The P38 night fighter suggestion upthread was for the cannons to be mounted in the bottom of the central nacelle to reduce flash blindness. This would require a slight widening of the nacelle to make them fit, which should fit with the wider radome that spinning SCR720 antenna would require. This should leave enough room for the radar electronics and the cannon ammo.
P-61 alternatives
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
How about this proposal? That is two .50 cal and a 75MM cannon. Plenty of room in the back for an RO, too
No, I don't think so. I'll go with four 20s mounted further aft and lower, firing both sides of the nose gear well. Requires a slightly wider central nacelle, which will be needed anyway to fair the SCR720 radome. Aft portion of the nacelle will probably have a "wide jowl" semi triangular cross section a la ME262 to accommodate the cannons. The idea is to hide the muzzle flash under the wing center section. Needs a more extended tailcone with both crewmembers moved aft and nose extended for the radar. IIRC in the P38 pilot seat sat nestled in a notch in wing leading edge, backed against spar center section, didn't it?
GregP
Major
Don't think the P-82 could have been flying in 1944. They started working on it in late 1943, but the first flight wasn't until June 1945. That doesn't leave a lot of time to get operational in WWII, and it didn't. Had they run a top-priority development, maybe a few months sooner. But night fighters were NEVER a top priority, so it is a wishful thinking "what-if." Fun to think about, but not much impact on real events.
The P-61 had 4 x 50-cal and 4 x 20 mm. And you think the F6F-3N would have been better at defending ships than the P-61? I'm assuming at night and reasonably close to land. The P-61 was a USAAF airplane and was not concerned with defending ships; it was used as a night fighter and was not carrier capable in WWII or ever. So, while the F6F-3N was decent, it wasn't a substitute for a USAAF airplane at any time since it was a Navy airplane. A night fighter P-38 might have been decent and perhaps a bit faster than a P-61, but certainly not better than the P-61 at dedicated night fighting, especially in hitting power ... unless the target was moving at ... say ... 380 mph or faster. The P-61 had someone other than the pilot to operate the radar, too, which was a BIG help to the mission. They still had a dedicated radar operator when the F3D Skynight was deployed in 1951. Dedicated night fighters didn't start to decline until the late 1960s when standard interceptors acquired the ability to fight in all conditions including night and bad weather.
The P-61 had 4 x 50-cal and 4 x 20 mm. And you think the F6F-3N would have been better at defending ships than the P-61? I'm assuming at night and reasonably close to land. The P-61 was a USAAF airplane and was not concerned with defending ships; it was used as a night fighter and was not carrier capable in WWII or ever. So, while the F6F-3N was decent, it wasn't a substitute for a USAAF airplane at any time since it was a Navy airplane. A night fighter P-38 might have been decent and perhaps a bit faster than a P-61, but certainly not better than the P-61 at dedicated night fighting, especially in hitting power ... unless the target was moving at ... say ... 380 mph or faster. The P-61 had someone other than the pilot to operate the radar, too, which was a BIG help to the mission. They still had a dedicated radar operator when the F3D Skynight was deployed in 1951. Dedicated night fighters didn't start to decline until the late 1960s when standard interceptors acquired the ability to fight in all conditions including night and bad weather.
Last edited:
You mean F86Ds, F89s, F94s, F102s, and F3Hs in the late 1950s weren't all weather fighter interceptors? When we moved off the farm and into town in 1958, our Air Guard was standing NORAD alert 24/7 in F89D hand me downs from USAF, and they were scrambling night or day, rain or shine. I had an AM/shortwave/air/police and fire band radio, (big, clunky, "portable") and I could sometimes catch GCA working the jets down out of the muck when even the airliners weren't flying.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Well, they would have had to cancel the XP-75 to get Fisher working on the P-82. And it was not built as a night fighter but as a VLR escort, same as the P-75.
The F6F replaced the P-61 to intercept Japanese bombers over the PI. The P-61 did not climb fast enough to make the intercept. Why they could not hang some drop tanks on it and fly standing patrols, I have no idea; the airplane was designed to do that. Makes you wonder why we did not build a radar equipped P-47. There was a two seat radar equipped P-51D built in the ETO, bu I do not think it was ever used as a night fighter.
As you say, evaluation of the P-38 revealed it was a better night fighter than the P-61 if the target had too much performance. Otherwise the P-61 was a better night fighter. The view for the RO in the P-38N was so poor that he could not help with visual searches. And no one over 5 ft 6in could fit in that spot, anyway.
Butch O'Hare did not have any trouble knocking down Bettys with only six .50 cal, but the lack of radar in his Wildcat is why he died.
The F6F replaced the P-61 to intercept Japanese bombers over the PI. The P-61 did not climb fast enough to make the intercept. Why they could not hang some drop tanks on it and fly standing patrols, I have no idea; the airplane was designed to do that. Makes you wonder why we did not build a radar equipped P-47. There was a two seat radar equipped P-51D built in the ETO, bu I do not think it was ever used as a night fighter.
As you say, evaluation of the P-38 revealed it was a better night fighter than the P-61 if the target had too much performance. Otherwise the P-61 was a better night fighter. The view for the RO in the P-38N was so poor that he could not help with visual searches. And no one over 5 ft 6in could fit in that spot, anyway.
Butch O'Hare did not have any trouble knocking down Bettys with only six .50 cal, but the lack of radar in his Wildcat is why he died.
GregP
Major
Hi XBe02Drvr,
Yes, the F-86Ds, F-94s, and the like were early "all weather" interceptors. They weren't really very good at it until the smaller sensors caught up with the capabilities of late 1940's radars that had larger antennas. When you reduce a radar's antenna size, you change the signal-to-noise ratio and the detection range is less. I'm thinking that radars on so-called all-weather interceptors weren't really night fighter capable until the late 1960s. That estimate is as an electrical engineer, and I could be mistaken. But I've hear too many stories about early all-weather interceptors from guys who flew them to believe they were all that good at the all-weather stuff. Basically, they made a great contribution to the lifestyles of the pilots, but they weren't really "all-weather" in any sense of the words. They were temperamental and not so easy to read and interpret. The F-94, with a dedicated radar officer, was likely twice as good as an F-86D where the pilot was both flying and trying to interpret the radar by himself.
I remember reading several accounts of guys who were tasked with flying a plane into the air defense zome and being intercepted as a test, only to discover that none of the "all-weather interceptors" could find them. If they did, there was no certainty that they could be shot down. On 16 Aug 1956, a Hellcat outfitted as a drone took off from California. Instead of following the proscribed course, it went elsewhere. It was supposed to have been shot down in a live fire exercise, but instead started wandering toward Los Angeles. Two F-89D Scorpions were launched from Oxnard and tasked with shooting it down. They fired 208 Mighty Mouse rockets at a non-maneuvering WWII Hellcat without effect. Eventually it ran out of fuel and crashed 8 miles east of Palmdale. No one was hurt but there WERE some embarrassed fighter pilots in a couple of F-89Ds who had started several fires along the way with the rockets. Link below, and there are more than just this one to choose from over the years.
The runaway drone that caused a Cold War air battle
Not too sure the 1950s and early 1960s interceptors were all that much better than late WWII airplanes when it came to outright combat effectiveness. They were certainly faster and flashier ... but that doesn't necessarily mean better. Just my two cents worth. Opinions vary. Cheers.
Yes, the F-86Ds, F-94s, and the like were early "all weather" interceptors. They weren't really very good at it until the smaller sensors caught up with the capabilities of late 1940's radars that had larger antennas. When you reduce a radar's antenna size, you change the signal-to-noise ratio and the detection range is less. I'm thinking that radars on so-called all-weather interceptors weren't really night fighter capable until the late 1960s. That estimate is as an electrical engineer, and I could be mistaken. But I've hear too many stories about early all-weather interceptors from guys who flew them to believe they were all that good at the all-weather stuff. Basically, they made a great contribution to the lifestyles of the pilots, but they weren't really "all-weather" in any sense of the words. They were temperamental and not so easy to read and interpret. The F-94, with a dedicated radar officer, was likely twice as good as an F-86D where the pilot was both flying and trying to interpret the radar by himself.
I remember reading several accounts of guys who were tasked with flying a plane into the air defense zome and being intercepted as a test, only to discover that none of the "all-weather interceptors" could find them. If they did, there was no certainty that they could be shot down. On 16 Aug 1956, a Hellcat outfitted as a drone took off from California. Instead of following the proscribed course, it went elsewhere. It was supposed to have been shot down in a live fire exercise, but instead started wandering toward Los Angeles. Two F-89D Scorpions were launched from Oxnard and tasked with shooting it down. They fired 208 Mighty Mouse rockets at a non-maneuvering WWII Hellcat without effect. Eventually it ran out of fuel and crashed 8 miles east of Palmdale. No one was hurt but there WERE some embarrassed fighter pilots in a couple of F-89Ds who had started several fires along the way with the rockets. Link below, and there are more than just this one to choose from over the years.
The runaway drone that caused a Cold War air battle
Not too sure the 1950s and early 1960s interceptors were all that much better than late WWII airplanes when it came to outright combat effectiveness. They were certainly faster and flashier ... but that doesn't necessarily mean better. Just my two cents worth. Opinions vary. Cheers.
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I recall reading a summary by a F-86D pilot. When scrambled, the typical squadron had a number of airplanes down for maintenance, a number would fail to start (it had an electronic fuel controller that was supposed to manage the start sequence but had to warm up itself), maybe half a dozen would start to taxi, perhaps three would abort during taxi, maybe three would take off, and two would abort after takeoff, leaving one to carry out the mission. For that reason and because it was assumed that a nuclear war would be won or lost in a few hours, the pilots were told to expend their ordnance and then ram.
In Korea, F-94's with .50 cal guns were launched to intercept Po-2's. One F-94 crashed when it stalled while trying to line up behind a Po-2. One F-94 flew through a Po-2. But the F4U and F7F night fighters did much better. That was where we could have used some P-61's; they likely would have been the best of all.
In Korea, F-94's with .50 cal guns were launched to intercept Po-2's. One F-94 crashed when it stalled while trying to line up behind a Po-2. One F-94 flew through a Po-2. But the F4U and F7F night fighters did much better. That was where we could have used some P-61's; they likely would have been the best of all.
It was all about GCI. I took a couple university summer school courses in the summer of 1964, and there were a couple of longtime Air Guard pilots in my classes, leading to some interesting conversations. Their progression postwar was P47, P51, F94, F89. Apparently the interceptor fire control systems were optimized for only one attack profile, the F94 for a low closure rate attack from six o'clock, and the F89 for a 90° lead computing deflection shot. The "sweet spot" for both attacks was relatively narrow in terms of angles and closure rates, making success dependent on the GCI controller's positioning of the interceptor for target acquisition with the proper geometry.
They had a few chuckles over the Hellcat drone incident, saying that the crews should have used the attack profile their system was set up for and let the radar aim the rockets like it was designed to, rather than trying to "play fighter pilot" and aim them visually from behind.
We had some interesting talks and they almost talked me into enlisting in the Air Guard, but at age 17 with a year of high school yet to go and no wheels, that was a non-starter.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P(F)-82 did remarkably well in Korea.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,731
- May 13, 2018
In a1960 orientation with ADC and USAFA cadets, the pilots who had been Alaska based before, told of F-86D planned ops against an actual attack by Tu-4s would be one intercept, fire one tray (12rockets), another intercept, the other tray, the third intercept was the 86 hits the Tu-4. Bail out was optional, but as he said, bailing out over Alaska was the same as riding it in. The F-89 jocks called their birds the "B-89" because of the slow speed and said they would likely get only one intercept at the bomber flight.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I worked with a civilian at Tinker AFB who said he had been a crew chief and that the F-89 was a good airplane from the maintenance standpoint but it was the F-86D that led him to leave the Air Force.
GregP
Major
I have neard NOTHING good about the F-86D but EVERYONE who flew it loved the F-86E and onward, especially the F-86F, and the H model with the bigger turbojet and 20 mm cannons.
I had one friend who flew Meteors, F-86Ks,and F-104s for the Dutch Air Force, and HE had nothing at all good to say about the F-86K, whichw as essentially an export F-86D. He loved the Meteor when both fans were burning but, if one quit burning, it tried very hard to kill you. So, if you flew it like a single-engine airplane, it flew great! The Planes of Fame has a nonflying Meteor Mk V and a flyable Meteor T7.
I had one friend who flew Meteors, F-86Ks,and F-104s for the Dutch Air Force, and HE had nothing at all good to say about the F-86K, whichw as essentially an export F-86D. He loved the Meteor when both fans were burning but, if one quit burning, it tried very hard to kill you. So, if you flew it like a single-engine airplane, it flew great! The Planes of Fame has a nonflying Meteor Mk V and a flyable Meteor T7.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Big problem with the F-4, the photo recon P-38, as that the pilot could not look down and see the target very well, and the NLG precluded putting in a sight that would enable him to look straight down.
At the 9th PRS in India they tried a mod where they put in a camera that would allow a long slant range shot of targets that had dangerous AAA, but that airplane had to be sent to China and they did not get to try it out very much.
At the 9th PRS in India they tried a mod where they put in a camera that would allow a long slant range shot of targets that had dangerous AAA, but that airplane had to be sent to China and they did not get to try it out very much.
Last edited:
