Best twin engine dogfighter

wuzak said:

Personally, I think that the P-61E would have made a better basis for a night fighter.

Only fixed guns. Pilot and radar operator, under a bubble canopy. 4 x 20mm cannon only, but that was more than sufficient, I would think.

Click to expand...

Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection).
There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....

drgondog said:

I really don't know much about the E.

Click to expand...

The E was a long range fighter version of the P-61 based on the P-61B. It ditched the radar set, added 4 (IIRC) 0.50"s in the nose. Had a new crew nacelle with single bubble canopy, 2 seats and no turret.

As it was based on the B it lost out badly to the P/F-82 on performance grounds, though it was faster than the B. The crew nacelle was similar, or the same, as the one in the F-15 Reporter - though I'm not sure which came first.

P-61E







F-15 Reporter


http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/p61w11w3.jpg

OldSkeptic said:

Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection).
There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....

Click to expand...

My point is that the third crew memeber and turret probably weren't necessary. The performance of the E was only slightly better than the B, basically because it punched a smaller hole in the air.

No reason why the P-61A could not have looked like the E.

Wonder why they felt the need to use a turret?

Without it, the P-61 may have been available sooner.

OldSkeptic said:

Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection).
There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....

Click to expand...

All will be revealed on the USAAC '46 web site ?

wuzak said:

Wonder why they felt the need to use a turret?

Click to expand...

Because the British were in on the initial planning and requirements?



Some of the size might be excused because nobody at the initial planning KNEW what the final radar fit would be. Radar was advancing at a fairly rapid pace at the time. Better to have a little extra room than not enough.

drgondog said:

The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..

Click to expand...

and a Vulcan could out perform an F14 Tomcat at altitude but it wouldn't be a choice for a night fighter. Impressive ability to do standing patrols though which, IIRC, was the raison d'etre for the P61 size.

drgondog said:

The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..

Click to expand...

And that altitude is that? 50 feet? It weighed 35,000 lbs on take off.
That's more than a Mossie bomber with a 4.000lbl Cookie and external 100 gal (UK) drop tanks.

P-61C was the one with turbos. Pretty much the same engine/s as a P-47N.

A dog at 50 feet but with 2100hp Military power at 30,000ft per engine (and 2800hp WER) it would take a pretty good plane to keep up with it at 30,000ft or above.

The Germans put upward firing guns to good use but without the complexity of a turret. The turret did allow the a/c to sit off to the side instead of under the a/c being attacked thus out of the way of any debris from the attacked a/c.

On the P-61: would a twin 20mm turret have been better than the quad .50s?

Milosh said:

On the P-61: would a twin 20mm turret have been better than the quad .50s?

Click to expand...

OH CRAP!!!!

Another 30 pages on the 20mm vs the .50

Shortround6 said:

OH CRAP!!!!

Another 30 pages on the 20mm vs the .50

Click to expand...

LOL, that didn't even enter my mind. What I was thinking of was a smaller turret as the quad .50 turret caused aerodynamic problems.

Milosh said:

LOL, that didn't even enter my mind. What I was thinking of was a smaller turret as the quad .50 turret caused aerodynamic problems.

Click to expand...

Why bother? The tactical environment was completely different.
The Germans needed Schräge Musik, because it was taking down large night bombers. It made it safer for the nightfighter, letting them creep up into an attacking position without risk form the rear turret.
And it meant they could carefully hit one of the most vulnerable parts of the aircraft, without hitting the bomb bays, which was much more dangerous.

Naturally it was useless in daylight.

Now by mid 43 onwards the tactical requirement was for an allied nightfighter that could takeout Luftwaffe one, plus hitting the small numbers of twin engined night tactical bombers that might be encountered after the invasion. There were no hoards of German night bombers, or day bombers to fight. Plus the British had more than enough for their defence.

And that last point is a key one. By the end of 41 it was clear the majority of the German bombers were tied up in the Eastern Front and that the British were rapidly building up their night defences to a point where any further Luftwaffe night bombing attempts would suffer tremendous losses (as did happen). Plus they had good operational feedback from the success of the Beaufighter.

So what was needed? From the British experience with night fighting (and their own experience later) that was a better Beaufighter, something fast, with good forward guns, good range, good radar, good speed and agility.
A turret? Just weight and drag to slow it down, reduced its range and completely useless for any conceivable tactical environment they might face.

Now if by the end of '41 they had looked at that actual operational information and changed the design (which was incomplete at that time), stripped it down to 2 people only, got rid of the turret, did a radical weigh reduction program, improved pilot and radar operator visibility... they they could have had something pretty good and a lot faster than they did (basically a Tigercat like plane a couple of years before the 'real' one arrived).
But they soldiered on with an obsolete operational requirement, the rest as they say, is history.

From the British experience with night fighting (and their own experience later) that was a better Beaufighter, something fast, with good forward guns, good range, good radar, good speed and agility.

Click to expand...

They did with an aircraft from deHavilland > the Mosquito.

parsifal said:

In daylight I doubt there were that many dogfights between Mossies and SE fighters.

Click to expand...

Tended to be between Coastal Command Mossies and JG 5 over Norway. I have 89 total claims by Mossies for Fw 190s destroyed air-to-air (the majority, IIRC, being Fw 190s of SKG 10), and 34 against 109s. I stress these are claims.

mhuxt said:

Tended to be between Coastal Command Mossies and JG 5 over Norway. I have 89 total claims by Mossies for Fw 190s destroyed air-to-air (the majority, IIRC, being Fw 190s of SKG 10), and 34 against 109s. I stress these are claims.

Click to expand...

Yes, see posts #2 and #25 about the Banff Strike wing.

OldSkeptic said:

Yes, see posts #2 and #25 about the Banff Strike wing.

Click to expand...

Yup, and I concur with your view about A Separate Little War.

There were also assorted 1 v 1 Mossie / 190 encounters - one crew of 333 Sqn (Norwegian) fought with two 190s, after shooting down a Do 24 (latter type from memory).

They were able to out-turn the 190s individually, but then had to evade the other. Got away clean in the ned.

Yes Mhuxt, It was surprised at the Fw-190 nums vs the 109s. Since the 190s were faster at low level (where much of this combat took place), but the 109 could out turn the 190 and in that sort of low level combat turning means a lot.
Usually with bad weather and very low cloud levels and the Mossies on the deck at 100ft or so, not an environment for a successful 'boom and zoom' type of attack.

Plus the Mossies would be flat out and even the 190 would be struggling to keep up and the 109s at a speed disadvantage, so if they climb to get altitude for a diving attack, the Mossy just disappears into the sunset.
And with both of them being short ranged, you'd be a but reluctant following the Mossies much out into the North Sea.

Their best chance was when they were coming in for a shipping attack at lower speeds, but the Mossies were coming in under the radar cover and there would be little warning. So even if you managed an intercept it often would be when they are back up to full speed, right on the deck and heading home.

Until they got a couple of Mustang squadrons, the Mossies were originally tasked to escort the Beaufighters and were expected to fight the enemy fighters.

So summing up the point of the thread. You'd pick the P-38 first and the Mossie second and not really anything else that could be called a dogfighter.

And the one I find amazing was some kills by the Tse Tse Mossies, not easy to hit an enemy fighter with that 57mm 6 pounder, but if you did, not much left of it. "Oops, where did my plane go".

There were many battles in the Biscay as well. A separate (and very dangerous, since your survival options were poor) little war indeed.