Was the Nomad really that bad?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT, that is an engineering issue..was there any attempt to rectify the fatigue problem? Different tail rigging..conventional instead of stabilator? lower down the empenage? I know there was a t-tail built, did it ever fly?
Mainly because it doesn't come with a pretty young thing who serves me lunch on china with a crisp linen napkin.
Moderator
was there any attempt to rectify... did it ever fly?
A long time since I had an involvement with the design side of things at the factory so I am not able to say just what went on. There are a couple of the other lads post to PPRuNe who would know the ins and outs .. they may feel moved to comment on the detail.
Reading this thread it is sad to see some of the fringe comments from those who clearly had no knowledge of the aircraft at all and rely on regurgitating disaffected propaganda.
At the end of the day
(a) Nomad had a number of strengths .. payload/GW, low speed lateral control, low cost provided you kept the maintenance up to it, etc.
(b) and a number of weaknesses .. the tin was a bit on the thin side for durability and tended to crack a tad here and there, flap 20 long stab, ailerons a bit on the weak side initially, etc.
... strengths and weaknesses ... just like any other aircraft Type.
Keeping in mind that the design originally started out as a single engine machine of (memory failing here) 5000-6000lb and, as the N24A ended up OEI climb limited with that tiny flea-power engine the factory didn't do too badly. I can't recall exactly but there was either/both a drawing and/or model of the early single studies in Wriggles' office ... at the time I was one of the boys just outside in the main design office beavering away on sums and such like.
The main problem was that the Nomad was a fill-in task (to keep the personnel/organisation intact) between major assembly projects and was hamstrung by short production run authorisations .. you just can't get any economies of scale if you are limited to buying things in 5s and 10s rather than hundreds.
Those operators who exploited the Type's strengths made good dollars from the aircraft, those who exploited the weaknesses probably should have played with some other sort of (read "more forgiving") aeroplane.
The ADF story is not as simplistic as many would suggest/imagine. The Nomad's original purpose was no longer relevant to the military and they needed to find a way to short circuit the normal channels for replacement to get the desired communication capable Type .. it shouldn't be too hard for PPRuNe bright folk to figure out what became the strategy ... "Widow Maker" ? ... made for good copy on Four Corners ...
Did the tailplane wiggle a bit on the ground ? .. it sure did. In fact, for the Senate enquiry, a keen lad (who shall remain nameless) put together a video comparing a range of Types ... all of which did the the same sort of thing to a greater or lesser extent.
Was the Nomad God's gift to aviation ? .. of course not. Was it a good aircraft ? .. in some roles, yes, in others, no.
Just another aircraft with its supporters and detractors ...
A long time since I had an involvement with the design side of things at the factory so I am not able to say just what went on. There are a couple of the other lads post to PPRuNe who would know the ins and outs .. they may feel moved to comment on the detail.
Reading this thread it is sad to see some of the fringe comments from those who clearly had no knowledge of the aircraft at all and rely on regurgitating disaffected propaganda.
At the end of the day
(a) Nomad had a number of strengths .. payload/GW, low speed lateral control, low cost provided you kept the maintenance up to it, etc.
(b) and a number of weaknesses .. the tin was a bit on the thin side for durability and tended to crack a tad here and there, flap 20 long stab, ailerons a bit on the weak side initially, etc.
... strengths and weaknesses ... just like any other aircraft Type.
Keeping in mind that the design originally started out as a single engine machine of (memory failing here) 5000-6000lb and, as the N24A ended up OEI climb limited with that tiny flea-power engine the factory didn't do too badly. I can't recall exactly but there was either/both a drawing and/or model of the early single studies in Wriggles' office ... at the time I was one of the boys just outside in the main design office beavering away on sums and such like.
The main problem was that the Nomad was a fill-in task (to keep the personnel/organisation intact) between major assembly projects and was hamstrung by short production run authorisations .. you just can't get any economies of scale if you are limited to buying things in 5s and 10s rather than hundreds.
Those operators who exploited the Type's strengths made good dollars from the aircraft, those who exploited the weaknesses probably should have played with some other sort of (read "more forgiving") aeroplane.
The ADF story is not as simplistic as many would suggest/imagine. The Nomad's original purpose was no longer relevant to the military and they needed to find a way to short circuit the normal channels for replacement to get the desired communication capable Type .. it shouldn't be too hard for PPRuNe bright folk to figure out what became the strategy ... "Widow Maker" ? ... made for good copy on Four Corners ...
Did the tailplane wiggle a bit on the ground ? .. it sure did. In fact, for the Senate enquiry, a keen lad (who shall remain nameless) put together a video comparing a range of Types ... all of which did the the same sort of thing to a greater or lesser extent.
Was the Nomad God's gift to aviation ? .. of course not. Was it a good aircraft ? .. in some roles, yes, in others, no.
Just another aircraft with its supporters and detractors ...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TP,
Guess what?
I've got same certificates, but with different numbers!
I reckon (know!) I was on the same training courses as By George. So, I also reckon that if he's as smart as he was in those days, then he SHOULD 'remember' who was with him on the trip up to Darwin in SDZ!
Guess what?
I've got same certificates, but with different numbers!
I reckon (know!) I was on the same training courses as By George. So, I also reckon that if he's as smart as he was in those days, then he SHOULD 'remember' who was with him on the trip up to Darwin in SDZ!
Silly Old Git
CLX-ray
Was at the time NTAW engineering hangar
The aircraft hangar was in front of the SDZ in the pic, also the door to the pilots room at the side
One of the best jobs I ever had.
Tinpis, whose hangar is SDZ parked in front off?
The aircraft hangar was in front of the SDZ in the pic, also the door to the pilots room at the side
One of the best jobs I ever had.
One of the best jobs I ever had.
Do you remember Biscuit Ears announcing the Nomad would be assembled in Papua New Guinea?
Silly Old Git
Is that Ozzies hangar, the next one down?
Ozzy was miles further down the road but you could still hear him.
Silly Old Git
Torres
No, but he was half right, he managed to dis-assemble a few. 
Do you remember Biscuit Ears announcing the Nomad would be assembled in Papua New Guinea?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Project N
The Nomad design was originally called Project N, and was for a single engined, turbine powered low wing? aircraft. I think they had the military in mind, and they also sent details of this proposal to the agricultural operators to see what they thought of it, and if they might buy it.
But that soon changed to (N2?) the twin eginged high wing design which became the Nomad.
Had they built the "project N," they would have beaten the PAC 750 by a few decades and would probably have made many sales, and maybe even made a profit.
But that soon changed to (N2?) the twin eginged high wing design which became the Nomad.
Had they built the "project N," they would have beaten the PAC 750 by a few decades and would probably have made many sales, and maybe even made a profit.
Moderator
No that was the NTAMS hangar where the mighty N24's were housed
Well can I recall some flight testing on the NTAMS birds when DCA had some concerns regarding OEI climb degradation with some mods. An unrelated night out for numerous airline overnighting crews at Lims might have turned out differently if a chap hadn't programmed an 0-dark-30 launch in the Gonad for the following morning to get some climb data ... ah, memories.
The Nomad design was originally called Project N, and was for a single engined, turbine powered low wing?
There may well have been a low wing study before my time but the earliest single study I can recall was highwing.
Well can I recall some flight testing on the NTAMS birds when DCA had some concerns regarding OEI climb degradation with some mods. An unrelated night out for numerous airline overnighting crews at Lims might have turned out differently if a chap hadn't programmed an 0-dark-30 launch in the Gonad for the following morning to get some climb data ... ah, memories.
The Nomad design was originally called Project N, and was for a single engined, turbine powered low wing?
There may well have been a low wing study before my time but the earliest single study I can recall was highwing.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nomad began life in the late 1960s at the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) as Project N. In January 1970, the government funded two prototypes of the twin-engined multi-purpose transport, now known as N2, aimed at both the military and civil markets. The N22 was the military utility aircraft which became the N22B in production, and the lengthened commercial development became the N24. VH-SUP was the first prototype and flew on 23 July 1971. It had been planned to give the type an Aboriginal name, but it became the Nomad.
Blackhand
Silly Old Git
Brazil makes our efforts seem very puny indeed 
wiki:
The owner of a sophisticated technological sector, Brazil develops projects that range from submarines to aircraft and is involved in space research: the country possesses a satellite launching center and was the only country in the Southern Hemisphere to integrate the team responsible for the construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
wiki:
The owner of a sophisticated technological sector, Brazil develops projects that range from submarines to aircraft and is involved in space research: the country possesses a satellite launching center and was the only country in the Southern Hemisphere to integrate the team responsible for the construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to the single engine Nomad, maybe confusing the 1979 Australian Aircraft Consortium (Hawker de Havilland, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and Government Aircraft Factories) project to design/build the A10/A20 Wamira PT-6 powered trainer for the RAAF. In December, 1985, when the A-10 prototype had just emerged from final assembly, the government cancelled the local programme and decided to order a Swiss aircraft, the Pilatus PC-9.
The N1 seemed pretty sensible to me. PT6. Conventional horizontal tail. Heavier sheet metal gauges. Fixed landing gear.
Then "the customer" specified two engines and .... and ......
Then "the customer" specified two engines and .... and ......
I was playing golf on Bintan Island (Indonesia) in May and an Indonesian Nomad interupted the peace and quiet, it looked to be in Navy markings but hard to tell, military anyway of some sort. I was suprised they still have any left.
'Chainsaw' yes I remember, have never forgotten the overnight in AS with that girl crying out "Evan" "Evan" and waiting down at breaky to see what the stud looked like. Made me feel quite inadequate.
'Chainsaw' yes I remember, have never forgotten the overnight in AS with that girl crying out "Evan" "Evan" and waiting down at breaky to see what the stud looked like. Made me feel quite inadequate.