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.

From what I've heard from the guys at Boeing (formerly ASTA formerly GAF) who were over here testing the flap mod, that the army did work them hard and did a lot of things that civilian Nomads would not be subjected to (sounds fairly typical for most military aircraft). But the problem with the flutter of the aileron/flap system was just slop developing through the clever system for the aileron/spoiler set up. But the new mod has stiffened that up considerably - to the point where at full flap instead of the flaps being blown back to 34 degrees in flight, they are only blown back to 36 degrees.

If only the N24s had the same infinite flap settings as on the N22.

Had the distinct pleasure of sitting in the LHS whilst conducting a Air Drop sortie over Londonderry in the early ninetys, the whole thing was held together with 1000 mile an hour tape and, boy did she 'shake rattle and roll'

Still, had the feel of a good aircraft. can still remember the smell and eyewatering effect of the cabin getting full of engine exhaust fumes entering through the open cargo door when on the ground.

Happy days.

:}:}:}
Sorry, I know its a serious & genuine necessity but...I just had this mental image of an SU-30 "chasing" a Nomad at treetop level! Would you use a missile, or wait for it to shake itself apart???:}

Best way to get turbine time!!!

There seem to be a couple of points of confusion here, perhaps I can add to it!

First, I'd be very surprised if the defence force ones were deliberately flown outside flight manual limits.

Re the reason some defence pilots didn't like them; as I heard it, at some flap settings, bad airframe vibrations occurred and basically guys refused to fly them for that reason.

As I understand it, the tragic South Aust tailplane separation accident was attributed in part to stress from lengthy high power ground running for test purposes in combination with some deficiencies in airframe inspection procedures.

Nice to see "Arm out the window" has got the correct handle regarding Army compliance with the Flight Manuals and in relation to GD's accident in the ARDU Nomad.

The Nomad was influenced/tampered with by politics throughout its 'checkered career'. Perhaps one of the lesser known instances was the friction between the RAAF who believed they were the only knowledgable entity with regard to military aviation and the Army. The RAAF were about to lose control of the battlefield helicopter/s to the Army and not surprisingly the RAAF were not amused. A senior RAAF Test Pilot at ARDU (not GD who was Army) wrote a particularly scathing report on the Nomad that perpetuated the the RAAF notion that they were the only people who new anything about military aviation. The military use was thus restricted as a consequence of this report, even some Army people believed its findings. Mind you the Nomad was not perfect (no such beast) but the aircrafts future was from that moment on severly tainted and pretty much set up for failure.

I would not be surprised if there was influence exerted by government entities for the Nomad to be taken up and operated by Army as an Australian home grown product.

I do know many who did not like the aircraft, mostly because of the way they were made to operate it and yes because of some of its own failings as well.

tipsy
who had a heart flutter when he read the thread title, maybe it was just the tailplane:ok:

Flying-spike
 

Fair enough. I hope they do well. I wasn't sure about the ADF involvement as I was only young, but after having several mates involved in helicopter accidents (at least one due to poor maintenance) during my relativley short service I would not have been suprised.

Three years flying the bloody things nothing stopped or fell orf :uhoh:

Remember one came thru Darwhine on the way back from oop North(Thai?) where they had fixed a Vulcan or something on the floor to fire out the rear door
Muzzle blast apparently split the flaps skins :hmm:

I seem to remember a slight involvement with that in the early '80s. Hawker Pacific replaced a lot of the structure under the floor with 4130 so a "gatling gun" could be installed by the Thais, think it was the Thai Navy. Don't know if a gatling gun is the same as a Vulcan.

Good airframe really but all that 4130 under the floor would have been the strongest part. Would have weighed a bit too.

Indeed Mr Valve it was a young man from Hawkers delivering it in about 82-3?

I didn't go with any of the aircraft going to Thailand but a few of my apprentice mates did. They took in a lot of culture when they were there apparently.
We did some interesting mods to Nomads in those days. I can't remember how many aircraft went through the hangar, seem to recall the Thai Army took 20 N22s and the Thai Navy took four N24s. There were Phillipine ones as well.

perhaps one such mod

http://www.aeroplaneart.com.au/Image..._22_T_Tail.jpg

Sorry Tinpis, you probably meant the pilot. In those days I think Rod Mendham usually did the ferry flights.

Heard about the T tail mod but didn't see it. John Stewart Jones at what used to be HSJ at Bankstown has a lot of "what might have been" information on the Nomad. I don't think the T tail ever flew, someone else may know better.

Wasn't there a weight issue from the original drawings and designs that put it way too heavy....... So GAF had to use thinner skin and in doing so had structual problems???

Nomad Follies..
 

Just had to recount a Nomad experience of mine...
returning to Moresby in one of the Douglas Nomads I decided to see how short a landing could be... no traffic behind... no loading.. touched down on start of the threshold markers for 32L and had stopped by the END of the threshold markers. The amazingly short landing distance scared the bejeesus outa me. As I had stopped well short of the first taxyway exit I apologised to the tower controller for the extra time on the runway.. and he said "Cripes mate, that is not a problem, we all thought you'd landed gear up!!"

Wouldn't go near one again with a ten foot pole but had 800 hours of fun with 'em back in the day....

I was doing an endorsement in one when the instructor decided to show me what they could do......We came over the threshold at 1000', threw out the gear. full flap and flt idle, you push the stick full forward or you stall, we crashed dived rounded out landed and stopped all within I guess 200 mt.

If I hadn't been in the aeroplane I wouldn't have believed it.:ok:

The Nomad is a great aeroplane and consider myself very lucky to have flown them! :)

We have a photo of the company's first Nomad (It was an N22), which was used as the demonstrator at Farnborough, upside down.. I'm not too sure if it is true or not but apparantly it was rolled as part of the display..

I'm sure there are people out there who will be able to correct me in that.

Wheres that man that got the extra bit of cargo shoved in the arse end of the Douglas Nomad at Wewak? :}

Amazing the myths that perpetuate around this aircraft.

This aircraft was first designed for the civilian and military market. However the Aussie military wanted nothing to do with them. That was ok initially, however civilian sales were almost nonexistent. So along with the best traditions of politicians they forced them on the military that, as was said by tipsy2, were against being landed with them as it filled a gap in capability that simply did not exist!

The airframe that had the tail fall off was used extensively for testing in particular high power ground runs. A lot of these ground runs were asymmetric high powered runs. Now this may have been fine except for the fact that firstly they were never logged and secondly the actual affects of the stress from the ground runs on the airframe never really inspected. The ADF blamed GAF for the undocumented runs and likewise GAF blamed the ADF for the way the aircraft was operated...

As late as Jan/Feb 1997 (just as Boeing bought ASTA - and ASTA were making rudders and centre section fuselages for Airbus - but that is another story) I witnessed a destructive static load test on a modified Nomad tail section that went to 2.54 (IIRC) times the previous aircraft ultimate load before it failed. Was quite impressive, however this has nothing to do with the Nomad story, just thought I would chuck it in.

Anyway the Nomad story is one that was so politicised and had so much forced on it and expected of it, that it was simply doomed to failure. A lot of SE Asian militaries were very much interested in the aircraft, however our government of the time, that could see no future in an indigenous aircraft manufacturing capability basically shot that down before it even got off the ground. The final nail in the coffin was the failure of the tailplane and the loss of a Defence Force pilot. The aircraft was already doomed before this and it is a shame that this had to happen. Alas, along with a whole bunch of other Aussie designed aircraft there simply never was the political will and support for an Australian designed aircraft. Thus we now have an aircraft parts industry of which we do lead the world in a number of areas, but who knows what could have been.

However Australia did have a number of Nomads just "sitting" there at the end of all this and these were essentially gifted to SE Asian countries who from all accounts have simply loved the aircraft and have had no further dramas with it.

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.

Anyway there is heaps to this story and it makes for very interesting and frustrating reading and leads to dreams of what possibly could have been a fully fledged aircraft design and manufacturing industry in Australia - for however long it lasted. The reason I say this is I am sure that even if we did have a proper aircraft manufacturing industry that had been supported, it would definitely have been privatised by the government and would have been subsumed as ASTA was under one of the big two aircraft manufacturers left in the world anyway, my humble opinion only.

Cheers
Mr B

it is interesting though that Australia - which has been at the forefront of aviation development since Pontious was a cadet pilot, has no real local aviation industry but Brazil has designed and produced (and continues to produce) designs such as the Tucano and Super Tucano (remember the Australian trainer project that got canned?), the Bandit (remember the Nomad - well sort of...) the Brazilia, the 145/135 family, the E Jets.

They do this in a far less technologically advanced society than we have, and they train their own using dedicated universities and technical training facilities.

They feed and transport their staff - of which there is something like 17000 at the SJK facility, and they are a massive contributor to the Brazilian economy

If anyone doesnt think there is value in a homegrown aviation industry look to South America - they are selling E Jets hand over fist and making a tidy profit thanks very much.

They do have, unlike us, have leaders who look beyond the election cycle and dont panic if it doesnt make a profit in the first 5 minutes

They take a long term view and have done so since the late 40's.

There is a lesson to be learnt if anyone with vision was willing to take a look