Home   |   Agreement   |   Partners   |   International   |   Tests   |   News   |   Glossary   |   Contacts   
 

GÓLIÁT 4000/24
GÓLIÁT 4000/24
Manufactured by: FARMGÉP KFT
Category: crop protection sprayers - boom sprayers
ENTAM recognised: YES
Testing partner: HIAE
Date: 2011
Recognition: On the basis of the ENTAM agreement this test report has been recognized by the ENTAM Members (ENTAM recognition n. 21/2011) with the following recognition numbers:

AUSTRIA (Francisco Josephinum Wieselburg – BLT): 034/11;
DENMARK: AU/DAE - University of Aarhus - Department of Agriculttural Engineering: AU DAE ENTAM 2011-12
FRANCE (Cemagref): CEMAGREF/ENTAM/11/037;
GERMANY (Julius Kühn-Institut - JKI): ENT-HU-03/11;
GREECE (I.A.M.C. Institute of Agricultural Machinery and Constructions): ΛE/152/01/ZZ
ITALY (Ente Nazionale per la Meccanizzazione Agricola – ENAMA): ENTAM "Rapporto di prova prestazionale" 06/2011;
POLAND (Przemyslowy Instytut Maszyn Rolniczych): PIMR-74/ENTAM/11;
SPAIN (Centre de Mecanització Agrŕria – CMA): EPH005/11.

The test report has been carried out by MGI (MGI-FVM: Mezogazdasági Gépesítési Intézet -HIAE: HUNGARIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
The original MGI test code is H_ENTAM_1_2011 and is related to the self propelled Field Crop Sprayer GÓLIÁT 4000/24.

Test documentation: ENTAM_recognition_21_2011_Test_report.pdf
Additional information and notes: Explanation on testing
Testing takes place according to a procedure which was
developed by the competent testing authorities of the European
countries participating in ENTAM. This procedure is based on
the CEN standard EN 12761 „Agricultural and forestry
machinery – Plant protection equipment for the application of
plant protection products and liquid fertilisers”. The tests were
conducted according to the Technical Instructions (TI) for
ENTAM-Tests of Field Crop Sprayers (Rel. 3 & Rel 4 -draft-).
This test is only a technical performance test which takes place
without an accompanying field test. The test results apply only
to the tested appurtenances of the sprayer. Statements on the
behaviour of the sprayer with different appurtenances cannot
be derived from these results.

 
Images: