BATTLE OF THE NIGHT FIGHTERS

[MIflyer]

Note that the P-61C had turbochargers, effectively P-47 powerplants rather that F6F powerplants, and that change, in the words of Bill Gunston, moved it from a 300 mph class airplane to a 400 MPH class airplane.

The later P-38L models had the hydraulically boosted controls and in the book Jungle Ace an incident is described where Gerry Johnson used one of those boosted Lightnings to perform what I suppose you would call a Yo-Yo maneuver and outturn a Japanese single-engined fighter. It was described as kind of a ""One of y'all hold my beer and watch this." moment.

Note, though, that while the P-61's ability to turn was possibly the best of anything, it still had to get established in that turn. To that end it had "one conventional and two retractable ailerons on each wing."

When the P-38M got to the Pacific they found it had higher performance than the P-61A/B but that it was not as effective as a night fighter because it had no more range, the radar was not as good as the P-61 and the cramped position of the RO made him of limited value in visual searches.

 

[wuzak]

Note that the P-61C had turbochargers, effectively P-47 powerplants rather that F6F powerplants, and that change, in the words of Bill Gunston, moved it from a 300 mph class airplane to a 400 MPH class airplane.

The P-61C only entered production in early 1945 and first deliveries to the USAAF were in mid 1945.

also

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

 

[K5083]

In general it's probably fair to claim that any adequate single will beat a twin unless the twin has a speed advantage. Twins are probably easier to see, easier to hit and less maneuverable.

Defending my prior contention. By adequate I mean a single with no serious flaws, such as rifle calibre MGs only, or rookie pilot. Any single could expect, force on force, to demonstrate superiority over any twin single or multi-seat fighter unless the twin was faster by some unspecified margin. Because that is the historically demonstrated fact. There maybe be one-off counter-examples but that rule works. The proof is the P-38. That's the best piston twin at air combat. Very successful against the Japanese with a 50mph speed edge, disappointing against the Germans with parity If tight turns were a deciding factor we'd still be using Camels and Dr.1s.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Defending my prior contention. By adequate I mean a single with no serious flaws, such as rifle calibre MGs only, or rookie pilot.

I'll remember that as a new definition!

Any single could expect, force on force, to demonstrate superiority over any twin single or multi-seat fighter unless the twin was faster by some unspecified margin. Because that is the historically demonstrated fact. There maybe be one-off counter-examples but that rule works. The proof is the P-38. That's the best piston twin at air combat. Very successful against the Japanese with a 50mph speed edge, disappointing against the Germans with parity If tight turns were a deciding factor we'd still be using Camels and Dr.1s.

Agree to a point but as stated and shown on here many times, the P-38s dismal performance (when comparted to operations in the SWP) over Europe were due to environmental issues, conflict in the way the aircraft was operated, some design issues (no one ever expected the P-38 to be escorting bombers over Germany in 1938) and lastly and probably most important, pilot training, hence your statement "rookie pilot."

 

[SaparotRob]

I remember seeing a picture of a P-38 taken at night that showed parts glowing brightly from the exhaust (?).
Wasn't that a problem for night interception?

 

[GrauGeist]

I remember seeing a picture of a P-38 taken at night that showed parts glowing brightly from the exhaust (?).
Wasn't that a problem for night interception?

The turbo-chargers on the top of the fuselage would have been glowing, but the taper of the fuselage would have hidden it from view as it was closing with an enemy aircraft.

 

[Greyman]

I remember seeing a picture of a P-38 taken at night that showed parts glowing brightly from the exhaust (?).
Wasn't that a problem for night interception?

Brief appraisal by the AFDU:

The good flying qualities of the Lockheed P-38F should make it easy to fly at night. The aircraft is fully equipped for night flying and there is a detachable cowl to prevent reflections on the cockpit canopy from the instrument panel. The aircraft was observed on the ground on a dark night with both engines running. It was found that there was a bright red glow from each turbo blower and considerable exhaust flames were also visible.
...
In its present condition the aircraft is unsuitable for night operations due to the very bright glow from the turbo blowers and the brilliant flame from the exhausts.

 

[SaparotRob]

Brief appraisal by the AFDU:

The good flying qualities of the Lockheed P-38F should make it easy to fly at night. The aircraft is fully equipped for night flying and there is a detachable cowl to prevent reflections on the cockpit canopy from the instrument panel. The aircraft was observed on the ground on a dark night with both engines running. It was found that there was a bright red glow from each turbo blower and considerable exhaust flames were also visible.
...
In its present condition the aircraft is unsuitable for night operations due to the very bright glow from the turbo blowers and the brilliant flame from the exhausts.

That's what it looked like to me.

 

[BiffF15]

The P-61 was described officially as the USAAF's "most maneuverable fighter of WWII." On the other hand maneuverability was not of much use in night fighting. The P-61 was almost certainly more survivable in daylight than any other prop driven night fighter, especially the models equipped with the turret. DH-98 Mossie versus FW-190 or BF-109 one on one in daylight did not do very well, neither did BF-110 versus other fighters. A pilot who did a lot of P-61 test flying said he could beat any four WWII prop driven day fighters in a P-61 with a well trained crew.

Miflyer,

What are your sources for the "most maneuverable fighter of WWII" as well as the P61 test pilot and said he could beat any "four prop driven day fighters"? The reason I ask is these two bits of info seem "question worthy".

First, I would find it difficult to believe that a plane of such maneuverability would be so large as compared to other fighters of similar timeframe, particularly the SE types. Think of a P-38, with un-boosted ailerons fighting a Spitfire / Me-109 where both arrive at the merge aware of each other, passing 180* out.

Second, the pilot claiming he could beat four of any other fighter types leaves me scratching my head. If he is counting on the turret, then it the discussion would take in the "turreted fighters and their efficacy" (or lack there of) that has been questioned elsewhere on this forum. Hitting a maneuvering fighter with a turret that is attached to a maneuvering aircraft, in WWII technology would be difficult. Heck, checking six would be difficult in a P-61 particularly if the guy shooting is also calling out bandit range & bearing.

Please don't take this as a challenge against you, I'm just questioning what guys claimed back in the day.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MIflyer]

I recall reading that the official history of the USAAF said the P-61 was the most maneuverable fighter. But this was not the history itself but some author referring to it.

When established in the turn, I could believe that the P-61 could out-turn other fighters. But note that means the airplane has to get into the turn first; given that it had three ailerons it seems that someone gave considerable thought to that problem.

As far as size and weight being a fatal disadvantage, as I pointed out some time back a official assessment of a captured FW-190 against a P-47 by the 8th AF revealed that the Thunderbolt could outturn the 190, even at lower altitudes.

Hitting other aircraft with the P-61 turret did indeed prove to be a much bigger problem than they had anticipated. Turret firing techniques were all based on bomber defense and using the usual technique of leading the target produced very poor results. A mathematician was called in to perform analysis and all they accomplished was gettting him airsick. Then an experienced Sgt had an idea and it worked. When you were going faster than the target you had to aim BEHIND the target.

As for the test pilot's claim about taking on any foure WWII prop fighters, he had the experience with which to make that claim.

 

[gruad]

The P61 would be superior to the Me110, but was over engineered and too late.

The twin boom and turret design was a waste of effort. If they had made something simpler it could have been a game changer for the night war.

For once the US made the mistake of the Nazis in making something too complex, too late, almost the Sherman in reverse.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I recall reading that the official history of the USAAF said the P-61 was the most maneuverable fighter. But this was not the history itself but some author referring to it.

When established in the turn, I could believe that the P-61 could out-turn other fighters. But note that means the airplane has to get into the turn first; given that it had three ailerons it seems that someone gave considerable thought to that problem.

As far as size and weight being a fatal disadvantage, as I pointed out some time back a official assessment of a captured FW-190 against a P-47 by the 8th AF revealed that the Thunderbolt could outturn the 190, even at lower altitudes.

Hitting other aircraft with the P-61 turret did indeed prove to be a much bigger problem than they had anticipated. Turret firing techniques were all based on bomber defense and using the usual technique of leading the target produced very poor results. A mathematician was called in to perform analysis and all they accomplished was gettting him airsick. Then an experienced Sgt had an idea and it worked. When you were going faster than the target you had to aim BEHIND the target.

As for the test pilot's claim about taking on any foure WWII prop fighters, he had the experience with which to make that claim.

Ok - I'm going to take on some of these statements.

The P-61 for it's size stalls at a very low speed, full flaps and gear down. According to the flight manuals posted in our technical section, without turret and drop tanks, 75 mph gear and flaps down, 100 mph indicated, gear and flaps up. The flight manual also states that at 250 mph indicated, the P-61 could do a 360 degree turn in 25 seconds "by letting the aircraft repeatedly stall and recover while turning."

P-61 Pilots manual

P-61 Pilots manual Enjoy Micdrow :lol:

ww2aircraft.net

B-29 and P-61 Flight Manuals

I took some scanned images and made a pdf book out of these. This manual might be already posted somewhere on here but due to the bad quality of some of these, I thought it might be good to have a higher quality scanned manual. Both files were too big, so i had to split them, if you want to...

ww2aircraft.net

At first I was impressed, but now let's look at one of the best "turners" of WW2 IMO.

Ki-43

Stall speed - 32 mph for the Type 1 Fighter Model 1A

There is a very savory thread on this forum talking to the Ki-43's performance and depending on which model, you're looking at a 360 degree turn between 13 and 15 seconds. Speed and configuration not indicated. You would also have to consider altitude and air density for these performance comparisons.

Ki-43 Hayabusa Performance

Ki-43-I: Empty Weight: 1580kg Loaded Weight: 2050kg Wing Area: 22.0m2 Engine: Ha-25 Take off: 990hp / 970hp at 3400m - Max Speed: (Military Power) 495km/h at 4000m - Rate of Climb: (Military Power) Time to 5000m: 5:34 - Turn Time: 13 sec - Armament: Ko: 2x 7.7mm Type 89 (500 rounds per gun)...

ww2aircraft.net

Now I believe the famous test pilot John Myers the the chief test pilot on the P-61 program and could probably be considered one of the best pilots of the era.

Ki 43 IIb wing loading - 25 lb/sq ft Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb

P-61 B wing loading - 45 lb/sq ft Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb

So maybe John Myers can make a claim about the P-61's turning ability if he was flying against the "average" fighter pilot of the day, I think in the bigger picture the math don't add up in this example.

 

[BiffF15]

I recall reading that the official history of the USAAF said the P-61 was the most maneuverable fighter. But this was not the history itself but some author referring to it.

When established in the turn, I could believe that the P-61 could out-turn other fighters. But note that means the airplane has to get into the turn first; given that it had three ailerons it seems that someone gave considerable thought to that problem.

As far as size and weight being a fatal disadvantage, as I pointed out some time back a official assessment of a captured FW-190 against a P-47 by the 8th AF revealed that the Thunderbolt could outturn the 190, even at lower altitudes.

Hitting other aircraft with the P-61 turret did indeed prove to be a much bigger problem than they had anticipated. Turret firing techniques were all based on bomber defense and using the usual technique of leading the target produced very poor results. A mathematician was called in to perform analysis and all they accomplished was gettting him airsick. Then an experienced Sgt had an idea and it worked. When you were going faster than the target you had to aim BEHIND the target.

As for the test pilot's claim about taking on any foure WWII prop fighters, he had the experience with which to make that claim.

Mlflyer,

I understand you read that, but would like to peruse it myself. If you come across it, please let me know.

An example of what I'm questioning is how was the P-61 the most maneuverable fighter. It may have had the smallest turn radius for level flight at high altitude of fighter aircraft (unknown if it's true, just using if for example), but don't think it was the most maneuverable in a dynamic fight. Too big, too much mass / inertia to get rolling regardless of how many ailerons it had on each wing. Speaking of ailerons, it appears to have 3 spoilerons plus 1 aileron per wing. The majority of the trailing edge of the wing is flaps. I have attached a photo of the Udvar-Hazy P-61.

I flew OV-10s, and it was considered very maneuverable. It would do a smaller loop, and a tighter turn than a F-16, but go onto YouTube and look for a dogfight between the two (it's real and ends with the Bronco going down in flames). That's an example of why I don't think the P-61 was really "more" maneuverable than Mustangs, Spits, of F6Fs. Speaking of the Bronco, it too was made by Northrup, and had spoilers. Of note in the picture they look like triangles sticking out of the wing. Big picture I think this story might be along the lines of the Fork Tailed Devil. A "story" that takes on a life of its own.

Once again, I'm just looking at the claim and not doing an attack.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Greyman]

Yeah if a P-61 is able to beat a single-engine fighter I don't think the pilot of the latter was using the proper technique -- to put it mildly.

re: strictly level turning (on the Boston, but I think we'd be seeing roughly the same thing with the P-61)

Fighting Manoeuvres
Trials were carried out against a Hurricane I, Hurricane II and Spitfire I at altitudes up to 6,000 feet. The Boston, which was fitted with flame dampers, carried a full service load of 3 crew, ammunition and radio equipment, but no bomb load ... The Boston can almost out-turn a Hurricane when using 15 - 30 of flap, making it impossible for the fighter to bring his sights to bear. If, however, the fighter breaks away and commences a new attack, the Boston then becomes a comparatively easy target ...
- AFDU

 

[Howard Gibson]

Yeah if a P-61 is able to beat a single-engine fighter I don't think the pilot of the latter was using the proper technique -- to put it mildly.

re: strictly level turning (on the Boston, but I think we'd be seeing roughly the same thing with the P-61)

I pointed out earlier that all sorts of large aircraft probably could do level turns as tightly as single engined fighters, particularly if they were not loaded. That is one manoeuvre only. I would expect single seat fighters with one or two engines, to have better roll rates, better acceleration, climb, and dive, and the ability to sustain higher G forces. What is the do-not-exceed speed of a typical WWII bomber? Lower G limits and lower Vne means lower weight, not a good sacrifice on a specialised fighter, but it can result in better turns, especially at low speed.

 

[GrauGeist]

I pointed out earlier that all sorts of large aircraft probably could do level turns as tightly as single engined fighters, particularly if they were not loaded. That is one manoeuvre only. I would expect single seat fighters with one or two engines, to have better roll rates, better acceleration, climb, and dive, and the ability to sustain higher G forces. What is the do-not-exceed speed of a typical WWII bomber? Lower G limits and lower Vne means lower weight, not a good sacrifice on a specialised fighter, but it can result in better turns, especially at low speed.

Heavy bombers were not designed for aerobatics.
They were designed to lifts heavy loads over long distances.

The fact that a Lancaster could perform a snap manouver to evade an attacker, is a testiment to it's construction, not it's intended function.

The reality is, asking (or expecting) a heavy bomber to perform stunts is like having a city bus perform a slalom road course fully loaded...

 

[wuzak]

The fact that a Lancaster could perform a snap manouver to evade an attacker, is a testiment to it's construction, not it's intended function.

And possibly a hangover from the catapult launching requirement for the Manchester.

 

[MIflyer]

Speaking of the Bronco, it too was made by Northrup, and had spoilers.

Yes, I am aware that the OV-10 has spoilers. I was at an airshow where one was parked with the stick hard over. I walked up to the pilot and said I did not realize it had spoilers. He replied that I'd be surprised how many people did not know what those things were. Well, I did not know they were there until I saw them.

And the OV-10 was a North American Aviation airplane. I do not know if Northrop was involved in the manufacture but it is not a long trip at all down El Segundo Blvd from Aviation Blvd to Crenshaw Blvd, so it is entirely possible.

 

[BiffF15]

Yes, I am aware that the OV-10 has spoilers. I was at an airshow where one was parked with the stick hard over. I walked up to the pilot and said I did not realize it had spoilers. He replied that I'd be surprised how many people did not know what those things were. Well, I did not know they were there until I saw them.

And the OV-10 was a North American Aviation airplane. I do not know if Northrop was involved in the manufacture but it is not a long trip at all down El Segundo Blvd from Aviation Blvd to Crenshaw Blvd, so it is entirely possible.

Mlflyer,

You are correct, the Bronco was made by North American! My bad, and I flew the darn thing! Pardon my "senior moment"! Another interesting part of the flight controls is that the stick was not primarily connected to the ailerons, but to the "flying trim tabs". If you watch the video of the tan Bronco doing an airshow in Europe, you can see it if you look closely. Normal aircraft point the stick left, then the left aileron goes up. On the Bronco the left trim tab would go down, which due to air loads, would primarily drive the aileron up. The flight controls were cable, which would stretch, resulting in each airplane flying a bit different. Or a lot different.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MIflyer]

We used to see a lot of OV-10's around here. They were supplied to the Department of State Air Wing when the USAF and USMC phased them out, and Patrick SFB is the location of the "Air Depot" for DoS.

In any case, I think the evidence shows that while the P-61 probably was not as effective as other night fighters, in a daylight situation, one on one against hostile fighters, it was more survivable than any other. In the Pacific they ordered P-61 pilots to not engage enemy aircraft in daylight if they encountered them while coming back from a night patrol; I guess the P-61 was too valuable a resource to risk. But on at least one occasion a P-61 pilot sighted enemy aircraft after the sun started coming up, and unable to get a response on the radio from home field, said, "Oh, da hell with it." and shot down the eneny aircraft.

By the way, both the RO and the gunner had synchronized rotating seats that enabled them to operate the turret. I think it was the 421st in the ETO that figured that since they had no turret, there was no need for a gunner. So they ripped all that stuff out and moved the RO position to the front cockpit in the former gunner's position so that the RO could help the pilot visually identify aircraft. In night fighting I guess that there was not much of a reason to cover your Six and in any case I think they had APS-13.