Bronco Systems USA: Bronco II

[chopper2004]

Here is son of the OV-10 Bronco, the Bronco II

https://theaviationist.com/2018/02/21/heres-the-new-bronco-ii/

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4769/39699351234_9520617094_h.jpg

Cheers

[Dan Gerous]

Looks more like a Cessna O2 Skymaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_O-2_Skymaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_O-2_Skymaster)

[George K Lee]

Apparently trying to elbow into the USAF light attack deal - although it would be useful for the Marines, and a better way to escort V-22s than the MUX drone. (It could also short-land on a short asphalt runway without blowing a hole in it.)

Much to be said for the configuration, such as not having an engine and wing blocking your view of the ground.

[KenV]

Much to be said for the configuration, such as not having an engine and wing blocking your view of the ground.Indeed. However, the original Bronco had the same advantages. The only downside I see is that this rear-engine configuration means the old Bronco's rear cargo hold, which could hold troops, would go away. Don't know how much utility that rear cargo hold would provide in today's combat environment.

[GlobalNav]

Bronco II? More like Bronco 1/2

[T28B]

/not as mod
Why does it need two people? One would think that with the technology available these days, this plane could be equipped so that one pilot had all the mission systems available. Saves on gross weight and increase mission payload.

[trim it out]

/not as mod
Why does it need two people? One would think that with the technology available these days, this plane could be equipped so that one pilot had all the mission systems available. Saves on gross weight and increase mission payload.
One bloke to FAC(A) perhaps?

[Just This Once...]

/not as mod
Why does it need two people? One would think that with the technology available these days, this plane could be equipped so that one pilot had all the mission systems available. Saves on gross weight and increase mission payload.

Working a pod whilst looking out is not easy. If you are single seat you really need a wingman to maintain awareness and stay away from the low-level environment/ terrain. If you are happy to share then the extra seat in a modern F/A-18F, F-15E, Apache, F-16I et al makes you much more effective.

[NutLoose]

Much to be said for the configuration, such as not having an engine and wing blocking your view of the ground.
Well, the Cessna 337 that looks very familiar layout wise in its design used to fly along quite happily with the crew totally unaware that the overheating rear engine had long since caught fire and was burning it's way through the aircraft.

[garyscott]

Having the MDC running straight down the canopy centreline, in the view line, would annoy the hell outta me, though it isn't present in any other images.

http://www.grafika24.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/AHRLAC-Plane-Graphic.jpg

http://www.ahrlac.com/

https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=124667&d=1402489284

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3-7p0CXUAASY9z.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

Well, the Cessna 337 that looks very familiar layout wise in its design used to fly along quite happily with the crew totally unaware that the overheating rear engine had long since caught fire and was burning it's way through the aircraft.


That's why the O-2 had a fire detection system on the rear engine...

[2805662]

Indeed. However, the original Bronco had the same advantages. The only downside I see is that this rear-engine configuration means the old Bronco's rear cargo hold, which could hold troops, would go away. Don't know how much utility that rear cargo hold would provide in today's combat environment.

Didn’t the recent combat experiment with the OV-10G+ in Iraq confirm the ongoing utility of the cargo bay? Self re-arming at a ARP, IIRC.

[NutLoose]

That's why the O-2 had a fire detection system on the rear engine... And the little mirrors mounted on the wings so you could see what the legs were doing, which was one of the most frustrating designs I worked on, that and the 177RG.

[TBM-Legend]

I owned an O-2A and the only mirror was a little one to see the nose gear. The mains were visible from the driving seat. The O-2 has a plexiglass insert in the lower right door... The fire warning for the rear engine was a pre-start check item.

[NutLoose]

That's the mirror on the port wing.

We did an annual on a 177RG and the guy who jacked it didn't get it high enough, we watched in awe as the main gear hit the ground, lifted the aircraft off the jacks and then deposited it back on the jacks as it went over centre....:eek: needless to say he raised it a bit higher before we put the gear down again. :E

[GreenKnight121]

Bronco II? More like Bronco 1/2

Looks fine to me. ;)


Ford Bronco 1978-96:
length 180.4 in (4.582 m);
width 79.3 in (2.014 m);
height 75.5 in (1.918 m);
weight 4,580 lb (2,081 kg){varied by model year from ~4,200-4,600 lb}

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/1986_Ford_Bronco_Eddie_Bauer.jpg/800px-1986_Ford_Bronco_Eddie_Bauer.jpg

Ford Bronco II 1983-1990:
length 1983-1988: 158.3 in (4.021 m), 1989-1990: 161.9 in (4.112 m);
width 68.0 in (1.727 m);
height 1983-1988: 68.2 in (1.732 m), 989-1990: 69.9 in (1.775 m);
weight 3,385 lb (1,538 kg) {varied by model year from ~3,200-3,400 lb}

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Ford_Bronco_II.jpg/800px-Ford_Bronco_II.jpg

[West Coast]

A Greenknight sighting. Thought you went the way of the dodo bird.

[Lonewolf_50]

I am trying to understand why Bronco II proposal isn't answered by "we have UAV's that do that now."

Anyone have an insight on that? UAV's have great dwell time. My work with Preds/Reapers found that they gave very good lasing and target ID (for the time) for a variety of scenarios.


What's the key thing that makes this niche aircraft more attractive?

[West Coast]

FAC (A) capability?