Bronco Systems USA: Bronco II
Here is son of the OV-10 Bronco, the Bronco II
https://theaviationist.com/2018/02/2...new-bronco-ii/ https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4769/...20617094_h.jpg Cheers |
|
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. |
Originally Posted by George K Lee
(Post 10061425)
Much to be said for the configuration, such as not having an engine and wing blocking your view of the ground.
|
Bronco II? More like Bronco 1/2
|
/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. |
Originally Posted by T28B
(Post 10061927)
/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. |
Originally Posted by T28B
(Post 10061927)
/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. |
Much to be said for the configuration, such as not having an engine and wing blocking your view of the ground. |
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/...ne-Graphic.jpg http://www.ahrlac.com/ https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachm...7&d=1402489284 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3-7p0CXUAASY9z.jpg |
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... |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10061508)
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.
|
That's why the O-2 had a fire detection system on the rear engine... |
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.
|
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 |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 10061770)
Bronco II? More like Bronco 1/2
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/wikiped...ddie_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/wikiped..._Bronco_II.jpg |
A Greenknight sighting. Thought you went the way of the dodo bird.
|
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? |
FAC (A) capability?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.