Article about the U2

[kallend 2,113]

www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/22plane.html?emc=eta1

Of course, being in the NYT, the righties probably won't want to read it

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Of course, being in the NYT, the righties probably won't want to read it

Why wouldn't I? I love fiction.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

several pilots said the most common problems are sharp joint pain or a temporary fogginess.

Obviously those pilots are all under 50

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course, being in the NYT, the righties probably won't want to read it

It's a shame that you take a nice non-political article about the U2 aircraft and how it's helping our troops abroad, and the only comment you can think to make about it is to use it as an excuse to bash republicans.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Of course, being in the NYT, the righties probably won't want to read it

It's a shame that you take a nice non-political article about the U2 aircraft and how it's helping our troops abroad, and the only comment you can think to make about it is to use it as an excuse to bash republicans.

Thanks for the buzz-kill, there, JR.

Of course, you gave the same Grouchy reproach to RushMC for the title to his thread about DNA profiling, "Hey, libs, you're gonna love this!", right?

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Of course, being in the NYT, the righties probably won't want to read it

It's a shame that you take a nice non-political article about the U2 aircraft and how it's helping our troops abroad, and the only comment you can think to make about it is to use it as an excuse to bash republicans.

Well, we have had one of your fellow travelers in the past month claim that "pajamasmedia" is credible and the NYT isn't, so take your whine to him.

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

Irony score 10/10

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

Irony score 10/10

I don't believe THAT, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

Irony score 10/10

I don't believe THAT, either.

Oh dear, you've spoiled my entire day.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

So it appears that the U2 will still be used at least until 2013 when a drone replacement is refined enough beyond it's current capabilities to take over duties from the U2. It is incredible that the U2 has been going strong all these years (almost as impressive as the mighty de Havilland Twin Otter ... LOL). Then in 2013 the question remains, will the life span of the U2 be extended? again? or will the aircraft finally be sent to pasture. When it is retired, will it be destroyed? or will it find it's way to the massive aircraft cemetery in AZ? or will it be sold on the used market and the only reason why this thread was started was because Kallend wants to buy his own U2? (LOL ... probably not ... just joking).

I have to say, the U2 has definitely lived a long life and must be an amazing aircraft to still be used in service 50+ years into it's existence. But ... this thread could have easily just been about the U2 and not politics. However the good professor just could not resist the stab he felt he needed to make at the end of his first post.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[matthewcline 0]

I am sure a bulk of the fleet will end up at various AF and Intel Services Museums and a few back at Lockheed and the Skunk Works for more study/R&D.

Of course that just makes sense and it will probably be wrong.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[BikerBabe 0]

My favorite aircraft in the inventory. My first AF job was involved with the sensor and comms systems for the U2...i could have told you this was coming 10 years ago, when they first started talking about retiring the plane.

It isn't just the flexibility of the missions the U2 can perform. it's the fact that it would literally take 2 or 3 global hawks to do what one U2 can do, sensor-wise.

Not to mention the way the GH is flown doesn't really lend itself to flexibility in the mission design.

I loved my trips out to Beale. I even got to ride along in one of the sports cars they use to support the U2s when they land. did you know the plane only has 2 landing gear? one front, one rear. On wing rests on a skid for takeoff, until the plane picks up enough speed to lift that wing off the ground. then on landing, the pilot literally has to balance the plane on two wheels (like a bike) until the ground speed is slow enough to allow one wing to drop gently to the ground.

It is an amazing aircraft. Also, did you know the U2s in production today are essentially an entirely different aircraft than the original ones developed in the 1950s. the U2 was designed by Kelly Johnson as basically an F-104 Starfighter with really long wings. it had one engine, and was much smaller than it is now. Modern U2-R/TR-1s have 2 engines and are probably about 30% larger than the original ones. The aircraft flying today aren't 60 years old, like many articles lead you to believe. the modern ones came off a production line that started in the mid 1980s.

I'll be very sad when they retire them, but I predict it won't be in 2013.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[DiverMike 5]

Thank you for posting relevant, interesting information in speakers corner without labeling yourself a republican or democrat. Maybe you will start a trend.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It isn't just the flexibility of the missions the U2 can perform. it's the fact that it would literally take 2 or 3 global hawks to do what one U2 can do, sensor-wise.

Bit troubling to see how vulnerable the pilots are to decompression sickness. Seems like a need for a new flight suit.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

is like an updated version of an Etch A Sketch in an era of high-tech computer games.

Hehe...i've felt this way several times in the last year or two.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[masterrig 1]

Really interesting! I recall, as a kid, seeing the first jets. At the time, I really liked the Delta wing jets. When the B-52 made it's appearance, I was totally awe struck! I grew-up near an old 'SAC' base. It was free seats for the air shows!


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm jealous of your devoted fan club here, John. Take a bow.

[champu 1]

A worthwhile read on the subject (as well as on the A-12 and F-117) is Ben Rich's memoir entitled Skunk Works (ISBN 0316743003)

[LongWayToFall 0]

Skunk Works sure is a cool book. I have seen some U2s flying out of beale from the air at fairly close range, they sure are neat aircraft. I heard that at cruise altitude, they are literally only a couple mph away from stalling because the air is so thin.

[mnealtx 0]

Re: wing pogos...

Saw that at PSAB, too - they had a pickup that they'd go tearing down the runway in after the plane crossed the threshold.

Neat to watch, that's for sure!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

From the guy who states: "I got it where you did" in response to reqs for data.

The guy who rarely posts citations, just images and then refuses to post the source.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My favorite aircraft in the inventory. My first AF job was involved with the sensor and comms systems for the U2...i could have told you this was coming 10 years ago, when they first started talking about retiring the plane.

It isn't just the flexibility of the missions the U2 can perform. it's the fact that it would literally take 2 or 3 global hawks to do what one U2 can do, sensor-wise.

Not to mention the way the GH is flown doesn't really lend itself to flexibility in the mission design.

I loved my trips out to Beale. I even got to ride along in one of the sports cars they use to support the U2s when they land. did you know the plane only has 2 landing gear? one front, one rear. On wing rests on a skid for takeoff, until the plane picks up enough speed to lift that wing off the ground. then on landing, the pilot literally has to balance the plane on two wheels (like a bike) until the ground speed is slow enough to allow one wing to drop gently to the ground.

It is an amazing aircraft. Also, did you know the U2s in production today are essentially an entirely different aircraft than the original ones developed in the 1950s. the U2 was designed by Kelly Johnson as basically an F-104 Starfighter with really long wings. it had one engine, and was much smaller than it is now. Modern U2-R/TR-1s have 2 engines and are probably about 30% larger than the original ones. The aircraft flying today aren't 60 years old, like many articles lead you to believe. the modern ones came off a production line that started in the mid 1980s.

I'll be very sad when they retire them, but I predict it won't be in 2013.

Not a real balancing act, gliders operate under the same premise. The US is basically a powered glider.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

From the guy who states: "I got it where you did" in response to reqs for data.

The guy who rarely posts citations, just images and then refuses to post the source.

I don't post cites in reply to you because you fucking WHINE so much about it - deal with it.

Refusal to post cite to a whiner != lying. Thus endeth today's dictionary lesson.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

(There's a parable somewhere about reaping what you sow).

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads.

From the guy who states: "I got it where you did" in response to reqs for data.

The guy who rarely posts citations, just images and then refuses to post the source.

I don't post cites in reply to you because you fucking WHINE so much about it - deal with it.

Refusal to post cite to a whiner != lying. Thus endeth today's dictionary lesson.

You don't post a citation as you are deceptive. You try to slide in nominal GDP for Real GDP. Any time any person flat out refuses to cite a sourcce, their credibility has been shot, regardless of party affiliation. I think that is pretty universal.