| David Hatcher|
| Prototype OV1 caught outside at Guthrie Field, Fort Rucker Alabama about Oct 2005.
I posted a "photo" incorrectly below thinking I had the picture of the red and white one. The photo is actually a early wooden mockup. Note the "T" tail and "MARINE" on the side. I had always heard the OV1 was originally intended for the Navy or Marines. The very stout and narrow landing gear is typically Grumman and the Navy has been their primary customer forever!
The aircraft is in non display storage.
11/30/2007 @ 17:48 [ref: 18741]
| Michael Coriell|
| All OV-1 mohawks had speed brakes and all models used them.
I was a crewchief with the 73rd SAC from Sept 1969 to Sept 1970 in Viet Nam.
05/02/2007 @ 20:07 [ref: 16379]
| perry pridgen|
| I believe that the yov-1 was the first stab at a jointly funded aircraft,it had specs drawn up to meet: forward air control ,vstol,carrier duty, observation and attack. the various services put in their Two cents (thus the reason for dive brakes,tail hook, drop tanks,various hard points on the wings, huge heavy duty landing gear and a high stance and the all essential oversized engines and props. |
01/05/2007 @ 19:02 [ref: 15116]
| J. Shannon|
| I was associated with this aircraft while assigned to the U.S. Army Aviation Test Board at Fort Rucker, 1959 - 61. I was with the YAO-1AF program BIS trials at Pax. River with the Navy. I also participated in a non-stop flight from Fort Rucker Alabama to El Paso TX. It was not a comfortable aircraft to fly in. |
03/01/2004 @ 10:55 [ref: 6882]
| Dino Lehares|
| It was not developed for the Air Force. I believe it started with the Navy (that is why Grumman was involved). The Army joined in and then the Navy dropped out. The early models delivered to the Army had speed brakes on each side (never activated) to be used for carrier landings. Names I remember early in the Mohawk program are Bob Benito and Ron Spencer. Are you guy's still around? |
08/31/2001 @ 05:40 [ref: 3077]
| Cliff McKeithan|
| The YOV-1A was developed for the U.S. Army, not the Air Force. |
02/25/2001 @ 14:10 [ref: 1701]