My dad was head of the survey crew for the port and was working inside Lindberg field when the crash occurred. One of the guys on the crew saw the pilot's ejection seat land on one of the hangers which helped first responders find him. I remember seeing the charger flying around Point Loma and San Diego.
That's a cool story but can you explain this to me? He said they wanted it to carry six paratroopers or six stretchers. How the hell is it supposed to do that?
@@mh53j well the pod must have not ever been attached to the prototype because that fuselage is only about 40 inches wide and the room it takes for the two pilots takes up 2/3 of the fuselage so six paratroopers with 80 lb of gear plus a parachute doesn't make any sense. Although if they were to put a pod on it I'd wonder what it would look like but it would extremely diminish the performance of the airplane. Short takeoff and landing would be useless with that much weight.
My grandfather was an engineer at Convair (Consolidated earlier), he worked on modifications for B-24s and PBYs until the war was over. It is cool to see Bankers Hill and the skyline in the background of the footage. At 5:57 The El Cortez Hotel can be seen in the background, for many years the highest building in San Diego (now lost in a sea of skyscrapers).
Hey, I'm also from San Diego. My paternal grandfather worked at Convair during WW2 as a production line supervisor near the old Air Force Plant 19. My maternal grandfather later worked for Convair as a draftsman, working on the Atlas missile project at their Kearney Mesa plant. It was a sad day for San Diego when Convair closed, and I'm not sure the local economy ever really recovered. Sadly, I found some years ago that I simply could no longer afford to live in San Diego. Now I am an expat in South America, and while I love my new home, I will never forget San Diego. There is no going back, I know; the San Diego that I knew and loved as a boy no longer exists.
@@R3dp055um Sadly, my wife and I will be leaving the state when we retire. California is very costly, but our main problem is the worsening poverty and insane politics. I love San Diego, but it will be a place I visit in the long term future.
I literally thought to myself “how do you get one of these?” - looks like a great plane to fly and it’s highly modular design makes it appealing all around. A shame we don’t see more of these.
the first time I saw a Bronco I looked it over and realized i could fly that plane, nothing looked difficult. I honestly can't understand why the army wouldn't just keep those planes around for good, they're perfect for so many things, especially training and small load carrying.
I find it very impressive that you are able to obtain all of this excellent footage and info and present it in a very engaging and informative way! Thanks for all you do to preserve aviation history.
Imagine if they had 48 Chargers with JATOs during the Munich massacre. They may have had a chance taking off with multiple aircraft in that stadium, assuming they could actually get the hostages there safely...
@@VerdeMorte Broncos might have worked better, it had a large space in the fuselage that could carry people. Even delivered paratroopers a few times, but that required leaving the tail cone off because there was no interior door handle.
I thought it was the ov-10 Bronco to start with. My Air Force career was with C-130 engines but we were supposedly able to work on ov-10 Broncos. While in Guam I only saw one or two come through and never got to work on one
@@503challenger had one down the ramp from me when I was getting my A&P, as pathfinder for the fire bomber. They're ungainly and have vortex generators _everywhere_ But apparently fly pretty nice.
Convair for the win! Grandpa worked there for 35 years. (through several name changes) Thanks for another great video from a B36, B58, F111, F16, and now Charger fan.
I was at MCAS New River, H&MS-29/MALS-29 From 81-90! Minus a six month Med cruise, and a 7 month tour of duty with H&MS-36, In support of VMO. I loved packing the parachutes for the OV-10. In Okinawa, I was the "duty expert" on the LW3B-1 And the -2. In my ten years of service, I had 5 parachutes that I packed used successfully in ejections.
It's nice to be reminded how central Convair was to US civilian and military aviation back in their heyday. The F-102 arrived *just* prior to aeronautical engineers benefitting from the Area Rule, so was appropriately replaced by the Convair F-106 Delta Dart.. and certainly the Convair B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber deserves to be highlighted among the "notorious". Cheers!
Or the Convair Sea dart which was a supersonic seaplane version of the F-102 for the navy. The navy figured out how to make high performance jets carrier capable and the program was ended after only a few flights.
This is pretty darn cool. I hope the subs keep coming in. This channel gives a good starting point to learn more about aviation, engineering, and military history. Those little rabbit holes you can find beyond the classroom. Also, I hope it gives people ideas for other creative works, like writing fiction, games, and personal RPGs sessions with their friends.
The OV-10 was still in use in 1992. I worked for a small manufacturing company and personally built replacement pilot cockpit windows for this aircraft, as well as windows for the UH-60, and the UH1 Huey.
I always liked the OV-10 Bronco. This Charger looks like a "stumpy" version of it. The Army & Marines could still use a bird like it. To hell with the Air Farce
I thought only I called it that. It wasn't always, but it has become so politicized like it's bastard offshoot, it is a farce, kissing butt and taking the lion's share of the budget.
@@scottsummers6357 Problem is TOO many came back. PS, the US Navy should have sent John "Crash" McCain back to North Vietnam when they released him from the Hanoi Hilton.
It's a romantic notion, but the days of making strafing runs and glide bomb attacks with unguided weapons are over - and good riddance. Drones do the same job, but much better. So no, there is ZERO need for such an aircraft.
For COIN work, drones are better. And the army does have a lot of armed drones. Almost all Predators (Gray Eagles) are under Army control, the Air Force upgraded to MQ9 Reapers with 10x the payload.
The Charger looks interesting but I think the military made a solid choice with the OV-10. Not too long ago they pressed a few of them back into service as a COIN asset for SF units. IMO that speaks volumes about how good the OV-10 really was.
Thx for doin this one. I was born in '65, so I'm one of those kids who wanted to be an astronaut, or fighter pilot when they grew up. Didn't work out that way, but I'm still into aircraft and spacecraft. There's not much at all out there on this plane, so I enjoyed the vid.
@@ramosel A presumably flyable OV-10 currently sits in an Aviation museum over the mountains from me in Sevierville Tennessee (last time I was there it was awaiting reinstallation of the gun "pods") and 2 presumably flyable OV-1s sit in an Aviation Museum over in Charlotte NC.
It turned into General Dynamics! They built a lot of cruise missiles before going out of business. The old buildings down off of Pacific Hwy sat empty until SPAWAR's refurbed them.
The US had the A-1E Skyraider still providing close air support in the early days of the war in Southeast Asia. Excellent loiter time, a payload greater than a B-17 and accurate delivery of CAS. It got replaced by fast movers.
This was more to replace the converted Cessna prop planes in the Forward Air Controller role more than a dedicated ground attack bird. Today, we basically use drones like the Predator for the job.
@@johnpatz8395 I don't see that happening. Nobody left in the USAF that knows how to keep a radial engine working, and honestly not enough radial engines in existence. Not to forget that everything in the US inventory runs on JP8. Not Avgas. Anything we'd use would have a turboprop (see the MQ-9 Reaper). I honestly see the US going to drones for all COIN birds, and eventually getting a replacement for the A-10 for serious CAS. Especially since the Army is already flying armed MQ-1C Gray Eagles as part of the Brigade RSTA Cavalry Squadron.
My grandpa was hired by Convair to work on jet engines after the war and moved out to San Diego. After Convair he worked for PSA and then US air until he retired. In his 90s now and is still going
I'm a native San Diegan. My dad worked for Convair from 1955 through the first part of 1964. It was interesting to see all the old film of San Diego and the San Diego back country.
And the pilots that flew the B-26 and P-38 had difficulties flying them in the beginning, and the F4U was impossible to land on the carriers (until the British showed them how). Once pilots became accustom to their flight characteristics, they turned out to be three of the best aircraft in their class.
The 26 had an especially bad rep. Surprise surprise! Its wings were too short.!! You can't put low time pilots in a volatile, touchy to fly aircraft without crashing a bunch, which is how it got named Widow Maker".
@@LuvBorderCollies And three a day... in Tampa Bay. The 26 was a great plane until the brass decided, after all the design work was finished and the initial flights were completed of course, to add turrets (a lot of weight) and a bunch of other weight to her. That made her not only harder to fly, but increased the stall and approach speeds as well. Another reason was, the pilots came out of basic flight training that used low speed bi-planes. And, they put them in the 26 without much ground training on how different she was. It you tried to slow her down to bi-plane speeds... she'd drop out of the sky like a rock (usually into Tampa Bay). Her stall speed was, if I remember correctly, 125 knots. Almost double what they were used to. And, if you dropped her much below 140-160 knots on approach... you were a dead duck. And, that was almost the top speed of some of the bi-planes they were taught in! Like giving driver's training in a four-banger rice burner... then setting them down in an Indy Car and saying take her around the track AT SPEED. The results would not be good. Once all the bugs were worked out, of the plane and the training, she went on to have one of the best safety records in the Army Air Force. And, she was deadly accurate in her bombing duties. But sadly, like the P-38... it took a while, and some pilots, to figure out exactly how to fly her.
@@Einwetok No one was actually qualified in the 26 when she was rushed into service. But, the Army Air Force needed her capabilities out in the field. Not even the pilots, training the fresh out of basic pilots... had much experience in the 26. Sort of a case of the blind leading the blind. And, it proved to be deadly. With the speeds she was capable of, and the speeds a pilot HAD to maintain to keep her in the air, it was easy for the 26 to get ahead of an inexperienced pilot. It was ALL in the manual... single engine speed, rotation speed, approach speed, stall speed, etc., etc., etc. But, like someone buying a new car... you already know how to drive, so why read the manual. Until, that is, it's pouring down rain, you're driving 75 MPH, and you can't find the wiper control. It's too late then. I don't think (remember) any 26's going down while the women were ferrying them from the factory to Tampa. Maybe @LuvBorderCollies can shed light on that. The women checked out the manual, and flew the 26 according to it. You MUST stay ahead of an aircraft to survive. Just ask JFK Jr. Oh wait... we can't. He went from flying a trainer (slow ass Cessna 150/152), to buying his own very high performance single. That was like the pilots going from a bi-plane to the 26. An ego can get the best of anyone. Just because you can afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean you have the ability to race it. And, he did that with minimal flight hours. Plus, he did that without being IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) qualified. Meaning he couldn't fly on just instrument alone. He had to rely on seeing where he was flying. Add to that, he wasn't used to flying at sunset... then sunset turned into night... he became disoriented... and the plane got ahead of him. Your inner ears will play tricks on you. The aircraft can be out of control and spiraling towards the earth. Your inner ears, however, will "tell" your brain that you are flying straight and level and everything is fine, as long as the circumstances the aircraft is flying in doesn't change. That is why you must be able to rely and believe what your instruments are telling you. Something he could not. Zero mechanical... 100% pilot error. And, in most cases where the 26 found the ground before the pilot was ready for it to... inexperienced pilot error. Knowing an aircraft's requirements TO fly, is just as important, as its capabilities IN flight.
@@LuvBorderCollies The B-26 acquired the unofficial motto "One a Day in Tampa Bay", due to the complications of a plane rushed into production and then crews trained on the plane by instructors with little more experience than their students.
But the Cessna O-2 was a pure observation plane derived from a light civilian aircraft. It had an extremely limited ordnance load, with 2 hard points & no internal guns. The North American OV-10 on the other hand was designed from the start for CAS. It had 4 internal M-60 machine guns, and 7 hard points. The Cessna A-37 was a better CAS aircraft than the O-2, but it too was a repurposed system, as it started out as the T-37. Hey, wait a minute here, the USAF used North American AT-6 Texan Advanced Trainers as observation & attack aircraft in Korea, the Cessna T-37/A-37 in Vietnam in the same role, and are now procuring the new T-6 Texan II Trainer for the same role in Afghanistan. I have found a tradition in the USAF, too bad it is incompetence.
@@earlwyss520I never looked at the O-2 as nothing more than just a plane. The propeller in the front and back was “cool” to me. I’d love your response on me liking the C-17 more than the C-131 and C-5. Being from Shaw and moving to Langley, I’m biased towards the F-16. The F-15 never “grew on me”.
@@PapaRazaa I thought that the O-2 was cool too, and for the same reason, but I thought that it was a way too small niche mission aircraft. BTW at my local airport, there are 2 of them, and you can see them on the ramp as you drive passed. Also my unit, the 20th SPS along with the rest of the 20th FW, at RAF Upper Heyford moved to Shaw when they closed the base in 1994.
Hi, just so you are aware, youtube managed to stick 4 whole commercial breaks in the 1st 5 minutes of your program. Been watching your channel a while now, and I know that is not how you do things. Thanks for all the content.
Cool looking Airplane, but the OV-10 won the fly-off fair and square. I remember my first look at the concept idea in a Popular Mechanicks Magazine when I was in the 10th grade. I didn't have a clue then, that I would be working the Bronco at Phan Rang, and DaNang AB Vietnam, and later in Korea, and Okinowa. What a world. LOL I had only heard of the Convair plane by word of mouth untill now. According to a Tech Rep friend I worked with in Okinowa both planes had design problems and changes , but the OV-10 was the solid winner for a number of reasons.
As a Navy SEAL I parachuted from an OV-10, the rear end of the fuselage was remove and four static line sat on the floor facing aft. When the pilot was over the DZ he went into a steep climb and all kinda tumbled out. Major fun 😂.
@@dieselyeti I like flying with a friend, but I hate having any space to put anything or any money left over after an hour long flight. It would also be great if I didn’t have to look at my passenger but still able to fart on them.
There were plans to widen the OV-10 and give it abreast pilot & copilot seating, but retain most of the original aircraft's performance. That would give you your bush plane.
Dark Skies always has very interesting content on military aircraft, some I had never heard of. I have been a subscriber for a couple months. Great Channel.
Minor retribution for Stuart Symington (king of the kickback) forcing the USAF to take the B-36 rather than the B-35/49 Flying Wings of Northrop and stalling aircraft design for about 30 years.
@@rahmansetiawan6052 I believe this one gave the pilot and weapons officer a much better view... I also really like the high amount of parts interchangability, a VITAL asset to ANY type of weapons systems....
Your Stuff is always great veiwing !! Its great to see where I grew up in the back ground of Columbia&Nutmeg before my mom build the house while I5 was being graded 👍
Wow. It almost looks like a very staggered biplane. Visibility, especially for the observer, looks better from the OV10 cockpit sitting forward of the wing. The good old days, when you could design and field a plane in less than a decade.
What a beautiful aircraft. It would have been perfect for those support roles. They should have looked at selling it to the general public as a sport plane.
@@larslarsman Not the entire landing gear from mount point to wheel. But still plenty of parts that can be co-shared. The wheel & tire & brakes setup. The suspension setup (coil & dampener). Add a rotation control for the front ones... It’s not just “same part at final assembly location” for the plane that matters. Anywhere in the intermediate supply chain, if can share components, is a huge plus.
Reminds me of a similar high-utility aircraft: the Cessna built A 37-B Dragonfly. Flew Second Seat (unofficially) only once with an AF pilot on a short hop and turn. What a joy. ⬆️
Greetings from Argentina. It was said in the aeronautical environment that the Bronco was the winner because a top North American executive was the brother-in-law of a high-ranking military man who belonged to the decision committee. When Pucará was being developed here, the USA lobbied for us to buy the Bronco, and a very common joke among the engineers of the Military Aircraft Factory was "No, thank you, my brother-in-law did not recommend it to me". Saludos desde Argentina. Se decía en el ambiente aeronáutico que el Bronco resultó ganador porque un alto ejecutivo de la North American era el cuñado de un militar de alto rango que pertenecía al comité de decisión. Cuando aquí se estaba desarrollando el Pucará, USA hacía lobby para que compraramos el Bronco, y una broma muy comun entre los ingenieros de la Fabrica Militar de Aviones era "No, gracias, mi cuñado no me lo recomendó"
The 0V- 10 was the better plane as it had a cargo compartment behind the observers seat and a more robust and rugged landing gear . I'm a former Marine who worked on them
My dad flew in the #PBY & the #PBM. WW ll the Philippines. He was a radio man and operated .50 Caliber machine gun. He came home with many other Navy seaman who flew the flying boats
‘Notorious’….the Liberator and Catalina?? Both good aircraft. Where I live in the U.K. the Catalinas were used for anti submarine duties and by all accounts were well liked by their crews. Liberator; while not as tough as the Fortress was hardly a bad plane.
@@dhc5tech41 Notorious definition is - generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known. Although "notorious" can be a synonym of "famous," meaning simply "widely known," it long ago developed the additional implication of someone or something unpleasant or undesirable. The Book of Common Prayer Offices of 1549 includes the first known use of the unfavorable meaning in print, referring to "notorious synners." -- With thanks to MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY.
May introduce you to the Stipa-Caproni Flying Barrel? www.google.com/search?q=Stipa-Caproni+Flying+Barrel&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi6hNbOl6HyAhUh81MKHf0zDiQQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Stipa-Caproni+Flying+Barrel&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIGCAAQCBAeMgQIABAYOggIABAHEAUQHjoGCAAQBRAeOggIABAIEAcQHlCQxgFYy5ICYNubAmgAcAB4AIABZogBswmSAQQxMy4xmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=i60PYfqSHaHmzwL957igAg
Politicians are never interested in having the finest equipment in defense of the nation, they are interested in lining their pockets with plenty of cash and sweetheart deals.
Robert McNamara forced a fixed price contract on NAA later NAR. They had significant losses on the initial contract. OV-10 was a great plane and served us well in Vietnam. Several of them were still flying until recent years. Contracts were awarded years ago on a just-in-time basis to keep the industrial manufacturing base intact. It was NAA's turn to win.
McNamara absolutely had no business deciding what was best for the military, An example was his push for the F-111 to be used by both the Navy and the Air Force. Anyone besides me remember this fiasco?
I wonder what the stall characteristics was like. Also with the wing almost entirely in slipstream the single engine handling might have been a bit exciting maybe too. Ejection seats are probebly a must.
Both the charger and OV-10 had ejection seats. Because of its configuration, you could also climb out of the Charger and bail out like they did in WWII. this was not possible in the OV-10.
Super cool machine! 1300hp, 300mph, 2000lbs payload and made to fly thought trees, awesome! Too bad it never made it to production. Looks like Convair put all there eggs in the Charger basket but came up short, too bad...
Convair didn't announce it as a light armed reconnaissance aircraft. They announcd it as their bid for the programme known as LARA; there is a difference. Convair built notorious aircraft? The PBY and B-24 were excellent aircraft, still revered today. Ditto the F-102, and the Atlas was famous for its reliability in the early days of US manned spaceflight! To save you looking it up, notorious is defined as, quote, famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed. eg "Los Angeles is notorious for its smog". Just say famous. In 1959 there was only one Marine Corps. What there were 2 of were USMC officers who came up with the L2VMA idea that led to LARA. Slow down and read carefully before going final. Ditto saying 'Counter-Insurgency aircraft, or COIN'. What you probably meant to say was 'Counter Insurgency, or COIN, aircraft'. Again there is a difference. You're mixing up what happened. Convair did not develop their aircraft and its variants and develop them into the LARA requirement. It was the other way round. The DoD came up with the LARA requirement and asked for bids against it. Convair was one of a bunch of companies that responded (actually there were 11, not 10), including of course North American Rockwell, who won with the OV-10. The takeoff requirement wasn't just an 800 ft ground roll; the aircraft had to clear a 50 ft screen height by the time it got to the 800 foot point. Convair were working on their proposal before the LARA ITT because, like Rockwell, they anticipated that L2VMA would lead to at least a development contract. They didn't just guess that LARA would come from nowhere. It is standard practice in military procurement for the government to meet regularly with suppliers for exactly this purpose. Suppliers want to know what might be coming down the pipe and the military want to know what industry can do for them to inform future requirements. I think you'll find that any secrecy surrounding the Charger was purely commercial in nature. The aircraft itself had no particularly secret technology or concepts about it but the Company didn't want any of its competitors copying its homework. I know wikipedia talks about vectored thrust, but it's not accurate. The propwash increased airflow over the wing to increase lift above what would be the norm at a given airspeed. This allowed the approach and takeoff speeds to be significantly lower. But there was no thrust vectoring, which would actually have been very unhelpful. I think you mean that the simple construction increased the speed of production, to reduce it would be perverse. Slow down and think about what you're saying! Not exactly radical for the rudders to 'function as direction of flight controls'. Please show a picture of a circular spoiler; I'd love to see one of those. There is no evidence that the float version actually met the requirement; it was never built. Was it cancelled for political reasons? Well Convair might say so but there's no evidence I know of to support that. It's more likely that the Bronco won because it had more growth potential and a better overall cost-effectiveness. Having almost double the weapons load might also have played a part. Congratulations on having mostly relevant video, but you can't just rely on wiki, and if you do you still have to read it correctly and understand what it says!
What a wonderful little plane! With such a heavy carrying capacity it seems a shame she didn't find a civilian application. I think Convair must be my favourite plane manufacturer, I loved the model 48, but I want to own and live in a catalina, and just travel the world, following the sun, maybe fomula one, or yacht races. I'm not fantasising about a hard life!
Somehow it always fascinated me how american car and airplane industries are so similar in philosophy of their products: They never truly successfully impemented smal car/airplane idea even when they had really good designs.
Flying Cats could Never Work with American Drivers... especially in the 60's with multiple collusion pile ups on the brand new freeways... MBA Farmers in Suits.
No one has developed a truly successful flying car design. Simply too many contradictory designs at work. Either they were decent cars and marginal planes or marginal cars and decent planes-they did neither well and were expensive to produce. Economies of scale did not favor such a design. Combine it with the fact that you's have to create a new federal agency and control system ( air traffic control wouldn't want to deal with flying cars in large numbers) and you have your answer.
Well Convair was sorta persona non grata among defense contractors at that time. The USAF and joint chiefs had a bad aftertaste from the B-36 debacle ( the B-36 was a beyond massive bomber that sunk the USNs super carrier right after they laid the keel) The B-58 Hustler was a mach 2 headache and like the B-36 suffered long production and cost overruns. The Atlas missile likewise suffered the same and was plagued by flaws with the balloon fuel tanks which required they always be pressurized or the missile body would collapse. After those high profile issues the government was loathe to issue a contract to Convair for anything even if General Dynamics was controlling the company. The F-102 and F-106 interceptors weren’t exactly up to what was promised either. So Convair had a bad history of over promising and usually under delivery. Worse still companies like Boeing or Lockheed had civilian contracts they could fall back on for revenue. Convair’s civilian contracts never really materialized
My dad was head of the survey crew for the port and was working inside Lindberg field when the crash occurred. One of the guys on the crew saw the pilot's ejection seat land on one of the hangers which helped first responders find him. I remember seeing the charger flying around Point Loma and San Diego.
That's a cool story but can you explain this to me? He said they wanted it to carry six paratroopers or six stretchers. How the hell is it supposed to do that?
@@jonathanperry8331 in the fuselage "pod" behind the cockpit, same as the Bronco did. Think stuffing six of either would have been pretty tight.
@@mh53j well the pod must have not ever been attached to the prototype because that fuselage is only about 40 inches wide and the room it takes for the two pilots takes up 2/3 of the fuselage so six paratroopers with 80 lb of gear plus a parachute doesn't make any sense. Although if they were to put a pod on it I'd wonder what it would look like but it would extremely diminish the performance of the airplane. Short takeoff and landing would be useless with that much weight.
@Matthew Keast Matty is that you, after all these years my separated twin?
Can you tell more if the secrets not covered here?
God I wish Convair was still around! They had balls and built some of the most interesting aircraft ever.
My grandfather was an engineer at Convair (Consolidated earlier), he worked on modifications for B-24s and PBYs until the war was over. It is cool to see Bankers Hill and the skyline in the background of the footage. At 5:57 The El Cortez Hotel can be seen in the background, for many years the highest building in San Diego (now lost in a sea of skyscrapers).
Hey, I'm also from San Diego. My paternal grandfather worked at Convair during WW2 as a production line supervisor near the old Air Force Plant 19. My maternal grandfather later worked for Convair as a draftsman, working on the Atlas missile project at their Kearney Mesa plant. It was a sad day for San Diego when Convair closed, and I'm not sure the local economy ever really recovered.
Sadly, I found some years ago that I simply could no longer afford to live in San Diego. Now I am an expat in South America, and while I love my new home, I will never forget San Diego. There is no going back, I know; the San Diego that I knew and loved as a boy no longer exists.
@@R3dp055um Sadly, my wife and I will be leaving the state when we retire. California is very costly, but our main problem is the worsening poverty and insane politics. I love San Diego, but it will be a place I visit in the long term future.
@@Jacmac1 for me staying here means living in a van. Median rent for a 1br apt just hit $2k.
I must admit: It looks like a great and fun plane to fly - just like the Bronco is.
Yep! First thing I thought of...
I literally thought to myself “how do you get one of these?” - looks like a great plane to fly and it’s highly modular design makes it appealing all around. A shame we don’t see more of these.
@@ThisPageIntentionallyLeftBlank True story!
The more simple a bird the better it is
the first time I saw a Bronco I looked it over and realized i could fly that plane, nothing looked difficult. I honestly can't understand why the army wouldn't just keep those planes around for good, they're perfect for so many things, especially training and small load carrying.
Fascinating, never seen footage of the Charger in flight before, ty!
I find it very impressive that you are able to obtain all of this excellent footage and info and present it in a very engaging and informative way! Thanks for all you do to preserve aviation history.
Agreed - Good work !
Baby OV-10 Bronco hype!
I was thinking the same thing.
More like chibi.
Yes I was wondering “What’s the difference between this Convair & the OV-10 Bronco?”
The OV-10 was also originally designed with extremely short wings. The idea was to be able to take off from a 2 lane highway.
Imagine if they had 48 Chargers with JATOs during the Munich massacre. They may have had a chance taking off with multiple aircraft in that stadium, assuming they could actually get the hostages there safely...
@@VerdeMorte Broncos might have worked better, it had a large space in the fuselage that could carry people. Even delivered paratroopers a few times, but that required leaving the tail cone off because there was no interior door handle.
I thought it was the ov-10 Bronco to start with. My Air Force career was with C-130 engines but we were supposedly able to work on ov-10 Broncos. While in Guam I only saw one or two come through and never got to work on one
@@503challenger had one down the ramp from me when I was getting my A&P, as pathfinder for the fire bomber.
They're ungainly and have vortex generators _everywhere_
But apparently fly pretty nice.
@@VerdeMorte It will be 48 CFITs
I can't say that I know the Bronco that well, but the Charger is damn impressive. Good one Dark Skies.
Convair for the win! Grandpa worked there for 35 years. (through several name changes)
Thanks for another great video from a B36, B58, F111, F16, and now Charger fan.
I worked on the OV-10 at MCAS New River, and MCAS Futenma, in the 80s. I loved the Broncos!
When I was a kid in the Philippines, ‘79-‘81, there was a squadron of these there. I can’t remember if I ever saw them fly though.
I worked on the Broncos in the 1980's also at Pendleton. I also loved the job.
Dave Fullmer, did you get to deploy to Okinawa with them? Now that was a good tour of duty!
I was also stationed at MCAS New River and MCAS Futenma, but in the 70s. VMO-1 at New River and VMO-6 at Futenma.
I was at MCAS New River, H&MS-29/MALS-29 From 81-90! Minus a six month Med cruise, and a 7 month tour of duty with H&MS-36, In support of VMO.
I loved packing the parachutes for the OV-10. In Okinawa, I was the "duty expert" on the LW3B-1 And the -2.
In my ten years of service, I had 5 parachutes that I packed used successfully in ejections.
It's nice to be reminded how central Convair was to US civilian and military aviation back in their heyday. The F-102 arrived *just* prior to aeronautical engineers benefitting from the Area Rule, so was appropriately replaced by the Convair F-106 Delta Dart.. and certainly the Convair B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber deserves to be highlighted among the "notorious". Cheers!
Yes.
Or the Convair Sea dart which was a supersonic seaplane version of the F-102 for the navy. The navy figured out how to make high performance jets carrier capable and the program was ended after only a few flights.
This is pretty darn cool.
I hope the subs keep coming in. This channel gives a good starting point to learn more about aviation, engineering, and military history. Those little rabbit holes you can find beyond the classroom. Also, I hope it gives people ideas for other creative works, like writing fiction, games, and personal RPGs sessions with their friends.
@ Dirus Aaargh I keep falling down those rabbit holes ....
Made a comment about this plane on your OV-10 Bronco video. This plane looks like an Reno air racer.
I was thinking the same thing. Its already chopped
I never heard of it. I loved the Bronco and would have loved this if it had won. Great video!!!!
My Dad moved here from Santa Monica, CA in 1958 and worked at Convair. My Brother worked at Convair in the 1970's, and I worked there in the 1980's.
Good video! I had never heard of the Charger until now. At first I thought that you mixed this up with the Bronco. Shows you what I know...
Ditto here.
Yeah I had seen photos of it before but I assumed it was an early prototype bronco with short wings.
The OV-10 was still in use in 1992. I worked for a small manufacturing company and personally built replacement pilot cockpit windows for this aircraft, as well as windows for the UH-60, and the UH1 Huey.
Correct, I had orders to fly it in '81 but orders were changed at the last minute to the OA-37.
Hell, they were retired, many were sold off - and now they're re-activating some of them!
How well I remember those hazy, smoggy skies over San Diego. I don't recall ever seeing this aircraft before.
Great video as usual. I always look forward to them.
I always liked the OV-10 Bronco. This Charger looks like a "stumpy" version of it. The Army & Marines could still use a bird like it. To hell with the Air Farce
Hey, one reason why I joined the Air Force, is, at the time, we sent our Officers off to war.
I thought only I called it that. It wasn't always, but it has become so politicized like it's bastard offshoot, it is a farce, kissing butt and taking the lion's share of the budget.
@@scottsummers6357 Problem is TOO many came back.
PS, the US Navy should have sent John "Crash" McCain back to North Vietnam when they released him from the Hanoi Hilton.
It's a romantic notion, but the days of making strafing runs and glide bomb attacks with unguided weapons are over - and good riddance. Drones do the same job, but much better. So no, there is ZERO need for such an aircraft.
For COIN work, drones are better. And the army does have a lot of armed drones. Almost all Predators (Gray Eagles) are under Army control, the Air Force upgraded to MQ9 Reapers with 10x the payload.
The Charger looks interesting but I think the military made a solid choice with the OV-10. Not too long ago they pressed a few of them back into service as a COIN asset for SF units. IMO that speaks volumes about how good the OV-10 really was.
The State Department also used unarmed OV-10s in Colombia as drug eradication planes.
@@larrylobster9107 They're still used today fighting the California wildfires. Check out Blancolirio YT channel.
There's one here in Sacramento. They fly it looking for forest fires.
How about their widespread use as fire fighting spotters? I'm still seeing them every year.
I read about that
I am less than gobsmacked to learn that it needed more wingspan.
Was thinking it's first mission would be to fly to where ever the rest of it's wings were being stored.
@@gmarie701 I was envisioning it flying down trails and scaring the pyjamas of the Viet Cong
An ekranoplan that uses Coanda rather than ground effect for lift.
One of it's design features was to take off on a street/road. So...
The eventual plane was known as the OV10 Bronco. Drone aircraft job nowadays.
Thx for doin this one. I was born in '65, so I'm one of those kids who wanted to be an astronaut, or fighter pilot when they grew up. Didn't work out that way, but I'm still into aircraft and spacecraft. There's not much at all out there on this plane, so I enjoyed the vid.
The OV-10 went onto a very successful career. One still flies over my home in the Sierras as CalFire's fast attack spotter for forest fires.
They were brought out of retirement for the war on terror in 03
ov-10 still being used in Philippines still droping bomb against ISIS
@@MisterJuanPH The Philippines were lucky to get them, they're an immensely useful aircraft for their size.
3 came into the public eye a few years ago. I put in a bid on one, but didn't win.
@@ramosel A presumably flyable OV-10 currently sits in an Aviation museum over the mountains from me in Sevierville Tennessee (last time I was there it was awaiting reinstallation of the gun "pods") and 2 presumably flyable OV-1s sit in an Aviation Museum over in Charlotte NC.
I was an OV-10 crew chief in the mid-70's. Thank you for the historical background. Keep up the good work!
One obvious Bronco advantage was superior rear-seat ground visibility.
And since the rear seat occupant is supposed to be the "observer" that would seem to be a fundamental requirement.
Thanks for that upload, I wondered where Convair went, this more or less explains!
It turned into General Dynamics! They built a lot of cruise missiles before going out of business. The old buildings down off of Pacific Hwy sat empty until SPAWAR's refurbed them.
The US had the A-1E Skyraider still providing close air support in the early days of the war in Southeast Asia. Excellent loiter time, a payload greater than a B-17 and accurate delivery of CAS. It got replaced by fast movers.
Not exactly the same mission role.
This was more to replace the converted Cessna prop planes in the Forward Air Controller role more than a dedicated ground attack bird.
Today, we basically use drones like the Predator for the job.
There’s been some talk recently of reviving the A-1 Skyraider, for the same ground attack missions it excelled at.
@@johnpatz8395 Not exactly. A-29 Is in that role.
@@johnpatz8395 I don't see that happening. Nobody left in the USAF that knows how to keep a radial engine working, and honestly not enough radial engines in existence. Not to forget that everything in the US inventory runs on JP8. Not Avgas.
Anything we'd use would have a turboprop (see the MQ-9 Reaper).
I honestly see the US going to drones for all COIN birds, and eventually getting a replacement for the A-10 for serious CAS. Especially since the Army is already flying armed MQ-1C Gray Eagles as part of the Brigade RSTA Cavalry Squadron.
My grandpa was hired by Convair to work on jet engines after the war and moved out to San Diego. After Convair he worked for PSA and then US air until he retired. In his 90s now and is still going
Looks like the love child of the Bronco and an A4.
Pretty awesome looking craft.
I'm a native San Diegan. My dad worked for Convair from 1955 through the first part of 1964. It was interesting to see all the old film of San Diego and the San Diego back country.
And the pilots that flew the B-26 and P-38 had difficulties flying them in the beginning, and the F4U was impossible to land on the carriers (until the British showed them how). Once pilots became accustom to their flight characteristics, they turned out to be three of the best aircraft in their class.
The 26 had an especially bad rep. Surprise surprise! Its wings were too short.!! You can't put low time pilots in a volatile, touchy to fly aircraft without crashing a bunch, which is how it got named Widow Maker".
@@LuvBorderCollies And three a day... in Tampa Bay. The 26 was a great plane until the brass decided, after all the design work was finished and the initial flights were completed of course, to add turrets (a lot of weight) and a bunch of other weight to her. That made her not only harder to fly, but increased the stall and approach speeds as well. Another reason was, the pilots came out of basic flight training that used low speed bi-planes. And, they put them in the 26 without much ground training on how different she was. It you tried to slow her down to bi-plane speeds... she'd drop out of the sky like a rock (usually into Tampa Bay). Her stall speed was, if I remember correctly, 125 knots. Almost double what they were used to. And, if you dropped her much below 140-160 knots on approach... you were a dead duck. And, that was almost the top speed of some of the bi-planes they were taught in! Like giving driver's training in a four-banger rice burner... then setting them down in an Indy Car and saying take her around the track AT SPEED. The results would not be good. Once all the bugs were worked out, of the plane and the training, she went on to have one of the best safety records in the Army Air Force. And, she was deadly accurate in her bombing duties. But sadly, like the P-38... it took a while, and some pilots, to figure out exactly how to fly her.
@@donf3877 Thanks for filling in a question I had. Training gap, what brass in any branch would ever admit to that killing troops.
@@Einwetok No one was actually qualified in the 26 when she was rushed into service. But, the Army Air Force needed her capabilities out in the field. Not even the pilots, training the fresh out of basic pilots... had much experience in the 26. Sort of a case of the blind leading the blind. And, it proved to be deadly. With the speeds she was capable of, and the speeds a pilot HAD to maintain to keep her in the air, it was easy for the 26 to get ahead of an inexperienced pilot. It was ALL in the manual... single engine speed, rotation speed, approach speed, stall speed, etc., etc., etc. But, like someone buying a new car... you already know how to drive, so why read the manual. Until, that is, it's pouring down rain, you're driving 75 MPH, and you can't find the wiper control. It's too late then. I don't think (remember) any 26's going down while the women were ferrying them from the factory to Tampa. Maybe @LuvBorderCollies can shed light on that. The women checked out the manual, and flew the 26 according to it.
You MUST stay ahead of an aircraft to survive. Just ask JFK Jr. Oh wait... we can't. He went from flying a trainer (slow ass Cessna 150/152), to buying his own very high performance single. That was like the pilots going from a bi-plane to the 26. An ego can get the best of anyone. Just because you can afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean you have the ability to race it. And, he did that with minimal flight hours. Plus, he did that without being IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) qualified. Meaning he couldn't fly on just instrument alone. He had to rely on seeing where he was flying. Add to that, he wasn't used to flying at sunset... then sunset turned into night... he became disoriented... and the plane got ahead of him. Your inner ears will play tricks on you. The aircraft can be out of control and spiraling towards the earth. Your inner ears, however, will "tell" your brain that you are flying straight and level and everything is fine, as long as the circumstances the aircraft is flying in doesn't change. That is why you must be able to rely and believe what your instruments are telling you. Something he could not. Zero mechanical... 100% pilot error. And, in most cases where the 26 found the ground before the pilot was ready for it to... inexperienced pilot error. Knowing an aircraft's requirements TO fly, is just as important, as its capabilities IN flight.
@@LuvBorderCollies The B-26 acquired the unofficial motto "One a Day in Tampa Bay", due to the complications of a plane rushed into production and then crews trained on the plane by instructors with little more experience than their students.
OV-10 Bronco, use to parachute out of the cargo hatch. Love the Bronco!!
My dad worked on the O-2 at Shaw AFB in the 80’s. I always liked the the O-2 more than the OV-10
I was at Shaw AFB mid 70's, good times !
@@rbmoose22*Salute*
But the Cessna O-2 was a pure observation plane derived from a light civilian aircraft. It had an extremely limited ordnance load, with 2 hard points & no internal guns. The North American OV-10 on the other hand was designed from the start for CAS. It had 4 internal M-60 machine guns, and 7 hard points.
The Cessna A-37 was a better CAS aircraft than the O-2, but it too was a repurposed system, as it started out as the T-37. Hey, wait a minute here, the USAF used North American AT-6 Texan Advanced Trainers as observation & attack aircraft in Korea, the Cessna T-37/A-37 in Vietnam in the same role, and are now procuring the new T-6 Texan II Trainer for the same role in Afghanistan. I have found a tradition in the USAF, too bad it is incompetence.
@@earlwyss520I never looked at the O-2 as nothing more than just a plane. The propeller in the front and back was “cool” to me.
I’d love your response on me liking the C-17 more than the C-131 and C-5. Being from Shaw and moving to Langley, I’m biased towards the F-16. The F-15 never “grew on me”.
@@PapaRazaa I thought that the O-2 was cool too, and for the same reason, but I thought that it was a way too small niche mission aircraft.
BTW at my local airport, there are 2 of them, and you can see them on the ramp as you drive passed.
Also my unit, the 20th SPS along with the rest of the 20th FW, at RAF Upper Heyford moved to Shaw when they closed the base in 1994.
I saw this plane flying over Whitstable in Kent UK today. What a joy. I wouldn't have known what it was if it wasn't for this channel.
Hi, just so you are aware, youtube managed to stick 4 whole commercial breaks in the 1st 5 minutes of your program. Been watching your channel a while now, and I know that is not how you do things. Thanks for all the content.
The OV-10 was a great plane! It served us well.
Still serving, fire bombers spotter aircraft. Because of the long loiter time and the visibility thing. It can also get out of its own way.
@@darrellcook8253 Good point. Sometimes I forget about civilian roles for retired military aircraft.
Nice. Thanks.
I’d like to see images of all 10 manufacturer’s proposals.
I would love to see an updated design of the Bronco/Charger
Be interesting to patrol the Rio Grande.
Nice video of a plane I was not aware of. Thanks! Great Video!
Cool looking Airplane, but the OV-10 won the fly-off fair and square. I remember my first look at the concept idea in a Popular Mechanicks Magazine when I was in the 10th grade. I didn't have a clue then, that I would be working the Bronco at Phan Rang, and DaNang AB Vietnam, and later in Korea, and Okinowa. What a world. LOL I had only heard of the Convair plane by word of mouth untill now. According to a Tech Rep friend I worked with in Okinowa both planes had design problems and changes , but the OV-10 was the solid winner for a number of reasons.
I thought the Bronco was cool looking, this thing is smoking hot.
As a Navy SEAL I parachuted from an OV-10, the rear end of the fuselage was remove and four static line sat on the floor facing aft. When the pilot was over the DZ he went into a steep climb and all kinda tumbled out. Major fun 😂.
Could we build a civil aviation version today? Looks great. Right there with a lightning, black widow and a bronco. Gotta love twin tail booms.
Who would buy a 2 seat twin?
It looks good and is versatile so i guess it could have been sold to civilians as a small personal plane
@@dieselyeti I like flying with a friend, but I hate having any space to put anything or any money left over after an hour long flight. It would also be great if I didn’t have to look at my passenger but still able to fart on them.
There were plans to widen the OV-10 and give it abreast pilot & copilot seating, but retain most of the original aircraft's performance. That would give you your bush plane.
I guess they could have, but the potential market for a 2 seat twin turboprop general aviation airplane is probably tiny.
The slower talking speed is very welcome. I like it more in this Video than the realy fast talking in the other Videos
What a beautiful, outstanding aircraft! 💜
Dark Skies always has very interesting content on military aircraft, some I had never heard of. I have been a subscriber for a couple months.
Great Channel.
I give the Bronco a little slight edge for the fact that it was helped designed by the original pilots who came up with the idea.
Except that the Bronco doubled in weight due to mission/feature creep.
The Charger was already flying before the OV-10 was designed.
200 foot takeoff!!
I bet she was maneuverable like a dream with such a narrow wingspan.
Someone needs to start building these for bush pilots!
"The decision was made over political reasons..." - what a surprise! 🙄 The hallmark of failed military projects.
Airways and forever!
Yeah, would have been good if he had provided more detailed info on what those political reasons were.
@@mikegregg4740 I believe it has something to do with who got the most kickbacks.
Since we're still using those Broncos and wish we had more, it seems like it was a good decision.
Minor retribution for Stuart Symington (king of the kickback) forcing the USAF to take the B-36 rather than the B-35/49 Flying Wings of Northrop and stalling aircraft design for about 30 years.
This could’ve made for a great general aviation aircraft.
Maybe with slightly bigger wings to make it more appealing to Gen pop.
@@rahmansetiawan6052 I believe this one gave the pilot and weapons officer a much better view... I also really like the high amount of parts interchangability, a VITAL asset to ANY type of weapons systems....
Not as much money in GA market compared to military. We regular people can't afford something that was designed for military.
A 2 seat turboprop twin? Seriously? Who'd buy it?
No way. It doesn't serve any civilian aviation mission.
Good to know military procurement routines have not changed. "This is exactly what we need. Buy the other one."
Another exceptional assemblage of archive footage and scripting, top rate work!
A truly beautiful and unique aircraft... I wish I would have been chosen for service😍😍😍😍
The Charger is a brilliant aircraft...... Totally love it.
My day is made!
Your Stuff is always great veiwing !! Its great to see where I grew up in the back ground of Columbia&Nutmeg before my mom build the house while I5 was being graded 👍
Wow. It almost looks like a very staggered biplane.
Visibility, especially for the observer, looks better from the OV10 cockpit sitting forward of the wing.
The good old days, when you could design and field a plane in less than a decade.
Hats of to the narrator. Great job brining the unusual planes to life.
What a beautiful aircraft. It would have been perfect for those support roles. They should have looked at selling it to the general public as a sport plane.
That black and red stripe paint job is slick, what a very fine looking aircraft! It just looks fast and good
For that era to have designed-in interchangeable left/right/front landing gear, etc., that was pretty advanced for its time.
Well...not the front, but left/right yes.
@@dirtbikechopper2012 I was hoping someone would explain that. Since the front looks so similar - not.
Maybe colt firearms in the mid 1800's had the right idea with standardization after all.
@@larslarsman
Not the entire landing gear from mount point to wheel.
But still plenty of parts that can be co-shared.
The wheel & tire & brakes setup.
The suspension setup (coil & dampener).
Add a rotation control for the front ones...
It’s not just “same part at final assembly location” for the plane that matters.
Anywhere in the intermediate supply chain, if can share components, is a huge plus.
Reminds me of a similar high-utility aircraft: the Cessna built A 37-B Dragonfly. Flew Second Seat (unofficially) only once with an AF pilot on a short hop and turn. What a joy.
⬆️
Worked on the T/A-37's while in the AF. Loved that aircraft.
I saw the crash at Lindbergh Field. So sad.
Congrats 300k subscribers
I like it, most of my favorite planes NEVER made it into production!!!!!
The Arrow, Comanche, B-70, F-23,
AND F-32......😫
I almost don't have the heart to mention the XF5U, XF8U-3, or F-20 (some of my favorite almost-but-didn't).
My favorite is the xb35, b32 dominater and b19
@@ELIGG15
B-19 that's the plane Bugs BUNNY fought with GREMLIN on.....
The gremlin with little wings for ears,
And an elevator and rudder for a tail!🤣
Greetings from Argentina. It was said in the aeronautical environment that the Bronco was the winner because a top North American executive was the brother-in-law of a high-ranking military man who belonged to the decision committee. When Pucará was being developed here, the USA lobbied for us to buy the Bronco, and a very common joke among the engineers of the Military Aircraft Factory was "No, thank you, my brother-in-law did not recommend it to me". Saludos desde Argentina. Se decía en el ambiente aeronáutico que el Bronco resultó ganador porque un alto ejecutivo de la North American era el cuñado de un militar de alto rango que pertenecía al comité de decisión. Cuando aquí se estaba desarrollando el Pucará, USA hacía lobby para que compraramos el Bronco, y una broma muy comun entre los ingenieros de la Fabrica Militar de Aviones era "No, gracias, mi cuñado no me lo recomendó"
The 0V- 10 was the better plane as it had a cargo compartment behind the observers seat and a more robust and rugged landing gear . I'm a former Marine who worked on them
“The notorious PBY Catalina?” LOL
The Catalina had an exemplary record, even used for operations she wasn't designed for.
@@channelsixtysix066 Can't "notorious" be interpreted negatively? I think that's what's happening here.
My dad flew in the #PBY & the #PBM.
WW ll the Philippines.
He was a radio man and operated .50 Caliber machine gun.
He came home with many other Navy seaman who flew the flying boats
‘Notorious’….the Liberator and Catalina?? Both good aircraft. Where I live in the U.K. the Catalinas were used for anti submarine duties and by all accounts were well liked by their crews. Liberator; while not as tough as the Fortress was hardly a bad plane.
Think he meant to say "famous".
Shouldn’t use words you don’t know the meaning of.
"Notorious" does not have to have a negative meaning, it can also be famous.
@@dhc5tech41 Notorious definition is - generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known. Although "notorious" can be a synonym of "famous," meaning simply "widely known," it long ago developed the additional implication of someone or something unpleasant or undesirable. The Book of Common Prayer Offices of 1549 includes the first known use of the unfavorable meaning in print, referring to "notorious synners."
-- With thanks to MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY.
First time I've been introduced to this cool looking plane
I can't wait for the day you review the Bell X-22
It would have made a hell-of-a WW2 fighter.
Who knew that the Ford-Chrysler rivalry would extend to the DoD...Bronco vs Charger
And it ended the same way the chase scene in "Bullit" did, the Mustang leaving the scene, and the Charger in flames. LOL
Great video dark skies. Thanks
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new competitor for cutest Aircraft.
The Model 48 Charger joins the F3F Flying Barrel and the XF-85 Goblin!
I love the F3F! Such a cool plane!
May introduce you to the Stipa-Caproni Flying Barrel? www.google.com/search?q=Stipa-Caproni+Flying+Barrel&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi6hNbOl6HyAhUh81MKHf0zDiQQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Stipa-Caproni+Flying+Barrel&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIGCAAQCBAeMgQIABAYOggIABAHEAUQHjoGCAAQBRAeOggIABAIEAcQHlCQxgFYy5ICYNubAmgAcAB4AIABZogBswmSAQQxMy4xmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=i60PYfqSHaHmzwL957igAg
@@Bochi42 The ducted propeller Aircraft is not quite as cute in my opinion
The flying pancake is a pretty cute one. Also tough as hell and able to dish out the punishment.
You really go above and beyond.
Thank you.
OMG he didnt mention the Convair F-106!!!
I really enjoy your videos! Well done!!!!!!
Engineer: so how long of a wingspan do you want?
Designer: no
😄😄😄
@@geosync9742 :)
Engineer: what do you mean, "it needs to fit in a 2-lane road"?!?
Thanks for this video. Never heard of this one, its winspan is surprisingly small !
Politicians are never interested in having the finest equipment in defense of the nation, they are interested in lining their pockets with plenty of cash and sweetheart deals.
"All modern aircraft have four dimensions. Span, length, height and politics..."
Sir Sydney Camm.
Generally yes, but also no; it's complicated like any very large, very complex system.
Priority 1: Get reelected
Priority 2: depends on the person
Robert McNamara forced a fixed price contract on NAA later NAR. They had significant losses on the initial contract. OV-10 was a great plane and served us well in Vietnam. Several of them were still flying until recent years. Contracts were awarded years ago on a just-in-time basis to keep the industrial manufacturing base intact. It was NAA's turn to win.
McNamara absolutely had no business deciding what was best for the military, An example was his push for the F-111 to be used by both the Navy and the Air Force. Anyone besides me remember this fiasco?
1:11 And how, pray tell were the PBY, B-25 and the F-102 “notorious”?
I wonder what the stall characteristics was like. Also with the wing almost entirely in slipstream the single engine handling might have been a bit exciting maybe too. Ejection seats are probebly a must.
Both the charger and OV-10 had ejection seats. Because of its configuration, you could also climb out of the Charger and bail out like they did in WWII. this was not possible in the OV-10.
What a beauty!
Dark Skies probably just didn't have time to reference the B-36 or B-58 Hustler as other examples of CONVAIR ventures.....
There is a b58 hustler vid.
Super cool machine! 1300hp, 300mph, 2000lbs payload and made to fly thought trees, awesome! Too bad it never made it to production. Looks like Convair put all there eggs in the Charger basket but came up short, too bad...
The Dark Skies videos are so good they should be on the History Channel!
No! "History" is more interested in reality shows and aliens. It isnt worthy of this content.
@@jasonswiatkowski9127 Agreed. This is Waaaaaaaayyyyyy better than anything on the "History" Cnannel! Even if he does say the PBY was "notorious"!
Love this channel.
Convair didn't announce it as a light armed reconnaissance aircraft. They announcd it as their bid for the programme known as LARA; there is a difference.
Convair built notorious aircraft? The PBY and B-24 were excellent aircraft, still revered today. Ditto the F-102, and the Atlas was famous for its reliability in the early days of US manned spaceflight! To save you looking it up, notorious is defined as, quote, famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed.
eg "Los Angeles is notorious for its smog". Just say famous.
In 1959 there was only one Marine Corps. What there were 2 of were USMC officers who came up with the L2VMA idea that led to LARA. Slow down and read carefully before going final.
Ditto saying 'Counter-Insurgency aircraft, or COIN'. What you probably meant to say was 'Counter Insurgency, or COIN, aircraft'. Again there is a difference.
You're mixing up what happened. Convair did not develop their aircraft and its variants and develop them into the LARA requirement. It was the other way round. The DoD came up with the LARA requirement and asked for bids against it. Convair was one of a bunch of companies that responded (actually there were 11, not 10), including of course North American Rockwell, who won with the OV-10.
The takeoff requirement wasn't just an 800 ft ground roll; the aircraft had to clear a 50 ft screen height by the time it got to the 800 foot point.
Convair were working on their proposal before the LARA ITT because, like Rockwell, they anticipated that L2VMA would lead to at least a development contract. They didn't just guess that LARA would come from nowhere. It is standard practice in military procurement for the government to meet regularly with suppliers for exactly this purpose. Suppliers want to know what might be coming down the pipe and the military want to know what industry can do for them to inform future requirements.
I think you'll find that any secrecy surrounding the Charger was purely commercial in nature. The aircraft itself had no particularly secret technology or concepts about it but the Company didn't want any of its competitors copying its homework.
I know wikipedia talks about vectored thrust, but it's not accurate. The propwash increased airflow over the wing to increase lift above what would be the norm at a given airspeed. This allowed the approach and takeoff speeds to be significantly lower. But there was no thrust vectoring, which would actually have been very unhelpful.
I think you mean that the simple construction increased the speed of production, to reduce it would be perverse. Slow down and think about what you're saying!
Not exactly radical for the rudders to 'function as direction of flight controls'. Please show a picture of a circular spoiler; I'd love to see one of those.
There is no evidence that the float version actually met the requirement; it was never built.
Was it cancelled for political reasons? Well Convair might say so but there's no evidence I know of to support that. It's more likely that the Bronco won because it had more growth potential and a better overall cost-effectiveness. Having almost double the weapons load might also have played a part.
Congratulations on having mostly relevant video, but you can't just rely on wiki, and if you do you still have to read it correctly and understand what it says!
He means notorious in a good way
That "notorious" description rubbed me the wrong way, as well.
Great video - much thanks.
@Dark Skies: Can you do a video on the Scaled Composites ARES aircraft. (was seen in Iron Eagle 3 movie).
Great Documentary !!!
What a wonderful little plane! With such a heavy carrying capacity it seems a shame she didn't find a civilian application.
I think Convair must be my favourite plane manufacturer, I loved the model 48, but I want to own and live in a catalina, and just travel the world, following the sun, maybe fomula one, or yacht races. I'm not fantasising about a hard life!
I personally liked the plane. I had never heard of it nor had I seen one before. Thank you very much.
Somehow it always fascinated me how american car and airplane industries are so similar in philosophy of their products: They never truly successfully impemented smal car/airplane idea even when they had really good designs.
Flying Cats could Never Work with American Drivers... especially in the 60's with multiple collusion pile ups on the brand new freeways... MBA Farmers in Suits.
No one has developed a truly successful flying car design. Simply too many contradictory designs at work. Either they were decent cars and marginal planes or marginal cars and decent planes-they did neither well and were expensive to produce. Economies of scale did not favor such a design. Combine it with the fact that you's have to create a new federal agency and control system ( air traffic control wouldn't want to deal with flying cars in large numbers) and you have your answer.
Well Convair was sorta persona non grata among defense contractors at that time. The USAF and joint chiefs had a bad aftertaste from the B-36 debacle ( the B-36 was a beyond massive bomber that sunk the USNs super carrier right after they laid the keel) The B-58 Hustler was a mach 2 headache and like the B-36 suffered long production and cost overruns. The Atlas missile likewise suffered the same and was plagued by flaws with the balloon fuel tanks which required they always be pressurized or the missile body would collapse. After those high profile issues the government was loathe to issue a contract to Convair for anything even if General Dynamics was controlling the company. The F-102 and F-106 interceptors weren’t exactly up to what was promised either. So Convair had a bad history of over promising and usually under delivery. Worse still companies like Boeing or Lockheed had civilian contracts they could fall back on for revenue. Convair’s civilian contracts never really materialized
FAT customer base & small = less PROFIT margins
@@weirdshibainu I believe the OP means a small plane OR a small car, not a small flying car...
Thanks for a well spent nine minutes!
This is totally the centre airframe for the a-10. No wonder it can fly with half its wings shot out
Consolidated/Convair =/= Fairchild Republic
@@NikeaTiber oh your definitely right considering the manufacturer, but ideas get reused all the time.
I love this plane !!! I have had a picture of this aircraft as a screen saver for years !!!
As a pilot, I would truly love to fly one of these.