« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: P-61  (Read 1407 times)

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
P-61
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2004, 03:13:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Mugzeee,

I'd like to see the P-61.  I'd fly the P-61 now and then, though it is a bit slow.  I think the P-61 would end up being the premier jabo aircraft in AH.  The P-61 is one of the neatest looking aircraft from WWII.


What I object to, and it doesn't matter which aircraft it is about, is people misstating capabilities and making something out to be something it is not.


I assume you are refering to this quote?
Quote

P-61 was also armed to the teeth, maneuverable for its size, and fast. Even without radar it would make a nice twin heavy fighter/destroyer. Like an American Bf-110. [/B]


I guees i read into the statement a little differently.
The part where it was said "maneuverable for its size"
lead me to belive the writer just jumbled the sentence a little...Like the "Fast" part was also taking into consideration the size of tha AC. I figured he meant to write it something like this. ( P-61 was also armed to the teeth, maneuverable and fast for its size.
But as far as Twin engine Heavy Attacker/Fighters go of this size and weight? The P61 could be considered fast.
:)


Quote
Originally posted by Panman
The P-61b had a top speed over 370mph ,
                                      Panman


Awesome!! With the AH2 BF 110g-2 having a speed very close to the same...(370) This could make for some very fun fights between the two. :)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2004, 03:18:05 PM by Mugzeee »
Logged

Offline SunTracker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
P-61
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2004, 03:48:11 PM »
P-61C had nice performance, but I don't believe it saw action.

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 425 mph
Cruising speed: 275 mph
Range: 1,200 miles
Service Ceiling: 46,200 ft.
Logged

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
P-61
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2004, 03:48:20 PM »
The part where it was said "maneuverable for its size"   Ive read that a few places.
Logged

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
P-61
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2004, 03:52:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SunTracker
P-61C had nice performance, but I don't believe it saw action.

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 425 mph
Cruising speed: 275 mph
Range: 1,200 miles
Service Ceiling: 46,200 ft.

WOW i just found the data
That is Fast indeed.
But i found coflicting info

P61 Tec Dat

P61 Slower Data

On second look it appears that one of the P61s (The faster one)is showing 2,100 HP per engine. Where the slower one is showing 2x2000 Hp
« Last Edit: July 07, 2004, 04:02:56 PM by Mugzeee »
Logged

Offline Roman1

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
P-61
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2004, 02:31:14 PM »
Panman,
I support the P-61 and have made the same suggestion a while ago. One important fact left out was the fact the the P-61B and P-61C had underwing racks that could carry 4 250gal drop tanks or 6,400lbs of bombs. Do we need a night fighter? No. Could the P-61 be used effectively as a heavy fighter bomber in AH2? Definately YES!

Regards,
Roman1
Logged

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
P-61
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2004, 04:18:57 PM »
I guess my 'fast' comment on the '61 came from me looking at the C-model data. Though the B model, as mentioned, is fairly nice for a large twin. And the portable M-16 turret on the roof is a nice feature :D
Logged
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
P-61
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2004, 10:05:29 PM »
P-61 could make a nice addition along with other night fighters, but have to cringe a bit at using it for jabo.  Far as I know, was not used for that in real life.  Kinda hate to see unrealistic uses in Aces High (like dive bombing B-17s).
Logged
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10908
P-61
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2004, 10:30:12 PM »
I stayed out of the fray here thinking my sig would be enough but I would like the P61 just because it's one of the koolest looking planes ever produced.

Add the bomb load to it and it will be one of my favorite rides.

Yeah, yeah I know it's useless as a night fighter in AH but so what.  I don't care and I think that sums it up for most of it's fans.
Logged
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
P-61
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2004, 11:20:59 PM »
" I think the P-61 would end up being the premier jabo aircraft in AH."

Especially if it were modeled with the 4-gun turret.  

Speaking of which, that reminds me about the missing gun on the A-20


J_A_B
Logged

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Halo
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2004, 12:11:23 AM »
Jabo as such it wasn't,but one of the aims of night-time Intruder sorties was to cause enemy airfields to close, forcing inbound aircraft, possibly already low on fuel, to divert elsewhere.

Holes in runways and blazes in hangars helped the closing process along, also a clear indication that there was an Allied aircraft lurking about, so a bomb load is  perfectly legit.

A real night war would be even more legit, but I reckon that's CT  stuff.

Cheers,

Scherf
Logged
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
P-61
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2004, 08:58:46 AM »
No offence to anyone but the arguement against the P61 because it was a "night Fighter and we dont have night" is outright silly. And really an invalid arguement

Since when has a planes designed intent or even standard use count for much here?
B-17 was a High alt heavy bomber and I Saw first hand one of those dogfighting last night for crissakes. And being pretty dern effective at it I might add.
 Something I HIGHLY  doubt an empty one let alone  fully loaded heavy bomber was capable of during the war. And even if it was technically capable of it. When was it ever done?
Since it was inbound I can only assume it had eggs
We also have 17's and Lancasters divebombing, and comming in at low and sometimes even under dar alts to make runs on bases. Something else that I highly doubt it did much of.
110's were traditionally bombers not fighters Yet I see people using them as a fighter all the time

The P61 would have alot of uses. And while it was designed ad primarily used as a night fighter it was also occasionaly used  on strike and ground support missions during the daytime.

I could easily see it being used for air support against GVs.
Also it should have some sort of onboard dar that would be immune to HQ dar being knocked out. (local dar with a range of what the feild dar is)
True we may not have night But having no dar is basically the same thing in limiting your ability to know where enemy AC are
Make it a perked plane and almost that alone would give us reason to actually use it. Very few perked anything do we actually have a real need or reason to use other then  simply for the novely of it.

To Balance out the planeset make the 110 version also.
Logged
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10908
P-61
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2004, 03:56:26 PM »
I stumbled across this page with links to several P61s.

Link to P-61s

Logged
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »