I think I must stick my nose in here.
(a) as far as I am aware, the most knowledgeable chap in the PPRuNe sandpit regarding Nomad engineering is djpil - his counsel in that area should be viewed as expert. His identity and background is sufficiently well-known that I don't think he would object to my comment - if he does, I'm sure he will let me know and I will remove it. Certainly, he is far too modest to suggest it himself.
(b) The one that crashed at ARDU was operating from memory at Vne +
How strange.
The TP who got out after the previous landing and watched the subsequent mishap related his version of events to me some years later .. my impression was that Glen was flying a fairly normal sort of circuit ? Vne-plus ? Come on, now .. a bit too much moonshine, methinks ..
If you don't KNOW, then it probably is better to be conservative in your comments - particularly where they can hurt the memory of those who are no longer with us and, hence, unable to defend themselves. I spoke with Glen's brother at length on several occasions in association with the Senate Enquiry - I don't think the family would be impressed by your accusation.
(c) It reminded me of operating the B35 V tail.
If I recall correctly, the earlier tailplane D-section attachment was beefed up in the normal Type ICA manner after the initial mishaps. Not overly different to numerous other Type problems in service.
Not particularly relevant to the Nomad's tail problems.
(d) A Twin Otter was just so much more reassuring.
Perhaps, but you are comparing apples and oranges.
(e) Gerry the stabilator broke away as you would know. The reason it cracked is not certain.
I suggest the reason is quite clear - fatigue damage.
The problem was that the crack was not detected and the damage fixed (which was the intent of the inspection protocol) prior to the mishap. My understanding has always been that a post-GAF inspection deferred iaw protocol proved to be unfortunate on this occasion. As I indicated earlier, the final factory inspection was performed by a colleague for whom I had the highest professional regard. I have no doubt in my mind that the aircraft was returned without any visual evidence of cracking.
(f) 100's of hours of unrecorded ground runs at full noise with ARDU is my presumption.
I don't know whether ARDU did any ground run work but, as djpil has suggested, you probably are confusing the work done by GAF on the aircraft. Unfortunately, it is a bit far back and I cannot remember the available specific data relating to the ground run work - which I looked into as part of the Senate Enquiry activities undertaken by then ASTA.
(g) What we do know ..
I suspect that you don't have much detailed background regarding the Senate Enquiry ? I had no problems with the Senators, per se, but it should be noted that they did have difficulties with some of the more arcane engineering concepts with which they were faced during that period.