Merged: Nomad Return?
From what I've heard from the guys at Boeing (formerly ASTA formerly GAF) who were over here testing the flap mod, that the army did work them hard and did a lot of things that civilian Nomads would not be subjected to (sounds fairly typical for most military aircraft). But the problem with the flutter of the aileron/flap system was just slop developing through the clever system for the aileron/spoiler set up. But the new mod has stiffened that up considerably - to the point where at full flap instead of the flaps being blown back to 34 degrees in flight, they are only blown back to 36 degrees.
If only the N24s had the same infinite flap settings as on the N22.
If only the N24s had the same infinite flap settings as on the N22.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the distinct pleasure of sitting in the LHS whilst conducting a Air Drop sortie over Londonderry in the early ninetys, the whole thing was held together with 1000 mile an hour tape and, boy did she 'shake rattle and roll'
Still, had the feel of a good aircraft. can still remember the smell and eyewatering effect of the cabin getting full of engine exhaust fumes entering through the open cargo door when on the ground.
Happy days.
Still, had the feel of a good aircraft. can still remember the smell and eyewatering effect of the cabin getting full of engine exhaust fumes entering through the open cargo door when on the ground.
Happy days.
Evertonian
a few wing over type manouvres and hugging the earth to stay away from the fighters
Sorry, I know its a serious & genuine necessity but...I just had this mental image of an SU-30 "chasing" a Nomad at treetop level! Would you use a missile, or wait for it to shake itself apart???
There seem to be a couple of points of confusion here, perhaps I can add to it!
First, I'd be very surprised if the defence force ones were deliberately flown outside flight manual limits.
Re the reason some defence pilots didn't like them; as I heard it, at some flap settings, bad airframe vibrations occurred and basically guys refused to fly them for that reason.
As I understand it, the tragic South Aust tailplane separation accident was attributed in part to stress from lengthy high power ground running for test purposes in combination with some deficiencies in airframe inspection procedures.
First, I'd be very surprised if the defence force ones were deliberately flown outside flight manual limits.
Re the reason some defence pilots didn't like them; as I heard it, at some flap settings, bad airframe vibrations occurred and basically guys refused to fly them for that reason.
As I understand it, the tragic South Aust tailplane separation accident was attributed in part to stress from lengthy high power ground running for test purposes in combination with some deficiencies in airframe inspection procedures.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see "Arm out the window" has got the correct handle regarding Army compliance with the Flight Manuals and in relation to GD's accident in the ARDU Nomad.
The Nomad was influenced/tampered with by politics throughout its 'checkered career'. Perhaps one of the lesser known instances was the friction between the RAAF who believed they were the only knowledgable entity with regard to military aviation and the Army. The RAAF were about to lose control of the battlefield helicopter/s to the Army and not surprisingly the RAAF were not amused. A senior RAAF Test Pilot at ARDU (not GD who was Army) wrote a particularly scathing report on the Nomad that perpetuated the the RAAF notion that they were the only people who new anything about military aviation. The military use was thus restricted as a consequence of this report, even some Army people believed its findings. Mind you the Nomad was not perfect (no such beast) but the aircrafts future was from that moment on severly tainted and pretty much set up for failure.
I would not be surprised if there was influence exerted by government entities for the Nomad to be taken up and operated by Army as an Australian home grown product.
I do know many who did not like the aircraft, mostly because of the way they were made to operate it and yes because of some of its own failings as well.
tipsy
who had a heart flutter when he read the thread title, maybe it was just the tailplane
The Nomad was influenced/tampered with by politics throughout its 'checkered career'. Perhaps one of the lesser known instances was the friction between the RAAF who believed they were the only knowledgable entity with regard to military aviation and the Army. The RAAF were about to lose control of the battlefield helicopter/s to the Army and not surprisingly the RAAF were not amused. A senior RAAF Test Pilot at ARDU (not GD who was Army) wrote a particularly scathing report on the Nomad that perpetuated the the RAAF notion that they were the only people who new anything about military aviation. The military use was thus restricted as a consequence of this report, even some Army people believed its findings. Mind you the Nomad was not perfect (no such beast) but the aircrafts future was from that moment on severly tainted and pretty much set up for failure.
I would not be surprised if there was influence exerted by government entities for the Nomad to be taken up and operated by Army as an Australian home grown product.
I do know many who did not like the aircraft, mostly because of the way they were made to operate it and yes because of some of its own failings as well.
tipsy
who had a heart flutter when he read the thread title, maybe it was just the tailplane
Thread Starter
Flying-spike
I was in the Australian Army when they were introduced, maintained them as a trady. Endorsed on them as a pilot and involved in the mod program.
They had problems but were a very capable aircraft when they were used for what they were designed for. Just ask RR. If GA do their research and I am sure they will, and they make the appropriate changes, then the "new" Nomad will go gangbusters.
They had problems but were a very capable aircraft when they were used for what they were designed for. Just ask RR. If GA do their research and I am sure they will, and they make the appropriate changes, then the "new" Nomad will go gangbusters.
Silly Old Git
Three years flying the bloody things nothing stopped or fell orf 
Remember one came thru Darwhine on the way back from oop North(Thai?) where they had fixed a Vulcan or something on the floor to fire out the rear door
Muzzle blast apparently split the flaps skins
Remember one came thru Darwhine on the way back from oop North(Thai?) where they had fixed a Vulcan or something on the floor to fire out the rear door
Muzzle blast apparently split the flaps skins
I seem to remember a slight involvement with that in the early '80s. Hawker Pacific replaced a lot of the structure under the floor with 4130 so a "gatling gun" could be installed by the Thais, think it was the Thai Navy. Don't know if a gatling gun is the same as a Vulcan.
Good airframe really but all that 4130 under the floor would have been the strongest part. Would have weighed a bit too.
Good airframe really but all that 4130 under the floor would have been the strongest part. Would have weighed a bit too.
I didn't go with any of the aircraft going to Thailand but a few of my apprentice mates did. They took in a lot of culture when they were there apparently.
We did some interesting mods to Nomads in those days. I can't remember how many aircraft went through the hangar, seem to recall the Thai Army took 20 N22s and the Thai Navy took four N24s. There were Phillipine ones as well.
We did some interesting mods to Nomads in those days. I can't remember how many aircraft went through the hangar, seem to recall the Thai Army took 20 N22s and the Thai Navy took four N24s. There were Phillipine ones as well.
Sorry Tinpis, you probably meant the pilot. In those days I think Rod Mendham usually did the ferry flights.
Heard about the T tail mod but didn't see it. John Stewart Jones at what used to be HSJ at Bankstown has a lot of "what might have been" information on the Nomad. I don't think the T tail ever flew, someone else may know better.
Heard about the T tail mod but didn't see it. John Stewart Jones at what used to be HSJ at Bankstown has a lot of "what might have been" information on the Nomad. I don't think the T tail ever flew, someone else may know better.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't there a weight issue from the original drawings and designs that put it way too heavy....... So GAF had to use thinner skin and in doing so had structual problems???
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomad Follies..
Just had to recount a Nomad experience of mine...
returning to Moresby in one of the Douglas Nomads I decided to see how short a landing could be... no traffic behind... no loading.. touched down on start of the threshold markers for 32L and had stopped by the END of the threshold markers. The amazingly short landing distance scared the bejeesus outa me. As I had stopped well short of the first taxyway exit I apologised to the tower controller for the extra time on the runway.. and he said "Cripes mate, that is not a problem, we all thought you'd landed gear up!!"
Wouldn't go near one again with a ten foot pole but had 800 hours of fun with 'em back in the day....
returning to Moresby in one of the Douglas Nomads I decided to see how short a landing could be... no traffic behind... no loading.. touched down on start of the threshold markers for 32L and had stopped by the END of the threshold markers. The amazingly short landing distance scared the bejeesus outa me. As I had stopped well short of the first taxyway exit I apologised to the tower controller for the extra time on the runway.. and he said "Cripes mate, that is not a problem, we all thought you'd landed gear up!!"
Wouldn't go near one again with a ten foot pole but had 800 hours of fun with 'em back in the day....
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: nsw australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was doing an endorsement in one when the instructor decided to show me what they could do......We came over the threshold at 1000', threw out the gear. full flap and flt idle, you push the stick full forward or you stall, we crashed dived rounded out landed and stopped all within I guess 200 mt.
If I hadn't been in the aeroplane I wouldn't have believed it.
If I hadn't been in the aeroplane I wouldn't have believed it.
The Nomad is a great aeroplane and consider myself very lucky to have flown them! 
We have a photo of the company's first Nomad (It was an N22), which was used as the demonstrator at Farnborough, upside down.. I'm not too sure if it is true or not but apparantly it was rolled as part of the display..
I'm sure there are people out there who will be able to correct me in that.
We have a photo of the company's first Nomad (It was an N22), which was used as the demonstrator at Farnborough, upside down.. I'm not too sure if it is true or not but apparantly it was rolled as part of the display..
I'm sure there are people out there who will be able to correct me in that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing the myths that perpetuate around this aircraft.
This aircraft was first designed for the civilian and military market. However the Aussie military wanted nothing to do with them. That was ok initially, however civilian sales were almost nonexistent. So along with the best traditions of politicians they forced them on the military that, as was said by tipsy2, were against being landed with them as it filled a gap in capability that simply did not exist!
The airframe that had the tail fall off was used extensively for testing in particular high power ground runs. A lot of these ground runs were asymmetric high powered runs. Now this may have been fine except for the fact that firstly they were never logged and secondly the actual affects of the stress from the ground runs on the airframe never really inspected. The ADF blamed GAF for the undocumented runs and likewise GAF blamed the ADF for the way the aircraft was operated...
As late as Jan/Feb 1997 (just as Boeing bought ASTA - and ASTA were making rudders and centre section fuselages for Airbus - but that is another story) I witnessed a destructive static load test on a modified Nomad tail section that went to 2.54 (IIRC) times the previous aircraft ultimate load before it failed. Was quite impressive, however this has nothing to do with the Nomad story, just thought I would chuck it in.
Anyway the Nomad story is one that was so politicised and had so much forced on it and expected of it, that it was simply doomed to failure. A lot of SE Asian militaries were very much interested in the aircraft, however our government of the time, that could see no future in an indigenous aircraft manufacturing capability basically shot that down before it even got off the ground. The final nail in the coffin was the failure of the tailplane and the loss of a Defence Force pilot. The aircraft was already doomed before this and it is a shame that this had to happen. Alas, along with a whole bunch of other Aussie designed aircraft there simply never was the political will and support for an Australian designed aircraft. Thus we now have an aircraft parts industry of which we do lead the world in a number of areas, but who knows what could have been.
However Australia did have a number of Nomads just "sitting" there at the end of all this and these were essentially gifted to SE Asian countries who from all accounts have simply loved the aircraft and have had no further dramas with it.
Mind you there is the flip side of the argument that Australia simply could never and would never be able to afford to develop aircraft that were competitive with the large manufacturers of today and in fact the government had a lot of foresight to essentially get out of the aircraft design business when it did before it sucked an inordinate amount of money from the Australian economy.
Anyway there is heaps to this story and it makes for very interesting and frustrating reading and leads to dreams of what possibly could have been a fully fledged aircraft design and manufacturing industry in Australia - for however long it lasted. The reason I say this is I am sure that even if we did have a proper aircraft manufacturing industry that had been supported, it would definitely have been privatised by the government and would have been subsumed as ASTA was under one of the big two aircraft manufacturers left in the world anyway, my humble opinion only.
Cheers
Mr B
This aircraft was first designed for the civilian and military market. However the Aussie military wanted nothing to do with them. That was ok initially, however civilian sales were almost nonexistent. So along with the best traditions of politicians they forced them on the military that, as was said by tipsy2, were against being landed with them as it filled a gap in capability that simply did not exist!
The airframe that had the tail fall off was used extensively for testing in particular high power ground runs. A lot of these ground runs were asymmetric high powered runs. Now this may have been fine except for the fact that firstly they were never logged and secondly the actual affects of the stress from the ground runs on the airframe never really inspected. The ADF blamed GAF for the undocumented runs and likewise GAF blamed the ADF for the way the aircraft was operated...
As late as Jan/Feb 1997 (just as Boeing bought ASTA - and ASTA were making rudders and centre section fuselages for Airbus - but that is another story) I witnessed a destructive static load test on a modified Nomad tail section that went to 2.54 (IIRC) times the previous aircraft ultimate load before it failed. Was quite impressive, however this has nothing to do with the Nomad story, just thought I would chuck it in.
Anyway the Nomad story is one that was so politicised and had so much forced on it and expected of it, that it was simply doomed to failure. A lot of SE Asian militaries were very much interested in the aircraft, however our government of the time, that could see no future in an indigenous aircraft manufacturing capability basically shot that down before it even got off the ground. The final nail in the coffin was the failure of the tailplane and the loss of a Defence Force pilot. The aircraft was already doomed before this and it is a shame that this had to happen. Alas, along with a whole bunch of other Aussie designed aircraft there simply never was the political will and support for an Australian designed aircraft. Thus we now have an aircraft parts industry of which we do lead the world in a number of areas, but who knows what could have been.
However Australia did have a number of Nomads just "sitting" there at the end of all this and these were essentially gifted to SE Asian countries who from all accounts have simply loved the aircraft and have had no further dramas with it.
Mind you there is the flip side of the argument that Australia simply could never and would never be able to afford to develop aircraft that were competitive with the large manufacturers of today and in fact the government had a lot of foresight to essentially get out of the aircraft design business when it did before it sucked an inordinate amount of money from the Australian economy.
Anyway there is heaps to this story and it makes for very interesting and frustrating reading and leads to dreams of what possibly could have been a fully fledged aircraft design and manufacturing industry in Australia - for however long it lasted. The reason I say this is I am sure that even if we did have a proper aircraft manufacturing industry that had been supported, it would definitely have been privatised by the government and would have been subsumed as ASTA was under one of the big two aircraft manufacturers left in the world anyway, my humble opinion only.
Cheers
Mr B
it is interesting though that Australia - which has been at the forefront of aviation development since Pontious was a cadet pilot, has no real local aviation industry but Brazil has designed and produced (and continues to produce) designs such as the Tucano and Super Tucano (remember the Australian trainer project that got canned?), the Bandit (remember the Nomad - well sort of...) the Brazilia, the 145/135 family, the E Jets.
They do this in a far less technologically advanced society than we have, and they train their own using dedicated universities and technical training facilities.
They feed and transport their staff - of which there is something like 17000 at the SJK facility, and they are a massive contributor to the Brazilian economy
If anyone doesnt think there is value in a homegrown aviation industry look to South America - they are selling E Jets hand over fist and making a tidy profit thanks very much.
They do have, unlike us, have leaders who look beyond the election cycle and dont panic if it doesnt make a profit in the first 5 minutes
They take a long term view and have done so since the late 40's.
There is a lesson to be learnt if anyone with vision was willing to take a look
They do this in a far less technologically advanced society than we have, and they train their own using dedicated universities and technical training facilities.
They feed and transport their staff - of which there is something like 17000 at the SJK facility, and they are a massive contributor to the Brazilian economy
If anyone doesnt think there is value in a homegrown aviation industry look to South America - they are selling E Jets hand over fist and making a tidy profit thanks very much.
They do have, unlike us, have leaders who look beyond the election cycle and dont panic if it doesnt make a profit in the first 5 minutes
They take a long term view and have done so since the late 40's.
There is a lesson to be learnt if anyone with vision was willing to take a look