And Russian SAMs can easily take out a U-2, so I'm not sure what the author is trying to say there, to be honest with you.
It's a testament to the engineering that what was by all rights a quick hack job has managed to stand the test of time.
oh gee whiz. this is such a great comment. I almost spilled coffee laughing on my keyboard. A+.
"just imagine the objections people would have raised to this feature, more parts, it looks funny"
"we wanted to throw a clambshell on it for shits and giggles but the powers that be decided that being able to back up a 2% grade was enough"
"both sets of wheels steer so it's one of the nicest planes to land in a near-hurricane cross wind because it can just crab sideways though the sky and keep the wheels lines up perfectly with the runway"
https://jalopnik.com/5537629/the-140-mph-chase-cars-of-the-u...
I was under the impression that computers can fly planes which are impossible for humans to fly (e.g. the F-117, or any fighter with forward-swept wings). Since the U-2 is much closer to a "conventional" aircraft, and can be stick-flown by a human, wouldn't it be a walk in the park for a compute to fly it?
Computers don't fly the F-117, they help humans fly it. The difference between the two is significant.
"...To maintain their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never-exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h). This narrow window is called the "coffin corner", because breaching either limit would likely cause airflow separation at the wings or tail. For most of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a loss of altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe."