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
