Choosing an Agras for an Irish Farm or Contracting Service

Start with the task, then compare packages

Need crop imagery or thermal farm observations rather than material application? Start with our crop-monitoring and farm-inspection guide. The shortlist below concerns application and agricultural lifting setups.

On smaller screens, scroll the table sideways to compare all four columns.

These are candidates to compare, not farm-size rules. Plan the Irish operating route and any material-specific permission separately from the equipment choice.

Write the job brief before choosing a model

An Agras shortlist starts with a specific application task. A farm wanting crop observations has a different requirement from a contractor planning granular distribution or an operator considering agricultural lifting. An impressive payload figure does not resolve that distinction. Describe the material, intended treatment or delivery, crop stage, field shape, access and people likely to be nearby. Put the operating permission question alongside the technical question from the beginning.

Record who prepares the job, who approves the agronomic instruction, who handles replenishment and who accepts the result. A farmer buying for a few recurring jobs may value compact transport and a straightforward ground routine. A contractor serving several holdings must also manage changing materials, mobilisation, records and client expectations. Neither business case can be settled from aircraft capacity alone. Our existing farm-inspection content covers observation; this guide concerns selecting an application aircraft and its working setup.

Read capacity as several separate limits

Compare tank volume, material mass, take-off limits and the installed system separately. The T25P specifications distinguish a 20 L spraying configuration from a 30 L spreading tank limited to 25 kg of material. A hopper filled by volume can reach a mass limit before it looks full. The operator must follow the applicable aircraft recommendation rather than treating every litre as one kilogram.

For a first comparison, DJI lists 40 L spraying for T50, 50 L for T55, 70 L for T70P and 100 L for T100. Those are useful configuration descriptors, not a ranking of practical output or suitability. Ground handling, refill access, application requirements and flight constraints can outweigh the difference. Keep the two nozzle/four nozzle and battery variants in the comparison sheet where they affect limits. Never compare the headline of one variant with the working equipment of another and call the result a complete package comparison.

When the T25P deserves a close look

Consider the DJI Agras T25P where a compact working setup fits the actual job and the required material per cycle is compatible with its limits. The useful question is whether the aircraft can be transported, unfolded, checked and replenished at the available locations without compromising the operating area. Walk the proposed parking place and field access before deciding that a smaller aircraft automatically makes the operation simple.

A practical demonstration should include handling the aircraft and battery, checking the controller view, bringing the material to the loading point and completing the post-job routine. Ask for the exact battery, charger, application module and supporting parts in the quotation. The T25P three-battery spraying package is a configuration discussion point, not proof that three batteries remove every charging delay. Cooling, input power and the operating rhythm still need to be demonstrated with the proposed equipment.

Compare T55 with the role of an existing T50

The T55 merits assessment where its working systems and support requirements fit the job brief. DJI documents DB1050 and DB1580 configurations with different aircraft limits; a comparison must identify which one is offered. Its official specifications also identify the model-specific application systems and C7000 charging arrangement. Do not accept an unspecified battery family or a familiar charger name as a complete equipment description.

T50 remains a useful reference for businesses that already own its batteries, equipment or procedures. It should not become a default best-new-buy recommendation merely because a previous-generation package appears cheaper. Check documentation, parts, service arrangements and the compatibility of the exact equipment being retained. If the existing fleet cannot share the items that matter, an apparent saving may disappear. Conversely, a sound existing T50 workflow may be more relevant than a speculative change made solely to obtain a larger tank.

Give T70P and T100 a ground-system test

Assess larger aircraft where the material requirement and site organisation can use their capacity. The T70P specification distinguishes battery-dependent configurations; the T100 specification separates standard and dual-battery spraying equipment. These details should appear in the supplier’s comparison, together with the actual battery count and power supply. An aircraft name without its configuration is not enough for a purchasing decision.

Plan a demonstration that exposes the likely bottleneck: replenishment, transport between fields, preparation of the next load or the charging supply. Observe a whole operating cycle rather than an isolated pass. Ask how the team handles a delayed refill, an unusable landing location or a rejected material batch. A larger tank can reduce one kind of interruption while making another part of the workflow harder. That trade-off should be visible before committing to a complete system.

Illustrative example: a fragmented contractor round

Consider a hypothetical contractor serving a dairy holding with small irregular paddocks and a separate arable client with broader fields. This is a planning example, not an Irish Drone field trial. The contractor first separates jobs by material, access and permission, then records the proposed vehicle position, replenishment point and route between holdings. The same aircraft is not assumed to be the best answer for both clients.

The shortlist might retain a compact application setup for the restricted sites and a T55 or larger system for evaluation on the broader work. The next decision is a witnessed logistics exercise with the shortlisted configuration. If moving water, changing material or relocating the vehicle dominates the day, buying the largest aircraft has not solved the limiting problem. The contractor can then quote mobilisation, preparation and application as distinct activities, with clear exclusions, rather than promising a universal number of hectares per hour.

Keep technical selection and Irish permission aligned

Ask whether the intended operation is actually permissible before treating a shortlist as a purchase plan. IAA agricultural guidance distinguishes observation from application, and agricultural permissions remain separate from aviation authorisation. These aircraft should not be assumed eligible for Open-category work simply from a single weight threshold. Material release and the complete operational risk also matter; some operations may require a more demanding route.

Use the current IAA process with a competent operating team and consult the separate SORA and pesticide-application guides linked with this article. Do not interpret a supplier’s catalogue listing, training offer or demonstration as an authorisation. The T200 FAQ identifies an agricultural lifting reference, not a substitute spraying aircraft. Its EU conformity and Irish availability remain unconfirmed. The shortlist should state which facts are verified, which depend on configuration and which are still prerequisites for a lawful operation.

Turn the shortlist into a decision record

Finish with a written comparison of the shortlisted systems against the same job. Include the exact aircraft variant, application module, battery family and quantities, power supply, controller, transport arrangements and commissioning evidence. List optional equipment separately. Ask the supplier to identify the relevant manual revisions and resolve every ambiguous part number rather than leaving those questions until delivery.

Agree what would justify moving forward: acceptable handling at the actual access point, repeatable replenishment, a verified working-system test and a credible permission route. Also record what would stop the purchase, such as an unsupported material, unsuitable power supply or unresolved documentation. This makes a configuration discussion with Irish Drone much more useful. Bring the job brief and the unresolved decisions; choose the package that can be checked against them, with the final quotation and operating responsibilities clearly defined.

Frequently asked questions