Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 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 (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MoreP-61Stuff.html)
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 :D
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.
-
That would be the dorsal turret :D
-
Yeah yeah, aint had enough caffine today. And since someone noticed, I might as well not edit it.
-
So what were the speeds on the 61?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'll take a C, with a side order of boobies.
-
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! :aok
-
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)
-
"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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
U should've seen the version they used during Vietnam - A26K counter invador. Canadian fire svc still uses them as borate bombers.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think it EVER saw use as a bomber.
It was used as a fighter-bomber in the ETO doing night interdictions.
The US fighter competion (1944??) surprised many 'fighter' pilots with the outstanding manueverabilty of this large a/c.
-
pongo, there were no cannon in the nose. the nose housed the radar. the cannon were mounted in a similar manner as the b26 ingame. there were 4x 50 cals were mounted on the dorsile turret. the p61 was wicked meneuverable considering its size. it could do a barrel roll with one engine out.
PS
why do i know so much abou this plane? my grandfather (RIP) flew in one as a navigator.
-
The barbette did rotate 360 degrees. The gunner in front, sitting behind the pilot, had a remote turret gunsight. And the radio operator, in the rear of the center nacell facing aft, also had a remote turret gunsight. One guy aimed at stuff in the front, the other in the back.
Check out that link I posted in the beginning, it shows the coverage arc of the barbette.
EDIT: And it wasn't so much that it could barrel roll with an engine out, but rather it could roll INTO a dead engine. In most multi-engine craft, that would be comitting suicide.
-
the turret was turnable on early models only, as the motor was overpowered and when turned would jerk the plane around. so on later models it was fixed in a foreward firing position.
-
On A-models, yes, but most A-models had the turret fixed forward due to tail-buffet when the guns were elevated or translated.
The B-15 model added a fully rotateable turret after they solved the problems it was having. B-20 model offered an upgrade to the turret and sighting system thanks to the folks at GE.
EDIT: Dont ask what kind of upgrade it was. I cant find a site that gets specific on it. They meerly list it as an 'improvement'.
-
ya I know where the cannons are. They are fixed to fire forward from the belly. Sorry for the totaly inacurate nose statement.
-
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap25.jpg)
For you who say we don’t NEED the P-61, you completely miss the point if you can’t appreciate how wicked this airplane looks. That alone is reason enough to include it, forget about the radar and AH night.
Selected text from the link listed above to zenos site:
After D-Day, many Black Widows moved to France. Although several interceptions of night-flying German aircraft were made, most Black Widow missions were night intruder missions against trains, armor, and other ground targets.
There were 16 P-61 Squadrons according to zenos site, serving in all theaters of the war with starting “activation” in March of 1944 in the Pacific.
-
It's a nice and powerfull airplane, but IMO that it would be just another Bf-110, A-20 or Mosquito
-
Originally posted by frank3
It's a nice and powerfull airplane, but IMO that it would be just another Bf-110, A-20 or Mosquito
And what could be wrong with that? We have 23 versions of the Bf-109, 37 different Fw-190s, 10 different P-38s...
Some of us like to fly planes for other than their effectiveness in the furball. Another choice in heavy attackers would be a good thing, imo.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
And what could be wrong with that? We have 23 versions of the Bf-109, 37 different Fw-190s, 10 different P-38s...
Some of us like to fly planes for other than their effectiveness in the furball. Another choice in heavy attackers would be a good thing, imo.
when did paint schemes start to count for versions of an aircraft?
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Some of us like to fly planes for other than their effectiveness in the furball. Another choice in heavy attackers would be a good thing, imo.
Not saying it won't be effective or something, the P-61 would be a nice addition and I'd fly it rather often for sure.
But the plane was produced that much, I think HTC would consider giving some other BoB or mid-war dated aircraft a chance above this one.