Talk:Lockheed U-2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
What aircraft is the A-12? It says somewhere that it later became the sr-71. I only need to know this so that I can make the link point directly to that page and not a disambiguation page... Jaberwocky6669 04:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
This article is good, if you want to discover the technical aspects of the U-2 spy plane. however,it has no material on the U-2 crisis of 1960, the most important point in the history of the U-2.It would be better to have all the information on the crisis,on the same page, rather than having a hyperlink to another page. rudraksh m. kulshreshtha, rudrakshmk@yahoo.com,rudrakshmk@msn.com
Contents |
[edit] Flying near maximum altitude
When flying the U-2A and U-2C models (no longer in service) the maximum speed (critical mach) and the minimum speed (stall speed) approach the same number, presenting a narrow window of safe airspeed the plane must maintain. -> This is actually true for all planes flying near their altitude limit (design, not operational). The higher a plane gets, the thinner the air, the higher the stall speed. The point where stall speed is the same as maximum speed (also altitude depending) defines the maximum altitude a plane can reach. Unless someone else is doing it I'm going to change the text some time in the future to make clear, that its high altitude spy missions made flying (not landing, that's another sory ;)) the U-2 so demanding and not the aircraft an sich Alureiter 18:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- All true. Except that with no other aircraft was it standard procedure to fly in that extreme part of the envelope. In most aircraft, in a normal flight regime, you have a good deal of leeway in what your airspeed can be. Not so with the U-2.
- Your oversight in this is the fact that the U-2's "maximum speed" here isn't a limitation of its engine performance, but because of aerodynamic forces. Should it exceed critical mach (which it is capable of when flying that high), the aircraft is essentially going supersonic— something that its wing and airframe cannot endure.
- Your oversight in this is the fact that I didn't wrote that U-2's "maximum speed" is a limitation of its engine performance. - Alureiter 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was certainly implied by the syntax of your commentary, especially since your perspective focused on the operating conditions of ALL aircraft, where the U-2's problem is specific and unique to its operations. Anybody with basic knowledge of aviation and aerodynamics will see that is precisely what you meant when speaking of maximum altitude. Most every other subsonic-only aircraft cannot climb to an altitude where critical Mach speed falls within its flight envelope. Their wings run out of lift long before that can happen. The U-2 at altitude, on the other hand, has to willfully throttle down in order to stay away from the sound barrier.
- Your oversight in this is the fact that I didn't wrote that U-2's "maximum speed" is a limitation of its engine performance. - Alureiter 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stealth
This article is categorised under "Stealth aircraft", but other than that it flies very high, is it stealthy at all? κаллэмакс 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. They tried stringing piano wire all over it, and that helped a bit, but in general, soviet search radar would pick them up the moment they took off.
[edit] Kodak
What does Kodak developing new cameras have to do with any of this? (Ref "History" section of main article)
- Its a recon plane it needs cameras to take aerial photos. User:Gfad1 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
>Did Kodak make the cameras for the planes? Because other companies make cameras.
- Yes it did i believe
In fact, the cameras were designed and built by Edwin Land and James Baker of the Polaroid Corporation. Pjbflynn 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, the camera's original lenses were made by James Baker, under the employment of Perkin-Elmer. Baker would go on to design three iterations, A-1, B-1, and C-1, the later used during the Cuban Missile Crisis "with disappointing results." Baker and Edwin Land wer a part of a White House study, under Jim Killian, of intelligence matters. Land pushed for the aircraft, but did not design the cameras. Kodak made the film, not the cameras.[1] Berrdatherrd 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Taubman, Philip. Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the CIA, and the Hidden Story of America's Space Espionage. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003.
- I stand corrected. Pjbflynn 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Popular Culture
The section needs to be cited; otherwise it's just fan speculation. Giving this a few days and some time for me to do research before I nuke it. --Mmx1 06:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- No idea how definitive it is, but http://www.u2faqs.com/history/a.html#2 claims that the band U2 probably wasn't named after the plane. Mark Grant 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History/ origins
This section currently says that the U-2 project was "initiated in the early 1950s by the CIA...". This is contradicted by an article in the current Invention & Technology magazine. The article states that the U-2 was initially offered to the Air Force, but Curtiss LeMay turned it down. Also that when it went operational with the CIA, due to concerns about military pilots conducting overflights, the pilots were technically civillians; they had to resign their commissions from the AF and then be hired by the CIA. They called the process "sheep-dipping".
I'll have to go pick up the magazine for that article. The history section of this could be improved by the information. Pjbflynn 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Another historical subject is the general lack of this page's mention of the usage of the U-2 in the pre-1980s era or during what year the program was started. Wolfdog 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I just did a bunch of work, mostly re-arranging and trimming, but also some factual corrections in the origin section. The Operational History section could use some more work to flesh it out. Pjbflynn 06:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] possible error?
The article states "These new cameras were able to provide a resolution of 2.5' (76 mm) from an altitude of 60,000 ft". 76 mm is about 3 inches, not 2.5 feet. I'm guessing whoever wrote this meant 76 centimeters (which is approximately 2.5 feet), but I can't be sure. Anyone feel strongly about changing it? Jodamn 04:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The item is sourced, but it's not online. Someone would need to track down the original source to verify the correct figure. I'm placing a {{verify source}} tag for the time being. - BillCJ 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Whoever metricized it meant cm not mm. Correction done. Pjbflynn 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Cool. Thanks for the help! Jodamn 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Problem with spec
Hi all,
There is a problem with the specifications of the U2-R. 11,000 miles ferry is not 5,633 km. Upon inspection of the code, I think there's a problem with the template, but I am unable to fix it. Tony 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't a problem with the template. Just too much data in one place. The 5663 km is the metric version of the combat range. I used some Ferry range fields for that data. -Fnlayson 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] U-2E/F Refueling
What kind of fuel did the U-2E and F use? The reason I ask is because the picture of the U-2 being refueled is labeled as a KC-135Q. The Q model was generally used to offload JP-7 fuel to the SR-71 because of it's ability to carry (and segregate) two types of fuel (It's J57s would burn regular JP-8 type fuel). Is the tanker in the picture really a Q or is it a plain A model KC-135?Ratsbew (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Operational losses
The article states "The only loss of a U-2 during combat operations occurred on 8 October 1966, when Major Leo Stewart, flying with the 349th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, developed mechanical problems high over North Vietnam." But then the Gary Powers aircraft was actually shot down. I understand that the USA was not technically at war with the USSR, but it seems a misleading irony that a mechanical failure is listed as a combat loss, but being knocked out of the sky by a hostile missile is not! --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Key phrase: "operations" Flying over Vietnam "during combat operations" is not misleading, that's when the failure occured. And yes, the US was not at war with the Soviets, so it was not a "combat operation". Btw, "hostile missile" is POV - it was the U-2 that was hostile, invading a sovereign nation's space. Or, as Chekov on Star Trek might have said, the missle was minding its own business on a peaceful mission when the U-2 flew into it. :) - BillCJ (talk)
-
- So flying over the USSR to photograph ICBM sites is not an 'operation'? It must have been a comfort to Colonel Powers as those missile salvoes came in to know that at least he wasn't in combat! The word 'combat' to precede 'operation' is also to some extent POV, since the U-2 is not intended to as a combat platform. Is there a defined difference between an 'operation' and a 'combat operation' for a plane like the U-2? BTW, I used the word hostile to describe the missile as a way of saying that the attack was deliberately aimed at attacking the U-2. It was not an accidental release. It was the intentional use of a deadly weapon to shoot down what was obviously considered a military intrusion. I didn't use the word 'hostile' to apportion political blame. I use it to compare the loss of the U-2 over Vietnam, which was not through the active intevention of the opponent state.
Look, I was just trawling past the article whilst looking for soemthing else and it just struck me as curious. I guess I was caught by the implied invulnerability (to hostile fire) of the U-2 in that sentence about "the only loss". --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- "implied invulnerability (to hostile fire) of the U-2"? How many US planes were shot down in Vietnam? (Hundreds.) How many of those were U-2s? (Zero.) Perhaps that phrase should be changed from "during combat operations" to "during the Vietnam War", which is what I gather the sentence is talking about from the subject of the paragraph. I honestly think you're reading far too much into one simple sentence. I'll see if anyone else thinks that would help, and change it in a few days. As an encyclopedia, we need to be as clear as possible, but at some point, we can't control what others will infer based on their own world views or understanding of English or one of its dialects. Sorry if I seemed harsh before, I didn't mean to be. - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
