Merged: Nomad Return?
 

I Just read in Aero magazine that Gippsland Aeronautics has purchased the GAF Nomad type certificate and is considering putting the aircraft back into production with a Glass cocpit, RR 250-B17F engines and other upgrades. Can't find a net link or info on GA site. Does anyone know any more? Think a market exists for this A/C?

Yep, market is right up there with the one for the A380.

Sounds like a plan. Like a lot of poorly made cars, given to the japs & you would have a terrific car. Give the Nomad to Gipps aero's & you might very well have a great plane. Go George!:ok: They would need to do one thing tho, change the crew seats from camping chairs to at least wooden fruit boxes !:E


CW

Wasn't at least one of the Gippy principles at GAF the first time around?

'yowie' yeah me thinks yr right there, I know GM is now but might have been a little guy with a limp back at GAF?



CW

The Nomad is an awesome airplane. I flew in the two at Tindal loads in the early 90's. All Gippsland need to do is fix the problem with cracking in the tail section and they will have a great plane and that'll fix the safety record as well.:ok:

I'll wait for the Block 5 version of the Boomerang before passing judgement!

The Go-Mad:
 

It is my understanding that it is being repowerd with a pair of V8 holden engine's, A new Swept wing, A welded Tail section, and an 60 lb lead weight on a slidding transverse under floor beam, that will travel from the Nose to the aft locker::E:}:oh:

Chr's
H/Snort.:ok:

In all the years which our company have been operating nomads we have never had a problem with the tailplane cracking.. But then again we don't do all that many high powered ground runs either. Can't wait for the final mod from Boeing to pass CASA certification, then we can use full flap again!

But what an awesome aircraft to fly! :ok:

No Mad.
 

Quote empacher48: In all the years which our company have been operating nomads we have never had a problem with the tailplane cracking.. But then again we don't do all that many high powered ground runs either.

Then how do you know the noisey bits on the wing are going to produce rated power! maybe its just done when you arn't around! :E

Chr's
H/Snort.

Some brakes please on the new ones
Waddya mean the seats was crook? Everyone that had to sit in em on 5 hour flights remarked how they held up well comfort and cool wise in the Tropics
N24 certainly was a handy size cabin

One of them has just been through the turbine enhancement for the B17, and on the bench both got over 500 hp! (according to standard aero) :E But we do have a "poor mans" trend monitoring program in place to monitor engine performance and we do engine ground runs, as required, and under supervision of the CEO.. (well he does own them as well, so he doesn't want to see them break!)

Sounds good to me! Never did have the opportunity to strap one on in the past, but I've heard heaps of good things about them from those who have... would be good to get a crack at them I reckon!

empacher48: do you fly out of NZTL for one RR? Given the aircraft mix on your profile, comments re boss and Nomad... one wonders ;) Used to be NZWF based myself. Seems RR is one of the few operators to have had a consistently good run with the Nomads -got to be doing something right I reckon! Got a lot of respect for that operation. Say gidday to the boys from an ex-EVT driver!

I'll leave that to your imagination ;)

Not just the Nomads either, its sad that two of his old Turbo 207s seem to struggle to make it to Overhaul without new cylinders since they left the company, when they worked in Tekapo they all went to Overhaul without problems.

I'll pass that on next time I see them. :ok:

Just goes to show they would probably need a good marketing team to pull it off.

Wasn't there an AD issued regarding the tail cracking? however the ADF din't carry out the work and this resulted in several fatal accidents?
I was only in my early teens watching this on 60 minutes at the time so I don't know what actually happened.

Not too sure of the exact story but i think the ADF aircraft were nicknamed the 'Widow maker' and a few ADF pilots threatened to black ban the aircraft untill the Government adressed their concerns.

Hopefully somebody with the good oil on this situation can provide some substance to the earlier issues?

Widow maker?????
 

The Nomad was specifically built for the military, and they did not sell many to civilians. The public thought the RFDS used lots of nomads, but it was only the Broken Hill base that used them. I think they had two of them.
The nomad had a good sized cabin, a low floor and a big door so they were easy to load stretchers into.
When the Blackhawk became available for the military the nomad became far too dangerous for the military, but civilians could manage them ok. Funny that.
If they changed that draggy wing so it could go faster it could be a good aircraft. That may fix some of the tail problems too.

Nomad Rebirthing
 

"Wasn't there an AD issued regarding the tail cracking? however the ADF din't carry out the work and this resulted in several fatal accidents?
I was only in my early teens watching this on 60 minutes at the time so I don't know what actually happened."

Factually Incorrect

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.

Also the military were driving the Nomads through manouvres that were obviously a lot more stressful on the airframe than the civvies would have done to them. I have been in the back of one of the Tindal beasties when we did a few wing over type manouvres and hugging the earth to stay away from the fighters. All good fun but pretty hard on the plane. I'm sure the ARMY nomads would have copped similar or more.

Never flew one. That being said, I was of the understanding they could land into some very, very short strips, but the practical requirements for design meant the engines were smaller than initially intended on the finished product and the aircraft couldn't take off from very, very short strips.