Northrop P-61 Black Widow a waste of time resources?

[Erich]

one of the failures if you want to call it that for both ETO and PTO Widow squadrons was the allocation of spare parts and then finally the new machines in general. things were so slow the squads techs had to adapt at a moments notice to keep the P-61's in running condition

 

[Milosh]

Britain never adopted the Euro or metric system so you have a valid point. Britain is it's own rather small continent located 21 miles from the much larger European continent. 8)

The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook, the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States.

 

[wuzak]

The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook, the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States.

That would be wrong.

The US adopted the metric system officially in 1866.

 

[tyrodtom]

That would be wrong.

The US adopted the metric system officially in 1866.

It's use was authorized in 1866, that's not the same as adopting it. It still hasn't been adopted. Every thing you buy that has volumn or size still has both systems of measure on them.

 

[ShVAK]

I think the main problem behind the P-61 is that it was a very expensive project designed to fill too specialized a role. It was an okay night fighter, but it would have made an excellent platform for daylight ground attack and tactical bombing if the P-61E's solid nose with 4 x .50 cal was used along with the 4 x .50 cal turret and 4 x 20mm H-S already installed. P-61B could already carry up to 4 1,600 pound bombs or HVAR rocket racks underneath the wings so it boggles my mind that an A-61 wasn't considered. The F-15 Reporter w/ cameras in the nose taking the radar's place was a good, fast recon plane (440 mph) but only 36 were built before the war ended, some did serve in the early days of the Korean War.

Maybe not economical enough to produce compared to A-26, B-25, A-20 etc., or the political situation demanded Northrop build night fighters despite better alternatives (see: P-38M, Mosquito) or their production facilities just weren't up to it (they did farm some Black Widow production to Goodyear). But we had a potential Beaufighter/Ju 88 under our noses. All it really needed was more go juice for that huge airframe, and the C's R-2800-73 provided that but far too late to make a difference.

 

[gjs238]

It seems it could have been more cost-effective, and more production-effective, to either...
- Uprate the A-20
- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
- Uprate the Martin Maryland
- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
- Build the Mosquito under license
- Hell, maybe they could have cloned the Ju-88 easier than all the money and time it took to develop the P-61.

I'm intrigued by the A-26 option.
It seems both aircraft were developed around the same time.
Perhaps duplication of effort could have been avoided with less money resources expended, to put all P-61 development into a NF version of the A-26.

 

[ShVAK]

A night fighter version of the A-26 actually did compete with the XP-61. Not sure why it didn't make the cut.

 

[wuzak]

- Uprate the A-20

They did. It was called the P-70. Several squadrons trained up on P-70s, which they took with them to Europe only to swap them for Beaufighters or P-61s.

- Uprate the Martin Baltimore

Too low a performance base

- Uprate the Martin Maryland

Also too low a performance base

- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26

That could have worked, but you would still end up with lower performance than the P-61, which had lower performance than the Mosquito.

- Build the Mosquito under license

After viewing a demonstration in the UK, General Henry "Hap" Arnold took plans of the Mosquito back to 5 manufacturers in the US to get interest in licence production. None ended up taking the chance, Beech scathing in its comments about the Mosquito's construction.

- Hell, maybe they could have cloned the Ju-88 easier than all the money and time it took to develop the P-61.

How much money did it take to develop the P-61?

I'm intrigued by the A-26 option.
It seems both aircraft were developed around the same time.
Perhaps duplication of effort could have been avoided with less money resources expended, to put all P-61 development into a NF version of the A-26.

I don't think a NF A-26 would have been better than the P-61, but may not have appeared as early. It seems the A-26A night fighter prototype had its flight testing at about the time the P-61 entered production.

 

[fastmongrel]

After viewing a demonstration in the UK, General Henry "Hap" Arnold took plans of the Mosquito back to 5 manufacturers in the US to get interest in licence production. None ended up taking the chance, Beech scathing in its comments about the Mosquito's construction.

What did Beech say about the Mossie, had a quick google but nothing comes up. Talking about Beech was its XA-38 Grizzly ever considered as a night fighter.

 

[wuzak]

What did Beech say about the Mossie, had a quick google but nothing comes up. Talking about Beech was its XA-38 Grizzly ever considered as a night fighter.

Beech said:

It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use a construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes.

 

[wuzak]

Talking about Beech was its XA-38 Grizzly ever considered as a night fighter.

Possibly not, as the XA-38 was behind the P-61 and XA-26A and it used engines required for the B-29.

 

[wuzak]

To my mind the XA-38 is, like the P-61, XA-26A and He 219, unnecessarily large for a night fighter.

 

[fastmongrel]

Beech said:

It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use a construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes.

Well that told DeHavilland and the RAF didnt it

I suppose you could argue all the above points and some on the internet try there best. However flying characteristics Huh!? were they sniffing the thinners in the paint shop. I know the Mossie wasnt perfect in the air (what aircraft ever is) but this is an aircraft that performed with the best. I presume that if they got to test a Mossie it must have been a worn out old dog one flight away from the scrapyard.

 

[wuzak]

Beech said:

It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use a construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes.

Well that told DeHavilland and the RAF didnt it

I suppose you could argue all the above points and some on the internet try there best. However flying characteristics Huh!? were they sniffing the thinners in the paint shop. I know the Mossie wasnt perfect in the air (what aircraft ever is) but this is an aircraft that performed with the best. I presume that if they got to test a Mossie it must have been a worn out old dog one flight away from the scrapyard.

They would only have seen the plans at that stage. Only W4050 was flying at the time.

Just compare the Mosquito with the Grizzly. Similar top speeds, both with big arse guns (FB.XVIII with the Molins cannon), but the Grizzly needed an extra 1600-2000hp to do it!

 

[fastmongrel]

They would only have seen the plans at that stage. Only W4050 was flying at the time.

Aah right, then in that case I detect a strong whiff of Bull Manure. Beech trying to get contracts for its own designs wouldnt want to build another design especially a British one.

 

[wuzak]

Aah right, then in that case I detect a strong whiff of Bull Manure. Beech trying to get contracts for its own designs wouldnt want to build another design especially a British one.

Or just presumed that wood would make an inferior aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

It seems it could have been more cost-effective, and more production-effective, to either...
- Uprate the A-20
- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
- Uprate the Martin Maryland
- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
- Build the Mosquito under license
- Hell, maybe they could have cloned the Ju-88 easier than all the money and time it took to develop the P-61.

I'm intrigued by the A-26 option.
It seems both aircraft were developed around the same time.
Perhaps duplication of effort could have been avoided with less money resources expended, to put all P-61 development into a NF version of the A-26.

- Uprate the A-20

They did. It was called the P-70. Several squadrons trained up on P-70s, which they took with them to Europe only to swap them for Beaufighters or P-61s.

The P-70 was not the 'uprated A-20', the engines were the same 1600 HP R-2600s. So why not an A-20 with R-2800 (reinforce the wings, and/or delete the outer fuel tanks, install the bombe bay tanks in oreder to arrive at 550+ gals in case the outer tanks are deleted)?

- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
Too low a performance base

Fair call.

- Uprate the Martin Maryland
Also too low a performance base

Attach turbo V-1710s and you're set.

- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
That could have worked, but you would still end up with lower performance than the P-61, which had lower performance than the Mosquito

.

Agreed. Another thing - too late to matter.

After viewing a demonstration in the UK, General Henry "Hap" Arnold took plans of the Mosquito back to 5 manufacturers in the US to get interest in licence production. None ended up taking the chance, Beech scathing in its comments about the Mosquito's construction.

Thnaks for the interesting information

 

[Shortround6]

The P-70 was not the 'uprated A-20', the engines were the same 1600 HP R-2600s. So why not an A-20 with R-2800 (reinforce the wings, and/or delete the outer fuel tanks, install the bombe bay tanks in oreder to arrive at 550+ gals in case the outer tanks are deleted)?

They did it, it is called an A-26.

The A-26 saga is not a happy one. Arguments over price delayed initial production orders by a number of months in the spring/summer/fall of 1941. Later on the goverment and Douglas spent a lot time pointing fingers at each other with late delays of materials (including engine and propellers) slowing things down. Engines and propellers (and other things) are government furnished equipment and not the responsibility of the airframe maker to procure.

people also have to remember that in 1940/41 the designers had no real idea of what 1943/44/45 radar would look like, how big it would be and what it would perform like.
Blaming the airframe maker for serviceability of the radar seems a bit harsh. In WW II the radar was another piece of government furnished equipment. Unlike today when a manufacturer offers a TOTAL package including training manuals back then the airframe maker used (or suggested) a certain engine which the government would supply and provided room ( and weight allowances) for the government speced and supplied armament, radios, oxygen equipment and so forth.
In 1940/41 when initial planing of the P-61 started the Defiant was enjoying some success as a night fighter and the British were brought into the discussions and promised a certain number of the production. Considering the prototype Beaufighters and Mosquitos nightfighters with 4 gun power turrets perhaps we can blame them for the P-61s turret?

 

[tomo pauk]

They did it, it is called an A-26.

The A-26 saga is not a happy one. Arguments over price delayed initial production orders by a number of months in the spring/summer/fall of 1941. Later on the goverment and Douglas spent a lot time pointing fingers at each other with late delays of materials (including engine and propellers) slowing things down. Engines and propellers (and other things) are government furnished equipment and not the responsibility of the airframe maker to procure.

...

Thanks for the overwiev. I'm trying to make a 'happy saga' here

 

[mhuxt]

Heyas Erich,

Is there a source you can recommend which has more complete victory claim info than Queen of the Midnight Skies? The list in the back doesn't say whether, for example, 9 March 1945 is 8/9 or 9/10, and the location info is either non-existent or vague.

the P-61 squadrons kill rate in the ETO is quite questionable. you can find each squadrons bio in breif in "Queen of the Midnight skies". I have the micro-fische of the P-61 squads in the ETO and there was much confusion/still is in deciphering just really went on during night ops some of the op reports are almost impossible to read copied or not. Sadly at least 2-4 Allied A/C were shot down byt ETO Widow squadrons by mistake, something of course that was never recorded down in the unit histories.

the 414th nfs also provided a half dozen Widows to the US 422nd nfs for ops during the bulge and also scored some kills .....maybe.

remember that the two major US ETO squads were given sanctioned areas in 1945 to cover every evening and were not given the go ahead like advancing Mossie intruder units which roamed freely over the Reich in search for LW NF's landing or attacking BC heavies.