TempestNut, Your post woke up some of my grey cells. Not so easy nowadays.

If memory serves me right, the initial development of the Nomad displayed all the features you mention, and I think the reciprocating half of the engine powered one prop, while the interconnected axial flow compressor/turbine section drove the other prop.

This version also employed reheating of the exhaust gases for maximum power extraction.

I believe this format of the Nomad gave the lowest specific fuel consumption for a piston engine, although this has probably now been bettered.

The second development version was a little less exotic.

There can be no doubt that RAF crews were relieved the Nomad lost the race for the Shack. With Griffons and overload bomb bay tank fitted giving a total fuel load of 3684 UK gallons, the shack could fly for 24 hours plus. One shudders to think how long trips could have been with the Nomads fitted.

As an aside, I seem to remember that the initial version of the nomad enjoyed boost pressures in excess of 100 inches of mercury, or 35 pounds of boost. (Or was it 100 psi???)The Griffon 58 topped out at 81 inches (25 psi boost) with water methanol injection.

Having found out what it cost YAM to move theirs from just down the road, I wish luck and deep pockets to any interested party.

Hello EGPH. Good luck with your PPL.

Best advice was definately from Moggy C.

DO NOT pay for an offer that sounds too good to be true – it will be. The kind of thing I mean is ‘pay for your full 45 hours up front and get a 10% discount’. 10% of £5000 sounds like a great deal – until the flying school goes bust. Sad but it has happened a lot in recent years.

Best thing I can suggest you do before any flying is get your Class Two medical done. This needs to be carried out by an Aviation Medical Examiner. I think a list is available on the CAA website http://www.caa.co.uk

There would be nothing more heartbraking for you than getting to your solo stage (around 7 to 10 hours) and then being told you will not be able to fly alone due to medical reasons. Again, it does happen.

Don’t let the above dishearten you. Just treat it as good advice. And again, good luck.

Well, the way I see it, for all those interested standing or sitting types, make yourself known to the friendly pilot who is offering to take you flying for no cost. And once you have thanked them not with payment, they will respond by saying thank you and bring you back. No hire. No reward. Enthusiasts happy. Pilots happy. ANO observed. And more people experiencing the joys of flying. If you happen to eat and drink while you are away, well if the pilot buys the drinks and the companion(s) buy brekkers, shouldn’t be a problem.

Everybody happy and everything legal.

And I thought diesel was a scouser expression. e.g. diesel do for the kids, diesel do for the wife.

Back onto a serious note, there are a number of aeronautical diesels out there now. A certain Mr Wilsch has produced an efficient, light weight three cylinder with a four cylinder on the cards – and its BRITISH. There are also others.

The DeltaHawk is a V4 which can be installed inverted.

The DieselAir is an opposed, two cylinder, four piston, twin crankshaft (ala Jumo) 100 HP.

Teledyne Continental in the US have been working on one.

Centurian discussed above fitted to the previously mentioned and to Piper PA28’s and Cessna 172’s.

SMA (French) who have produced a working 230 HP four cylinder as fitted to CSE’s 182 demonstrator.

The major interest at present for these powerplants is the UK and Europe due to the artificially high price of Avgas due to greedy governments. Although the running costs of these engines are very low, the initial installation costs are very high. And with certain manufacturers, there isn’t a TBO (time between overhauls) but a TBR (time between replacement) which are again more expensive.

As with most things in aviation, it will cost to change, but it is the future.

Paxman, Vosper Thornycroft, English Electric, Napier???

Baffled. Confused. This would suggest to the conspiricy theorists that the Lightning was built by (shock, horror) a consortium.

Thank god we know better…

After what I heard on Radio 4 the other morning, Qinetiq is going, going…

Although this thread seems to have changed its direction, its probably the best place to carry on this topic. I have to agree with an awful lot of the points made by the many contributers above. I also disagree with some, but, hey, it’s a democracy.

At the end of this thread, most people will no doubt agree that we need to try and encourage the general public that the preservation of our aviation heritage is of importance, not only to those of us involved in it, but for those who will become involved in it in the years to come.

If you all want a clue as to a successful way forward, look at Duxford. Yes it is a mecca for aviation orientated people. But often these people are with other people who don’t have the same level of interest as dad/older brother etc. So you have to supply items of interest to non-aviation types, thereby appealing to mom/sister etc. And if you get the mix right you will incorporate as many interactive attractions as possible. Even Cosford have done a superb job of this.

OK so you might have a smaller museum or collection you are willing to share with the public. You also need to think the same as Duxford, Cosford and other larger sites, just smaller in scale. It really does work and is the way forward.