OV-10 Bronco

[PanzerWulff]

Does anyone know what kind of ejector seats were installed on a OV-10 Bronco the Testors 1/48 kit only comes with a single seat but the aircraft was a two seater        

[GTX]

Panzer...,

From what I know, the seats were North American Aviation/Rockwell LW-3Bs - they were developed especially for use in the OV-10 Bronco.

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

Speaking of the OV-10...YOV-10A on floats and with 'Winders:




The YOV-10As all had the short span wings as shown on the drawing, 30 feet 4 inches versus the 40 foot span of the production aircraft. The production aircraft also had the engines and booms moved out from centre by six inches the horizontal tail was thus 12 inches wider...the Hawk/Testors kit has the 40' wings of the production type but the engine/boom spacing and horizontal tail width of the prototypes.
The other differences are that the prototypes did not have the angled weapons sponsons...they were as shown in the drawing, and a fillet was added at the base of each fin on the production version.

The floatplane version never proceeded past the mock-up stage.

Cheers, Jon

[Archangel]

What if the Marines had kept their OV-10s  a bit longer while waiting for their new AH-1Z helos? They could use them as additional air support over beach heads and light attack aircraft armed with a center line 20-30 mm gun with a single barrel the ammo stored in the aft compartment. On the hard points there could be Hellfires, bombs or rockets the nose would have the same equipment as the AH-1s and a pave penny pod stuck to the starboard side like an A-10. They could fly them of the decks of the LHAs and not worry about deck space

[Jschmus]

The OV-10 was designed to take off from a carrier (without use of a catapult, mind) and land on one as well.  I have read online that an OV-10 was delivered to the Paris Air Show one year from the deck of an aircraft carrier, but the story didn't say which carrier.  OV-10Ds from VMO-1 were delivered to Saudi Arabia in January 1991 by carrier, and then flown off, but I haven't seen which carrier it was.

The NOGS program tested an OV-10 with FLIR and laser targeting in a turret under the nose, and an M197 20mm cannon (the same used on the AH-1) in a turret under the centerline (with the sponsons removed).  Despite a successful combat evaluation, the sensor fit was approved (resulting in the OV-10D), but not the cannon mounting.

VMO-2 flew test flights with the Hellfire missile, but it was never approved for use.

Of course, that just what happened in the real world.  Here in What If land, we can do whatever we want.    

[Archangel]

The OV-10 was designed to take off from a carrier (without use of a catapult, mind) and land on one as well.  I have read online that an OV-10 was delivered to the Paris Air Show one year from the deck of an aircraft carrier, but the story didn't say which carrier.  OV-10Ds from VMO-1 were delivered to Saudi Arabia in January 1991 by carrier, and then flown off, but I haven't seen which carrier it was.

The NOGS program tested an OV-10 with FLIR and laser targeting in a turret under the nose, and an M197 20mm cannon (the same used on the AH-1) in a turret under the centerline (with the sponsons removed).  Despite a successful combat evaluation, the sensor fit was approved (resulting in the OV-10D), but not the cannon mounting.

VMO-2 flew test flights with the Hellfire missile, but it was never approved for use.

Of course, that just what happened in the real world.  Here in What If land, we can do whatever we want.  

If that OV-10D NOGS model has a FLIR/LAser turret then it shouldn't be to hard to add some LGBS to it. I have an Airfix 1-72nd scale OV-10D kit and it has the sponsons still on it.  That is why I thought that a gun pod with a 20 or 30 MM singel barreled gun would be better. I knew they had used the 20mm turreted version but didn't know how well it worked.

[Archangel]

[Joe C-P]

Here's a photo of one landed aboard a Tarawa class LHA:



I'm not certain how much take-off it needs, so I wouldn't know if it could operate off one of the smaller carriers like the Spain's Principe de Asturias or Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi. It probably would be OK off the RN's Invincibles.

JoeP

[Joe C-P]

From the Wikipedia entry, which I would consider close enough for Whiffing:

Performance
(A: OV-10A/C/E/F; B: OV-10B; C: OV-10B; D: OV-10D, with internal 20 mm ammunition only):

Takeoff Run:
A, at normal weight: 740 ft (226 m)
B, at 12,000 lb (5,443 kg): 1,130 ft (344 m)
C, at 12,000 lb (5,443 kg): 550 ft (168 m)
D, at 13,284 lb (6,025 kg): 1,110 ft (338 m)

Landing Run:
A, at normal weight: 740 ft (226m)
A, at overload weight: 1,250 ft (381 m)
D, at landing weight: 800 ft (244 m)

JoeP

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

For the landing and take off run, don't forget that the carrier and the wing speed will largely reduce the run (but I'm not good enough in mathematics to calculate that!!)

Just a question: is it possible to imagine a Bronco with both a gun AND the sponsons? Maybe with a lighter gun, as proposed?

[Archangel]

What if they built a bigger model with four engines and streched the wings and body to fit? That could give you 2-3 wing stations and maybe a sponson capable of hauling six 500 lb bombs for CAS and if you really want to get wild add wing tip mounted Sidewinders like the F-104 to the ones already hanging from the wing.  

[elmayerle]

I'm not sure you'd really need four engines, just bigger/later versions of the TPE331/T76, like the TPE331-15, I think it is, with a 1500 shp rating.  This is roughly double the power of the engines in the OV-10A and I'm not sure that an engine upgrade was part of the OV-10D; if ti wsa, that'd bring the engines up to 1000 shp per side, so t he later engines would still be an improvement with comparatively minimum redesign.

[Archangel]

I'm not sure you'd really need four engines, just bigger/later versions of the TPE331/T76, like the TPE331-15, I think it is, with a 1500 shp rating.  This is roughly double the power of the engines in the OV-10A and I'm not sure that an engine upgrade was part of the OV-10D; if ti wsa, that'd bring the engines up to 1000 shp per side, so t he later engines would still be an improvement with comparatively minimum redesign.

Would you need to make any changes to the kits engines to show that upgrade?

[elmayerle]

I'm not sure you'd really need four engines, just bigger/later versions of the TPE331/T76, like the TPE331-15, I think it is, with a 1500 shp rating.  This is roughly double the power of the engines in the OV-10A and I'm not sure that an engine upgrade was part of the OV-10D; if ti wsa, that'd bring the engines up to 1000 shp per side, so t he later engines would still be an improvement with comparatively minimum redesign.

Would you need to make any changes to the kits engines to show that upgrade?

Five-bladed props and likely a deeper, and wider, cowling and enlarged intake.  If you can find drawings, compare a Jetstream 41 engine nacelle and a Jetstream 31 engine nacelle.  I can probably find the dimensional differences 'tween the two engines if that'll help.

[upnorth]

Going in another direction with the Bronco:

What would be the plausibility of coupling the above mentioned engine upgrade with a long, narrow cord wing (think U-2 like here) and a retasking to high altitude related roles. Could be reece, weather monitoring, customs, mapping; basically anything where you'd need a good wide view of things.

I would think the OV-10D fuselage could be big enough to hold some gear and the FLIR is already in there. The sponsons would be good for external mission pods.

Maybe I'm wrong, but looking at it, I think with that sort of wing the Bronco might be a very efficient platform for that sort of work, possibly working off of only one engine, or even gliding for extended periods of the mission.