about 30 seconds. The procedure required the operator to stop and back up the sprayer to lock the middle castor wheels. Placing the booms into field position took about two minutes and required the operator to back the sprayer until the booms completely unfolded. It took about 100 to 150 ft (30 to 46 m) for the booms to completely unfold. The procedure got easier with experience.

Ease of adjusting nozzles was fair. The hydraulic cylinder rod stop collar was difficult to move requiring the use of a tool to tap the collar in the desired position. Nozzle angle was adjusted manually by loosening four U-bolts on the boom parallel linkage. Nozzle height was adjusted with the hydraulic ram stop from about 12 to 36 in (305 to 914 mm). The Swivel-Jet dual nozzle assemblies made nozzle changing fast.

Ease of filling the spray tank was very good utilizing the sprayer pump. It took about 20 minutes to fill the 835 gal (3796 L) spray tank. A 2 in (51 mm) valve was added to the reload hose to prevent chemical solution from the spray tank entering the water supply source.

Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was good using the easy-fill chemical tank. It took about 1.5 minutes to induct the chemical from a full easy-fill tank. Inducting chemical during reloading water allowed immediate chemical agitation.

Ease of hitching was good. The hitch jack was safe and the hitch clevis adjustable for levelling the sprayer trailer to the tractor hitch. The four hydraulic lines and two electronic couplers were easy to hook-up.

Ease of cleaning was good. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick, however, the strainers were difficult to remove. Chemical drained on the operator's hand when removing the main line strainer.

Ease of draining was fair. The sprayer had no drain hose. The suction hose had to be unclamped to completely drain the tank. The spray tank sump allowed for complete draining. The Swivel-Jet diaphragm nozzle assemblies were difficult to drain.

Ease of lubrication was very good. All 12 grease fittings were accessible. The four castor wheel pivot arms and spindles required greasing every 10 and 50 hours, respectively.

Pump Performance: The Hypro 9303C-HM1 pump output was very good. The pump delivered 20.8 gal/min (95 L/min) at a 40 psi (276 kPa). nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 25 gal/ac (280 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h), using nozzles rated at 0.42 gal/min (1.9 L/min).

Agitator output exceeded the recommended agitation rates for emulsifiable concentrates.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken. The ease-fill chemical tank and Swivel-Jet dual nozzle tips reduced operator contact with chemical.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance and adjustments.

Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during testing. The booms were difficult to keep level with the castor wheel rods. In addition, the wet boom lift bar and U-joints were inadequate and required frequent adjustments to keep the nozzle height the same across the width of the boom.

Summary of Inland Model Terminator I Auto-Fold Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.92 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating at speeds between 4.3 and 7 mph (6.9 and 11.3 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 47 and 76 ac/h (19 and 31 ha/h). At an application rate of 10 gal/ac (112 L/ha), 82 ac (34 ha) was sprayed with a full tank.

Quality of Work: Application rate accuracy was good when tractor speed and pressure were calibrated for and kept constant, Application rate depended on tractor speed, nozzle size and pressure. The application rate with XR11002VS stainless steel nozzles was 10.2 gal/ac (115 L/ha) at 5 mph (8 km/h) and nozzle pressure of 40 psi (275 kPa).

Measured nozzle delivery rate was good. New Tee Jet XR11002VS nozzle deliveries were 2.3% higher than specified in the manufacturer's nozzle catalogue. Nozzle wear was rated as good. Delivery rate of used XR11002VS nozzles increased 2.5% after 92 hours of use, indicating nozzle wear. Variability amount new or used individual nozzle deliveries was very good. The coefficient of variation (CV) for XR11002VS nozzles was 1.3%.

Nozzle spray distribution patterns for Spraying Systems XR11002VS extended range nozzles were very good at nozzle heights above 10 in (250 mm) and nozzle pressures above 20 psi (140 kPa).

In 20 mph (32 km/h) winds, spray drift was fair operating XR11002VS nozzles at the standard 18 in (460 mm) height and 40 psi (275 kPa) pressure. Using extended range XR11002VS nozzles at a nozzle pressure of 20 psi (140 kPa) and at a nozzle height of 12 in (300 mm) reduced spray drift to acceptable levels.

System pressure losses were rated as good. Pressure losses across the boom were less that 1 psi (7 kPa). The pressure sensor indicated 4 psi (25 kPa) low and rated as fair. Calibration of nozzle pressure was required when control console pressure didn't reflect actual nozzle pressure.

Strainers were good in preventing nozzle plugging. Boom stability was good. The tubular truss and suspension system on the boom wheels reduced boom bounce. The extension booms were not as stable and bounced up 2 in (50 mm).

Crop damage was minimal. Trailer and boom wheel soil contact pressure was 25 and 29 psi (175 and 200 kPa), respectively.

Ease of Operating and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rate was fair. Spraying Systems single nozzle body assemblies made nozzle changing slow, even though the nozzle caps were easy to remove. Desired application rate was calculated using nozzle formulas and charts. Ease of operating sprayer controls was very good. The customized remote control console made it easy to adjust and monitor nozzle pressure, height and flow from the tractor seat. The console ensured sprayer booms were properly positioned for spraying and transport. Agitator, chemical easy-fill tank and pump shut-off ball valves were accessible and easy to adjust.

Ease of adjusting the middle boom wheels was very good. Adjustments were a trial and error procedure and took a half hour before the booms trailed satisfactorily.

Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both transport and field position. Care was exercised when turning into narrow farmyard approaches since the booms did not follow the sprayer trailer tracks closely. Backing the sprayer in transport position resulted in the booms gradually unfolding.

Ease of boom positioning was very good. The sprayer was placed into transport or field position in one minute. The dial on the control console made the procedure easy to do in the proper sequence. In rough field conditions it took over 100 ft (30 m) for the booms to completely fold for transport.

Ease of adjusting nozzles was good. Nozzle angle was adjusted manually by loosening four U-bolts on the boom parallel linkage. Nozzle height was adjusted with electric linear actuators from 9 to 30 in (230 to 760 mm). The actuators were slow. Booms were also difficult to level.

Ease of filling the spray tank was good. It took about 10 minutes to fill the 820 gal (3730 L) spray tank using a transfer pump and 2 in (50 mm) hose. A bottom reloading system was available as an option.

Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was good using the easy-fill chemical tank. It took less than a minute to induct chemical from a full easy-fill tank. The pump was operated slowly to prevent pump cavitation.

Ease of hitching was very good. A joint coupler automatically locked to a 2.3 in (60 mm) ball. The coupler was adjustable for levelling the sprayer trailer to the tractor hitch. Four hydraulic lines and an electronic coupler were easy to hook-up.

Ease of cleaning was good. Removing the nozzle caps for nozzle and strainer cleaning was quick, however, the strainers were difficult to remove.

Ease of draining was very good. The pump suction hose was equipped with a quick coupler for draining. The sloped tank bottom allowed for complete draining. Spraying Systems diaphragm nozzle assemblies were difficult to drain.

Ease of lubrication was good. Eighteen grease fittings were accessible. The wing lock pivot grease fittings were difficult to access.

Pump Performance: The Ace FMC Hyd 210 pump output was good. The pump delivered 13 gal/min (60 L/min) at a 40 psi (275 kPa) nozzle pressure. This was adequate to apply 15 gal/ac (165 L/ha) at a forward speed of 5 mph (8 km/h), using nozzles rated at 0.25 gal/min (1.1 L./min).

Agitator output was very good and exceeded recommended agitation rates for emulsifiable concentrates.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken. The easy-fill chemical tank reduced operator contact with chemical.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance and adjustments.

Mechanical History: The sleeve connecting the main and extension wet boom carriers failed.

Summary of Flexi-coil Model 65 Auto-Fold Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.59 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating the sprayer between 4 and 9 mph (6 and 15 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 44 and 98 ac/h (18 and 40 ha/h). At an application rate of 5 and 10 gal/ac (55 and 110 L/ha), 166 and 83 ac (67 and 33 ha) was sprayed with a full tank, respectively.

Quality of Work: Application rates were accurate within 1% of actual when the controller speed and flow sensors were calibrated. Calibrating the flow and speed sensors was easy by following procedures in the operator's manual or steps shown on the monitor display. Flow from six nozzles were measured to calibrate the flow sensor. The speed sensor was calibrated by putting the sprayer a distance of at least 50 ft (15 m). The controller stabilized the application rate within four seconds when spraying speed changed. The automatic rate controller kept application rate constant from 4 to 10 mph (6 to 16 km/h), resulting in spraying pressures from 12 to 63 psi (80 to 435 kPa). Nozzle pressures were kept above 20 psi (150 kPa) and spraying speeds above 5 mph (8 km/h) to ensure adequate spray coverage.

Delivery from the extended range (ER) 80° Combo-Jet stainless steel nozzles was within 3% of Combo-Jet's rated output. Variability (CV) among individual nozzle deliveries was 1.5 and 2.3% for the ER80-03 and ER80-015 nozzles, respectively. Acceptable spray patterns occurred (CV's below 15%) at nozzle heights above 15 in (380 mm) and nozzle pressures above 35 psi (250 kPa).

In 20 mph (32 km/h) crosswinds, the windscreens reduced spray drift from 11.3 to 2% operating ER80-015 extended range nozzles at a 18 in (460 mm) height and 40 psi (275 kPa) nozzle pressure. Average spray drip volume ranged from 0.6 to 2.8% of the application rate in chemfallow conditions.

Pressure losses across the boom were less than 1 psi (7 kPa).

The pressure sensor showed 4 psi (25 kPa) low. The mechanical pressure gauge was accurate.

Strainers prevented nozzles from plugging. The suspension system on the boom wheels reduced boom bounce. Crop damage was small since the trailer and boom wheels travelled 2.5 and 2% of the total field area sprayed, respectively. The end marker discs caused some insignificant crop damage.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of adjusting application rates was very good for he monitor/controller. Combo-Jet's dual nozzle body assemblies and programming three application rates made it easy to adjust and change application rates. Ease of operating Flexi-coil's Model SP655 monitor/controller was very good.

Ease of adjusting the middle boom wheels was very good. Sprayer maneuverability was very good in both transport and field position. Turning into tight approaches was easy because the castor wheels followed the tank trailer tracks closely. Ease of boom positioning was very good. The sprayer folded into transport position in less than 15 seconds allowing reloading from a central location. Transporting the sprayer on the road was safe because the sprayer width was only 9 ft (2.8 m). The sprayer was placed into field position in 1.5 minutes. A distance of 92 ft (28 m) was needed before the booms unfolded to field position.

Ease of adjusting nozzle angle and height was good. Nozzle angle was manually adjusted 20° forward to prevent spray from contacting the windscreens or castor wheels. Nozzle height was controlled hydraulically after setting the hydraulic cylinder stops to the desired spray height. Nozzle height ranged from 15 to 45 in (380 to 1140 mm) above the ground

Ease of filling the spray tank was very good using the bottom reload system. It took less than 20 minutes to reload the 830 gal (3770 L) spray tank with water and chemical. Ease of adding chemical to the spray tank was good using the Easy-Fill chemical tank. It took less than 30 seconds to induct the chemical from a full Easy-Fill tank. Caution was required to prevent chemical splashing in windy conditions. With the windscreens, spraying in windy weather was prevalent.

Ease of hitching was good. Hitching included the hookup of six hydraulic lines for the pump hydraulic motor, end marker and secondary boom, and an electronic coupler for the monitor/controller.

Ease of cleaning was good. Nozzle strainers came out of Combo-Jet's nozzle assembly with the nozzle cap, exposing the strainer for rinsing. Some nozzle caps were removed using pliers. The debris and chemical residue on the windscreens required cleaning. Raising the booms exposed the entire underside of the windscreen panels. A wash set-up was needed. Ease of draining was good. Spray tank rinse water was first sprayed on the field and the remainder drained through the reloading line.

Ease of lubrication was good. It took 15 minutes to grease the 36 grease fittings that required greasing daily.

Pump Performance: The sprayer was tested using a Hypro Model 9303C-HM4 and Ace Model BAC-75 Hyd-206 centrifugal pumps. At a pump shut-off pressure of 100 psi (700 kPa), Hypro and Ace pumps delivered a maximum pressure of 49 and 65 psi (340 and 415 kPa) to the ER80-03 nozzles, respectively. With the hydraulically driven motors, the sprayer was limited to nozzles rated at 0.25 gal/mm (1.1 L/mm), i.e. ER80-03, 8003 etc. This was adequate to apply 10 gal/ac (110 L/ha) at 40 psi (275 kPa) at 7.5 mph (12 km/h).

Agitating rates were very good, exceeding recommended agitating rates for emulsifiable concentrates.

End Marker Visibility: Mark visibility was good in young cereal crops and poor in chemfallow conditions. In chemfallow conditions, weights were added to the end marker assemblies to make the marks deeper and more visible. Aligning the sprayer to the mark made on the previous pass was good using the end castor wheel as an aide. Mark durability was good as the marks lasted several days. Controlling the end markers hydraulically was very good. Lowering one end marker on the ground automatically lifted the other off.

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken. The Combo-Jet dual nozzle body assembly reduced operator exposure to chemical solution because the strainer, nozzle tip, and washer were all part of the nozzle cap. A storage tank for clean water made it easy to rinse gloves and hands. The windscreens were coated with debris and chemical residues. Therefore, care was exercised when cleaning strainers. changing nozzles or checking spray patterns.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance and adjustments.

Mechanical History: Greasing the bottom grease fitting on each castor wheel assembly and inserting the locknuts on the windscreen nylon shear bolts was difficult.

Summary of Spra-Coupe Model 3630 High Clearance Field Sprayer (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.33 MB)

Rate of Work: Operating the sprayer between 4.3 and 20 mph (7 and 32 km/h) resulted in instantaneous work rates between 32 and 145 ac/h (13 and 59 ha/h). At application rates of 5 and 10 gpa (55 and 110 L/ha), 50 and 25 ac (20 and 10 ha) was sprayed with a full tank, respectively.

Quality of Work: Application rates were accurate within 1% of actual when the Spra-controller speed and flow sensors were calibrated. Calibrating the magnetic speed sensor required the sprayer be driven in a straight line for 10 wheel revolutions. The speed calibration number was 168 in most of the field conditions encountered during testing. Calibrating the flow sensor was done by measuring the flow from several nozzles. The average delivery of the nozzles measured multiplied by the number of nozzles on the sprayer was the total sprayer flow rate. The Spra-controller stabilized the application rate within 4 seconds when spraying speed changed. The Spra-controller kept application rates constant from 8 to 20 mph (13 to 32 km/h) resulting in spraying pressures from 10 to 80 psi (70 to 550 kPa). Nozzle pressures were kept above 15 psi (100 kPa) and spraying speeds above 9 mph (14 km/h) to ensure adequate spray coverage.

Delivery from Spraying Systems Turbo Tee Jet (TT) 110° plastic nozzles were within 5% of Spraying Systems rated output. Variability (CV) among individual nozzle deliveries was less than 2%, indicating the deliveries from each nozzle tip tested was similar. Acceptable spray patterns occurred (CV's below 15%) at nozzle heights above 10 in (250 mm) and nozzle pressures above 15 psi (100 kPa). After some use, the spray patterns from the TT11002 nozzles looked streaky. The nozzles could be used for 300 to 400 hours before the spray pattern uniformity (CV's) measured above 15%. At 400 hours, the turbo Tee Jet nozzles should be replaced.

In 12 mph (20 km/h) crosswinds, airborne spray drift was 15, 8 and 8% from the Extended Range Tee Jet XR11002, drift guard Tee Jet DG11002 and wide angled Turbo Tee Jet TT11002 nozzles, respectively. The nozzles were operated at 40 psi (275 kPa) and a height of 24 in (600 mm) above the target. Forward speed was 20 mph (30 km/h) giving an application rate of 2.5 gpa (28 L/ha). For comparison, airborne spray drift from a conventional sprayer using the DG11002 nozzles applying 10 gpa (110 L/ha) at 5 mph (8 km/h) was only 2.1% in 12 mph (20 km/h) crosswinds. Operating sprayers at a high speed and high spray boom heights resulted in more spray drift.

Pressure losses across the boom were less than 1 psi (7 kPa). The mechanical pressure gauge and its pressure source indicated the actual nozzle pressure to within 3 psi (20 kPa) when operating the sprayer pressure and flow rate below 60 psi (400 kPa) and 20 gpm (90 L/min), respectively. With 36 nozzles on 60 ft (18 m) of a wet boom, spraying flow rates were normally less than 20 gpm (90 L/min) when applying 5 and 10 gpa (55 and 110 L/ha) at 14.4 mph (23 km/h).

Strainers prevented nozzles from plugging. Using Turbo Tee Jet nozzles also prevented nozzle plugging since the nozzle orifices were larger. The agitator jet nozzles plugged frequently since the boom inlet line strainer was located after the agitator lines.

A suspension system on the sprayer wheels and boom truss reduced boom bounce and horizontal boom movement in rough fields. The horizontal boom suspension system weakened making the booms move rearwards at high spraying speeds. The spring on the horizontal suspension system was replaced preventing adverse horizontal boom movement.

Crop damage spraying post emergent cereals was insignificant.

Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Operator comfort was very good. The cab was quiet and had plenty of room for most operators. The cab air and charcoal filters effectively filtered dust and chemical fumes. The cab pressurization system helped reduce dust leak. The heating and air-conditioning system provided adequate cab temperatures in all operating conditions. The seat and steering column were adjustable to suit most operators. The operator had a clear view forward and to the sides when spraying. Boom and nozzle visibility during spraying was good. Visibility of the wheels was limited. In transport position, visibility to the sides and rear was mainly between the boom structural members. The rear view mirror was inside the cab and did not improve rear visibility.

Instrumentation was good. All instruments were useful, easy to see, read and conveniently located. The instrument panel included gauges for engine oil pressure, coolant temperature, engine hours, engine speed and fuel level, and warning lights for the parking brake, alternator, glow plugs and transmission temperature. The nozzle pressure gauge was outside the cab.

All Spra-Coupe controls were easy to reach from the operator's seat and rated as good. The boom, pump, marker and spray controls used mostly during spraying were conveniently contained together on the side console and easy to use. The boom ends lifted quickly to avoid obstacles. Although clearly marked, the boom folding controls were hard to identify at a glance and occasionally the wrong boom control was started. The spray tank shut-off valve and agitator valves were not controlled from the cab. To completely empty the spray tank during spraying, the agitator valves needed to be shut. The operator had to stop spraying and get off the sprayer to adjust the agitator valves. Gear shifting was easy and smooth even at full throttle. The engine speed was controlled with the hand throttle a majority of the time.

Ease of operating Raven's spray monitor (Spra-controller) was good after the operator's manual was studied and some practice exercised. The Spra-controller was built into the sprayer's dash. The left display showed the application rate only. The right display showed one function or calibration data at a time. The rate switch allowed a quick choice between two application rates or manual mode. Manual mode was useful to keep pressure from falling below acceptable levels. Entering the type of speed sensor or system of units (Imperial, Metric or US) used was inconvenient. The monitor memory had to be cleared by disconnecting the power to the console. Any time the controller memory was cleared the eight calibration numbers needed to be re-entered. During the test the monitor memory cleared unexpectedly several times. Why this occurred was never solved.

Sprayer lighting for transport was very good; however, for night spraying lighting was fair, even with the optional flood lights. The flood lights were adequate to illuminate the spray booms and the foam mark. The flood lights were not adequate for long range front lighting necessary for night spraying at speeds above 10 mph
(16 km/h).

Ease of adjusting application rates was fair. Standard nozzles and single nozzle body assemblies were supplied with the Spra-Coupe. Changing application rates involved removing one set of nozzles and putting on another. Spraying Systems triple nozzle assemblies were installed to change application rates quicker. Ease of adjusting application rates was very good using Turbo Tee Jet nozzles and triple nozzle body assemblies. Changing rates was quicker using triple nozzle body assemblies. The Spra-controller allowed changing to another application rate that was within 20% of the first using the same nozzle size. The Turbo Tee Jet nozzles allowed the two rates to be greater than 20% different. Applying the correct application rate still depended on calculating or selecting the proper size of nozzle, pressure and speed.

Ease of wheel adjustments was fair. Adjusting the wheel tread on both axles took two people about four hours. A hoist and high jack stands were needed to raise the wheels off the ground safely. The rear wheel tread was easily adjusted by relocating a pin on the rear axle adjustment bracket. Adjusting the front wheel tread took more time. The front wheel toe-in was adjusted each time the front wheel tread was changed.

Ease of sprayer handling was fair. When coming over the top of a hill, out of a gully or rough ground, the steering response appeared slow. The sprayer was stable in the field and road with an empty or full spray tank at all speeds. The widest wheel tread provided more stability when spraying on hillsides. The sprayer travelled well at all speeds, The maximum speeds in the various gears were appropriate for spraying, with most spraying done in fourth gear. The sprayer towed well and was stable at tow speeds up to 50 mph (80 km/h). The manufacturer recommends highway tires for towing at higher speeds. The brakes were effective.

Ease of boom positioning was good allowing reloading from a central location. The sprayer booms were folded into partial transport position in less than 10 seconds and usually done while driving forward. In partial transport, the boom ends were not folded and extended about 11.5 ft (3.5 m) in front of the sprayer. Folding the sprayer booms from field to full transport position for longer transport required alternating tasks inside and outside the cab. Although getting in and out of the cab was inconvenient, it took less than three minutes. With the left boom positioned on the transport cradle, the cab door opened about one-third of the way, making it difficult to get in or out of the cab.

Ease of adjusting nozzle height and angle was good. Nozzle height was adjusted from inside the cab using the boom height control switches. Still the operator had to exit the cab to measure and confirm boom height. Getting out of the cab several times to measure the boom height was tedious. Nozzle height was adjustable from 21 to 76 in (530 to 1930 mm) at the low setting. The low setting was used during the entire test. Returning the nozzles to the original spraying height after raising the booms to avoid obstacles was difficult since there was no preset boom stops. Note that returning exactly to the original spray height was not important when using wide angle extended range or turbo nozzle tips. Ease of adjusting nozzle angle was poor. Nozzle angles were not meant to be adjustable from the factory position of 0°, although it was possible. A nozzle angle remained constant at all boom heights.

Ease of filling the spray tank with water and chemical was good. A transfer pump was required on the nurse tank. The sprayer reloading line was used throughout the test because less foaming and splashing occurred. Time required to fill the spray tank was less than seven minutes. The 250 gal (1140 L) spray tank was refilled every 15 to 60 minutes, depending on the application rate. Water volumes from 2.5 to 5 gpa (28 to 55 L/ha) were used to reduce the number of refills. Because the spray tank was small, the number of chemical containers lifted per refill was almost unnoticeable. Tank refill time varied from 10 to 30 minutes, depending on the chemical used.

Rinsing the chemical containers consumed the most time. Chemical handling, transfer, mixing and rinsing systems were available and made chemical inducting more convenient on the Spra-Coupe 3630.

Ease of cleaning the nozzle tips and strainers was good. The booms were set at a height convenient for removing and cleaning the nozzle caps to minimize chemical dripping down one's arms. Some
strainers stuck in the nozzle body and required a piece of straw or tool to remove. Ease of cleaning the pump inlet strainer and line strainer was good. The main line that arched above the line strainer completely emptied when the strainer bowl was removed. Care was taken to prevent the spilled spray solution from running down the operator's arm.

Ease of draining the spray tank was fair. Nearly all the spray tank rinse water was first sprayed on the field and then drained through the reload line. The spray tank had a sump in the bottom but the solution did not drain well into the sump and could not be sprayed out completely. The agitators were closed to empty the spray solution or rinsate out of the spray tank better. The pump cavity was drained by installing a drain valve at the base of the pump. Draining the hoses was done by loosening the ring clamps and removing the hose ends. Rinsate in the spray booms was drained by opening the inner nozzle lines and raising the boom ends. An air pressure pump and tank were installed on the right platform and used to drain the boom spray lines and nozzle assemblies for autumn spraying and winter storage.

Ease of lubricating the sprayer was good. The Spra-Coupe sprayer had 55 grease fittings of which 37 required greasing daily. Most grease fittings were easy to get to with a grease gun. The booms were folded forward to access the inner boom hinge grease fittings. The grease fittings on the boom parallel linkage assembly were greased either by lowering the booms to field position or climbing on top of the assembly. Fifteen minutes was required to lubricate all grease fittings. Checking and adding oil was difficult. The system was modified by the manufacturer to make checking and adding engine oil more convenient.

Engine and Fuel Consumption: The engine started quickly, ran well and had sufficient power for the field conditions encountered when run above 3000 rpm. Fuel consumption averaged about 2.2 gal/hr (10 L/hr). Engine oil consumption was insignificant. When spraying on side hills, the fuel shifted, sometimes starving the engine when the tank was half full.

Pump Performance: Hypro Model 9202C centrifugal pump speed and pressure output was sufficient and rated as very good. The pump operated at 5500 rpm at an engine speed of 3500 rpm. With 36 nozzles on 60 ft (18 m) of spray booms and two jet agitators, the Hypro pump delivered pressures above 120 psi (800 kPa) to the nozzles. With the two agitator valves fully opened, the Melroe sprayer could apply 10 gpa (110 L/ha) at 7.2 and 14.4 mph (12 and 23 km/h) using the 03 and 06 nozzle tips, respectively. Agitating rates were very good. Average agitator output was 24 gpm (109 L/min) during field spraying, which exceeded recommended agitating rates for emulsifiable concentrates.

Foam Marker Performance: Richway Industries Model SC-3013 foam marker system was included with the test machine. Mark visibility was good in young cereal crops, fair in chemfallow conditions and poor in preharvest spraying conditions. Aligning the sprayer to the mark made on the previous pass was good. Mark durability was fair. The foam marks disappeared after reloading and marking the headlands. The foam marks lasted two hours in cool and humid conditions. In hot, dry conditions the foam lasted less than 10 minutes depending on the foam concentrate. Using the best foam concentrate available was necessary to rely on the foam marking system. With the foam marker set on high, mark length averaged 5 in (125 ram) and mark spacing averaged 15 ft (4.5 m) at 14.4 mph (23 km/h). Operating costs for marking solution averaged about 3 cents/ac (8 cents/ha).

Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. The sprayer was safe to operate if normal safety and chemical precautions were taken. The single nozzle body assemblies were replaced by triple nozzle body assemblies to reduce operator handling of nozzle tips and strainers. A storage tank for clean water made it easy to rinse gloves and hands.

Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good, providing complete information and illustrations on safety, sprayer operation, maintenance and adjustments.

Mechanical History: The agitator hoses, spray boom joints and flow sensor failed twice during testing. The Spra-controller lost memory several times throughout the test.