Another odd-looking plane

rpadula

rpadula

En-Route
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
4,731
Location
Suwanee, GA
Display Name
Display name:
PancakeBunny
Saw this parked on the ramp at LZU this weekend. Never seen one up close before....

-Rich
 
wow - weird. Where's the tail? I'd fly something like that.
 
Oops - my bad - the tail is right there. I though that was two buildings stickup up through the trees. Like fuel tanks or silos or something.

DUH!
 
Richard said:
Shorts Skyvan. It's so ugly you wear a bag over your head during preflight.
Click to expand...

It looks kind of like a Shorts 330, but this one is smaller. Did Shorts make one smaller than the 330?

I don't think this is a Shorts product.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It looks kind of like a Shorts 330, but this one is smaller. Did Shorts make one smaller than the 330?

I don't think this is a Shorts product.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I am wrong. Looks like the images that I found on Google.
 
Looks like an Austrailian or French plane that is was and is used in the outback. I have seen pictures of these . Do not know the manufacture. It does look so much like a Shorts that has shrunk in length. The Shorts had P&W's and this one looks like it has the Garrett Engines.

John
 
John J said:
Looks like an Austrailian or French plane that is was and is used in the outback. I have seen pictures of these . Do not know the manufacture. It does look so much like a Shorts that has shrunk in length. The Shorts had P&W's and this one looks like it has the Garrett Engines.

John
Click to expand...

It is a Shorts Skyvan - google the registration number for confirmation.

The aircraft you are referring to from the outback may be the GAF Nomad series. Built in two versions the N22 and N24 (a slight stretch of the N22) the Nomad was used by the Royal Australian Flying Doctor Service. I used to fly cargo in them around cape cod and the islands. We had two of the N24 version. The engines on both are Allison 250B17C engines which is basically a jet ranger engine rotated 180 degrees (in other words turned upside down). It was a blast to fly, it was a true STOL light twin with a max weight of around 9000 lbs and had a ground roll, as I remember of under 1000' when fully loaded.

After flying that I got a job flying Shorts 360's which is far from being a STOL aircraft. It was many years before I again flew a "pretty" airplane and not the box the pretty airplanes come in.
 
Arnold;

Thank you for your note. I do remember the Nomad. Flying those "Boxes" must have been fun. I got to fly in the Shorts 330 and thoroughly enjoyed it. It rode very well in the chop yes it did take off and land on a dime..

Thanks again for your information.

John
 
rpadula said:
Saw this parked on the ramp at LZU this weekend. Never seen one up close before....

-Rich
Click to expand...

Ahhh...the flying refrigerator. A classic Brit design. Functional and effective. Not pretty or sexy. Just gets the job done.:yes:
 
F.W. Birdman said:
Ahhh...the flying refrigerator. A classic Brit design. Functional and effective. Not pretty or sexy. Just gets the job done.:yes:
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's fully Irish. Short and Harland, Belfast. The Skyvan and the 330 always reminded me of a blowfish with the high speed ventral fins of a swordfish. The can indeed do the job of taking a massive cargo and getting off on a dime.
 
Richard said:
<SNIP> The can indeed do the job of taking a massive cargo and getting off on a dime.
Click to expand...

Many people, myself included before I actually flew them, think the 330, 360 have decent short field performance, I did not find that to be so - unless you are making the comparison with a jet rather than another turboprop.

My time is in the 360s, and that aircraft, especially the early ones with -65R engines were ground hogs (in fact our nickname for the airplane was "the pig"). Even at close to sea level if it was ISA+10 or warmer you were leaving pax behind on 5000' runways. At O'Hare we were taking the load (or most of it) but needed to use flaps 5 (instead of 15) as we traded runway for second segment climb capability. At flaps 5 you'd rotate after using about 4000' of runway and then just sit on the mains for another 1000' or so down the runway. All the ATR's, and many other turboprops, were capable of intersection departures off 27L under the same conditions and we needed the full length of 10,000' (not complaining, just comparing I like using full length). Mind you I don't have any 330 time, but the wing is basically the same and the 360s loved the ground.

On the plus side, you needed to work real hard to kill yourself in a Shorts. They are built like tanks, we had one lose all hydraulics on roll out just after the turn onto the hight speed exit, as I recall the FDR said they were at about 35 KIAS. It never made the turn onto the parrallel taxiway but went across some grass, across a truck road, took out a light pole and came to a stop. The ligh pole hit one of the wings. They inspected the airplane, found the wing was bent aft a slight amount, had a bit of dent, but was basically sound, got a ferry permit and flew it to the heavy MTX base several hundred miles away. If it weren't for the light post they wouldn't have had any damage. You just gotta love an airplane you can go off roading in.
 
Richard said:
Shorts Skyvan. It's so ugly you wear a bag over your head during preflight.
Click to expand...

Skyvan. that's the name I was trying to remember. Here's one from my collection. I don't remember where I got this photo, so if someone else has posted it here before, my apologies.
 
Frank Browne said:
Skyvan. that's the name I was trying to remember. Here's one from my collection. I don't remember where I got this photo, so if someone else has posted it here before, my apologies.
Click to expand...
This is one case where the outlandish paint job improves the looks!

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
This is one case where the outlandish paint job improves the looks!

-Skip
Click to expand...

That's for sure. Until I saw this photo I'd never seen an airplane that I would
have used the word "ugly" to discribe. :cheerswine:
 
Steve said:
The Ayres Loadmaster was so ugly it drove the company into bankruptcy before it ever flew.


ldmstr2.gif
Click to expand...

I doubt that is true. After all, FedEx had taken delivery of 50 of 75 Loadmasters with options on an additional 275. This as late as July /03.

IIRC, it was the double whammy of the LET bankruptcy and the sale of Honeywell to RR which did 'em in. Honeywell made the turbine engines for the Loadmaster.
 
Arnold said:
Many people, myself included before I actually flew them, think the 330, 360 have decent short field performance, I did not find that to be so - unless you are making the comparison with a jet rather than another turboprop.

My time is in the 360s, and that aircraft, especially the early ones with -65R engines were ground hogs (in fact our nickname for the airplane was "the pig"). Even at close to sea level if it was ISA+10 or warmer you were leaving pax behind on 5000' runways. At O'Hare we were taking the load (or most of it) but needed to use flaps 5 (instead of 15) as we traded runway for second segment climb capability. At flaps 5 you'd rotate after using about 4000' of runway and then just sit on the mains for another 1000' or so down the runway. All the ATR's, and many other turboprops, were capable of intersection departures off 27L under the same conditions and we needed the full length of 10,000' (not complaining, just comparing I like using full length). Mind you I don't have any 330 time, but the wing is basically the same and the 360s loved the ground.

On the plus side, you needed to work real hard to kill yourself in a Shorts. They are built like tanks, we had one lose all hydraulics on roll out just after the turn onto the hight speed exit, as I recall the FDR said they were at about 35 KIAS. It never made the turn onto the parrallel taxiway but went across some grass, across a truck road, took out a light pole and came to a stop. The ligh pole hit one of the wings. They inspected the airplane, found the wing was bent aft a slight amount, had a bit of dent, but was basically sound, got a ferry permit and flew it to the heavy MTX base several hundred miles away. If it weren't for the light post they wouldn't have had any damage. You just gotta love an airplane you can go off roading in.
Click to expand...

Arnold, I have not flown any Shorts (so I deferto your experience) but I've known many who have. In conversations WRT performance it always came up that the Shorts 330 was a fantastic Vx climber. I guess there were several different engines available. I've seen the Army model climb out in hot, dusty conditions with 15 jumpers onboard. I don't mean to sound obstinate, I'm just trying to reconcile my observations with yours.
 
Richard said:
Arnold, I have not flown any Shorts (so I deferto your experience) but I've known many who have. In conversations WRT performance it always came up that the Shorts 330 was a fantastic Vx climber. I guess there were several different engines available. I've seen the Army model climb out in hot, dusty conditions with 15 jumpers onboard. I don't mean to sound obstinate, I'm just trying to reconcile my observations with yours.
Click to expand...

I think it is quite possible that the 330 had better performance than the 360. I wouldn't have expected it, but I've never flown one. We'll just need to wait until one of us gets a chance to make square holes in the sky using the 330.
 
I've got 300 or so hours in the 330, although, it has been over 11 years since I flew one. I don't recall the performance numbers, but I still have the books at home that I will dig out when I get a chance. Overall, it was interesting plane to fly.

Dave
 
ATC: Skyhopper 1234, you'r # 2 behind a skyvan.
1234: Traffic in sight.
A moment later.
1234: Traffic no longer in sight. He flew over a mobile home park and we lost him.
 
Good work, Steve. Would that current fleet reflect any deliveries of Loadmasters? Perhaps not, because they could have been delivered but taken out of service rather quickly since they would be difficult to maintain unless someone had the parts inventory available to FedEx. Just a thought...


The reason I'm not so ready to give up on thinking there were deliveries is because the July '03 issue of Aero News says there were deliveries. But whaddya I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top