More U-2 whiplash

a reply to: Zaphod58



did you have to drive right along the side and attach them from the flat bed or what? how did they click into place? seems sketchy for the u-2 and the people attaching the legs?

a reply to: penroc3

The wingtips are reinforced, and curve down, like a skid. When they stop, which is extremely quickly, one wing drops onto that skid. Four guys run out with the pogos, one to position one to lock it on each wing, the fifth guy grabs the wing and pulls it level so they can attach the pogos.

On takeoff, two guys run out and pull the pins. About a hundred feet down the runway the wings start flying and the pogos detach. They drive out and pick them up and toss them in the truck.

a reply to: Zaphod58

so they drag when they land? and then are just propped up for storage?

a reply to: penroc3

They stay level until they're almost at a dead stop, then fall onto one wingtip. Then you attach the wheels so it can taxi.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

The wingtips are reinforced, and curve down, like a skid. When they stop, which is extremely quickly, one wing drops onto that skid. Four guys run out with the pogos, one to position one to lock it on each wing, the fifth guy grabs the wing and pulls it level so they can attach the pogos.

On takeoff, two guys run out and pull the pins. About a hundred feet down the runway the wings start flying and the pogos detach. They drive out and pick them up and toss them in the truck.

I love reading the aircraft threads - can't admit to being able to contribute one bit, but I enjoy learning about them.

In my layman's mind, this seems like there could have been a better design than running behind the aircraft and picking up the pieces...with all the amazing @#$ we can dream, engineer, build and accomplish, it makes me smile to imagine two guys running along behind this plane.

a reply to: Seamrog

It's funny, because you would think they were fairly heavy because of the length. But when it drops onto the wingtip opposite where the crew is, it points the nearer wingtip up pretty high. The fifth guy runs out, jumps in the air and grabs the wing and it drops right down like it's plastic and light as can be.

a reply to: Seamrog

it was probably the lesser of two evils.

seems ALLOT easier to have a few guys driving behind and picking up pieces(makes me chuckle to my self as well) then coming up with super light weight lading gear and all the bits and pieces that would need to fit in the wingtips?

a reply to: penroc3

Weight is a huge concern. It was designed to be as light as possible. The difference between stall speed and the aircraft breaking apart around your ears is ridiculously small.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I image that long wing acts as one hell of a lever with the center line of the fuselage as the pivot point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

breaking apart from to much speed? is the stall speed listed? i would think with BIG glider wings it would coast quite effortlessly and the jet would just be an added boost

a reply to: penroc3

Yup.

High aspect ratio wings give the U-2 some glider-like characteristics, with an engine out glide ratio of about 23:1,[22] comparable to gliders of the time. To maintain their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h) below its maximum speed. This narrow window was referred to by the pilots as the "coffin corner",[23] because breaching either limit would likely cause the wings or tail to separate.[24] For 90% of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a decrease in altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe.[16]

a reply to: Sammamishman

Add to that the fact that it doesn't have hydraulics and takes up to 75 lbs of force to move the controls, in a full space suit, and its an incredibly hard airplane to fly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

just goes to show the 'set' these guys had/have. can you imagine falling from 70000 ft into china....no thanks...surly there must be control systems now with all the upgrades and what not. surly if they want a unmanned version there not going to have actuators in the cockpit yanking 75lbs

did the U-2 not have guitar string set up awhile back to help with radar or something like that?

a reply to: penroc3

It's actually higher with the later aircraft. Longer fuselage and more powerful engine.

The optionally manned version will get a new wing box, a ten foot wing extension, and actuators. Hydraulic systems in the U-2 don't react too well to the altitude, and add too much weight.

That's one of the things they tried to reduce the RCS. That particular attempt ended badly IIRC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i cant remember if it was CNN or BBC that got a ride in a FOXBAT as well as a u-2 and the view out the window.....BEAUTIFUL i guess the view might be worth the tough flight characteristics of the U-2....scratch that....the view and the ride would be worth it

a reply to: penroc3

One of the most amazing pictures I've ever seen was from an SR-71. Brian Shul took a camera up, put his reflective visor down, and did a self portrait.

tinypic.com...

just looks like hes going fast

a reply to: penroc3

If you can afford them his books make for a great read, and have incredible pictures.

a reply to: penroc3

One of my favorite U2 Videos.

a reply to: Sammamishman

ahhh thank you.....so beautiful i understand the presenters tears(admitted or not)...



"a view of eternity" couldnt have said it better.

it makes me smile knowing that our men are up there looking down on us