[Purchasing] a Nomad N24/N22A/C/S and a Skyvan SC 7-3-100/200
 

Hello there ^_^

My company is currently in need of a Skyvan SC-7 Series 3 Variant 100 or 200 and a GAF nomad n24 preferably or an n22 c/s

unfortunately there hasnt been any on sale lately and it's a tough hunt.

if anyone here could help me out it would be lovely

thank you so much

regards,
shawn

Try Phil Onis at the Parachute place in Bankstown Airport Sydney. He has two SC7's one with engines and one without - both were originally from the malaysian Air Force. I'm sure he would be prepared to sell one to you

Cheers


PS Do not buy a Nomad - unless you have a death wish.

Why not get a Twotter instead? A much more capable machine, although they are a lot more pricey!:ok:

Nooooo, don't buy Phils good one.

With 2 new turbines it gets 19 jumpers to 14000 in under 11 minutes, and is great to jump from :)

Of the 4 Nomads in NZ right now, none are up for sale (and aren't likely to be in the future).

Don't listen to the Aussies destroying their own product, they just don't follow manufacturer's recommendations hence why they call them deathtraps.. In 24 years of operating N22s and N24s they are a great machine, carry a good load and have excellent fuel consumption (even the enhanced 500hp RR/Allison on ours still have a fuel consumption LESS than a C208).

Don't listen to the Kiwi's they like ugly aircraft, I mean after all the gave us the Cresco/Fletcher...;)

now now "HH" ulgyness is in the eye of te beholder, blind as batst the Kiwis are:E "HH" lets send over a new 'gumboot' design for the Kiwis, saves having to turn the std ones around facing backwards:E

Isn't the Nomad looking like being re-invented some time soon?



CW

Could we soon be banging around again below 10,000?:eek:

Yep Gippsland Aeronautics have sent me a nice DVD marketing their Next Generation N24. They have some good ideas for it too! :ok:

it's a shame about the nomad though
such a capable flier and with many good traits

dont we all hate it ^^ the ol' still in service n out of production

though i have to agree on the skyvan,
the rear hatch/ "door" seems to be perfect for parajumping
we once had a chance to dive off the platform but our current skyvan setup requires hopper tank to be fitted for cloud seeding/ crop spraying/ sea oil breakage etc etc operations.

would love to dive off a skyvan again. such a pleasurable experience

not to mention it's tricky to fly at first but once u get the hang of it
she's a beauty
wonderful take off abilities.

Shhhhhhhhhz "HH", we went from Bi-Planes to Monoplanes during the evolution of aviation, lets not go back further with a Gomad ok buddy?:ok:
Everytime I slip into BHI & see that old Gomad out there on display at our HQ's I think God they where brave:E



CW

you gonna have a paint job like this?

Photos: Short SC-7-3M-400 Skyvan Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Short...van/1414901/M/

ah it's been a long time
been too caught up for half a year sorry for the really late post

aha i love that paint job i googled one before and saw another one like this but i cant

the skyvan's is planned to do aerial survey, oil breakage, cloud seeding, "the paradropper experience" and a load of other jobs

i wish i could paint one up that way...
just wondering..
how many layers did they use ? isn't it a bunch of extra weight?

Resale???
 

Flown the N22 and its an airplane with limitations. Its an aging airframe like all the others, that required attention. I was never aware of the bigger engines being certified. Sure could do with some. Unfortunately Allison is not the best choice for fixed wing ops though. I can completely understand the Kiwi's passion for the product. Cool temps are ideal for the Allison engine. And the airframe, apart from the obvious problems with its behind is a supurb design. I prefer the interior to the Twin Otter, but the layout of the cockpit following the AD on the seat tracks being restricted as to the movement of the seat aft of the prop arc's made it a nightmare regarding what was once a pilots' cockpit. Its short field performance did things that the Otter couldn't, however it did buffet uncomfortably in the full flap config that made me nervous. And i have great authority on short field performance regarding the GAF and De Havilland products, but on the whole the Twin Otter is by far the better airplane for the job. Yes the Nomad might burn less fuel, but its all the other issues that come around, like fatigue cracks, and fuel problems due to the not so thought through fuel system. Remember the double engine failure on the gold coast??? Have good authority on that one too. My issue is the resale value of the aircraft. How much is it going to cost you to keep it to the standard compared to its better counterpart. Would you overcapitalize because of this. Sometimes a more expensive purchase can prove cheaper in the long run if you choose the right type for the job at hand. Like they say, if it had a T Tail, and PT-6's, deHavilland might have had a contender.
And the N24, its an N22 with another row of seats. No bigger engines and a more fickle Wt and Balance issue. Nomads were never performers in assymetric ops, and could be compared to Cessna twin performance in this regard. Fill it and fail one and you will see for your self. Its limitations might include Day VFR, as flight requiring anti icing requires an immediate descent as a great deal of power is lost with this on. Non Contaminated runways are another one. The float version suffered from flame out with not much more than spray investion. Never had a problem with it on wheels, but stone damage does occur as the 1st stage comp is right there unprotected in the airflow for anything to knock its teeth out. No partical separator like the B17 or C20'd Jetrangers with the same engine.

If i had a choice, i'd choose a clapped out -100 series that needed major reno work over a Nad, because down the track, a Twin Otter is a Twin Otter and can be converted to -27/-34 engines later and has been a success in any config since its humble beginnings, but the Nad will always be the Nad, with its history following behind.

If you saw an ad for both, what would you choose to take you kids flying in???

Fly safe

-27 :}:ok:

The safety record for the twotter isn't all that flash neither.

844 Twotters built since 1966, probably an average 20,000 plus hours per airframe = 21,100,000 fleet hours, vast majority of hours on bush STOL operations.

As of August 2006, a total of 584 Twin Otter aircraft (all variants) remain in service worldwide. A number of Series 100/200 were scrapped due to reaching wing life limits. Series 400 back in production.

Would not consider that safety record unreasonable?

170 Nomads built. Wonder how many survive?

Oh safety record is about survival of the aeroplanes .... silly me I thought it was about the passengers

Question, how many persons have met their demise in a Nomad in Australia?

Im interested to see how Gippsland get on with their intentions now that the viking 400 is up and running, those I know that were unfortunate enough to log hours in the nad all agree it felt constantly behind the drag curve with both engines running. :bored:

my preference - anything with P&W's :ok:

but I'll settle for anything that pays the rent :}

none civil, three military, one flight test