# XB-42?



## Aggie08 (Oct 10, 2005)

I just saw a picture of this x-plane, not in all my reading have I ever come across this. I looked it up and found this from http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/douglas_xb42.htm

"The ingenious Douglas XB-42A Mixmaster was America's first 644 kph (400 mph) bomber. One of the most advanced reciprocating-engine aircraft flown, Douglas never produced it because it appeared late in the war as jet-propelled designs rendered nearly every propeller-driven aircraft obsolete. The Mixmaster's engines generated about the same power as the superlative British De Havilland Mosquito but the American bomber carried twice the Mosquito's maximum bomb load at the same speed as the British airplane. The Douglas bomber was also equipped with a powerful defensive armament that the Mosquito lacked. 

Douglas designer, E.F. Burton, envisioned a bomber powered by two engines buried inside the fuselage. This design innovation could reduce the drag by one-third compared to more conventional bombers. When he compared his design to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Burton believed he could develop a faster airplane that would carry a similar bomb load and employ a crew of 3 instead of the 10 airmen needed to man the B-29. Burton believed his Mixmaster would require just half of the maintenance crew required to keep the Superfortress airborne and cost one-third the price of the large, four-engine bomber from Boeing."

Too bad it didn't get put into service ahead of the jet age!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 10, 2005)

What a neat aircraft. Just think if it had been put into production in 1943 of 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2005)

And don't forget it's sister the B-43!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 10, 2005)

Interesting! 8)


----------



## hellmaker (Oct 10, 2005)

Interresting... it may have been a good investment if it had appeared earlier... and it's a nice looking airplane too... who knows...


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 11, 2005)

Seriously! Something that fast that could carry that much with that few crewmembers and so little maintenance... a winning combo!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

Would have been amazing if it had entered in WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2005)

The XB-42 and XB-43 are one of those what if weapons, maybe we would of seen had the war progressed on - picture this aircraft over Japan in 1946????


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2005)

I bet bailing out of that plane would have been exciting!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 11, 2005)

Supposing any fighter at that time could make the crew bail out...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 11, 2005)

Ey, it could have been a contender


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2005)

OK, the engine catches fire from flak. You bail out....... will you hit the fins or get chopped up by the props?

)


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 11, 2005)

.. not if you have an ejection seat! Also, you can install a pyrothecnic charge to blew off rudder and prop in case of ejection, like in the Do335.

Pusher prop 'canards' should have been the final evolution of 'Otto' aircrafts, and almost all Nations were working on such designs.
Dornier had drafted an evolution of the 335 with pusher contra-rotating props with incredible calculating figures (W Schick - I. Meyer Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe: Jagdflugzeuge 1935-1945) along with several other designs from Messerchmitt-Lippisch (a variant if the Me163), Arado, Blohm Voss and others. Japan flew the Kyushu Shinden in 1945 and I bet that USA and UK had many other projects on going.
The point is that all this designs were still not in production when it was clear that the jet propulsion would had outperformed any prop evolution.

.. but as amateurs we had the Vary Eze from Burt Rutan that proved the potential of the formula!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2005)

Ejection Seats were already in use in WW2 so it would not have been a problem

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2005)

If they would of egressed freefall from the nose, I don't think there would of been a problem hitting the tail....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2005)

Im not aware of any US aircraft using ejection seats in 1944 and 1945


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2005)

The XP-54 had a downward firing ejection seat that was mechanically operated - it flew May, 1944


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2005)

Still, no ejection seats were fitted to operational USAAF aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 12, 2005)

I think it would have been pretty easy to fit one in the XB-42 though. As Joe kindly pointed out the U.S had an aircraft flying with an ejection seat in May 1944. They would have just stuck the same, or better, system in the XB-42.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2005)

I wonder what the pilots thought of for being ejected downward low to the ground )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what the pilots thought of for being ejected downward low to the ground )



F-104 had the system for years, it actually worked quite well except if you were close to groud.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2005)

B-52 has the system for the crews in the lower cabin areas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> B-52 has the system for the crews in the lower cabin areas.



Yep - Here in Denver in the nightclub section known as "Lodo" there is a club there known as "B-52s." In front there is an ejection seat and trapeze from one of the B-52 station that egress downward....


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 13, 2005)

Upward or downwards was the same on the XB 42-43 (and Do335): the prop and the 'cross' rudders are symmetrical, so you need the same clearance at any angle you want to 'bring your ass out of there'

And in case of real production the technology of the ejection seat and/or the charge to blow off rudder and prop was surely not an issue for USA in 44-45.

.. but was the XP54 a flying wing? I remember it as a pusher twin-boom, a kind of prop driven 'big Vampire'


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> .. but was the XP54 a flying wing? I remember it as a pusher twin-boom, a kind of prop driven 'big Vampire'



No flying wing - you're correct about it's comnfiguration....


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 13, 2005)

I seem to remember something along the lines of getting rid of obstacles for helicopter ejection- anyone know how that works? I think some US models- either the Apache or Cobra- blows off the prop to get out safe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

The Apache and the Cobra do not have ejection seats. As a matter of fact no Helicopter in US service has an ejection seat. As an Helictoper crew member we do not even carry parachutes, if the helicopter is crashing we ride it in. Actually we try and autorotate if it has to do with engine failures or something but otherwise we ride it to the ground.

The Russians have the 'Hokum' and it has an ejection seat. The counter turning rotors on it have an explosive charge that detenotes the blades and then the pilot ejects. Well atleast this is based off of what I have read. If this is true I can not confirm it. If anyone knows anything about this Russian aircraft please correct me.

I do know however that the Cobra and the Apache do not have ejection seats. Neither does my Blackhawk or the Chinook, Loach, Littlebird (same thing actually) or Kiowa.


----------



## Piaggio108 (Oct 14, 2005)

Here is an XB-42A. It was fited with Westinghouse 19XB-2A turbojets as a test. Also note the twin buble canopies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

Pretty cool.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2005)

The double canopies are pretty cool, but many forward thinking pilots didn't like them - the seperation made the workload more stressful, especially during emergencies. In an aircraft like this, you need to "ping" off the other pilot and work as a team to keep the mission as un-stressful as possible. In modern terms the concept is now called "Cockpit Resource Management."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

Yeap we like to call it Aircrew Coordination or Cockpit Resource Management.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap we like to call it Aircrew Coordination or Cockpit Resource Management.



I bet on many occasions, your pilots task you with something, navigation, radios, scanning for traffic, ect. 

Douglas incorporated these double cockpits on the XB-42/ 43 and on the C-74.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

Yeap I do a lot of scanning, radios and navigation. As a matter of fact we do most of the radio traffic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2005)

Not surprised! See - you maintain the helicopter and do half the flying!

As always stated - Without maintainers, pilots are nothing more than good looking pedestrians with expensive sunglasses! 8)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

I have a good group of pilots though. They are mostly former crew chiefs and they really respect our job and we are sort of like a really happy family.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2005)

Good to hear they came up from the ranks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2005)

Speaking of ranks I have been selected for promotion on Nov. 1st. Its about damn time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Speaking of ranks I have been selected for promotion on Nov. 1st. Its about damn time.



CONGRATS SARGE!!! 

Now only if my brother could get promoted! I think Gomer Pyle will make E-5 before him!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

Hey, right on Adler!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 15, 2005)

nice one adler!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 15, 2005)

Congratulation Alder!


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 15, 2005)

Sweet dude!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Well done, Adler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Thanks guys now I just have to go do Aerial Gunnery with my unit for 10 days and then I can have my promotion ceremony. Wont have internet access while we are at the range so I wont be online until then.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

Have a blast.
Get it? Blast! Because he's doing gunnery and...yeah.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Sometimes I think you are CC.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2005)

I could come up with a much more appalling pun. By the way Adler, its your round.


See?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Alright you just lost me on that one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2005)

Your round...oh forget it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Are you talking about Rounds as in ammo?


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 16, 2005)

Heh, its the weekend, puns aren't allowed anyways


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2005)

Yes, yes I am Adler. Also Rounds as in your round at...the...bar...Indeed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Ah okay I get it. Its late and I should be in bed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

God, I love it when a joke goes bad and it isn't me!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2018)

Aggie08 said:


> The Mixmaster's engines generated about the same power as the superlative British De Havilland Mosquito but the American bomber carried twice the Mosquito's maximum bomb load at the same speed as the British airplane.


Was the goal to carry twice the Mosquito's load off the bat? I ask, because I didn't think they carried the cookies until 1944...


> When he compared his design to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Burton believed he could develop a faster airplane that would carry a similar bomb load and employ a crew of 3 instead of the 10 airmen needed to man the B-29. Burton believed his Mixmaster would require just half of the maintenance crew required to keep the Superfortress airborne and cost one-third the price of the large, four-engine bomber from Boeing."


For most purposes that's actually completely true, but it didn't seem to be able to fly as high as the B-29 could and it might not have been able to fit a nuclear bomb in it.



syscom3 said:


> I bet bailing out of that plane would have been exciting!


Actually that's the thought going through my mind as well... if they couldn't blow the prop off, they'd end up going through a blender!



FLYBOYJ said:


> The double canopies are pretty cool, but many forward thinking pilots didn't like them - the seperation made the workload more stressful, especially during emergencies.


I think they were motivated by reducing frontal area, but yeah you'd need an intercom to do what previously could have been done by speaking, and if the com fails you're basically communicating by hand-signals when you previously could have just spoke.

They ultimately did put a conventional canopy on the design.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2018)

I'm curious if the plane was originally to be called the XA-42 or always XB-42? I've heard various claims and there was an XA-41 and XB-41...


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 6, 2018)

The B-42 was originally the A-42, and on October 7, 1943 the Mockup Board examined the bomber version and found it satisfactory for production with certain changes. However, this also occurred at the time when the "Attack" category was in the process of being deleted, and thus the aircraft became the B-42 by the it was actually built in 1944.

Douglas had designed the A-42 to be a multi-function aircraft which was more typical for this time in the war. The aircraft was to be fitted with Douglas' easily interchangeable nose concept with different noses fitted for different mission profiles - specifically bombardment, attack and reconnaissance..This same concept had been developed for the A-26, but was not used. Instead, Douglas built separate aircraft for specific missions, in the case of the A-26 bombardment (glass nose) and attack (gun nose, which saw several variations).

The specific changes in defensive armament called for by the Mockup Board were as follows:

The original three single-gun turrets (one with 500 rounds in each wing and one with 200 rounds in the propeller spinner) were to be replaced by one twin .50 caliber turret with 350 rounds per gun in each wing. Douglas was "requested" to study and report on whether it was feasible to substitute turrets mounting either .60 caliber guns (one of Arnold's pet projects which failed miserably) or 20mm guns in lieu of the .50 caliber turrets. This twin-gun configuration can be seen in one of the drawings below.

The gunner's station was to be located adjacent to the pilot's position as in the mock-up, and not behind the engines as in the original Douglas proposal. That position and related equipment was to be eliminated.

The double-ended periscopic site was to be replaced by a "pedestal" type using a standard N-6 reflector sight mounted in the rear of the gunner's "bug-eye". An Automatic Gun Laying installation was to control the rear firing turrets, with the above "pedestal" sight to serve as a backup.

As can be seen in the artwork below, the attack version was intended to have the four 20mm nose guns similar in nature to those on the A-20G. While not shown, my guess is that a nose more similar to the six and eight-gun .50 noses of the A-26B is more likely to have been fitted.

The famous "bug-eye" canopies configuration appears to have been uniquely Douglas'. As previously mentioned, it was used on a number of the C-74's that were produced. While it may or may not have decreased drag or given greater vision, it also made communication between the pilot and co-pilot nearly impossible. This is why it was replaced by the more traditional - and functional - "airliner" type canopy in both cases and was used on the XB-43 as well.

Douglas claimed the XA./B-42 could replace larger, long-range 4-engine bombers in most cases. The double-page spread below shows it compared to an outline of Douglas XB-31 entry to the eventual B-29 project in all possible deployment scenarios. Interesting reading, certainly, but mostly a fanciful notion which the Air Force in its commitment to big, long-range bombers would almost certainly never have bought into.

I hope this helps to give a bit more information on the XA/B-42 and its initial development.

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 6, 2018)

Sorry...I goofed and hit the wrong button.

Here are the other two illustrations.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 7, 2018)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> The B-42 was originally the A-42


Great to know!


> October 7, 1943 the Mockup Board examined the bomber version and found it satisfactory for production with certain changes. However, this also occurred at the time when the "Attack" category was in the process of being deleted


Yeah, they didn't want single-engine attack aircraft anymore, and that basically left twin-engine attack aircraft (aka light bombers)


> Douglas had designed the A-42 to be a multi-function aircraft which was more typical for this time in the war. The aircraft was to be fitted with Douglas' easily interchangeable nose concept with different noses fitted for different mission profiles - specifically bombardment, attack and reconnaissance.


Good feature


> This same concept had been developed for the A-26, but was not used.


They were also proposing a night-fighter: I'm not sure if it was favored over the P-61 at anytime


> The famous "bug-eye" canopies configuration appears to have been uniquely Douglas'. As previously mentioned, it was used on a number of the C-74's that were produced. While it may or may not have decreased drag or given greater vision, it also made communication between the pilot and co-pilot nearly impossible.


The C-74 actually flew after the XB-42. Regardless, I agree with your position though I never knew the gunner was in the second canopy.

I appreciate your input greatly. I never knew that Arnold was responsible for that whole 0.60 fiasco


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2018)

Dang...a 13 year old thread comes back to life!


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 9, 2018)

I've done some more research into my files and come up with some interesting information.

First, the Attack version(s): There were three (3) different attack nose variations proposed in Douglas April, 1944 brochure. Specifically, one nose would have a 75mm cannon with 20 rounds of ammunition and two .50 caliber machine guns with 1,000 rounds (apparently total) of ammunition. The second configuration was equipped with two automatic, high velocity 37mm cannons (once again the Air Corps' unholy fixation on getting some use out of the 37mm) with a total of 150 rounds of ammunition plus two .50 caliber machine guns with 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Finally, eight fixed, forward firing .50 caliber machine guns with a total capacity of 5,500 rounds of ammunition. It is not clear if these noses were to be interchangeable or not. From their appearance it seems that would have entailed a LOT of work on a Unit or even a Depot level, so I suspect not. My guess is that if one or more of these configurations was accepted for production there would have been a fixed number of aircraft built with each. 

With regard to the change in designation from Attack-Bombardment, in late August or early September 1943 Douglas wrote to the AAF regarding the elimination of the word "Attack" from the aircraft's title, but apparently retaining the Bombardment designation. On September 8, 1943 the AAF responded by saying that the elimination of word "Attack" would not be consistent with its designation of "XA-42". Thus, the AAF invited Doulgas to comment on changing BOTH the name and designation to be "more nearly consistent its capabilities as follows: XB-42 Bombardment Type Airplane"

I don't have the documents that officially made this change, but I believe it was within 60 days of this communication from the AAF.

Finally, I have found no reference to a night-fighter version of the A/B-42. The AAF had put all its eggs into the basket of the miserably disappointing P-61 and, at this point in the war, I doubt they would wanted to add yet another mission configuration to an aircraft still very much in the very early design and development stages. Zipper, if you should have some official Douglas or AAF documents discussing this possibility I would dearly love to see them..

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 9, 2018)

Back in Dec 2017 I posed a 1940's vintage Design Analysis article on the XB-42. There was going to be an airliner version.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 10, 2018)

I'm familiar with that airliner design. While it used a number of the XB-42 design features, I'm not sure it could be considered an airliner version of the aircraft.

Alang


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2018)

Well, the DC-8, as it was to be called, would have had a 77 ft length rather than 53 ft and the wingspan would have been 110 ft rather than 70 ft. So it would indeed have been rather more than just a B-42 with some portholes in the bomb bay


----------



## Zipper730 (May 2, 2021)

While it's been about three years, I was thinking about the XB-42 design as I started looking back through old posts that I created: Does anybody have any figures, or even guesstimates, as to what the maximum load-factor of the plane was?

For example, I'm curious if it would have been closer to the A-20 (Normal: 3-4g; Ultimate: 4.5-6g) or A-26 (Normal: 2.69-4.27g w/ 4.5g listed in passing; Ultimate: 4.04-6.41 w/ 6.75g being the logical result of 4.5g normal rated), or the De Havilland Mosquito (8g @ 18500 lb. IIRC).


----------



## GregP (May 3, 2021)

I liked your post, Niceoldguy58, until the P-61 remark. No way was the P-61 miserably disappointing! 

it was the best night fighter available to the USAAF when it came out and for quite some time after that time. Nothing else the USAAF had that was in service anywhere NEAR the service life of the P-61 hit as hard when firing, that's for sure. And it was almost as maneuverable as a single-seat fighter. I've never heard anything bad about the P-61 other than the typical complaints about early radar sets that didn't really get fixed until the 1970s and some comments that it fell a bit short was top speed. But, top speed is NOT all that important for a night fighter to start with. All you have to do is be able to match speed with your target, and the P-61 was faster than any potential target that wasn't a jet.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 3, 2021)

GregP


Yeah, the only things I would have seen as being a problem with the P-61 would have been speed, climb, and possibly roll-rate (it was even lower than the F4F)


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2021)

The primary function of night-fighters (during WWII) was to intercept enemy bombers - they didn't need to be dog-fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 6, 2021)

Hi Zipper,

See: https://media.defense.gov/2010/May/26/2001330259/-1/-1/0/AFD-100526-018.pdf

P-61B top speed was 366 mph. Rate of climb was 2,540 fpm (about like a P-40). Service ceiling was 33,100 feet, or high enough for any bombers that were in general use.

P-61C could get to 430 mph.

The 481st Night Fighter Squadron requested Mosquitos. They had a flyoff on 5 Jul 1945. The P-61 was faster at all altitudes, climbed better, and turned better than the Mosquito. It is the only direct flyoff flight test that I can find. It may well have been "tweaked" for best performance but, even if so, the basic airframe had to be decent to perform as it did.

Speed, climb and even roll rate were NOT an issue for the P-61 in WWII, though night fighters after WWII needed to intercept jets. The few jets in WWII were not much of an issue. So, the P-61 eventually DID fall short, as all military airplanes eventually will.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 6, 2021)

GregP said:


> P-61B top speed was 366 mph. Rate of climb was 2,540 fpm (about like a P-40).


By 1944, the P-40 was largely relegated to the ground-attack mission if I recall. Regardless, that figure might be lower than even the P-47D (prior to the paddle-prop that was added in 1944). I'm curious what the climb-rate of the P-61C was as it's top-speed is quite a bit higher.


> The 481st Night Fighter Squadron requested Mosquitos. They had a flyoff on 5 Jul 1945. The P-61 was faster at all altitudes, climbed better, and turned better than the Mosquito. It is the only direct flyoff flight test that I can find.


What P-61 and Mosquito variants were being used?

Regardless, I do remember hearing that the P-61 had a tighter rate of turn than the Mosquito (the stall speed of the Mosquito was around 115 mph vs the P-61's 106 mph), the Mosquito had a faster rate of roll (whether it was consequential or not), with the load factor favoring the P-61 (P-61: 10.95g ultimate; Mosquito: 8.00g ultimate).


----------



## GregP (May 6, 2021)

2,500 fpm for a might fighter is plenty good enough. You didn't dogfight at night, you'd sneak up and make an ambush kill. If the victim ever thought you were stalking him, he'd just maneuver away and get out of sight. Most airplanes flying at night during the war had exhaust flame suppressors on them. Not all, to be sure, but most.

If you go read the link, they don't say which P-61 model was used. I'm assuming a P-61B. They made 200 P-61As, 400 - 450 P-61Bs depending on who you believe, and only 41 P-61Cs.

The P-61 was a good night fighter. It was not an excellent night fighter, but it could perform all manner of aerobatics and could give a single-engine fighter a run for the money in a dogfight, from flight test and mission reports, according to several authors. The P-61C probably qualified as an excellent night fighter because it had more speed than a P-61A/B.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 6, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> What P-61 and Mosquito variants were being used?



Certainly wasn't the Mk.XXX.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 6, 2021)

GregP said:


> 2,500 fpm for a might fighter is plenty good enough. You didn't dogfight at night, you'd sneak up and make an ambush kill. If the victim ever thought you were stalking him, he'd just maneuver away and get out of sight. Most airplanes flying at night during the war had exhaust flame suppressors on them. Not all, to be sure, but most.


I was just curious because I remember 
D
 Dana Bell
had stated that F6F night-fighters were swapped in lieu of the P-61's because of their inability to climb to altitude to engage Japanese aircraft. My guess is that this problem was that they lacked the endurance for standing patrols, and couldn't climb fast enough (combined), whereas the F6F at least had a better rate of climb.

I suppose if range was better, it wouldn't be an issue.


> The P-61C probably qualified as an excellent night fighter because it had more speed than a P-61A/B.


The -C was a remarkable design.


----------



## GregP (May 6, 2021)

The service ceiling for a P-61B was 33,100 feet. A Ki-46 could get to 35,000 feet and had almost exactly the same speed profile as a P-61. The F6F could get to 37,000 feet and could go perhaps 15 mph faster. So, if you were chasing a Ki-46, the difference between a P-61 and an F6F was slight, indeed. If you add the night fighter radar, the F6F was likely no faster than the P-61, but still had a higher service ceiling.

If you were chasing a Nakajima Ki-84, the Frank could run away from either the P-61 or the F6f, so I'm not to sure why they would choose an F6F over a P-61B in the first place. The Frank was fast, but not usually a threat at night. Curious, indeed.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2021)

let's not forget that "service ceiling" was the altitude at which a plane could still climb at 100ft per minute and that was at standard temperature and pressure. Ceilings in the tropics are going to be lower for everybody. 

In theory (on charts) an F6F-3 could climb at almost 500fpm at 33,000ft using "normal power" not military. P-61 has zero hope of intercepting a plane flying higher than it. If the P-61 is climbing it is not flying at max speed. If it is flying max speed at high altitude it is not climbing. 

F6F can either try for a pull up shot or try to climb above and dive or just try long range shots in a very slow overtake. Not saying it is easy, just that the F6Fs higher "ceiling" is an indicator of having more options.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 7, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Certainly wasn't the Mk.XXX.


Was a MK II iirc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 7, 2021)

Regarding post #70, stall speed has very little to do with turn rate in combat. And, the calculation formula for turn rate is usually for level turns. I daresay the only combat that will see level turns is combat just above ground level since descending by much would be detrimental to continued flight operations.

Combat turn rate is much more about the maximum lift coefficient and how close to it the pilot can comfortably get without stalling combined with the excess power available over and above the power required for level flight. Since most WWII fighters were supposed to be "the best they could be," maximum lift coefficients were very close to one another. In that case, the combat turn rate was dependent on the stall characteristics of the airplane, including stall warning, the the pilot's airplane feel, and the excess power.

Excess power is not important for instantaneous turn rate, but comes into play after about 60° - 90° of turn (when you hit sustained turn rate), when the airplane has slowed somewhat from the speed it started with and is turning while losing as little speed or perhaps losing no speed if the power is there.

In any discussion of WWII airplanes where excess power is important, the Spitfire has to float to the top due to lightness along with airplanes such as the Bf 109 and some of the lighter Yaks and Lavochkins. The slats on the Bf 109s, though they DID increase the lift coefficient for the slatted area, weren't about turning at all. They were there to keep the airflow attached to the ailerons, and a Bf 109 driver had full aileron control all the way through stall, making it seem like a tight turn, but was really just a controlled stall-turn in some cases when the fighting got down to the stall regime. By "stall," I don't mean slow; I mean when the critical angle of attack was reached or nearly reached.

The Fw 190 had abysmal stall warning (lacked one, in fact) and was not a good airplane around the stall. It could turn well, but only could turn its best if flown by a pilot VERY familiar with the Fw 190. The Fw 190 shared less than wonderful stall characteristics with the P-51 Mustang, and the P-51 was another mount that needed a knowing hand to get maximum turn rate. The Bf 109, on the other hand, had excellent handling characteristics around the stall while simultaneously having some bad characteristics in other regimes of flight where the Fw 190 and P-51 shined brightly.

For Shortround's post #75, I believe the U.S.A. found that bombing from higher than 33,000 feet meant absolutely horrible bombing accuracy, so we stopped bombing from that high and began bombing from lower altitudes so we could hit something. I bet the Japanese found that to be the case, too. There really weren't many bombers that were doing their work from higher than 25,000 feet by anywhere near war's end unless I'm missing something ... so the P-61 would have no trouble getting to and catching the bombers that were in use at the time. 

From the data I have, the P-61's AAF combat kill-to-loss ratio was second only to the P-51.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 8, 2021)

GregP


1. The issue of the P-61B being faster at all altitudes is a surprise. I thought the Mosquito NF.II's top speed was 366 as well (if Milosh's figures are right). I checked WW2 Aircraft Performance and that's the listed figures for ACA

2. It's a generalized estimate because the maneuvering speed is the velocity where you have enough lift to pull the rated g-load for the aircraft. Regardless, there's other variables such as C/G, and the amount of elevator force to hold the plane in the turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (May 8, 2021)

GregP said:


> I liked your post, Niceoldguy58, until the P-61 remark. No way was the P-61 miserably disappointing!
> 
> it was the best night fighter available to the USAAF when it came out and for quite some time after that time. Nothing else the USAAF had that was in service anywhere NEAR the service life of the P-61 hit as hard when firing, that's for sure. And it was almost as maneuverable as a single-seat fighter. I've never heard anything bad about the P-61 other than the typical complaints about early radar sets that didn't really get fixed until the 1970s and some comments that it fell a bit short was top speed. But, top speed is NOT all that important for a night fighter to start with. All you have to do is be able to match speed with your target, and the P-61 was faster than any potential target that wasn't a jet.



Hi Greg,

I opened this thread to see what was going on with the XB-42 and was surprised to see mention of the P-61. Sorry to repeat what I've written in several other threads, but here goes...

Actually, the P-61 _was_ miserably disappointing. Being the best available didn't make it good, especially when nothing else was available. Since all of the AAF's eggs were in one basket, there was a concerted effort to convince folks that the basket and eggs actually were pretty good. The P-61 suffered from lack of speed, altitude, and endurance. At one point Wright Field tried to justify continued production by pointing out that Japanese bombers were only slightly faster than the P-61, but that the Japanese would become more confident and slow down to the point the P-61 could catch and destroy them. (That actually did happen on occassion.) 

The ETO flyoff was rigged - the Mosquito and its crew were unaware they were in a competition and had been assigned to observe and evaluate the P-61's performance. The P-61 was given the best preparation, flown without the turret or third crewmember, and piloted by an aggressive and angry crew; the Mosquito was a line aircraft of older production with no special servicing. The flyoff was kept below 20,000 feet; above that altitude the P-61's performance dropped off dramatically. The flyoff was flown as a dogfight, not your standard night-fighting tactics. The test lasted only about 2 hours - the P-61 had exhausted nearly all of its fuel.

No P-61 flew at 430 mph - all those claims were based on Northrop estimates, which proved sadly inflated.

The Black Widow's kill-to-loss ratio has no bearing - all those failed attempts at interception never gave the enemy aircraft an opportunity to shoot back.

One AAF squadron was equipped with Mosquito NF.30s and based in Italy at a time when Luftwaffe night activities were fairly limited. In March 1945 a single Ju 188 night raider was targeted by a P-61 which could not intercept and was forced to retire by lack of fuel. A 416 NFS Mosquito then chased the 188 over the Alps to Austria, downing it over its own base before flying back to Italy - all with one of its engines out. No P-61 could have performed as well.

Internal AAF records show the intense disappointment in the P-61, Wright Field's efforts to hide the aircraft's failures, and Hap Arnold's anger when he discovered that the aircraft was not what was promised. Had more Mosquito Mark 30s been available, the P-61 would have been withdrawn from Europe.

Most written histories are little more than propaganda when it comes to the AAF's night fighter designs. The archival records show how disappointing the P-61 really was. What author wants to write a book called _The P-61; It Really Sucked, but it was the Best We Had_?

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 8, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> The ETO flyoff was rigged - the Mosquito and its crew were unaware they were in a competition and had been assigned to observe and evaluate the P-61's performance. The P-61 was given the best preparation, flown without the turret or third crewmember, and piloted by an aggressive and angry crew; the Mosquito was a line aircraft of older production with no special servicing. The flyoff was kept below 20,000 feet; above that altitude the P-61's performance dropped off dramatically. The flyoff was flown as a dogfight, not your standard night-fighting tactics. The test lasted only about 2 hours - the P-61 had exhausted nearly all of its fuel.


Wow, that explains a lot.


> No P-61 flew at 430 mph - all those claims were based on Northrop estimates, which proved sadly inflated.


How fast do you think they did fly?


----------



## SaparotRob (May 8, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> Hi Greg,
> 
> I opened this thread to see what was going on with the XB-42 and was surprised to see mention of the P-61. Sorry to repeat what I've written in several other threads, but here goes...
> 
> ...


I did buy book entitled The World's Worst Aircraft.


----------



## GregP (May 8, 2021)

Let's just say we disagree, Dana Bell. Flight test reports are full of wonder for the way the P-61 could maneuver.

As a combat aircraft, I really like the Mosquito except for its obvious dangerous Vmc value (somewhere around 160 mph!). It is generally fast, generally maneuverable for a twin, and has many great characteristics. I am certainly not saying the P-61 was better than the Mosquito as a general combat aircraft. What I AM saying is the P-61 was, far and away, a better night fighter than the Mosquito. It SHOULD be since it was designed for that role, and a purpose-designed airplane is usually better at its role than another aircraft adapted to a role for which it was not designed. Two notable airplanes might be the Ju 88 and the Mosquito, which were both VERY adaptable.

For almost any mission other than night fighter, I'd choose the Mosquito any day. But I'm also not one who thinks we should have converted to Mosquitos over another U.S. type. The people who think that are simply not aware of the prevailing desire to buy from our own suppliers. Nationalism was prevalent in WWII. The British would not have ever bought a foreign combat aircraft had their own aircraft industry been able to supply the required number of airplanes. That they DID use some U.S. aircraft was merely because they were in a tough spot and needed airframes more than they needed British airframes. Nothing wrong with that, either, since MOST countries followed that same tendency at the time.

I am curious as to where you found all the information about the so-called "fly off." I am not saying you are wrong and would not be surprised to find out it was true. It's the SAME THING the UK usually did when having a competitive flyoff between a British fighter and a U.S. fighter. They'd usually limit the American fighter to some lower-than-maximum power level and allow their own to use higher power levels. There is nothing WRONG with that since they DID note the power used in the test reports, but many actual acquisition decision were made from biased flyoffs. I'm not surprised if WE did the same. That's not a knock on British decisions, it's just the way it was back then.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (May 8, 2021)

GregP said:


> Let's just say we disagree, Dana Bell. Flight test reports are full of wonder for the way the P-61 could maneuver.
> 
> As a combat aircraft, I really like the Mosquito except for its obvious dangerous Vmc value (somewhere around 160 mph!). It is generally fast, generally maneuverable for a twin, and has many great characteristics. I am certainly not saying the P-61 was better than the Mosquito as a general combat aircraft. What I AM saying is the P-61 was, far and away, a better night fighter than the Mosquito. It SHOULD be since it was designed for that role, and a purpose-designed airplane is usually better at its role than another aircraft adapted to a role for which it was not designed. Two notable airplanes might be the Ju 88 and the Mosquito, which were both VERY adaptable.
> 
> ...



Hi Greg,

While we're sure to disagree, that's not a problem. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some well-buried facts to fit into your own examination of the question.

You mention flight test reports. The first of these noted that the P-61 was never going to be a "world beater" and that performance was expected to degrade further with several necessary modifications. Wright Field instead informed Washington that everyone considered the P-61 to be an excellant night fighter.

Eglin tested the aircraft and reported that production should be stopped immediately, with efforts made to purchase Mosquito night fighters. Wright Field squashed the report and had a new set of officers write a gentler opinion. Even the revised report noted problems with the P-61's speed, ceiling, and endurance, all of which would be mitigated once the auto-gun-laying turret was developed and installed. The report ended with the recommendation that the turret should not be installed (losing the sole advantage) and external fuel tanks should be installed (further degrading top speed).

Several Wright Field reports noted incredible top speeds for the aircraft, each with an asterisk noting that the speed had not been measured and the figures were based on Northrop estimates. Later reports quietly admitted that the P-61's speed and altitude had not lived up to expectations, but the aircraft was still better than the P-70 or Beaufighter.

Post-war characteristic files gave indications of releasable statistics and classified statistics. The only aircraft where releasable statistics were better than the actual performance was the P-61. (Normally the files avoided informing potential enemies just how good an aircraft was; for the P-61 the releasable characteristics lied about how bad the aircraft was.)

There were very few who knew the truth behind the flyoff. Dick Leggett was the RAF pilot, and he wasn't even aware he'd been involved in a contest. The two (not three) American crewmen died in combat and weren't available for post-war interviews, but the squadron history noted that the American pilots were violently angry that there was to be an attempt to replace their P-61s with Mosquitos. Only three of their crews were considered gifted enough to defend the P-61's (and the squadron's) honor - they drew lots to see who would champion their cause. Compare this with Leggett's instruction to go fly with the P-61's and note his impressions of it's capabilities. These impressions were then written up by the RAF squadron CO to praise the the P-61 as an excellant night fighter.

All this happened _after_ the Brits had to reject the AAF's request for NF.30s to re-equip the US night fighters. It didn't matter who won the flyoff - there were not going to be enough Mosquitos to meet America's needs. (One wonders what would have happened if Eglin's recommendations had been followed more than a year before.) Vandenburg subsequently wrote a report to Washington noting that the P-61 was the "best available" night fighter for his forces -- of course it was, the Mosquito was NOT available. Vandenburg and Spaatz still wanted Mosquitos, but dealt with the aircraft they were provided.

I was in contact with the two AAF officers sent from Washington to run the flyoff. Henry Viccellio died before we got too far into the discussion, but Winston Kraatz was certain that the Mosquito was still the better aircraft.

I ask myself how I would have determined which aircraft was the best night fighter. Would I have run a daylight dogfight with the two aircraft approaching each other from opposite sides of the field to see who could get on the other's tail? Amazing maneuverability was certainly the P-61's strong suit, but not a widely used tactic for night fighters. Would I have run the test above 20,000 feet, where nearly all enemy bombers were able to escape the Black Widow? I find it significant that that was the chosen altitude to end the tests. Would I have placed a target miles away and raced the two aircraft t see who got there first? Again, speed was certainly not factored into the tests. The fly-off had one purpose - to reenforce the confidence of the American crews in their aircraft so that they might fight to the limits of their aircraft's abilities. The test certainly accomplished that, but it did nothing to determine the best night fighter. 

(Incidently, the NF.30 was already in production, but deliveries had been delayed due to critical cracks in their flame dampning exhaust manifolds. Coincidentally, the P-61s were being flown without flame dampners. Despite complaints that the Black Widow's exhaust flames were too bright and could be seen from miles away, the dampners further reduced the aircraft's speed and weren't used. How much easier is it to avoid interception from an aircraft that you can see coming?)

Anyhow, that's a small part of how I came to my conclusions. I've been researching America's search for a night fighter since I first hit the National Archives in 1972, and there are still many files I hope to dig through when Covid allows. With luck, I'll be able to release a small monograph on the subject next year...

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 8, 2021)

Hi Dana Bell,

Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.

Though I believe the P-61 to be a very good night fighter, I do not believe the P-61B would outfly all Mosquitoes. There were some fast Mossies. The F-15 version of the P-61 was pretty fast, too, though not a fighter. Also, the P-61 tended to be a bit better with the turret removed. It still had decent armament, was lighter, and faster in that configuration.

I very seriously doubt almost all enemy bombers could escape a P-61 above 20,000 feet. The He-111 was 100 mph slower than the slowest P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The He-177 was 65 mph slower and had a lower service ceiling than the P-61. The Do-217 was 80 mph slower than the P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The Do.335 was definitely faster and had a higher service ceiling, but they only made 11 fighter-bomber versions and 12 trainers through April 1945. A total of 37 were built, but they were never exactly "operational." So, exactly which bombers do you think the Germans used that could outrun a P-61 above 20,000 feet?

The Arado 234 was definitely faster, but could fly no higher, and it was used almost entirely in the reconnaissance role. The very few uses as a bomber were successful, but let's be honest, a Mosquito was also not going to catch an Ar 234. Neither was a Spitfire or a P-51. Now, if the Germans were flying at much over 33,000 feet, they didn't HAVE to outrun the P-61 because it wasn't going to climb up much higher than 33,000 feet anyway.

Maybe the Ju-86? But, it wasn't exactly an effective bomber. We could not hit anything from 31,000 feet with the B-29. I can only imagine what little the Ju-86 could hit from 10,000+ feet higher and almost no bomb load! 

It may well have been a bust as a daytime fighter bomber or any other daytime use; I can't say. But the P-61 WAS a pretty good night fighter regardless of whatever else it might or might not do. We had a former P-61 pilot give a talk at the Museum once, and he had nothing but praise for it. He flew other night fighters after the P-61 but said that, for a piston night fighter, it was mighty hard to beat.


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2021)

GregP said:


> Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.



I believe he said he has been searching the US archives for decades. 



Dana Bell said:


> Anyhow, that's a small part of how I came to my conclusions. I've been researching America's search for a night fighter since I first hit the National Archives in 1972, and there are still many files I hope to dig through when Covid allows. With luck, I'll be able to release a small monograph on the subject next year.






GregP said:


> Though I believe the P-61 to be a very good night fighter, I do not believe the P-61B would outfly all Mosquitoes. There were some fast Mossies. The F-15 version of the P-61 was pretty fast, too, though not a fighter. Also, the P-61 tended to be a bit better with the turret removed. It still had decent armament, was lighter, and faster in that configuration.



The F-15 was post war.

It was interesting that the fly-off was being undertaken with a Mosquito NF.II at the time that the NF.30 was in production.

The Mosquito NF.XVII and NF.XIX proceeded the NF.30 and were the first to introduce the AI.Mk.X radar - which was the British designation used for the SCR 720 radar, which was also used by the P-61.




GregP said:


> I very seriously doubt almost all enemy bombers could escape a P-61 above 20,000 feet. The He-111 was 100 mph slower than the slowest P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The He-177 was 65 mph slower and had a lower service ceiling than the P-61. The Do-217 was 80 mph slower than the P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The Do.335 was definitely faster and had a higher service ceiling, but they only made 11 fighter-bomber versions and 12 trainers through April 1945. A total of 37 were built, but they were never exactly "operational." So, exactly which bombers do you think the Germans used that could outrun a P-61 above 20,000 feet?



4 or 5 minutes at top speed, which was usually the restriction, would not necessarily close down a bomber stream. A sustainable high speed cruise would be required to get the interceptor in position. We know that the Mosquito could do that, but I am unsure as to what the P-61 could do. Or what range it was capable of at sustained high power running.


----------



## Dana Bell (May 9, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi Dana Bell,
> 
> Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.
> 
> ...



Hi Greg,

There is no single source for the story. As I noted, I had interviews and correspondence with several of the participants. The records were scattered across Record Group 18 (HQ AAF) and RG 342 (Sarah Clark/Wright Field). It's taken more than 45 years to find and copy what I have so far, and there are still several files to go. (So far the file covers a bit over five linear feet.) I have avoided secondary sources, other than to see what's already been reported or published. As I noted, I'm hoping to release a monograph on the the whole story, but there are three other books that need to be finished first.

Remember that by early 1944 the Ninth AF was concerned about enemy attacks against the upcoming beach head. There wouldn't be a long period to intercept an aircraft crossing the coast on its way to London or Hull - the Germans could be over the ground forces in an instant, drop their loads, and be headed for home before they were intercepted. A good night fighter didn't need to be as-fast-as or faster-than -- it needed to have vastly superior speed at all altitudes or it was just wasting fuel and adding to its crews' flight hours.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 9, 2021)

Hi Wayne, the P-61 was as fast as very many Mosquitoes. There WERE some faster, to be sure, but the P-61 could catch ANY German piston bomber that was in service in any decent quantities.

I saw him say he had been searching the archive for decades. That doesn't answer the question of where the detailed information about the test in question came from, which was my question. The vast majority of Mosquitoes built were NOT faster than the P-61. Some were, IX, XVI, 30, 34, and 35. Altogether, not very many airframes. The likelihood of the Mosquito in question being one the them is low. I seriously doubt the Mosquito in question was an NF.30 since the P-61 in the actual test came out faster. Much more likely, it was an earlier mark that was generally no faster than the P-61 or it would have actually BEEN faster. That's why I wanted to read the report.

A sustained high speed is not really required to get into position. They knew where the Germans were coming from and could see their course on radar. And night fighters didn't have to be vastly faster than their targets. It certainly helped, but the Ju 88 night fighters make that claim go away. They were slower than the daytime Ju 88s which, though fast enough, were considerably slower than a P-61. And the Ju-88 was an excellent night fighter. The fastest Ju 88 was just under 300 mph. The P-61 was 65 - 70 mph faster. The Bf 110 was another successful German night fighter that was quite a bit slower then the P-61. But you don't see people claiming they weren't fast enough, do you?

Again, the P-61 was not a great combat airplane, but it was a pretty good night fighter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2021)

GregP said:


> I seriously doubt the Mosquito in question was an NF.30 since the P-61 in the actual test came out faster. Much more likely, it was an earlier mark that was generally no faster than the P-51 or it would have actually BEEN faster.



No, it was an NF.II




GregP said:


> The vast majority of Mosquitoes built were NOT faster than the P-61. Some were, IX, XVI, 30, 34, and 35.



The vast majority of Mosquitoes were at least as fast, or faster, than the P-61A/B.

The F.II was slower, by about 10mph, the FB.VI much the same as the P-61. All the bomber and PR versions (except the very early ones without ejector exhausts) were faster than the P-61.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 9, 2021)

wuzak said:


> All the bomber and PR versions (except the very early ones without ejector exhausts) were faster than the P-61.



Weren't both bomber and PR-variant Mosquitoes unarmed?


----------



## GregP (May 10, 2021)

I actually SAID the Mosquito and P-61 used in the test were pretty even matched in speed. That would be MOST Mosquitoes. There were some faster, but the percent of the already low number built is low. A basic Mk.II had about 365 mph top speed and the NF equipment lowered that by about 16 mph, according to several books and sites. So the NF.II Mosquito was about a 350 mph machine at best height and max power. 

I'm not overly surprised that a P-61 could be made to fly faster since it is specified as faster almost everywhere except maybe in places in this thread. I am not getting into a Mosquito debate and really don't want to pursue the P-61 anymore, either, in an XB-42 thread. The Mosquito was a pretty good airplane with an abysmal Vmc that was never produced in enough numbers for anyone but Britain to use very many of them. Very cool to see new-build units flying. But I have spoken with a few people who flew them during the war and also someone who has flown a new-build unit and am not a huge fan of the type except that it IS a WWII airplane and I generally love all of them if they are flyable.

What I said and am saying is the P-61 was a pretty good night fighter; and it was. It also had the last aerial victories of the war over Japan.

Cheers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 10, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The F-15 was post war.


In WWII the designation for photo-reconnaissance in the US was "F" for "Foto" (probably as in Fotografia), which largely comprised a hodge-podge of aircraft from modified fighters and bombers, and a reconnaissance variant of the P-61C was called the XF-15 Reporter (in the post war it was re-designated the RF-61C).



Dana Bell said:


> Remember that by early 1944 the Ninth AF was concerned about enemy attacks against the upcoming beach head. There wouldn't be a long period to intercept an aircraft crossing the coast on its way to London or Hull - the Germans could be over the ground forces in an instant, drop their loads, and be headed for home before they were intercepted. A good night fighter didn't need to be as-fast-as or faster-than -- it needed to have vastly superior speed at all altitudes or it was just wasting fuel and adding to its crews' flight hours.


The margins wouldn't have been as extreme, at least in some ways, as a day-fighter, as it was generally a common practice among night-fighters to carry out standing-patrols, but you'd need to be able to run them down from the rear at a decent enough rate. That said, I'm of the school of thought that the turbo would have been the better choice depending on what the range/endurance requirements were at what time.


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> In WWII the designation for photo-reconnaissance in the US was "F" for "Foto" (probably as in Fotografia), which largely comprised a hodge-podge of aircraft from modified fighters and bombers, and a reconnaissance variant of the P-61C was called the XF-15 Reporter (in the post war it was re-designated the RF-61C)



The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.

The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.

The redesignation occurred when the USAAF became the USAF in late 1947, more than 2 years after the end of WW2.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.
> 
> The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.
> 
> The redesignation occurred when the USAAF became the USAF in late 1947, more than 2 years after the end of WW2.


Just a quick note:
The XF-15/F-15A name existed between 1945 and 1947, after the USAF came into being ('47 onward), the F-15A was renamed RF-61C.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.
> 
> The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.


I thought you meant the F-15 (as in the F-15 Eagle) was post-war.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought you meant the F-15 (as in the F-15 Eagle) was post-war.



Why would I mean that?

To clarify, the F-15 Reporter was post war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Jul 30, 2021)

GregP,

You seem to be slavishly devoted to AAF propaganda on the P-61. If you wish to find the truth for yourself, I suggest you go to D.C. (when NARA II finally opens again) and spend a couple of months (minimum) going through the ORIGINAL SOURCE FILES on the P-61 found in Record Groups 324 and 18. READ THEM ALL CAREFULLY. 

I''m extremely confident that with the exception of interviewing those now deceased you will find precisely what Dana Bell said was the case and that whatever sources you are using - and I have personal doubts that any are original source - will be proven self-serving (to the AAF) and inaccurate. 

AlanG


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 30, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> GregP,
> 
> You seem to be slavishly devoted to AAF propaganda on the P-61. If you wish to find the truth for yourself, I suggest you go to D.C. (when NARA II finally opens again) and spend a couple of months (minimum) going through the ORIGINAL SOURCE FILES on the P-61 found in Record Groups 324 and 18. READ THEM ALL CAREFULLY.
> 
> ...


Please share.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2021)

The Air Force Magazine had a comprehensive artical on the P-61 - although I suppose it's all "AAF propaganda"...
They Owned the Night - Air Force Magazine

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Jul 31, 2021)

Ms. Grant's article is very much like the icing on a cake - sweet and delicious but with little food or lasting value. 

I have virtually all the books on the P-61, and while most are fun to read they - as with many aviation history books - walk across the surface of the ocean but never dive beneath the surface to find the gist of the real story. 

The USAAF did all it could to hide the shortcomings of the P-61. They had little choice as the British would not sell large numbers of the Mossie NF's as they desperately needed them themselves to protect both the skies over England but the bomber's over Germany. 

I repeat once again, there is NO way to know the true history of any aircraft unless you go to the Archives that have the original records or you find a book written by an historian known for his/her devotion to original source documentation used in the preparation of their books or articles. I cannot repeat the terms "original source" often or strongly enough. Most writers (NOT historians) don't do this depth of research as it is very time consuming, can be expensive if you're having to travel to the various archives around the U.S. - or in England, Germany, etc. - and stay long enough to dig through all the documents and photos pertaining to your topic of choice. I once spent three straight months in a motel in the D.C. area doing research at NARA II. That was LOT of years ago...and I scanned more than 17,000 pages and photos during that time, and probably went through nearly 1 that many to find the meat.

One more thing, you cannot rely on the title of the folders when going through them. This means that to find the one folder that holds The Holy Grail you may have to go through dozens of files checking their contents. This can result in some dazzling discoveries of unknown materials in the process, but it can also mean days of tedious page turning with little to show for it. Ask me or any other historian how I know. LOL

I hope the above helps to describe the research process and what a serious historian must do in order to obtain and maintain their bona fides. Just because someone has written a book or two on a subject does NOT make him an historian or researcher. It MAY make them a writer, but with little relationship to the TRUTH.

Submitted for your consideration,

AlanG

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 31, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> Ms. Grant's article is very much like the icing on a cake - sweet and delicious but with little food or lasting value.
> 
> I have virtually all the books on the P-61, and while most are fun to read they - as with many aviation history books - walk across the surface of the ocean but never dive beneath the surface to find the gist of the real story.
> 
> ...


Alan,

As a fan of all things aviation in WW2, in general, and the P-61 in particular, if you have information to share please do!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 31, 2021)

Few things speak to the USAAF's attitude toward the P-61 than does the development of the P-38M. They were looking for much higher performance but concluded in the Pacific that the P-38M's drawbacks overcame its higher performance and the P-61 was still a better night fighter. I could post that section of a book if you would like.

Perhaps the best thing that could be said about the P-61 was that it was WWII's best Heavy Fighter. The Mossie was a wonder plane, and good for many more things than a night fighter, but any version of the DH 98 versus an FW-190 or BF-109 in daylight without a wingman to cover his Six was at a serious disadvantage, one on one. If the Mossie could not outrun that single seat fighter he was toast. In contrast. the P-61 was considered to be the USAAF's "most maneuverable fighter" and one highly experienced P-61 test pilot said that in a P-61 with a top turret and an a good crew he could take on any four WWII prop fighters and win. But ironically the Heavy Fighter concept was not one the USAAF embraced and by the end of the war everyone else had found out the hard way that it had its severe drawbacks, at best.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 31, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> Ms. Grant's article is very much like the icing on a cake - sweet and delicious but with little food or lasting value.
> 
> I have virtually all the books on the P-61, and while most are fun to read they - as with many aviation history books - walk across the surface of the ocean but never dive beneath the surface to find the gist of the real story.
> 
> ...


I agree. Her assertion that "Yet more than any other World War II fighter, the P-61 foreshadowed the highly instrumented cockpits and two-man crew arrangement that could make the most of radar in the air battle." is nonsense. The P-61 was designed for a three man crew when people were enamoured with turrets. Taking the turret out leaves you with what a single Defiant was, something too big slow and heavy. Designing a night fighter when you have only a vague idea of what is needed of a night fighter doesn't guarantee success. What was needed was speed altitude and endurance/range plus a pilot and operator. The size and weight of RADAR equipment was quickly driven down by the need to fit it into small airframes.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 1, 2021)

To those wanting copies of the documents to which I refer in my previous posts, I regret I cannot and will not share them.

As for why, if I've been able to spend the time and money to go research the topic, so can you. Second, I have been privileged to have access to the many, many documents and photos other historical researchers have gathered for their individual projects and must, therefore, demur from spreading that information any more than I already have. I wish to protect the bona fides of the REAL researchers and authors and not do anything to help the "gatherers and writers".

That all may sound self-serving and self-righteous. Frankly, I don't care. That's the way it is. I will always share data in a forum in situations where I don't need it for one of my projects or where it represents a miniscule portion of what I will eventually produce.

AlanG

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 1, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> To those wanting copies of the documents to which I refer in my previous posts, I regret I cannot and will not share them.
> 
> As for why, if I've been able to spend the time and money to go research the topic, so can you. Second, I have been privileged to have access to the many, many documents and photos other historical researchers have gathered for their individual projects and must, therefore, demur from spreading that information any more than I already have. I wish to protect the bona fides of the REAL researchers and authors and not do anything to help the "gatherers and writers".
> 
> ...


I dont think you will find many in disagreement, it is forum policy AFAIK.


----------



## Dana Bell (Aug 2, 2021)

Hi all,

I know this isn't another P-61 versus Mosquito thread, but I wanted to clarify that Alan is protecting my research. We often shared research tables and lunches at the Nationl Archives - two opportunities to jump up and down and call out "OOH, OOH - look what I just found!" (There's nothing more fun than sharing with a research buddy!)

Most of the P-61 problems were buried by Wright Field. When the first XP-61 was evaluated by the Materiel Division's offices, there were two types of reaction: the static tests were relatively positive, with somewhat minor changes called out. But the flight tests were very critical, recommending that a new aircraft be ordered. Notes on performance advised that there was little chance the P-61 would improve, and a likely chance that performance would be further degraded when "upgrades" were installed. The coverup came from Wright Field's reports to Washington that emphasized that ALL reports were enthusiastic - there was no mention that flight tests had been disappointing.

The failure to report problems to Washington - to actually lie about recognized performance failures - might help explain why so many books and articles praise the P-61. Authors viewing only the HQ AAF files will see only the recognition of this new wonderplane, while those digging into Wright Field internal reports pain a completely different picture.

BTW - wait 'till you all see the new material Alan has dug up for the B-32, B-24, and his other projects!

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 2, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> BTW - wait 'till you all see the new material Alan has dug up for the B-32, B-24, and his other projects!



Intriguing. Any teasers that can be shared?


----------

