P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I think the slimmer bubble canopy fuselage used for the F15 Reporter would have been better for the NF role. According to the internet the USAAF thought so too and had requested a P61E.
varsity07840
Airman 1st Class
- 176
- Jun 25, 2013
The P-61C had turbochargers and was a much faster airplane, but only thirty or so were built before the war ended and production was canceled.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
More than likely yes, but a few considerations:
One piece blown plexiglass canopies were just being introduced. The longer, larger and "curvier" the transparency is, the harder it is to make and the more distortion you're going to have. Although a great improvement over framed canopies, a clear non-distorted canopy is needed, especially if you're flying at night and relying on your eyes to spot targets.
Electronic units work well in dark, cool environments, especially early radar units. Large plexiglass canopies retain heat and could easily become an oven if you're operating even with minimal sunlight. RIOs would have to operate under a hood to better see their screens. This became more apparent in the post war years in early all-weather fighters.
GregP
Major
There never were enough P-61s. The P-61 was given a rather low priority and many types were tried including the P-38M, the night-fighter version of the A-20 called the P-70, and a few others. Most were mildy successful, but a handful for a single pilot. The 2-seaters did better, on the whole. The P-61 was not ready in time for the British and the first unit didn't fly a mission untilk Feb 1944. Operational use began in the summer, but was rather limited throughout the war in the ETO.
The P-61 was generlly adequate and a good night fighter, but did need more speed.
The Mosquito tested against the P-61 did NOT have more speed, and both the US and the UK struggled with night fighters for the rest of the war. Only two squadrons operated the P-61 in the ETO, the 422 NFS and 425 NFS. The 422 scored 43 victories over manned aircraft and 5 over V-1s, with VERY few aircraft. During the Battle of the Bulge, they only had 4 flyable aircraft! The 425 scored 10 victories over manned aircraft and 4 V-1s, also with very few flyable aicraft. There never WAS a spare parts chain for the P-61 in the ETO.
4 squadrons had the P-61 in the Med, but operations were scarce, with about 5 victories, all while flown out of Belgium!
8 squadrons had the P-61 in the Pacific, and it had most of its successes in that theater.
The next US night fighter after the P-61 was the Douglas Skynight, which had radar issues galore, but did manage some victories in Korea.
The P-61 was generlly adequate and a good night fighter, but did need more speed.
The Mosquito tested against the P-61 did NOT have more speed, and both the US and the UK struggled with night fighters for the rest of the war. Only two squadrons operated the P-61 in the ETO, the 422 NFS and 425 NFS. The 422 scored 43 victories over manned aircraft and 5 over V-1s, with VERY few aircraft. During the Battle of the Bulge, they only had 4 flyable aircraft! The 425 scored 10 victories over manned aircraft and 4 V-1s, also with very few flyable aicraft. There never WAS a spare parts chain for the P-61 in the ETO.
4 squadrons had the P-61 in the Med, but operations were scarce, with about 5 victories, all while flown out of Belgium!
8 squadrons had the P-61 in the Pacific, and it had most of its successes in that theater.
The next US night fighter after the P-61 was the Douglas Skynight, which had radar issues galore, but did manage some victories in Korea.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
I think the slimmer bubble canopy fuselage used for the F15 Reporter would have been better for the NF role. According to the internet the USAAF thought so too and had requested a P61E.
The P-61E was a day fighter and replaced the radar with 4 x 0.5" mgs.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was recently introduced to a good friend of my GF's, her dad was a Marine Skynight radar operator who (along with his pilot) bagged a MiG-15 in January, 1953. Major Elswin P. Dunn and Master Sergeant Lawrence J. Fortin. My GF's friend said her dad didn't like to talk about it much,
varsity07840
Airman 1st Class
- 176
- Jun 25, 2013
The P-38M did not see combat.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It didn't - but it's pretty obvious that the AAF was still looking for a night fighter.
fubar57
General
The 491st NFS flew them in the final weeks of the war but as you said, no contacts with the enemy were reported
EDIT: 419 NFS ? Stupid book "Crowood P-38"
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The US was constantly working on smaller radar equipped types even as the P-61 was going into service.
Besides the P-38, there was also the radar equipped F6F and the F4U corsair.
The P-61 did have a measure of success against enemy targets, but it entered the war late and as such, was not operating in a target-rich environment. Before the P-61, there was the SRC-540 equipped P-70 (Douglas A-20).
Between the two, the P-70 could actually be considered more of a failure than the P-61.
Besides the P-38, there was also the radar equipped F6F and the F4U corsair.
The P-61 did have a measure of success against enemy targets, but it entered the war late and as such, was not operating in a target-rich environment. Before the P-61, there was the SRC-540 equipped P-70 (Douglas A-20).
Between the two, the P-70 could actually be considered more of a failure than the P-61.
GregP
Major
Hi gjs,
The P-82 version was an adaption of the basic P-82 fighter airframe, not a designed, dedicated night fighter. It was a decent adaption, though, and performed pretty well, all things considered.
Cool to hear about someone who operated Skynights. It was a little-known, underappreciated warrior, but performed as requested in the specs and was a solid airplane, if a bit unglamorous.
The P-82 version was an adaption of the basic P-82 fighter airframe, not a designed, dedicated night fighter. It was a decent adaption, though, and performed pretty well, all things considered.
Cool to hear about someone who operated Skynights. It was a little-known, underappreciated warrior, but performed as requested in the specs and was a solid airplane, if a bit unglamorous.
Well no wonder they found the Mosquito landing and takeoff unsuitable! Pax River was and still is home of the Naval Flight Test Center. Navy and Marine pilots are notoriously fussy about landing, takeoff, and low speed handling in general. Nobody earns those wings without repeatedly terrifying themselves on a carrier deck, and the lessons last a lifetime.
GregP
Major
I think it is the Naval Flying Characteristics of Naval Carrier Aircraft specification that is fussy. I used to have a copy and probably still do, burried in boxes, and it is quite specific about what the Navy wants, including rolling, stalls, low-speed handling around the carrier, etc. .
Coulr be wrong, but I think the pilots will fly what the Navy acquires and assigns them to.
Coulr be wrong, but I think the pilots will fly what the Navy acquires and assigns them to.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #56
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 670
- May 1, 2016
Grumman may have gotten it right with the F-7F
- Thread starter
- #57
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 670
- May 1, 2016
Perhaps the priority in the US wasn't that great. We weren't facing streams of hundreds bombers over our cities. By the time the technology matured (small airborne sets, engines that could push a twin engine plane to 400 mph), the night threat was diminished. The planes facing the US were tactical not strategic bombers, which flew missions primarily during the daylight.
I can imagine the Naval Aviators flying F4U-N and F6F-Ns had their hands full flying at night off a carrier, processing the information from a radar screen, flying, intercepting and attacking, without the aid of a Radar Officer.
I can imagine the Naval Aviators flying F4U-N and F6F-Ns had their hands full flying at night off a carrier, processing the information from a radar screen, flying, intercepting and attacking, without the aid of a Radar Officer.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You're only processing info from the radar screen when you're on station tracking a target. The rest would be no different from other nighttime naval operations. F4U-5Ns were used in Korea, the only Navy ace flew one.
Of course they will, that's their job. Doesn't stop them from looking with a jaundiced eye on an aircraft they're asked to evaluate which violates their hard-earned prejudices. "Squirrely on the approach? Vref 140 knots? Vmc 155? Sounds like a deathtrap to me!" "Besides they designed the cockpit for midgets!"
I can attest to the fact that flying a high performance fighter on instruments while manipulating a primitive AI radar against a maneuvering target can be a real handful. While on leave from my job helping F-4 RIOs learn radar interception tactics, I had the opportunity to hop in the local Air Guard's F-102 simulator. It had a weird Y-shaped control stick where the left branch flew the jet and the right side "Atari stick" Mm steered the radar dish. The radar was a whole generation older than what I was used to with the F-4, and required a lot of "operator imagination" to interpret the display. Couple that with an overweight, underpowered airframe that bled energy badly in any kind of maneuver, and I quickly went into task saturation, departed controlled flight, and augered in. Much to the amusement of the sim operators
