# P-61 vs. He-219



## V-1710 (Jan 5, 2006)

Maybe the He-219 was better armed, but the P-61 was very effective.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2006)

hmmmmm wonder if I should start this or not ?

nah let someone else go for it, I'll comment later. Both were not as hot shot as everyone thinks


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

Erich, lets hear it.


----------



## Magister (Jan 5, 2006)

My vote goes to the Uhu.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

The drawback to the P61 was its not so high speed and it was quite heavy.

The good points were its phenominal maneuvering (thanks to the zap flaps) and fairly good radar.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 6, 2006)

The Uhu wasnt equipped with that rear facing radar IFF 4 detecting mosquitoes. but shot them down, and i like axis aircraft, the P-61 wasnt as heavily armed and had lower performance, and u dont need manouverability during the night cos u wont get in a dogfight


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2006)

let me correct you if I may. the He 219 A-2 was fitted with nearly half of the Uhu's with the Rückwart - rear facing radar for the FuG 220d set. I./NJG 1 reduced the overal armament to 4 2cm weapons. one in each inward wing and then 2 2cm in the lower fuselage weapons tray. It had been proven successfully already in the Bf 110G and especially the Luftwaffes most tired and true nf the Ju 88G-6. the Uhu was heavy like the P-61. the uhu's ejection seat system had drawbacks and the crew at times were blasted through the glass, besides the danger of having a cockpit forward of the twin main engines. the wing spars were weak but not so much as the failed Ta 154 Moskito crap.

don't worry there were plenty of dogifights between Ju 88's and bf 110G's and the nemisis Mosquiot nf's though short lived with either a victory or an escape.

more coming .......


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> The Uhu wasnt equipped with that rear facing radar IFF 4 detecting mosquitoes. but shot them down, and i like axis aircraft, the P-61 wasnt as heavily armed and had lower performance, and u dont need manouverability during the night cos u wont get in a dogfight



The P61 had four .50's and four 20mm cannons. Sometimes the turret was removed, but still, the four cannons was quite a bit.

In the PTO there were a few encounters between Japanese night intruders and P61's. The Japanese planes were always quite maneuverable and the P61's were able to disengage from the fight by using its zap flights to great advantage.


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2006)

ya know we should go back to the old thread ~ archivs on the P-61 as I gave quite a bit of info on the bird and the recollections from veteran pilots/crews I have interviewed. I was fortunate to be a member of the US night fighter association before it's abandonment and I am going to cover the tactics and ops of the 9th AF squads in one of my books. the upper .50 cal turret was removed from all 9th AF machines. there were several encounters as well agasint GErman nf's although the bulk was against GErman bomber types. The 9th AF boys were not to keen on visua ID as at least two Allied a/c persihed under their guns. Some interesting findings with ops against Ju 87D's of NSGr 1 and 2 in 1945.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Between the 2 up there I go for the He-219. In my opinion it was the better of the 2 aircraft. Some He-219 varients had a whopping armament consisting of Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 103 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun
The thing I dont like about the P-61 is the fact that it was heavy and quite big, but then agian so was the Ju-88.

Here is a comparison of the 2 aircraft:

*He-219*

Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Type: Night fighter
Models: He 219A-0 to A-7, B and C series
Crew: Two
First Flight: He 219V-1 November 15, 1942
Service Delivery:
Prototypes: November 15, 1942
He 219A-1: November 1943
Total Production: 268

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant:
He 219V-1:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 603AS
Type: Inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,750 hp

Typical:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 603G 
Type: Inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,900 hp

He 219A-6:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 603L 
Type: Inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,750 hp

He 219A-7/R2:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 603E Number: Two
Type: Inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled
Horsepower:
1,800 hp at 2,700 rpm for takeoff.
1,900 hp at 5,905 ft. (1,800m).
1,550 hp at 22,965 ft. (7,000m).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: He 219A-7
Span: 60 ft. 8 in. (18.5m)
Length (With Aerials): 50 ft. 11¾ in. (15.54m)
Height: 13 ft. 5½ in. (4.1m)
Weights: He 219A-7
Empty: 24,692 lb (11,200 kg)
Loaded: 33,730 lb. (15,200 kg)

Performance: He 219A-7
Maximum speed: 416 mph (670km/h)
Initial climb: 1,804 ft (550m)/min
Service ceiling: 41,660 ft (12,700m)
Range: 1,243 miles (2,000km)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
He 219V-1
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in wing roots.
One 13mm MG 131 in rear cockpit.

He 219A-2/R1
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in wing roots.
Two or Four 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.

He 219A-7/R1
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 103 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun

He 219A-7/R2
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun

*P-61 Black Widow*

GENERAL INFORMATION:
Type:
P-61: Three-seat Night Fighter
F-15: Two-seat strategic reconaissance
Manufacturer: Northrop
Models: P-61A thru C, F-15 (RF-61C) Reporter
First Flight: May 21, 1942 (XP-61)
Service Delivery:
May 1944 (P-61A)
1946 (F-15A) 
Final Delivery: N/A
Total Produced: 941 (plus 35 photo-recon versions)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERPLANT:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp
Type: 18-Cyl 2-Row Radials
Horsepower (P-61A): 2,000hp R-2800-10
Horsepower (P-61B): 2,000hp R-2800-65
Horsepower (P-61C and F-15): 2,800hp R-2800-73


FUEL:
Capacity: N/A
Type: N/A

DIMENSIONS:
Wing span: 20.12m (66 ft.)
Length (P-61A): 14.92m (48 ft. 11 in.)
Length (P-61B C): 15.1m (49 ft. 7 in.)
Length (F-15): 15.3m (50 ft. 3 in.)
Height: 4.49m (14 ft. 8 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
WEIGHTS:
Empty (Typical P-61): 10,886kg (24,000 lbs.)
Empty (F-15): 9,979kg (22,000 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded (P-61A): 14,696kg (32,400 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded (P-61B): 17,237kg (38,000 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded (P-61C): 18,280kg (40,300 lbs.)
Maximum, Clean (F-15): 12,700kg (28,000 lbs.)

PERFORMANCE:
Maximum Speed (P-61A B): 366 mph (590 km/h)
Maximum Speed (P-61C): 430 mph (692 km/h)
Maximum Speed (F-15): 440 mph (708 km/h)
Initial climb (P-61A B): 2,200 ft. (670 m) per minute
Initial climb (P-61C F-15): 3,000 ft. (914 m) per minute
Service Ceiling (P-61A B): 33,000 ft. (10,060 m)
Service Ceiling (P-61C F-15): 41,000 ft. (12,500 m)
Range - Max. Fuel (P-61A): 500 Miles (2360 km)
Range - Max. Fuel (P-61B C): 2,800 Miles (4500 km)
Range - Max. Fuel (F-15): 4,000 Miles (6440 km)


ARMAMENTS:
Four 20mm M-2 Cannon in belly, fixed forward.
Plus
Electric Dorsal turret with four .50 machine guns, remotely controlled
from front or rear sight station and fired by pilot.
(in first 37 A's, last 250 B's and all C's)
Plus (B C Only)
Wing racks for 6,400 lb. ordnance load.

F-15 carried no armament.

For the most part, there performance was equal however the the He-219 had better armament. Between the 2 I go for the He-219 based off performance, looks, and design and the fact that Luftwaffe Night Fighter tactics generally were better.

*Now having said that I think the Ju-88 was a much better night fighter than both of those combined.*


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2006)

> Now having said that I think the Ju-88 was a much better night fighter than both of those combined


Bout time u came out and admitted the truth...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Yeah it was a long post was it not.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 8, 2006)

I will have to agree that the He-219 was the better of the two.

But I dont know about the tactics. The Luftwaffee had their night fighter tactics to combat the allied threat, and the allies had their night fighter tactics to combat the German threat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

That is true, but the Luftwaffe had developed those tactics over a longer period of time and had tactics to deal with the allied threat of bombers and fighters and the enemy night fighters.


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

not sure if one was better than the other, the P-61 with the 9th AF in the ETO seemed to have missions at mid-altitiude while the Uhu went after high ranging RAF heavies and the occasional Mossie in 43.

of note for all of you :

the operational Uhu's in I./NJG 1 only were the A-0 and the A-2 and A-5. there was never an A-6 anti-mossie model nor A-7 produced for operations, they were all experiments and enver saw action. Armament in 44-45 was reduced in nearly all cases to wing mounted 2cm's and belly tray of two 2cm weapons and 3cm SM installation was not always fitted nor a Rückswart (rear warning radar) which was to be the scourge of many a Uhu crew due to Mossie shootdowns, one of the prime reasons the Ju 88G losses in relationship to Mossie intruders dropped off. Bf 110G's still did not have rear warning radar as standard even by wars end.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Erich said:


> A-6 anti-mossie model nor A-7 produced for operations, they were all experiments and enver saw action.{/quote]
> 
> That I did not know.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 8, 2006)

Erich, any information on which was better of the two radars?

The US SCR-720 or the one carried on the He219?


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

depends on the year. the FuG 220D set with angled diploes was jammed by the RAF, especially 100th group, the AI of the P-61's was not jammed but did fail under interesting circumstances, usally a short circuit but weather also had alot to play on the device. interesting too that tracking the Ju 87D's at night, if the German craft would bank and drop to vertical and angle out the German craft would be lost, and it wasn't just the Stuka they had problems with.

slightly Ot but at least in the Ju 88G-6 when the FuG 220d was jammed the German crews went over to the Naxos 350zc and were able to pick up RAF bombers even individually. Really funny about the quotes stating that the He 219A had the most advanced radar/electronic systems available but it was not the case, the Ju 88G-6 did since for an obvious reason(s) it could carry 4 crewmemembers and have the room in not so quite a cramped cockpit. It wa also the only one to carry late war I.R. technology besdies the ground to air tele-type printer not jammed by the RAF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

So basically the Ju-88 had a backup for its radar in that sense?


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

yes even Flensburg had been jammed earlier it seemed to work quite well in the spring of 45, and some crews had both this and naxos together. the radar operator would actually focus in on where the jamming was worse with the aluminum stirps of window and on 9 out of 10 cases the German crews would find the bombers. the biggest problem in the jamming modes was as I mentioned in the Mosievs Ju 88 thread in early 45 with so much jamming and rearranging of where the German nf force showuld go to intercept.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Cool thanks. Hey are you recieving new post alerts. I have not recieved any, but people are posting to what I have posted.


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

no I am not, just trying to stay on the net without getting booted off..........weird day


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Yeah I am not longer getting new post alerts in my email and it is getting real slow again.


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2006)

same here.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

It has died on me twice now, and I am still not recieving alerts.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2006)

Interesting stuff Erich, of the listed I would go for the HE-219 and would agree with your comment Alder about the JU-88.


----------



## V-1710 (Jan 10, 2006)

Was there a night fighter version of the Do-335? Did it see service?


----------



## book1182 (Jan 10, 2006)

I would got with the HE-219. We know more about it's use as a night fighter than the P-61. I think the P-61 proved useful in the night intruder role since it was so large but I think the He-219 proved itself as a bomber destory.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 10, 2006)

> Was there a night fighter version of the Do-335? Did it see service?


There was, but it seems there were not enough units to put together anything operational...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > Was there a night fighter version of the Do-335? Did it see service?
> 
> 
> There was, but it seems there were not enough units to put together anything operational...



There was ONE prototype unit constructed, the V10/M10. The French completed a 2cd a/c post war (M17). This a/c differed from the M10 which was to adapted from the trainer a/c with a small canopy, like the small canopy as on the Beaufighter, closer to the pilot. 

There was several 2-seaters built as trainers.


----------



## Erich (Jan 10, 2006)

in fact the only nf was one built of supplemental parts in a hanger. Also there were NO operational Do 335 units, Several took off on pre-maiden flights as test beds circling the airfields and then at wars end the craft were set haphazordly amongst the other a/c typlfying an operational staffel with several two seaters sitting lonely as aerail photos present themselves. A very strange and oversized craft it would of served inconsequential in the coming months had it been operational


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2006)

i think she's a fascinating plane though, i would've loved to have seen her see allot of service and development..........


----------



## Kryten (Jan 2, 2012)

I seem to recall reading how the 219's were not regarded well by the Nachtjager who preffered the JU88?


----------



## davebender (Jan 2, 2012)

I suspect the Jumo 222 powered He-219B was intended to be the main production version. When that engine program was cancelled it wrecked the He-219s chances to mature into a world class night fighter aircraft.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 3, 2012)

AdlerIstGelandet,

I don't think the He 219 reached anywhere its potential as it was underpowered and never supported politically by Milch. Milch's pet project was the Ta 154, a fast aircraft but simply too late.
1 The only engine ever used was the DB603A of 1750hp or the high altitude optimised DB603AA.
2 The DB603G of 1900hp was never produced (apparently because it used C3 fuel) though some may have been used in prototypes.
3 The 1800hp DB603E which still used B4 but combined the low altitude power of the DB603A with the high altitude power of the DB603AA may have been delivered in small numbers.
4 The DB603L, a C3 two stage supercharger version was surely never used, the DB603LA, the B4 version only seems to have made it into the Ta 152C and one Do 335 prototype.

The powerfull 2250hp DB603EM which used C3 and MW50 was abandoned due to the use of C3.

Basically with the 1750hp DB603A engine it was too slow to catch a Mosquito and to underpowered to upgrade with the kind of defensive armament needed for daylight opperations.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2012)

The thing that struck me about the He219 was that it was larger than a Mosquito, and heavier empty than the Mossie's max takeoff weight. And with engines only a small amount more powerful was expected to catch the Mossie.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 3, 2012)

The 1944 production He 219 A-2 used the DB 603AA engine, Heinkel planned a lightened A-6 with reduced armament and armor removed to hunt down Mosquitos but this version was dropped (probably because of the Me 262 units set up for this task).
The DB 603E was to be used in the He 219 A-7 of which 200+ were to be produced from 12/44 on.

The He 219 may have been disliked by some crew as it had no defensive armament and had to rely on speed to avoid been shot down.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 3, 2012)

Denniss said:


> The 1944 production He 219 A-2 used the DB 603AA engine, Heinkel planned a lightened A-6 with reduced armament and armor removed to hunt down Mosquitos but this version was dropped (probably because of the Me 262 units set up for this task).
> The DB 603E was to be used in the He 219 A-7 of which 200+ were to be produced from 12/44 on.
> 
> The He 219 may have been disliked by some crew as it had no defensive armament and had to rely on speed to avoid been shot down.



It would seem that the He 219 preceded the P-61 into combat by almost 1 year (early 43 as opposed to early 44) so a direct comparison is not fair. The He 219A-0 A-2 night fighter variants seem to have been faster than the 366mph P-61 but its hard to get definitive data as to what speeds were with radar and gun packs. The DB603E engined He 219A-7 was, in theory faster and had the German economy not been so exhausted versions with better engines likely could have entered production in 1944 (eg DB603E, DB603EM or LA). I have the impression that the decision to make German engines multifuel to accomodate C3 fuel shorages delayed these powerfull engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2012)

The Timing is closer to 7-8 months. The Germans often used prototype or pre production aircraft in combat trails or operations/testing. First use of the HE 219 was in June of 43. The Americans shipped the first squadron of P-61s ( by ship) to Europe in Feb of 1944 after completing training. The 348th night fighter squadron, the first to receive P-61s was a training unit and stayed in the US so the unit that deployed to Europe in Feb was the 2nd squadron to receive P-61s.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Jan 3, 2012)

in what manner of comparison is this? the he.219 vs the p-61 in combat? or which performed its role better? in both cases, imho, the two are equally matched if properly flown.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 3, 2012)

The actual service configuration of the He 219 is hard to decode. It was underpowered because the 1900hp DB603G was not available. I believe this was because of C3 logistics issues rather than any serious technical issue. This engine keep showing up as part of the specification of German aircraft but AFAIKT it was either only used in prototype form or never at all.
This leaves the 1750hp DB603A or more likely the DB603AA which optimised high altitude performance at the expense of low. Even the use of the 1800hp DB603E seems very limited.

DB 603A, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
Power (max): 1287 kW (1750 PS) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1162 kW (1580 PS) at 2500 rpm at sea leve

DB 603AA DB 603A with rated altitude of 7.3 km, B4 fuel
Power (max): 1228 kW (1670 PS) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1162 kW (1580 PS) at 2500 rpm at sea level

Supposedly a He 219 with flame dampers, full radar and full gun packs only managed 311mph which makes the P-61 faster. Obviously the He 219 would gain speed with a better radar system that produced less drag.

Having said that, the Germans never had the chance to fit more powerfull versions of the DB603 engine for a variety of production and fuel logistics reasons. The supply of high octane fuel was limited due to competition between synthetic rubber production (iso-butylene common feedstock) and by the time the first of the new alkylation plants started production in 1943 they were compromised by the allied oil campaign of early 1944.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 3, 2012)

The thing about the He 219 for me is that it looks the part having a certain look just appeals, it's got a certain slender grace to its lines.
The P 61 also has a certain look too, much more brutal to my eyes.

Anyways, as we all know looks can be very deceiving and aren't really much of a basis to decide about plane types.

I can't say as I know a lot about the P 61 but I do recall for many years (a long time ago) reading a lot of admiring and frankly pretty glowing reports about the He 219.
It was a long time before this incredible plane with all that claimed untapped portential I had read about got a little more real.
There's a famous report by Captain E.M. 'Winkle' Brown who test flew the 219 after the war and he said 
"somewhat overrated......it suffered from hat is perhaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin engined aircraft can have: it was underpowered. This defect makes take-off a critical manoeuvre in the event of an engine failing, and landing with one engine out can be equally critical . There certainly could be no overshooting with the He 219 in that condition.
In fairness there are reports by German air crew who specifically state the He 219 was one of the few German twin engined types that could climb with one engine out.

But I can't help seeing the usual German tendancies with this one, a muddled objective, political interference intrigue and a design which suffers being increasingly loaded with demands which pile on the weight as the engines never quite get to that 2000hp+ class which the design requires. 

I have to say though that it does seem another example of the usual German habit to disperse of effort and spray grossly limited resources around in a profilgate fashion.
Why put effort and resources into the He 219 at all when the Ju88G (esp the sub-type 6 7) types were better performers had greater potential as nf's, given their size load carrying abilities? particularly considering the scope for growth in the Ju88 design with the Ju188/Ju388.
Not forgetting that the jets are just around the corner too.


----------



## davebender (Jan 3, 2012)

Because it might have been a top performer if RLM hadn't pulled the plug on the Jumo 222 engine program. Just as the He-100 and Fw-187 might have been top performers if RLM hadn't cut DB601 engine production in half during 1936. And the Do-217, Me-410 and Fw-190C might have been top performers if RLM hadn't cancelled funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940.

I see this problem repeatedly when I look at WWII era German aircraft production. A promising German airframe design derailed by RLM cutting funding for the engine program. RLM also derailed the Me-210C light bomber and Ju-252 transport for no apparent reason at all as those programs had engines available.

Perhaps Goering should have spent less time collecting art and paid more attention to matching engine production with airframe production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 3, 2012)

The He-219 A-5 was about a 360 mph aircraft when equipped with the radar and all the guns. Not all were forward-firing. The He-219 could get to about 400 mph when all excess weight was removed as well as the gondola with the 4 20mm cannons. With the gondola it could get to about 385 mph. They made about 300 He-219's. Climbed about 1,800 feet per minute.

The P-61 made about 366 mph, faster than the night-fighter fiull-up He-219, and was a very good match for afully-armed He-219. No P-61's were lost to enemy aircraft, though some were lost to AA and evena friendly Mosquito. The P-61 packed about 80% to 85% of the He-219 firepower, which was enough to destroy any target in the impact zome, regardless of aircraft size or armor. They made about 742 P-61's. Cimbed about 2,500 feet per minute.

I'd take 742 P-61's any day over 300 He-219's. If 19 mph of speed was important, then the He-219 had a slight edge. If not, I'd take the maneuverability and climb rate of the P-61 any day. Nothing particularly wrong with either aircraft, and teh he=219 was a good one. But so was the P-61, and I'll take it most days over the He-219, expecially considering the reputation of the P-61's engines.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 4, 2012)

A Heinkel chart give the following speed with flame damper and radar antenna at 30 minute engine rating:
A-2 with DB603A: 560 km/h in 6.3 km
A-5 with DB 603E: 585 km/h in 8.3km

Without flame damper and antenna speed is given as 605/615 km/h in 6.4/8.4 km

Data is from May 1944, it's not given whether the A-2 data was flown/flight-tested or calculated.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2012)

GregP said:


> The P-61 made about 366 mph, faster than the night-fighter fiull-up He-219, and was a very good match for afully-armed He-219. No P-61's were lost to enemy aircraft, though some were lost to AA and evena friendly Mosquito.



Still slower than NF Mossies.

I dare say the reasons for no losses to enemy aircraft is due to when, where and how they were operated.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2012)

Obviously well matched aircraft but for me personally they are battling it out for 3rd place behind the two kings of the night skies the JU 88 and the Mosquito. The 88 and the Mossie are equal 1st though they both had different strengths. As a pure bomber killer it has to be the 88 and as a fighter the Mossie, if it was my fantasy airforce I would have both.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2012)

A night fighter needs three things. Good performance, good armament and good radar. The P-61's radar had more capability than the German radar.


----------



## davebender (Jan 4, 2012)

I agree. And maybe not even 3rd place. 

The P-61 didn't enter combat until 1944. By then Germany was producing 1,800hp DB605 AS engines. One could argue a Me-110 night fighter powered by DB605 AS engines would be superior to both the P-61 and He-219.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 4, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> A night fighter needs three things. Good performance, good armament and good radar. The P-61's radar had more capability than the German radar.



Better radar, why? Do you have more details?
Thanks in advance
Regards 
cimmex


----------



## Erich (Jan 4, 2012)

the Allied AI Cento radar supposedly. the poor thing as called "bent weapon" had it's probs with the 422nd and 425th nfs by looking through their war diaries. actually there was probably 3 Widows shot down by LW NF's, one of them by the tail gunner of a He 177 the Widow pilot got a bit too close to ID the craft, they made it back to base cracked up and the Widow was written off.
The He 219 A-0 and A-2 which were used till wars end were liked by the I./NJG 1 especially since the only other craft was the Bf 110G-4 of NJG 1's gruppen. NJG 3 was able to test even the latest A-7's and were not fitting to NJG 3's liking so they stayed with the well proven Ju 88G-6's which could handle the latest radar gadgets.


----------



## GregP (Jan 4, 2012)

I thought the thread was P-61 vs. He-219. Where did the Mosquito and Ju-88 come in?

Just to set the record straight, I never said the P-61 was the best night fighter. I said I'd rather have 700+ P-61's than 300 He-219's.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 4, 2012)

afaik the P-61 was 656* (w/o F-15 and with prototypes and experimentals) ever much more of He 219 also if we count that P-61 production run after the Germany occupation


edit *this maybe 646


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. And maybe not even 3rd place.
> 
> The P-61 didn't enter combat until 1944. By then Germany was producing 1,800hp DB605 AS engines. One could argue a Me-110 night fighter powered by DB605 AS engines would be superior to both the P-61 and He-219.



Ah, yes, the DB605 miracle motors. They were good engines for single seat day fighters, not so good for night fighters or heavy aircraft. The high power ratings were good for limited times weren't they? The 30min rating did not increase in proportion to the max rating. In fact on some of the 1800hp engines the power at 2600 rpm was actually slightly lower than the power available from the 1475hp DB605A at the same 2600 rpm wasn't it? The engines in the P-61 did not have a 30 minute rating. They had a 15 minute military rating, a 5 min WER and a 'normal' or max continuous rating good for as long as the fuel lasted. This does make comparison difficult but the engines in the P -61 could give 1550hp at 21,500ft as long as the pilot wanted to burn fuel at that rate. The later DB605 engines were good for around 1200hp (or even 1150 HP) around that altitude for 30 minutes. In combat you do what you have to do but there is a reason the Germans didn't stick late model DB 605s into heavy aircraft despite the high nominal power and it has nothing to do with supply. The DB 603 and Jumo 213 had higher climb and continuous cruise power settings despite having peak power ratings close to the same as the late DB 605s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Better radar, why? Do you have more details?
> Thanks in advance
> Regards
> cimmex



Try this-- The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SCR-720 Airborne Radar

How well radar actually works as opposed to specifications is another story, but the radar in the P-61 could sweep 180 degrees in front of the plane and 20 degrees up and 50 degrees down. This is a mauch larger volume of sky than most other radars of the time. Ranges on radar depend on the target type, target aspect, Height of the radar plane and Height of the target plane. Without knowing at least the target type and heights comparisons of ranges between different radars are very suspect. Height is important because a plane with sky behind it stands out very well while a plane flying lower than than the radar plane can get lost in ground clutter, even if the plane is flying at 10,000ft and the radar plane at 15,000ft if the range is long enough.


----------



## davebender (Jan 4, 2012)

I believe this specification is for the post-war SCR-720B radar. Not the SCR-720A radar installed during 1944 to 1945 in Mosquitoes and P-61s.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 4, 2012)

davebender said:


> Because it might have been a top performer if RLM hadn't pulled the plug on the Jumo 222 engine program.



Well fair enough Dave, a plane with potential.
I don't think anyone says different, and yes fair comment, a plane with even greater potential if they can make the leap to 2000hp+ class engines (which perhaps more importantly sustain high outputs at altitude......something I'm not convinced was ever proven to apply to the German supercharged 24 cylinder engines accepting they never got as far as they wanted with them....and that's before we get to late war fuel availability).

It's worth pointing out the other airforces also pondered over planes with potential too.....but none ever quite seem to indulge in actually producing the huge number of types and sub-types the Germans got themselves into.

So I still think it's fair comment.
They started making using the He219 when Jumo 222 was already in trouble and unlikely to happen anytime soon; and jets are just around the corner.
So why would anyone (with any grasp of resource logistics in a territory with severe resource issues) do that?
Why dilute the effort and resources that could have been otherwise applied to the nf versions of the Ju88?

I just find that sort of waste incredible, though obviously I'm glad they did.
As I've mentioned before without the bomb changing the game completely I do not see any way Germany can win WW2 (I guess the other exception might be push-over politicians caving in but by 1941 all those that might have done so either had already or turned out not to be the push-overs originally though), every other option - in my opinion - merely delays the inevitable defeat gives the meat-grinder longer to chew up countless young men women in uniform so many more civillians on all sides. 
Including, possibly, additional members of my own family.


----------



## davebender (Jan 4, 2012)

> Why dilute the effort and resources that could have been otherwise applied to the nf versions of the Ju88?


The He-219 was designed during 1942, long before the outstanding Ju-88G appeared.

During 1942....
Ju-88C night fighter in production. Performance was rather low with Jumo 211 engines.
Me-110 program has ended in favor of the Me-210C.
RLM then cancelled the Me-210C program for no apparent reason.

That leaves 1942 Germany with no night fighter aircraft in production except the lackluster Ju-88C. Under the circumstances I can hardly blame Heinkel for attempting to sell their own night fighter design. 

IMO the real problem is RLM cancellation of the Me-210C program during 1942. If that hadn't happened there would almost certainly have been a Me-210C night fighter variant.


----------



## Erich (Jan 4, 2012)

the Me 210/410 does not have room for the NF electronics both nose and in the radio operators position for one.

now back to topic please P-61 vs He 219


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 5, 2012)

Erich said:


> the Me 210/410 does not have room for the NF electronics both nose and in the radio operators position for one.
> 
> now back to topic please P-61 vs He 219



I question that since some Me 410 were fitted with Hohtenweil radars, these had lobe switching for blind torpedo attacks and of course Me 109/FW190 both could carry light weight Neptune radars. I suspect the same kind of poliitically biased reporting used to condemn the He 219 was used to condemn the Me 410, more succesfully.

@Dave Bender.

AFAIKT the Jumo 222 was never totally cancelled. It was removed from the production programm but development continued albeit at a low priority. By wars end the orginal Jumo 222A3/B-3 looked like going back into production for the Ju 388 and 488 and a version with a two stage supercharger, the Jumo 222E/F was also approaching production.

AFAIKT Jumo 222 could have entered production in derated form in 41/42.


----------



## davebender (Jan 5, 2012)

Ostmark engine plant construction was completed during March 1942. I assume April 1942 would have been the start of Jumo 222 engine production. That coincides nicely with He-219 development. 

*Historical.*
Dec 1941. 
RLM decision to convert the almost completed Ostmark engine plant to DB603 production.

Feb 1942. 
Decision to power the He-219 with DB603 engines. Heinkel had no other choice if they didn't want the He-219 cancelled.

Nov 1942. 
He-219 first flight.

Jun 1943. 
He-219 combat debut.

*What might have happened....*
Dec 1941.
RLM orders Ostmark plant switched to DB603 production. Goering over rules the decision. Full speed ahead for Jumo 222A engine production. Initial version will be derated until technical gliches are addressed, similiar to DB605A and other new engines. The initial Jumo 222A engine version will produce only about 2,000hp. Which is still quite a bit.

Feb 1942.
Decision to power He-219 with Jumo 222A engines produced at Ostmark.
.....Full speed ahead for Jumo 222 powered Ju-288 program also. But that's another discussion.
..........Ju-288 causes He-111, Do-217, Me-210C and Me-410A programs to be cancelled.
.....Dr. Tank had plans for a Jumo 222 powered Fw-190. That's also another discussion.

Nov 1942.
He-219 prototype first flight. 2,000 hp Jumo222A engines.

June 1943.
He-219 combat debut.

Fall 1943.
Jumo 222A engine restrictions lifted. It now produces the full 2,500hp.

How would the He-219 perform when powered by 2,500hp engines? It's possible to imagine Me-110 and Ju-88 programs both being cancelled by 1944. But to make this possible the Luftwaffe must do a better than historical job of matching airframe production to engine production.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 5, 2012)

> Jun 1943.
> He-219 combat debut.



The V9 version. When did the first He219A-1 have its combat debut?


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2012)

the first so called official date was July 25/26th 1943 for an A-0 though Steibs machine was also called an A-0 as well. no A-1's

again lets get back on the topic P-61 vs the He 219 without the drol of printed testing data shall we.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 5, 2012)

It is said that at lest one He-219 flow with the Ju-222.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 5, 2012)

1. What advantages, if any, did the last model of He-219 have over the P61C? The P61C being the 430 mph turbo supercharged model. 
2. Other than a top speed of 366 mph, what deficiencies did the P61 have?


----------



## davebender (Jan 5, 2012)

Probably wishfull thinking on the part of Heinkel. What might have been. Just as a handful of Jumo 222 powered Ju-288s entered service.

IMO RLM should have cancelled all aircraft programs that required Jumo 222 engines NLT January 1942. That would have ended the He-219 night fighter program early on.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2012)

since the P-61C never saw operations in WW 2 then the question is irrelevant in regards to the He 219A-7. as far as I am aware there were never any Jumo 222 installed to any combative A variant.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 6, 2012)

I read it in book on the plane to speed they said was 435mpr.The 2 very long range He-219 had ju-222 but were lost in a raid.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 18, 2012)

I wonder what is the status of Erich's planned book(s)?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2012)

Sagittario64 said:


> in what manner of comparison is this? the he.219 vs the p-61 in combat? or which performed its role better? in both cases, imho, the two are equally matched if properly flown.



I am no expert.

But I like both these planes, find them both fascinating. My Squadron / Signal P-61 book states (don't have it in front of me) that the P-61 was extremely maneuverable for its size, and on at least one occasion out-dog-fought a Mosquito NF variant. Not having the empirical evidence to prove anything, my thought is to match Saggitario's-- they were somewhat equal, and pilotage is the tie-breaker.

I've seen the P-61A's max speed listed as 371, somewhere. Just guessing that may be the speed without gun turret. 366, usually listed for the B, may or may not reflect the speed with turret. Or it could just be various other factors. Or the variability of two different tests. We're only talking 5 mph. It would be a little lighter w/o turret. The 4 Hispano's should be plenty to knock down anything in the night sky, I would think. I do recall the Squadron / Signal book stating that the main difference, operationally, between A and B P-61's was the radar, and that the B's radar was a vast improvement in capability over the A. Another difference, also major, I guess, is that the B introduced hard points for drop tanks and had much improved range. It could also, if called to, deliver a 6,400 lb. bomb load on those hard points. Not sure if that actually ever was done. I think the P-61 had a crew of three when equipped with turret and usually two when the turret was deleted. At least one, and the S/S book seemed to indicate more than one, replaced the turret with a fixed gun installation of the 4X .50 caliber MG's in its place, complete with a turret cover, such that they appeared to have the turret, but actually it was a fixed forward firing gun position, used to supplement the cannon. Reportedly, training the turret different directions during flight resulted in too much buffeting, leading to its removal. Conflicting things I have read various places, indicate that either the buffeting was solved later in production, leading to the last B models being given the turret, or else, they simply restored it into production without solving the problems. Either way, both configs evidently saw combat.

I wonder if the P-61 would have been a lot slower yet if it had been forced to wear the huge radar antenna arrays sported by the He 219 and most other German night fighters.

For Erich and anyone else who may know, are there good accounts (besides the Squadron / Signal book) about the P-61's maneuverability and handling? S/S books may be a little bit on the cheer-leading end of the spectrum--- every plane they feature was the best it could possibly be. . . .


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 19, 2012)

The P-61 had excellent accelerated stalling characteristics so it was easier than many to fly to and beyond its limits as there was no tendency to flick out of the turn. According to AHT the rate of roll wasn't particularly high. Its wing-loading was also "moderatish", especially when compared to the He 219.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2012)

to the many book ideas it is a long wait gents due to my Cancer ............... materials for two books are scattered all over my office/sphere's floor right in front of me as I type this out .....

the best idea is go directly to the published works on the P-61, you may have to seek out a tech reference though instead of an operational history(s).


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> The P-61 had excellent accelerated stalling characteristics so it was easier than many to fly to and beyond its limits as there was no tendency to flick out of the turn. According to AHT the rate of roll wasn't particularly high. *Its wing-loading was also "moderatish", especially when compared to the He 219.*



Hmm. I had thought the He 219's wing loading was quite high. Seems like I remember it being in the 60-ish lbs/ sq ft. range. Don't have it in front of me. P-38 also had fairly high wing loading, but still managed to be relatively maneuverable. It's partly the wing loading, and partly the control surfaces and what auxiliary devices you have that makes a plane maneuverable. Oh, and of course-- pilot experience.


----------



## GregP (Jul 20, 2012)

The He 219 had a wing loading of about 62 to 70 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight, depending on model. The P-61 had a wing loading of 45 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight. When I went through aerodynamics, lower was better for maneuverability in the wing loading department … unless the math has changed.

The Black Widow could turn better ANY time at ANY weight and ANY armament condition by a significant margin. Of course, at night, you don't HAVE to turn much and they didn't fight each other, at least very often.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2012)

GregP said:


> The He 219 had a wing loading of about 62 to 70 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight, depending on model. The P-61 had a wing loading of 45 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight. When I went through aerodynamics, lower was better for maneuverability in the wing loading department … unless the math has changed.
> 
> The Black Widow could turn better ANY time at ANY weight and ANY armament condition by a significant margin. Of course, at night, you don't HAVE to turn much and they didn't fight each other, at least very often.



Yes, that's what I was thinking. But the He 219 did run the risk of having to maneuver with Mosquito's, whether it often did or not. Plus there is the embarrassing, not to mention practical, problem of needing to be able to maneuver with the bombers you are trying to shoot down.

As for wing loading, yes, less is always better for maneuverability, but it is not the only factor involved. Control surfaces, moment arms, special devices such as combat flaps, leading slats, etc, and center of gravity can also affect it. Possibly other factors I can't think of right now, too.


----------



## Grampa (Jul 20, 2012)

There's a lot of talk about speed, agility, weapons and so on here about those planes, but dosent we forgetting that there in the dark night the main rule in nightcombat is that the one who find the enemy before the enemy find him are the one that most are the winner in nightcombat right? So how are the radartecknology and other electronic components in comparelse that help's deteckting enemy planes in the dark on those planes? Aint that a most importent factor to have for a dogfight in the dark?


----------



## GregP (Jul 20, 2012)

In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat. So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that survives testing and makes it into production.

So, for the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading. Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 20, 2012)

GregP said:


> In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat. So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that survives testing and makes it into production.
> 
> So, for the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading. Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but *no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them*.



Some Soviet fighters had leading edge slats. >> ie La-5, La-7


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2012)

Slats can help a lot with maintaining aileron effectiveness at low speeds. Their help in maneuvering (turning) is a lot more _suspect._ By the time the slots are _allowing_ the wing to generate more lift by keeping it from stalling at a _higher than normal_ angle of attack the drag is skyrocketing. 

Slats _can_ lower stalling/landing speeds and perhaps more importantly can maintain the already mentioned aileron control at both landing speeds ( preventing accidents) and at higher speeds in turns maintaining controllability.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2012)

GregP said:


> In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). *All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat.* So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that *survives testing and makes it into production.
> *
> So, f*or the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading.* Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them.



You may be generally right about that, but there are other things that affect it, especially with aircraft that are designed for one roll, and end up in another. For instance, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beaufighter built with essentially the same wing as the Beaufort, a 260-mph bomber? Ju 88, Do 217 night fighters also would have, I am guessing, a wing airfoil designed for a bomber rather than a fighter. These things do make a difference. Also, the wingspan can make a difference, especially depending on altitude-- a short wing is typically more maneuverable in a roll than a long wing of the same area (higher aspect ratio). The type of control surfaces, their shape, size, location, and method of activation, can affect things too. The P-61 had highly specialized control surfaces including "spoilerons" (IIRC that is the name of them), a type of control surface fitted to few if any other aircraft, to the best of my knowledge. The distance the tail surfaces are from the COG affects the lateral and horizontal stability, and whether or not the aircraft is balanced with the cog on the center of lift makes a difference too. As does the height of the cog in comparison to the center of lift. These things, and countless others, all affect "handling", which is not the same thing as maneuverability, but proper handling characteristics make a plane much easier for a pilot of any given aptitude to obtain the best maneuverability from it.

You are right, probably the greatest factor in maneuverability is wing loading. But it is not the only factor.


----------



## GregP (Jul 21, 2012)

Never said it was. I said fighters were designed to be optimal, so their "other factors" were also about optinized ... and very simlar.


----------



## Grampa (Jul 21, 2012)

All that talk about whitch plane who have best maneuverability, speed and firepover, it still cant be the most importent thing if you cant find the enemy in the dark. Remember the one who make the first strike will have the greatest chance to be a whinner in nightcombat, so dosent that mean the better detectionequipmet and warningsystem the plane have the better chance the pilots will survive a nightcombat? So whouldent the radartecnology on those plane have be an importent factor that we forgetting to discuss about? so how good where the radarsystem and other equipment the He 219 and P 61 used in comparelse?

Men from Rad Lab say's “_The atomic bomb ended the war, radar won it_”.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 21, 2012)

Grampa said:


> wouldn't the radar tecnology on those plane have be an importent factor that we forgetting to discuss about? so how good where the radarsystem and other equipment the He 219 and P 61 used in comparelse?



I agree.
The radar war is one of the fascinating aspects to the war.
Clearly Germany fell behind (although unlike popular conventional wisdom - here in the UK at least - this was after them initially having the best radar sets, especially their naval stuff). Their abandoning centemetric radar (thinking it too costly too challenging to achieve within a reasonable timeframe, I believe) had a major impact.

.....and it was not just in the air either, their not having centemetric radar detecting equipment led to catastrophic U-boat losses in the battle of the Atlantic, just at the wrong time for them given the timing of the D-day build-up.


----------



## Erich (Jul 21, 2012)

and to include pilot experience which the LW had much of. Lw radar was not on par with the US or British though looking through the ETO squadrons flying with the P-61 am not impressed by reading through their histories with the performance with the AI as it seemed to fail increasingly from it's first inception in July of 44 till wars end. Still with the LW using only the late marks of VI FuG 220d sets in the Uhu and the silly antlers this was not going to give the big A/C much in the way of aerodynamics


----------



## Milosh (Jul 21, 2012)

Erich said:


> and to include pilot experience which the LW had much of. Lw radar was not on par with the US or British though looking through the ETO squadrons flying with the P-61 am not impressed by reading through their histories with the performance with the AI as it seemed to fail increasingly from it's first inception in July of 44 till wars end. Still with the LW using only the late marks of VI FuG 220d sets in the Uhu and the silly antlers this was not going to give the big A/C much in the way of aerodynamics



Did the Mossie have the same problems when using the same radar as the P-61?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2012)

Yes, radar capability and radar operator capability may well have been the most critical factor. Sometimes I think some of us just take for granted that if you have a radar equipped night fighter, you can find your enemy bomber and shoot it down. Not as easy as it sounds.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SCR-720 Airborne Radar

US Night Fighter Radars of WWII

Please note the search limits of the radar side to side and up and down, this radar had one of the largest ( if not the largest) search "areas" of any WW II air to air radars. The longer range numbers are more than a bit on the optimistic side however


----------



## Erich (Jul 22, 2012)

sorry gents for not getting back to ya all, the cancer treatments.....messing with my head

the P-61 AI in the ETO was found to be quite sensitive to low flying and land clutter and just plain electrical failure(s), not having the BC Mossie personal reports I would gather similar stories would of developed although the Mossies in this case probably stayed in the higher realm of altitude than the US P-61 squadrons as many times they broke away nd performed intruder ground attack duties.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 3, 2012)

GregP said:


> The He-219 A-5 was about a 360 mph aircraft when equipped with the radar and all the guns. Not all were forward-firing. The He-219 could get to about 400 mph when all excess weight was removed as well as the gondola with the 4 20mm cannons. With the gondola it could get to about 385 mph. They made about 300 He-219's. Climbed about 1,800 feet per minute.
> 
> The P-61 made about 366 mph, faster than the night-fighter fiull-up He-219, and was a very good match for afully-armed He-219. No P-61's were lost to enemy aircraft, though some were lost to AA and evena friendly Mosquito. The P-61 packed about 80% to 85% of the He-219 firepower, which was enough to destroy any target in the impact zome, regardless of aircraft size or armor. They made about 742 P-61's. Cimbed about 2,500 feet per minute.
> 
> I'd take 742 P-61's any day over 300 He-219's. If 19 mph of speed was important, then the He-219 had a slight edge. If not, I'd take the maneuverability and climb rate of the P-61 any day. Nothing particularly wrong with either aircraft, and teh he=219 was a good one. But so was the P-61, and I'll take it most days over the He-219, expecially considering the reputation of the P-61's engines.



Here's some charts I came across on the He219 with different engines/power settings and the speed/climb chart the P-61;


----------



## davparlr (Aug 3, 2012)

Oreo said:


> The P-61 had highly specialized control surfaces including "spoilerons" (IIRC that is the name of them), a type of control surface fitted to few if any other aircraft, to the best of my knowledge.


 
The B-52 and many, if not all, Boeing jet airliners use the concept.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 3, 2012)

The North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante also used 'Spoilerons' (their last successfull design before they got merged out to oblivion) AFAIK too...


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 3, 2012)

Both aircraft are good, but I think the P-61 has a distinct advantage in that it has radar, being able to pounce on an enemy aircraft in the dead of night before it detects the Black Widow. However, the 219 was the only German plane that could squarely match a de Havilland Mosquito and have a high chance of downing it, and was very effective as a bomber interceptor, as well as a higher top speed and a 350 mile longer range than the P-61.
In conclusion, both aircraft are very evenly matched, but I think the P-61 reigns supreme.


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2012)

actually the Bf 109G-6/AS had a better performing record than the He 219 in popping a Mossie, don't forget the He 219 also had radar. high speed in chasing the BC 4-engines is not that major of a role player, the slow funky Bf 110G-4 had a high attrition rate of Allied bombers to it's credit even with outdated and ill performing radar systems. the Widow was a good heavy weapons platform which most likely made it the best war ground intruder of any nation, but as a high performance high altitude night fighter..................... no............


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

Erich said:


> the Widow was a good heavy weapons platform which most likely made it the best war ground intruder of any nation, but as a high performance high altitude night fighter..................... no............



According to the USAAF '46 website (coming soon to an internet near you) at the end of the war in Europe the P-61*C* was just weeks away from going into mass production and would have solved _ALL_ of the Black Widows performance problems.


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2012)

but it was not operational during the war and that is the point of thread I believe. and what of the He 219 had it been developed further in 46 ? no clue


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

Please, Erich, is was an attempt at a joke. 

Hope you are feeling a bit better at the moment.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 6, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Slats can help a lot with maintaining aileron effectiveness at low speeds. Their help in maneuvering (turning) is a lot more _suspect._ By the time the slots are _allowing_ the wing to generate more lift by keeping it from stalling at a _higher than normal_ angle of attack the drag is skyrocketing.
> 
> Slats _can_ lower stalling/landing speeds and perhaps more importantly can maintain the already mentioned aileron control at both landing speeds ( preventing accidents) and at higher speeds in turns maintaining controllability.



i just happend to have read a report about slats in the last week or so. it was a comparison of brit planes and 109s with slats. it was a brit report...to them the greatest advantage of the slats was when they deployed the pilot knew how close to stalling he was. he could be pre-occupied with a target or looking behind him...but he knew when the slats deployed..he didnt have to look. the spit mk 1 pilots could turn as well or maybe even better than the 109s but wouldnt for fear of stalling and spinning then becoming a sitting duck.


----------

