User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 9:48:10 AM EDT
[#1]
OV-10s are also ridiculously quiet. I remember running around the swamps down at French Creek and I heard this faint buzzing noise and thought it was a plane miles and miles away when suddenly ***BOOOM!!!*** a fucking Bronco busted over us at treetop level. It was awesome!
I thought we gave all our OV-10s to Colombia? Didn't Homeland Security also get some complete with hardpoints for "surveillance"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 9:51:52 AM EDT
[#2]
A couple bits of OV-10 trivia:
It was found that jets were too fast to drop early thermobarics like BLU-72 as the cloud would disperse too rapidly but the Bronco was perfect for it. It's not well known but they dropped a bunch of FAE in Vietnam as not much else could reliably. 
Also,the famed Black Ponies,whose insignia has ended up on the test Broncos and Tucanos,were supposed to have used Pilatus Porters but the funds to puchase them weren't available so the OV-10s were borrowed instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:03:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure, for what? The low low price of $15M per unit? 
"But that's a bargain compared to $55M per unit for this other sexy bird that they really wanted.............." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are there any modernized broncos? We are already modding super taco's with US comms and other gear onboard. Boeing has offered an OV10X with modernized avionics and engines. Kharn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm sure, for what? The low low price of $15M per unit?
"But that's a bargain compared to $55M per unit for this other sexy bird that they really wanted.............." A modern FLIR/LRF is going to be at least $1M alone. Throw in the other goodies like glass cockpit, big enough displays to make the FLIR useful, secure comms, etc, and you're into low double digit millions for sure. By comparision, a UH-1Y is ~$25M and an AH-64E is ~$35M. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:17:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A modern FLIR/LRF is going to be at least $1M alone. Throw in the other goodies like glass cockpit, big enough displays to make the FLIR useful, secure comms, etc, and you're into low double digit millions for sure. By comparision, a UH-1Y is ~$25M and an AH-64E is ~$35M. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are there any modernized broncos? We are already modding super taco's with US comms and other gear onboard. Boeing has offered an OV10X with modernized avionics and engines. Kharn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm sure, for what? The low low price of $15M per unit?
"But that's a bargain compared to $55M per unit for this other sexy bird that they really wanted.............." A modern FLIR/LRF is going to be at least $1M alone. Throw in the other goodies like glass cockpit, big enough displays to make the FLIR useful, secure comms, etc, and you're into low double digit millions for sure. By comparision, a UH-1Y is ~$25M and an AH-64E is ~$35M. Same thing happens in general aviation. A light twin with a couple of old nav/coms in the panel is dirt cheap. Add a new coat of paint and a new interior, and the price can go up $10,000 to $20,000. Upgrade to a glass cockpit, and the price goes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:21:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:23:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? Soon |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:24:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soon Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? Soon Point well taken |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:25:48 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? I remember back in the day it was Recon. Weren't they the ones who discovered that capability? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:41:46 AM EDT
[#9]
What about the OV-1?
Bigger, faster, stronger. Engines mounted on top of the wings rather than under them for better protection. I always liked that plane over the OV-10 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:45:31 AM EDT
[#10]
I'm gonna let you finish, but the Bronco is my favorite aircraft of all time. OF ALL TIME!
The Bronco is still kicking ass down in the southern Philippines, as well. I am hoping I can get a jump out of one, eventually. I will have to lose a little around the waist, though, and that's for sure. Probably going to have my buddies at the parachute loft set up my MC-4 for static line, too.
ETA: Philippine Air Force OV-10A that is now an OV-10M due to the SLEP through Marsh Aviation. Too bad Marsh F'ed up with Venezuela, because they sure knew what they were doing with Broncos: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:51:04 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines ought to be operating them off of their Wasp LHDs. They'd be more capable than Harriers for the kinds of missions we're performing today. Far cheaper, too. https://newd7000user.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ov-10headon_hdr-web.jpg ETA- Bronco pron! 
Can easily operate off of highways and unpaved strips too. Short legs and no in flight refueling capability would make that a no go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 10:57:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no in flight refueling capability would make that a no go. Damn... I didn't know that. I can only imagine how much of a big deal it would be to retrofit that in. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:04:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn... I didn't know that. I can only imagine how much of a big deal it would be to retrofit that in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
no in flight refueling capability would make that a no go. Damn... I didn't know that. I can only imagine how much of a big deal it would be to retrofit that in. Not any more difficult than putting a 20mm minigun in the belly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:07:39 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not any more difficult than putting a 20mm minigun in the belly. I've posted plenty of OV-10 masturbatory fantasy in LAAR threads here over the years. I'm the one the wanted to air-drop modified 81mm mortar shells. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:13:43 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't see anything about new engines here: http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10%28x%29_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf The thought that the AF bought the OV-10 with shitty engines because we "didn't like or want it" is hilariously stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is it possible to put the Pratt and Whitney PT6A engine on the Bronco? Yes. The OV-10X has a pair of them. The original OV-10As had a rather weak pair of engines. USAF ordered them with the less powerful engine. USAF didnt like or want the Bronco. USMC liked and wanted it, but they prdered the Bronco with the same weak engines. The Navy's Broncos came from the USMC. Since the Marines kept their OV-10As, they upgraded them after Vietnam. I believe it was the D model that got the powerplants originally intended. I dont know much about the OV-10G, but I think the cockpits were modernized and a new 5 blade prop assembly was added. The OV-10G+ is supposed to be fairly close to the OV-10X Didn't see anything about new engines here: http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10%28x%29_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf The thought that the AF bought the OV-10 with shitty engines because we "didn't like or want it" is hilariously stupid. Cool. I guess all those USAF and USMC OV-10A drivers and maintainers at the OBA are/were just "hilariously stupid". Truth is USAF wasnt interested in CAS at the time, and the original tri-service agreement was between the USN, USAF, and USA, but USAF was barely content with USA having OV-1s and O-1Es. Having seen the OV-10X project guys at the museum for various events, they have state the possibility is there to install newer powerful engines. Some of the overseas customers want a pair of the engines in the A-29, PT-6, installed. As it is now, the new fiberglass 4 blade prop is considered, and there is now a 5 blade curved prop out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:20:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've posted plenty of OV-10 masturbatory fantasy in LAAR threads here over the years. I'm the one the wanted to air-drop modified 81mm mortar shells. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not any more difficult than putting a 20mm minigun in the belly. I've posted plenty of OV-10 masturbatory fantasy in LAAR threads here over the years. I'm the one the wanted to air-drop modified 81mm mortar shells. No fantasy. YOV-10D Night Observation Gunship (NOG): 
https://youtu.be/P6iI9NfNTpk |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:20:54 AM EDT
[#17]
The A-29, by a mile.
It's cheaper than our helicopters but with better range and less maintenance. Better payload too, but that's almost irrelevant because for convoy security and patrolling(the real COIN missions) all that's needed is a pair of rocket pods and MGs. For anything bigger get legit strike aircraft. A new OV-10 is going to be more expensive than our helos while still not being able to replace the really expensive aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:32:11 AM EDT
[#18]
OV-10... 100% more combat effective than the F-35
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:48:28 AM EDT
[#19]
The nice thing about the OV10 is that because it's already and operational aircraft that has been in US military service it should be easier to get it back into service and bypass all the R&D BS. Should be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 11:48:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The nice thing about the OV10 is that because it's already and operational aircraft that has been in US military service it should be easier to get it back into service and bypass all the R&D BS. Should be. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 3:53:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The nice thing about the OV10 is that because it's already and operational aircraft that has been in US military service it should be easier to get it back into service and bypass all the R&D BS. Should be. You sir are clearly a comedian |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2016 3:59:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember back in the day it was Recon. Weren't they the ones who discovered that capability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? I remember back in the day it was Recon. Weren't they the ones who discovered that capability? It's a nice to have but not a need to have. That's like picking an attack helo based on external cargo capacity. Way outside of scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 1:09:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember back in the day it was Recon. Weren't they the ones who discovered that capability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OV10 has two engines. Tucano has one. Comparison complete. Which one is currently in production and wouldn't end up being a fucking procurement nightmare? Comparison complete. and also, who the fuck needs to kick out 5 paratroops? What are we South Africa? I remember back in the day it was Recon. Weren't they the ones who discovered that capability? The capability was built into the first OV-10s. It wasn't discovered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 1:34:23 PM EDT
[#24]
The OV-10T would have been a light transport in the vein of the Shorts Skyvan or Israeli Arava
Some Aravas were armed so the T could have been as well. 2 forward facing .50s,one in the rear and frequently rocket pods were carried. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 1:40:44 PM EDT
[#25]
An OV-10T would be able to carry lots of feathers without more horsepower and redesign of every other part of the airplane from end to end.
There would be minor relief by reducing the manuevering load factors, but probably not enough to make much difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 2:19:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An OV-10T would be able to carry lots of feathers without more horsepower and redesign of every other part of the airplane from end to end. There would be minor relief by reducing the manuevering load factors, but probably not enough to make much difference. The Skyvan and Dornier 228 used the same Garretts to carry more feathers than a plain Bronco. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 3:52:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An OV-10T would be able to carry lots of feathers without more horsepower and redesign of every other part of the airplane from end to end. There would be minor relief by reducing the manuevering load factors, but probably not enough to make much difference. Lots of feathers! 
My uncle was an OV10 USMC pilot. He talked about being over water (near Guam I think) in an older model, losing altitude the whole way back, preparing to bail out instead of ditch. Unable to fly on one engine is pretty doggish. Sounds like they would have learned from the 2 passenger C150 already :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 7:08:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Skyvan and Dornier 228 used the same Garretts to carry more feathers than a plain Bronco. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An OV-10T would be able to carry lots of feathers without more horsepower and redesign of every other part of the airplane from end to end. There would be minor relief by reducing the manuevering load factors, but probably not enough to make much difference. The Skyvan and Dornier 228 used the same Garretts to carry more feathers than a plain Bronco. Compare the speeds, rate of climb, and engine variant to start that argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 9:19:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of feathers!
My uncle was an OV10 USMC pilot. He talked about being over water (near Guam I think) in an older model, losing altitude the whole way back, preparing to bail out instead of ditch. Unable to fly on one engine is pretty doggish. Sounds like they would have learned from the 2 passenger C150 already :) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An OV-10T would be able to carry lots of feathers without more horsepower and redesign of every other part of the airplane from end to end. There would be minor relief by reducing the manuevering load factors, but probably not enough to make much difference. Lots of feathers!
My uncle was an OV10 USMC pilot. He talked about being over water (near Guam I think) in an older model, losing altitude the whole way back, preparing to bail out instead of ditch. Unable to fly on one engine is pretty doggish. Sounds like they would have learned from the 2 passenger C150 already :) You remind me of an OV-10 story from when I was at George AFB. There was one of the 27 TASS OVs working down at 29 Palms that had engine problems and headed back to George. They were losing altitude the whole way home and could not keep enough altitude to make it over the ridge line between Apple Valley and George. So they ended up making an emergency landing 10 miles away from base at the Victorville/Apple Valley airport after being concerned that they might not be able to hold enough altitude to clear the rising terrain to the airport there. It wasn't a hot day and airfield elevation was only a little over 3000ft, so it wasn't the typical case of "hot/high" reduced performance. So curing that shortcoming would certainly be something the revived OV-10s would need to have addressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2016 10:36:49 PM EDT
[#30]
This is more fun than primary elections, Compare the weights. I think I have an OV-10 POH, more information is needed to sort out the difference in the 4500 pound cargo weight projected for the OV-10T. I'll guess that the main difference is more efficient packaging for freight, but not much or no difference in useful load.
Specification (Short Skyvan 3) Data from Jane's Civil and Military Upgrades 1994-95[12] General characteristics Crew: one-two Capacity: 19 passengers Length: 12.21 m (40 ft 1 in) Wingspan: 19.78 m (64 ft 11 in) Height: 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in) Wing area: 35.12 m² (378 ft²) Empty weight: 3,331 kg (7,344 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 5,670 kg (12,500 lb) Powerplant: 2 × Garrett AiResearch TPE-331-201 Turboprops, 533 kW (715 hp) each Performance Never exceed speed: 402 km/h, 217 knots (250 mph) Maximum speed: 325 km/h, 175 knots (202 mph) Cruise speed: 317 km/h (170 knots, 197 mph) Stall speed: 111 km/h, 60 knots (69 mph) Range: 1,117 km (694 miles) Service ceiling: 6858 m (22,500 ft) Rate of climb: 500 m/min (1,640 ft/min) Wing loading: 136.6 kg/m² (33.5 lb/ft²) Specifications OV-10A Data from Mesko[81] General characteristics Crew: two Length: 41 ft 7 in (12.67 m) Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m) Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m) Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²) Empty weight: 6,893 lb (3,127 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-410/412 turboprop, 715 hp (533 kW) each Performance Maximum speed: 281 mph (452 km/h) Range: 576 mi (927 km) Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m) Armament Guns: 4 × 7.62×51mm M60C machine guns Hardpoints: 5 fuselage and 2 underwing and provisions to carry combinations of: Rockets: 7- or 19-tube launchers for 2.75" FFARs or 2- or 4-tube launchers for 5" FFARs Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder (Wing pylons only) Bombs: up to 500 lb Other: SUU-11/A or Mk 4 Mod 0 gun pods OV-10D Data from Mesko[82] General characteristics Crew: two Length: 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m) Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m) Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m) Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²) Empty weight: 6,893 lb (3,127 kg) Loaded weight: 9,908 lb (4,494 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each Tailplane Span 14 ft, 7 in (4.45 m) Performance Maximum speed: 288 mph (463 km/h) Range: 1,382 mi (2,224 km) Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,159 m) Armament Guns: 1 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M197 cannon (YOV-10D) or 4 × 7.62×51mm M60C machine guns (OV-10D/D+) Hardpoints: 5 fuselage and 2 underwing and provisions to carry combinations of: Rockets: 7- or 19-tube launchers for 2.75" FFARs/2.75" WAFARs or 2- or 4-tube launchers for 5" FFARs or WAFARs Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder on wings only Bombs: up to 500 lb (227 kg) Specifications (Do 228-212) Analogue flight deck Cabin view External video Do 228 conducting aerobatic maneuvers at the 1986 Reykjavik Airshow Demonstration of Transportable Optical Ground Station using a Do 228 Walkaround of a Do 228 on the ground Data from Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1999/2000,[69] Flight International[10] General characteristics Crew: two pilots Capacity: 19 passengers Payload: 2,340 kg freight (5,158 lb) Length: 16.56 m (54 ft 4 in) Wingspan: 16.97 m (55 ft 8 in) Height: 4.86 m (15 ft 11 in) Wing area: 32.0 m² (344 sq ft) Airfoil: A-5 Empty weight: 3,739 kg (8,243 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 6,400 kg (-212) 6,200 kg (-202K) 6,100 kg (-202) 5,700 (-101) (14,550 lb) Powerplant: 2 × Garrett AiResearch TPE-331-5-252D or -10 variation (GP and GT) turboprop, 578 kW (776 shp flat rated for -5A and -10 powerplants at 30 °C sea level / 715 shp flat rated for -5 variations) each Propellers: Hartzell Propellers model- HC-B4TN-5ML/LT10574 Propeller diameter: 2.67 m (105 in) Performance Never exceed speed: 280 kt (-212) (519 km/h) Maximum speed: 223 kt (-212) / 200 kt (-200) (413 / 370 km/h) Cruise speed: 190 kt (352 km/h) at approx 15 °C with 85% torque Stall speed: 75 kt (139 km/h) flaps down Range: 1,111 km (715 nmi, 823 mi) with full payload Service ceiling: 8,500 m (28,000 ft) Rate of climb: 7.5 m/s (1,870 ft/min) While we're at it, let's include OV-1D specs - Specifications (OV-1D) Grumman OV-1 Mohawk drawing.gif Data from Jane's Civil and Military Aircraft Upgrades 1994–95[35] General characteristics Crew: Two: pilot, observer Length: 41 ft 0 in (12.50 m) Wingspan: 48 ft 0 in (14.63 m) Height: 12 ft 8 in (3.86 m) Wing area: 360 ft² (33.45 m²) Empty weight: 12,054 lb (5,467 kg) Loaded weight: 15,544 lb (7,051 kg) (Normal take-off weight, IR mission) Max. takeoff weight: 18,109 lb (8,214 kg) (SLAR mission) Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming T53-L-701 turboprops, 1,400 shp (1,044 kW) each Performance Never exceed speed: 450 mph (390 knots, 724 km/h) Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m) (IR mission) Cruise speed: 207 mph (180 knots, 334 km/h) (econ cruise) Stall speed: 84 mph (73 knots, 135 km/h) Range: 944 mi (820 nmi, 1,520 km) (SLAR mission) Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m) Rate of climb: 3,450 ft/min (17.5 m/s) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
