Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Military Military Aviation
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-10-2017, 04:47 AM   #21
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 9,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
The RR Turbomeca Adour engine in the Hawk goes back to 1968. There are dozens of high-bypass lightweight turbofans developed in the last few years by several manufacturers that could have been selected to power a modern twin-engine trainer. For whatever reason, the Navy bought an old design airplane powered by a single old design engine, and did so at a horrendous budget cost. I think it was a horrible decision for which no one is being held accountable.
The Hawke was ordered by the Navy in 1981. First flight was in 1988.
sailingfun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2017, 01:22 PM   #22
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
The Hawke was ordered by the Navy in 1981. First flight was in 1988.
The BAe Hawk, with the RR Adour engine, first flew in 1974 when BAe was still Hawker Siddeley. At least the original had an oxygen system that worked.
F4E Mx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2017, 01:50 PM   #23
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 11,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
The BAe Hawk, with the RR Adour engine, first flew in 1974 when BAe was still Hawker Siddeley. At least the original had an oxygen system that worked.
Both the airframe and engines are highly updated versions.
Plain and simple. Pointing out that the first flight of the original engine was in 1968 is meaningless.

OBOGS has had trouble in nearly ALL airframes.
Guess making breathable O2 out of engine bleed air isn't simple.

Your habit of always trying to make more out of a problem than there is makes your posts less and less meaningful in my opinion.
USMCFLYR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 09:11 AM   #24
Line Holder
 
RhinoBallAuto's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Recovering OBOGS addict
Posts: 93
Default

If anyone thinks an 1981 era BAE Hawk is anyway close to the same airplane as the T-45C Goshawk, I would ask that you take your expertise elsewhere... I would argue you have less to offer the discussion than anyone cares to refute.
RhinoBallAuto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 02:00 PM   #25
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: T-6B Aft
Posts: 6
Default

This one sucks. I cruised with the IP in '13-14 and crushed beers with him in Bahrain. Guess it was only a matter of time before someone I knew got their number called. Stay safe out there.
Synixman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 08:54 AM   #26
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBallAuto View Post
If anyone thinks an 1981 era BAE Hawk is anyway close to the same airplane as the T-45C Goshawk, I would ask that you take your expertise elsewhere... I would argue you have less to offer the discussion than anyone cares to refute.
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.
F4E Mx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 09:24 AM   #27
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.
It's a trainer dipchit, not a frontline fighter. The other Hawk versions can't land on the boat. Care to fancy a guess how many carrier quald aviators have earned their wings in it?

It's got enough range to take good deal low level cross countries, enough ceiling to go to 410, and enough payload to drop mk76's or a blivet to haul all your crap on the road.
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 09:47 AM   #28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 130
Default

All I am saying is that if the Navy had bought, or developed, a twin-engine trainer with a reliable oxygen system there would be quite a few more airplanes on the line today and quite a few more Navy pilots alive. The whole wretched program has 'Political Influence' written all over it, because you really can't achieve this level of stupid.
F4E Mx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 09:59 AM   #29
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: RJ
Posts: 17,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
Why yes, the US Navy version is heavier, slower, has less range, payload, and a lower service ceiling than most other Hawk versions. This after only 14 years in development for the Navy.
It's a custom-built tailhook trainer. It's fine for that, other than OBOGs malfunctions which are more likely a result of technical issues than corruption.
rickair7777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2017, 10:41 AM   #30
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
All I am saying is that if the Navy had bought, or developed, a twin-engine trainer with a reliable oxygen system there would be quite a few more airplanes on the line today and quite a few more Navy pilots alive. The whole wretched program has 'Political Influence' written all over it, because you really can't achieve this level of stupid.
OBOGS is a system, its in the Hornet, Super, Raptor, etc. It's failures are not unique to the airplane. A twin engine trainer for the Navy Jet pipeline buys you nothing more more cost. So you're saying the A-4 was a terrible airplane.....
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx TonyC Cargo 21 04-27-2015 02:11 PM
9 fatal accidents due to Loss of Control flyboy2508 Safety 0 04-12-2013 05:54 AM
Fatal crash information sought cdillard Safety 9 11-25-2010 01:02 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.3, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017 Internet Brands, Inc.