ADVERTISEMENT

The U-2 is still flying - and is regarded as the most difficult to fly in the AF

tarheelbybirth

HB King
Apr 17, 2003
76,760
79,486
113
At 70,000ft and above, the “Dragon Lady” still has the stratosphere largely to itself, just as it did 65 years ago on its first flight. At these altitudes, the pilot is more astronaut than aviator. In the cocoon-like, pressurised cockpit of the U-2, wrapped in a bulky pressure suit with a large spherical helmet, the pilot breathes 100% oxygen. Some of the features of this kit can still be found on spacesuits in use today.

In air this thin the margins between living and dying are narrow. Indeed, the pilot faces the constant danger of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and altitude-induced decompression sickness. Like any plane, the U-2 has to fly fast enough that the plane doesn’t stall and not so fast that the plane breaks up – the challenge for the U-2 pilot is that at 70,000ft there may be only a few miles an hour difference. An accidental nudge on the controls could spell disaster.

Close to the ground the plane’s mechanical controls, easy to manipulate at high altitude, now take muscle power. The U-2’s lightweight design makes the plane liable to float over runways, bounce back into the air if the landing is too hard and very sensitive to cross winds. The weight-saving bicycle-style landing gear makes it difficult – and hard work – to keep the plane in a straight line and its wings level as it slows down.

The visibility from the cockpit is so limited that when landing the pilot has to rely on instructions from another U-2 pilot driving a car that races on to the runway when the plane is coming in to land. These chase cars have reached speeds close to 140mph (224km/h).

“The U-2 really attracts the kind of pilots who want to say ‘I fly the most difficult aeroplane in the inventory’,” says Greg Birdsall, Lockheed Martin’s U-2 deputy programme manager. “They take a pilot candidate and put him in a trainer aircraft with a seasoned instructor pilot in the backseat to see how they take to the peculiar handling characteristics of the aeroplane.” Only around 10–15% of pilots who apply to join the programme are accepted.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201210-lockheed-u-2-spyplane?utm_source=pocket-newtab
 
65 years and still going because we don't have a better option? Damn fine job back in the day and you'd think we could come up with something easier to fly. Put SpaceX on it, they'd have it done in 2 years with a working prototype in 3.
 
65 years and still going because we don't have a better option? Damn fine job back in the day and you'd think we could come up with something easier to fly. Put SpaceX on it, they'd have it done in 2 years with a working prototype in 3.
They have tried to replace it...the U-2 is still undefeated.
 
Helluva plane. If they had a viable replacement for it, it'd have gone away by now.
 
65 years and still going because we don't have a better option? Damn fine job back in the day and you'd think we could come up with something easier to fly. Put SpaceX on it, they'd have it done in 2 years with a working prototype in 3.

We had a much better option, but it was too expensive to keep flying. I'm not convinced we don't have something better, though. There's a lot of smoke about an Aurora aircraft program that we've been running for quite a while now.

But, the U-2 is still magnitudes of orders cheaper to operate so that's why we don't get rid of it. Plus it is still effective to be used in most places around the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
I refueled a ton of those in UAE. It was pretty neat to see the Cameros run with them on landing and takeoff. The crew chiefs would also have to jump up and sit on the wings as it came back in to weight the wings down. They only took fuel just before take off because they are leaky too. CSB
 
At 70,000ft and above, the “Dragon Lady” still has the stratosphere largely to itself, just as it did 65 years ago on its first flight. At these altitudes, the pilot is more astronaut than aviator. In the cocoon-like, pressurised cockpit of the U-2, wrapped in a bulky pressure suit with a large spherical helmet, the pilot breathes 100% oxygen. Some of the features of this kit can still be found on spacesuits in use today.

In air this thin the margins between living and dying are narrow. Indeed, the pilot faces the constant danger of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and altitude-induced decompression sickness. Like any plane, the U-2 has to fly fast enough that the plane doesn’t stall and not so fast that the plane breaks up – the challenge for the U-2 pilot is that at 70,000ft there may be only a few miles an hour difference. An accidental nudge on the controls could spell disaster.

Close to the ground the plane’s mechanical controls, easy to manipulate at high altitude, now take muscle power. The U-2’s lightweight design makes the plane liable to float over runways, bounce back into the air if the landing is too hard and very sensitive to cross winds. The weight-saving bicycle-style landing gear makes it difficult – and hard work – to keep the plane in a straight line and its wings level as it slows down.

The visibility from the cockpit is so limited that when landing the pilot has to rely on instructions from another U-2 pilot driving a car that races on to the runway when the plane is coming in to land. These chase cars have reached speeds close to 140mph (224km/h).

“The U-2 really attracts the kind of pilots who want to say ‘I fly the most difficult aeroplane in the inventory’,” says Greg Birdsall, Lockheed Martin’s U-2 deputy programme manager. “They take a pilot candidate and put him in a trainer aircraft with a seasoned instructor pilot in the backseat to see how they take to the peculiar handling characteristics of the aeroplane.” Only around 10–15% of pilots who apply to join the programme are accepted.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201210-lockheed-u-2-spyplane?utm_source=pocket-newtab

That's

 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
One of my favorite collection platforms...provided Collection Management as well as Threat Warning to sorties out of Beale AFB (DCSG-2) and while deployed out of DCSG-1 during my active duty days.
 
At 70,000ft and above, the “Dragon Lady” still has the stratosphere largely to itself, just as it did 65 years ago on its first flight. At these altitudes, the pilot is more astronaut than aviator. In the cocoon-like, pressurised cockpit of the U-2, wrapped in a bulky pressure suit with a large spherical helmet, the pilot breathes 100% oxygen. Some of the features of this kit can still be found on spacesuits in use today.

In air this thin the margins between living and dying are narrow. Indeed, the pilot faces the constant danger of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and altitude-induced decompression sickness. Like any plane, the U-2 has to fly fast enough that the plane doesn’t stall and not so fast that the plane breaks up – the challenge for the U-2 pilot is that at 70,000ft there may be only a few miles an hour difference. An accidental nudge on the controls could spell disaster.

Close to the ground the plane’s mechanical controls, easy to manipulate at high altitude, now take muscle power. The U-2’s lightweight design makes the plane liable to float over runways, bounce back into the air if the landing is too hard and very sensitive to cross winds. The weight-saving bicycle-style landing gear makes it difficult – and hard work – to keep the plane in a straight line and its wings level as it slows down.

The visibility from the cockpit is so limited that when landing the pilot has to rely on instructions from another U-2 pilot driving a car that races on to the runway when the plane is coming in to land. These chase cars have reached speeds close to 140mph (224km/h).

“The U-2 really attracts the kind of pilots who want to say ‘I fly the most difficult aeroplane in the inventory’,” says Greg Birdsall, Lockheed Martin’s U-2 deputy programme manager. “They take a pilot candidate and put him in a trainer aircraft with a seasoned instructor pilot in the backseat to see how they take to the peculiar handling characteristics of the aeroplane.” Only around 10–15% of pilots who apply to join the programme are accepted.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201210-lockheed-u-2-spyplane?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I played golf with a guy who led the camera project for the U2 among others.
Guy had at least three advanced degrees. Friend of a guy in the condo i use to live in.
He got lost twice getting to the next tee box despite a path going from previous green and rode with his wife who knitted the whole round. Seriously.
 
But can the right one be there? The U2 is flexible. You can swap out what electronics it's carrying in minutes and have it up and flying. There's a reason we're still using them.
There's nothing quite like the "wet film" images that thing captures when it comes to imagery/mapping. It's one of the reasons it's still in use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kinnick.At.Night
I refueled a ton of those in UAE. It was pretty neat to see the Cameros run with them on landing and takeoff. The crew chiefs would also have to jump up and sit on the wings as it came back in to weight the wings down. They only took fuel just before take off because they are leaky too. CSB

They leak when on the ground because they are designed to fly really high. The pieces of the plane expand at higher altitudes so it no longer leaks. Unfortunately, close to the ground the pieces don't fit as as snuggly so they do leak. It was actually designed to be that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral and lucas80
I refueled a ton of those in UAE. It was pretty neat to see the Cameros run with them on landing and takeoff. The crew chiefs would also have to jump up and sit on the wings as it came back in to weight the wings down. They only took fuel just before take off because they are leaky too. CSB
Man, we were always begging to ride in the chase vehicles when we were at the Deid. Seen some videos, but never got a chance to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
Helluva plane. If they had a viable replacement for it, it'd have gone away by now.

Actually the SR-71 is a better plane, but it was cancelled due to politics. The official reason was that it didn't have a real time data uplink but congress refused to fund installing real time data uplinks in the SR-71.
 
You would be naive to think we don't have space assets that do this :)

They don’t like to move them because it burns up fuel that can’t be replaced.
Also, the bad guys can track them and know when to hide stuff.
 
I refueled a ton of those in UAE. It was pretty neat to see the Cameros run with them on landing and takeoff. The crew chiefs would also have to jump up and sit on the wings as it came back in to weight the wings down. They only took fuel just before take off because they are leaky too. CSB
the 71 leaked like a sieve.....by design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral and GOHOX69
I'll try to respond to a few of the posts and answer any other questions that I can on an internet forum. I flew the U-2 from 2010 until my retirement last year, total of 1147 flight hours. Here's a video that Air Force public affairs did of a mission I flew over Iraq/Syria in the summer of 2016. And yes, I probably checked HROT Off Topic when I got back to my room that evening :)

U-2 pilot prep and mission
 
I'll try to respond to a few of the posts and answer any other questions that I can on an internet forum. I flew the U-2 from 2010 until my retirement last year, total of 1147 flight hours. Here's a video that Air Force public affairs did of a mission I flew over Iraq/Syria in the summer of 2016. And yes, I probably checked HROT Off Topic when I got back to my room that evening :)

U-2 pilot prep and mission
Congratulations. And thank you for your service.
 
I'll try to respond to a few of the posts and answer any other questions that I can on an internet forum. I flew the U-2 from 2010 until my retirement last year, total of 1147 flight hours. Here's a video that Air Force public affairs did of a mission I flew over Iraq/Syria in the summer of 2016. And yes, I probably checked HROT Off Topic when I got back to my room that evening :)

U-2 pilot prep and mission
Man, that's awesome! My old boss was an F-16 driver and I loved hearing his stories!
 
If folks are interested about other reconnaissance assets, load up Palmdale afb on google maps, then take a gander. We've got plenty of high altitude, long loitering global hawks and their successors. Not to mention the truly classified things.
 
But can the right one be there? The U2 is flexible. You can swap out what electronics it's carrying in minutes and have it up and flying. There's a reason we're still using them.

All true. Satellites have a known orbit and it takes considerable time and effort to get them somewhere else. The bad guys know exactly when satellites are going to be overhead, it's no secret. The U-2 can fly pretty much anywhere and hang out for 10+ hours, satellites can't do that. Also, satellites can't see through clouds. The U-2 has radar imagery sensors that allow a pretty good picture through any type of weather.
 
Also, the bad guys can track them and know when to hide stuff.
Nope you are wrong there are several inclined geostationary orbit satellites in the military. Additionally, we have nearly all eyes always on now with several assets covering multiple pass over most locations extremely frequently during a given day.
 
Actually the SR-71 is a better plane, but it was cancelled due to politics. The official reason was that it didn't have a real time data uplink but congress refused to fund installing real time data uplinks in the SR-71.

The disadvantage of the SR was that it had limited fuel, and it took almost 200 miles to do a 180 degree turn. So, it could get 1-2 passes over an area before it had to re-fuel or head home.
 
All true. Satellites have a known orbit and it takes considerable time and effort to get them somewhere else. The bad guys know exactly when satellites are going to be overhead, it's no secret. The U-2 can fly pretty much anywhere and hang out for 10+ hours, satellites can't do that. Also, satellites can't see through clouds. The U-2 has radar imagery sensors that allow a pretty good picture through any type of weather.
You might want to Google synthetic aperture radars. There are plenty of space assets that have this and they see through clouds just fine. It isn't 1957.
 
They leak when on the ground because they are designed to fly really high. The pieces of the plane expand at higher altitudes so it no longer leaks. Unfortunately, close to the ground the pieces don't fit as as snuggly so they do leak. It was actually designed to be that way.


The leaking plane was actually the SR-71. It leaked because the friction with the air at high speeds caused its material to expand, thereby sealing off all the leaks.

The U-2 would leak occasionally, but it wasn't designed that way, unlike the SR.
 
One of my favorite collection platforms...provided Collection Management as well as Threat Warning to sorties out of Beale AFB (DCSG-2) and while deployed out of DCSG-1 during my active duty days.

Thanks for all your help! The only time I didn't enjoy talking was when the MOC would invariably call with an hourly update right as I was trying to take a whiz.
 
If you like James May from Top Gear, he had a segment years back in a U2 plane. Pretty cool.


I watched that video many times before my interview with the program. Cabi actually ended up being my interview pilot and got me into the program. The interview is two-weeks long, the second week you actually fly the 2-seat trainer for 3 flights to see if you'll be a good fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
65 years and still going because we don't have a better option? Damn fine job back in the day and you'd think we could come up with something easier to fly. Put SpaceX on it, they'd have it done in 2 years with a working prototype in 3.


The original design flew in 1955, but the current aircraft is relatively new. Almost all of the planes we fly now were built in the 1980's, and are 40% larger than the original design. Even now, the airframes built in the '80's have about 75% of their lifespan still left; and there is no retirement date in site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
The original design flew in 1955, but the current aircraft is relatively new. Almost all of the planes we fly now were built in the 1980's, and are 40% larger than the original design. Even now, the airframes built in the '80's have about 75% of their lifespan still left; and there is no retirement date in site.


Sure, squeeze as much life as you can out of the program. As long as it makes fiscal sense. Its just surprising we don't have a better option. Better meaning faster, cheaper, more reliable, more simple, and equally or more effective. Even the Tomcat was replaced eventually, and that was a cool plane, loved watching them do flight ops on the America.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT