Light Attack plane seeks new life in the Navy

Seems like the USAF did the same in the 60s with the tweet for Vietnam. The A-37 COIN bird. Similar performance and mission requirements?
 
milleR said:
Is this project much different from the role the A-1 played in Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Think more along the lines of the Navy's VAL-4 flying OV-10 Bronco's in Vietnam...the Navy actually adopted their patch and called themselves the "Black Pony's" when they were testing the A-29 Super T. I've got their patch as a buddy was working on the program.
 
I remember I kept running into the A-29 test bird on roadshows in advanced, stopping for gas at FBO's. Cool airplane....I wonder how the AT-6 compares
 
bunk22 said:
Think more along the lines of the Navy's VAL-4 flying OV-10 Bronco's in Vietnam...the Navy actually adopted their patch and called themselves the "Black Pony's" when they were testing the A-29 Super T. I've got their patch as a buddy was working on the program.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Is it operational costs that make the AT-6 or A-29 a more desirable platform? I would think a twin engine aircraft with internal space to accommodate electronic warfare and tracking equipment along with hardpoints would be more desirable in mountainous terrain like Afghanistan.
 
milleR said:
That's interesting. Is it operational costs that make the AT-6 or A-29 a more desirable platform? I would think a twin engine aircraft with internal space to accommodate electronic warfare and tracking equipment along with hardpoints would be more desirable in mountainous terrain like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That probably has been looked at. I don't know what the specific requirements are other than what has been said publicly.
 
I like those OV-10s. I've met at least on pilot over the years who swears by them. It'd be nice to see that airframe rejuvenated.

I don't know a damn thing about combat flying at all, but having two engines in a place like Afghanistan would be a little more comforting to me. I'm guessing. I dunno. Some of you smarter cats weigh in on that.
 
killbilly said:
I like those OV-10s. I've met at least on pilot over the years who swears by them. It'd be nice to see that airframe rejuvenated.

I don't know a damn thing about combat flying at all, but having two engines in a place like Afghanistan would be a little more comforting to me. I'm guessing. I dunno. Some of you smarter cats weigh in on that.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, two engines are better than one, especially in that environment.
 
Still some OV-10s in storage at DM. ATF has taken a few and converted to "crop sprayers" and inventory of easily restored "COIN" version is good. Any chance of funding a New Aircraft are slim to none. Folks we are BROKE so learn to use what we got or FORGET IT!
 
OldIssue said:
Still some OV-10s in storage at DM. ATF has taken a few and converted to "crop sprayers" and inventory of easily restored "COIN" version is good. Any chance of funding a New Aircraft are slim to none. Folks we are BROKE so learn to use what we got or FORGET IT!
Click to expand...

I think they're all finally gone now. Some went to KFFZ for conversion for State, the others went to State directly for INL.
 
MikeD said:
I think they're all finally gone now. Some went to KFFZ for conversion for State, the others went to State directly for INL.
Click to expand...

I caught a blurb a while back that one of the preservation societies in the midwest was trying to restore one, but I may have that confused with a P-61 I was researching - another twin-boom pretty thing.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes...gonna ask the girl about this when she gets home...this kind of program falls under her departmental purview, if not the team she's working on right now.
 
bunk22 said:
I would tend to agree, two engines are better than one, especially in that environment.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but, wouldn't a "Lindbergh" approach to that be a good idea too, I mean, "two engines means I'm twice as likely to lose any one engine." Cuz I'd suspect that with the high terrain and mountains in that region, losing an engine due to groundfire might screw you just as much as losing an engine in a single, the second engine just gets you slightly farther away before you crash into a crappy little village filled with angry locals. Plus, I'd suspect that a twin would be a larger target if you're down low and slow, plus the maneuvering characteristics of a comparable twin might be less due to the speeds involved. Just a guess though, I'd don't know a damn thing about CAS.
 
ppragman said:
I could be wrong, but, wouldn't a "Lindbergh" approach to that be a good idea too, I mean, "two engines means I'm twice as likely to lose any one engine." Cuz I'd suspect that with the high terrain and mountains in that region, losing an engine due to groundfire might screw you just as much as losing an engine in a single, the second engine just gets you slightly farther away before you crash into a crappy little village filled with angry locals. Plus, I'd suspect that a twin would be a larger target if you're down low and slow, plus the maneuvering characteristics of a comparable twin might be less due to the speeds involved. Just a guess though, I'd don't know a damn thing about CAS.
Click to expand...

I guess it could, I don't know enough about the motors in the OV-10, how efficient they are at altitude. The OV-10 Bronco is highly maneuverable, used with VAL-4 in Vietnam, granted in a hot, humid environment. I don't know enough about CAS or the performance of the aircraft either.

http://www.blackpony.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top