U-2S -max altitude
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U-2S -max altitude
Hello,
Many reports and specifications from variable sources claims t that the U-2S (with new F118 engine) could reach 95.000 ft. I don`t understand, because the same sources give about 70 kts stall speed at sea level and max speed about .76Mach at altitude.
At 92.000 ft 71 kias will be .80 Mach,
so
at 95.000 ft 70 or 75 kias will be much more than .80 Ma, speed that I believe must destroy fragile wings.
what you think?
cheers
J.
Many reports and specifications from variable sources claims t that the U-2S (with new F118 engine) could reach 95.000 ft. I don`t understand, because the same sources give about 70 kts stall speed at sea level and max speed about .76Mach at altitude.
At 92.000 ft 71 kias will be .80 Mach,
so
at 95.000 ft 70 or 75 kias will be much more than .80 Ma, speed that I believe must destroy fragile wings.
what you think?
cheers
J.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DFS (German Air Traffic Service) in its listing of military aircraft performance figures has the U-2R listed with a service ceiling of 90,000 feet. Its mention of the S version is limited to a comment: "re-engined"
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote>>The DFS (German Air Traffic Service) in its listing
heh-can civil ATC to see any aircraft at this altitude? I think for these guys 70000 or 90000 ft is no big different
at youtube.com is video from cockpit and plane is climbing thru FL600 at 135 kias, and red line is 140 kias.
heh-can civil ATC to see any aircraft at this altitude? I think for these guys 70000 or 90000 ft is no big different
at youtube.com is video from cockpit and plane is climbing thru FL600 at 135 kias, and red line is 140 kias.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DFS publishes a guide for its staff of all types that may operate in its airspace with as many performance figures as are known and verifiable.
Why wouldn't they be able to radar identify a target at FL 900?
Why wouldn't they be able to radar identify a target at FL 900?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philkby,
The difficulty with radar is that the equipment has what is known as a radar lobe - this is the coverage of the radar signal and can be thought of as a donut shape originating from the radar head. Not all radar lobes reach 90,000ft.
The difficulty with radar is that the equipment has what is known as a radar lobe - this is the coverage of the radar signal and can be thought of as a donut shape originating from the radar head. Not all radar lobes reach 90,000ft.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm well aware of the way radar can be, and is, set up and also of the linkage between the civil and military controllers in Germany.
As far as it goes, I was trying to answer your query about an aircraft which has most of its performance data witheld with the most accurate information from a dependable source I could find.
As far as it goes, I was trying to answer your query about an aircraft which has most of its performance data witheld with the most accurate information from a dependable source I could find.
About 15 years ago almost daily I observed traffic routing south - north over the London area indicating FL660 on SSR (there was no primary return) and which I assumed at the time were TR1s/U2Rs bound for Alconbury or Mildenhall.
I read somewhere that the (early) version used by Gary Powers operated at about this level, but you only had about a 4kt boundary between stall speed and mach buffet when this high, and he was brought down not by a direct hit, but by a missile exploding near his aircraft causing it to exceed these parameters - not sure whether it said he stalled or whether it just broke up due to exceeding its mach limit.
I read somewhere that the (early) version used by Gary Powers operated at about this level, but you only had about a 4kt boundary between stall speed and mach buffet when this high, and he was brought down not by a direct hit, but by a missile exploding near his aircraft causing it to exceed these parameters - not sure whether it said he stalled or whether it just broke up due to exceeding its mach limit.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After a long mission, fuel load and GW are down substantially, as is Vs; Thus the "coffin corner" has moved up several notches. I doubt he can reach 95K early in a mission.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I think U-2S pilots very rare go higher than 75.000 -80.000 ft. There is no need I believe.
On Barry Schiff web page is pilot`s report from training U-2ST flight and his pilot said thed above 70.000 ft climb is only result of decrease of weight and it is very slow drift.
ok, I got something: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...le-earth-e.gif
so, if above 70.000 ft speed of sound again INCREASE with altitude, the flight envelope for plane is open wier a bit and now I thing that 95.000 ft or even 98.000 is quite possible
On Barry Schiff web page is pilot`s report from training U-2ST flight and his pilot said thed above 70.000 ft climb is only result of decrease of weight and it is very slow drift.
ok, I got something: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...le-earth-e.gif
so, if above 70.000 ft speed of sound again INCREASE with altitude, the flight envelope for plane is open wier a bit and now I thing that 95.000 ft or even 98.000 is quite possible
Last edited by zlakarma; 6th Oct 2009 at 13:00.
