Author Topic: P-61 schtuff (Read 1128 times)

Tails · « **on:** June 02, 2005, 11:15:40 AM »

Yup, it's schtuff, not stuff. Stuff is too plain, and this aint plain. Anyways, take a look at what I stumbled across while trying to find info on my other favorite two-tail:

P61 schtuff

Of interest to Pyro and company are the bomb layout and cockpit layouts for pilot, radio op., and gunner's positions.

And I'll say it again, before someone mentions the 'R' word, I dont care if it wont have a working radar.

The only wierd part would be the modeling of the ventral barbette turret. It was a remote-controlled type with a specialized gunsight that the gunner and radio op. used to train the thing. Next best thing in AH2 would likely be how they have the hull guns on the older tanks setup, with the addition of a crosshair. Crude, but effective, unless Pyro WANTS to model the gunsight on this thing

Ok, back to work with me...

EDIT: Yes, I know the gunnery layout says the turret was removed. That was on the A models due to aerodynamic instability it caused, the P-61-B15 reintroduced the ventral turret, with the full three man crew.

Rino · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2005, 11:46:34 AM »

That would be the dorsal turret

Tails · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2005, 11:48:19 AM »

Yeah yeah, aint had enough caffine today. And since someone noticed, I might as well not edit it.

Wolfala · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2005, 09:26:51 PM »

So what were the speeds on the 61?

bunch · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2005, 11:27:05 PM »

An Ex-USAAF nightfighter pilot i met on a flight to Cincinatti know told me P-61 was too slow & that they prefered the DH98s

Staga · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2005, 02:18:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
So what were the speeds on the 61?

P-61A & B ~330mph SL, 352mph 10k and 366mph 20k
P-61C with new turbocharged engines and paddleblade props 430mph but only few was manufactured before war ended.

Pongo · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2005, 11:55:26 AM »

Imagine an 430 mph a20 with 4 hispanos in the nose and a 4X50 turrent.
It would be the dweebiest plane in the game by a long long shot.

Wolfala · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2005, 01:03:53 PM »

I'll take a C, with a side order of boobies.

Tails · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2005, 03:21:25 PM »

I'll take the B15 model. Most likely to end up in the game as more were built than the C's, less dweeby than the C's, and if you had a competent pilot/gunner team on board this thing would be hell on wings!

bunch · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2005, 06:57:04 PM »

dont forget the giant collection of air to ground ordinance, the larget i've heard of for any WW2 fighter (incliding Lindy's 4000lbs on a Corsair or 4000lbs on a Lightning)

Krusty · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2005, 12:03:46 AM »

"P-61A & B ~330mph SL, 352mph 10k and 366mph 20k "

So you're saying the most representative model (of a relatively RARE bird, overall) was only comparable to the Bf110G? With about the same speed, about the same weaponry (4x20mm and 2x30mm in my book equal about 4x20mm and 4x50cal), only it's about a target 4x the size, stands out like a sore thumb, and doesn't even have a rear gunner for that slim hope of rear defensive fire?

Uh... Why the heck have you been advocating this bird? It's worse than most of the planes in this game, and actually worse than the Mosquito and only comparable to the 110G.

We have other holes to fill in this planeset. No need to fill a hole that doesn't exist.

Tails · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2005, 12:33:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
"P-61A & B ~330mph SL, 352mph 10k and 366mph 20k "

So you're saying the most representative model (of a relatively RARE bird, overall) was only comparable to the Bf110G? With about the same speed, about the same weaponry (4x20mm and 2x30mm in my book equal about 4x20mm and 4x50cal), only it's about a target 4x the size, stands out like a sore thumb, and doesn't even have a rear gunner for that slim hope of rear defensive fire?

Uh... Why the heck have you been advocating this bird? It's worse than most of the planes in this game, and actually worse than the Mosquito and only comparable to the 110G.

We have other holes to fill in this planeset. No need to fill a hole that doesn't exist.

Nope, doesn't have a rear gunner. Has a 360 degree rotating barbette on the roof that covers the entire upper hemisphere with quad .50's. (Atleast, on the P-61B-15 and newer, and a number of the original A's), and it has a rather mild fire interruptor for the barbette.

That, and it has that whole two-tail thing goin for it.

As for firepower, it probably would be more or less a doppleganger for the Bf-110G2, if not for the turret. Though, with four drop tanks it could definately stay up in the air a bit longer. And with four 1600lbs bombs it could make some bigger smoking holes out of things. And unlike the 110, it would not need to sacrifice cannon power to get maximum bombload. And to offset all that...it's about as big as a frigate.

Bigger holes in the plane set? Sure. But that doesn't mean I dont still want one. And if they get one with the front and back remote turret sighting system working, then we're one step closer to getting some other remote-turret birds working. (Like the Me-410, B-29, and I think the A-26).

Krusty · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2005, 12:54:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tails
Nope, doesn't have a rear gunner. Has a 360 degree rotating barbette on the roof that covers the entire upper hemisphere with quad .50's. (Atleast, on the P-61B-15 and newer, and a number of the original A's), and it has a rather mild fire interruptor for the barbette.

That, and it has that whole two-tail thing goin for it.

As for firepower, it probably would be more or less a doppleganger for the Bf-110G2, if not for the turret. Though, with four drop tanks it could definately stay up in the air a bit longer. And with four 1600lbs bombs it could make some bigger smoking holes out of things. And unlike the 110, it would not need to sacrifice cannon power to get maximum bombload. And to offset all that...it's about as big as a frigate.

Bigger holes in the plane set? Sure. But that doesn't mean I dont still want one. And if they get one with the front and back remote turret sighting system working, then we're one step closer to getting some other remote-turret birds working. (Like the Me-410, B-29, and I think the A-26).

I don't think it EVER saw use as a bomber.

Keep in mind that with any DTs (not to mention 4 of them) you would lose a considerable amount of speed due to drag (and you're going slow enough!).

I don't think the turret rotated freely. I think it was limited to forward angles (i.e. 240 to 120 degrees?), and if we got an A it would most likely NOT have a turret at all (having most of theirs removed at forward supply depots before being forwarded to the flightline), just the 20mms. No loss. The few that did have the turret locked it in place (to fire foward, aimed by the pilot), and the "gunner" was an extra pair of eyes.

No, I think that the plane would be slow, vulnerable, weak, an easy target, and as much a death trap as trying to furball a MOSS in a swarm of SpitVs.

I'm agin it.

onions4u · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2005, 03:28:50 AM »

A26, 4k bombs, 14 rockets, two remote 50 turrents. about 351mph . Or a version with with 14 foward firing 50s , 6 in the nose and 4 each slung under each wing.

Wolfala · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2005, 04:48:52 AM »

U should've seen the version they used during Vietnam - A26K counter invador. Canadian fire svc still uses them as borate bombers.