OV-10 Bronco

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I admit that I never thought about that, because I always saw the Bronco as a small aircraft made in order to operate from small airfield.

But talking about large Bronco and more powerfull engines, what about a ...
TWIN-BRONCO !!

Two fuselage, three wings, three engines (We just had to find a new engine in order to have the same power in the Twin-Bronco's 3 engines than in 4 Bronco's engine), and why not a super-large sponson between the two fuselage??

[RCoulterSr]

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.

The prop change has already been done. Just not 5 bladed.

(image source)

[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.

The prop change has already been done. Just not 5 bladed.

If you follow that link to the Hartzell site, you'll find that they provide the five-bladed prop for the S-2T conversions.  That's pretty much what I had in mind.  The Hartzell 4-bladed props shown are for an engine rating that's rather less than what the S-2T has (at most, I think the OV-10D's engines were switched to a later configuration equivalent to the TPE331-10/-11 of roughly 1000 shp).  I was proposing going all the way to the 1400-1500 shp engines with a 5-bladed prop.

Mind you, I've some mixed feelings about Hartzell stemming from when I dealt with them at MAI, but that's another story and sufficiently long ago to be ancient history and not applicable here.

[GTX]

IF you want a real anti-armor Bronco, get a load of this proposal:



Regards,

Greg

[Archangel]

I seem to remember an episode of the old cartoon Jonny Quest where they were in a 4 seat OV-10 looking airplane that ends up crashed in a jungle some place. I was thinking that a 4 seater built for EW or for SAR missions would work very well. A EW version could have replaced the RC-12s in the Army and Marines and if they only added seats a 4 seater as a gunship might have been only slightly better then what they had.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I have read some comments on another forum regarding the Marine Corps interest in bringing the OV-10 back into service.  This is interesting since the OV-10 was developed as a Counter Insurgency (COIN) aircraft and subsequently tasked with other missions.  Perhaps the OV-10 should never have been retired.  Odd that it took this long for the decision makers to come to the same conclusion.  Perhaps new-build Broncos with better engines and equipment will once again serve their original purpose.

[Hawkeye]

Hindsight generally is 20/20. I can envision a "Super Bronco" one utilizing much of todays technology. The one aerobatic maneuver I can remember is watching a Bronco do a U-Turn in midair inside the width of a football field. Can you picture a with newer, quieter more powerful engines, carbon fiber construction and hauling Hellfire missiles, sidewinders, cannon pod, more useful fuel load, and the necessary hardware to point the heavy shooters and bombers...WOW! I better find a couple of the ole Testors kits quick.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Hindsight generally is 20/20. I can envision a "Super Bronco" one utilizing much of todays technology. The one aerobatic maneuver I can remember is watching a Bronco do a U-Turn in midair inside the width of a football field. Can you picture a with newer, quieter more powerful engines, carbon fiber construction and hauling Hellfire missiles, sidewinders, cannon pod, more useful fuel load, and the necessary hardware to point the heavy shooters and bombers...WOW! I better find a couple of the ole Testors kits quick.

Let me know if you want one of those Testor's OV-10 Bronco kits.

That was one thing I remember about the Bronco in flight.  The noise created by the original Bronco was substantial, I remember the noise and hearing the Bronco before actually getting a visual on it while I was stationed in Germany.  The Bronco was heard, long before it was seen which was not a good tactical feature.  The A-10 on the other hand was often seen at the last moment at about the same time that you heard it coming which was a good tactical advantage. 

Not sure if carbon fiber would be a viable option for a new-build aircraft, would it stand up to light anti-aircraft artillery?  This type of technology may be an advantage for other types of aircraft performing different missions but the Bronco was designed for simplicity of maintenance and operation. 

The OV-10D was cleared to carry the Hellfire.  The original OV-10s were cleared for 20mm gun pods (SUU-23/SUU-19) or a 150-200 gallon size fuel tank on the centerline pylon.  Other combinations of Zuni and Mighty Mouse FFAR pods were also used during operations in Vietnam with success. 

I also like the idea of the Bronco being used for airborne insertion of small reconnaissance teams as practiced by the Marine Corps.  A stick of four could be transported to the drop zone and they were dropped from the rear when the Bronco went vertical and gravity did the rest, it was quick and efficient. 

Personally I would ditch the 7.62mm machine gun battery and switch to .50" BMG sized weapon, perhaps the GECAL50 gatling gun mounted on one sponson and the ammunition supply contained within the fuselage.  This would provide adequate firepower for most situations. 

[Burncycle]

I'm working on a 1/72nd scale modern gunship version

-Longer Wings with two additional hardpoints
-5 Bladed Propellers
-Refueling boom
-VISMOD (or not) more powerful engines
-30mm Mk44 Bushmaster in turret (possibly w/ fuzing device for AHEAD ammunition)
-Modern sensor ball w/ thermal, laser rangefinder / designator, etc

Weapon mix ideas
GBU-12, Hellfire, Mavericks, SDB, Fuel Tanks...

[jcf]

Not sure if carbon fiber would be a viable option for a new-build aircraft, would it stand up to light anti-aircraft artillery?  This type of technology may be an advantage for other types of aircraft performing different missions but the Bronco was designed for simplicity of maintenance and operation. 

A modern composite airframe would have better ballistic performance than the original aluminum airframe.
You can use a mix of fiber types and/or layers to tailor the performance and the composite airframe would
be easier to maintain and repair in the field. The structure would be simpler, lighter and stronger.

Jon

[Weaver]

Question: have any of the Bronco kits featured the dorsal J-34 pod from the German OV-10BZ target towing version as an option?

[Ed S]

IIRC, someone made an OV-1B kit with the jet pod.  I think it was Revell Germany.  But it's pretty rare and hard to find.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Not sure if carbon fiber would be a viable option for a new-build aircraft, would it stand up to light anti-aircraft artillery?  This type of technology may be an advantage for other types of aircraft performing different missions but the Bronco was designed for simplicity of maintenance and operation.

A modern composite airframe would have better ballistic performance than the original aluminum airframe.
You can use a mix of fiber types and/or layers to tailor the performance and the composite airframe wouldbe easier to maintain and repair in the field. The structure would be simpler, lighter and stronger.

Jon,

Thanks for the feedback, not knowing a lot about the carbon fiber/composite technology I was hoping someone would fill in the blanks.  Guess the first step in building the Testor's OV-10 will be to remove all of those mountain-sized rivets that cover the fuselage and wings.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I bought a Bronco myself some months ago.

If one day I have time, I will make its a Super Bronco, with 20mm guns (larger sponsons), more powerfull engines, GBU-12, Hellfire/Brimstone, Stinger and laser guided 70mm rockets for the weapons and probably a laser turret and/or a light air-to-ground maping/designator radar.

I admit that I'm not sure about the guns. I initially thought about a 20mm turret from the SUper Cobra helicopter being placed centerline, but I'm not sure such a position allowed good carriage under the sponsons (and it's not easy to modify the position of the sponsons on the Academy kit).

Still for the weapon, it's a pity that there is no kit available for the "Mk81 GBU" used by the French navy (a 125kg laser guided bomb, derived from the GBU-12, very good weapon to avoid collateral damage in CAS and COIN)

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Has anyone performed a check-fit of the 1/72nd scale Italeri C-130J propeller and spinner on the 1/48th scale Hawk/Testors/Italeri OV-10 Bronco?  I think the six blade propellers are a nice touch and it would certainly improve the appearance of the Bronco. 

Another kit bashing idea came to me today.  It would require using the 1/48th scale OV-10 kit and kit bashing it with a 1/72nd scale V-22 Osprey.