OV-10 Bronco

[PR19_Kit]

A couple of pics of the Flight Simulator 2004 version of the CV-10. Just GOT to be built in plastic

Note it's in an 'Air America' scheme........






[It occurs to me that fuselage just may be a similar section to a Rotodyne!]

[pyro-manic]

Ooh, that's pretty.

[PR19_Kit]

Ooh, that's pretty.

Exactly, that's why I've always like the idea.

In my wildest dreams I'd have one as my own aircraft, operating from my local 'Dean Forest Regional Airport' down by the River Severn of course........

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I certainly wish there was a better general arrangement drawing available of the CV-10 version of the Bronco.  I often wonder what aircraft could be kit-bashed with the existing OV-10 kit to produce something like that. 

[Archangel]

Except forthe shape of the body maybe using a 72nd scale C-119 with a 48th scale OV-10 wings and tail could get you close to the picture.

[Green Dragon]

Anyone have the dimensions of the cargo area in the CV-10? I know it won't be big enough for a Jeep but what about a couple Special forces guys on quad bike thingies?

Paul Harrison

[PR19_Kit]

Hm, I tried to scale the CV-10 drawing to 1/72 but something's not quite right..... 

What was the wingspan of the original short winged OV-10, as I think that drawing uses that short wing. If I scale the drawing to the assembled Airfix OV-10 wing, the booms are too long by the width of the fin, thus the question above.

I looked at using a Skyvan fuselage, but it's far too tall, on the other hand a Twin Otter isn't that far off. It'd need the edges sharpening up a tad, but the biggest problem would be the canopy, I can't find anything around that shape.

It's starting to look like we may need a thread just for the CV-10

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I would suspect that the cargo transport aircraft based on the OV-10 would have been given a new designation.  Not actually sure when the old number designation system ended and the new system began but I would suspect that if the C variant had been acquired at the same time as the OV-10 it would have been given a three digit number designation.  If procured under the new designation system it would be in the double digits but as to what is a wild guess at this point. 

[jcf]

Hm, I tried to scale the CV-10 drawing to 1/72 but something's not quite right..... 

What was the wingspan of the original short winged OV-10, as I think that drawing uses that short wing. If I scale the drawing to the assembled Airfix OV-10 wing, the booms are too long by the width of the fin, thus the question above.

I looked at using a Skyvan fuselage, but it's far too tall, on the other hand a Twin Otter isn't that far off. It'd need the edges sharpening up a tad, but the biggest problem would be the canopy, I can't find anything around that shape.

It's starting to look like we may need a thread just for the CV-10

YOV-10A
Span: 30 feet, 4 inches
Length: 40 feet
Height: 15 feet

OV-10A/OV-10D
Span: 40 feet
Length: 41 feet, 7 inches (OV-10D: 44 feet)
Height: 15 feet, 2 inches

I did a quick overlay in Photoshop, CV-10 and OV-10A 3-views,
and the result is that the CV-10 has a greater wingspan and
shorter booms when compared to the OV-10A. Quick and dirty
guesstimating, based on the drawings, I'd say the wingspan of
the CV-10 is in the neighborhood of 45 feet.

Jon

[PR19_Kit]

I rescaled the CV-10 plan to match the boom length to the Airfix OV-10 booms, and the span works out as 48 ft. The booms are also a tad further apart, but not much. That seems to make some sort of sense as the fuselage is wider.

The Twin Otter turns out to be almost an exact match in length and width, for the rectangular section anyway, even the wing is in the correct place! The windows and windscreen aperture are too high also, but that would need mods anyway to fit a new nose. I was thinking that it might be easier to scratchbuild the fuse, but perhaps not........

One major difference between the plan and the FS model is the nosewheel retracts the opposite way. On the plan it follows the OV-10 in retracting forward, but the FS model has the pivot point much closer to the nose and it retracts rearward. Looking at the plan I tend to favour the FS version as otherwise the wheelbase is quite short.

[Green Dragon]

Have you thought about using the Matchbox Dornier 28 for the fuselage? It's got a more squared cross section than the Twotter, not sure if the size is right though.

Paul Harrison

[Acree]

Rutan's Scaled Composites had a proposal some time ago for an assault transport with a rectangular section fuselage and tandem straight wing, with the tail supported by twin booms.  I have been thinking about an OV-10 conversion to similar configuration.  How about taking the FS CV-10, lopping off the nose at the propeller warning stripe and adding another fuselage section, complete with another matching set of wings.  The booms would be extended forward through the forward wing and much more powerful turboprop engines added at the front (or perhaps four PT-6s in some configuration or other)?

Cheers,
Chuck

[PR19_Kit]

Paul,

Have you thought about using the Matchbox Dornier 28 for the fuselage? It's got a more squared cross section than the Twotter, not sure if the size is right though.

No, but it's a darn good idea!

Not sure I have a 28 in The Loft, but I'll have a looksee. The Twin Otter is OK for the top half, but the lower half of the fuselage is almost semi-circular

Scratchbuilding it is maybe not such a bad idea after all, it's only a box with rounded edges.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I did a quick overlay in Photoshop, CV-10 and OV-10A 3-views, and the result is that the CV-10 has a greater wingspan and shorter booms when compared to the OV-10A. Quick and dirty
guesstimating, based on the drawings, I'd say the wingspan of the CV-10 is in the neighborhood of 45 feet.

Jon,

Did you happen to make a measurement for the width of the fuselage on your CV-10?  I would suppose it would have to be wide enough to accommodate a 48.0'' X 48.0'' freight pallet with a bit of room on either side. 

[PR19_Kit]

With my rescaling it's about 18 mm across the inside in 1/72, which is about 51". That's pretty close.........