4 ms·
"tough to replicate with computers" I was under the impression that computers can fly planes which are impossible for humans to fly (e.g. the F-117, or any fig
by cellularmitosis 9y ago
"tough to replicate with computers"
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?
- strictnein 9y agoFlappy wings, tough to land. Computers don't fly the F-117, they help humans fly it. The difference between the two is significant.
- pilsetnieks 9y agoThose were the 80s computers though. We've gone a long way since then.
- itsgreene 9y agoI'm not saying a computer can't fly the U2, but I do think it'd be more complex than a conventional aircraft. It has some pretty unique flight characteristics. From Wikipedia: "...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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2