Flown the N22 and its an airplane with limitations. Its an aging airframe like all the others, that required attention. I was never aware of the bigger engines being certified. Sure could do with some. Unfortunately Allison is not the best choice for fixed wing ops though. I can completely understand the Kiwi's passion for the product. Cool temps are ideal for the Allison engine. And the airframe, apart from the obvious problems with its behind is a supurb design. I prefer the interior to the Twin Otter, but the layout of the cockpit following the AD on the seat tracks being restricted as to the movement of the seat aft of the prop arc's made it a nightmare regarding what was once a pilots' cockpit. Its short field performance did things that the Otter couldn't, however it did buffet uncomfortably in the full flap config that made me nervous. And i have great authority on short field performance regarding the GAF and De Havilland products, but on the whole the Twin Otter is by far the better airplane for the job. Yes the Nomad might burn less fuel, but its all the other issues that come around, like fatigue cracks, and fuel problems due to the not so thought through fuel system. Remember the double engine failure on the gold coast??? Have good authority on that one too. My issue is the resale value of the aircraft. How much is it going to cost you to keep it to the standard compared to its better counterpart. Would you overcapitalize because of this. Sometimes a more expensive purchase can prove cheaper in the long run if you choose the right type for the job at hand. Like they say, if it had a T Tail, and PT-6's, deHavilland might have had a contender.
And the N24, its an N22 with another row of seats. No bigger engines and a more fickle Wt and Balance issue. Nomads were never performers in assymetric ops, and could be compared to Cessna twin performance in this regard. Fill it and fail one and you will see for your self. Its limitations might include Day VFR, as flight requiring anti icing requires an immediate descent as a great deal of power is lost with this on. Non Contaminated runways are another one. The float version suffered from flame out with not much more than spray investion. Never had a problem with it on wheels, but stone damage does occur as the 1st stage comp is right there unprotected in the airflow for anything to knock its teeth out. No partical separator like the B17 or C20'd Jetrangers with the same engine.
If i had a choice, i'd choose a clapped out -100 series that needed major reno work over a Nad, because down the track, a Twin Otter is a Twin Otter and can be converted to -27/-34 engines later and has been a success in any config since its humble beginnings, but the Nad will always be the Nad, with its history following behind.
If you saw an ad for both, what would you choose to take you kids flying in???
Fly safe
-27
