Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year hiatus

Flight International ^ | 01/02/09 | Stephen Trimble

[CholeraJoe]

I really don’t have to back up my statement with anything else. Capt. Bennett’s official MOH citation makes my point.

[junta]

Kind of interesting to see how they deposit recon by parachute.

[indthkr]

From this civilian's perspective, its hard to see how the OV-10 (a slow target with potential hostages attached) offers any advantage over a UAV.

I'm assuming they won't be used for behind-the-lines operations.

[TalonDJ]

Capt. Bennett’s official MOH citation makes my point.

No it does not. Your point was that the OV-10 was a 'death trap' based on the survival rate of people that decided not to eject or failed to eject. That standard would make most airforce and navy fighters 'death traps'.

[Tallguy]

Was there a ‘reluctance’ by OV-10 crew to eject? That high horizontal stab looks lethal.

[doorgunner69]

Revive the OV-10, eh? I agree on the vulnerability issue. They survived in VN by staying high.

I remember them first arriving at Quang Tri, we all thought they were cool as hell. Started out just doing the FO thing with WP 2.75 FFARs. By the time I was leaving VN, the thing had morphed into a ground attack machine. If I recall correctly, they were attempting to rig it to carry 250 lb low drag bombs about then!

Yikes, don't think those wings were ever designed for that, dunno if the experiment ever went anywhere............

[Professional Engineer]

23, 33 whatever it takes.

[TalonDJ]

Was there a ‘reluctance’ by OV-10 crew to eject? That high horizontal stab looks lethal.

Look at the tail on any fighter jet. They are taller and seats have to clear them at a much higher speed. The seats are designed for it.

[Pentagon Leatherneck]

Might have been me, or one of my squadron mates out of Chu Lai. We were heavily involved in Dewey Canyon, which began forty years ago last week. How time flies, EH?
S/F

TC

[ops33]

The aircraft has a rear hatch at the back of the fuselage. I tried a google search to see if I could find a photo that shows the hatch; couldn’t find one. But the aircraft could carry 5 or 6 jumpers or 2 litters and they were onloaded through this rear hatch.

[junta]

One day early 80s I was at Area 22 (air field) on Camp Pendleton when I observed a Bronco go into a fairly steep climb and out the rear some jumpers came out in a stick. Other than a Bronco accident that took the life of our ex Battery exec officer when he went to be an observer, they might serve a purpose, though I would say a drone could do the job.

[ops33]

Except for the passengers an OV-10 could carry, I tend to agree.

[honor87]

my grandfather did what he had too. he had no choice but to ditch the plane in the water. he had to save his back seater at all cost, that is just how he lived his life. so when you say they had great ejection seats read the story twice.

[tet68]

Our A-4s would come back with foliage in the wheel
wells, having dropped gear to get even closer to
the fight. Tough little bird, seen a few come back
with holes in the wings you could put your head through.
One day I was out on the Taxi way working on a bird
that had just returned from a support mission,
suddenly my eyes began to water and my nose to run,
yep she was covered with CN/CS, now that is getting
down on the deck.

VMA-223 the Fighting Bulldogs.
Chu Lai RVN.

[Covey87daughter]

CholeraJoe:
My son came upon this website and was reading the discussion regarding bringing back the OV-10. In reading the posts after the article he came across some that made him very angry as they seemed to be “slamming” Capt. Bennett's decision to ditch the aircraft. I talked him down a bit and told him people have a right to their own opinions...which they do...even if they are wrong!
My father was Capt. Steven L. Bennett, the pilot of the aircraft and the subject of the citation you posted. To those who felt it necessary to mock his decision to ditch, you may want to read a little further into his predicament. He was faced with the FACT that his backseater (Mike Brown...who I know and who would never so much as question the decision made by my father) was without a parachute due to the shrapnel that hit the plane. He was faced with the FACT that his parachute was still good and would have easily gotten him out of the plane. He was faced with the FACT that had he ejected (anyone who really knows the OV-10 knows) it would have ejected Mike (as it was a dual eject system) and Mike would have ejected without a parachute and therefore gone straight into the canopy and more than likely broken his neck. Nice of my dad to think of that before bailing on him. At any rate, my dad knew that no pilot had survived an OV-10 ditching and that ditching the aircraft was not recommended (it's even in the manual) but what choice did he have? He knew (another FACT) that once the plane hit water, it would break in half behind the pilot's seat...therefore giving Mike the best chance possible of getting out of the plane. (He couldn't make a landing on the runway because the landing gear would have touched ground first therefore causing the plane to cartwheel ON LAND and that would have caused the plane to blow up.) Next best...ocean. My dad took the plane down and it did exactly what it was supposed to do...Mike got out and is a fantastic family friend to this day. So, my opinion on bringing the OV-10 back? Do it! Just take the dual ejection out. That would be my only suggestion. Oh, and add A/C!!
So, to Pentagon Leatherneck and anyone else who implied that my dad did not do what a normal pilot would have done or that he was an idiot for staying in the plane, etc. My answer...I agree, it would have been wonderful if he had gotten out of the plane. I would still have my dad. But, we wouldn't have Mike. My dad did what he had to do and I am proud of him for it. Can Boeing learn from that? Yes, and hopefully fix it prior to reinstating the plane. But to question my father's actions is not your place, it is not respectful of his family or his profession and quite frankly it shows your ignorance on the subject. I do hope you enlighten yourself a bit more on future subjects. This is me being nice...God bless this country and our right to free speech!

[honor87]

It was not a FLUKE, it was honor!He saved a life by risking his! My grandfather (Steven L Bennett)saved a life. He choose to stay IN to let Mike get OUT!! learn the story, sir.

[BwanaNdege]

Thanks for all the CAS! We had an A-4 giving CAS to us in Arizona Territory who was so low that I promise you, if he’d had his clear visor down & I knew him, I would have recognized the pilot! I spend that night hunkered down in one of the craters his Zuni’s left!

We also had a Phantom release 6 Snake-eyes & 2 canisters of Nape about 75 meters behind us and 75 feet AGL. Scared the snot out of me! All that ordnance flew right over our heads and hit the NVA position about 40 meters in front!

Thanks, Zoomies! From an old knuckle-dragging mud grunt.

[TalonDJ]

Go back and reread what I said before you go attacking. I said nothing about it being a fluke. My point was that it is not the design of the stabilizer that was the problem because jet aircraft have more to overcome. That does NOT mean that I think it was a fluke. All I did state is that the tail alone, by the way it looked, is not enough to assume it was the issue. A little logic will show you that my conclusion is that the OV-10 had a deficient ejector seat. Obviously if other seats can clear higher tails and higher speeds then that seat probably had a weak motor. Since I don't know this to be a fact I hesitated to spell it out.

Get the chip off your shoulder and don't assume a slur where there isn't one... except my implied slur against OV-10 designers that I am betting you would agree with.

[Justa]

Thank you for your father’s service. Nobility is one of the greatest and rarest of virtues.