Talk:North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image

This article needs an image. Will see if I can come up with something... Bjelleklang - talk 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Added image from Hurlburt Field Air Park. Public domain as per USAF policy. Bjelleklang - talk 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bronco Engines

I remember a story about a Naval Test Pilot in an OV-10 Bronco. He was at low level flight doign passes over an airfield. One engine failed. Quickly and significant alters power setting on other engine. Engines cannot take that end up oil starving and failing. --Wfoj2 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mess

Wow, what a mess! For the most part, this reads like a piece copied whole-hog from a book or magaize. Almost nothing is sourced, which violates WP:ATTR righ off the bat. Far too much time is spent on background usage, and the design description came well before History, whcih makes NO sense. The "Doctrine" sections are extemely odd, again reading like some magazine piece rather than an encyclopedia article. There is plenty of material here to condense into a goo, fairly in-depth article, but for the work one would have to do to cite it all properly. I'm very tempeted to cut EVERYTHING unsourced out execpt for the specs, and just start over with my own sources. - BillCJ 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems

The Bronco has its problems. An engine failure on takeoff can cause the other engine to spin the whole aircraft around a couple of times

Seems a bit unlikely - after takeoff there isn't altitude enough for that kind of sustained unintentional aerobatics. Extreme unequal torque from a single engine would more likely flip the aircraft on its back, which seems bad enough.

... can carry 7,040 kg (3,200 lb) of cargo, five combat-equipped troops, or two litter patients and a medical attendant. Gross dry weight was 18172 kg (8,260 lb). Normal operating fueled weight, with two crew was 22,308 kg (10,140 lb). Maximum take-off weight was 31,680 kg (14,400 lb).

You got all of your pounds and kilogram weights in the Technical data section mixed up: a kilo is about 2.2 lbs, not the other way round.

.....you have the aircrafts maiden flight occuring 6 years AFTER it's introduction date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwg hitman (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks "Hawkeye"- 1969 is the date of its operational entry. FWIW Bzuk 13:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Ref tags and pics

I can understand the reasons why these were readded and deleted respectively, but I did want to ask what the purpose of the tags in the refs section were (they seem to be superfluous to me, which is why I deleted them) and whether there's a good way to integrate the diagrams of armament loadouts, which I thought might be of interest/help to people reading this. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Colombia Section

The text says that the US Department of State operates some planes with the government of Colombia, but this last one is mis-spelled, it's spelled as ColUmbia can someone correct that mistake plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.135.111 (talk • contribs)

Foreign Operators

If this is true: "The European Museum of Fighter Aircraft in Montelimar, France has a Luftwaffe OV-10B on static display." then why is there no listing for Germany among the aircraft's operators? The Luftwaffe is the German air force. Phaid (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is. Germany is currently the 2nd entry in the Operators section. However there's no German section in the Operational history section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Carrier/Amphib-capable

While we have a couple of pics of OV-10s on a carrier and an amphibious assualt ship, there is no mention in the text of them being used operationally from such ships. IIRC, the Marines did use them regularly from the amphibs, but I don't have access to my sources. This would be good to have, since the OV-10 was probably the only fixed-wing aircraft (non-tiltrotor) to operate from the amphibs, and did so without catapults or arresting gear. - BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rbeach84 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Link to "North American" does not link to a Wiki for "North American Aviation" [1] but to a general 'north america' [2] reference instead. This should be corrected. Thanks!

Indonesian OV-10s

Found some more information regarding OV-10Fs in Indonesian service:

Shipment and Organization

• They were shipped to Indonesia through San Fransisco, then through Honolulu, Guam, Manado before finally reaching Halim

• The first three planes arrived on the 28th of September 1976. They were given the registration numbers S-101 to S-103

• The next three arrived on the 13th of November 1976, followed by three more on the 17th of November and 16th of February respectively.

• The remaining four planes were delivered in two shipments, each containing two planes and took place on the 16th of March and the 17th of May 1977 respectively. The final two planes bear the registration numbers S-115 and S-116, with the other planes being named S-104 to S-114. (Note: The initials for the registration numbers were later changed to TT, an abbreviation for Tempur Taktis (Tactical Combat)

Operational Service
-The OV-10Fs were used in the following operations:

• Operasi Seroja
  
• Operasi Tumpas (Operation annihilate, 1977-1978)
  
• Operasi Halilintar (Operation Thunderbolt, 1979)
  
• Operasi Guruh dan Petir (Operation Thunder and Lightning, 1980)
  
• Operasi Kikis Kilat (Operation Pared Lightning, 1980-1981)
  
• Operasi Tuntas (Operation Complete/Total, 1981-1982)
  
• Operasi Halau (Operation Expel, 1985-1997)
  
• Operasi Rencong Terbang (Operation Flying Rencong, 1991-1993)
  
• Operasi Oscar (1991-1992)
  
• Elang Indopura (Indopura Eagle, military exercises with Singapore)
  
• Elang Malindo (Malindo Eagle, military exercises with Malaysia)
  
• Elang Thainesia (Thainesia Eagle, military exercises with Thailand)

The OV-10s replaced the P-51 Mustang in Indonesian service. They were retired in 2004 after seeing service for 28 years since 1976.

Personnel Training

• Technicians (24 technicians): The technicians were first taught to speak technical English at Lackland AFB. Then, they were taught how to load the ammunition, service the plane, etc at Patrick AFB.

• Pilots (10 pilots): The pilots were also sent to Lackland AFB to learn English. Then, they were sent to Randolph AFB and Eglin AFB before joining the technicians at Patrick AFB, where they learnt how to fly the plane.

Fate of the Planes

• TT-1001: Lost in a belly landing, both pilots survived
  
• TT-1002: Located in Lanud Abdulrachman Saleh AFB
  
• TT-1003: Lost in Medan, both pilots survived
  
• TT-1004: Became a monument in Banjarnegara, Central Java
  
• TT-1005: Lost in East Timor, the pilots did not survive
  
• TT-1006: Located in Lanud Abdulrachman Saleh AFB
  
• TT-1007: Lost in East Timor, pilot and technician died
  
• TT-1008: Located in Lanud Abdulrachman Saleh AFB
  
• TT-1009: Lost in Probolinggo, one pilot died
  
• TT-1010: Located in Lanud Abdulrachman Saleh AFB
  
• TT-1011: Lost in a belly landing in Ranai, both pilots survived
  
• TT-1012: Located in Lanud Abdulrachman Saleh AFB
  
• TT-1013: Lost in a belly landing in Malang, both pilots survived
  
• TT-1014: Became a monument in Jombang, Eastern Java
• TT-1015: Sent to the Air Force Dirgantala Mandala Museum in Jogjakarta

Information source: https://sejarahperang.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/ov-10-bronco-from-bromo-valley/

Hardtofindausername (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ATF ownership

There was an article in Soldier of fortune and one of the aircraft publications that detailed the ATf owning a few OV-10's they were registered through a radio shop in Virginia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskerzm (talk • contribs) 18:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible Modernized Variant section

This section seems outdated....has there been any recent developments with this? Is there reason to expect there would be further developments? I'd hate for this section to be called "Possible Modernized Variant" forever...any thoughts? Cheers, Skyraider1 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that there doesn't seem to be any strong opinions on the subject...I may eventually summarize and move this section to the "OV-10X" portion of the Variants section, similar to the F-117N portion of the F-117 article. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• That should be fine. There's already a OV-10X entry in the Variants section. So move some text and sources there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Skyraider1 (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

German OV-10 still operating ?

YouTube video of an OV-10B in Luftwaffe livery (at 3:03) at the July 2016 Fairford Air Tattoo seems to indicate that, our article to the contrary, at least one flying example of this aircraft in German service still exists. Does anyone have more information on this aircraft, and whether or not more than one OV-10B exist flyable in the Luftwaffe inventory? loupgarous (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still flying does not mean it is in operational service. It could just be used for demo/historical purposes like the museum Musée Européen d'avion de chasse in France. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mythologectomy needed

The entirety of the "Background" section and the large block quote in the "Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft" section seem to be in need of removal. The idea that the OV-10 is based on Beckett and Rice's L2 VMA concept is sourced entirely to Rice himself through the Volante Aircraft website, which Rice owns. The actual military specification that North American Aviation and other manufacturers responded to seems to have originated entirely within the military services through the normal functional spec-design-appropriations process. There is no independent evidence linking LARA to Beckett & Rice and it should be removed. The addition of this material seems to have happened in the 2006-2007 timeframe from a variety of IP editors. Unless anyone has timely objections, I intend to remove this as poorly-sourced and failing WP:V. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ray Van De Walker: pinging editor who also seems to have contributed to that section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a fairly large amount of internal evidence in the Bronco design tying it to Rice's narrative. First, the timeline fits, and who would bother to claim such an obscure credit, other than the originator? Next, the tail design makes no sense except to avoid the backblast of sponson-mounted heavy weapons, such as the heavy repeating recoilless rifles mentioned -only- in Rice's narrative. Then, there's the simple genius of substituting a slow, simple, efficient, therefore cheap aircraft for complex, high-maintenance, expensive systems such as jets and helicopters. Making air-support cheap is a natural impulse of a ground commander who wants air-support to be available. Making a slow, cheap aircraft is very foreign to most people that specify military aircraft. It almost certainly originated outside that command. Also, I know that many military requirements start as an officer's personal project, catch the attention a high commander, and then get pushed back into staff to "clean up the idea." One of the clean-ups is often to file-off the credits, especially if the originator lacks credentials and that lack could interfere with project approval. I think it does make sense to mark the section as needing additional references. Removing it is extreme. Many articles have single sources for arcane details of history or technology. Besides, Rice's narrative is awfully interesting, don't you think? Best wishes. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ray Van De Walker:, well, yes, that is interesting. Crucially, however, your reply is almost entirely unsourced speculation and doesn't address the objection. All we have as evidence that Rice's work affected the OV-10 is Rice's own word. That is not compliant with our sourcing or verifiability policies. Considering that his narrative is currently found in the stagnant website of a dormant flying car project, it is clear that Rice is somewhat devoted to niche projects. It is just as likely based on this evidence that Rice is trying to attach his name to the project out of ego or any number of other reasons. The "internal evidence" you offer is not persuasive, either. The tail design has aerodynamic explanations (see, e.g., aircraft as old as the Voisin Triplane or as new as the Boeing Insitu RQ-21 Blackjack). Also, many, many officers from all the services involved in Vietnam were advocating "low and slow". At the same time Rice was supposedly advocating his super-original slow and cheap concept, pilots were already flying Cessna 172's in-country and the premiere ground-support aircraft was the "Spad". At this point, I still see no reason to refrain from removing Rice's claims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Both Wegg's General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors and Steve Ginter's Naval Fighters Number Thirty-Nine: Convair Model 48 Charger (both referenced in the Convair Model 48 Charger talk about the link between the original L2VMA proposals and the eventual LARA requirement, with the required weapon load changing and the transport role being added before the specification was issued. I'm fairly certain that the 2010 Aeroplane magazine article reference used in the Charger article also talks about the links between the two programmes in greater detail (but I no longer have access to a copy of the article).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish:, thank you for those. I can get access to Wegg but not Ginter. In either case, though, we really should replace Rice with citations to these authors, if they support the claims. Rice's website should be referenced in External links rather than the text. My quick look suggests that the situation is grayer than I have been stating above and that the connection is not as straightforward as the current article text suggests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifications correction needed

The rate of climb under "Specifications" shows 15.33 ft/min. The correct value needs to be found. Es330td (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So the current value is clearly questionable? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as it has the normal climb rate as less than the climb rate on one engine... The climb rate was added here by User:Petebutt referenced to the 1984 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Perhaps someone should check the reference?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Jane's Civil and Military Aircraft Upgrades 1994–95 gives a climb rate for the OV-10D of 3020 ft/min - which is slightly higher than the value quoted - which appears to a transcription error of m/s to ft/min.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up, Nigel. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Factcheck

The caption reads A NASA OV-10D in 2009 but the plane is camouflaged; ¿Can we get a check to be sure this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.226 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a NASA aircraft - note the Nasa badge on the nose and the civil registration.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)