Rare photo of a U-2 receiving fuel in flight

This might be of interest to Historians....In May 1961, in a little-known attempt to extend the U-2′s already considerable range, Lockheed modified six CIA U-2s and several USAF U-2s with aerial refueling equipment which allowed the aircraft to receive fuel from either the Boeing KC-97 Strato-tanker or from the Boeing KC-135 Strato-tanker. This extended the aircraft’s range from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 nautical miles (7,400 to 15,000 km) and extended its endurance to more than 14 hours. The J57-powered U-2Bs were re-designated U-2E and the J75-powered U-2Cs were re-designated U-2F. Although the modified U-2s were capable of flying for over 14 hours this took little account of pilot fatigue, and although an additional oxygen cylinder was installed on these aircraft little use was made of this capability. One aircraft was both air-refueling- and carrier-capable and was the only U-2H.

Needless to say, pretty cool pic!

reply to post by boomer135


well i dont know such thing this a new to me..if you want to ask expert Ask.Mr Zhapod..he the one..
i enjoy the read anyway Snf

One of many interesting modifications to the U-2. Surprisingly successful too. I'd hate to be the pilots of the -135 though considering the performance of the U-2 (roughly 15 knots between "fall out of the sky" and "where'd my airplane go?"). You think refueling the A-10 or C-130 was bad. Just imagine this thing.

Zaphod58
One of many interesting modifications to the U-2. Surprisingly successful too. I'd hate to be the pilots of the -135 though considering the performance of the U-2 (roughly 15 knots between "fall out of the sky" and "where'd my airplane go?"). You think refueling the A-10 or C-130 was bad. Just imagine this thing.

see..he the one..

Zaphod58
One of many interesting modifications to the U-2. Surprisingly successful too. I'd hate to be the pilots of the -135 though considering the performance of the U-2 (roughly 15 knots between "fall out of the sky" and "where'd my airplane go?"). You think refueling the A-10 or C-130 was bad. Just imagine this thing.

While this is true...there is one hiccup...

The tanker in the picture is a KC-97 believe it or not!

reply to post by boomer135


I'll see your KC-97, and raise you a KC-135A.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Nice

reply to post by boomer135


How'd you like to refuel that sucker? I bet it would be interesting.

reply to post by boomer135


Here's a very short video of one refueling.
youtu.be...

U-2 Frame is very similar to the old Navy Intruder.

boomer135

Man gets sucked into Jet engine airtake
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FsrNEeqd6Q
www.youtube.com...

Zaphod58
reply to post by boomer135

 

I'll see your KC-97, and raise you a KC-135A.

and I'll raise you a video of a KC-97 doing the deed (identified from the heavy frame around the window)

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think it would suck. Too slow. Be like refueling a C-130. heavy boom

reply to post by boomer135


Is re-fueling the U2 a common practice on U2 missions? I would think that the 6000+ mile endurance and pilot fatigue would make it uncommon.
Maybe the range was different back in the day warranting more frequent aerial re-fueling?

reply to post by Sammamishman


The U-2F was based on the U-2C, which used the J75-P-13 engine. The current variant is the U-2S, which uses the GE F118 engine, which is far more efficient than a J75 could ever dream of being. The early models had a range limitation problem because the turbines were so inefficient. They've been reengined several times over the years, and currently have much more range than the early models, even though they're the same aircraft.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks for the info.
Also, at the altidude the U2-S would have taken on fuel, is there still that small of a "coffin corner" or the difference between stall and break apart speed?

Something else I learned recently is that Taiwan also flew the U2 over China back in the day and lost 2 of them (thanks Wikipedia).

reply to post by Sammamishman


The RAF flew them as well.

The S doesn't need to refuel. Between the upgrades to the engine, and fuel system over the years, the S carries more than enough fuel to complete the mission without having to take on any.

I got to say, it was horrible seeing that man gets sucked into the air intake thingy.

Made me sick. I wonders who he is? What his family think? They must hates planes after that. And seeing that video crops up showing their relative being killed over and over... that is terrible.

I feel real bad for that bloke. I keeps thinking, "Keep LOW! KEEP LOW!" and then, he moves too CLOSE and, whoops! He got sucked in, no time to stop himself from going in. It was so FAST.

Thanks, mate, for this new nightmare. I'll never trust a plane ever again!

reply to post by boomer135


Cool vid of "Top Gear"s James May getting a ride to 70k ft in a U2.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by defman


He didn't die though. He caught a portion of the intake and was able to hold on. The pilot happened to be looking at him as he was pulled in, and immediately shut the engine down. He was fine, didn't even suffer serious injuries.

About 1:21 is the interview with him.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yah, I've seen this video as well. I think I read somewhere that he had a tool in his hand that hit the turbine first and caused the flame-out but it looks like it was actually his helmet.
That's why the flight deck of a carrier is one of the most dangerous places to work in the world.