View Full Version : OV-10 Bronco - back in action?
This plane never seems to die. Wonder how it stacks up against the A-29 Super Tucano as far as overall capability?:
"Two OV-10 Broncos recently returned from a combat evaluation in the US Central Command area of operations, testing a light attack and armed reconnaissance capability. Congress provided funding to "test the use of a small aircraft" for counterinsurgency and close air support, Air Force Special Operations Command boss Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold told Air Force Magazine at ASW16"
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016/March%2001%202016/Bronco-Rides-Again.aspx
crusader377
03-09-16, 15:12
Its cool that the OV-10 Bronco is back it is sad though that it is only being looked at as the wars in the Middle East are winding down. It was a system that really needed to be redeployed 15 years ago.
I also think there could be a role for the A-1 Skyraider which was an incredible CAS/COIN platform as well.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-09-16, 15:36
Its cool that the OV-10 Bronco is back it is sad though that it is only being looked at as the wars in the Middle East are winding down. It was a system that really needed to be redeployed 15 years ago.
I also think there could be a role for the A-1 Skyraider which was an incredible CAS/COIN platform as well.
They could have put a slightly bigger wing on it since it wouldn't have to land on jungle roads as airstrips...
Always thought it was a cool plane. Maybe a bit under powered and slow, but still cool. Wasn't there the OV-10X program to modernize it a bit? I still wonder where this fits in with the missile threat rising and the drones getting more capable.
Been looking at doing and RC version of the OV10.
I saw an article the other day on how the US Air Force keeps an estimated 8-10 completely upgraded F-111's in there arsenal. They are stationed Diego Garcia and there role is unknown.
I saw an article the other day on how the US Air Force keeps an estimated 8-10 completely upgraded F-111's in there arsenal. They are stationed Diego Garcia and there role is unknown.
Carrying a nuke to target at Mach 2 would be my guess.
Carrying a nuke to target at Mach 2 would be my guess.
you might be right, i was thinking the islands China is building in the South China Sea might have something to do with it- so maybe high speed recon, high altitude geospatial surveying, or high speed nuke delivery service. Those were powerful airplanes especially the Ravens with there electronic warfare and counter measures.
This makes no sense. Why use Cheap and cost effective system to chase akhmed in the desert when you can run up air frame hours on strategic bombers and front line fighters. Plus, the tankers to drag them around...........wait a minute.......
http://suzlyfe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/brilliant-guinness-meme.jpg
What a novel idea.
There have been several threads on this and the AT-6 Texan II on a Air Force aviation forum I still lurk on. With the OV-10 and the AT-6 we have some great, slow moving, maneuverable CAS and recon platforms. The catch is they aren't sexy, they don't work for recruiting or budget dollars. Uncle Sam's Flying Club (USAF) loves the sexy toys, not the dirty and slow ones. They've been trying to kill the A-10 since the end of the Cold War. Only the grunts and CAS pilots love CAS.
TheChunkNorris
03-10-16, 04:33
That would be a sight to see... I grew up next to an AF base and saw them all the damn time.
I grew up on Camp Lejeune in the 70s, saw those planes everywhere. It is an awesome aircraft, and other countries still use then. Hell, the US still uses them, just not in military-related uses now.
It is a great observation/FAC/CAS platform, and for the expense, they should have several squadrons flying.
What good does it do having airplanes when short 500 pilots:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/09/us-air-force-facing-500-fighter-pilot-shortfall/81530748/
What good does it do having airplanes when short 500 pilots:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/09/us-air-force-facing-500-fighter-pilot-shortfall/81530748/
That's definitely a problem, and so often a casualty of a post-war drawdown.
The military spends money on what is important at the time.
I saw an article the other day on how the US Air Force keeps an estimated 8-10 completely upgraded F-111's in there arsenal. They are stationed Diego Garcia and there role is unknown.
I don't know where that info came from. It is false. Unless they got there in the last couple of months.
There is so much wrong with the premise. I call BS. There is no support system in place to keep those maintained. The last depot level maintenance closed a loooong time ago. And trust me when I say those things required a lot of maintenance. And that isn't even talking about keeping pilots current on quals and flying time. There are other, modern, aircraft that can do the same only better. Like the B-1 (which by the way has actually had that presence in Diego)
With regard to the OV-10, that "slowness" is what provided its worth. Think about trying to observe and recon through dense jungle foliage at 130 kts. Much less doing so with a super tucano at 3x the speed and no where near the visibility required to do so.
However, that slowness on an open battlefield like the ME, that makes it very vulnerable to ground fire.
Its cool that the OV-10 Bronco is back it is sad though that it is only being looked at as the wars in the Middle East are winding down. It was a system that really needed to be redeployed 15 years ago.
This right here, 100%. We've needed a light attack/coin platform basically since we set foot in Afghanistan. Flying F-15s @$40k+ per hour and F-16s @ $22k+ per hour for COIN ops is the height of stupidity.
The fact the AF went to the trouble of having a half decade competition to select and procure the A-29 when a pile of OV-10s is sitting in the Boneyard is also ridiculous. For what the A-29 procurement cost you could have reactivated the OV-10, upgraded the avionics and weapons systems and had $ left over.
I saw an article the other day on how the US Air Force keeps an estimated 8-10 completely upgraded F-111's in there arsenal. They are stationed Diego Garcia and there role is unknown.
First I've heard that one. Thought all the F-111s were retired 20 years ago. Supposedly that whole high speed nuke run things was obsoleted by the B-2 and the like....
I don't know where that info came from. It is false. Unless they got there in the last couple of months.
There is so much wrong with the premise. I call BS. There is no support system in place to keep those maintained. The last depot level maintenance closed a loooong time ago. And trust me when I say those things required a lot of maintenance. And that isn't even talking about keeping pilots current on quals and flying time. There are other, modern, aircraft that can do the same only better. Like the B-1 (which by the way has actually had that presence in Diego)
See that's what I was thinking. The logistical pipeline for the F-111 was dismantled long ago from what I know. IIRC all the remaining spares were sold off to the Aussies for their F-111s....
There have been several threads on this and the AT-6 Texan II on a Air Force aviation forum I still lurk on. With the OV-10 and the AT-6 we have some great, slow moving, maneuverable CAS and recon platforms. The catch is they aren't sexy, they don't work for recruiting or budget dollars. Uncle Sam's Flying Club (USAF) loves the sexy toys, not the dirty and slow ones. They've been trying to kill the A-10 since the end of the Cold War. Only the grunts and CAS pilots love CAS.
I've said before that if I was made king for the day, the first thing I'd do is scrap that MOA between the USA and USAF that keeps the army from fielding armed fixed wing platforms and give the CAS mission to the guys that want it, namely the Army.....
Originally, both USAF and USMC preferred the competing design. Would have been interesting to see how things would have turned out iof the Charger had been selected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_Model_48_Charger
crusader377
03-10-16, 10:34
What good does it do having airplanes when short 500 pilots:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/09/us-air-force-facing-500-fighter-pilot-shortfall/81530748/
That might be true but I think a good reason for the shortage is the Air Force like pretty much all of the services lacks any sort of creativity in both selecting and training pilots. For example, why not look at Warrant Officers or NCOs to help alleviate the pilot shortage. Warrant Officers make up the bulk of U.S. Army helicopter pilots and helicopter if anything are harder to fly than most modern jets. Another example is the RAF in WWII made extensive use of NCO pilots and there performance was no different from commissioned officers.
Rayrevolver
03-10-16, 10:40
Had an OV-10 taxi by and not everyone knew what it was. Not that I am old enough to have seen them back in the day, but I did recognize it. This was probably 2 years ago and reading that AFSOC was involved makes sense now.
Any of you guys know what happened with arming PC-12s? Seems like a great, modern platform, to accomplish a light attack/observation mission.
That might be true but I think a good reason for the shortage is the Air Force like pretty much all of the services lacks any sort of creativity in both selecting and training pilots. For example, why not look at Warrant Officers or NCOs to help alleviate the pilot shortage. Warrant Officers make up the bulk of U.S. Army helicopter pilots and helicopter if anything are harder to fly than most modern jets. Another example is the RAF in WWII made extensive use of NCO pilots and there performance was no different from commissioned officers.
The Navy has billets for NCOs to go to flight school, and the Navy is in the same boat (no pun intended). The military needs to a) come off $ to re-open the pilot-training pipeline, and b) get the squadrons "right-sized" to be able to support not just current operations but be able to quickly flex to meet more demand.
The USAF had a pilot shortage/lack of retention in the late 1980's. They just gave them all leather A-2 flight jackets.
Not to mention the airlines are actively hiring. I know several friends who were USAF pilots who punched at their 10 year mark or went to the Guard or Reserves and are now flying for the airlines with better hours, better pay and less BS.
People forget that the OV-10 can carry cargo or 5 troops as well.
My bet is its use was situations where they needed a quieter platform, greater range, and potentially higher ceiling than the Blackhawk can provide. Though you'd think one of the spooky helo units could have met any insertion needs.
The bronco requires no ground support to start, in a jam can run in auto gas I believe, so it has some unique characteristic
The OV-10 is a turbo prop which uses jet fuel. Gasoline would destroy the engines. Diesel could be used in a pinch but at the risk of leaving sulphur residue which, over time, is bad for turbine engines and would require extra maintenance
What good does it do having airplanes when short 500 pilots
The service is also going to work to absorb pilots who leave active duty into the Reserve or the Guard “so that we hold onto that expertise,” he added.
Since pilots generally don't want to do the admin stuff they should put more of the active duty pilot slots into the reserves, let them spend their time flying and not on other stuff.
This would require a restructure of some administrative positions and perhaps the invention of some new ones - essentially what I am suggesting is let the pilots that want, go part time and continue to fly, and only perform duties related to flight. They top out at Major. If you want to go beyond major, you need to decide what track you you are going to take early on.
Makes sense to me.
The OV-10 is a turbo prop which uses jet fuel. Gasoline would destroy the engines. Diesel could be used in a pinch but at the risk of leaving sulphur residue which, over time, is bad for turbine engines and would require extra maintenance
Hmm, some Garret guys indicate their turbo props are spec'd to run on 100LL avgas at reduced power. Limited time, extra mtc as you mentioned.
It's commonly listed as one of the advantages of the bronco, can run on jet A, kerosene, diesel, or gas.
Likewise, most of the Russian turboprops are largely multifuel.
My understanding is that jet B is a mix of kerosene and gasoline as well.
Jet B is about 30/70 gasoline/kerosene iirc.
Gas turbines can be made to run on nearly any combustible fuel. The issue is what efficiency levels you get because all aspects of the engine, especially the vaporizers and burner assembly are tuned for specific fuels in general.
In aviation the tuning is generally aimed towards kerosene/diesel derivatives due to their higher energy density over lighter fuels such as gasoline, naptha, etc etc.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Not to mention the airlines are actively hiring. I know several friends who were USAF pilots who punched at their 10 year mark or went to the Guard or Reserves and are now flying for the airlines with better hours, better pay and less BS.
SHACK!!!
A deceased friend flew the Bronco in Vietnam. As a forward air controller, he would search out targets for fighter bombers to attack--like trucks, artillery, AA emplacements, and such. His Bronco carried rockets with phosphorus warheads for marking targets. Once he spotted and marked a target, the closest fighter would roll in and lay a bomb on it. Although he was Air Force, my friend said that Navy pilots could thread the needle: one target, one bomb, a victory roll, and then gone. He had much more praise for the Navy jocks than for his own group.
The OV-10 is a turbo prop which uses jet fuel. Gasoline would destroy the engines. Diesel could be used in a pinch but at the risk of leaving sulphur residue which, over time, is bad for turbine engines and would require extra maintenance
I'm not a turbo prop and fuel expert but I've stayed at a few Holiday Inn Express. I have read that high octane fuel can be used, at a slight loss in performance. Here you go:
And, if necessary, the engines will operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.
The end of the second paragraph in the "Design" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco
It's good that they're reviving an old weapon, I just hope that they don't run into a few of those quad 12.7mm russian machine guns mounted on the back of a Toyota High Lux. If they do, I hope the Bronco pilots see them first before they get a chance.
Hmm, some Garret guys indicate their turbo props are spec'd to run on 100LL avgas at reduced power. Limited time, extra mtc as you mentioned.
It's commonly listed as one of the advantages of the bronco, can run on jet A, kerosene, diesel, or gas.
Likewise, most of the Russian turboprops are largely multifuel.
My understanding is that jet B is a mix of kerosene and gasoline as well.
Interesting. Gasoline is not good for the turbine engines I've worked on
I don't know where that info came from. It is false. Unless they got there in the last couple of months.
There is so much wrong with the premise. I call BS. There is no support system in place to keep those maintained. The last depot level maintenance closed a loooong time ago. And trust me when I say those things required a lot of maintenance. And that isn't even talking about keeping pilots current on quals and flying time. There are other, modern, aircraft that can do the same only better. Like the B-1 (which by the way has actually had that presence in Diego)
you might be right, the F-111 were introduced in the 60's, i read that in Plane and Pilot magazine in Barnes and Noble a while back. I doubt the US Air force would bring a plane back to life after being retired for many years- the cost would be astronomical, however, if they air force did have a few F-111's left over, they wouldn't be used for any tactical role. They could however use a Australian private contractor to operate, maintain and fly those aircraft. Who knows, When i read that, i was like whats next? Bring back the F-4 Phantom and the F-14?
I wonder how many remember something called: "The OV-10 POP"? Unique and fast way to unload your paratroopers.
I wonder how many remember something called: "The OV-10 POP"? Unique and fast way to unload your paratroopers.
I remember seeing that the Marines inserted that way. Four (I think) Recon dudes sitting dick-to-butt and no tail cone. Pilot pitches up and they slide out. Lol!
Its cool that the OV-10 Bronco is back it is sad though that it is only being looked at as the wars in the Middle East are winding down. It was a system that really needed to be redeployed 15 years ago.
I also think there could be a role for the A-1 Skyraider which was an incredible CAS/COIN platform as well.
I love the A-1. Versatile aircraft, long loiter time, good at ground attack, but its a piston engine that runs Aviation Gasoline, not Jet A (JP-8 or whatever their using for the turbines now) and logistics may be an issue. I don't know if the have any left. Probably not.
Avgas (100LL) can leave lead deposits on the turbine blades which is why it is only recommended for limited use in turbine engines.
Avgas (100LL) can leave lead deposits on the turbine blades which is why it is only recommended for limited use in turbine engines.
Oh, I'd never run 100LL in a turbine, just Jet A, but the A-1 is a PISTON radial.
I love the A-1. Versatile aircraft, long loiter time, good at ground attack, but its a piston engine that runs Aviation Gasoline, not Jet A (JP-8 or whatever their using for the turbines now) and logistics may be an issue. I don't know if the have any left. Probably not.
I don't think the gov't does but the FAA has 14 listed as airworthy in the U.S. I think they are cool looking AC.
SeriousStudent
03-13-16, 13:27
It was always really cool to watch the Recon bubba's parachute out of the back of a small bird like that. The pilots would fly along treetop level, firewall the bird while yanking back on the stick, and guys would slide out the back.
Damn impressive work by everyone involved, with a very large cojones factor required.
I love the A-1. Versatile aircraft, long loiter time, good at ground attack, but its a piston engine that runs Aviation Gasoline, not Jet A (JP-8 or whatever their using for the turbines now) and logistics may be an issue. I don't know if the have any left. Probably not.
The A-10 does everything the A-1 does and more. Of course if the AF brass-holes get their way it will get retired without a suitable replacement. They have sold their souls on the F-35 which is just a stealthy version of the lawndart (F-16).
The fight to make sure Congress forces the AF to keep the A-10 goes on every year so please write your reps.
Oh, I'd never run 100LL in a turbine, just Jet A, but the A-1 is a PISTON radial.
Very true, emergency only.
I wonder how many remember something called: "The OV-10 POP"? Unique and fast way to unload your paratroopers.
One of my favorite jumps was sliding out the back of an OV-10 (IIRC we were the last set of jumpers before the birds were retired). Have to question the tactical utility of this insert in today's environment though.
Its cool that the OV-10 Bronco is back it is sad though that it is only being looked at as the wars in the Middle East are winding down. It was a system that really needed to be redeployed 15 years ago.
I also think there could be a role for the A-1 Skyraider which was an incredible CAS/COIN platform as well.
OV-10's took some losses during Desert Storm, and that was the justification for pulling them from service.
IMO we didn't upgrade Counter-IR systems and crews paid a price.
The A-10 does everything the A-1 does and more. Of course if the AF brass-holes get their way it will get retired without a suitable replacement. They have sold their souls on the F-35 which is just a stealthy version of the lawndart (F-16).
The fight to make sure Congress forces the AF to keep the A-10 goes on every year so please write your reps.
Former secDef gates hung this albatross around everyone's neck (Navy and Marines are tied to this plane too!).
Very true, emergency only.
Running avgas in turbines was apparently far more common in the past. And was for sure approved in many engines, and still is with the use of a lubricity additive for fuel pumps.
100LL has half the lead of earlier fuels, and many turbine engines allow it's use for a combined 150 hours in any overhaul cycle.
This is not really a big advantage for the OV-10, nor unique to it unless they had fuel pumps less dependent on lubrication.
But being duel/multi fueled was a huge advantage over piston planes.
I'm back to: What would the OV-10 possibly bring to the table that the other alternative could not?
Ground support? A-10 is the clear winner. OV-10 is more economical to operate, but I think the combat radius and loiter are similar.
Insertion? Helo's would win here unless altitude/range are an issue. And I think the spooky copters even address that.
Cheap indigenous forces plane? They'd need support packages, and even if we had enough to give, I'd suspect some of the modern alternatives would be a better pick.
I'd love to know details on what they were used for, and why.
When the A-10 is finally put out to pasture, I think that will be it for single-mission ground attack planes for the USAF. The CAS mission will be handled by whatever is in the inventory at the time, probably F-15E, F-16, B-1, and yes, F-35. Maybe drones will be further developed by that point, but their payload will still not equal the A-10's.
When the A-10 is finally put out to pasture, I think that will be it for single-mission ground attack planes for the USAF. The CAS mission will be handled by whatever is in the inventory at the time, probably F-15E, F-16, B-1, and yes, F-35. Maybe drones will be further developed by that point, but their payload will still not equal the A-10's.
My understanding is that the core issue is airframe service life and spares. The original tooling is gone for many items, so the A-10 is on a fixed glideslope to retirement unless that changes. More sorties, the shorter the timeframe.
I'd love to see that change, with an upgrade/refurb/zero hour program. But what I hear from serving Army types is the big leadership will not fight hard for the A-10, as they feel helo's can fill that gap, along with increasing drone capabilities. But for my son's sake, I hope there will be warthogs on station for many more years!
Running avgas in turbines was apparently far more common in the past. And was for sure approved in many engines, and still is with the use of a lubricity additive for fuel pumps.
100LL has half the lead of earlier fuels, and many turbine engines allow it's use for a combined 150 hours in any overhaul cycle.
This is not really a big advantage for the OV-10, nor unique to it unless they had fuel pumps less dependent on lubrication.
But being duel/multi fueled was a huge advantage over piston planes.
I'm back to: What would the OV-10 possibly bring to the table that the other alternative could not?
Ground support? A-10 is the clear winner. OV-10 is more economical to operate, but I think the combat radius and loiter are similar.
Insertion? Helo's would win here unless altitude/range are an issue. And I think the spooky copters even address that.
Cheap indigenous forces plane? They'd need support packages, and even if we had enough to give, I'd suspect some of the modern alternatives would be a better pick.
I'd love to know details on what they were used for, and why.
Was it used as a CAS Platform or armed ISR?
Imagine a MC-12 with 4 x 50 cal rockets and small diameter bombs?
Holding the bad guys off until the A-10 arrived on station.
RobertTheTexan
04-07-16, 09:01
Very true, emergency only.
Pardon me for stepping into the conversation -I might hack up the nomenclature, but we ran JP-8 in our OV-1D's, I believe when I first started flying in them, we ran JP-4, but that was phased out. I don't think the ol' Mohawk would run on the 100LL I know it's not the 10, but it was a twin turbo prop that has since been retired. I think I'm glad to see some of the old birds get a new life be it running IR/Photo missions for DEA down south, or other intel/tactical reason. That's one of the roles the OV-1 had in Central America - supporting DEA drug missions using FLIR.
Now that was an acquired taste - it didn't have the natural Cessna good looks and the cool tandem fuselage factor. But that bird could scream when it was clean, and was as maneuverable as an A-10 - just not as fast of course. It was a literal pain in the butt to fly in - ol' Martin Baker Mk5 ejection seats had all of about 3/4" of padding. Fortunately the good Lord blessed me with a little junk in the trunk, but for my no-ass TO's and pilots, a 3.5-4.0 hr mission left the walking like they'd just busted a bronc. LOL
I miss that bird and I'd probably have more of a sweet spot if the Bronco hadn't beat out a modified OV-1 in a bid for a counter-insurgency armed AC. I would have loved to see what Grumman could have put together. I believe the Corps went with the OV-10 for a lighted armed recon bird...but it never materialized...and like all good things the Army got rid of the OV-1D and replaced its capability with the JSTARS bird. (Boeing 707).
Enjoyed the thread!
Was it used as a CAS Platform or armed ISR?
Imagine a MC-12 with 4 x 50 cal rockets and small diameter bombs?
Holding the bad guys off until the A-10 arrived on station.
Maintenance and service life issues are bad enough with the way we fly King Air variants compared to the civil world. Can't imagine how bad they'd get if we started flying CAS with them.....
Pardon me for stepping into the conversation -I might hack up the nomenclature, but we ran JP-8 in our OV-1D's, I believe when I first started flying in them, we ran JP-4, but that was phased out. I don't think the ol' Mohawk would run on the 100LL I know it's not the 10, but it was a twin turbo prop that has since been retired. I think I'm glad to see some of the old birds get a new life be it running IR/Photo missions for DEA down south, or other intel/tactical reason. That's one of the roles the OV-1 had in Central America - supporting DEA drug missions using FLIR.
Well I know Jet A won't run in my plane (Grumman AA5B Tiger). That would get me killed. That's why I always fuel I myself, or at least watch that they put on 100LL. My maintenance shop was outfitting DEA King Airs for use in South America. They were putting is some weird, very expensive avionics. There was actually a Mowhawk based at my former airport in Colorado that was owned privately. Never got to fly it though.
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 00:13
All the King Airs in my unit were SIGNINT. I saw very few VIP, at least on our airbase they used U21's for VIP flights. I thought I read a post about putting guns on a C-12 for CAS, I gotta say I just can't see that AC in that role. I mean rule number one for CAS is you gotta be ugly. OV's ran some CAS missions in Vietnam, but from the old 'Hawk drivers MW5's, they told me the Air Force got a little bent when Army pilots started running CAS on SAR flights.
It's a shame you never got to fly it... If you get a clean bird, no drops, you'll rotate before you can blink and eye... Trim it out right and you can kick it up to 330-335 knots and if you have the airspace for sown upper air work, and checked out I suppose, you can have a boatload of fun. I believe the OV1 still holds some twin turbos prop records out there... If have to dig a little, it's been a while. I went from nomex to a tactical MI unit. All I have to remover is my HGU26/P flight helmet and a plaque from Grumman. And a lot of really awesome memories.
The Tiger is a fine aircraft, very sleek and well designed in my opinion.
It's a shame you never got to fly it... If you get a clean bird, no drops, you'll rotate before you can blink and eye... Trim it out right and you can kick it up to 330-335 knots and if you have the airspace for sown upper air work, and checked out I suppose, you can have a boatload of fun. I believe the OV1 still holds some twin turbos prop records out there... If have to dig a little, it's been a while. I went from nomex to a tactical MI unit. All I have to remover is my HGU26/P flight helmet and a plaque from Grumman. And a lot of really awesome memories.
The Tiger is a fine aircraft, very sleek and well designed in my opinion.
I didn't realize it was that fast. I thought it was a cool looking airplane, but I like the Hog too. Yeah, the Tiger is a good plane. It won't do 330 KTAS though, but will cruise at 140 KTAS. Thanks!
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 00:25
It wasn't often I was able to see that, but right bird, right pilot, right airspace. It was there. Out upper air work space was near Lindbergh Germany and on a rare blue moon we'd run into some Hogs out of Ramstein (I think) and if we had a clean bird they would actually have a little fun with us. I think they were a bit surprised the first time that they ran into a plane as maneuverable as their bird and an Army bird at that. But those are classified times. If they did happen they would have been a lot of fun and good training, but I can't confirm no deny. ;-)
^^^^^^Cool story. The OV-1, and OV-10 were both funky looking but neat at the same time. I guy I know used to be the back seater/observer in an OV-10 Bronco. I'll have to ask him about it when I see him next time.
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 01:20
That's was my mission. TO's as they called us. We were a cross between a Technical Observer and a navigator. When I flew during my brief to the pilot, I usually offer to manage the radios for him and I usually did . VHF, UHF, handled calls between GCI's and "Strawbasket" Then on photo missions, the pilot was basically my driver. After we were wheels up I'd navigate us to our first point targets, get him lined up for the first run, correct heading, altitude, speeds in a and if my camera mount a it usually was I'd get a wing up for an oblique shot. Those were the fun missions. Usually low level, a lot more bumpy and all around fun. I remember some missions we'd have over 60 point targets in one mission. I miss that...
One of my instructors was a right seater, bomber/navigator in a Navy A-6, then transferred to the Air Force and was a right seater in the F-111. In the Vark you could dump the fuel, and light the burners and create a great trail of fire. He said it was really cool to see at night. Now they'd probably bust you for doing stuff like that.
I didn't realize it was that fast. I thought it was a cool looking airplane, but I like the Hog too. Yeah, the Tiger is a good plane. It won't do 330 KTAS though, but will cruise at 140 KTAS. Thanks!
The flight lab I worked at in college had Grumman Tiger s/n 001. It was the original prototype and always operated under an faa ex ticket it was so different than the production version.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
The flight lab I worked at in college had Grumman Tiger s/n 001. It was the original prototype and always operated under an faa ex ticket it was so different than the production version.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
That's cool. Roy Lopresti did a nice job on the aerodynamic clean up of the Traveller, and then put a 180HP Lyc. in it, which gave it 30 more HP, and it became a different plane.
That's cool. Roy Lopresti did a nice job on the aerodynamic clean up of the Traveller, and then put a 180HP Lyc. in it, which gave it 30 more HP, and it became a different plane.
yeah I got some stick time on it when I was there. really nice flying plane.
yeah I got some stick time on it when I was there. really nice flying plane.
Oh, that's cool. I've had mine for over 15 years, and don't feel the need to switch. It does everything I want for my mission requirements. But we always want more speed. :)
Oh, that's cool. I've had mine for over 15 years, and don't feel the need to switch. It does everything I want for my mission requirements. But we always want more speed. :)
Speed was why I was always drawn to the Cessna TT/glassair. 235kts in a fixed gear.
Wish every day that I hadn't run out of $ and finished my pilots license.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Speed was why I was always drawn to the Cessna TT/glassair. 235kts in a fixed gear.
Wish every day that I hadn't run out of $ and finished my pilots license.
The Glassair, and Lancairs are really nice. I'd love that kind of cruise speed. I was considering going to a Mooney 201, but the speed increase is only about 25 knots. I'd rather deal with the devil I know. :)
Yeah, getting your ticket ain't cheap, but it wasn't nearly as bad when I got it in 1994. Sorry for the thread creep!
http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a603/Keonyn/Discover%20Aviation%202014/DSC_0108_zps4ea3b3f0.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Keonyn/media/Discover%20Aviation%202014/DSC_0108_zps4ea3b3f0.jpg.html)
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 15:15
http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a603/Keonyn/Discover%20Aviation%202014/DSC_0108_zps4ea3b3f0.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Keonyn/media/Discover%20Aviation%202014/DSC_0108_zps4ea3b3f0.jpg.html)
That's an RV-1D, the ELINT (Electronics Intelligence) bird. I hated flying those missions. Basically you pushed a button, flipped a switch and that was it. Straight and level for 3.5-4 hrs depending on all those factors that determine fuel consumption etc. on top of that with the Intel package those were always restricted birds.. Restricted from performing any maneuver that would exceed 2.5 g's. The accelerometer wouldn't lie.
If the tail number is 262, I believe I've flown in that plane, or maybe taken a nap in it. Lol actually I never slept. I was always so darn excited to be flying, that yes, I would even volunteer for the ELINT missions on weekends even.
Thanks for posting! Here's a pic of my flight helmet I wore: http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160408/a9d2529f58bf6f5b57b9ff86422b5ca3.jpg
We had the MBU-12/P mask (the gray one) and I also had an HGU-55/P. Those were the gray helmets the fighter jockeys in the Air Force, but I was always old school.
Ghost 96, call sign Rowdy... Boy that's a trip down memory lane...
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 15:17
One more pic
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160408/43eb22fd2bc4ec93bcda04a444dc7614.jpg
What is the large pod under the nose in your last pick?
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 15:32
That's an MBU-5/P, Mask,breathing Unit. Basically an oxygen mask. Most of our live missions we flew against the communists were at altitudes that required breathing oxygen. I've done a couple of photo missions that required pre-breathing 100% oxygen prior to the missions. All of us were check out on the ejection seat and also the altitude chamber since we flew at altitudes where hypoxia could (and did) occur.
I meant under the nose of the aircraft. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 15:40
LOL I thought you meant my nose. That's a SLAR boom - Side Looking Radar... It could map out moving targets moving greater than 2.5 KPH and fixed targets, vehicles, structures etc. that was our primary mission payload, imaging into CZ and keeping an eye on our nasty communist friends. We knew all their training areas, where the highways were so we could tell where military exercises or any kind of military staging were occurring.
Thanks, that is really cool. Seems like a pretty versatile aircraft. The Air Force gets pissed when the see fixed wing Army planes.
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 16:32
It was a pretty versatile platform, and fully aerobatic on top of that. First time I experienced tunnel vision / gray out was in a diving spiral out in Ft Huachuca, before I learned to clench and grunt. Lol. I managed quite a bit of stick time as well. I've performed Immelmann's, Split S's, aileron rolls, many, many loops and the just practicing straight and level flight, a lot of approaches and passing control right before landing. Not a bad life for an enlisted guy...
It was a pretty versatile platform, and fully aerobatic on top of that. First time I experienced tunnel vision / gray out was in a diving spiral out in Ft Huachuca, before I learned to clench and grunt. Lol. I managed quite a bit of stick time as well. I've performed Immelmann's, Split S's, aileron rolls, many, many loops and the just practicing straight and level flight, a lot of approaches and passing control right before landing. Not a bad life for an enlisted guy...
Did you were a G suit? Its neat you got to do all those maneuvers. I'm going to get my glider add on this summer, and maybe get to do some aerobatics with it.
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 16:35
No g-suit, just nomex.
German OV-10 Bronco
http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww110/Jetflap/Airshows/RIAT%202011/IMG_1944.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Jetflap/media/Airshows/RIAT%202011/IMG_1944.jpg.html)
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 17:17
German OV-10 Bronco
http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww110/Jetflap/Airshows/RIAT%202011/IMG_1944.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Jetflap/media/Airshows/RIAT%202011/IMG_1944.jpg.html)
Thanks for getting us back in topic... My apologies for rambling on.. That's a nice looking aircraft. Saw those and a lot of Sherpas in Germany.
Thanks for getting us back in topic... My apologies for rambling on.. That's a nice looking aircraft. Saw those and a lot of Sherpas in Germany.
I enjoyed your "ramblings". Very interesting stuff. I like the Bronco also, but I've never seen one in person.
The Glassair, and Lancairs are really nice. I'd love that kind of cruise speed. I was considering going to a Mooney 201, but the speed increase is only about 25 knots. I'd rather deal with the devil I know. :)
Yeah, getting your ticket ain't cheap, but it wasn't nearly as bad when I got it in 1994. Sorry for the thread creep!
Yah only problem with the glassair/TT is payload. Real limited in mgtow.
Heh, when I was working on mine I got to hear my dad talk about how much cheaper it was when he did it in the late 70s.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Those elint Broncos are the predecessor of some of the platforms I support. Since we hit the ground in Iraq, the army has gone hog wild with fixed wing ISR platforms. At one point in '14 I was helping keep nearly 2 dozen flying in theater of one type or another. ELINT, SIGINT, IMINT...you name it it's flying.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
RobertTheTexan
04-08-16, 22:50
Those elint Broncos are the predecessor of some of the platforms I support. Since we hit the ground in Iraq, the army has gone hog wild with fixed wing ISR platforms. At one point in '14 I was helping keep nearly 2 dozen flying in theater of one type or another. ELINT, SIGINT, IMINT...you name it it's flying.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Man, sounds like I should have gotten a job over there back then. Before I ETS'd I had fielded some prototype Intel collection systems that pulled feeds in from all the acronyms. From all kinds of sources. Humint, satellite, AHIP, C12, UA V, Predator, etc... Motorola wooed me when I got you, but I had other plans... Unfortunately. Lol
Man, sounds like I should have gotten a job over there back then. Before I ETS'd I had fielded some prototype Intel collection systems that pulled feeds in from all the acronyms. From all kinds of sources. Humint, satellite, AHIP, C12, UA V, Predator, etc... Motorola wooed me when I got you, but I had other plans... Unfortunately. Lol
Right around that time my supervisor quit to go fly because in his words "I'll get paid 200k to fly circles in the sky" not a bad living if you don't mind hanging around the Afghan hell hole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
The Glassair, and Lancairs are really nice. I'd love that kind of cruise speed. I was considering going to a Mooney 201, but the speed increase is only about 25 knots. I'd rather deal with the devil I know. :)
Yeah, getting your ticket ain't cheap, but it wasn't nearly as bad when I got it in 1994. Sorry for the thread creep!
Tigers were always known as the poor man's Mooney. Came very close to going in on one in the early 80's when they were less known, really a bargain relative to other 4 seat planes. There was also the Cheetah and the ultimate, the Cougar. Local fbo had a cougar which I always wanted to fly, but never did.
Love the pic of the Bronco. Somewhere I think I have a pic or two of some OV10s at New River MCAS when my old man was still in. Just some general apron/hanger shots.
Tigers were always known as the poor man's Mooney. Came very close to going in on one in the early 80's when they were less known, really a bargain relative to other 4 seat planes. There was also the Cheetah and the ultimate, the Cougar. Local fbo had a cougar which I always wanted to fly, but never did.
Yes, for a fixed gear, fixed prop plane, the Tiger is best in class. I had a Cherokee before the Tiger, and find the Tiger a much better plane for my needs, and more fun to fly. I have time in a Cougar, but never owned one. An instructor of mine owned it. That thing is built like a brick ship yard. Grumman Iron Works.
RobertTheTexan
04-09-16, 09:14
Right around that time my supervisor quit to go fly because in his words "I'll get paid 200k to fly circles in the sky" not a bad living if you don't mind hanging around the Afghan hell hole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
One mans hellhole is another mans ice cream shop. Unless of course you are talking about Afghanistan.
Right around that time my supervisor quit to go fly because in his words "I'll get paid 200k to fly circles in the sky" not a bad living if you don't mind hanging around the Afghan hell hole.
I'd do that in a heart beat. Working in an office SUCKS. I'd rather risk my ass getting shot off than deal with these buffoons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.