Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: JOACH1M on August 22, 2010, 12:21:05 PM
-
Northrop P61 Black Widow
2 Pratt&whittney R2800-25S double wasps radial engines, but no superchargers were put on the aircraft. It was armed with four 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano M2 forward firing cannons mounted in the lower fuselage, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns lined up horizontally with the two middle guns slightly offset upwards in a remotely-aimed dorsally mounted turret,optional 2x726kg bombs, optional 6x127mm HVAR rockets.
Crew 3
Span 9.99 m
Length 9.99 m
Height 4.47 m
Wing Area 61.53 mē
Weight, Empty 10,637 kg
Weight, Loaded 13,471 kg
Weight, Maximum 16,420 kg
Speed, Maximum 589 km/h
Rate of Climb, 2520 ft/s
Service 46,400 ft
P61 had air to air kills but i dont know how many, and 706 were built over the war.
-
It seems that this plane is asked for every 6 months or so. I think the last time was in June of this year. But, no harm in asking for it again. Maybe some night time arenas to go with it too. :aok
Note: The P61 did have air to air kills. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northrop_P-61_combat.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northrop_P-61_combat.html)
-
+1 It may have been the largest fighter ever, but it packed a punch, was maneuverable, and was very fast.
-
I'd love to have it but seeing as there is no night in the game, there is no need for a NIGHT FIGHTER... Capiche?
Great craft, though.
-
I'd love to have it but seeing as there is no night in the game, there is no need for a NIGHT FIGHTER... Capiche?
Great craft, though.
then why is there night skins for the b17s?
-
it doesnt have to be a night only plane...just seeing it saw action in ww2 and did impressive things, and its something else beside a 110 or a mossie!! :airplane:
-
Ki-45 is something else between a 110 and a Mossie, and its not ammerican, and had more wepon load outs, and also worked durring the day :aok
-
It seems that this plane is asked for every 6 months or so. I think the last time was in June of this year. But, no harm in asking for it again. Maybe some night time arenas to go with it too. :aok
Note: The P61 did have air to air kills. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northrop_P-61_combat.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northrop_P-61_combat.html)
also think it scored the last air to air kill in WWII
-
the last air kill in WWII was a mustang shooting down a Ki-100 I belive
-
then why is there night skins for the b17s?
Because the B-17 is a regular bomber, night or daytime, just because it was also used as a night bomber doesn't mean it is strictly a night bomber, it can have night flying skins if people want to make it. Find someone who makes skins and give them a non-night fighting skin and we might be talking.
-
The black widow shot down lots of enemy planes the most planes shoot down by a night fighter was set in a black widow :airplane:
-
Where's Ripsnort when you need him
-
fly a P38. :noid
-
Love how we can't have a plane because it was a night fighter. So what if it only flew at night. It still flew, served in squadron strength, and it made kills. Why can't we have a night fighter exactly? Explain your reasoning in detail to me.
-
for once, i agree with nemesis, I've always thought this.
-
I found this site with regards to the widow's last kill.
In a way, the P-61 was unofficially credited with the last Allied air kill of World War 2. Unofficial in that the enemy aircraft - a Japanese Nakajima Ki-44 - was reportedly in evasive maneuvers after having encountered an American P-61, its guns blazing on the Nakajima fighter. The enemy fighter flew defensively just feet above the waves and eventually crashed itself along the surface of the ocean, ending the life of the pilot and his mount in a fiery explosion. The P-61 in question was a P-61B-2 aptly-named "Lady in the Dark" and under the control of Lieutenant Robert W. Clyde. The event occurred sometime between August 14th and 15th. If credited, the kill would have been accomplished without a single shot being fired.
website:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=78 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=78)
-
The black widow shot down lots of enemy planes the most planes shoot down by a night fighter was set in a black widow :airplane:
*sigh*
-
Karnak anti ameri ac whine in 3... 2...
-
There's more aircraft that are needed first, but this one would be nice to see eventually. Certainly has a stronger case for being added than the P-63.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261688.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261688.0.html)
This is a thread with a lot of no in it. (Most other ones are filled with remarks about the OP being made by a noob).
But click on the link and it will take you to the thread and ultimately you will know Karnak's future answer.
-
When you hear enemy horror stories you usually hear about the later models, which were excellent craft. The A and B models could hold their own, but weren't anywhere near the level of performance as say... the C model? :aok
-
+1 for the Widow :aok
-
Ki-45 is something else between a 110 and a Mossie, and its not ammerican, and had more wepon load outs, and also worked durring the day :aok
And was nothing but cannon fodder for the Allies. This is McGuire's comments he wrote in his "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area" in 1944.
Nick - There haven't been many of these twin-engine fighters in this area and with their poor performance they are becoming scarcer as P-38 pilots and others prove that this is one Japanese fighter they can out-turn, out-run, and out-climb. The NICK is structurally strong and there will be some difficulty in diving away, but then it won't be necessary unless he gets close on your tail.
ack-ack
-
Tell me it wouldn't be fun to fly under a set of lancs and turn those 50's loose. :aok
-
+1 for the P-61 that was one great night fighter. :aok
-
Karnak anti ameri ac whine in 3... 2...
I read the thread when it was first posted. I didn't comment because I had nothing to add. The P-61 is a neat aircraft that would be used a lot for base attacks in AH, probably replacing the Bf110G-2 in that role. It was highly maneuverable, more so than its size would lead one to expect, but its performance would probably disappoint many people who are used to speed demons rather than something about as fast as an N1K2-J.
EDIT:
Don't mistake my posts in threads asking for aircraft that never participated as me being anti-American. I'd like to see the B-29A and the P-61. I am not nearly so keen on the P-63, F7F, F8F or P-80 as they did not fight.
-
I am not nearly so keen on the P-63...as [it] did not fight.
P-63 fanboi rant in 3... 2...
-
Also come to think of it, we do have some night only aircraft. The lancs?
-
Also come to think of it, we do have some night only aircraft. The lancs?
Lancasters were used in both day light and night bombing missions, as were the other bombers in Aces High.
ack-ack
-
Well, were they used predominantly at night? That would be a start anyway.
-
Well, were they used predominantly at night? That would be a start anyway.
No it wouldn't be a start for the obvious reasons, the Lancaster was not designed or built to be a "night bomber". The RAF Bomber Command also flew B-17s at night, would that make the B-17 a "night bomber"? LOL
ack-ack
-
P-63 fanboi rant in 3... 2...
i so badly want to not dissapoint you, but I'm choosing on not trying to derail this thread
-
Ack-Ack, its not all or nothing like you seem to think. If the lancaster flew, say 85% of its sorties at night, then that would be a step toward ending the "we can't have a night fighter because there is no night in the MA's" argument.
-
I read the thread when it was first posted. I didn't comment because I had nothing to add. The P-61 is a neat aircraft that would be used a lot for base attacks in AH, probably replacing the Bf110G-2 in that role. It was highly maneuverable, more so than its size would lead one to expect, but its performance would probably disappoint many people who are used to speed demons rather than something about as fast as an N1K2-J.
EDIT:
Don't mistake my posts in threads asking for aircraft that never participated as me being anti-American. I'd like to see the B-29A and the P-61. I am not nearly so keen on the P-63, F7F, F8F or P-80 as they did not fight.
Just yanking your chain a bit. I agree with you for the most part on when certain AC should be added.
Ohhh and as for the 63 it did shoot down one of the ac that should be added first.
-
P-63 fanboi rant in 3... 2...
Stuff it. :aok
-
Ack-Ack, its not all or nothing like you seem to think. If the lancaster flew, say 85% of its sorties at night, then that would be a step toward ending the "we can't have a night fighter because there is no night in the MA's" argument.
No it would for reasons that are so obvious that I am really surprised you're unable to grasp it.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, its not all or nothing like you seem to think. If the lancaster flew, say 85% of its sorties at night, then that would be a step toward ending the "we can't have a night fighter because there is no night in the MA's" argument.
P-61s flew ops during the day too. Many night fighters did.
-
I'd be interested in flying it but I doubt we'll ever see it in game. But, who knows, I've been wrong before.
-
It would help end that argument, even if it won't strait out kill it. I'm supprised you fail to grasp that the "no night in the MA" argument would loose ground if we had a plane that flew mostly at night.
And I have a question: how would HTC do the whole remote guns? I've heard that argument brought up in B-29 threads.
-
How does the remote chin turret work on the B-17G?
Remote guns would work just like manned guns. From gunner position; pan gunsight left, gun moves left, pan gunsight up gun moves up. Not hard to do. Only difference is the actual gun mount is in a pod rather than being in a manned turret. Not sure what the big deal would be. P-61 would have a gunner position with a gunsight just like an A-20G, but without sitting right behind the guns. B-29 would have multiple gunner positions just like a B-17 or any other bomber. Its actually easier to do remote pods as you dont need the graphics of actually sitting in the turret behind the mgs.
-
It would help end that argument, even if it won't strait out kill it. I'm supprised you fail to grasp that the "no night in the MA" argument would loose ground if we had a plane that flew mostly at night.
No, it wouldn't end the argument because it's not even germane to the argument on getting a night fighter in the game. C-47s flew at night, does that mean we should get a night fighter?
:rofl
Man, can't wait until Squeaker Season is over.
ack-ack
-
Summer's over for the most part. I'd say the last of their kind should return to the classroom sometime in early September.
A P51 flown at night doesn't mean it was solely a night fighter and doesn't require the addition of a real, true night fighter.
Essentially the C-47 example skewed a bit.
-
No, but the C-47 isn't really a combat aircraft, and it didn't fly most of its sorties at night. This seems like you took the worst example you could think of that would still hold any water, and tried to shoot down my argument with it.
I think that having a bomber that flew mostly at night (hypotheticly of course, not asking for one) would weaken the argment "no night in the MA, so there is no place for this aircraft here" against a heavy fighter that flew mostly at night. Mostly because that would mean HTC didn't deem a lack of night being sufficent reason for exclusion.
There seems to be no real reason past it flying mostly at night that makes people object to this, which I don't understand. Anyone care to explain?
-
The previous mossie was the night interceptor version. A PLANE FER THE NIGHTTIME HURR DURR
Argument over, The P61 meets all the rules for inclusion and should be added
+1
-
The previous mossie was the night interceptor version. A PLANE FER THE NIGHTTIME HURR DURR
Argument over, The P61 meets all the rules for inclusion and should be added
+1
Well, at least the P-61A and P-61B meet the requirements but not the P-61C.
ack-ack
-
No, but the C-47 isn't really a combat aircraft, and it didn't fly most of its sorties at night. This seems like you took the worst example you could think of that would still hold any water, and tried to shoot down my argument with it.
I think that having a bomber that flew mostly at night (hypotheticly of course, not asking for one) would weaken the argment "no night in the MA, so there is no place for this aircraft here" against a heavy fighter that flew mostly at night. Mostly because that would mean HTC didn't deem a lack of night being sufficent reason for exclusion.
There seems to be no real reason past it flying mostly at night that makes people object to this, which I don't understand. Anyone care to explain?
aw crap now you did it, B-29s flew at night so now we cant have one for me to ahem, shoot down with the new Raiden we are getting added next (thanks HiTech :) )
-
No, but the C-47 isn't really a combat aircraft, and it didn't fly most of its sorties at night. This seems like you took the worst example you could think of that would still hold any water, and tried to shoot down my argument with it.
C-47s flew 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and probably flew as many night missions as they flew day missions. In fact, C-47s often flew in weather that would have grounded combat aircraft because of the need for supplies.
I didn't try to shoot down your argument, I succeeded in spades. Using the Lancaster as a reason why we should have night fighters as an argument, is well, dumb. Which is why I used the C-47 as an example. Though I still suspect that you won't get the point as it flew over your head doing 500mph.
I think that having a bomber that flew mostly at night (hypotheticly of course, not asking for one) would weaken the argment "no night in the MA, so there is no place for this aircraft here" against a heavy fighter that flew mostly at night. Mostly because that would mean HTC didn't deem a lack of night being sufficent reason for exclusion.
That's been your problem...you've been thinking.
There seems to be no real reason past it flying mostly at night that makes people object to this, which I don't understand. Anyone care to explain?
More often than not, these wishes for night fighters stem out of the want for some uber cannon equipped plane and nothing else, the wish for the F6F-5N is a perfect example.
ack-ack
-
More often than not, these wishes for night fighters stem out of the want for some uber cannon equipped plane and nothing else, the wish for the F6F-5N is a perfect example.
ack-ack
ooh! can we get some of those?
-
The bomber itself isn't what weakens the argument. What would weaken the argument is that HTC wouldn't have deemed lack of night a sufficent reason for exclusion, as I said before.
I'm not using it as a reason for getting the P-61, I'm saying that (had it flown a large majority of its sorties at night), it would mean HTC didn't think that was enough to exclude it from the game.
-
Didn't see a good pic. I Think it was sharp lookin'. :salute
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/northrop-p61-blackwidow_2.jpg)
-
The bomber itself isn't what weakens the argument. What would weaken the argument is that HTC wouldn't have deemed lack of night a sufficent reason for exclusion, as I said before.
I'm not using it as a reason for getting the P-61, I'm saying that (had it flown a large majority of its sorties at night), it would mean HTC didn't think that was enough to exclude it from the game.
I dont know what all this talk of exclusion is? did HT or anyone from HTC ever say that the P61 wont be added?
all this talk of it makes it seem like you guys think HT has barred the P61 from the game :bolt:
-
No, its just hypothetical. I'm saying that if one of our planes flew a large majority of its sorties at night, it would show that HTC did not think lack of night in the MA's a sufficent reason for excluding a plane all on its own.
-
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/northrop-p61-blackwidow_3.jpg)
desert camo
-
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/northrop-p61-blackwidow.jpg)
-
+1 to the P-61
-
I would love to see the P-61 but I think there are other aircraft that should be added ( He-111, Ju-52, and I hardly even fly German aircraft).As far as the whole bomber issue goes, most bomber missions were switched to the night because of high losses that were incurred during the day.
-
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/northrop-p61-blackwidow_3.jpg)
desert camo
Not desert camo, that would be ODG, followed up by some pictures of the 61C from WPAFB. IIRC, very very few 61s flew in the ETO, and the African theater was wraped up by the time the 61s saw service. Most 61s operated in the PTO. Either way +1 for a 61A/B
-
Cool plane. Looks like fun. :aok
-
God, doesnt look like the prop as any ground clearance at all.