A lot is going on within ag-aviation worldwide. Recently, Embraer released a newly certified Ipanema 203 series Ipanema and just this past month, Air Tractor released its certified XP502. I’ve flown the XP502 and it is an excellent flying aircraft. You should have read about the evaluation flight in an earlier edition of AgAir Update.
I am scheduled to fly the Ipanema 203 this month while I am attending the SINDAG conference in Botucatu where the Ipanema 203 is built. I really look forward to this opportunity. It is always enlightening to conduct a flight evaluation of a new and different ag-plane. I do not call it a “test” flight because that is a misnomer. Test pilots put aircraft through a ritual of flight parameters to “test” the aircraft’s limits. This often places the pilot at risk, so typically they will wear a parachute.
My flights do not place the aircraft into any different scenarios than the professional ag-pilot does when flying ag. So, the reality is I am “evaluating” the performance of the aircraft in such a way the reader will know what to expect from flying the aircraft.
It would not be proper to compare these two newly certified aircraft; the Ipanema 203 and XP502. They are as different as night and day. The XP502 has a turbine engine with an 1872-liter hopper (500 gallons). The 203 is a much smaller aircraft that meets a completely different need of the ag-operator with its piston engine capable of using either av-gas or ethanol, and its 1050-liter hopper (277 gallons).
However, there is one major similarity between the two ag-aircraft; both use aerodynamics to improve performance. One fault of ag-aircraft design in the past has been to add horsepower before considering aerodynamics. Air Tractor and Embraer have approached their new aircraft with a focus on engineering them to perform better, even with an increase in horsepower; the XP502 with its all new PT6A-140AG turbine capable of 867 SHP up to 44°C and the Ipanema 203 with its Lycoming IO-540-K1J5 that is capable of 320 BHP (ethanol).
The ag-aviation industry is just now acting on the ability of the propeller to make a major change in the performance of the aircraft. All types of propeller configurations have been around for decades; two-blade, three-blade, four-blade, five-blade and different curvatures to the blades themselves, as well. But, until recently has the industry embraced the concept a modified propeller especially designed for the engine and airframe combination that makes a better performing ag-plane.
This became evident in 2010 when Thrush and GE Aviation introduced their four-blade propeller on its 510G with the H80 engine. Initially, Thrush installed the same propeller used on the PT6A-34AG, except for shot peening the blades. When I flew the aircraft in December 2010, well-known ag-pilot Dennie Stokes and myself advised the factory the 3-blade prop was not doing the job, particularly on take off. The aircraft’s performance was well below par.
Thrush went back to the drawing board and came up with a four-blade prop that dramatically improved the aircraft’s abilities. Likewise, Embraer has addressed the propeller challenge and has an improved version on its Ipanema 203.
Thrush led the way with a major airframe modification for the 510G; they extended the engine mount by approximately 45 centimeters. In doing so, they removed almost 135 kilograms of forward CG weight. This was the most important improvement made to Thrush aircraft for its 510G model. Currently, it is available only on the 510G, but other conversion companies (Aero Innovations and Cascade Aircraft Conversions) have STC’d this modification for all 510 model Thrushes.
Following likewise, Air Tractor extended its engine mount by an undisclosed amount on the XP502. Just like with the Thrush, this improved dramatically the flight characteristics of the 502 series aircraft.
From my personal experience flying the XP502 and the 510G, the three most notable modifications made were the four-blade propeller, the extended engine mount and the increase in SHP. It is the combination of these upgrades that make both of these aircraft superb flying machines, much better than their predecessors.
The Embraer has done similar modifications when it designed and built Ipanema 203. With the EMB 202 as a starting point, the prop was changed, winglets redesigned and wing changes made, along with improved comforts in the cockpit and an increase in hopper size, as well. An aircraft manufacturer cannot simply increase the size of the hopper of its ag-aircraft, unless it makes performance-improving changes to the aircraft. Embraer has reported sufficient increases in the performance of the Ipanema 203 over its EMB 202, thus the larger hopper.
Evidently, Embraer took a look at design features to improve on its EMB 202, since it is using the same engine to power the Ipanema 203. Thus, the company is using aerodynamics versus horsepower to improve performance; exactly what the industry needs. There are no viable engine options for the Ipanema with more horsepower than the IO-540, without sacrificing reliability; unless a turbine engine is used. The initial cost of a turbine engine is expensive. Although, over time the per hectare cost of operation can be comparable to a piston engine. But, it’s that initial cost that make a turbine on a 1,000-liter aircraft workable only in certain situations.
I am excited to be back in Brazil in June. It is one of my favorite countries. When there, as well as throughout South America, I am made to feel welcome, as if I was at my second home. When in Botucatu, I will be looking forward to my evaluation flight of Embraer’s Ipanema Ipanema 203. You will read my comments in a future edition of AgAir Update!
Until next month,
Keep turning
