New build OV-10 Bronco's
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always made me chuckle. I've show and told a few Infanteers I know about the skyraider, and most already know about the A10 and they all love it! Its ugly as hell, but it just looks tough in the way FJ's don't. Doesn't look or sound as deadly as FJ's, but then again when it gets closer and you see the amount of ordnance hanging off the wings...
Buuuuut, as it's been mentioned, the FJ enjoys so much support, because its 'cool' - lets face it, if you asked a class of potential pilots which they would rather fly into combat, an F22 or an A-1, guess which way they'd vote...
(In my defence, i'm a wannabe pilot, just doing my FAT's in March, and if I was given a choice I would honest choose the A-1
but that could be my ground based experiences)
Buuuuut, as it's been mentioned, the FJ enjoys so much support, because its 'cool' - lets face it, if you asked a class of potential pilots which they would rather fly into combat, an F22 or an A-1, guess which way they'd vote...
(In my defence, i'm a wannabe pilot, just doing my FAT's in March, and if I was given a choice I would honest choose the A-1
but that could be my ground based experiences)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides 'sexy,' there is the little matter of battlefield survivability.
Why do you think Spads were withdrawn in Vietnam?
Hint: it had little to do with curb appeal and a lot to do with being low, slow, and unable to keep up with MANPAD technology.
It's all fun and games until someone gets shot down.
With a finite budget, what Air Force would go with even new OV-10s vs. something that is relatively multi-role - F-35/F-16, etc, etc?
Why do you think Spads were withdrawn in Vietnam?
Hint: it had little to do with curb appeal and a lot to do with being low, slow, and unable to keep up with MANPAD technology.
It's all fun and games until someone gets shot down.
With a finite budget, what Air Force would go with even new OV-10s vs. something that is relatively multi-role - F-35/F-16, etc, etc?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buuuuut, as it's been mentioned, the FJ enjoys so much support, because its 'cool' - lets face it, if you asked a class of potential pilots which they would rather fly into combat, an F22 or an A-1, guess which way they'd vote...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this not just Boeing seeing a number of operators looking at light ISTAR/Transport type aircraft (Twinstar, Defender, Beech 350 etc) and thinking that they need to get a piece of that pie - and having a design in one of their purchasees that might juist fit the bill?
After all, the 787 is not progressing as well as hoped....
After all, the 787 is not progressing as well as hoped....
Did you build it yourself?
....this cab reminds me of the question a colleague was asked by some Roof Rat after he'd landed a Lynx on the expansive deck of the USS Enterprise - 'Gee Son, d'ya build it yourself?' 
The answer, of course, was - 'No, Westland Helicopters, but then that's pretty much the same thing!'
Also - hasn't a similar thing been tried out on the Kaman (Super) Seasprite? I didn't think that went so well...for the Aussies at least...?
The answer, of course, was - 'No, Westland Helicopters, but then that's pretty much the same thing!'
Also - hasn't a similar thing been tried out on the Kaman (Super) Seasprite? I didn't think that went so well...for the Aussies at least...?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all, the 787 is not progressing as well as hoped....
Yes, that that's the plan. Very clever: 787 sales canceled due to delivery delays and slow economy, make up for that with OV-10's. Uh, no.
The original, mid-1960's concept of use for the aircraft that became the OV-10 was that the aircraft would fulfill a dual role: (1) STOL close air support, (2) STOL light utility/transport.
The OV-10, or at least its fuselage, is too small to be much good in the second role.
Yes, that that's the plan. Very clever: 787 sales canceled due to delivery delays and slow economy, make up for that with OV-10's. Uh, no.
The original, mid-1960's concept of use for the aircraft that became the OV-10 was that the aircraft would fulfill a dual role: (1) STOL close air support, (2) STOL light utility/transport.
The OV-10, or at least its fuselage, is too small to be much good in the second role.
One aspect that hasn't been addressed (and I guess would make it a multi role platform) is special ops insertion. The Marine Corps used to insert Force Recon and SEAL's via the Bronco. Remove the back of the pod and you could drop a few of your inquisitive, absolutely have to know type of guys in. Pretty dramatic to see it at airshows. The Bronco would ingress low altitude and over the insertion point would climb in the vertical or so it looked while the meat bombs fell/launched themselves out of the back. The Bronco pushed over and was gone quickly.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The U.S. Marine Corps OV-10 Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) program modified four OV-10As to include a turreted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and turreted M197 20 mm gun slaved to the FLIR aimpoint. NOGS succeeded in Vietnam, but funds to convert more aircraft were not approved. NOGS evolved into the NOS OV-10D, which included a l@ser designator, but no added gun... just the 4 x 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the stub-wing-roots.
Putting on my anorak here, do you happen to know if the OV-10 used conventional or reverse counter-rotating props?
Previous ground-attack twins such as the P-38 lightning and Henschel HS129 used reverse counter-rotating props due to the greater stability the configuration afforded as a gun-platform (even though it made both engines critical failures).
Looking at the photo, I'd guess the OV-10 used conventional counter-rotation - but the props may have been in reverse thrust just after landing in that photo.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears they did use counter-rotating props:
Rockwell OV-10 Bronco - CombatAircraft.com
OV-10Bronco.Net - NASA Broncos
Rockwell OV-10 Bronco - CombatAircraft.com
OV-10Bronco.Net - NASA Broncos
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove the back of the pod and you could drop a few of your inquisitive, absolutely have to know type of guys in. Pretty dramatic to see it at airshows.
Crowded back there ... Not a comfortable ride.
Crowded back there ... Not a comfortable ride.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAL FIRE operates the type nowadays.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We regularly have OV 10s operating from the local airport. One of the pilots comes around for a beer and a gossip occasionally. He tells me the aircraft have undergone a major mod programme including zero timing them, propellors have been replaced with a 4 bladed Harzell job, lots more bells and whistles and a new gun system.
He rates them for the job which is counter insurgency operations.
He rates them for the job which is counter insurgency operations.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I see on this pic regarding the blade pitch/twist, both props rotated inboard at the top, outboard at the bottom.
For larger version, click here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ssau_1983.jpeg
For larger version, click here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ssau_1983.jpeg
4 Marines with all their kit would no doubt have had rather a cosy ride in the back of an OV-10:
Somwhat 'Rendition Class' seating - no wonder they would be keen to jump out:
Somwhat 'Rendition Class' seating - no wonder they would be keen to jump out:
Brick-Don`t think the Spads were withdrawn,it was the major `Force' that `withdrew` and gave the `Spads` to the SVNAF.
And it wasn't just the Spad & OV10 that were impacted by the rapid proliferation of MANPADs; Israeli FJ aircrew received a nasty shock, as did fast movers at low level, and helicopters, over SEA. Let alone the Sovs in Afghanistan....
Since the introduction of the Strela (and it's progeny) IR DAS has become a top priority for low flying ac -esp RW and CAS platforms, and, using a combination of suppression, jamming, detection, decoys and tactics they can be dealt with. There is no reason at all why new-build OV10s wouldn't benefit from these advances and thus be more survivable in the low 'n slow environment.
Since the introduction of the Strela (and it's progeny) IR DAS has become a top priority for low flying ac -esp RW and CAS platforms, and, using a combination of suppression, jamming, detection, decoys and tactics they can be dealt with. There is no reason at all why new-build OV10s wouldn't benefit from these advances and thus be more survivable in the low 'n slow environment.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was the major `Force' that `withdrew` and gave the `Spads` to the SVNAF