Was the Nomad really that bad?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia, if you can believe everything they print, says,
The PA-24-400 Comanche 400,while identical in plan form to other single-engined Comanches, is structurally strengthened, primarily in the tail. The aircraft has an extra nose rib in the stabilator and in the vertical fin. The stabilator, vertical fin, and rudder of the 400 share virtually no common parts with the 180, 250, and 260hp (190 kW) Comanches. In addition, the 400's rudder is aerodynamically balanced in a manner similar to that of the Piper PA30 Twin Comanche and does not have the lead external balance weights of the lower-powered single-engine Comanches.
No mention of a PA24-400 structural failure in Australia in the ATSB accident report database that I can see.
The PA-24-400 Comanche 400,while identical in plan form to other single-engined Comanches, is structurally strengthened, primarily in the tail. The aircraft has an extra nose rib in the stabilator and in the vertical fin. The stabilator, vertical fin, and rudder of the 400 share virtually no common parts with the 180, 250, and 260hp (190 kW) Comanches. In addition, the 400's rudder is aerodynamically balanced in a manner similar to that of the Piper PA30 Twin Comanche and does not have the lead external balance weights of the lower-powered single-engine Comanches.
No mention of a PA24-400 structural failure in Australia in the ATSB accident report database that I can see.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOMADS AT OAKLANDS
Can anyone advise if the 'unsold' Nomads were flown to Oaklands for storage from Avalon? Just can't seem to find an aerodrome listed for Oaklands. ASTA commenced sending them out there about March 1984.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember seeing Nomads at Oaklands in the mid to late 80's.
I don't think there was an airfield as such but there are/were any number of suitable paddocks about at the storage place.
Never got close to them though as I flew past.
Tipsy.
I don't think there was an airfield as such but there are/were any number of suitable paddocks about at the storage place.
Never got close to them though as I flew past.
Tipsy.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nomad
Pitty i didn't see theses posts before. I conducted the last inquiry into the crash of a N22 in Australia ... Army A303 at Cheviot Hills near the town of Drake (Nth NSW) in 1992/3.
Almost everything negative written about the aircraft is utter dross. I ordered multiple tests of the aircraft and i flew one ... it was a seriously good aeroplane and had virtually no peer in its designed operational profile(s).
Almost everything negative written about the aircraft is utter dross. I ordered multiple tests of the aircraft and i flew one ... it was a seriously good aeroplane and had virtually no peer in its designed operational profile(s).
Wow - good to see someone of your expertise here, GregP.
So what were the "designed operational profile(s)", was the Army operating the aircraft within that/those profile/s and, if yes, what was the cause of the "crash" to which you referred? (I confess that the word "crash" is not one that I usually associate with experts in aviation.)
The information that I have suggests that the airframe was designed around a bunch of assumptions that were not satisfied in real operations. If an aircraft is designed on the basis of an assumption that it will spend only e.g 10% TIS at low level in turbulence, but the reality is that the aircraft spends e.g. 50% TIS at low level in turbulence, the outcome seems pretty obvious.
So what were the "designed operational profile(s)", was the Army operating the aircraft within that/those profile/s and, if yes, what was the cause of the "crash" to which you referred? (I confess that the word "crash" is not one that I usually associate with experts in aviation.)
The information that I have suggests that the airframe was designed around a bunch of assumptions that were not satisfied in real operations. If an aircraft is designed on the basis of an assumption that it will spend only e.g 10% TIS at low level in turbulence, but the reality is that the aircraft spends e.g. 50% TIS at low level in turbulence, the outcome seems pretty obvious.
"Almost everything negative written about the aircraft is utter dross."
Army aviation's A18-303 N22B Nomad was destroyed in an accident on 9th September 1991 somewhere not too far from Tenterfield NSW.
GregP, Please give me more information as to why you think the Nomad was such a great aircraft. I reckon that they were not. My understanding is that they had poor single engine performance along with a fairly critical C of G loading. Plus the tailplanes were vulnerable to severe flutter that caused at least one to break up whilst flying.
(RIP to RAAF ARDU pilot: Flt Lt Glenn Donovan who was killed in N24A A18-401 on 12th March 1989 at Mallala in S.A. when this happened.)
Army aviation's A18-303 N22B Nomad was destroyed in an accident on 9th September 1991 somewhere not too far from Tenterfield NSW.
GregP, Please give me more information as to why you think the Nomad was such a great aircraft. I reckon that they were not. My understanding is that they had poor single engine performance along with a fairly critical C of G loading. Plus the tailplanes were vulnerable to severe flutter that caused at least one to break up whilst flying.
(RIP to RAAF ARDU pilot: Flt Lt Glenn Donovan who was killed in N24A A18-401 on 12th March 1989 at Mallala in S.A. when this happened.)
...... senior military people are worthless politicians and yes men.
The actor Guy Pearce lost his Dad (a test pilot) in one when he was very young...
GAF was also responsible for the wings coming off a Macchi killing a pilot in the early 1990s. Senior military initially tried to blame the pilot for breaking the spar until it was discovered that the weakness originated from inaccurately hand drilled (yes with a hand drill by an unskilled employee) spar holes.
The actor Guy Pearce lost his Dad (a test pilot) in one when he was very young...
GAF was also responsible for the wings coming off a Macchi killing a pilot in the early 1990s. Senior military initially tried to blame the pilot for breaking the spar until it was discovered that the weakness originated from inaccurately hand drilled (yes with a hand drill by an unskilled employee) spar holes.
Last edited by ramble on; 14th Mar 2016 at 16:33.
Nice to hear something positive about this aircraft. I still think with tweaking of the problem areas this could be a great aircraft. The likes of Tecnam are making plastic commuter aircraft and they know there's a huge market. Similarly, Kodiak and the Caravan have such good prospects where they replace Islanders etc that a rebranded and renamed N24 would surely be a great success if marketed by the right organisation.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomad = GAF - Government Aircraft Factory.
The Bean Counter has the last say!
Original concept seemed far better. PT6',s 32 thou skins and standard tail from memory then $ tumbled and needed cutbacks.
The Bean Counter has the last say!
Original concept seemed far better. PT6',s 32 thou skins and standard tail from memory then $ tumbled and needed cutbacks.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In broad terms, the Nomad's operational profile was as, obviously, a twin with exceptional short field performance in and out unprepared strips capable of delivering a couple of sections of equipped troops or substantial and bulky materiel. And that it did with aplomb ...the SASAR had no complaints with it(!).
AS to single engine performance, at MGTOW it struggled a bit but then is there any other aircraft in that class which doesn't(?).
'A crash near Tenterfield' .. as i said, in 1992/3 at Cheviot Hills near the town of Drake (Nth NSW) west of Casino and not far from Texas.
The assertion that aerodynamic flutter was responsible for the crash is complete nonsense. We were unable to positively ascribe a 100% certain cause however, we readily ruled out flutter causing airframe dismemberment because; 1) ALL of the airframe was at the same place (ie, no part of the aircraft came adrift prior to collision with the reentrant down which the aircraft collided and 2) this was a very low speed accident. So forget flutter.
The most likely cause was due to an engine fire/failure of #2 engine wrongly handled by the flying pilot (PNGDF) at very low level on a max-performance departure out of the field into which he (and the two other aircraft in the flight) had flown. Strong evidence for that finding was metallurgical evidence which indicated clearly that #2 engine was making some but much less than (appropriate) than #1 and that soot was found in places under the cowls which were otherwise untouched by the post-crash fire.
It was initially postulated that the Senior Instructor (the 'SI') seated in the right seat may have pulled #2 by way of test on departure by closing the RH low pressure cock or that he may have suffered a cardiac or cerebral infarct (he was a big man, after all) but I ruled those out in light of evidence that witness marks on the stops of the low pressure cock were definitely caused at impact being located on the opposite sides from where, in the test i ordered, they would have occurred if the cock's operating lever had been moved to the 'off' position prior to impact. Secondly, i led a lot of evidence from other QFIs (Qualified Flying Instructors) and line pilots who'd flown with the SI to the effect that that was not his practice.
Moreover, I had another aircraft adopt the deck angle which A303 would have adopted upon departure out of the strip and there was no way a RH seat occupant would have slump forward if incapacitated at that time.
As to control surface flutter assertions, i led evidence from a QFI and practicing aeronautical engineer who had been tasked to investigate quite a number of pilots' snags including reports of flutter which he was unable to replicate. [One snag alleged that the aircraft was unable to achieve VR (at Mt. Isa from memory); the aircraft was tested by the QFI/engineer and demonstrated to be complete rubbish. Likewise a concocted complaint that the control wheel "pumped" during cruise!]
During the Inquiry, i showed film of an N22 stabilator shaking markedly. Quite impressive except at the time, only one engine was operating and on full power at that .. of cause it shook!
During the A303 Inquiry, i also reviewed the aircraft which crashed when undergoing development flying under DSTO control when it lost its stabilator. Clearly the cause of that accident was due to a certain organization failing to inspect the aircraft before hand-over to DSTO, which would have detected a crack in the stabilator main spar for which there was an available, simple and effective repair scheme already on the shelf.
The Nomad was/is a good aircraft.
AS to single engine performance, at MGTOW it struggled a bit but then is there any other aircraft in that class which doesn't(?).
'A crash near Tenterfield' .. as i said, in 1992/3 at Cheviot Hills near the town of Drake (Nth NSW) west of Casino and not far from Texas.
The assertion that aerodynamic flutter was responsible for the crash is complete nonsense. We were unable to positively ascribe a 100% certain cause however, we readily ruled out flutter causing airframe dismemberment because; 1) ALL of the airframe was at the same place (ie, no part of the aircraft came adrift prior to collision with the reentrant down which the aircraft collided and 2) this was a very low speed accident. So forget flutter.
The most likely cause was due to an engine fire/failure of #2 engine wrongly handled by the flying pilot (PNGDF) at very low level on a max-performance departure out of the field into which he (and the two other aircraft in the flight) had flown. Strong evidence for that finding was metallurgical evidence which indicated clearly that #2 engine was making some but much less than (appropriate) than #1 and that soot was found in places under the cowls which were otherwise untouched by the post-crash fire.
It was initially postulated that the Senior Instructor (the 'SI') seated in the right seat may have pulled #2 by way of test on departure by closing the RH low pressure cock or that he may have suffered a cardiac or cerebral infarct (he was a big man, after all) but I ruled those out in light of evidence that witness marks on the stops of the low pressure cock were definitely caused at impact being located on the opposite sides from where, in the test i ordered, they would have occurred if the cock's operating lever had been moved to the 'off' position prior to impact. Secondly, i led a lot of evidence from other QFIs (Qualified Flying Instructors) and line pilots who'd flown with the SI to the effect that that was not his practice.
Moreover, I had another aircraft adopt the deck angle which A303 would have adopted upon departure out of the strip and there was no way a RH seat occupant would have slump forward if incapacitated at that time.
As to control surface flutter assertions, i led evidence from a QFI and practicing aeronautical engineer who had been tasked to investigate quite a number of pilots' snags including reports of flutter which he was unable to replicate. [One snag alleged that the aircraft was unable to achieve VR (at Mt. Isa from memory); the aircraft was tested by the QFI/engineer and demonstrated to be complete rubbish. Likewise a concocted complaint that the control wheel "pumped" during cruise!]
During the Inquiry, i showed film of an N22 stabilator shaking markedly. Quite impressive except at the time, only one engine was operating and on full power at that .. of cause it shook!
During the A303 Inquiry, i also reviewed the aircraft which crashed when undergoing development flying under DSTO control when it lost its stabilator. Clearly the cause of that accident was due to a certain organization failing to inspect the aircraft before hand-over to DSTO, which would have detected a crack in the stabilator main spar for which there was an available, simple and effective repair scheme already on the shelf.
The Nomad was/is a good aircraft.
Bottums Up
a twin with exceptional short field performance in and out unprepared strips
Hello again, Greg
What assumptions were made in the design of the Nomad about the percentage of its TIS that would be spent in moderate and severe turbulence?
What assumptions were made in the design of the Nomad about the percentage of its TIS that would be spent in moderate and severe turbulence?
the GAF was also responsible for the wings coming off a Macchi killing a pilot in the early 1990s.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not privy to the aircraft's initial design and test parameters along the lines you're citing however, given that the wings are fully strutted and that i know that an exceptionally well qualified pilot rolled one a few times in testing, I'd be confident that it was/is a really tough ship. It was certainly no pussy in and out of dreadful paddocks and the like.
Moreover, so far as i was able to establish during A303's Inquiry there were no reports from anywhere of any insults to the type's structural integrity, including ALL control surfaces.
With respect to certain people (many of whom i nevertheless regard well), their various complaints about the aircraft were proven to be confected for reasons i was never able to get to the bottom of. [Although I've always suspected that they were not wildly enthusiastic about the Nomad because they may have thought that it's inclusion in their log books might not have been particularly impressive to a prospective airline employer? But perhaps I'm speaking out of order ...]
Moreover, so far as i was able to establish during A303's Inquiry there were no reports from anywhere of any insults to the type's structural integrity, including ALL control surfaces.
With respect to certain people (many of whom i nevertheless regard well), their various complaints about the aircraft were proven to be confected for reasons i was never able to get to the bottom of. [Although I've always suspected that they were not wildly enthusiastic about the Nomad because they may have thought that it's inclusion in their log books might not have been particularly impressive to a prospective airline employer? But perhaps I'm speaking out of order ...]
djpil
Please feel free to correct my post with your facts. It has been 26 years.
And me blaming any young technician is almost analogous to holding a toddler guilty for any firearms offence. It is/was not them it is/was the system.
Please feel free to correct my post with your facts. It has been 26 years.
And me blaming any young technician is almost analogous to holding a toddler guilty for any firearms offence. It is/was not them it is/was the system.
[IMG]www.pprune.org/members/232596-flingwing47-albums-touch-go.html[/IMG]
The arrival of leased VH-ELN atWewak, early 1976.
The first Nomad into service - civil or military.
The arrival of leased VH-ELN atWewak, early 1976.
The first Nomad into service - civil or military.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that insight GregP.
I've always loved the Slomad. We made it...who could hate!
Seems to be plenty!!!
As much as the nickname of the Airvan to be Scarevan is amusing, its highly typical of the Australian way, which procedes in an orderly Fashion, and not limited to Aviation...
1. Design/produce something great
2. Slag the hell out of it because you can't do better.
3. Complain when the idea is sold overseas
or
4. Celebrate the demise of the company/product
The whole aussie attitude towards home grown products/idea's does my head in.
Cheers
Jas
I've always loved the Slomad. We made it...who could hate!
Seems to be plenty!!!
As much as the nickname of the Airvan to be Scarevan is amusing, its highly typical of the Australian way, which procedes in an orderly Fashion, and not limited to Aviation...
1. Design/produce something great
2. Slag the hell out of it because you can't do better.
3. Complain when the idea is sold overseas
or
4. Celebrate the demise of the company/product
The whole aussie attitude towards home grown products/idea's does my head in.
Cheers
Jas