Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on August 05, 2013, 01:54:59 PM
-
:airplane: Serveral times I have seen post where players want the P-61 night fighter. I thought it might of some use to research the aircraft, as I have no experience with it and just see what the attractiveness of this aircraft is.
First flight for this aircraft was on May 26th, 1942 and was immediately seen as viable night fighter. This aircraft had a number of "firsts", such as airborne radar interception capiblity and the aircraft had the platform to put enough firepower in weapons to shoot down bombers at night. Powered by two (2) P&W r-2800-25S engines, it was capable of 355 MPH speeds, but was somewhat limited by installing only a 2 stage super-charger on each engine instead of the Turbo-supercharged system which would allowed an additional 50 MPH in speed and 10,000 more feet of service ceiling.
While there were some short coming, so to speak, it did not retire until 1964, when the all-weather F-94C became operational for the Air Force.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/P-61_zps008ddafc.jpg)
The P-61 featured a crew of three: pilot, gunner, and radar operator. 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. The turret was driven by the General Electric GE2CFR12A3 gyroscopic fire control computer, and could be directed by either the gunner or radar operator, who both had aiming control and gyroscopic collimator sight assembly posts attached to their swiveling seats.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/p-61inflight_zpsfc92ad32.jpg)
The P-61 did not have normal sized ailerons. Instead, it had 15% span tip ailerons which provided a little control, but provided good feel to the main sistem. Most control of the aircraft about the roll axis was maintained through the use of curved, tapered spoilerons, of approximately 10 ft (3 m) in length and 6 in (15 cm) in width. They were located outboard of the outer edge of each nacelle, approximately ¼ the length of the outer wing panel, and offset towards the wing leading edge approximately one third the wing's chord from the trailing edge, running towards the wing-tip approximately half the length of the outer wing. Operation was as follows: the spoileron in the inside wing rotated out of the wing's upper surface into the airstream and reducing lift over that wing, causing the center of pressure to move a certain amount away from that wing and the aircraft to roll.
The production model of the SCR-720A mounted a scanning radio transmitter in the aircraft nose; in Airborne Intercept mode, it had a range of nearly five miles. The unit could also function as an airborne beacon / homing device, navigational aid, or in concert with interrogator-responder IFF units. The XP-61's radar operator located targets on his scope and steered the unit to track them, vectoring and steering the pilot to the radar target via oral instruction and correction. Once within range, the pilot used a smaller scope integrated into the main instrument panel to track and close on the target
The absence of turrets and gunners in most European Theater P-61s presented several unique challenges. The 422nd NFS kept its radar operator in the rear compartment, meaning the pilot had no visual contact with the R/O. As a result, several courageous pilots continued flying their critically damaged P-61s under the mistaken belief that their R/O was injured and unconscious, when in fact the R/O had already bailed out. The 425th NFS had a more novel solution: they moved the R/O to the former gunner's position behind the pilot. This gave the pilot an extra set of eyes up front, and moved the aircraft's center of gravity about 15 in (38 cm) forward, changing the flight characteristics from slightly nose up to slightly nose down which also improved the P-61's overall performance.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/p-61onramp_zpsa006342a.jpg)
The first time I saw one of these aircraft, the first thing I noticed was the air intake for carburetor air and I thought, "they stole that design off of an F4U".
The P-61 had some success in the European theater, but by the time it arrived in the South Pacific and China areas, most of the Jap fighters had been with drawn for home land defense. One odd shoot down was that of a B-29! The Crew had bailed for what ever reason and a P-61 was sent out to shoot it down in the Tonkin Gulf. (Tonkin Gulf ring a bell with anyone?)
Overall, I would rate it a good aircraft, but not sure how it could best be used in Aces High
-
I'd imagine anything the Mossie does now the P-61 would be used for as well. Keep in mind the Black Widow could carry up to 4x1600lb bombs under the wings, too.
-
When Dad was on Iwo Jima he got asked if he wanted to ride along on a test flight of a P61 that has been fitted with rockets. Dad said he regretted it, seems test flights proved to be a bit exciting. Evidently they dove steeply and pulled out so low they were blowing spray off the ocean. Me thinks a fly-boy had some fun at Dad's expense. :devil
-
It would primarily be a strike aircraft in AH. The wartime versions (A and B) are much slower than the Mossie. Some people would do great with it as a fighter though.
-
It would be an allied 410 - not fast enough, poor maneuverability, but just a huge pile of guns.
No reason not to add it, but I'd place it WAY down in the priority list. Almost every WWII AC I can think off would be more important than this.
-
It would be an allied 410 - not fast enough, poor maneuverability, but just a huge pile of guns.
Didn't someone post a story here a couple years ago about a P-61 utterly spanking a P-47 in a mock dogfight?
-
Good maneuverability, not poor.
Didn't someone post a story here a couple years ago about a P-61 utterly spanking a P-47 in a mock dogfight?
Not really a dog fight, but a best of three challenges. First was to take off in the shortest distance possible. Stock P-61 beat a stripped down P-47. Second was either a dogfight, or a "shake the other guy off your tail", I am not sure which. P-47 could not shake the P-61. Third, which wasn't run because of the P-61 winning the first two and thus the contest, was a speed contest, P-47 would have won that. P-47 was an N as I recall.
-
Anyone by an chance have a picture of a jug next to a 61 for comparison?
-
Anyone by an chance have a picture of a jug next to a 61 for comparison?
No, but the P-47 was very much smaller. P-47 is closer in size to a Spitfire than it is to a P-61.
-
No, but the P-47 was very much smaller. P-47 is closer in size to a Spitfire than it is to a P-61.
which is what makes this whole thin funny as the 61'is basically the the size of a small/medium bomber
-
looks about A20ish
-
which is what makes this whole thin funny as the 61'is basically the the size of a small/medium bomber
Nothing small about it. It is the weight of a medium bomber.
-
looks about A20ish
which is pretty much what it look like when you look at the specifications
-
pfffft specifications are like instruction manuals, no need to look at them :banana:
-
pfffft specifications are like instruction manuals, no need to look at them :banana:
:airplane: Ok, I was tired when I posted the story, here is the spec's:Crew: 2–3 (pilot, radar operator, optional gunner)
Length: 49 ft 7 in (15.11 m)
Wingspan: 66 ft 0 in (20.12 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 662.36 ft² (61.53 m²)
Empty weight: 23,450 lb (10,637 kg)
Loaded weight: 29,700 lb (13,471 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 36,200 lb (16,420 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-65W Double Wasp radial engines, 2,250 hp (1,680 kW) each
Propellers: four-bladed Curtis Electric propeller, 1 per engine Propeller diameter: 146 in (3.72 m)
Fuel capacity: Internal: 640 gal (2,423 L) of AN-F-48 100/130-octane rating gasoline
External: Up to four 165 gal (625 L) or 310 gal (1,173 L) tanks under the wings
Maximum speed: 366 mph (318 kn, 589 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,095 m)
Combat range: 610 mi (520 nmi, 982 km)
Ferry range: 1,900 mi (1,650 nmi, 3,060 km) with four external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 33,100 ft (10,600 m)
Rate of climb: 2,540 ft/min (12.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 45 lb/ft² (219 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)
Time to altitude: 12 min to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) (1,667 fpm)
Guns: ** 4 × 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano M2 cannon in ventral fuselage, 200 rpg 4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remotely operated, full-traverse upper turret, 560 rpg
Bombs: for ground attack, four bombs of up to 1,600 lb (726 kg) each or six 5 in (127 mm) HVAR unguided rockets could be carried under the wings. Some aircraft could also carry one 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb under the fuselage.
One of the interesting aspects of this aircraft features was the "spoilers", which have proved, on certain types of wings, the most efficient way to create and maintain a turn. I would bet that when they designed the spoilers into the aircraft, most of the talk about spoilers were just theory, but after installation on production models, proved to be a asset to the aircraft.
-
Wikipedia is awesome :banana:
-
I read somewhere once that certain base commanders preferred the P-38M night fighter because it was faster, and could get into position quicker. Of course, that could have just been some P-38 fan boasting, but it is something to think about.
On the other hand, I am betting the P-61 would be more comfortable on long patrols. :airplane:
-
One odd shoot down was that of a B-29! The Crew had bailed for what ever reason and a P-61 was sent out to shoot it down in the Tonkin Gulf.
B-29 shoot down..
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/b29damage.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage1.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/b29damage1.jpg.html)
Also like this story on the P-61.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-612.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-612.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-614.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-614.jpg.html)
Night vision.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-61.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-61.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-611.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-611.jpg.html)
Radar stuff.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Typh1-1.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Typh1-1.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Typh-2.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Typh-2.jpg.html)
Bombs & rockets too. :aok
-
Wonder how it handles as oppose to the 38 and mossie, 110, and 410
-
I read somewhere once that certain base commanders preferred the P-38M night fighter because it was faster, and could get into position quicker. Of course, that could have just been some P-38 fan boasting, but it is something to think about.
On the other hand, I am betting the P-61 would be more comfortable on long patrols. :airplane:
I don't know if certain base commanders preferred the P-38M over the P-61 but you are correct in that the P-38M was faster than the P-61. Even with all the extra stuff added to the P-38M, including a 2nd crew member, it had a very little performance penalty over the single seat P-38. Unfortunately, while it did take part in combat operations, it never engaged any enemy fighters at night in the PTO and only saw operations in the last few days of the war in the Pacific.
ack-ack
-
So, if a P-61 defeated some P47 in a mock dogfight and Robert Johnson in his razorback P-47 defeated some spit in a mock dogfight, does that mean that P-61 is a better dogfighter than the spit? Heck, everyone seem to have some story about some pilot in a P-XX defeating some spit. I don't know why the Brits even bothered with this plane.
-
Question is if we Want a plane with 4*20mm that turns better than a P47, you might as well give the A20 4*20mm to compete with the p61, the 6*.50 is mediocre compared.
I would be another step in MA arms race
-
Night vision.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-61.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-61.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/P-611.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/P-611.jpg.html)
As soon as I saw those pics I thought of this, lol:
(http://www.starwars4.com/images/star-wars-4-pictures-picture-a-new-hope-images-image-star-wars-episode-4-photos-photo/29-rebel-alliance-space-star-pilot-targeting-computer-death-star.jpg)
Now THAT would be a great feature to have for the P-61 if night would be turned on in the Mains.
-
They got one of these at the Airforce Museum in Dayton around the corner from me, it is a pretty sweet looking plane, it was one of those where when I went on a trip last year I saw that and immediately thought "that would be fun to have in AH" :lol. The photo on the first page of the black one on the tarmac is actually the one that is at the museum, I do believe that photo was taken at the museum as well.
-
They got one of these at the Airforce Museum in Dayton around the corner from me, it is a pretty sweet looking plane, it was one of those where when I went on a trip last year I saw that and immediately thought "that would be fun to have in AH" :lol. The photo on the first page of the black one on the tarmac is actually the one that is at the museum, I do believe that photo was taken at the museum as well.
:airplane: That is the One!!
-
P-61 .. one day :pray :)
-
It would be an allied 410 - not fast enough, poor maneuverability, but just a huge pile of guns.
May want to crack a book or two. It would be head and shoulders above a 410.
-
I want to see the P-61A/B version but only if the radar is functional.
-
I want to see the P-61A/B version but only if the radar is functional.
The question is how to handle it?
The obvious answer would be to allow the P-61 act like a mobile radar ring on the map, basically treating them like AWACS. However would this be a good representation of how the radar aboard the Black Widow and other Night Fighters would work? Or would you give the Black Widow and other night fighters an in-cockpit radar scope independent of the clipboard map?
One thought I had was to have icon ranges decreased (say, by half) after a certain time of day, while night fighters like the P-61 would get full icon ranges.
Maybe the best option is to use some combination of all of them. IE:
* Radar-equipped TBMs experimenting with early night fighter tactics during the Guadalcanal campaign essentially did function in an AWACS role, acting as flying radar posts to vector radarless F4Fs. These aircraft would act like base radar, only not connected to HQ status and with the radar ring only visible to the TBM itself.
* Actual night-fighters (F4U-2, F6F-5N, P-38M, P-61, radar-equipped Bf-110s, etc.) would have in-cockpit scopes where it was appropriate. In multi-crewed night fighters which had a dedicated radar operator and the pilot didn't monitor the scope himself there would be a separate "radar" position that could either be crewed by another player, or the pilot would have to jump to on his own.
* All radar-equipped aircraft would have full icon range at night, while other aircraft would have reduced icon ranges.
Oh, and I'd LOVE it if the P-61 in-game would have the night vision goggles that can be toggled like in lyric's post.
-
No, that would not be an accurate representation of WWII radar.
The Mk I eyeball was vastly superior if there was light to work with, being able to see farther than the radar could. An AWACS style implementation would be wholly inaccurate.
Also, how could you list off those night fighters and leave off the best night fighter of the war? :P
-
Also, how could you list off those night fighters and leave off the best night fighter of the war? :P
He-219 :D
-
He-219 :D
Good gods no. That wasn't even the best German night fighter. It was an overhyped, under performing hunk of junk. A very neat looking hunk of junk though.
-
<Grabs popcorn and waits for Franz Werra>
-
Also, how could you list off those night fighters and leave off the best night fighter of the war? :P
Geeze, I SAID "Etc." :P
So how would you handle airborne radar in AH if it were to be added?
-
Geeze, I SAID "Etc." :P
So how would you handle airborne radar in AH if it were to be added?
I wouldn't. I'd just add the planes and let people play with them, but as we don't have night the radar would be almost completely useless. Tail warning radar, which the P-61 and some others had, might be useful, but I'd be inclined to not even model that.
During daylight operations, which is what we have in AH, the Mk I eyeball is much better than WWII airborne radar.
-
I wouldn't. I'd just add the planes and let people play with them, but as we don't have night the radar would be almost completely useless. Tail warning radar, which the P-61 and some others had, might be useful, but I'd be inclined to not even model that.
During daylight operations, which is what we have in AH, the Mk I eyeball is much better than WWII airborne radar.
Just for the sake of argument, what if night fighters WERE added with the intent of having night in the Main Arenas, with the environment corrected to prevent the Gamma cheat?
-
"That wasn't even the best German night fighter. It was an overhyped, under performing hunk of junk. A very neat looking hunk of junk though."
Oh, and what was a better one? You're quoting Mr Brown there, huh?
There was no overhyping when certain persons in LW administration tried to end its production claiming that the front line units preferred Ju388 instead. The debate ended what facts were presented that all frontline night fighter units absolutely wanted the 219 once they had tried it and the Ju388 was not even in production yet.
I'm a bit surprised how many Mossies the underpowered piece of junk shot down after all, maybe the Mossie was not very fast. Or is that the issue here? :D
-C+
-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it may have shot down fewer Mossies than you are thinking.
-
It was the Ju88G, not the Ju388J.
Between June 16 and Nov 3 1944 the He219 claimed 10 Mossies.
-
What people need to remember is that no aircraft were flying at full throttle unless they were in combat. A Mossie doesn't have fuel to fly at MIL power all the way from Britain to Germany and back. It had a high cruise speed and was very difficult to intercept, but it wasn't impossible.
-
"That wasn't even the best German night fighter. It was an overhyped, under performing hunk of junk. A very neat looking hunk of junk though."
Oh, and what was a better one?
Me 262B-1a/U1
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Messerschmitt_Me_262B-1a_Red8.jpg)
By performance, the best night fighter of the war. By score record the best would arguably be the Ju 88G, Me 110G and Mossie NF.
-
What people need to remember is that no aircraft were flying at full throttle unless they were in combat. A Mossie doesn't have fuel to fly at MIL power all the way from Britain to Germany and back. It had a high cruise speed and was very difficult to intercept, but it wasn't impossible.
True. PR mosquitoes were doing 2000 miles routes averaging just over 300 mph for the entire trip which was considered record breaking. 300 mph is not impossible to intercept. Of course, if the mossie was aware of enemy presence it would accelerate to max speed and try to escape the immediate threat, then slow down again - but it had to detect the enemy first.
By performance, the best night fighter of the war. By score record the best would arguably be the Ju 88G and Mossie NF.
At a fairly early stage, mossie NFs ran out of Lufwaffe bombers to shoot down. The LW simply stopped sending them to their deaths. NFs (the AI equiped ones) were not allowed to fly over occupied countries till much later, so during a long period they were dried out of targets.
-
"By performance, the best night fighter of the war. By score record the best would arguably be the Ju 88G, Me 110G and Mossie NF."
Too fast as a night fighter to intercept slower bombers and the weapons and their setup is not really suitable for close interception which was common in night fighting, but it was good to catch faster aircraft like Mossies. He219 never had the same chance as 110 and Ju88 to prove itself but for that while it was used it proved to be an excellent night fighter. Comparing Ju88 and 219 is a bit like apples and oranges, they both had their strong and weak points by design.
-C+
-
It had throttles. It could fly as slow or as fast as the pilot deemed suitable. Only a handful of B-1a/U1 saw service with NJG 11 and they were tasked with Mossie interception for obvious reasons. This tiny force accounted for most of the Mossie kills in late '44 and '45.
-
Most of the 262s over Berlin at night were actually single-seaters, methinks (not really my specialty, but...)
-
Yes, they flew wilde sau. Only a few two-seaters equipped with radar. Perhaps one staffel worth.
-
Just for the sake of argument, what if night fighters WERE added with the intent of having night in the Main Arenas, with the environment corrected to prevent the Gamma cheat?
Hmmm. I supposed I'd suggest modeling it by having dot dar show up for any aircraft caught in the front cone of the night fighter out to a range of, perhaps, 5 or 10 miles. I don't recall the range of airborne radar off hand.
"That wasn't even the best German night fighter. It was an overhyped, under performing hunk of junk. A very neat looking hunk of junk though."
Oh, and what was a better one? You're quoting Mr Brown there, huh?
If I was quoting Capt. Brown it was entirely coincidental.
Bf110G-4, Ju88G and the nightfighter version of the Me262 were all superior to the He219.
There was no overhyping when certain persons in LW administration tried to end its production claiming that the front line units preferred Ju388 instead. The debate ended what facts were presented that all frontline night fighter units absolutely wanted the 219 once they had tried it and the Ju388 was not even in production yet.
I would consider the claims of it doing 420mph when it actually did about 360mph to be overhyping it.
I'm a bit surprised how many Mossies the underpowered piece of junk shot down after all, maybe the Mossie was not very fast. Or is that the issue here? :D
-C+
Ah yes, the Mossie claims. Funny how those claims don't match losses recorded by the British.
-
I say add it. Give it the 110eny or even a small perk price under 10. It would have plenty of use in our MA and is a sweet plane.
-
Hmmm. I supposed I'd suggest modeling it by having dot dar show up for any aircraft caught in the front cone of the night fighter out to a range of, perhaps, 5 or 10 miles. I don't recall the range of airborne radar off hand.
What would you think of actually modeling the aircraft's radar displays, (including having to either jump to the radar operator's position on crewed aircraft like the P-61, or allowing another player to join the aircraft as a radar operator) rather than using Dot Dar? I always saw Dot Dar as representing information being relayed by traffic controllers on the ground, so this would more specifically differentiate airborne radar from ground posts.
And according to Wiki, the range on the SCR-720 radar on the P-61 was 5 miles.
-
What would you think of actually modeling the aircraft's radar displays, (including having to either jump to the radar operator's position on crewed aircraft like the P-61, or allowing another player to join the aircraft as a radar operator) rather than using Dot Dar? I always saw Dot Dar as representing information being relayed by traffic controllers on the ground, so this would more specifically differentiate airborne radar from ground posts.
And according to Wiki, the range on the SCR-720 radar on the P-61 was 5 miles.
I wouldn't want to be the programmer..... :p
WWII radar displays did not look like a modern display. It has been years since I read up on them, but I recall that they were difficult to read. That being the case it seems likely that untrained players would probably find it pretty frustrating. I do know that it wasn't used for the final attack, just to get you close enough to hopefully pick up the enemy aircraft with your eyes. You were supposed to ID the aircraft before attacking it. In Terror in the Starboard Seat Dave McIntosh describes an encounter where he and Sid were on a night intruder operation over occupied Europe when an English accented voice came over the RT and said something like "Waggle your wings or you'll burn.", whereupon Sid vigorously waggled the wings. A nightfighter Mossie with AI radar had found them in the dark but had not been able to identify them to enough confidence to shoot at them and so tried the radio. I am guessing that some intruders that failed to return may well have been the victims of another Allied nightfighter.
-
The obvious answer would be to allow the P-61 act like a mobile radar ring on the map, basically treating them like AWACS. However would this be a good representation of how the radar aboard the Black Widow and other Night Fighters would work? Or would you give the Black Widow and other night fighters an in-cockpit radar scope independent of the clipboard map?
One thought I had was to have icon ranges decreased (say, by half) after a certain time of day, while night fighters like the P-61 would get full icon ranges.
Nightfighter radar wasn't perfect, a handful of p-61s could scan with perfect radar, a huge area and pass this on to single-engined fighters who can eyeball the enemy anyway. The range effectively was in thousands of yards, and that is only when the set wasn't overheating. The radar was used to find individual bombers within a stream, not to locate the actual stream, that was done by ground radar. The range on any radar needs to be fairly tiny.
P-61s did operate in NW Europe at the very end of the war, but it's not the obvious choice of next nightfighter or anti-bomber aircraft.
-
"Bf110G-4, Ju88G and the nightfighter version of the Me262 were all superior to the He219."
Is that you opinion or researched fact? He219 was developed to replace those earlier planes and it was an improvement over 110 in every way, better than Ju88 in most aspects and better suited for heavy bomber interception than 262. First operational ejection seat was alone a huge improvement as the experienced pilots were scarce in those days. Mossie did not have that but why would it? If the pilots bailed out over Germany they were lost anyway so there was no need for advanced escape systems.
"I would consider the claims of it doing 420mph when it actually did about 360mph to be overhyping it."
Reality was that the engines that it was supposed to have were not available so the actual performance of the production machines fell short of those predicted or those required by the RLM. Also the escalating weight of radar equipment and bigger antennas were not taken into account in the beginning. That means that even with better engines it would not have been able to reach those figures. In fact, there was a version with a jet engine below the fuselage but while it provided a vast improvement in acceleration it did not provide much better top speed and that is why it was omitted eventually. However, it seems that figures around 360mph were in many many cases enough.
"Ah yes, the Mossie claims. Funny how those claims don't match losses recorded by the British."
Interesting. The German claims needed to be verified by finding the wreck and it was usually possible if the plane was shot down over Germany or occupied countries. British NF claims in turn could not be verified as the gun cameras did not work too well at night... I guess the "wooden wonder" myth was too precious to be wrecked as it had propaganda value.
***
The implementation of radar could be done so that a plane with a radar is able to "transmit" the location of enemies in its vicinity or in forward cone even if it did not have "a tube" in the cockpit. The search cone was different in all British, US and German airborne radars due to differences in antenna implementations, and some planes also had tail warning radars (or receivers).
Too bad there is no night in the game anymore but if there were night fighters and AI radar it would produce a great scenario or AvA setup!
We actually had a setup in SE arena years ago with Bostons and 110s and with no icons the task of finding the enemy bombers was very very difficult. 5 minute radar lag also gives the bombers room to make very effective defensive maneuvering.
-C+
-
Interesting. The German claims needed to be verified by finding the wreck and it was usually possible if the plane was shot down over Germany or occupied countries.
If I may be so bold, I think Karnak is making specific reference to the myth of 219s having shot down 6 Mossies in the 10 days following Streib's first sortie, the one on which he claimed 5 heavies before crash-landing.
-
It wasn't just radar. Ze Germans also passively homed in on RAF EM-emissions from their own equipment, such as bombing radars/radar altimeters and, ironically, anti-fighter warning radar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3gkyPIwtuE
-
The ejection seat in the He219 was just as likely to kill the crew as to save them. The crew never knew if they would work correctly.
A He219 did do 410-420mph but had its antenna, exhaust shrouds and some guns removed.
-
WWII radar displays did not look like a modern display. It has been years since I read up on them, but I recall that they were difficult to read. That being the case it seems likely that untrained players would probably find it pretty frustrating. I do know that it wasn't used for the final attack, just to get you close enough to hopefully pick up the enemy aircraft with your eyes.
Seems like a good way to balance the system, though. And the latter is why the P-61 had that primitive night-vision sight (which should totally be represented). ;)
Nightfighter radar wasn't perfect, a handful of p-61s could scan with perfect radar, a huge area and pass this on to single-engined fighters who can eyeball the enemy anyway. The range effectively was in thousands of yards, and that is only when the set wasn't overheating. The radar was used to find individual bombers within a stream, not to locate the actual stream, that was done by ground radar. The range on any radar needs to be fairly tiny.
Aces Against Japan had a great account of an USMC night fighter pilot (F6F-5(N)) that gives a pretty good sense of USMC night intercept procedures. It seems at least in the PTO during the latter stages of the war night operations were primarily intercepts of solo bombers, rather than large-scale raids.
-
"The ejection seat in the He219 was just as likely to kill the crew as to save them."
That is not what I have read. They initially had a problem with the compressed air piston sticking to its firing groove but after a test pilot (or jumper) was nearly killed he noticed the cause and after a small change it worked really well. One of the NF aces was killed later on because he did not remember to pull off his throat microphone wire and his larynx was crushed upon ejection.
"And the latter is why the P-61 had that primitive night-vision sight"
Did the P-61 have an infrared search light? If it did the system represents an earlier similar application German night fighters had called "Spanner". After awhile the pilots noticed that they could actually see as well without "Spanner" as with it so they were dumped. Dunno if the American version worked any better.
-C+
-
Charge,
It had the engines it was supposed to. Heinkel cooked their performance claims to better sell it to the RLM either through outright fabrication of data or by testing it without aerials, guns or armor, but the fact is that the RLM couldn't get it close to 400mph despite Heinkel's insistence that it did nearly 420mph.
As to German kill claims being perfectly accurate.
:rofl
-
Frig the radar, just add plane :airplane: no need for it
-
P-61s did operate in NW Europe at the very end of the war, but it's not the obvious choice of next nightfighter or anti-bomber aircraft.
I would not call the summer of '44 the very end of the war.
-
It would be an allied 410 - not fast enough, poor maneuverability, but just a huge pile of guns.
No reason not to add it, but I'd place it WAY down in the priority list. Almost every WWII AC I can think off would be more important than this.
Poor maneuverability? Not hardly. Considering its size, it was a very agile airplane. Much better turn radius than a P-38, reported to better than an F6F. Plus, it had very effective, nearly full span flaps. Roll rate was excellent at high speed due to using spoilers as well as ailerons. Climb was not great, and it lacked speed compared to late war fighters. It was, however, capable of lifting a great deal of ordnance. Due to a buffet issue, some were built without the remotely operated turret. This was later resolved and the turret returned. With four 20 mm cannon, it was exceptionally lethal. The power turret was operated by a gunner, but could be slewed to face forward by the pilot. This would provide greater firepower than the Mosquito.
In the game, it would largely replace the A-20 as a tank killer, and would be far more formidable than the A-20 air to air. It would also be an effective bomber killer. I would ask for the mid 1944 P-61B.
-
It has wing area twice that of 410 and 2x2250 HP where 410 has 2x1750HP. 410 max weight is 10t and P-61 is 16t.
It would certainly be a better slow speed turner but is seems that the huge wing area had its cost:
"The first P-61 engagement in the European Theater occurred on July 15 when a P-61 piloted by Lt. Herman Ernst was directed to intercept a V-1 "Buzz Bomb." Diving from above and behind to match the V-1's 350 mph (560 km/h) speed, the P-61's plastic rear cone imploded under the pressure and the attack was aborted."
"On yet another occasion, a 422nd P-61 spotted a Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse flying at tree top level but, as they dove on it, the "Hornet" sped away and the P-61 was unable to catch it."
I don't know what is tree top level in this case but I find it curious that a 410 flying at tree top level sped away from a plane that could catch low V1s at 350mph. Or maybe it was actually a Mossie they tried to bounce? ;)
-C+
-
Me410 is faster than the P-61A and B at best altitude so the fact that the P-61A/B did 366mph at ~20,000 doesn't mean it is faster than the Me410 at seal level either.
-
"On yet another occasion, a 422nd P-61 spotted a Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse flying at tree top level but, as they dove on it, the "Hornet" sped away and the P-61 was unable to catch it."
Lt Van Neiswender from 425th had a similar experience...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410encounter1_zpsf979889a.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410encounter2_zpse8abf135.jpg)
(Source: P-61 Black Widow Units of World War 2)
-
Me410 is faster than the P-61A and B at best altitude so the fact that the P-61A/B did 366mph at ~20,000 doesn't mean it is faster than the Me410 at seal level either.
Not exactly sure what you are saying here but if an aircraft A is faster than aircraft B at altitude x, the aircraft B can still be faster than aircraft A at altitude y. This is true especially with mechanically supercharged piston engined aircraft.
In the game, it would largely replace the A-20 as a tank killer,
I wouldn't be completely sure about that since A-20 can carry twice the number of bombs when talking about normal load outs.
-
Not exactly sure what you are saying here but if an aircraft A is faster than aircraft B at altitude x, the aircraft B can still be faster than aircraft A at altitude y. This is true especially with mechanically supercharged piston engined aircraft.
Absolutely. I am simply saying that it does not have to have been a misidentified Mosquito, the Me410 may well be faster than the P-61 as well.
-
Absolutely. I am simply saying that it does not have to have been a misidentified Mosquito, the Me410 may well be faster than the P-61 as well.
Ahh, rgr, Thanks.
Per AHT's data, P-61 would do ~336mph at 5000ft (that is where the curve ends) with WEP. R-2800-65 has a power curve on WEP setting where the power at sea level is 2250hp but drops quickly to ~2050hp at ~5000ft. Based on the shape of the speed curve and the power curve, I'd say the speed on the deck was ~342mph with WEP on the aircraft which was tested.
Me410 does ~328mph on the deck with WEP in AH. I haven't seen any data which shows faster speeds for the Me410 myself and therefore have no problems with the speeds of the ME410 in AH. However, based on everything I've read, I'm quite sure that such data does exist somewhere.
-
Sod all this radar gubbins, gimme the bloody plane! :x :lol
-
I wouldn't be completely sure about that since A-20 can carry twice the number of bombs when talking about normal load outs.
Yes, but it's a sexy beast. The A-20 is just cute.
-
In the game, it would largely replace the A-20 as a tank killer, and would be far more formidable than the A-20 air to air. It would also be an effective bomber killer. I would ask for the mid 1944 P-61B.
Why didn't it replace the A20 in real life then, A20 was still going in Vietnam... oh wait the P-61 too?
-
Why didn't it replace the A20 in real life then, A20 was still going in Vietnam... oh wait the P-61 too?
You're thinking of the A26, which did replace the A20 near the end of WWII, served in the Korean war and in very limited numbers in the Nam.
- oldman
-
You're thinking of the A26, which did replace the A20 near the end of WWII, served in the Korean war and in very limited numbers in the Nam.
- oldman
:airplane: The A-26 was replaced with the B-26C and that was what was used in Vietnam and most of them were transferred to the South Vietnam Air Force before the end of the war! Was a great a/c and what I was training on when I got the opportunity to go to B-29 training. Have about 45 hours in it. Very easy to fly, good climb rate with ords and was fast enough to keep you out of trouble in a combat zone.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/b-26C_zpsf0e76dd4.jpg)
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/220px-DouglasB26c_Invader_zps8a643a1d.jpg)
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/b26c_zpsd776ad18.jpg)
-
:airplane: The A-26 was replaced with the B-26C
Uh... the B-26C WAS an A-26, just under a different designation.
-
The A-26 was replaced with the B-26C
Same plane, Earl, the USAF just renamed it from A26 to B26 sometime around 1948.
Your experience seems to match my college professor's, who flew them in the ETO during WWII and used to light up as he described the plane ("it was a real hot ship!" he'd say). Oddly enough, they weren't liked in the Pacific.
- oldman
-
Same plane, Earl, the USAF just renamed it from A26 to B26 sometime around 1948.
Your experience seems to match my college professor's, who flew them in the ETO during WWII and used to light up as he described the plane ("it was a real hot ship!" he'd say). Oddly enough, they weren't liked in the Pacific.
- oldman
:airplane: You are right guys to an extent! The B-26C's used in Vietnam, and flown from Thailand, was predesignated the A-26, because the Thail's would not allow bombers to fly from their bases.
The single seat B-26C's, crew of three, pilot, flight engineer and navigator-bomberdear was actually a little different in that it had a "beefed" up rear spar, because of Air to Ground attacks and hi "G" loads on pull outs, as most of those were in Thailand.
Either way, a helluva of an airplane and was fun to fly!
-
Oddly enough, they weren't liked in the Pacific.
You couldn't see over the engines on either side which made it impossible to fly formation at the altitudes they flew in the Pacific because you had to be below the other planes, which meant you were in the water.
-
You couldn't see over the engines on either side which made it impossible to fly formation at the altitudes they flew in the Pacific because you had to be below the other planes, which meant you were in the water.
One of the main reasons is that the 5th AF felt that it already had suitable planes for the missions they were tasked with and the A-26 wasn't really needed as the A-20, B-25 and B-26 were more than sufficient for the jobs needed to be done. Some of the pilot's complaints were like the one you mentioned and also the early canopies on the Invader they received drew a lot of complaints from PTO pilots.
ack-ack
-
without night, this plane is useless. . .
-
without night, this plane is useless. . .
Why do you say that? It flew daylight ops as well and would do very well in AH as a strike aircraft.
I can see calling it inappropriate, but useless, no.
-
Without night time the Lancaster is useless, it still flies in the Main Arena just fine.
-
Without night time the Lancaster is useless, it still flies in the Main Arena just fine.
:airplane: Good Point :salute
-
Lancasters also flew daylight ops. :p
As did P-61.
And Mossie 30.
-
Without night time the Lancaster is useless, it still flies in the Main Arena just fine.
Considering the Lancaster was not designed as a night bomber, I'm not surprised at all it does just fine in the MA without night.
ack-ack
-
Without night time the Lancaster is useless, it still flies in the Main Arena just fine.
Well, maybe that depends on how one defines "doing fine". ;)
It's K/D is substantially worse than the K/D of all other heavy bombers, it's survivability is quite low. The main reason it's so very popular is it's massive bombload which makes it so very attractive to so many players. :old:
-
Considering the Lancaster was not designed as a night bomber, I'm not surprised at all it does just fine in the MA without night.
ack-ack
Well as lusche points out its a rather vulnerable bomber in the Main arena, I always wondered why they didn't just lose a few thousand pounds of ords and gave it far better defensive protection. Granted it served well as a night time bomber, I do know the British tried to R&D more defensive positions but it was given up when the war progressed.
But imagine if it flew a daylight raid against the Luftwaffe and lets say the target was schweinfurt - The P-61 might not survive as well as it did at night, but its chances are far better in Aces High with a skilled pilot then it being strictly night time.
-
Well, maybe that depends on how one defines "doing fine". ;)
It's K/D is substantially worse than the K/D of all other heavy bombers, it's survivability is quite low. The main reason it's so very popular is it's massive bombload which makes it so very attractive to so many players. :old:
As Tank-Ace is fond of pointing out, it is also about 25mph faster on the deck than the B-17 and B-24, which makes it better for the low alt smash and grab players.
-
without night, this plane is useless. . .
Yeah, cause you say so :aok
-
One must also remember 109'smand 190'smwere used as night fighters :old
And I need this plane :pray
-
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww64/captain1ma/DSCN0480_zps155ea95a.jpg) (http://s706.photobucket.com/user/captain1ma/media/DSCN0480_zps155ea95a.jpg.html)
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww64/captain1ma/DSCN0504_zpscd8d9542.jpg) (http://s706.photobucket.com/user/captain1ma/media/DSCN0504_zpscd8d9542.jpg.html)