P-61B black widow

[Ack-Ack]

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

[Pigslilspaz]

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

[Nemisis]

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.

[Bronk]

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.

[Bronk]

P-63 fanboi rant in 3... 2...

Stuff 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.

No it would for reasons that are so obvious that I am really surprised you're unable to grasp it. 


ack-ack

[Karnak]

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.

[Dichotomy]

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. 

[Nemisis]

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.

[Squire]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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?

 

Man, can't wait until Squeaker Season is over.


ack-ack

[fbWldcat]

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.

[Nemisis]

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?

[Tupac]

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

[Ack-Ack]

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