Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Hi,

I just read an article in Popular Mechanics about the U2, and I wondered about a few things. I was at D-M in 65 and SAC had some U2s there ( I was TAC).

The article went on about how hard it was to land due to poor visibility. They reported from some base that used old muscle cars to follow and radio instructions to help them get down. They also stated that only 900+ pilots were ever certified on the deuce(/useless Smile

). They seemed to think that it was because it was so hard to fly - I just don't think that there are that many of them.

At D-M they were apparently training Nationalist Chinese, and everything was going pretty well. They did have a crash that I remember, but they dropped a phantom in the same time period.

I did hear ( and have read elsewhere) that the early models had drop off 'pogos' and that chase cars had to help keep the wings level when they brought it down. This was supposedly corrected in later versions.

I did hear that the thermals in AZ made them a little tough to bring down. Word was that if there were several planes behind the deuce, the others would all land first.

Comments appreciated,

hj

F-16.net Sponsor

I think Air & Space has an article and video up on landing the U2 -- and the chase cars they used to help land them.

Not sure what your questions are, but I'll comment.
Before I do: what is the meaning of your "useless" comment?

So far, about 920 pilots have solo'd the airplane. That includes a bunch of folks that never actually flew it operationally, but just got a basic solo (early test pilots, Wing Commanders, etc...). The small number is just due to the fact that it is a small unit.

Yes, a chase car is used. That pilot's job is much more involved than driving the car and making calls. Personally, I think the U-2 over-emphasizes the chase car (called "mobile"). But in training, that person driving the car is an instructor pilot doing instructor duty.

The Chinese lost a few jets over mainland China too.

Yes, the out-rigger wheels fall off on takeoff. Nothing has changed there. When the U-2 comes back, it has no out-rigger wheels.

Yes, thermals make it more difficult to land,... especially on no-flap landings.

There is nothing "magic" about landing the aircraft. It is simply more difficult than other "mil-spec" aircraft to fly and land. Pilots form habit patterns in their first aircraft (F-16, C-17, B-52, KC-135, etc...) and then have to learn to fly an aircraft that flies differently in many ways than their old aircraft.

This video turned out well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1bzsfE6io

huggy wrote:

There is nothing "magic" about landing the aircraft. It is simply more difficult than other "mil-spec" aircraft to fly and land. Pilots form habit patterns in their first aircraft (F-16, C-17, B-52, KC-135, etc...) and then have to learn to fly an aircraft that flies differently in many ways than their old aircraft.

Right on the money.

If someone comes to a military aircraft expecting that his Cessna 172 experience will be sufficient, then he is sadly mistaken.

In the jets I flew operationally (T-37, F-4, F-104, and A-10), the techniques used to keep them in the air were at times damn near 180 degrees opposite...the rudder in the F-4 was a powerful flight control...in the F-104, it was almost an afterthought. My F-104 instructor pointed that out to me but it took me porking it away for me to realize the point he was trying to make.

All said and done, each jet had to be flown its way and only its way. Some folks learned that early and lived to talk about it, some didn't.

For the record, this thread should be in "Modern Military Aircraft", not "Military Aircraft of the Cold War".
The sensors that are on,... and are soon being put on,... the U-2 are state of the art.

If anyone thinks this is an "aircraft of the past", they are sadly mistaken.

Look at all of the aircraft that started their existence after the U-2, and are long gone.
Plus there are a few "modern" aircraft that will probably be gone before the U-2 departs the front line.

Thanks for the responses.

huggy, at D-M, it was commonly called the 'useless deuce' in the same vein as rhino (which I didn't hear then). No disrespect for the aircraft was implied. The fact that they're even now using it in place of some of the UAVs says a lot.

I was just trying to reconcile my memories with the reports of 'worst aircraft to land', and ' requires a muscle car in the chase position.' Just didn't seem right.

At D-M, I seem to remember some of the old Econoline pickups going after them, but certainly no GTOs

Thanks for the update on the outriggers. I had read that the newer models had an improved system.

Again thanks to all for the info,

hj

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

U2 Questions