Oops...U2 fries LAX air traffic control computers

a reply to: mindseye1609

There is one two seat aircraft IIRC (I think it's just one), which was an operational airframe that they took and just basically bolted a second cockpit onto.

TU-2S

They do some training in that one, but they mostly do incentive flights with it, where they take journalists, or others up to show them what they do.

All U-2s, except for two (I think it's two) are operational aircraft. NASA got their hands on a pair of U-2C aircraft (non-stretched fuselage) that they converted into ER-2 airframes. They do a lot of upper atmospheric sampling missions with them.

U-2s don't do well below about 50,000 feet, because the air starts to get too thick for the airframe to handle well. It's a very fragile airframe compared to other aircraft. All flights that I've ever seen, with the exception of touch and go flights, take place above 50,000 feet, usually closer to 70,000.

This could have been a U-2, or it could have been an ER-2 on a sampling mission, but 60,000 isn't really an odd altitude for them on a training flight.

I imagine that they are not used to dealing with aircraft at those altitudes, haha. There are not very many U-2's still in service today, as many have been retired, but they actually still use them in recon work. Satellites are the most common way to gather intel from the air, but satellites are travelling over a certain point on earth only at certain times, so it makes sense to have a plane that can do direct flyovers on short notice, quicker than a satellite.

The weird thing is that they completely retired planes like the SR-71, which came later and served the same role as the U-2, and they also have options like the workhorse RQ-4. I just don't see the point in having pilots doing actual flyovers when you can use a drone if satellites cannot get the imagery needed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

right on, makes sense. little turbulence would probably eat a u2 up. i doubt they handle weather that great either.

a reply to: mindseye1609

Oh dear god no. It's (literally, I have this from a pilot) 15 knots between "My airplane is stalling and about to fall out of the sky", and "Wow, my airplane just came apart around my ears". That's roughly 20 mph between stalling, and breaking up.

At least one airplane, flown by a Thai pilot during Vietnam flew into a storm and never came out again. Storms and rough air are death to the airframes.

Here's one of the more interesting things about them (I've done this, as well as the pogo team). Every time one lands, there is a muscle car out there (Camaro, or Pontiac G6) that races along the runway behind them, driven by another U-2 pilot with a VHF radio that talks the aircraft down onto the runway. Once you get down to a certain point the altimeter doesn't read anymore, and the pilot can't look down because of the canopy design, and the fact that he's in a space suit, so he can't see how high above the runway he is. So the pilot in the car will count down until he's on the runway.

a reply to: Zaphod58

awesome, just awesome. i think thats a pontiac GTO, might be the G8 but it sounds more aggressive like the GTO's. I'm scouring the web now to try and find some vintage U2 landing footage to see if they used older muscle cars. could be some epic footage!

heres another video by that same user showing it taking off.... they get off the ground soooo fast. wow!

a reply to: mindseye1609

thats the TU-2S is it?

a reply to: mindseye1609

i also noticed its a G8 in the second video they show the speedo.

a reply to: mindseye1609

Yes, that's the TU-2S.

They take about 3,000 feet on a long run to get airborne. By the time they would circle back around over the base, they were passing through 30,000+ feet. They just point the nose up and go.

Yeah, they use the G8, GTO, and for awhile the Camaro. All muscle cars that can go fast enough to keep up.

Once they land, they attach wheels to the wings so it can taxi.

a reply to: Zaphod58

so call of duty definitely got the U2 wrong then. they show up on scene going very fast and then slow down to a near stop and loiter til their time is up then they BOLT off scene. bit of an exaggeration of capabilities it seems.

a reply to: mindseye1609

Hahaha. Oh dear god yes. They're slow in everything they do except post takeoff climb. They're like a rocket at that point, but everything else is slow and steady.

My bad.

Sorry

mods please delete, duplicate post

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HardCorps

This had nothing to do with radar or ECM. It was, apparently, a software problem. The software did not know the altitude of the U2 (very high). It freaked out, thinking that the plane was in amongst lower traffic.

Yeah, unchecked overflow error.

Was this new software? It isn't as if this is the 1st time certain high-flying planes have been over so cal.

I personally remember feeling the early 90's (1993?) Thursday 'skyquakes' in San Diego. No, not shuttle landings.

Does anybody know what that really was? It was now 20 years ago. (gee I'm old)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mindseye1609

Hahaha. Oh dear god yes. They're slow in everything they do except post takeoff climb. They're like a rocket at that point, but everything else is slow and steady.

Yeah, as an adult, I heard my dad tell stories about the U2 (he worked at one of their airbases in the late 60's when I was a kid). He said he was always amazed that upon takeoff, once that nose turned up, she went vertical and shot up like a rocket until she was just a dot in the sky. Especially amazing, he said, since their ground care was so meticulously careful not to damage it while on the ground.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It was a blast to watch. We used to take the extra radio out with us during launch so we could listen to the tower, to see if they were getting an unrestricted climb on departure. I always loved to hear them get cleared for that. The other planes would get "Cleared to climb to 6,000" etc, then suddenly you hear "Unrestricted climb to 35,000 feet approved." And that sucker was just gone.

Here's another fun one to watch....

Annie Jacobsen wrote a pretty awful book on AREA 51 that has a moderate portion dedicated to the U-2 and its exploits throughout our history. A very very very lame read. I'm an expert myself so I'm disdainful of most of it how she presents it and she definitely has some ridiculous answers for some of the more obscure Area 51 stories. The U-2 however she seems to cover with fewer errors than most of the book. - See more at: www.dreamlandresort.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

In 1970, NASA acquired two early model U-2C aircraft (converted from U-2G) for use as high-altitude research platforms. In 1981, the agency purchased two brand new, purpose built ER-2 aircraft from Lockheed (The original designation was to be ER-1 to match the new TR-1s that were then rolling off the assembly line). The ER-2 made its first flight before the TR-1, and the TR-1 airframes were eventually designated U-2R (and then re-engined as the U-2S).

a reply to: Shadowhawk

I forgot that they had replaced them with purpose built aircraft. I remember the original ones because they were shorter than the other U-2s coming through. It's been a few years, and my memory is filled up, so I'm having to replace things up there in that noggin.

a reply to: Shadowhawk

I agree. That book shouldn't just be taken with a grain of salt it should be burned its that lame. The only good part was some of the roadrunners stories.

The end of the read is incomprehensibly bad.

Totally discredited the author to me. I will never even give her a second chance and read any of her other books. She on the 'just... no" list for me.

Since we're posting videos.

Wondering if you guys have seen this?



Being a British show, you may not have.