Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
T-45 fatal in Tellico Plains, Tennessee >

T-45 fatal in Tellico Plains, Tennessee

Notices
Military Military Aviation

T-45 fatal in Tellico Plains, Tennessee

Old 10-10-2017, 04:47 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

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  
Old 10-10-2017, 01:22 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Default

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  
Old 10-10-2017, 01:50 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

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 offline  
Old 10-15-2017, 09:11 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RhinoBallAuto's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Recovering OBOGS addict
Posts: 385
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 offline  
Old 10-15-2017, 02:00 PM
  #25  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 66
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  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:54 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Default

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  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:24 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,169
Default

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  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:47 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
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  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:59 AM
  #29  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

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  
Old 10-16-2017, 10:41 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,169
Default

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  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TonyC
Cargo
21
04-27-2015 02:11 PM
flyboy2508
Safety
0
04-12-2013 05:54 AM
cdillard
Safety
9
11-25-2010 01:02 AM

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices