Merged: Nomad Return?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Gonad!
There are 50 odd still flying around the world including Air Safari in NZ who carry heaps of tourists every year. The 32% figure is pretty misleading. The Nomad is a much maligned aircraft that deserves a good design tweak and a second go at the market
Thread Starter
If GA can have the success with the ole Nomad that they've had with the GA8 good on'em! The Scare van is the ferkin easiest thing you'll ever land (makes me look like a pro)! I love the 206, who doesn't right? Though when you get in an airvan, man! It's amazing what a designed aircraft fells like compared to an evolved one!
Go GA, go you good thing!!!
Cheers.
Go GA, go you good thing!!!
Cheers.
From the other thread:
One of the saddest things about Australian Government is the persistence of what I will call "Institutional Wisdom". These are mantras that are taken as gospel by the public service, usually with very little thought and still less research.
These mantras are harmful because they inform Government policy.
Most of these mantras boil down to "Australia can't afford to have (insert favourite industry) because we don't have the economies of scale / population to support it".
This is the argument that was to destroy Victa Aviation, the CAC Wamira, Ansett Airlines, the Nomad, and at least one car company.
The trouble with this argument is that it is based on the myth of "economies of scale". It ignores the simple fact that engineering technology, driven by the Japanese, has been doing it's level best to destroy "economies of scale" for the past Forty years, and has largely been successful.
The major weapon that destroyed economies of scale is computer aided manufacturing. This means computer aided design, and computer controlled manufacturing, especially computer controlled machine tools.
The reason these technologies destroyed economies of scale is that they reduced the huge investment required to build something new down to almost zero(well, a believable figure anyway).
In the "good old days" you required massive amounts of tooling to set up machines to cut and drill metal. These days you pretty much don't.
You required an army of design draftsmen to prepare and maintain blueprints of your parts and the associated tooling. Today it's pretty much all in your computer.
Same with manuals.
By way of example, GA produces most of it's sheetmetal with each and every hole CNC punched in it. No more of the old "Pilot hole and drill backwards" philosophy - and bugger all tooling.
When CAC was producing very expensive componentry for the F404 engines, they were doing it on exactly the same machines, in exactly the same working conditions, as GE were using in Lynn, Massachusets. No economies of scale involved at all.
Economies of scale are dead, build what you want, where you want.
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.
These mantras are harmful because they inform Government policy.
Most of these mantras boil down to "Australia can't afford to have (insert favourite industry) because we don't have the economies of scale / population to support it".
This is the argument that was to destroy Victa Aviation, the CAC Wamira, Ansett Airlines, the Nomad, and at least one car company.
The trouble with this argument is that it is based on the myth of "economies of scale". It ignores the simple fact that engineering technology, driven by the Japanese, has been doing it's level best to destroy "economies of scale" for the past Forty years, and has largely been successful.
The major weapon that destroyed economies of scale is computer aided manufacturing. This means computer aided design, and computer controlled manufacturing, especially computer controlled machine tools.
The reason these technologies destroyed economies of scale is that they reduced the huge investment required to build something new down to almost zero(well, a believable figure anyway).
In the "good old days" you required massive amounts of tooling to set up machines to cut and drill metal. These days you pretty much don't.
You required an army of design draftsmen to prepare and maintain blueprints of your parts and the associated tooling. Today it's pretty much all in your computer.
Same with manuals.
By way of example, GA produces most of it's sheetmetal with each and every hole CNC punched in it. No more of the old "Pilot hole and drill backwards" philosophy - and bugger all tooling.
When CAC was producing very expensive componentry for the F404 engines, they were doing it on exactly the same machines, in exactly the same working conditions, as GE were using in Lynn, Massachusets. No economies of scale involved at all.
Economies of scale are dead, build what you want, where you want.
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Jun 2008 at 00:05.
Nope Buster, just silly enough to get an engineering degree many years ago and try to work in manufacturing. Then to an airline, and an aerospace company.
I did however spend time some years ago working to give some stimulus to the engineering industry. The result of that work is here:
http://www.toolingaus.com/
....and today's cover story is about an Australian company making bits for Rolls Royce Aerospace
Australia's manufacturing niche in the world economy is making relatively low volumes of sophisticated products....which we can usually make cheaper and better than anybody else.
I did however spend time some years ago working to give some stimulus to the engineering industry. The result of that work is here:
http://www.toolingaus.com/
....and today's cover story is about an Australian company making bits for Rolls Royce Aerospace
Australia's manufacturing niche in the world economy is making relatively low volumes of sophisticated products....which we can usually make cheaper and better than anybody else.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinny...did you get that after consultation with the 1000 "clever" Australians?
Nomad has a bright future
Boeing Australia Sells Nomad Aircraft Certification Authority to Gippsland
(Brisbane, Australia, June 18, 2008) -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] subsidiary Boeing Australia Limited has sold certification authority for the twin turboprop Nomad aircraft to Australia-based general aviation manufacturer Gippsland Aeronautics.
The sale includes technical and spares sales support and all intellectual property for the Nomad aircraft worldwide. Financial terms are not being disclosed.
"The Nomad has a bright future," said David Withers, president of Boeing Australia Limited. "We're delighted with Gippsland's plan to continue providing outstanding support to existing customers while greatly expanding the market for this remarkably versatile, Australian-designed aircraft."
The Hon. Greg Combet MP, the Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, said the government has supported the Nomad program since its beginnings. "Our desire for the Nomad type certificate to remain in Australia has been fully realized through this sale to Gippsland Aeronautics," Combet said.
Gippsland Aeronautics Chairman Gary Wight said Gippsland is pleased to be part of the Nomad's future. "We're committed to continuing the high standard of support Boeing has delivered to existing Nomad operators around the world," he said.
Wight added that Gippsland was looking forward to possibly presenting the aircraft to the world market as the Next-Generation Nomad. "The versatile Nomad will complement Gippsland's rugged GA8 Airvan multirole utility aircraft," he said.
Source : Boeing
(Brisbane, Australia, June 18, 2008) -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] subsidiary Boeing Australia Limited has sold certification authority for the twin turboprop Nomad aircraft to Australia-based general aviation manufacturer Gippsland Aeronautics.
The sale includes technical and spares sales support and all intellectual property for the Nomad aircraft worldwide. Financial terms are not being disclosed.
"The Nomad has a bright future," said David Withers, president of Boeing Australia Limited. "We're delighted with Gippsland's plan to continue providing outstanding support to existing customers while greatly expanding the market for this remarkably versatile, Australian-designed aircraft."
The Hon. Greg Combet MP, the Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, said the government has supported the Nomad program since its beginnings. "Our desire for the Nomad type certificate to remain in Australia has been fully realized through this sale to Gippsland Aeronautics," Combet said.
Gippsland Aeronautics Chairman Gary Wight said Gippsland is pleased to be part of the Nomad's future. "We're committed to continuing the high standard of support Boeing has delivered to existing Nomad operators around the world," he said.
Wight added that Gippsland was looking forward to possibly presenting the aircraft to the world market as the Next-Generation Nomad. "The versatile Nomad will complement Gippsland's rugged GA8 Airvan multirole utility aircraft," he said.
Source : Boeing
Thread Starter
Already two threads:
This one
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=331607 and an earlier one from april.
Can the mod please merge them?
This one
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=331607 and an earlier one from april.
Can the mod please merge them?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.
Do we need another slooooow aircraft, government funded (probably), with STOL capability, in one of the biggest continents on the planet?
The Nomad is too slow, short of range. It cannot cover 400 nm range, with head wind and carry holding. The taxpayer paid for it last time, and it didn't work. We have 1500m airstrips every 300 nm, so why do we need STOL capability. Australia is huge, why build a slow aeroplane.
Why did Brazil, Switzerland and USA not approach OZ to buy the rights to build the Nomad when the production ceased? For the same reason they don't build new Austers and Tiger Moths.
We don't build HQ Holdens and Model T's for the same reason. They only reason some Nomads are still flying is they are cheap.
It's time to move on.
Do we need another slooooow aircraft, government funded (probably), with STOL capability, in one of the biggest continents on the planet?
The Nomad is too slow, short of range. It cannot cover 400 nm range, with head wind and carry holding. The taxpayer paid for it last time, and it didn't work. We have 1500m airstrips every 300 nm, so why do we need STOL capability. Australia is huge, why build a slow aeroplane.
Why did Brazil, Switzerland and USA not approach OZ to buy the rights to build the Nomad when the production ceased? For the same reason they don't build new Austers and Tiger Moths.
We don't build HQ Holdens and Model T's for the same reason. They only reason some Nomads are still flying is they are cheap.
It's time to move on.
Evertonian
The Hon. Greg Combet MP, the Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, said the government has supported the Nomad program since its beginnings.
Mind you, this is the same guy that has championed the plight of Ansett workers.....right up to being elected.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'tio540' that's a good point, why do we need another slow plane in such a large country. Maybe this Gippy place (who ever they are) can sell them where they are really needed. I've seen a few Nomads around and even tho i am not an expert on drag they look like my old shed I used to have.
Git
Git
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a time not long ago when there were many Nomads parked against the fence at airports because they were worth zip.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about brands, but Pilatus Pc12's comes from the one of the smallest countries, yet claim 270 kts, which is an order of magnitude above the Nomad.
Range, speed and payload sells. They are exported around the world.
They just happen to be short field as well.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about brands, but Pilatus Pc12's comes from the one of the smallest countries, yet claim 270 kts, which is an order of magnitude above the Nomad.
Range, speed and payload sells. They are exported around the world.
They just happen to be short field as well.
Go Gippsland! We need more slow airplanes.
The biggest problem these days is that everyone is in a damn hurry. I do not want to travel 270 knots, it gives me nose bleed. I want to fly slow and low so i can have a good look at this great country and enjoy it.
I want to fly above the Pacific Highway in a Nomad and watch every HQ Holden pulling away in front of me.
Can't fly much slower than that now, can you?
The biggest problem these days is that everyone is in a damn hurry. I do not want to travel 270 knots, it gives me nose bleed. I want to fly slow and low so i can have a good look at this great country and enjoy it.
I want to fly above the Pacific Highway in a Nomad and watch every HQ Holden pulling away in front of me.
Can't fly much slower than that now, can you?
Moderator
First up, there exists a modest number of PPRuNers who are ex-Nomad tech folk who retain a fondness for the Type ...
don't have the government peeking over their shoulder
two of the reasons that the aircraft didn't achieve the market penetration it might have related to its being a fill-in project at GAF and being funded for short production runs only
the aircraft that it should have been in the first place
you mean a much smaller single engine turboprop such as was the model which graced Wriggle's desk ?
With a few minor changes the Nomad could be come a very successful aircraft
much of the problem related to the growth from a much smaller aircraft with an engine to match ...
Ceased production for safety reasons
there was a good story behind that idea .. the aircraft got some undeservedly bad press .. unfortunately I can't risk comment on that
including Air Safari in NZ
the NZ operators used to reckon that the only replacement which had half a chance of competing with the Nomad ... was a Nomad (the Oz Coastwatch folk also thought highly of the Type as I recall)
Economies of scale are dead
it has long been accepted that Australia had/has the capability to design and build an aircraft to the size of, say, a Caribou. Reality is that there is more percentage in offset production and technology transfer work which is the bulk of the local Industry in recent years .. however, more strength to Gippy Aero ..
The Nomad is too slow, short of range
but keep in mind that the original design was for a military close support aircraft .. ie something akin to a helo but much cheaper .. the effort was to develop minimal field length performance and non-prepared surface capability. As a consequence of the Westgate collapse, the program was delayed a bit which permitted the aerodynamics folk to develop the lateral control system to a high degree ... for an aircraft its size the low speed capabilities are notable. I can remember quite clearly being thrown in the back as ballast on a few early performance flight tests (mind you, I would fulfil that role far more effectively with my present physique than the younger .. diets be damned) ... Stuart driving and Patrick scribing .. and having my young eyes opened wide at what the aircraft could do on landing, in particular ...
You might like to do some sums on the metric payload capability/MTOW .. and see just how good the Nomad is compared to anything else on that metric alone ...
Of course, if your requirement is speed .. then the Nomad is not for you .. and that was intimately tied up with a lot of the bad press in days gone by ..
..not approach OZ to buy the rights to build the Nomad when the production ceased
something to do with the conditions which would be imposed by the Government, I suggest ...
don't have the government peeking over their shoulder
two of the reasons that the aircraft didn't achieve the market penetration it might have related to its being a fill-in project at GAF and being funded for short production runs only
the aircraft that it should have been in the first place
you mean a much smaller single engine turboprop such as was the model which graced Wriggle's desk ?
With a few minor changes the Nomad could be come a very successful aircraft
much of the problem related to the growth from a much smaller aircraft with an engine to match ...
Ceased production for safety reasons
there was a good story behind that idea .. the aircraft got some undeservedly bad press .. unfortunately I can't risk comment on that
including Air Safari in NZ
the NZ operators used to reckon that the only replacement which had half a chance of competing with the Nomad ... was a Nomad (the Oz Coastwatch folk also thought highly of the Type as I recall)
Economies of scale are dead
it has long been accepted that Australia had/has the capability to design and build an aircraft to the size of, say, a Caribou. Reality is that there is more percentage in offset production and technology transfer work which is the bulk of the local Industry in recent years .. however, more strength to Gippy Aero ..
The Nomad is too slow, short of range
but keep in mind that the original design was for a military close support aircraft .. ie something akin to a helo but much cheaper .. the effort was to develop minimal field length performance and non-prepared surface capability. As a consequence of the Westgate collapse, the program was delayed a bit which permitted the aerodynamics folk to develop the lateral control system to a high degree ... for an aircraft its size the low speed capabilities are notable. I can remember quite clearly being thrown in the back as ballast on a few early performance flight tests (mind you, I would fulfil that role far more effectively with my present physique than the younger .. diets be damned) ... Stuart driving and Patrick scribing .. and having my young eyes opened wide at what the aircraft could do on landing, in particular ...
You might like to do some sums on the metric payload capability/MTOW .. and see just how good the Nomad is compared to anything else on that metric alone ...
Of course, if your requirement is speed .. then the Nomad is not for you .. and that was intimately tied up with a lot of the bad press in days gone by ..
..not approach OZ to buy the rights to build the Nomad when the production ceased
something to do with the conditions which would be imposed by the Government, I suggest ...