John Tullamarine wrote:
"Leaving the ADF agenda aside, some operators who used the Type in appropriate ways were very much of the view that the only replacement for a Gonad was another Gonad."
I can only agree. two points there, with common theme.
ADF agenda is best not discussed as it will spin into outrage and egregious claims I fear, suffice to say it was not based cleanly and clearly on facts, only on the veneer of facts that suited the ambitions of a noisy few.
There are still operators of the Nomad, especially the N24, who hold strong positive support and who wished Gipps well in any future venture to place this type back into production, however unlikely that may appear at this time. it is a proven product with a very good service history, despite the cultural cringe that exists here in Aus, typified by Pinky the Pilot's post full of uninformed opinions (perhaps not his own original thoughts) and speculations about what Gipps should have been doing, like manufacturing cessnas or chieftains, even though he purports no logical explanation as to why this would be of benefit to anyone.
Gipps, over many years and a couple of ownership variations, designed, tested and STC'd a spar ;ife extension modification that essentially doubled the service life of the Navajo/Chieftain here in Australia and successfully supported the owners and operators of the type to realize ongoing profits from this worthy platform. there are (were?) elements of this product included in the original Airvan, as well as several, even many design elements of Piper family provenance that were influential in the Airvan deign, and even more so in its predecessor the GA200 'Fat Man' (Vale P.E. Buckley). The Gippsland Aeronautics crew when the enterprise was but a small gathering of LAMES, AMES and enthusiasts recognized the opportunity to develop an enhanced aircraft , conventional in design and construction, based on the best practices and innovations, but trying to eliminate the worst, the most complicated and difficult to maintain aspects of the existing fleet. This is why the Airvan family has been very successful here and in the rest of world, and why, given the opportunity, a Gipps manufactured Nomad would be a winner, as it would likely receive a once over to address some of the niggles that some Nomad operators report.
The N24, in general terms, will carry a little bit more than a Caravan, a little faster than a Caravan, using a little less fuel than a Caravan, but its a TWIN, so the special conditions that apply to the Caravan (being a single engine aircraft) do not apply to the Nomad.
I urge Pinky and others to please resist the urge to turn this into a Nomad bashing thread, that has been done to death in many other efforts to unfairly denigrate and tarnish what was and is a sound aircraft with an overall very safe history. A reliable and economical aircraft that served most of its end users in the manner it was intended.
I am keen to see Gipps rise from the ashes, get the Airvan back on the production line, as the company has indicated it will be happy to do under new stewardship. One Australian entrepreneur would be sufficient to refund and re-energize this company and get some fair dinkum Australian know how back to work, designing, building and exporting the product around the world again. If what ONE Australian miner spent on the last election campaign, with no benefit to any anyone, or even a quarter of that, had been invested on this opportunity there would be hundreds of Australian aviation industry jobs back in work, supporting their local state and national economies. Getting Australian families invested in aviation and providing a future to some of those who can bring some common sense into the latest hype-world of AAM.
HD2