Hi Marlin,
>how could an aircraft as unwieldy and as huge as a P-61 ever compare favourably with a Mosquito or an UHU ?
Hm, it might not have been the best performance-wise, but it probably was the most manoeuvrable of the trio, and had the best single-engine handling characteristics. The Heinkel He 219 was medium ground in both respects, and the Mosquito had the best performance, but the poorest single-engine characteristics.
I'm relying on the P-61 manual (posted by Micdrow in the Technical Section), Eric Brown's description of the He 219 (in Wings of the Luftwaffe), and the data in the Mosquito Pilot's Notes (probably also found in the Technical Section here) for this comparison. I think I have posted more detail on this somehwere on this forum ... hm, not exactly what I thought I'd find, but here it is anyway:
----
Single-engine handling.
The Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito indicate that loaded to 17000 lbs, the single-engine safety speed was 178 mph (though it will climb on one engine at 155 - 161 mph if clean). Going around in a Mosquito on one engine is not possible with flaps set to more than 15°.
The F7F-3N for comparison had a stall speed "without fuel" of 86 mph - just to give a point of reference for the desired landing speed, which would be somewhat above the stall speed. (In carrier operations, probably by less than the 30% commonly used for land-based aircraft.)
The Me 110 according to a brief British manual for the type had a normal approach speed of 160 km/h (99 mph), so if the convention of approach speed being 30% higher than stall speed is followed, its stall speed probably was roughly 76 mph. Single-engined, it couldn't use full flaps and full power at the same time, but said brief manual points out that 25 degrees flaps were recommended, and though it's not explicitely stated, this invites the conclusion that it could use a good amount of power on the remaining engine in that configuration ... perhaps enough for a go-around.
The question of single-engined handling was important because as a rule of thumb, a twin-engined aircraft suffers an engine failure twice as frequently as a single-engined one. If you can't land a type on a carrier reliably on a single engine, it means you're going to lose aircraft that are twice as expensive as single-engined ones at twice the rate ... just a rough approximation, but it shows the motivation to choose a single-engined design over a twin.
----
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)