Nomad on the beach
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari355, Thanks for your concern, on short final the other day I saw a boat with topless chicks on it and was tempted to go around and come back for another look.
P.S. Stop changing your email address i get confused and start crying. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
P.S. Stop changing your email address i get confused and start crying. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Moderator
Chuck,
I would exclude the Twotter as it is a somewhat bigger machine .. not really in the same football field. Even then, for similar low speed critical operations, the Nomad, last I looked through the stats .. has a better accident record. Both quite versatile machines.
bgt,
Most of the Nomad operators were/are quite keen on the Type and, for some, it has proved to be a very tough and profitable little aircraft.
I suspect that much of the Oz adverse thought is coloured by the then very public Australian Army Aviation antipathy to the Type, for which there are two stories ... and the not very balanced reporting of the Senate enquiry.
Certainly it is not a Fergy tractor .. if the operator skimps too much on the maintenance effort, the the aircraft will bite somewhere along the way.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
I would exclude the Twotter as it is a somewhat bigger machine .. not really in the same football field. Even then, for similar low speed critical operations, the Nomad, last I looked through the stats .. has a better accident record. Both quite versatile machines.
bgt,
Most of the Nomad operators were/are quite keen on the Type and, for some, it has proved to be a very tough and profitable little aircraft.
I suspect that much of the Oz adverse thought is coloured by the then very public Australian Army Aviation antipathy to the Type, for which there are two stories ... and the not very balanced reporting of the Senate enquiry.
Certainly it is not a Fergy tractor .. if the operator skimps too much on the maintenance effort, the the aircraft will bite somewhere along the way.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cairns Qld
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qld news service last night and I quote.
The owner of the aircraft (name given) didn't want the aircraft to be washed away by the incoming tide so re fuelled the aircraft and after a few anxious moments took off and made it safely to Coolangatta.
Earlier in the story it said and I quote (remember these are not my words or thoughts)
The Pilot (named) noticed that the first engine which was put in new last week began to use much more fuel than it should have then the second engine began to falter so he had about 15seconds to make the decision to land on the beach.
I saw the interview with the pilot and rightly so he said the passengers were safe and that's all that matters.
The owner of the aircraft (name given) didn't want the aircraft to be washed away by the incoming tide so re fuelled the aircraft and after a few anxious moments took off and made it safely to Coolangatta.
Earlier in the story it said and I quote (remember these are not my words or thoughts)
The Pilot (named) noticed that the first engine which was put in new last week began to use much more fuel than it should have then the second engine began to falter so he had about 15seconds to make the decision to land on the beach.
I saw the interview with the pilot and rightly so he said the passengers were safe and that's all that matters.
Good onya LRT, another genius shows his head. Stick to driving your cab.
NO mate not me.
Funny that I am still on HID. Flown the nad only once and it was enough for me, I think I'll stick to my otter up here.
Hey DASH27 if your there, I called your place and left a message may need a driver give us a call on my other email.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: TWOTBAGS ]
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: TWOTBAGS ]</p>
NO mate not me.
Funny that I am still on HID. Flown the nad only once and it was enough for me, I think I'll stick to my otter up here.
Hey DASH27 if your there, I called your place and left a message may need a driver give us a call on my other email.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: TWOTBAGS ]
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: TWOTBAGS ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
depends on the fit this nomad had, most have a main tank on each wing with a inner and outer tank, the outer drains into the inner. but other models have wing tip tanks as well which you use transfer pumps to transfer into outer main tank.
ps. nice machine to fly, has its quirks like any plane, but unless you flown it dont bother commenting. nad
ps. nice machine to fly, has its quirks like any plane, but unless you flown it dont bother commenting. nad
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual the "experts" quick to point the finger at pilot error or "air in the tanks". Also by the way, the "twot bag" flying the thing was a very good mate and well respected pilot from Kununurra. May I repeat working for a well respected man and his company.
Just like a few expert morons who pointed the finger at pilot error for Ben at Whyalla Airlines, yet again how wrong you are. Yes engines do stop with insuffient fuel however it is not always the case that the pilot did not fill the bloody thing up. Also it was proven conclusively that it was not the cause of the Whyalla crash so why does everyone jump to this conclusion? I thought we may have learnt from this accident.
All I can say is bloody good show Gibbett, all are safe and from your account to me of what happened, you've done well old son against some pretty nasty odds. Bet there were a few boozzies bouncing out of their bikinis as they cleared the runway for you. Still can't believe the woman who abused you for landing on a populated beach, like hello???? I commend your restraint !!
To the experts, try thinking a little before writing on here and get the facts first. One day it may be you trying to justify why something went wrong with your aeroplane while everyone else is pointing the finger. Seems people like to big note themselves by bad mouthing others. Trial by PPRUNE is really starting to **** me. We are all supposed to be professionals by the way. Leave it to the ATSB to investigate and provide the outcomes.
Well done again buddy handled like a true professional.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: kimberleybound ]</p>
Just like a few expert morons who pointed the finger at pilot error for Ben at Whyalla Airlines, yet again how wrong you are. Yes engines do stop with insuffient fuel however it is not always the case that the pilot did not fill the bloody thing up. Also it was proven conclusively that it was not the cause of the Whyalla crash so why does everyone jump to this conclusion? I thought we may have learnt from this accident.
All I can say is bloody good show Gibbett, all are safe and from your account to me of what happened, you've done well old son against some pretty nasty odds. Bet there were a few boozzies bouncing out of their bikinis as they cleared the runway for you. Still can't believe the woman who abused you for landing on a populated beach, like hello???? I commend your restraint !!
To the experts, try thinking a little before writing on here and get the facts first. One day it may be you trying to justify why something went wrong with your aeroplane while everyone else is pointing the finger. Seems people like to big note themselves by bad mouthing others. Trial by PPRUNE is really starting to **** me. We are all supposed to be professionals by the way. Leave it to the ATSB to investigate and provide the outcomes.
Well done again buddy handled like a true professional.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: kimberleybound ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone operated the Nomad for a short while in the eastern Caribbean about 12-15 years ago... I don't know whether it was economical, or whether the short field performance was adequate or not, but it did not last longer than about a year.
No crashes that I know of... those Garretts sure disturbed the peace, though...
No crashes that I know of... those Garretts sure disturbed the peace, though...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bow to superior knowledge... they made a heck of a racket, whatever they were - that's what made me assume they were Garrets.
I believe the Turine Islander also used Allisons, or were they Lycomings?
I believe the Turine Islander also used Allisons, or were they Lycomings?
Grandpa Aerotart
Gotta agree with you BIK, the Gonad was an embarassment.
What excuse does GAF have when the example of the DHC6 was out there to aspire to?
In PNG way back Talair got the Twotters and about the same time Douglas got the Gonad, the rest as they say is history. Other operators in PNG tried to Gonad too, they ended up parked at BK rotting, the operators assigned to the history books as well.
I have never flown a Gonad(you couldn't drag me kicking and screamimg!) but I have 2600+ hrs on the Twotter in PNG. Where mates say the Gonad was tricky to load a desirous of maintenance the DHC6 was dead set easy to load, tolerant of inadvertant
overloads, gave plenty of feed back if the CoG was not quite right(without killing you) and couldn't be killed with an elephant gun.
A mate survived 20+ hits from machine gun fire and had the rudder skins peeled off from a very near miss by a M60 grenade in PNG, he flew 40 minutes back to a safe area and landed. I don't think he would rather have been in a Nomad.
Nomad is what you get when a Govt department designs a clunker and then won't admit defeat.
Chuck.
What excuse does GAF have when the example of the DHC6 was out there to aspire to?
In PNG way back Talair got the Twotters and about the same time Douglas got the Gonad, the rest as they say is history. Other operators in PNG tried to Gonad too, they ended up parked at BK rotting, the operators assigned to the history books as well.
I have never flown a Gonad(you couldn't drag me kicking and screamimg!) but I have 2600+ hrs on the Twotter in PNG. Where mates say the Gonad was tricky to load a desirous of maintenance the DHC6 was dead set easy to load, tolerant of inadvertant
overloads, gave plenty of feed back if the CoG was not quite right(without killing you) and couldn't be killed with an elephant gun.A mate survived 20+ hits from machine gun fire and had the rudder skins peeled off from a very near miss by a M60 grenade in PNG, he flew 40 minutes back to a safe area and landed. I don't think he would rather have been in a Nomad.
Nomad is what you get when a Govt department designs a clunker and then won't admit defeat.
Chuck.
Moderator
BIK_116.80
My recollection was that the US operator was rather happy with the Nomad .. no matter, we can continue to agree to disagree.
I am probably a little confused .. where did Hudson and Centaurus come into the picture ? Neither has posted on this thread ? .. or am I missing something here ?
By civil standards, the Nomad has a very good landing performance .. I can recall being rather terrified on my first exposure to the aircraft during a maximum effort landing and stop .. I have never experienced anything that comes close to it before or since, except for the Caribou during STOL operations. If, indeed, one considers the rather sophisticated lateral control system on the aircraft and the comparatively low stall speed, the figures are pretty good for its class.
I am not aware of this turbulent airflow problem associated with flap to which you refer. Perhaps you might care to elaborate for the benefit of all ?
There has been, to my knowledge, only one tailplane failure on the Type. That was a tailplane which had an extremely unusual and, as subsequent investigation showed, fatigue critical operating history which was quite outside the original fatigue envelope. This one failure was particularly sad in that it took the life of an Army pilot. However, it is not at all reasonable to paint the aircraft bad on the basis of that quite unique set of circumstances. I am surprised that you would make such a potentially actionable, ill-conceived, and apparently false statement.
More to the point, were such a situation to be the case, the Type Certificate would have come under some scrutiny .. one should keep in mind that a TC can be suspended or cancelled if the design is shown to be other than in compliance with the Design Standards, although this extreme situation usually is avoided by reassessment and redesign where this is found to be appropriate.
Such a review has occurred at least once with respect to another perceived problem on the Nomad. In that latter case, the TC holder spent a LOT of money to demonstrate that the problem was, in fact, more a concern than a reality.
You are quite correct that the original intention was to use the Nomad to provide fill-in work (between two large military projects) for the then GAF organisation. That ought not to detract from the Type's good points.
While the Twin Otter is a very versatile machine, it is considerably larger than the Nomad .. one really ought to compare apples with apples.
Chuck,
With an operator's hat on I, too, would prefer the Twin Otter for remote operations associated with difficult support and variable maintenance.
One has to keep in mind that the original Nomad design scenario was for a close support military aircraft able to be supported appropriately. The aircraft was never intended to be a Twin Otter competitor.
If the Nomad is not looked after it will present problems .. no-one disputes that. Similarly it was intended to be flown by experienced crews.
Comparing it to other designs which had a longer developmental history misses the point that the Type design never really had a chance to evolve to a point where the field experience was able to be incorporated into design upgrades. This was a consequence of the then Government's decision to scrap the project at the time it did. In the view of many in the manufacturing and design side that was a great pity.
It is a matter of great sadness and loss to Australia that various Governments have seen fit not to support a serious civil aircraft industry in this country .. witness the Nomad and the Victa Airtourer just as two examples.
The Nomad doesn't have a particularly generous CG envelope, agreed. That, of course, imposes a higher workload on the operator's control systems.
So far as damage tolerance is concerned, there have been some Nomad incidents of which I am aware where the aircraft has RTB with structural damage that would open your eyes considerably more than the shrapnel damage described in your mate's case in the Twotter ...
Your comment about the Government department scenario may have some merit in the eyes of some people. However, you would need to know a lot more of the corporate history to be able to arrive at a rather more balanced view. And the fact does remain that some, but certainly not all, of the Type's operators have been very happy with its role in their operations. For some niche operations it has been a case of the only suitable replacement being another Nomad. I concede that the Cessna Caravan may prove to be a useful Nomad replacement in some respects for routine civil operations.
Certainly, the aircraft is not the bees' knees for everyone. However, for appropriate operations, it is a good little machine, works well, and makes money. If the particular operation is not well suited to the Nomad, then it follows that the commercial selection of the Type for the job was flawed by inadequate homework.
[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
My recollection was that the US operator was rather happy with the Nomad .. no matter, we can continue to agree to disagree.
I am probably a little confused .. where did Hudson and Centaurus come into the picture ? Neither has posted on this thread ? .. or am I missing something here ?
By civil standards, the Nomad has a very good landing performance .. I can recall being rather terrified on my first exposure to the aircraft during a maximum effort landing and stop .. I have never experienced anything that comes close to it before or since, except for the Caribou during STOL operations. If, indeed, one considers the rather sophisticated lateral control system on the aircraft and the comparatively low stall speed, the figures are pretty good for its class.
I am not aware of this turbulent airflow problem associated with flap to which you refer. Perhaps you might care to elaborate for the benefit of all ?
There has been, to my knowledge, only one tailplane failure on the Type. That was a tailplane which had an extremely unusual and, as subsequent investigation showed, fatigue critical operating history which was quite outside the original fatigue envelope. This one failure was particularly sad in that it took the life of an Army pilot. However, it is not at all reasonable to paint the aircraft bad on the basis of that quite unique set of circumstances. I am surprised that you would make such a potentially actionable, ill-conceived, and apparently false statement.
More to the point, were such a situation to be the case, the Type Certificate would have come under some scrutiny .. one should keep in mind that a TC can be suspended or cancelled if the design is shown to be other than in compliance with the Design Standards, although this extreme situation usually is avoided by reassessment and redesign where this is found to be appropriate.
Such a review has occurred at least once with respect to another perceived problem on the Nomad. In that latter case, the TC holder spent a LOT of money to demonstrate that the problem was, in fact, more a concern than a reality.
You are quite correct that the original intention was to use the Nomad to provide fill-in work (between two large military projects) for the then GAF organisation. That ought not to detract from the Type's good points.
While the Twin Otter is a very versatile machine, it is considerably larger than the Nomad .. one really ought to compare apples with apples.
Chuck,
With an operator's hat on I, too, would prefer the Twin Otter for remote operations associated with difficult support and variable maintenance.
One has to keep in mind that the original Nomad design scenario was for a close support military aircraft able to be supported appropriately. The aircraft was never intended to be a Twin Otter competitor.
If the Nomad is not looked after it will present problems .. no-one disputes that. Similarly it was intended to be flown by experienced crews.
Comparing it to other designs which had a longer developmental history misses the point that the Type design never really had a chance to evolve to a point where the field experience was able to be incorporated into design upgrades. This was a consequence of the then Government's decision to scrap the project at the time it did. In the view of many in the manufacturing and design side that was a great pity.
It is a matter of great sadness and loss to Australia that various Governments have seen fit not to support a serious civil aircraft industry in this country .. witness the Nomad and the Victa Airtourer just as two examples.
The Nomad doesn't have a particularly generous CG envelope, agreed. That, of course, imposes a higher workload on the operator's control systems.
So far as damage tolerance is concerned, there have been some Nomad incidents of which I am aware where the aircraft has RTB with structural damage that would open your eyes considerably more than the shrapnel damage described in your mate's case in the Twotter ...
Your comment about the Government department scenario may have some merit in the eyes of some people. However, you would need to know a lot more of the corporate history to be able to arrive at a rather more balanced view. And the fact does remain that some, but certainly not all, of the Type's operators have been very happy with its role in their operations. For some niche operations it has been a case of the only suitable replacement being another Nomad. I concede that the Cessna Caravan may prove to be a useful Nomad replacement in some respects for routine civil operations.
Certainly, the aircraft is not the bees' knees for everyone. However, for appropriate operations, it is a good little machine, works well, and makes money. If the particular operation is not well suited to the Nomad, then it follows that the commercial selection of the Type for the job was flawed by inadequate homework.
[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I must declare a well known bias towards a certain manufacturers product, it is a fact that the used value is an incontovertible and absolute measure of the products success or lack of in the overall market. It, the market uness subsidised by Government, is merciless and blind to any agenda other than does it work economically and not frighten the children.
The Nomad is there with many others that never made the grade.
BTW I have seen some of the early development single engine concepts on the aircraft and it precedes the Cessna Caravan by some years. As a matter of interest the cabin cross section is almost identical with the Caravan having a Nomad cabin lying on its side.
If they'd kept going in what was the right direction and not got involved in the complication of mickey mouse retactable gear and engines it may well have been different story.
We became the bemused owners of three of them in a deal and I'm here to tell you we only got out of them by the skin of our teeth because we had written them down to near nothing.
BTW the other Allison types mentioned above all met the same fate in the market, curiosities maybe but not serious.
The Nomad is there with many others that never made the grade.
BTW I have seen some of the early development single engine concepts on the aircraft and it precedes the Cessna Caravan by some years. As a matter of interest the cabin cross section is almost identical with the Caravan having a Nomad cabin lying on its side.
If they'd kept going in what was the right direction and not got involved in the complication of mickey mouse retactable gear and engines it may well have been different story.
We became the bemused owners of three of them in a deal and I'm here to tell you we only got out of them by the skin of our teeth because we had written them down to near nothing.
BTW the other Allison types mentioned above all met the same fate in the market, curiosities maybe but not serious.
Grandpa Aerotart
J_t I think we agree more than we disagree.
I call them Grinley's revenge, if you're ex mil you may know who I mean
Was the Army accident you mention the one that took the life of Hummers? If so I remember having beers(MANY!!!) with him a few months before his death, in Lae. He, much like yourself, had a somewhat 'benign' opinion of the aircraft, and then he died in one, other than he was flying 'nap of the earth' at the time I have heard very little.
I think Gaunty sums it up rather well. It may have been good in some roles but the 'market' and 'industry' has been unable to worked out what.
Chuck.
I call them Grinley's revenge, if you're ex mil you may know who I mean
Was the Army accident you mention the one that took the life of Hummers? If so I remember having beers(MANY!!!) with him a few months before his death, in Lae. He, much like yourself, had a somewhat 'benign' opinion of the aircraft, and then he died in one, other than he was flying 'nap of the earth' at the time I have heard very little.
I think Gaunty sums it up rather well. It may have been good in some roles but the 'market' and 'industry' has been unable to worked out what.
Chuck.
Moderator
(While I have a soft spot for the Nomad I have no specific agenda one way or the other.)
Gaunty sums up the commercial realities well ... the Nomad, in the absence of a longer design development process, never achieved anything like its potential .. the original SE proposal did, as he observes, have some resemblance to the Caravan. The T-tail proposal looked quite smart.
Chuck .. no, not ex-military (other than CAF/Reserve). If my recollection is correct, the particular accident aircraft was A18-401/LS128 and the accident occurred early 1990. I would have the name of the pilot in my files but cannot bring it to mind. Such recollection as I do have is that the pilot was flying in a very innocuous manner when the tailplane failed. I suspect that his test pilot colleague who was on the previous flight with him still periodically has a contemplative beer regarding the fickle finger of fate ...
Gaunty sums up the commercial realities well ... the Nomad, in the absence of a longer design development process, never achieved anything like its potential .. the original SE proposal did, as he observes, have some resemblance to the Caravan. The T-tail proposal looked quite smart.
Chuck .. no, not ex-military (other than CAF/Reserve). If my recollection is correct, the particular accident aircraft was A18-401/LS128 and the accident occurred early 1990. I would have the name of the pilot in my files but cannot bring it to mind. Such recollection as I do have is that the pilot was flying in a very innocuous manner when the tailplane failed. I suspect that his test pilot colleague who was on the previous flight with him still periodically has a contemplative beer regarding the fickle finger of fate ...
John and Chuck. The Nomad tail problem must have been known well before 1990. I recall seeing Army/PNGDF Nomads in the PNGDF Hangar at the old Lae town airport, pre 1985, missing the tail cone and feathers, which had been shipped back to GAF for modification.
Chuck, I think there were six civil N24's operated in PNG, three each by IAT and Douglas. I recall the news paper announcing that Douglas Airways would license build Nomads in Port Moresby, however it wasn't many months later that Bikkies got quite irate at the mention of a Nomad.
Gaunty, I suspect yours and my favourite aircraft, the Cessna 208/208B will well and truly outlift a Nomad. Certainly, over a 300 nm sector, a Caravan will carry a greater payload, at higher speed, than the average DHC6-300 Otter (Empty weight 3,700 kg, MTOW 5,700 kg) due to the Caravan's far lower fuel burn.
Chuck, I recall DHC6-200 VH-GKR/P2-RDB when it was stripped out for the Kiunga - Tabubil shuttles (prior to completion of the road) had an empty weight (sans seats) of 2,986 kg, MTOW of 5,251 kg and disposeable load of 2,265 kg! What a great machine......
Chuck, I think there were six civil N24's operated in PNG, three each by IAT and Douglas. I recall the news paper announcing that Douglas Airways would license build Nomads in Port Moresby, however it wasn't many months later that Bikkies got quite irate at the mention of a Nomad.
Gaunty, I suspect yours and my favourite aircraft, the Cessna 208/208B will well and truly outlift a Nomad. Certainly, over a 300 nm sector, a Caravan will carry a greater payload, at higher speed, than the average DHC6-300 Otter (Empty weight 3,700 kg, MTOW 5,700 kg) due to the Caravan's far lower fuel burn.
Chuck, I recall DHC6-200 VH-GKR/P2-RDB when it was stripped out for the Kiunga - Tabubil shuttles (prior to completion of the road) had an empty weight (sans seats) of 2,986 kg, MTOW of 5,251 kg and disposeable load of 2,265 kg! What a great machine......