I've gotta get me one of these next year

In article <[email hidden]>, DougC <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

...Or perhaps--just get a regular bike, and the regular Xtracycle rear
end,,, that is removeable.

As I read the Xtracycle business, that was the whole point of it: that
you could use the bike you already had and have a "cargo" bike when you
wanted it, and a regular bike when you didn't.
-------
I have seen a few Xtracycle owners say that it is not as convenient in
the quick-change aspect but overall it is nicer to RIDE than using a
trailer.... -but it /is/ a rather expensive accessory.

Given that 99.99% of my utility riding can be done with a regular rack,
it would have to be "one charming pig" for that other .01%. When
necessary, I can simply rent a big trailer locally
<http://www.bikeped.org/CargoTrailer.html>, but I can't imagine anyone
would ever consider offering a Xtracycle for rent, so I don't really
have any way to compare the ride. And while the Xtracycle might offer
some additional weight capacity over regular racks, it doesn't seem to
offer much more area for really bulky items.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Quoted message said:

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling from
heat
stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract
so
much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway.
Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

I still want one. I've been paying my taxes to secure cheap oil for the last
umpteen years. About time I benefit from doing so!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight lines.
> I
> agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.

I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a missile
shot
at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that was
obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that plane,
and
how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.

That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
the throttle all the way and the airframe would
literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling from
heat
stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract
so
much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway.
Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email hidden]
(_)/ (_)

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Kristian M Zoerhoff <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight lines. I
> agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.

I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a missile shot
at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that was
obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that plane, and
how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.

That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
the throttle all the way and the airframe would
literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling from heat

OK. But the airframe could be seriously damaged or
destroyed flying too fast for too long.

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract so
much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway. Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

They ever release the fuel formula?

--
Michael Press

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling from
heat
stresses.

....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

I still want one. I've been paying my taxes to secure cheap oil for the last
umpteen years. About time I benefit from doing so!

I don't want one, but I'd dearly love to take a flight in one. Wonder
how much they'd have to charge a "spy tourist" wannabe to bring one
back on line?

Pat

Email address works as is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling
from
heat
stresses.

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

I still want one. I've been paying my taxes to secure cheap oil for the
last
umpteen years. About time I benefit from doing so!

I don't want one, but I'd dearly love to take a flight in one. Wonder
how much they'd have to charge a "spy tourist" wannabe to bring one
back on line?

Unfortunately, the concept is more appealing than the reality. The SR-71
requires a pressure suit, so it's probably not the most-comfortable plane to
fly in. But my goodness is that plane sexy.

My most impressive encounter with planes came when I was 17 (33 years ago,
yikes!) and a friend and I were doing a week-long tour through Northern
California between bike races. Riding from Davis to Nevada City we passed
Beale Air Force Base on Hammonton-Smartville Road. Summer of 1973, and they
had a lot of B52s parked out there. Rolling terrain, and I remember going
over one rise and suddenly seeing the HUGE tails sticking up over the next
rise. One of the most-impressive things I ever saw.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract so
much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway. Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

They ever release the fuel formula?

For JP-7? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FEDMIL/t38219b.pdf
It was special low-volatility fuel, IIRC, since the airframe would heat
up to 450 degrees at max speed. It's not a good situation when your
fuel turns to vapor in the tanks. The SR-71 airplanes required a
special fleet of KC-135 tankers all around the world to make their
missions possible.

FWIW: the SR-71 burned 8000 gallons per hour:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200307/ai_n9263969
see also:

FWIW2: I understood that the SR-71's titanium airframe heated and
cooled during flight so much that the entire airframe was
re-heat-treated each flight.

Jeff

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight

lines. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.

I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a

missile shot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that was
obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that

plane, and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.

That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
the throttle all the way and the airframe would
literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion

joints

Quoted message said:

between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling

from heat

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract

so

Quoted message said:

much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway.

Hence,

Quoted message said:

it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be

immediately

Quoted message said:

refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email hidden]
(_)/ (_)

There's at least 1 picture of a blackbird on the ground with ground crew
guys wheeling special barrels with huge funnels under the plane to catch
the leaking fuel.

I used to live near a base in the Southwest US. My house was right under
the approach and takeoff flight path of the main runway. Every few months
they would bring a blackbird in during the middle of the night. The whole
house would shake as it passed overhead. It was worse on takeoff!

Oh to dream of flight....

Chas.

"Patrick Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heat
stresses.

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

I still want one. I've been paying my taxes to secure cheap oil for the

last

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

umpteen years. About time I benefit from doing so!

I don't want one, but I'd dearly love to take a flight in one. Wonder
how much they'd have to charge a "spy tourist" wannabe to bring one
back on line?

Pat

Ask the Russians! ;-)

Chas.

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Kristian M Zoerhoff <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> > Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight

lines. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.
>
> I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a

missile shot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that

plane, and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.

That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
the throttle all the way and the airframe would
literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion

joints

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling

from heat

Quoted message said:

OK. But the airframe could be seriously damaged or
destroyed flying too fast for too long.

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints

contract so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the

runway. Hence,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be

immediately

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

They ever release the fuel formula?

--
Michael Press

It wasn't 87 octane unleaded, that's for sure....

Chas.

"* * Chas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> > Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight

lines. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.
>
> I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a

missile shot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that was
> obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that

plane, and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.
>

That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
the throttle all the way and the airframe would
literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion

joints

Quoted message said:

between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling

from heat

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract

so

Quoted message said:

much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway.

Hence,

Quoted message said:

it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be

immediately

Quoted message said:

refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email hidden]
(_)/ (_)

There's at least 1 picture of a blackbird on the ground with ground crew
guys wheeling special barrels with huge funnels under the plane to catch
the leaking fuel.

I used to live near a base in the Southwest US. My house was right under
the approach and takeoff flight path of the main runway. Every few months
they would bring a blackbird in during the middle of the night. The whole
house would shake as it passed overhead. It was worse on takeoff!

Oh to dream of flight....

Chas.

I used to watch them preflight and launch from my bedroom window in England.
I have been at the end of runway on takeoff. About 50' over my head, it felt
like my guts were disintegrating. No ear protection either, and I was taking
pictures so I could only get my right thumb in my ear.
Many years later I watched one refuel from another tanker over New Mexico,
we were refueling F-111s. They must of had the premium.
Awesome aircraft, makes you wonder what they have now that we haven't seen.

"dholland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"* * Chas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > > Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight

lines. I

Quoted message said:

> > > agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.
> >
> > I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a

missile shot

Quoted message said:

> > at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that

plane, and

Quoted message said:

> > how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.
> >
>
> That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
> the throttle all the way and the airframe would
> literally melt,

Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion

joints

Quoted message said:

between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling

from heat

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints

contract

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so

Quoted message said:

much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the

runway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence,

Quoted message said:

it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be

immediately

Quoted message said:

refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email hidden]
(_)/ (_)

There's at least 1 picture of a blackbird on the ground with ground

crew

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

guys wheeling special barrels with huge funnels under the plane to

catch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the leaking fuel.

I used to live near a base in the Southwest US. My house was right

under

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the approach and takeoff flight path of the main runway. Every few

months

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they would bring a blackbird in during the middle of the night. The

whole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

house would shake as it passed overhead. It was worse on takeoff!

Oh to dream of flight....

Chas.

I used to watch them preflight and launch from my bedroom window in

England.

Quoted message said:

I have been at the end of runway on takeoff. About 50' over my head, it

felt

Quoted message said:

like my guts were disintegrating. No ear protection either, and I was

taking

Quoted message said:

pictures so I could only get my right thumb in my ear.
Many years later I watched one refuel from another tanker over New

Mexico,

Quoted message said:

we were refueling F-111s. They must of had the premium.
Awesome aircraft, makes you wonder what they have now that we haven't

seen.

Quoted message said:

I lived near Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, NM. We used to do training rides
on parts of the base that were not off limits - unless there was a
blackbird visiting then most of the base was closed down. It was great
riding, almost no traffic

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

Chas.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

My most impressive encounter with planes came when I was 17 (33 years ago,
yikes!) and a friend and I were doing a week-long tour through Northern
California between bike races. Riding from Davis to Nevada City we passed
Beale Air Force Base on Hammonton-Smartville Road. Summer of 1973, and they
had a lot of B52s parked out there. Rolling terrain, and I remember going
over one rise and suddenly seeing the HUGE tails sticking up over the next
rise. One of the most-impressive things I ever saw.

I was riding my bike early one morning on a rural back road a couple of
years ago when a B-52 flew directly overhead at just over treetop level
while making its approach to land at a nearby base for an air show --
very impressive!

On another day not long ago, I heard a very unusual jet roar and looked
out my second floor window to see a B-2 "Spirit"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit> flying close by at low
altitude to do a flyover at a (Boston) 4th of July. It was the spookiest
damn thing I had ever seen -- looked like it flew straight out of a
Batman comic book.

JeffWills said:

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints contract so
much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the runway. Hence,
it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be immediately
refueled in-flight upon takeoff.

And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...

They ever release the fuel formula?

For JP-7? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FEDMIL/t38219b.pdf
It was special low-volatility fuel, IIRC, since the airframe would heat
up to 450 degrees at max speed. It's not a good situation when your
fuel turns to vapor in the tanks. The SR-71 airplanes required a
special fleet of KC-135 tankers all around the world to make their
missions possible.

FWIW: the SR-71 burned 8000 gallons per hour:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200307/ai_n9263969
see also:

The F-4 I flew used 100 pounds per minute cruising around at 300 kts or
so...6000 pods per hour, samo for the F-14 altho a little more
effiicient being turbofans instead of turbojets. In A/B...1500 pounds
per minute...

Quoted message said:

FWIW2: I understood that the SR-71's titanium airframe heated and
cooled during flight so much that the entire airframe was
re-heat-treated each flight.

Jeff

Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On another day not long ago, I heard a very unusual jet roar and
looked out my second floor window to see a B-2 "Spirit"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit> flying close by at low
altitude to do a flyover at a (Boston) 4th of July. It was the
spookiest damn thing I had ever seen -- looked like it flew straight
out of a Batman comic book.

Yes, the B-2 is without a doubt the most surreal looking aircraft (at
least of anything known to the public.) It's too bad it only flies over
its targets at night. I believe that a single daylight flyby would
intimidate almost any enemy into surrender on the spot. (Okay, perhaps
not, but it really is awe inspiring.)

I used to work for a company that made test equipment used in aerospace
production. I spent some time in the B-2 factory in Palmdale, CA. That
was quite a place too. Security measures as intimidating as the aircraft
they were protecting. But I also was invited to the 10 th anniversary of
"first flight". They did some incredible low-pass flybys. I miss that
aspect of my old career - airplane and rocket factories are interesting
places.

Cheers,
David

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"* * Chas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"dholland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"* * Chas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] says...
> > In article
> > <[email hidden]>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Still, the SR-71 is more of a TT ride - goes fast in straight
lines. I
> > > > agree that a fighter jet is more your criterium ride.
> > >
> > > I just like the idea of flying in something that can out-run a
missile shot
> > > at you. That's pretty cool. I also like the idea of a plane that

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > obviously designed by aliens. Look at the capabilities of that
plane, and
> > > how long ago it was built. Amazing. Truly an amazing plane.
> > >
> >
> > That sumbitch can go faster than is good for it. Push
> > the throttle all the way and the airframe would
> > literally melt,
>
> Not quite, but damn close. The SR-71 is designed with HUGE expansion
joints
> between the plates that make up the skin, in order to avoid buckling
from heat
> stresses. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ground, the joints

contract

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so
> much that fuel pours out of the tanks while it's sitting on the

runway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence,
> it's not fuelled up until right before takeoff, and it has to be
immediately
> refueled in-flight upon takeoff.
>
> And you thought the fuel efficiency of a Hummer sucked...
>
> --
>
> __o Kristian Zoerhoff
> _'\(,_ [email hidden]
> (_)/ (_)

There's at least 1 picture of a blackbird on the ground with ground

crew

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

guys wheeling special barrels with huge funnels under the plane to

catch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the leaking fuel.

I used to live near a base in the Southwest US. My house was right

under

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the approach and takeoff flight path of the main runway. Every few

months

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they would bring a blackbird in during the middle of the night. The

whole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

house would shake as it passed overhead. It was worse on takeoff!

Oh to dream of flight....

Chas.

I used to watch them preflight and launch from my bedroom window in

England.

Quoted message said:

I have been at the end of runway on takeoff. About 50' over my head, it

felt

Quoted message said:

like my guts were disintegrating. No ear protection either, and I was

taking

Quoted message said:

pictures so I could only get my right thumb in my ear.
Many years later I watched one refuel from another tanker over New

Mexico,

Quoted message said:

we were refueling F-111s. They must of had the premium.
Awesome aircraft, makes you wonder what they have now that we haven't

seen.

Quoted message said:

I lived near Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, NM. We used to do training rides
on parts of the base that were not off limits - unless there was a
blackbird visiting then most of the base was closed down. It was great
riding, almost no traffic

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

Chas.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at
Moffat Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did
watch a black U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly
graceful, the slowest takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was
only traveling at about 50-60 knots. That big engine was rather
noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

Perhaps because it had such a low wing load (practically a glider) the U-
2/ER-2 didn't have the ability to disrupt its lift well enough to make an
easy landing. Most passengers don't realize, but those "smooth" landings
everyone loves are generally the most dangerous because when the wheels
are gliding down to the runway, a small updraft could lift one wing and
flip the plane. That's why, when it's windy, the best (i.e. safest)
landing is to get "near" the ground and then take all the lift out of the
wings and basically slam the plane to the ground to assure that it stays
there.

Cheers,
David

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

IIRC, at maximum altitude, there was a very narrow window between stall
speed (very high due to low pressure) and Mach 1 (which drops with
lower pressure). They had to fly the airplane in this 20-30 knot
window, while navigating by sextant, for 13 hours straight, in a
pressure suit. Yikes!

(I may have my facts screwed up- for that I apologize. I'm a bike
mechanic, not Kelly Johnson.)

Jeff

"JeffWills" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a
black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the
slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

IIRC, at maximum altitude, there was a very narrow window between stall
speed (very high due to low pressure) and Mach 1 (which drops with
lower pressure). They had to fly the airplane in this 20-30 knot
window, while navigating by sextant, for 13 hours straight, in a
pressure suit. Yikes!

(I may have my facts screwed up- for that I apologize. I'm a bike
mechanic, not Kelly Johnson.)

Jeff

The latest issue of Invention&Technology (a very cool magazine) came today -
with an article on the U-2. A couple of excerpts from Pat Halloran's page
(he has 1,600 hours in the U-2): "...it would float the whole length of the
runway if it was 10 knots too fast....had to land the aircraft in a full
stall. You couldn't roll it on...it would skip back in the air, and the
you'd be up in the air 10, 15 feet and no airspeed." "[Maximum and minimum
airspeeds] began to converge...you were down to, oh, maybe a 10-knot window"
Well worth hunting a copy of this Winter 2007 magazine, or subscribing.
Not employed by Invention&Technology, just really like them, and hope they
won't sue me,
Kerry

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a black
U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the slowest
takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

I was a USAF radar repairman(ground) back in the sixties. IIRC that guy
had so much trouble coming down cause ground effects bumped the lift
back up. Go arounds weren't unusual. Now they have a chase car
behind'em (modified Z-28 Camaro I think? I may be wrong on the car.)
driven by another ER-2 pilot to talk'em down.

--
Ted P.
Don't forget to take out the trash.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

NASA Ames Research had/has some ER-2 planes (converted U-2s) at Moffat
Field in Mountain View, CA. I've never seen them but I did watch a

black

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

U-2 taking off from there one day. It was amazingly graceful, the

slowest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

takeoff I've ever seen. It looked like it was only traveling at about
50-60 knots. That big engine was rather noisy.

And supposedly one of the most-difficult planes to land. Read that
repeatedly, but never was it explained why.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

The landing gear is in the fuselage and the wheels are pretty small - 2
point landing IIRC. They have small wheels at the ends of the wings.

Also what the others have said about lift.

Chas.