Talk:North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco

Colombia Section

The text says that the US DOD 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.

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).

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)

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)