P-61 alternatives

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Well before the German trans-Atlantic bombers would be. Unless they plan on having one-way missions for these aircraft, they'll need close to 10,000 mile still-air range. Many of the shortest flight paths from most of occupied western Europe overfly the UK, which would not exactly go unnoticed by the RAF. These same flight paths travel over the Maritimes and New England, another group of places that would likely notice bunches of aircraft.

US and RAF bombers got slaughtered by the Luftwaffe unless escorted. Why would the USAAF and RCAF be unable to do the same to the unescorted German bombers? The US did have fighters that weren't P-61s and, bluntly, it had a number of medium bombers that would have the performance and load-carrying capability to intercept German trans-Atlantic bombers.
 
There are people will argue you until they are blue in the face that such and such did not have a supercharger because they think only Turbos are superchargers and that built in mechanically driven superchargers are "blowers."

Just think about the B-29. It had a mechanically driver supercharger on each R-3350 and two turbos for each engine, for a total of twelve.
 
pinehilljoe said:
Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.
Click to expand...
I read an article years ago that stated that night flying was tried in the P-47 but the red glow from the turbo supercharger was very visible in the night sky and left a glowing streak across the night sky where it flew. It was decided to leave it as a day fighter!
 
pinehilljoe said:
Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.
Click to expand...

The P-38M used a different radar than the APS-4: they used the SCR540 carried in a pod below the nose. This unit was also used on some P-70 and PV-1 aircraft. It weighed 181lbs, or less than half the 415lbs of the SCR720 radar in the P-61 and some P-70s. The radar in the P-61 had almost three times the range (17,000 yards vs 6,000 yards for detecting bombers) of the P-38M radar.
The AN/APS-6 radars used with the F6F night fighter variants had a 10,000 yard range for bombers and weighed 242lbs.
The AIA radar was used on the F4U and some F6F night fighters. It weighed 242lbs and could detect a bomber at 8,000 yards.
Some P-70s used the SCR520 radar. This unit weighed 477lbs and could detect bombers at 10,000 yards.

Interesting reading here:
US Night Fighter Radars of WWII
 

All of which is just the beginning of the changes caused by the bigger engines: CG moves forward, or some things get shifted around to compensate; fuel consumption increased, so shorter range or added fuel tanks (resulting in more weight increase); engines moved out farther on the wing to accommodate the bigger props - and soon you have an airplane that doesn't meet the P-70's original design goal of a quick proof of concept, and doesn't achieve the P-61's speed and endurance goals. Sometimes the best thing to do is start all over.
 
There were a few 109s outfitted with Naxos passive receivers, which were used to track Allied bomber navigation radars. Most German single seat fighters use at night used Wilde Sau tactics, where the pilots looked for bombers against ground lights or cloud illuminate by groups of searchlights.

pacific Night Fighters By the time the Allies (USAAF had effective nightfighters in the field, there was little Japanese night activity, so they were used as night intruders. Most of the same aircraft were also used at night in Korea.

Night Interception Operations
During WW2, most nightfighters on both sides developed similar operational modes, since air-intercept radars all suffered similar limitations of range and scope. The interceptor worked with an intercept radar, usually ground based*, that could see both the target and the interceptor, and would direct the interceptor to come from behind at the target to the 2-5 mile range that the air-intercept (AI) radar. The radar was not good enough to shoot by, but allowed the NF to track an close to within a few hundred yards of the target - about the minimum range of the AI radar. Then the pilot completed combat visually. So, AI radar only covered the middle ground.

* I said usually, but in late 1944, the RAF loaded radar into light bombers and used them east of England to control interceptions of German bombers flying north out of Holland to air-launch V1s after they lost launch sites in France and Belgium. Early AWACS!

Uncle Ted
 
I have an article on that somewhere. It was a Wellington AWAC paired with a NF Mossie, iirc.
 
swampyankee said:
There are red phosphors for CRTs, although I don't know if they were used at the time.
Click to expand...
I remember reading (back in the '70's) that either the Graf Zeppelin or the Hindenburg had red phosphorus instrumentation to aid in night navigation from the gondola, so if true, no reason a Fw-190 might have it several years later.
 
Milosh said:
I have an article on that somewhere. It was a Wellington AWAC paired with a NF Mossie, iirc.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia entry on the Blenheim:

Blenheim Mk IF
Night fighter version, equipped with an AI Mk III or Mk IV airborne interceptor radar, armed with four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in a special gun pack under the fuselage. About 200 Blenheim Mk Is were converted into Mk IF night fighters.
 


The Me 264V1 flew just before Christmas, December 22 1942. The Northrop P-61A entered production, but not service in October 1943.

The Me 262V1 underwent a test program and then within a few months was upgraded from Jumo 211F engines to BMW801. Using the Jumo 211F (not even the better Jumo 211J) was a waste of time as the Dornier Do 217E0 and Do 217E1 had been flying with the BMW801 since mid 1940 and the engine was debugged by 1941.

The aircraft arising out of this was to be the Me 264V3 which was the prototype reconnaissance bomber. It featured extended wing tips and some changes to wing/tail plane incidence to overcome handling issues detected in the V1.

It was adequate to attack the US East coast, just. At 9300 miles range of the top of my head. Paris to New York is 3600 (7200 round) so within range from Brest, Paris, France even Berlin with about 2000kg bombs. The aircraft WAS NOT designed to hit the US but was a long range recon and to communicate with the far east etc. I would suggest load out would be 4 x 500kg LMB mines. The aircraft was lightly armed. 20mm waist guns, nose guns and a dorsal turret. Proper armament would need to wait till 2400hp DB603H engines were available.

The mines would be dropped in shipping lanes, maybe rivers and ports. If they hit land they blew up within15 seconds.

The Me 264V3 was capable of 340mph so a 362mph P61A or P61B would have trouble catching it. 40 minutes of nitrous oxide was planed. A diving attack makes interception difficult.
It would be big enough for carrying the FuG 224 Berlin ground mapping radar (modified H2S) or just ordinary moon/star navigation. U-boats could also deposit Schwann-See radio marker buoys.

The aircraft received little support from Milch and lacked sufficient engineers and draughtsman applied and was eventually bombed. To be fair Messerschmitt was still reeling from the Me 210 disaster when an aircraft was put into production with wrong tooling before the test program was complete. The Ju 288 and He 177 were also in trouble.

Had the Me 264 it been supported correctly from the beginning it could have been flying missions before 1943 was out.

The Me 264/6m (also known as the Me 364 was a 6 engine version with stretched wings and fuselage armed with the 20mm armed B24 liberator style tail turret. It had 6 x Jumo 211 engines. This is the version the RLM/Luftwaffe could have built instead and was simple enough. About the size of a B-29 but slimmer fuselage, 6 engines and less bomb load about same hp. Certainly capable of 10,000 miles. These was nothing in this beyond the capability of German industry, certainly no ridiculously ambitious engines. Abandon the He 177, Ju 288 then this thing would be a lot less risky, just big and expensive.
 
 

Attachments

  • AWACS-pg1.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 45
  • AWACS-pg2.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 50
  • AWACS-pg3.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 50
  • AWACS-pg4.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 47


The Me-264 top speed was over 350mph, but that was with GM-1 which only lasted a few minutes. The Me 264 cruise speed was around 217mph.
The Me-264 first flew in December 42, but the engine change to the BMWs was in LATE 43, about a year later.
Only three Me-264s were built.
The first prototype was damaged in late 43 and never repaired; the second and third prototypes were destroyed in bombing raids and the project was dropped.

Messerschmitt Me 264 - Wikipedia

As for a P-61 catching the Me-264, the process would do most of the work: P-61s patrolling in assigned combat areas and directed to the threat by ground control. A P-61 at 340mph should be able to close on a Me-264 cruising at under 240mph.
 

I'm using an iPad so I'll be fairly point form.

Wikipedia just keeps getting worse. It's displaced a lot of good sites with accurate information and reintroduced bad information from the 1940s and 1950s. I have a book on me 264 but I like this
Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry

1 You are quoting economical cruising speed rather than maximum cruising speed. Maximum cruising speed would usually be 85%-90% of maximum speed. Max speed was at least 520kmh/325mph without nitrous so about 275mph.

2 598 of nitrous oxide was carried which would last 40 minutes continuous. Nitrous oxide used on aircraft, in german use, was not usually used to hot rod them (though this could be done) so there was no restriction on time. It was applied above the full pressure altitude of the engine to maintain power therefore no increased stress. Speed increase from thinner air. It was lighter than intercoolers, supercharger for 30-40 minutes NOX supply. By 1944 emergency power had no time restriction on the 801. So with nitrous 340mph Max speed for 15 minutes maybe 305 cruise in 1943.

3 The BMW801 engines replaced the Jumo 211F in August 1943. My point was that the BMW801 was flying in Do 217 E0 and E1 in 1940 already so it was a waste of time not installing them to begin this.

The Me 264 was starved of resources. This was due to a combination of the failures of the He 177, Ju 288 and Me 210 program as well as the hatred Milch had for Messerschmitt. If the resources wasted on the above were put into the Me 264 I contend raids on the us East Coast could have occured in 1943.

The P70 is probably slower than an Me 264 while the P61A and P61B have such a small speed margin (22-26mph) I doubt they'd get an intercept especially if the Me 264 used it's nitrous to climb to 30,000ft and dived. Such tactics worked against the RAF.
 
Last edited:

My understanding of Nitrous boost was that too much of it would burn out the engines.

And when would the crew of the bomber know when to use it? The P-61 had radar, the Me-264, all three of them, never carried it.

And lastly, there were only 3 of them built, so you may as well ask if the P-61 could intercept a B-58.
 

Nitrous oxide, formulae N2O, adds oxygen and nitrogen. The oxygen supports combustion, the nitrogen provides additional working fluid. Furthermore the nitrous is very cool because it is either cryogenic or expanding, hence it cools the mixture down, contracting the air and allowing more air in to the engine.

The Nitrous Oxide is added at a rate approximately as the same rate as the fuel flow. Of the top of my head the Jumo 213E on the Ta 152H had three flow rate settings. For each 100 grams of fuel flow there could be added 50 grams, 80 grams or 130 grams of Nitrous Oxide.

I consideration of NO containing 1.5 times more O than Air and adding in at 1:1 flow rate we can say that its equal to about 10% more power and boost at sea level (ignoring crygoenic effects)

However if you are using it at say above 20,000ft that increases power much more proportionately there.

So long as the nitrous is not being added to increase rated sea level power but to maintain power above rated full pressure altitude the engine isn't stressed. Some slight issues in terms of cooling in the thinner air, which fortunately is colder.

GM1 was used on the Ju 88S1 (with BMW801 engines), on the Me 109 and on the Ju 88S3 (with Jumo 213 engines). Some Arado 440 used for recon may have gotten it and the Ta 152H1 (about 10) which aircraft used it with MW50 in 20 minute bursts.

As to when to turn it on

1 Approach the US coast
2 As the Radar Horizon at 20,000ft is 348km/216 miles accelerate the aircraft using combat/military power to about 300 mph at 220 miles from the coast.
3 At 150 miles from the coast (ie 30 minutes out (12 minutes after potential detection by US SCR-272 radar) turn on the GM1 and then climb ( at 310mph) to about 27,000ft. That should take 10 minutes.
4 Level out, maintain 325 mph for 5 minutes.
5 Change course.
6 Change course again.

The P70 have no chance of getting an intercept. The P61A, if its in service would be challenged.

The aircraft could begin at 400mph dive about 50 miles out.

Tail warning radar might be available on such a large aircraft.

They could lay mines in a harbour. If the mines missed they'd blow up around the port. They may avoid a city entirely and just target shipping lanes.

The US would spend a lot of resources.
 


Great info on the German boost methods, thanks.

Intercept is moot; the only three aircraft built were destroyed on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
9K
Thumpalumpacus
V
P-51Ds over Normandy June 1944
Replies
1
Views
484
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Flying Boeing P-26 Peashooter
Replies
10
Views
1K
GregP
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
1K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register