U2 - Based on F104?
Christian Bull
In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
substantially increased wingspan".
Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
-ElG?
Simon Lam
: In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
: -ElG?
You know, the Starfighter and the U-2 were both built by Skunk Works
(Skunk Werks) They both have one engine. Both have half circle and inlets on
each side. Maybe, just maybe. Unlikely but possible. BTW, did you know
the U-2 took off at 70 knots?
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
Mike
>Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
>says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
>substantially increased wingspan".
>Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
A recent episode of "Wings" on the Discovery Channel did a special on the
U-2 plane. It said the same thing as you are wondering - that it was
based on the F-104 Starfighter airframe, but had the wings replaced with
extremely wide wingspan ones, and the sharp nose was reduced to a rounded
bulb ( I guess radar equipment ). Kinda funny that this old boy is still
being used by the AF, which had retired the U-2's successor, the SR-71
Blackbird, first. :)
Mike
Damien Burke
|>
|> In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
|> Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
|> says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
|> substantially increased wingspan".
|>
|> Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
I think this is also mentioned in the Skunk Works book - chop the wings off
both machines and compare them; there is actually quite a definite resemblance.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My world wide web home: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
[ Sinclair Spectrum page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/speccy ]
[ European military aircraft page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/hangar ]
Andrew Madison
: In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
: Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
: says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
: substantially increased wingspan".
: Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
Ben Rich, in his _Skunk Works_ book explains that to save time & money,
various components from the F-104 were used either directly, or as a
basis for the U-2. But it wasn't the entire plane, which is one
interpretation of your quote. As I recall, the reused parts were the
intakes, and most of the fuselage, plus some internal odds and ends.
And I'm pretty sure that Ben had to modify the F-104 intakes for the
rarified airstream of U-2 cruising altitudes, so those parts aren't
identical to the starfighter. And more that I think about it,
"substantially increased wingspan" is an almost absurd undestatement.
--
A.J. Madison mad...@nexen.com
Ascom Nexion
289 Great Road phone: (508) 266-2332
Acton, MA 01720-4739 FAX: (508) 266-2300
e...@cbncp5.cb.att.com
Christian Bull <cb...@login.bigblue.no> wrote:
>In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
>Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
>says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
>substantially increased wingspan".
>
>Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
>
Take a model of an F-104 and put long wings on it and
move the elevadors down to just above the exaust and it
looks like a U2.
C:WINSOCKKA9QSPOOLMAIL
the U2 after many design changes.
If I recall you can find this info in CHris Peacocks book "Dragon Lady".
Hope this helps
Chris
--
**
Chris Butterfield
Richard Caldwell
> In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
> Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
> says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
> substantially increased wingspan".
>
> Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
No. The U-2 design was originally based on the F-80 Shooting Star (which
later became the T-33). They streched the fuselage & nose, added wingspan &
bigger elevator & rudder. Hell, they changed about everything they could
change. But, they started out with the F-80 airframe.
Richard
David Tanner
and reshape, but the basic topology is unchanged.
And the F-80 owed a lot to the P-38.
That was one of the keys to Kelly Johnson's genius: re-use good ideas. For
example, I think in all three jets the nosewheel door is kicked closed
by having the wheel hit a tab on the door itself: simple and effective.
--
David Tanner
ufta...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Matthew Saroff
>In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
>Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
>says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
>substantially increased wingspan".
Hi,
I would actually say that they both look a lot like the Lockheed P-80
Shooting Star. The U-2 in particular.
-- Matthew Saroff| Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: marijuana, cocaine, cia
plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to: msa...@moose.erie.net.
Ken Koller
: >In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
: >Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
: >says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
: >substantially increased wingspan".
The U-2 was derived both from the F-104 airframe and the RB-57. The
Lockehhed CL282 design proposal was based on the XF104 fuselage with
extended wings. The design was rejected by the USAF becuase the CL282
design implemented the experimental j73 engine. Johnson went back to the
drawing board, redesigning the fuselage to accomoade the proven J57. This
changed somewhat the similarities to the F104. The project was given the
code name AQUATONE, and was funded through the CIA and USAF, the latter
through bogus B52 spart engine contracts to keep secrecy. FYI, many of
the payments and Classified information shipped via the US mail, what
better way to hide something than right out in the open.
-- U2 In Action Larry Davis Author
--
Ken Koller
Photographer, The Santa Clarita Signal
kko...@adnetsol.com
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."
dave_sutton
of the U2 from the F-104. Not in great depth, but enough that the point is made.
David Sutton, RED STAR AVIATION, pil...@planet.net
"Sales of Exotic Aircraft from Antonov to Zlin"
Lars Nesse
>
>
>In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
>Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
>says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
>substantially increased wingspan".
>
>Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
>
As I remember, there was a proposal of making a high-altitude
aircraft based on the F-104, but the problem of fitting a J57
engine into the airframe caused the design team to chose a
more dedicated design. As the J57 was the only jet engine
capable of operation at such altitudes, the cost of designing
a new engine just to make it fit into an F-104 airframe was
just too high.
By the way, I wouldn't regard "Forsvarets Forum" as any reliable
source for information...
Lars Nesse
John Szalay
> cb...@login.bigblue.no
> says...
> In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence For
>
> Is this correct?
> The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
>
>-ElG?
> As I remember, there was a proposal of making a high-altitude
> aircraft based on the F-104, but the problem of fitting a J57
> engine into the airframe caused the design team to chose a
> more dedicated design. As the J57 was the only jet engine
<<<>>>
Ben Rich, one of the designers of the U-2 and later head of Lockheed
Skunk-works, (and "father" of the F-117) sez in His book. SKUNK-WORKS
"The reason why Kelly (Johnson) could move so quickly building the
U-2 was that, he could use the same tools from the prototype of the
XF-104 fighter. The U-2, from nose to cockpit, was basically the
front half of the F014, but with with an extended body from cockpit
to tail"
SKUNK-WORKS pp-131
John Szalay
john....@tfd.org
jpsz...@tacl.dnet.ge.com
JOHN STONE
> >Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
> >says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
> >
> >Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
> >
> >-ElG?
> As I remember, there was a proposal of making a high-altitude
> aircraft based on the F-104, but the problem of fitting a J57
> engine into the airframe caused the design team to chose a
> more dedicated design. As the J57 was the only jet engine
> a new engine just to make it fit into an F-104 airframe was
> just too high.
According to several books, When Kelly Johnson was beginning the design
process, he started with a F-104 like plane and started from there, the
finished product was the U-2A.
Later,
John Stone
INTEGRA1
My dad was one of the project pilots on the 104 at Edwards. When the U2
came along he was one the the project pilots on it as well. A couple of
his friends have told me it was partly due to his 104 experience and the
similarities between the two birds that he was put on the U2 project.
If you look at any of the initial designs for the U2, as well as the
cockpit arrangement of the finished product, it is pretty obvious the
evolution of the craft.
Paul Tennant Smith ITS95
>... says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with a
>substantially increased wingspan."
>
>Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
I would agree since I would say that it is unlikely that a plane used for long
endurance work at high altitudes would be built on the same airframe as a
fighter designed for high speed and rapid rate of climb. Fighters tend to be
built with heavier airframes designed for high stresses and this extra weight
would be a considerable liability in an aircraft designed for high altitudes and
maximum range. Also considering the great problems that were encountered with
the engines on the U-2 ( the J-40 I think?) if it had been based on the F-104
then it would have been a simple task to swap to the more reliable J-79.
Paul Smith. pts...@cs.strath.ac.uk
Cole Pierce
>substantially increased wingspan."
>
Hard to believe this is true. The -104 had a unique, double-diamond, airfoil,
designed for high speed. The U-2, on the other hand, is at the absolute
opposite end of the spectrum, designed for high lift-to-drag ratio common
to gliders.
Gun One
Clarke Hemphill
>In <P+QqwIxN...@login.bigblue.no>, ElG writes:
>
>>substantially increased wingspan."
>>
>
>I would agree since I would say that it is unlikely that a plane used for long
>endurance work at high altitudes would be built on the same airframe as a
>fighter designed for high speed and rapid rate of climb. Fighters tend to be
>built with heavier airframes designed for high stresses and this extra weight
>would be a considerable liability in an aircraft designed for high altitudes and
>maximum range. Also considering the great problems that were encountered with
>the engines on the U-2 ( the J-40 I think?) if it had been based on the F-104
>then it would have been a simple task to swap to the more reliable J-79.
modified. The reason a different engine was needed was that the f-104's
engine didn't work very well at high altitudes so an engine that worked
better was used.
ch...@polycot.com
john Szalay
news:cf0c23f0-b138-40e0...@googlegroups.com:
> Yeager poked a hole in the sky with a 104 prototype.. high altitude
> testing? Figure the rest out later..
>
the high altitude thing, with the NF-104A (1963)
while he did do F-104 flight testing in 1954 . the U-2 first flight was
Aug 1955. (delivered just 9 months after contract signing)
Scott M. Kozel
The X-3 Stiletto is there. The sign said that the F-104 design
was heavily influenced by the X-3 design and test flight data.
wingnu...@gmail.com
> In the current issue (nr.22) of "Forsvarets Forum" ("Defence Forum") in
> Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
> Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
>
Indeed, the U2 prototype (given a different designation at the time) was basically an F104 with new wings and empennage and revised nose. The aircraft was secretly being developed in Lockheed's skunk works whilst the Air Force were evaluating Bell's solution to the requirement in the X16Look at photos of the prototype and you'll see the resemblance - of course the U2 as it came to be known was much modified and developed and the most recent mark bares little resemblance to her descendant but she is indeed spawn of the 104.
nlo...@gmail.com
> Norway there is an article - "Who knew about the U2 in Norway?" - which
> says the U2 was "built around the Lockheed 104 Starfighter, but with
> substantially increased wingspan".
>
> Is this correct? The planes don't appear to look much like each other.
>
> -ElG?
I was searching the same (U2 based on F104), because My manager at Flextronics Brazil said He was a Sgt. in the Norway Air Force during the 1980's, working on F104 fleet.
He was convicted about this, but I don't have any other evidence on It.
Any recent dcivery in this matter since this post was created?
THX!
Daryl
the XF-104 but they shortened it. It also shared the same engine. Both
were powered by the J-73 which is a derivative of the J-47. When the
F-104 was introduced, it did get the J-79. The XF-104 got the J-47
originally while the U-2 received the J-73. The difference between the
two was the J-73 flowed more air into the intake. Hence it being able
to operate at a much higher altitude. The U-2 and the TR-1 did get
upgraded engines like the J-57 that was modified to flow more air into
the intakes. So it did share the nose and fuselage with the XF-104 but
that's about it. It may have started from the same base beginnings from
the XF104 but like the F-104, it became it's own aircraft. Considering
like the F-104, the U-2 dates back to 1953 in it's beginnings, it still
works even today with the upgrades it's received.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com