OV-10 Bronco Replica- Redux

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,270
Location
Port Townsend WA
I have flown a few T-tail. Takes a bunch of runway to get the tail working. I prefer my tail be in the prop blast also.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,396
Location
Fresno, California
Why not compare it to the Cessna Skymaster. Similar configuration (except for engine placement) and you should be able to meet similar power loading and wing loading without too much difficulty.
 

tcrbaker

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
12
Location
New Orleans
I have been playing around with a similar idea, how about a side by side version of a high wing twin boom pusher? I started with the NASA GA(PC)-1 airfoil with a 48" chord and an effective wing span of 25' to provide a wing area of 100 Sq. Ft. The wing would have flaperons and would be basically a 133% version of the wing on the Taylor Mini Imp. The side by side configuration allows the designer to move the variable load of the passengers close to the COL of the wing while not putting them under the wing. I have drawn up a forward fuselage that is an folded and riveted aluminum monocoque with a forward hinged canopy. The engine would be mounted high so that the plane would sit on short tricycle gear so the passengers could step over the sides and into the open cockpit. The twin booms would be at wing level with the outboard portions of the wings removable. The stabilizer/elevator would be mounted high and out of the prop wash like on the Thai RTAF-5. If you are acquainted with the Mini Imp imagine a side by side version with a twin boom tail. The twin boom tail would allow for the elimination of the long drive shaft which is a weakness of the Mini Imp. I will try to clean up the configuration drawing and post it.
 

Staggermania

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2014
Messages
347
Location
Dahlonega Georgia
I have been playing around with a similar idea, how about a side by side version of a high wing twin boom pusher? I started with the NASA GA(PC)-1 airfoil with a 48" chord and an effective wing span of 25' to provide a wing area of 100 Sq. Ft. The wing would have flaperons and would be basically a 133% version of the wing on the Taylor Mini Imp. The side by side configuration allows the designer to move the variable load of the passengers close to the COL of the wing while not putting them under the wing. I have drawn up a forward fuselage that is an folded and riveted aluminum monocoque with a forward hinged canopy. The engine would be mounted high so that the plane would sit on short tricycle gear so the passengers could step over the sides and into the open cockpit. The twin booms would be at wing level with the outboard portions of the wings removable. The stabilizer/elevator would be mounted high and out of the prop wash like on the Thai RTAF-5. If you are acquainted with the Mini Imp imagine a side by side version with a twin boom tail. The twin boom tail would allow for the elimination of the long drive shaft which is a weakness of the Mini Imp. I will try to clean up the configuration drawing and post it.
Looking forward to seeing the drawing.
 

Rockiedog2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,336
Humble 'salute' to EAA 8444... tough work and ultimately great choice!

NOTE.
In the 1980s I was USAF [SA-ALC] lead structures/mechanical engineer for the O-2A, OV-10A and then A/T-37s... for~6-years. I encountered the OV in significant technical depth... and had a couple of test flights to evaluate mechanical issues.
xxxxxxxxxx

BTW... my true favorite combat aircraft of all-time is the A-37[A/B] dragonfly... a simple-efficient-compact killing machine... same genera/era as OV.

View attachment 92349

View attachment 92348

View attachment 92350
NOTE.
A-37s flew in-conjunction with FAC O-2s and OV's on many thousands of missions. In-total, a couple-of hundred [~250?] USAF A-37s racked-up ~70,000 USAF combat sorties over ~6-years in VN... with the airborne combat loss [shoot-down] of about 12 Acft [many more lost to accidents and on-the-ramp rocket/artillery/sapper attacks].

More than once, A-37s followed OVs or O-2s thru dangerous low ceiling/visibility 'sucker-holes' in relief of ground units under high-threat of being over-run by the VC/NVA [danger-close employment of BLU/BDUs, 2.75-rockets and 7.62 strafing]. To this day there is a tight/brotherhood bond between A-37 and OV and O-2 associations.
What Mr Taylor said.
I flew the OV10 800 hours/185 missions mostly over Cambodia in late 70 thru fall 71. We worked most every kind of fighter bomber, Navy Black Ponies(OV10), gunships, Cobra LOH teams T28s, A-1s, F4s, F100s, B57s, F5s...most all the FACS preferred the A37 over any fixed wing jet attack aircraft, especially if there were friendlies in the area. The A37 pilots lived next door to us and we socialized daily and dreamed up special tactics that sometimes worked well; all great fun. They were the most accurate of any of the jet powered birds, next were F100s, and last F4s. If there were friendlies within a click, I didn't want F4s. Like Mr Taylor said, they could and did fly formation with the OV...and shut down an engine and loiter with us if needed and four 500# bombs or 4 cans of nape, or CBUs and a gun and also lotsa fuel. They were the best, reliable when working up close to the friendlies.
Fond memories.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,967
Location
US
What Mr Taylor said.
I flew the OV10 800 hours/185 missions mostly over Cambodia in late 70 thru fall 71.
Cambodia??P But I thought . . . never mind.

most all the FACS preferred the A37 over any fixed wing jet attack aircraft, especially if there were friendlies in the area.
The A-37 guys don't get much recognition, for whatever reason. It was a nice little platform and cheap to operate, too. The program went together pretty fast. It would have been a hoot to fly, and I'd love to see a few of them lined up to get fuel via probe-drogue. I'm guessing that was a rare occurrence.
Thanks for the note.
 

Rockiedog2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,336
Compare the OV-10 to something about the same size but much closer to the power and weight you have in mind, say a Cessna Bobcat. The Bronco has four times the power and carries more than double the weight of the Bobcat, so it's just not a "normal" aircraft from a light aviation perspective. I think you'd be better off with a full-scale Bronco but at Bobcat weight and power.

NORTH AMERICAN OV-10D BRONCO
Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m)
Wing area: 290.95 ft² (27.03 m²)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,444 lb (6,552 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each

CESSNA AT-17 BOBCAT
Wingspan: 41 ft 11 in (12.78 m)
Wing area: 295 sq ft (27.4 m2)
Max takeoff weight: 6,062 lb (2,750 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Jacobs R-755-9 seven-cylinder, air-cooled, radial piston engine, 245 hp (183 kW) each

.
As stated in an earlier reply I flew the Bronco for some time and liked the airplane. A lot. I also owned a Bobcat for a short time and flew it enough to learn a lot about it. It looks conventional, like the Beech 18, but in some ways mine didn't fly much like the "modern" certified planes most of us are used to these days. Especially when slowed up. My strip is short and obstacles and requires a late turn in the flare...the Bamboo Bomber when slow got unstable and clumsy...I never did get it in my strip. Couldn't make that turn in the short time/distance required. And other differences. I liked it too. A lot.
Somehow I'm having trouble with the concept of the replica OV project. The thing is huge...I built one original design(with the help of a couple retired engineer friends) and it turned out pretty good. There ain't no way I would attempt to scale down/build a twin boom twin engine OV10-like plane. Even on the simple thing I bulit I ended up cutting it all up and major mods for a year. So there have been suggested solutions to try to avoid all those complications but then we got something else. A rear engine pusher?
Well don't mind me, carry on.
 
Top