P-61 vs. He-219

[davebender]

Ostmark engine plant construction was completed during March 1942. I assume April 1942 would have been the start of Jumo 222 engine production. That coincides nicely with He-219 development.

Historical.
Dec 1941.
RLM decision to convert the almost completed Ostmark engine plant to DB603 production.

Feb 1942.
Decision to power the He-219 with DB603 engines. Heinkel had no other choice if they didn't want the He-219 cancelled.

Nov 1942.
He-219 first flight.

Jun 1943.
He-219 combat debut.

What might have happened....
Dec 1941.
RLM orders Ostmark plant switched to DB603 production. Goering over rules the decision. Full speed ahead for Jumo 222A engine production. Initial version will be derated until technical gliches are addressed, similiar to DB605A and other new engines. The initial Jumo 222A engine version will produce only about 2,000hp. Which is still quite a bit.

Feb 1942.
Decision to power He-219 with Jumo 222A engines produced at Ostmark.
.....Full speed ahead for Jumo 222 powered Ju-288 program also. But that's another discussion.
..........Ju-288 causes He-111, Do-217, Me-210C and Me-410A programs to be cancelled.
.....Dr. Tank had plans for a Jumo 222 powered Fw-190. That's also another discussion.

Nov 1942.
He-219 prototype first flight. 2,000 hp Jumo222A engines.

June 1943.
He-219 combat debut.

Fall 1943.
Jumo 222A engine restrictions lifted. It now produces the full 2,500hp.

How would the He-219 perform when powered by 2,500hp engines? It's possible to imagine Me-110 and Ju-88 programs both being cancelled by 1944. But to make this possible the Luftwaffe must do a better than historical job of matching airframe production to engine production.

 

[Milosh]

Jun 1943.
He-219 combat debut.

The V9 version. When did the first He219A-1 have its combat debut?

 

[Erich]

the first so called official date was July 25/26th 1943 for an A-0 though Steibs machine was also called an A-0 as well. no A-1's

again lets get back on the topic P-61 vs the He 219 without the drol of printed testing data shall we.

 

[johnbr]

It is said that at lest one He-219 flow with the Ju-222.

 

[pinsog]

1. What advantages, if any, did the last model of He-219 have over the P61C? The P61C being the 430 mph turbo supercharged model.
2. Other than a top speed of 366 mph, what deficiencies did the P61 have?

 

[davebender]

Probably wishfull thinking on the part of Heinkel. What might have been. Just as a handful of Jumo 222 powered Ju-288s entered service.

IMO RLM should have cancelled all aircraft programs that required Jumo 222 engines NLT January 1942. That would have ended the He-219 night fighter program early on.

 

[Erich]

since the P-61C never saw operations in WW 2 then the question is irrelevant in regards to the He 219A-7. as far as I am aware there were never any Jumo 222 installed to any combative A variant.

 

[johnbr]

I read it in book on the plane to speed they said was 435mpr.The 2 very long range He-219 had ju-222 but were lost in a raid.

 

[Trilisser]

I wonder what is the status of Erich's planned book(s)?

 

[Oreo]

in what manner of comparison is this? the he.219 vs the p-61 in combat? or which performed its role better? in both cases, imho, the two are equally matched if properly flown.

I am no expert.

But I like both these planes, find them both fascinating. My Squadron / Signal P-61 book states (don't have it in front of me) that the P-61 was extremely maneuverable for its size, and on at least one occasion out-dog-fought a Mosquito NF variant. Not having the empirical evidence to prove anything, my thought is to match Saggitario's-- they were somewhat equal, and pilotage is the tie-breaker.

I've seen the P-61A's max speed listed as 371, somewhere. Just guessing that may be the speed without gun turret. 366, usually listed for the B, may or may not reflect the speed with turret. Or it could just be various other factors. Or the variability of two different tests. We're only talking 5 mph. It would be a little lighter w/o turret. The 4 Hispano's should be plenty to knock down anything in the night sky, I would think. I do recall the Squadron / Signal book stating that the main difference, operationally, between A and B P-61's was the radar, and that the B's radar was a vast improvement in capability over the A. Another difference, also major, I guess, is that the B introduced hard points for drop tanks and had much improved range. It could also, if called to, deliver a 6,400 lb. bomb load on those hard points. Not sure if that actually ever was done. I think the P-61 had a crew of three when equipped with turret and usually two when the turret was deleted. At least one, and the S/S book seemed to indicate more than one, replaced the turret with a fixed gun installation of the 4X .50 caliber MG's in its place, complete with a turret cover, such that they appeared to have the turret, but actually it was a fixed forward firing gun position, used to supplement the cannon. Reportedly, training the turret different directions during flight resulted in too much buffeting, leading to its removal. Conflicting things I have read various places, indicate that either the buffeting was solved later in production, leading to the last B models being given the turret, or else, they simply restored it into production without solving the problems. Either way, both configs evidently saw combat.

I wonder if the P-61 would have been a lot slower yet if it had been forced to wear the huge radar antenna arrays sported by the He 219 and most other German night fighters.

For Erich and anyone else who may know, are there good accounts (besides the Squadron / Signal book) about the P-61's maneuverability and handling? S/S books may be a little bit on the cheer-leading end of the spectrum--- every plane they feature was the best it could possibly be. . . .

 

[Trilisser]

The P-61 had excellent accelerated stalling characteristics so it was easier than many to fly to and beyond its limits as there was no tendency to flick out of the turn. According to AHT the rate of roll wasn't particularly high. Its wing-loading was also "moderatish", especially when compared to the He 219.

 

[Erich]

to the many book ideas it is a long wait gents due to my Cancer ............... materials for two books are scattered all over my office/sphere's floor right in front of me as I type this out .....

the best idea is go directly to the published works on the P-61, you may have to seek out a tech reference though instead of an operational history(s).

 

[Oreo]

The P-61 had excellent accelerated stalling characteristics so it was easier than many to fly to and beyond its limits as there was no tendency to flick out of the turn. According to AHT the rate of roll wasn't particularly high. Its wing-loading was also "moderatish", especially when compared to the He 219.

Hmm. I had thought the He 219's wing loading was quite high. Seems like I remember it being in the 60-ish lbs/ sq ft. range. Don't have it in front of me. P-38 also had fairly high wing loading, but still managed to be relatively maneuverable. It's partly the wing loading, and partly the control surfaces and what auxiliary devices you have that makes a plane maneuverable. Oh, and of course-- pilot experience.

 

[GregP]

The He 219 had a wing loading of about 62 to 70 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight, depending on model. The P-61 had a wing loading of 45 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight. When I went through aerodynamics, lower was better for maneuverability in the wing loading department … unless the math has changed.

The Black Widow could turn better ANY time at ANY weight and ANY armament condition by a significant margin. Of course, at night, you don't HAVE to turn much and they didn't fight each other, at least very often.

 

[Oreo]

The He 219 had a wing loading of about 62 to 70 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight, depending on model. The P-61 had a wing loading of 45 pounds per square foot at takeoff weight. When I went through aerodynamics, lower was better for maneuverability in the wing loading department … unless the math has changed.

The Black Widow could turn better ANY time at ANY weight and ANY armament condition by a significant margin. Of course, at night, you don't HAVE to turn much and they didn't fight each other, at least very often.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. But the He 219 did run the risk of having to maneuver with Mosquito's, whether it often did or not. Plus there is the embarrassing, not to mention practical, problem of needing to be able to maneuver with the bombers you are trying to shoot down.

As for wing loading, yes, less is always better for maneuverability, but it is not the only factor involved. Control surfaces, moment arms, special devices such as combat flaps, leading slats, etc, and center of gravity can also affect it. Possibly other factors I can't think of right now, too.

 

[Grampa]

There's a lot of talk about speed, agility, weapons and so on here about those planes, but dosent we forgetting that there in the dark night the main rule in nightcombat is that the one who find the enemy before the enemy find him are the one that most are the winner in nightcombat right? So how are the radartecknology and other electronic components in comparelse that help's deteckting enemy planes in the dark on those planes? Aint that a most importent factor to have for a dogfight in the dark?

 

[GregP]

In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat. So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that survives testing and makes it into production.

So, for the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading. Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them.

 

[Milosh]

In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat. So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that survives testing and makes it into production.

So, for the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading. Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them.

Some Soviet fighters had leading edge slats. >> ie La-5, La-7

 

[Shortround6]

Slats can help a lot with maintaining aileron effectiveness at low speeds. Their help in maneuvering (turning) is a lot more suspect. By the time the slots are allowing the wing to generate more lift by keeping it from stalling at a higher than normal angle of attack the drag is skyrocketing.

Slats can lower stalling/landing speeds and perhaps more importantly can maintain the already mentioned aileron control at both landing speeds ( preventing accidents) and at higher speeds in turns maintaining controllability.

 

[Oreo]

In general I agree with you. In combat aircraft, however, the designer is striving for the best at the task. All fighters, even "heavy fighters," have enough control surface area and travel to produce stall at above the corner velocity (known as maneuvering speed in civil life). All fighters have an airfoil optimized for aerial combat. So their "other factors" are very likely to be all quite good with respect to the mission and to one another, at least for any fighter aircraft that survives testing and makes it into production.

So, for the most part, fighters in service have a maneuverability tied directly to wing loading. Modern 3.5 - 5.5 generation jets also have computer operated slats and flaps, but none in WWII did. The Me 109 had slats, but they were automatic (freee moving slats) that helped out at low speed or high g-loading, but no other WWII fighter that I can recall just now had them.

You may be generally right about that, but there are other things that affect it, especially with aircraft that are designed for one roll, and end up in another. For instance, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beaufighter built with essentially the same wing as the Beaufort, a 260-mph bomber? Ju 88, Do 217 night fighters also would have, I am guessing, a wing airfoil designed for a bomber rather than a fighter. These things do make a difference. Also, the wingspan can make a difference, especially depending on altitude-- a short wing is typically more maneuverable in a roll than a long wing of the same area (higher aspect ratio). The type of control surfaces, their shape, size, location, and method of activation, can affect things too. The P-61 had highly specialized control surfaces including "spoilerons" (IIRC that is the name of them), a type of control surface fitted to few if any other aircraft, to the best of my knowledge. The distance the tail surfaces are from the COG affects the lateral and horizontal stability, and whether or not the aircraft is balanced with the cog on the center of lift makes a difference too. As does the height of the cog in comparison to the center of lift. These things, and countless others, all affect "handling", which is not the same thing as maneuverability, but proper handling characteristics make a plane much easier for a pilot of any given aptitude to obtain the best maneuverability from it.

You are right, probably the greatest factor in maneuverability is wing loading. But it is not the only factor.