T-45 Updates?
 

Not to beat a dead horse but it seems the pressurization schedule of the T-45 could be a contributing factor in some of these hypoxia incidents.

Consider the T-2C. It has a 5 psi differential. The cockpit begins to pressurize at 8,000 feet and maintains that 8,000 foot cockpit until 23,400 feet of aircraft altitude after which the cabin climbs from 8,000 while maintaining the 5 psi differential. At 27,000 feet of aircraft altitude the cockpit is still at 10,000 feet. The aircraft is also fitted with a separate LOX system that provides 100% oxygen that is available for altitudes above 27,000 feet or anytime the crew elects to use it.

The T-45 has a 4 psi differential that pressurizes at 5,000 feet but doesn't reach full differential until 40,000 feet of aircraft altitude (which I imagine is rarely reached in everyday flight training). At an aircraft altitude of only 14,000 feet the cockpit is already at 10,000 feet. Anything higher and the crew needs to be on the OBOGS system.

Just seems like a big difference between flying at 27,000 feet in the T-2 with a 10,000 cockpit and reliable, separate 100% oxygen system available if you need it and being in the T-45 at 27,000 feet where the cockpit is at 16,000 feet and you have to be on the OBOGS system which has serious reliability issues and no real back-up.

We used to go to 25K in the T-37 with no pressurization, you were real sleepy at the end of those flights.

No updates? Trying to figure out what the T-45 has over the T-2C, or a new build Buckeye with engines uprated from the J-85s and all the gee-whiz avionics added. As it is the T-2C has a better power to weight ratio than the T-45 not to mention a normal pressurization schedule and an entirely separate and reliable supplemental oxygen system. And it flies with one engine out. So far there have been six losses of T-45s due to engine failure or 'bird strikes' which I believe usually means a bird down an air intake.

The T2 does not have the performance to be a suitable trainer for future strike/fighter pilots.

Well the 50 year-old T-2C has a better power to weight ratio than the T-45. 2.25 lbs of weight per pound of thrust at max weight for the T-2 compared to 2.54 pounds for the T-45. It would be a lot easier to retrofit an even more modern turbofan to the T-2 design than it would be to make a twin-engine goshawk. If there are any magic aero features of the goshawk they are not readily apparent.

The T2 had a big straight wing with a 93 knot approach speed. Top speed at cruise was about .7 Mach. On a good day down low it might get to 380 knots. It was a basic jet trainer that was extremely forgiving. The TA4J was used for advanced training. The T45 replaced both airframes.

Well, for starters,... there are a lot of T-2 aircraft that are in museums, on poles at the gate, or in "storage" at D-M.

The T-2 is gone. Let it go.

Well, there are a lot of F-16, F-15, and F/A 18 guard gates as well. And a few BAe Hawks as well. Not sure what your point is.

The Hawker-Siddeley (BAe) Hawk was an antique before it was even considered to be a Navy trainer. If the Ford Pinto was an airplane...

I have flown all 3 aircraft. 2 of them extensively. The T2 is a basic jet trainer. It was never invisioned or considered as a advanced trainer.

All I am saying is that the T-45 has a lot of issues and is no way a state of the art trainer. European and Asian students are being trained today on the KAI T-50 and the Alenia M-346 either of which are vastly superior to what looks like the severely flawed, underperforming T-45 design that someone should have to answer for.