Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "PilotPhotog" channel.

  1. Calling the powerplants "props with jet engines" may confuse the clueless. It's fine to use precise wording like "turboprop". They were a delight to work on at Sembach (20th TASS) when they were the main NATO FAC in the later Cold War thanks to the Navy loading them with radios in order to tank the design. That backfired since the two FM-622 with relay capability were ideal for talking with ground forces, the 618T-3 HF for long distance comms (tankers, bombers, AWACS), the ARC-164 UHF for tactical air comms and VHF Wilcox 807 for utility comms. The loss of Bronco was objectively stupid since helicopter performance is inferior and their loss rate doesn't deter adoption. Bronco of course would have been ideal for A-stan because the US had ZERO loitering FAC/attack bird available for that war and Bronco unlike helicopters performs fine at those altitudes. Here's a fun question few people ask: Why didn't Operation Red Wings have LOITERING FIXED WING AIR COVER? Grunts in SEA had vastly more and more suited to COIN systems like Skyraider, Bronco, Skymaster (no ejection seats and no safe egress in flight means O-2 deserved to be retired), Mohawk and more. Bronco did well over Syria but at this point drones (which don't need CSAR thus avoiding disasters like that depicted in "Bat 21") are a better more precise fit for those operations.
    2