P-61 Black Widow

[PR19_Kit]

100 mph faster?  At least some P-61's could do about 430 mph

William Green says the XP-61E maxed out at 376 mph at 17000 ft, which wasn't much faster than the P-61A. The XP-82 protoype is quoted as doing 482 mph at 25000 ft, so Jschmus wasn't far out.

[Logan Hartke]

That's not the whole story, though.  You want to know what the true top speed would have been?  Look at the F-15A.  The XP-61Es were quick and dirty proof of concept prototypes converted from the lackluster P-61B.  The F-15A was capable of at least 440 mph at 33,000 ft.  Production XP-61Es would actually have been P-61Fs with superchargers like the P-61C and F-15A, especially in the long-range, high-altitude escort role.  For reasons of reliability, maintainability, and crew layout, I think I prefer the P-61E/F.

The P-82 won out because of salesmanship.  The XP-61E was a response to a USAAF request whereas the P-82 was a North American proposal to the USAAF months before.  North American generally had a better idea of what the USAAF/USAF needed than the service did itself.  They showed that time and time again.  On top of that, the P-61 was, big, intimidating, and relatively "unsexy" for the fighter pilots of the time (it had a bomber yoke, not a stick).  The P-51 was well-loved and very sexy, and the P-82 was neat and innovative.  To be honest, North American delivered.  They did what they said.  The USAAF just had to cut back a lot, didn't really need it, and could no longer build Merlins willy-nilly after WWII.  The replacement Allison was good, but it was no Merlin.  The R-2800-powered P-61 Escort Fighter would have had no such issues.  It also probably wouldn't need to be "winterized".

Cheers,

Logan

[Pablo1965]

Perhaps a good whatif to the P-61 will be a tandem engined plane with two cabin in each fuselage.

[PR19_Kit]

Perhaps a good whatif to the P-61 will be a tandem engined plane with two cabin in each fuselage.

Tophe would do that in a heartbeat, except he'd only have a cabin in one fuselage. 

[Pablo1965]

Perhaps a good whatif to the P-61 will be a tandem engined plane with two cabin in each fuselage.

Tophe would do that in a heartbeat, except he'd only have a cabin in one fuselage. 

I am glad to see we have similar ideas.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why did most P-61s have a turret and rear-gunner in the first place?

[Cobra]

P-61's had a Turret & Rear Gunner for Engaging Enemy Planes & Many Turrets were Radar Controlled. does that Answer your Question? Don't mean to sound Snobby.Dan

[KJ_Lesnick]

Cobra,

P-61's had a Turret & Rear Gunner for Engaging Enemy Planes & Many Turrets were Radar Controlled. does that Answer your Question?

My question is: Why do they even need the rear-mounted turret at all?  The aircraft is sufficiently maneuverable enough to allow it to get on the tail of most enemy fighters, and the later P-61E did not possess a rear-turret

[Cobra]

KJ, Rear Gunners were used to Protect the Six O' Clock Area from Enemy Attack. the 61 was Agile Enough True, but it was a NightFighter, Also, Enemy Planes Sneaking up on You Requires someone to Warn of Attack from Behind. Hope this Helps.Dan

[GeorgeC]

I believe some of the very early 'concept' work on the P61 involved the British Aircraft Purchasing Comission in the autumn of 40; the radar arrangements certainly did.  The Air Staff had had the turret fighter as a pet concept since the mid 30s, and were still looking for a cannon-armed turret fighter to take zero-deflection shots while formating on enemy bombers.  While the RAF had learnt the disadvantages of the day turret fighter in the Defiant and Roc, they still saw a future in this at night.  With the success of the Beaufighter RAF interest dropped off, but it seems the turret still formed part of the P61 design, all be it with more practical .50 rather than a massive 20mm armament.  Of course, the usefulness of the 'zero deflection' shot to a nightfighter was proved in the end by the Luftwaffe, but with the simpler, fixed Schräge Musik installation.

[apophenia]

My question is: Why do they even need the rear-mounted turret at all?  The aircraft is sufficiently maneuverable enough to allow it to get on the tail of most enemy fighters, and the later P-61E did not possess a rear-turret

Note that the XP-61E was intended as a long-range escort fighter not a night fighter. Hence seats for pilot and navigator as opposed to pilot, radar op/gunner, and rear gunner.

Some P-61 night fighters did fly without turrets but only because of problems with the GE fire control. The latter was intended to allow use of the upper turret by either gunner.

The concept may have proved flawed but the goal was to produce a dedicated night fighter that was superior to both adapted day fighters (like the Beaufighter) or adapted bombers (like the P-70). As noted, the British (notably Boulton-Paul) were working on a number of turreted night fighter designs at the same time.

[KJ_Lesnick]

George C,

I believe some of the very early 'concept' work on the P61 involved the British Aircraft Purchasing Comission in the autumn of 40; the radar arrangements certainly did.  The Air Staff had had the turret fighter as a pet concept since the mid 30s, and were still looking for a cannon-armed turret fighter to take zero-deflection shots while formating on enemy bombers.

Understood

While the RAF had learnt the disadvantages of the day turret fighter in the Defiant and Roc, they still saw a future in this at night.

What were the disadvantages in the Defiant and the Roc?

With the success of the Beaufighter RAF interest dropped off, but it seems the turret still formed part of the P61 design, all be it with more practical .50 rather than a massive 20mm armament.

But the Beaufighter flew and entered service before the P-61 ever did.  Why did they still retain the turret requirement?

Of course, the usefulness of the 'zero deflection' shot to a nightfighter was proved in the end by the Luftwaffe, but with the simpler, fixed Schräge Musik installation.

Fascinating

[apophenia]

Not to answer for George C but the British turret fighters were heavier and less manoeuvrable than their single-seat opponents. Unlike the P-61, the Roc and Defiant also lacked any form of fixed, forward-firing armament.

As for the Beaufighter entering service before the P-61, note that turrets were trial fitted on both Beaufighters and Mosquitos while Northrop was working on the 'Widow.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Apophenia,

As for the Beaufighter entering service before the P-61, note that turrets were trial fitted on both Beaufighters and Mosquitos while Northrop was working on the 'Widow.

Do you have any pictures of the Beaufighter and Mosquito's with the turrets on them?

[apophenia]

Do you have any pictures of the Beaufighter and Mosquito's with the turrets on them?

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17868.75.html replies #80 and #81