Merged: Nomad Return?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: On the scrap heap
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, a lovely little aircraft for S/E training! A quick check of the logbook shows nearly as much S/E time on the thing as multi (not by choice, I might add). Even the regular pax got used to seeing one shut down! Then there was that persistent leak around the door in rain, and the CP unwilling to approve an expenses claim for a brolly. In theory a nice bit of kit, which just goes to show that theory and practicality don't always mix
You are not correct
Sorry, you are right. Went back and looked at some notes. The aircraft was believed to be overweight and outside the aft CG limit. Nobody at GAF was interested in looking into what might have happened, because amongst other things N24 certification was causing headaches. What might have happened to the Sabah aeroplane was better understood when the N24A was certified. The extra 1,000 lbs in N24A AUW made it even easier to load outside the aft limit, so "a bit aft" of the aft limit was briefly looked at (9500 odd lbs), and there was no pitch down controllability when flap was deployed. With flap going down, if any pitch up was allowed to develop, then full forward stick would not arrest it and speed would rapidly decrease . There was much scrambling for the flap paddle to retract flaps during that test. MOD N211 which regeared the control circuit was introduced to increase the maximum tailplane deflection which sorted that bit out. The problem with this summisation was that the Sabah aeroplane would have needed to depart flapless or with 10 degrees max, and though quite possible, there was no way to confirm that and of course would have had marginal stability in cruise.
am
Sorry, you are right. Went back and looked at some notes. The aircraft was believed to be overweight and outside the aft CG limit. Nobody at GAF was interested in looking into what might have happened, because amongst other things N24 certification was causing headaches. What might have happened to the Sabah aeroplane was better understood when the N24A was certified. The extra 1,000 lbs in N24A AUW made it even easier to load outside the aft limit, so "a bit aft" of the aft limit was briefly looked at (9500 odd lbs), and there was no pitch down controllability when flap was deployed. With flap going down, if any pitch up was allowed to develop, then full forward stick would not arrest it and speed would rapidly decrease . There was much scrambling for the flap paddle to retract flaps during that test. MOD N211 which regeared the control circuit was introduced to increase the maximum tailplane deflection which sorted that bit out. The problem with this summisation was that the Sabah aeroplane would have needed to depart flapless or with 10 degrees max, and though quite possible, there was no way to confirm that and of course would have had marginal stability in cruise.
am
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomad accident Sabah
Aeromariner:
Thank you for the correction. The Nomad took off before I did at Labuan. I passed it on the way to KK, landed and was disembarking my passengers when the Nomad came on to a right base and entered the spin. There was no sign of a recovery from the spin until it crashed.
Tmb
Thank you for the correction. The Nomad took off before I did at Labuan. I passed it on the way to KK, landed and was disembarking my passengers when the Nomad came on to a right base and entered the spin. There was no sign of a recovery from the spin until it crashed.
Tmb
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go go Gonad
Let GA have a go, A few good engineering tweaks and the more powerful RR 250 engine. The Nomad can sit alongside the Islander and Twin Otter once again.
Last edited by vemal; 28th Jul 2008 at 11:16.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: East Coast Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Why Why????
Flog that dead horse.
Flew the TV star with a couple of hundred hours on it. On the whole, not a bad airframe for short field performance, but Allison B17's are shocking engines for a fixed wing in australian high temps. And the tail's, tell that to the family's of the deceased. It was always trying to be a twin otter, and never came close. PT6, and a normal tail, it might compete as a heavy and gutless -100 Twin Otter. There is just so much more out there. As the Nad performs like fat kids hang gliding on one engine, the converted single turbine Otter has more payload than the -300 series twin. So apple and oranges with twins and singles are not applicable here, single turbines are in the market for comparison. The Chinese walter powered Twin Otter copy, the caravan, the Otter, god even the old porter.
So the article says they will re-introduce the N24, which is the stretched verson with marginal performance to the marginal performing short body with the same engines. BUT it is getting the Pro Line Pack for the cockpit. Dammit, the cockpit was the only thing that was good on the thing.
Fail to plan, plan to fail. This industry will be intollerant to this form of stupidity. Sad, because the air van is such a great seller. Can't imagine why Boeing flicked ownership so fast.
IMHO stepping off the soap box
Flew the TV star with a couple of hundred hours on it. On the whole, not a bad airframe for short field performance, but Allison B17's are shocking engines for a fixed wing in australian high temps. And the tail's, tell that to the family's of the deceased. It was always trying to be a twin otter, and never came close. PT6, and a normal tail, it might compete as a heavy and gutless -100 Twin Otter. There is just so much more out there. As the Nad performs like fat kids hang gliding on one engine, the converted single turbine Otter has more payload than the -300 series twin. So apple and oranges with twins and singles are not applicable here, single turbines are in the market for comparison. The Chinese walter powered Twin Otter copy, the caravan, the Otter, god even the old porter.
So the article says they will re-introduce the N24, which is the stretched verson with marginal performance to the marginal performing short body with the same engines. BUT it is getting the Pro Line Pack for the cockpit. Dammit, the cockpit was the only thing that was good on the thing.
Fail to plan, plan to fail. This industry will be intollerant to this form of stupidity. Sad, because the air van is such a great seller. Can't imagine why Boeing flicked ownership so fast.
IMHO stepping off the soap box
Moderator
And the tail's ...
Like all Types, the Nomad has some known problems .. but, do the maintenance and most reduce to nuisance value. There was a lot to the story of Donovan's accident
and never came close ..
Interestingly, I recall a graph which showed payload/gross .. and the Nomad was head and shoulders above everything else .. seemed to me to be a relevant metric ? A simple payload comparison is pretty meaningless.
the stretched verson with marginal performance
It had "adequate" performance .. the aircraft certainly was stretched to the limit of the engine's capability ...
Fail to plan, plan to fail
I can't imagine that Gippy hasn't done its sums on the matter ? That doesn't guarantee success but it is the starting point.
Can't imagine why Boeing flicked ownership so fast
Rockwell would have liked to divest ... I can't imagine that Boeing was any different .. the support program had some not overly desirable Government requirements ....
You Nomad supporters should send some of your paypacket
Likewise, I can't imagine that Gippy would be going down this path unless the omens were favourable ....
Like all Types, the Nomad has some known problems .. but, do the maintenance and most reduce to nuisance value. There was a lot to the story of Donovan's accident
and never came close ..
Interestingly, I recall a graph which showed payload/gross .. and the Nomad was head and shoulders above everything else .. seemed to me to be a relevant metric ? A simple payload comparison is pretty meaningless.
the stretched verson with marginal performance
It had "adequate" performance .. the aircraft certainly was stretched to the limit of the engine's capability ...
Fail to plan, plan to fail
I can't imagine that Gippy hasn't done its sums on the matter ? That doesn't guarantee success but it is the starting point.
Can't imagine why Boeing flicked ownership so fast
Rockwell would have liked to divest ... I can't imagine that Boeing was any different .. the support program had some not overly desirable Government requirements ....
You Nomad supporters should send some of your paypacket
Likewise, I can't imagine that Gippy would be going down this path unless the omens were favourable ....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the test pilot, can't remember his name, demonstrate the N22 at Farnborough in, I think, 1970/1. It demonstrated against a Twin Otter and a Dornier Do-28, it outperformed them in all areas except speed and I don't think that was what it was designed for anyway.
I finally got to fly the N24 some years later and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. A great plane for sucking you out of muddy strips that would only take a chopper. That short field approach had a great view of the mud too.
Some parts need improving, but don't change it too much and I might even enjoy another go at it
I finally got to fly the N24 some years later and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. A great plane for sucking you out of muddy strips that would only take a chopper. That short field approach had a great view of the mud too.
Some parts need improving, but don't change it too much and I might even enjoy another go at it
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picked up an N22 from Avalon and they made me do a rear cg flight by loading lead bars in the cabin. It was exciting in the turbulence and I needed care to fly it with the stick bumping the panel throughout the flight. They taught me how to recover (below). When I got it back to the airline I did the w&b calculations and found that the basic index they had used was wrong, by a considerable amount (calculations were wrong, and the index was actually a lot further aft). So the flight I did had been way outside the limit yet the airplane flew and was always controllable. However if you are not familiar with the condition, and do not know how to handle it, you could be in trouble. This is true of all light airplanes, and not only lighties. I have flown a HS748 so far out of balance (2000 pounds not manifested in the rear) I could not steer it on the ground (thought it was an over-inflated nose oleo causing the nose to sit so high). Singling out the Nomad is typical tall poppy stuff that I expect from Australians. Funny that; no other country seems to have that degree of cringe factor.
I was told the Sabah accident was caused by a load of tinned fish being placed in the rear locker without notifying the crew. The airplane was out of balance and if they had made a normal flapped takeoff they would have discovered the balance problem even before rotate, but they did a non-standard takeoff and the problem became uncontrollable when they put the flap down for landing.
Could happen to any airplane, but once again, any chance to knock the Nomad and out they come.
Anyway, if you are faced with a rearward balance problem (stick full forward and nose still coming up), you need to reduce the flap, reduce power and roll into a steep turn. Get the nose down (more than 90 degrees of bank if you need it) and increase speed. Use whatever altitude you have to do this. You will think that a high bank angle at low speed will cause the wing to stall, but if you do not react, the wing will stall anyway. Keep rolling, beyond vertical, until the stall buffet ceases. When the airspeed is up you will have enough elevator authority to regain control. Burn off fuel if it helps and move passengers and cargo forward. Land using no flap and a higher than normal speed. If the condition is bad enough, the airplane might tip onto its tail during the landing roll.
The auto pilot might hide the fact that the airplane is out of balance, and when the flap is extended it will just let go, leaving you to handle the problem without any warning. If you are prepared, it should be easy to recognize and easy to handle. Tell your passengers you always land that way, and remind them there is a surcharge for aerobatics.
Always use the correct configuration and technique for takeoff, and set the flap early (above 500 feet) for landing, since this condition can be masked if you are using higher than normal airspeeds. Some airplanes will develop a rearward cg as fuel is burned and you need to be careful in that case, especially if fuel transfers have been interrupted.
I was told the Sabah accident was caused by a load of tinned fish being placed in the rear locker without notifying the crew. The airplane was out of balance and if they had made a normal flapped takeoff they would have discovered the balance problem even before rotate, but they did a non-standard takeoff and the problem became uncontrollable when they put the flap down for landing.
Could happen to any airplane, but once again, any chance to knock the Nomad and out they come.
Anyway, if you are faced with a rearward balance problem (stick full forward and nose still coming up), you need to reduce the flap, reduce power and roll into a steep turn. Get the nose down (more than 90 degrees of bank if you need it) and increase speed. Use whatever altitude you have to do this. You will think that a high bank angle at low speed will cause the wing to stall, but if you do not react, the wing will stall anyway. Keep rolling, beyond vertical, until the stall buffet ceases. When the airspeed is up you will have enough elevator authority to regain control. Burn off fuel if it helps and move passengers and cargo forward. Land using no flap and a higher than normal speed. If the condition is bad enough, the airplane might tip onto its tail during the landing roll.
The auto pilot might hide the fact that the airplane is out of balance, and when the flap is extended it will just let go, leaving you to handle the problem without any warning. If you are prepared, it should be easy to recognize and easy to handle. Tell your passengers you always land that way, and remind them there is a surcharge for aerobatics.
Always use the correct configuration and technique for takeoff, and set the flap early (above 500 feet) for landing, since this condition can be masked if you are using higher than normal airspeeds. Some airplanes will develop a rearward cg as fuel is burned and you need to be careful in that case, especially if fuel transfers have been interrupted.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't think of a way to feel bad about this......
At least they're doing it, rather than sitting back on a Forum bagging someone with the cojones to have a go.
Good luck to them!
At least they're doing it, rather than sitting back on a Forum bagging someone with the cojones to have a go.
Good luck to them!
all i hope is the GA have learny from the problems on old with the Nomads and can produce a much more reliable airframe than the old one. I have no doubt about this considering their performance with the Airvans.
Thread Starter
At least they're doing it, rather than sitting back on a Forum bagging someone with the cojones to have a go.
Good luck to them!
Good luck to them!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't get the opposition to the Nomad. I only had 650 hours on an N22 but I always found it to be very reliable and a fantastic performer (after takeoff, from a 800 foot strip and at max gross, I often found I had to push the throttles forward to make climb power).
I did not like the noise, the prop vibration in the cockpit and the proximity of the prop blades to my head (but the N24 was better for this I was told).
I hardly ever had a defect on the airframe and we flew an airline schedule with it day after day and rarely cancelled for mechanical problems. We flew it on 3 hour flights between islands well before ETOPS was thought up, and the passengers loved it. I particuarly liked the way I could take off from a 2000 foot strip on one side of an island with a 6000 foot mountain on it, and fly directly over the top of the mountain to an 800 foot strip on the other side without having to circle to gain altitude or dive at max speed to get down on the other, even the rate of descent was acceptable to passenger ears. The Islander had to fly the long way, around the mountain.
Yet I read on these forums nasty criticism, mostly from people who have never flown it, and it all seems wrong to me, not based in fact at all, but ignorant crap thrown out by the typical Aussie knocker who excells in destroying what his own country produces.
Aus has, and can, make the best products in the world, can, and has, got the best productivity, is innovative and inventive and could be, and has been, a world leader in technology. But you would never know that if you read what the typical Aussie has to say.
I live in the US, and the Americans are the opposite. They believe everything good that their government or industry tells them, and nothing of the bad. Maybe the rah rah rah attitude is impractical and ultimately destructive, but it is easier to take than the gloom and doom Aussie attitude.
I did not like the noise, the prop vibration in the cockpit and the proximity of the prop blades to my head (but the N24 was better for this I was told).
I hardly ever had a defect on the airframe and we flew an airline schedule with it day after day and rarely cancelled for mechanical problems. We flew it on 3 hour flights between islands well before ETOPS was thought up, and the passengers loved it. I particuarly liked the way I could take off from a 2000 foot strip on one side of an island with a 6000 foot mountain on it, and fly directly over the top of the mountain to an 800 foot strip on the other side without having to circle to gain altitude or dive at max speed to get down on the other, even the rate of descent was acceptable to passenger ears. The Islander had to fly the long way, around the mountain.
Yet I read on these forums nasty criticism, mostly from people who have never flown it, and it all seems wrong to me, not based in fact at all, but ignorant crap thrown out by the typical Aussie knocker who excells in destroying what his own country produces.
Aus has, and can, make the best products in the world, can, and has, got the best productivity, is innovative and inventive and could be, and has been, a world leader in technology. But you would never know that if you read what the typical Aussie has to say.
I live in the US, and the Americans are the opposite. They believe everything good that their government or industry tells them, and nothing of the bad. Maybe the rah rah rah attitude is impractical and ultimately destructive, but it is easier to take than the gloom and doom Aussie attitude.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Boofhead. For an aircraft designed to a mil spec it did pretty well. I flew all variations N22B N24 N24A N22S and Floatplane. It was starved of development funds and political backbone. The knocker syndrome - mainly from Mil who apparently wanted a 'real' aeroplane and being attacked by CASA airworthiness as an easy local target, made it a PR nightmare. The T tail, more SHP, new engine cowls, simplify the wing flaps and the gear, design out all the AD's and better sound proofing - If that can be done under the existing TC, great oppotunity for GippsAero.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would have to agree with boofhead, enjoyed my time with the N22.
Biggest problem was with the ground crew who had been loading BN2 Islanders for years, everything was tossed in the back locker if you did not watch them very closely, from memory was 180 kg in front locker, and 90 in back, but none in back till front was full.
Also had a very exciting moment when one of the pax decided, during T/O run, that he wanted to talk to his mate down the back, 250 kg shuffling down to the rear created an exciting rotate, stick hard forward, lift the flaps, a few choice words yelled over right shoulder to the pax who had a brain only to hold his ears apart, and all settled down. After that after much lobbying managed to get the smallest hosties in the fleet to always have one of the back seats to keep everyone in their alloted seat, with the average weight of the citizens of this country it was most important that this was complied with.
Also carried everything from full coffins, to a Rolls Royce dart engine, replacement for an HS748 engine that died, to three kings on one flight, they were only kings of little islands, but sure were big kings.
Biggest problem was with the ground crew who had been loading BN2 Islanders for years, everything was tossed in the back locker if you did not watch them very closely, from memory was 180 kg in front locker, and 90 in back, but none in back till front was full.
Also had a very exciting moment when one of the pax decided, during T/O run, that he wanted to talk to his mate down the back, 250 kg shuffling down to the rear created an exciting rotate, stick hard forward, lift the flaps, a few choice words yelled over right shoulder to the pax who had a brain only to hold his ears apart, and all settled down. After that after much lobbying managed to get the smallest hosties in the fleet to always have one of the back seats to keep everyone in their alloted seat, with the average weight of the citizens of this country it was most important that this was complied with.
Also carried everything from full coffins, to a Rolls Royce dart engine, replacement for an HS748 engine that died, to three kings on one flight, they were only kings of little islands, but sure were big kings.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASN Aircraft accident GAF Nomad N.24A P-837 Long Apung, Bulungan, East Kalimantan
The Indonesian Navy lost an N-24 a few days ago , details as to weather the accident was weather related or some other problem isn't clear yet.
The Indonesian Navy lost an N-24 a few days ago , details as to weather the accident was weather related or some other problem isn't clear yet.
