Night Fighter

[Ripsnort]

Only 1/3 of the production P61's had top (.50cal) turrets due to the imbalance and weight they imposed.(Pilots reported strange COG problems when doing a loop, remember that the P61 handled very similiar to the P38)  Eventually all the top turrets were removed, and the 4X20mm is all the plane carried for guns.

[pdog_109]

LOL P-61 handle like a P-38? Thats a joke right? P-61 is a big fat PIG!

[Ripsnort]

Nope, not a joke. Fact.

[pdog_109]

3 crew, nose rader, 4 x 20mm, rear gunner.
Loaded down with all that, the P-61 does not handle like a P-38. P-38 is a manuverable fighter aircraft. It has more or less the same shape but the P-61 is much heavier. Where do you get these facts from?

[AKSWulfe]

There's more to handling than simply weight.

Wing area, control surface area, power output from the engines, stream lined...
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Go to Zeno's drive in, watch the 20 min P61 film, it tells you in there.  Also, here are some side by side comparisons:

Keep in mind the P61 was designated a "fighter".

P38-2X 1150 hp engines
P61-2X 2100 hp engines

P38 max CS 2500 fpm
P61 max CS 2800 fpm

P38 max speed 390 mph
P61 max speed 425 mph

P38 max alt. 39,000
P61 max alt. 46,000

P38 length X Wingspan 37' x 52'
P61 length X Wingspan 49' x 66'

P61 had boosted ailerons as well.  3rd crewman was only used in the A model when the .50 cal turret was originally cast, typically carried 2 crew members in operational status.

[Pei]

Also as IIRC P-61 had a surpisingly good roll rate.

I can't really see any use for night fighters unless they change the radar setup (dot dar for radar equipped AC only? Even better a realistic (kinda ) radar operator position with scope/dial as appropraite and no other dar).

P-61 would be fun though. Just think of the screams from the MA when single engined fighters get zoomed and boomed by this monster. Plus it would be an interesting jabo option: didn't they carry upto 4x1K bombs and rockets?

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Pei ]

[Toad]

One thing to remember abuot night fighters in their historical role: almost all of their victims didn't have a clue until the tracers started whizzing by. (Basically non-maneuvering, unaware targets until the shots rang out.)

That would not be the case in our MA or CT.

So, they'd probably get used in a dayfighter role... just another plane in the planeset.

Nightfighters are fine by me, but the idea of using them historically with radar operator etc. would require other systemic changes to the game.

[Karnak]

Me262 would NOT be the ultimate night fighter, at least by the accounts that I've read.

Mossies would slowly (something the Me262 isn't good at) position themselves behind the con, ID it, and then shoot it if it proved to be an enemy.

Me262s also don't have the flight endurance to make a good night fighter.

British radar was also better than the German radar.

The effect the arrival of Night Fighter Mosqitoes had on the German Night Fighter squadrons has been compared to the effect the Foker Eindecker had when it showed up on the Western Front in WWI and caused the Foker Scourge. The Night Fighter Mosquitoes simply decimated the German ranks.

[flakbait]

*brandishes rubber chicken*

Rip don't make me use this!  


 

The P-61B-15-NO reintroduced the dorsal turret (General Electric Type A-4), the buffeting problem caused by earlier turrets having by now been largely corrected.

The P-61B-20-NO used the General Electric type A-7 turret with a revised fire-control system.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p61_3.html

Every B model from the -15NO block on had a top turret, with the buffeting problem being almost completely corrected. It was buffeting, not a COG problem, that was a big source of pilot complaints.

 

Only the first thirty-seven of the 45 P-61A-1s were actually equipped with the dorsal turrets. In fact, more than half of all P-61As built actually had this turret deleted. One reason for this omission was that the General Electric remotely-controlled turret mechanism was urgently needed for the B-29 program. However, the primary reason was the occurrence of severe aerodynamic buffeting when the turret was being either elevated or rotated in azimuth during flight. Many flight-test hours were spent in trying to solve this problem, but it was never completely eliminated. In fact, this problem was often so severe that many P-61As in the field had the four 0.50-inch machine guns in the top turret permanently locked into the forward-firing position, being fired only by the pilot, with the gunner having no control at all. In many cases, the top turret was completely removed from the aircraft, and the cavity left behind by the deletion of the gun turret was filled up by an extra fuel tank and was faired over. In a few cases, the turret mechanism was completely removed from the aircraft and the four dorsal machine guns were secured in the upper portion of the turret cavity and covered by a nonstandard turret cover. Some of these modifications were made in the field, but others were made at forward depots before the aircraft were delivered to their operational squadrons.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p61_2.html

Your claim is the first I've heard about any COG problem with the P-61. Some P-61A models kept the turret, while others removed it entirely. The empty space being dedicated to either extra fuel or simply faired over.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[juzz]

"Also, here are some side by side comparisons: >insert Northrop propaganda here<"

It looks like they took the Lightning performance figures from a 1941 model P-38D and compared it to a 1945 model 5,600HP turbocharged P-61C("too late to see combat", only 41 built).

If you want to compare the P-61 to another US plane, try the A-26. The only appreciable difference is the two defensive turrets and homogenous 14x.50in armament of the Invader. In all other aspects they are surprisingly similar.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]

[Tac]

Correct Juzz. The performance of that lightning vs P-61 is off.

P-38 max alt=44k or so
Max speed=about 410mph or so
Engine power=1475 HP EACH engine.

But yes, the P-61 was very similar and quite comparable to the P-38 even with its size. In fact, I think the P-61 would easily out-turn and out-zoom the P-38, quite probably outdive it too. ROClimb would be slower though I think and I bet it would bleed E faster during those manouvers.

I wonder if it compressed and/or had dive flaps. Rip? Got mach number of p61 and p38 handy? or if it had any compression problems?  

In short, I WANT ONE.    

[Ripsnort]

Okay, admit that I didn't have my info in front of me when I posted (at work)..I stand corrected, buffeting.  (Easy to get COG with buffeting mixed up since they could be related in an airfoil problem)

Tac, the numbers I posted did not reflect what model P38, yours are probably based on at least the J or L model, I think the numbers I posted were probably the F. (Again, I don't have my books, going off a aircraft website)

No numbers for compression offhand.

Note: I posted that these planes flew very similiar...I did not say they flew identically the same..I would imagine the P61 was a tad bit 'heavier' than the P38 in flight characteristics, but from all the sources I have reflect they were very similiar.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

[Ripsnort]

A few things would probably have to change in an arena for a night fiter to happen:

No icons on enemy fighters.

Flames visible from exhaust (this is what most pilots used to guide them in once within a mile or so of enemy fighter, after the radar, whether ground or airborne in nose, had given then a general location)

Some sort of primitive inflight radar for those A/C that had it.

Some sort of primitive ground radar installation manned for A/C that did not have inflight radar.

So, doubt we'll ever get a true, tactically historic night fiter.

[Pei]

At the risk of heading somewhat off topic take a look at
 http://www.nightbomber.com/

Not sure if they are going to make anything other than LW night fighters though.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Pei ]