Talk:Lockheed U-2/Archive 1

Follow on aircraft
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

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. Berrdatherrd 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Pjbflynn 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
 * The Westland Welkin suffered from the same problem - high incidence stall converging with shock (Mcr induced) stall due to the extreme (for the time) altitude - any faster and the aircraft shock stalls due to the limiting Mach Number, any slower and it stalls due to too low an airspeed. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chase vehicles
Recently additions were made to the article to enhance the section on the unusual aspect of chase cars used in U-2 operations. Rather than the summary deletion of these notes, a suggestion is to amplify the statement further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC).
 * This article covers take-off and landing steps including adding the auxiliary wheels on the wings in the Design section. That seems to be a good place for a sentence mentioning the chase cars. Chase cars are already mentioned there. Missed it before. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * I think it means all combat operations. I'd rather see some clarifying that the Powers downing was not in combat operations. But can't think of a good way right now. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also the aircraft shot down over Cuba to consider. Also, I don't think the article mentions this yet, but quite by chance I noticed this today about a U2 crashing in 2005 during Enduring Freedom. Does anybody have any info to add on that?--Mat Hardy (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what is confusing the issue is the fact that in the early days of the program pilots were made CIA agents. This insured that the missions were conducted by a civilian agency and the military could deny all overflights of USSR. Some may not define clandestine civilian action as "combat".

There was a U-2 lost on June 22, 2005 the pilot was killed on impact. The loss was not attributed to hostile fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.192.21 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments on the Area 51 page indicate that this plane was difficult to fly in general. Could this be clarified? They reference this page, and it should be known that as the span-chord cross-section indicates, this was more or less a powered glider. I realize that I am providing no in-line cites, but until it reached its extreme envelope, it was no more difficult to fly than a Piper Cub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foamking (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerous accounts of the U-2 being a demanding aircraft to fly. Where do you find that it was no worse than a Piper Cub? Pjbflynn (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pjb, I am sorry, but yet again I find myself using my sick machine to post. Cannot provide cites as of yet...Foamking (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The speed of the U-2 had to be kept within a tight window: too fast and stall, too slow and stall. A stall in the U-2 was not like the casual stunt in an acrobatic plane—it was very serious. The Piper Cub comment is patently absurd. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my previous comments as apparently a fully loaded '2 was a bit of a bitch in the air. Once primary loads of fuel were burned it was rather tame, but of course you dont want to hear that. Foamking (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee, maybe I got it from the article itself: 'The large wingspan and resulting glider-like characteristics of the U-2' Foamking (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The U-2 was not just difficult to fly because of the narrow regime in which it operated, because it was lightly built in order to achieve the altitudes required, it was also structurally weak, needing care in handling. I don't know what the load factors it was designed to were, but I suspect they were not very high, perhaps +2.5 to +3 or-so, and I suspect some of the losses were caused by pilots inadvertently over-stressing the aircraft, perhaps due to high altitude turbulence.


 * The U-2 came about because at the time of its requirement reconnaissance overflights of the Soviet Union had been carried out, initially by USAF & RAF-crewed RB-45s, and later by RAF Canberra B.2s (the Canberra could fly at a slightly higher altitude - ~50,000 ft - and similar speed as the opposing Soviet interceptor of the time, the MiG 15), however the predicted introduction of the MiG 15's successor, the MiG 17 made the Canberra's immunity somewhat questionable. The U-2 was designed as a purpose-built high altitude reconnaissance aircraft with an altitude performance that was substantially higher than any Soviet fighter likely to be developed in the-then near future.

Template:Cite versus hardcoded text
WP:CITET says that either format is acceptable, but that Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Since we've had two reverts on the citation issue, we should have a call for votes as to the style to use. I'm voting for the well formatted templates since it makes the individual fields clearer and provides important machine-parsable semantic meta-data about the citations in a way that the hardcoded MLA format does not. -- Autopilot (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with templates if they are properly done. Compare the edit history and you will find the templated information was not presented properly with incomplete, inaccurate and erroneous information. Besides, I had started this article long ago with the full scratch cataloging. Some other editor changed it to the template form over top of the original citation and reference format, not the other way around. FWiW, if it is now accurately referenced and is correctly formatted, it is as simple as a template to use full bibliographic records. Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC).


 * I vote for a careful move to templates since they offer a few neat tricks such as authorlinking to a (famous) author's article, quoting a source is simpler and they have a specified position for Accessdate which differentiates quickly for the reader between that date and the date(s) of the work. I am, however, not in favor of a straight swap to templates... if templates are used, their features should be taken advantage of. The references should be checked and harvested for further information so as to fill out the templates more fully than was done in the last couple of edits here. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting Bzuk's manual formatting did not take stomping the other fixes done. Formatting the references manually is fine.  There's little or no benefit to the cite templates and they take up more space. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Autopilot's unexamined reversion of Bzuk's other corrections was not a good move. Templates taking up space? This is not a 3x5 index card; we have space aplenty. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Extra space, extra stuff. No a problem byte-wise, but more characters on the edit screen. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-looked at the edit history and don't see the obvious template errors that Bzuk says he fixed, other than the addition of the date on Fensch reference and adding accessdate as of the date of the edit. Am I missing something?  The minor typographical edits (hyphen in re-designate, etc) are certainly unobjectionable. On the other point, the template calls do add something: they add semantic metadata that is easily machine parsable, unlike the hand formatted citations, and they enforce a consistent formatting that might be missed by a human editor. -- Autopilot (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three examples of the errors inherent in the original templates:


 * (1) Original: "DoD Cuts Air Force Aircraft Fleet". military.com. 2006-01-11.
 * (2) Original citation/bibliography note: Polmar, Norman (2001). Spyplane: The U-2 History Declassified. Zenith Imprint. pp. 64. ISBN 0760309574.
 * (3) Original citation: "U-2 Dragon Lady". Aerospaceweb.  and "Public Domain Statement".
 * (4) Original:Lockheed U-2C/TR-1/U-2R/S". . Retrieved on 2008-01-06.


 * (1) Revision (including missing author name, title of article and publisher identified, current date of retrieval, dates given in established article date format):  Sherman, Jason and Daniel G. Dupont."DoD Cuts Air Force Aircraft Fleet." military.com, InsideDefense.com, 11 January 2006. Retrieved: 8 March 2009.
 * (2) Revision (2a) Citation revision (Use of established Harvard Citation style, note only one page is referenced): Polmar 2001, p. 64.
 * (2b) Revision Bibliographic record (including addition of publishing location, and use of the established Modern Language Association (MLA) bibliography style guide and format used in the rest of the article's bibliography): Polmar, Norman. Spyplane: The U-2 History Declassified. St Paul, Minnesota: Zenith Imprint, 2001. ISBN 0-76030-957-4.
 * (3) Revision (including correct name of article and added retrieval date): "Lockheed U-2 Dragon Lady: Tactical Reconnaissance." Aerospaceweb. Retrieved: 8 March 2009.
 * (4) Revision (including missing author name, corrected name of article and added retrieval date): Pocock, Chris. "Lockheed U-2C/TR-1/U-2R/S." spyflight.com, 6 January 2008. Retrieved: 8 March 2009.

Once I had noted that each citation and reference incorporated an error of omission or formatting variance, I corrected each one. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

engine
what was the U-2's original engine? Only the current engine is noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.188.115 (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The main engine models are mentioned now in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

UK operations lacking
It is surprising that UK flight operations, documented in paper literature, has not appeared as a section. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, add it.Pjbflynn (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * "Soviet search radar would pick them up the moment they took off" huh? What an idiotic statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the jet is painted with radar absorbing material along with incorporating carbon fiber components such as landing gear doors. These measures help reduce the overall radar signature of the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.192.21 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Production restart
New U2 planes were built in the 1980's but how many and for how long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Add a aircraft losses section, and other things
Notice that no aircraft losses section is included here. Second, the "retired U-2" on display, which I doubt the 5 ROCAF/Taiwan U-2 shotdown over China and re-assembled wreckage to put on display in Beijing really fit the "retired" aircraft description. Last, got a new U-2 book from Taiwan. As with most Taiwan U-2 books, it mentioned detail info on adding System 12, System 13, System 20, ect., plus Camera H, which are the ECM/ESM/ECCM systems and camera fitted on board ROCAF U-2 through out the years to deal with increasing MiG-21 and SA-2/HQ-1/2 threats, plus what China able to learn about those ECM/ECM systems from wreckage of the 5 shot down U-2 to create their counter systems and procedures. Wondering if that should added to the page. The new book got some new info, like training of later part of ROCAF U-2 pilots were handed over from SAC to CIA in late 1960s(due to warming relationship between US and China), and moved the training site from Texas to Edwards AFB North Field. And also detailing other survival trainings(Death Valley, Yosemite, and other places). If it's okay with the power that be here, I'll try to add it when I get home, still on the road....Bryan TMF (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Add more info to the aircraft on display sections, few more locations, add all model type, serial number and CIA article number. Also add picture of 4 ROCAF/Taiwan U-2s shotdown and the wreckage re-assemble and put on display. Also add Francis Gary Powers's U-2 wreckage on display in Moscow, and Maj. Rudolf Anderson's U-2 wreckage on display in Havana. Still think there should be a separate section for aircraft losses. At least pay those pilots some respects for what they done for their country....Bryan TMF (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess that's that for me. After deleting my inputs from U-2 article that I tried to help out for the last 8 months or so, the references number dropped from 53 to 32. And after I removed all I wrote, the content/words in this article reduced by over 20%. Was going to suggest to put in GPS cord. for U-2 on display, but with all the other ideas I suggested before, not going to happen. Maybe I worked too hard on this, and need a life outside of Wikipedia. Thanks for all that helped this wiki newbie on spelling, correcting how to cite references/sources, and other goofy stuff I did. Good to know all of you. Best wishes.00:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan TMF (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry it had work out like this way. My main objection was where the detailed loss info was placed.  And I wasn't picking on ROC info.  I just missed the other loss info.  You had been adding a lot of info and I had not been keeping up with all of it. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bryan & Fnlayson: mediation possible?
Bryan TMF left me a note asking about the right to leave and to remove his contributions to the page. Of course this isn't a question of copyright, it's a question of politeness... there is an old notion of RightToLeave from the early days of wikis, and some communities strongly support the knowledge that one can leave and have their traces on a wiki removed if they really request it.

In general, I support this idea as long as it is not disruptive (a clean removal from a single article seems quite reasonable). I hope that editors of this article will respect his desire if that's what he wants, and will not go out of their way to cause distress to a good contributor who felt thwarted and wants to leave the wiki the way he found it.

However, since Bryan seems like a great contributor in general, not only to this one article -- it might be an even better solution if one of the longer-term editors (Fnlayson, perhaps) might spend some time trying to resolve what seems like a misunderstanding... easy enough when it is about a topic that is a source of passion. (and honestly, once you start researching something, anything at all can make you care passionately about it!)

–SJ + 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked an admin about removing ones contributions, and he believes it is not possible under WP contrubution rules. Contributions are submitted to WP when made, and are irrevokable under the terms of the licenscing agreements. That has nothing to do with the right to leave, but the contributions have to stay behind, assuming they meet WP's policies and guidelines, of course.


 * That said, I support Fnlayson's edits. He is genreally very agreeable and weary of causing unneeded trouble (unlike me), but he is usually right in his editorial decisions. In Bryan's case, it is his passion that seems to be what's getting t=in the way here. Fnlayson is only trying to make the best editorial decisions, not an emotional one. - BilCat (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, Bryan never tried discussing any disagreement(s) here or anywhere I've seen. I did add some comments in the section above, but too late.  I think I am fair and am certainly willing to discuss things. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm respectively and politely asking whatever I wrote to be removed from the U-2 wiki page, since I seem to become an hinder to the article and doubtful would have anything good to contribute in the future. The experience left some bad tastes in my mouth, and personally I doubt I could continue leaving my name continuously attached to this article. As for "discussion", I clearly left my disagreements for the wreckage as display aircraft and left suggestions for 10 days, not seen any disagreement(s) here or anywhere I've seen. But, still, as a "newbie", I didn't dare to go ahead and added any new section(s), but prepared for it by adding info in the existing section that I did some research online, not to mention gotten few Taiwanese books on Black Cat Squadron. Fnlayson, for whatever reason(s), deleted those info regarding to ROCAF/Taiwan pilot names, just minutes after adding them, but chose to leave USAF/CIA wreckage and pilot names intact. Only way I can read into that is, either double standard, or something else I really don't want to even think about, like the term deletionistdelete first and ask question later---if ever. Some times, it's very hurtful to have whatever you took time to research and written, then got deleted just mere minutes afterward. Fnlayson never tried discussing any disagreement(s) here or anywhere I've seen or made aware of.


 * Again, please respect my wish and remove my contributions here and let me be on my way. I might move my contributions and work on the Black Cat Squadron article instead in the next few months. Seems like this would be a good compromise for everyone, I'll be out of most of you people's way, and I'll allow to continue to do my research and write up on the Black Cat/35th Squadron of ROCAF/Taiwan, which still a forgotten footnote in U-2 history. If a newbie here for only 8 months can contribute 22% of the article and 40% of citing references/sources, then at least you guys owe me and give me a warning before my new write up got deleted within minutes, at least a discussion. I know most of you going to quote rules and other things, but it's a real world common sense, not to mention be polite about it to other contributors.


 * I don't know, I did tried to work within the wiki system. I really did. But the system isn't working for me, or to better put it, the system failed me. Therefore, I took a step back, and tried to remove my contributions here, and admitted I failed whatever I tried and didn't work out. But it seems it's not even possible to do that to let me exit here in a graceful way.


 * Again, let me take whatever I wrote, and let me be on my way. Thank you.Bryan TMF (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:GOODFAITH. You are assuming bad faith with me over just 1 edit I made.  As I stated in the previous section, I missed the other pilot info in the Aircraft of display section.  I also did not clearly see in that section where you were going to add that much detail.  These details appear to go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY (& WP:Notability). -Fnlayson (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you're mistaken. This is the second edit of the section that you did on my words, first on May 15, 2010---which I'm still not clear why would you count wreckage as "retired aircraft on display"? Wreckage is not retired aircraft, but lost aircraft. This resulted in the above discussion section of "Add a aircraft losses section, and other things" that I created on the next day over the problem that I see. As for good faith, I did on your first edit back on May 15th, and wrote about maybe we need a aircraft losses section. For 10 days, no comments/responds from you or anyone else---which I drew 3 possibilities, no objects, nobody care, or no one bother to read it. From your own statements so far, it's clearly the last. And I checked other aircraft's losses section, they all have those info included. Clearly, I'm the one following all the rules, I put my ideas and other things here in the discussion page and got no objection for 10 days, and I cited proper sources. And with your second edit on the same section on May 23rd, mere minutes after I wrote them, I don't think anyone would see it other than what it is. Did you even bother to discuss any of the two edits with anyone else before you deleted them?Bryan TMF (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All the wreckage was previously listed as being on display somewhere. There was no full or partial revert of my May 15 or May 23 edits, so I saw no issue that needed a post here (WP:BRD).  Believe I've explained my actions well enough here.  I'm not going to go on and on about them. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you're looking from your own point of view, and not other's. The true reason that there's no revert of your actions on May 15 and 23 was that I was following the rules, and tried to discuss it here in the discussion page first as the rules stated, and didn't want to trigger a revert war between us. But you chose not to talk with anyone else when you deleted my works, not bother to check and read the discussion page first, and now trying to hide behind whatever rules you can find. Again, you pulled the triggers before asking questions, you deleted works in seconds that might be hours or days in the work and research---you did it all without checking with others or talk it over per the rules stated you have to. To you, it might be just enjoying the power of deletionist, as easy as just few key strokes and without thinking about the aftermath and consequences. But for other contributors, we are been treated same as vandals. I mean, show us---the contributors that has proven records---at least some long due respects and shown some respect to what we try to contribute, and not allow editors or deletionists to wipe out our works in seconds without discussions or consulting with others first. Maybe there's no rules there now, but it should be. But, it's also common sense, or street smart. Again, I followed all the rules, but still gotten shotdown like a dog, twiceBryan TMF (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your motivation for leaving involvement with editing a particular article, there is no reasonable justification for the notion that all content that you added must be removed. I contributed a fair bit to this article several years ago, but have been too busy of late. My content has been moved around, modified and deleted in the time since. Once you submit it, it's not "yours" anymore; it belongs to Wikipedia. That's in the text right below the box I'm writing this in. Pjbflynn (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But I also have the right to leave. As other said it's like a donation. With any donation, if I found out that the donation isn't going to the right cause or the right place, then I do have the right to withdraw the donations that I made on good behalf before. The situation there in this U-2 article, with Fnlayson and what had happen, made me feel that my words aren't respected nor most likely could have getting a fair treatment in the future. I did tried everything in the book to try to work it out, as seen in here, and got no responds at all. With it, my passions for U-2 for the last 20 years might have die with it, here with what happen here with this U-2 article/page.


 * And therefore, I do ask you guys again, to let me withdraw my words/contributions/donations from this article, as my "right to leave" allows. If there's no other objects, I will remove my words by end of June this month. Just let me leave this U-2 article the way I found it 8 or 9 months ago, without a single trace of me involved. Bryan TMF (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. If you give your words to Wikipedia, they are no longer yours to collect and walk away with. Do not expect to restore the article to a condition prior to your arrival. The article grows and develops, takes some hits and recovers, but it does not go backwards. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like I'm getting mixed signals here. SJ, whom is a trustee of Wiki, saying user's Right To Leave does exist, while rest of you are saying I can't take out what I contribute so far from the U-2 article. SJ asked Fnlayson and I to work out a solution. But Fnlayson no longer deemed it was worth his time and doesn't talk any more. I offered a solution already, moved my stuff to Black Cat Squadron page, but nobody say anything about it at all. Can anyone here say for certain, in an official wiki position, that the Right To Leave does not exist here in Wiki. If not, then I'll take SJ's word for it and will remove my contributions from this page by end of the month. Thanks. Bryan TMF (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are two separate things. A user can request to leave, but taking that user's edits is another matter.  I tried to explain my actions and no progress was being made.  Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, two separate things. Have you thought about how you will enforce your text removal? Right, it is unenforceable. You will be unable to. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Right to Leave also includes the right to take whatever I contribute with me, ie remove, as SJ had stated that it was there since wiki was created, way back when. As for how, I did it before, completely removed everything I wrote here in U-2 article, only later been reverted. So it's possible, as long as others here don't revert it or add it back. I'm been politely "discussing" here because I don't want to get into a revert war, that's all. Bryan TMF (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We were just going by the edit page license warnings and what WP: LEAVE states. If SJ states there's more, then that's fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone's wrong here. We really need to get this clarified before we move forward, because I can't see how both SJ and the licenses are both right. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAVE: "For reasons related to licensing, accounts themselves cannot be deleted, nor can most other forms of contribution; it is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely and account deletion would potentially violate copyrights by allowing for inaccurate attribution and authorship claims."


 * That's pretty clear that contributions cannot be deleted; only the ID of the contributor is changed, not the content of the article contributions themselves. If you still contest that, Bryan, you can go to Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish and ask for a clarification. Please note that the RightToLeave page that SJ mentioned is not part of WP policy, or even WP itself. - BilCat (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems perfectly clear to me, and entirely reasonable. Wikipedia would become virtually unworkable if every contributer insisted that their input be irradicated when they were no longer interested in being involved.


 * Bryan, I've looked back through the edit history at the content you added, and there is alot of valuable information and hard work there. What is the value in that being wasted over a small dissagreement? Wikipedia and this article do not belong to Fnlayson or anyone else. You clearly care about the subject. If you are not willing to continue editing on this article, that is unfortunate, but please allow your input to remain and be incorporated as the article as it evolves. Pjbflynn (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per my wish earlier as seen in discussion page, I'm removing all my inputs from this page. I do hope others will respect my wish, and not getting into a revert war.Bryan TMF (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've already been told that is not possible under the terms of the release. You have the right to disapear, but your contributions ceased to be your's the moment you hit the "submit" button. Don't be disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will restore any deleted text that I think benefits the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Binksternet can I just remind Bryan TMF and others that anybody has the right to vanish from Wikipedia, that includes blanking user pages and user talk pages it does not include removing information from articles that had been released as per the terms of reference (refer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use) continual removal of content may be considered to be vandalism. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pogos
The part about installing the pogos after landing is backwards- two members of the pogo crew pull down on the light wing while the third installs the pogo on the heavy wing, then the pogo is punched into the light wing. It's done this way because it's very difficult to lift the heavy wing high enough if there is already a pogo installed on the other side. I didn't change this myself because I don't have a source to cite, I just know it because I was a U-2 crew chief for 5 years and had to do this many, many times. 69.181.245.79 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is no specific citation for how it's described now, I'd say make the change. Pjbflynn (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, no one should question this as it makes a whale of sense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Replacement aircraft
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4996370&c=FEA&s=TEC
 * The camera, called an MS-177, is a version of the Syers-3 cameras carried by U-2 spy planes for more than a decade.

So can we list this as the replacement aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Band?
Is it worth mentioning or linking the two pages between the Irish rock band U2, which credits their name from this plane, and this page? Just a thought. Thanks Justin.kuzma (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Been asked before. See Talk:Lockheed U-2/Archive 1. -fnlayson (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Design section, wings - high/ low vs light/ heavy
This section originally used both terms to differentiate the two wings, but someone edited out light and heavy (presumably because they felt it was redundant). I changed the references to high/ low to light/ heavy because this made the section ambiguous. Since my edit was reverted, I will explain why this is the case, and it needs to be changed back. When the aircraft comes to a stop, the light wing is high and the heavy wing rests on the ground. However, the pogo crew pulls the light wing down almost to the ground and raises the heavy wing so the other crew member can install the pogo. So the high and low wing have switched sides, while light/ heavy remains the same. After the first pogo is installed, the light wing (which is currently lower) is raised back up and lifted to install its pogo. As the section is written now, it has both pogos being installed on the "lower" wing, which is technically true, but only because high and low have changed sides. This, however, is not explained in the article, and so I felt it would be confusing for someone who is not already familiar with the procedure. For this reason, I don't see how using high/ low is "more clear" than light/ heavy. If high and low must be included, it needs to have light and heavy as well (as it did back when I corrected the procedural errors in it), or a rewrite of the line "The lower wing is then eased back up" to remove the ambiguity. The "lower" wing referred to in that sentence is the light wing, which was referred to as the higher wing in the previous sentence. This is why pogo crews always use the term "light wing" or "heavy wing" instead of high or low. Sorry for getting a little long-winded, just wanted to make sure the need for the change is understood - 69.181.241.150 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This pogo thing was discussed some before in section further up the page. I think the high/low part should stay in there to be clear to readers that are not familiar with this stuff.  The reference used for that text says the first pogo is put on the high, light wing, then that is pulled down to install the other pogo.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a how to manual, so I simplified the wording to "ground crew re-installs the pogos one wing at a time".  If you or someone has a better idea without making the text too long or complicated, please change it.  Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to change the info on the wing skids. They are made from tungsten not titanium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.192.21 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Variants
I noticed that the TU-2S was listed as 4 converted. There are 5 two seater U-2's used in training by the Air Force. I changed the number to five on the page. 129.82.192.21 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC) H

Neutrality Review

 * “This would allow overflights (knowingly violating a country's airspace) to take aerial photographs.”

This passage strikes me as being not quite neutral; “(K)nowingly violating a country's airspace” strike me as weasel words, and the link only references US overflights of Russia, and ignored Russian (and other) violations of other countries airspace. A far more neutral statement would read: “This would allow overflights to take aerial photographs.”, without links and explaination. 97.120.235.182 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

At the Edge of Space
The BBC's James May is invited to fly in the U2, the viewer follows May from spacesuit fitting through to the flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space 82.31.236.245 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

meters not shown in PDF
In the first two paragraphs the height of 70000 feet is shown with a undefined undefined to show meters. It displays fine as HTML but when the article is saved as a PDF the feet are shown and the meters are shown as

unknown operator: u'strong' meters

with no number shown. I poked around the docs and it appears that the use of undefined undefined is proper, so I am hoping that someone else knows how to fix this!

Danallen46 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried adjust the template settings with no improvement. Looks like the problem is with the convert template itself.  This question has been asked at Template_talk:Convert already.  Maybe ask for an update or something there. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * According to they burned JP-8. Pjbflynn (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * JP-8 didn't come into being until the 90s - they probably used JP-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But, then, according to Wikipedia, there is a special fuel for the U-2 called JPTS. Pjbflynn (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

JPTS - Jet Petroleum Thermal Stable. It is basically JP-8 with an additive to keep the fuel from freezing at altitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.192.21 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Flight Manual of early U-2 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Resource
Someone should exploit this resource for the article: http://www.asipcon.com/2008/proceedings/Tues_0915_Birdsall_Mangrum.pdf I would, but just don't have the time. 71.108.104.221 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More resource: The flight manual seems to have been released. Seen on TGCP (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing spaces
This interesting and comprehensive article was marred by dozens of missing spaces, all of them before linked words or phrases. Fixed! Whoever put the links in should be more careful, please. Sca (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There were some missing or extra ones in other places too. It'll get fixed in a day or two.  No big deal, really. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)