XB-42?

[SaparotRob]

Hi Greg,

I opened this thread to see what was going on with the XB-42 and was surprised to see mention of the P-61. Sorry to repeat what I've written in several other threads, but here goes...

Actually, the P-61 was miserably disappointing. Being the best available didn't make it good, especially when nothing else was available. Since all of the AAF's eggs were in one basket, there was a concerted effort to convince folks that the basket and eggs actually were pretty good. The P-61 suffered from lack of speed, altitude, and endurance. At one point Wright Field tried to justify continued production by pointing out that Japanese bombers were only slightly faster than the P-61, but that the Japanese would become more confident and slow down to the point the P-61 could catch and destroy them. (That actually did happen on occassion.)

The ETO flyoff was rigged - the Mosquito and its crew were unaware they were in a competition and had been assigned to observe and evaluate the P-61's performance. The P-61 was given the best preparation, flown without the turret or third crewmember, and piloted by an aggressive and angry crew; the Mosquito was a line aircraft of older production with no special servicing. The flyoff was kept below 20,000 feet; above that altitude the P-61's performance dropped off dramatically. The flyoff was flown as a dogfight, not your standard night-fighting tactics. The test lasted only about 2 hours - the P-61 had exhausted nearly all of its fuel.

No P-61 flew at 430 mph - all those claims were based on Northrop estimates, which proved sadly inflated.

The Black Widow's kill-to-loss ratio has no bearing - all those failed attempts at interception never gave the enemy aircraft an opportunity to shoot back.

One AAF squadron was equipped with Mosquito NF.30s and based in Italy at a time when Luftwaffe night activities were fairly limited. In March 1945 a single Ju 188 night raider was targeted by a P-61 which could not intercept and was forced to retire by lack of fuel. A 416 NFS Mosquito then chased the 188 over the Alps to Austria, downing it over its own base before flying back to Italy - all with one of its engines out. No P-61 could have performed as well.

Internal AAF records show the intense disappointment in the P-61, Wright Field's efforts to hide the aircraft's failures, and Hap Arnold's anger when he discovered that the aircraft was not what was promised. Had more Mosquito Mark 30s been available, the P-61 would have been withdrawn from Europe.

Most written histories are little more than propaganda when it comes to the AAF's night fighter designs. The archival records show how disappointing the P-61 really was. What author wants to write a book called The P-61; It Really Sucked, but it was the Best We Had?

Cheers,


Dana

I did buy book entitled The World's Worst Aircraft.

 

[GregP]

Let's just say we disagree, Dana Bell. Flight test reports are full of wonder for the way the P-61 could maneuver.

As a combat aircraft, I really like the Mosquito except for its obvious dangerous Vmc value (somewhere around 160 mph!). It is generally fast, generally maneuverable for a twin, and has many great characteristics. I am certainly not saying the P-61 was better than the Mosquito as a general combat aircraft. What I AM saying is the P-61 was, far and away, a better night fighter than the Mosquito. It SHOULD be since it was designed for that role, and a purpose-designed airplane is usually better at its role than another aircraft adapted to a role for which it was not designed. Two notable airplanes might be the Ju 88 and the Mosquito, which were both VERY adaptable.

For almost any mission other than night fighter, I'd choose the Mosquito any day. But I'm also not one who thinks we should have converted to Mosquitos over another U.S. type. The people who think that are simply not aware of the prevailing desire to buy from our own suppliers. Nationalism was prevalent in WWII. The British would not have ever bought a foreign combat aircraft had their own aircraft industry been able to supply the required number of airplanes. That they DID use some U.S. aircraft was merely because they were in a tough spot and needed airframes more than they needed British airframes. Nothing wrong with that, either, since MOST countries followed that same tendency at the time.

I am curious as to where you found all the information about the so-called "fly off." I am not saying you are wrong and would not be surprised to find out it was true. It's the SAME THING the UK usually did when having a competitive flyoff between a British fighter and a U.S. fighter. They'd usually limit the American fighter to some lower-than-maximum power level and allow their own to use higher power levels. There is nothing WRONG with that since they DID note the power used in the test reports, but many actual acquisition decision were made from biased flyoffs. I'm not surprised if WE did the same. That's not a knock on British decisions, it's just the way it was back then.

 

[Dana Bell]

Let's just say we disagree, Dana Bell. Flight test reports are full of wonder for the way the P-61 could maneuver.

As a combat aircraft, I really like the Mosquito except for its obvious dangerous Vmc value (somewhere around 160 mph!). It is generally fast, generally maneuverable for a twin, and has many great characteristics. I am certainly not saying the P-61 was better than the Mosquito as a general combat aircraft. What I AM saying is the P-61 was, far and away, a better night fighter than the Mosquito. It SHOULD be since it was designed for that role, and a purpose-designed airplane is usually better at its role than another aircraft adapted to a role for which it was not designed. Two notable airplanes might be the Ju 88 and the Mosquito, which were both VERY adaptable.

For almost any mission other than night fighter, I'd choose the Mosquito any day. But I'm also not one who thinks we should have converted to Mosquitos over another U.S. type. The people who think that are simply not aware of the prevailing desire to buy from our own suppliers. Nationalism was prevalent in WWII. The British would not have ever bought a foreign combat aircraft had their own aircraft industry been able to supply the required number of airplanes. That they DID use some U.S. aircraft was merely because they were in a tough spot and needed airframes more than they needed British airframes. Nothing wrong with that, either, since MOST countries followed that same tendency at the time.

I am curious as to where you found all the information about the so-called "fly off." I am not saying you are wrong and would not be surprised to find out it was true. It's the SAME THING the UK usually did when having a competitive flyoff between a British fighter and a U.S. fighter. They'd usually limit the American fighter to some lower-than-maximum power level and allow their own to use higher power levels. There is nothing WRONG with that since they DID note the power used in the test reports, but many actual acquisition decision were made from biased flyoffs. I'm not surprised if WE did the same. That's not a knock on British decisions, it's just the way it was back then.

Hi Greg,

While we're sure to disagree, that's not a problem. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some well-buried facts to fit into your own examination of the question.

You mention flight test reports. The first of these noted that the P-61 was never going to be a "world beater" and that performance was expected to degrade further with several necessary modifications. Wright Field instead informed Washington that everyone considered the P-61 to be an excellant night fighter.

Eglin tested the aircraft and reported that production should be stopped immediately, with efforts made to purchase Mosquito night fighters. Wright Field squashed the report and had a new set of officers write a gentler opinion. Even the revised report noted problems with the P-61's speed, ceiling, and endurance, all of which would be mitigated once the auto-gun-laying turret was developed and installed. The report ended with the recommendation that the turret should not be installed (losing the sole advantage) and external fuel tanks should be installed (further degrading top speed).

Several Wright Field reports noted incredible top speeds for the aircraft, each with an asterisk noting that the speed had not been measured and the figures were based on Northrop estimates. Later reports quietly admitted that the P-61's speed and altitude had not lived up to expectations, but the aircraft was still better than the P-70 or Beaufighter.

Post-war characteristic files gave indications of releasable statistics and classified statistics. The only aircraft where releasable statistics were better than the actual performance was the P-61. (Normally the files avoided informing potential enemies just how good an aircraft was; for the P-61 the releasable characteristics lied about how bad the aircraft was.)

There were very few who knew the truth behind the flyoff. Dick Leggett was the RAF pilot, and he wasn't even aware he'd been involved in a contest. The two (not three) American crewmen died in combat and weren't available for post-war interviews, but the squadron history noted that the American pilots were violently angry that there was to be an attempt to replace their P-61s with Mosquitos. Only three of their crews were considered gifted enough to defend the P-61's (and the squadron's) honor - they drew lots to see who would champion their cause. Compare this with Leggett's instruction to go fly with the P-61's and note his impressions of it's capabilities. These impressions were then written up by the RAF squadron CO to praise the the P-61 as an excellant night fighter.

All this happened after the Brits had to reject the AAF's request for NF.30s to re-equip the US night fighters. It didn't matter who won the flyoff - there were not going to be enough Mosquitos to meet America's needs. (One wonders what would have happened if Eglin's recommendations had been followed more than a year before.) Vandenburg subsequently wrote a report to Washington noting that the P-61 was the "best available" night fighter for his forces -- of course it was, the Mosquito was NOT available. Vandenburg and Spaatz still wanted Mosquitos, but dealt with the aircraft they were provided.

I was in contact with the two AAF officers sent from Washington to run the flyoff. Henry Viccellio died before we got too far into the discussion, but Winston Kraatz was certain that the Mosquito was still the better aircraft.

I ask myself how I would have determined which aircraft was the best night fighter. Would I have run a daylight dogfight with the two aircraft approaching each other from opposite sides of the field to see who could get on the other's tail? Amazing maneuverability was certainly the P-61's strong suit, but not a widely used tactic for night fighters. Would I have run the test above 20,000 feet, where nearly all enemy bombers were able to escape the Black Widow? I find it significant that that was the chosen altitude to end the tests. Would I have placed a target miles away and raced the two aircraft t see who got there first? Again, speed was certainly not factored into the tests. The fly-off had one purpose - to reenforce the confidence of the American crews in their aircraft so that they might fight to the limits of their aircraft's abilities. The test certainly accomplished that, but it did nothing to determine the best night fighter.

(Incidently, the NF.30 was already in production, but deliveries had been delayed due to critical cracks in their flame dampning exhaust manifolds. Coincidentally, the P-61s were being flown without flame dampners. Despite complaints that the Black Widow's exhaust flames were too bright and could be seen from miles away, the dampners further reduced the aircraft's speed and weren't used. How much easier is it to avoid interception from an aircraft that you can see coming?)

Anyhow, that's a small part of how I came to my conclusions. I've been researching America's search for a night fighter since I first hit the National Archives in 1972, and there are still many files I hope to dig through when Covid allows. With luck, I'll be able to release a small monograph on the subject next year...

Cheers,


Dana

 

[GregP]

Hi Dana Bell,

Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.

Though I believe the P-61 to be a very good night fighter, I do not believe the P-61B would outfly all Mosquitoes. There were some fast Mossies. The F-15 version of the P-61 was pretty fast, too, though not a fighter. Also, the P-61 tended to be a bit better with the turret removed. It still had decent armament, was lighter, and faster in that configuration.

I very seriously doubt almost all enemy bombers could escape a P-61 above 20,000 feet. The He-111 was 100 mph slower than the slowest P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The He-177 was 65 mph slower and had a lower service ceiling than the P-61. The Do-217 was 80 mph slower than the P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The Do.335 was definitely faster and had a higher service ceiling, but they only made 11 fighter-bomber versions and 12 trainers through April 1945. A total of 37 were built, but they were never exactly "operational." So, exactly which bombers do you think the Germans used that could outrun a P-61 above 20,000 feet?

The Arado 234 was definitely faster, but could fly no higher, and it was used almost entirely in the reconnaissance role. The very few uses as a bomber were successful, but let's be honest, a Mosquito was also not going to catch an Ar 234. Neither was a Spitfire or a P-51. Now, if the Germans were flying at much over 33,000 feet, they didn't HAVE to outrun the P-61 because it wasn't going to climb up much higher than 33,000 feet anyway.

Maybe the Ju-86? But, it wasn't exactly an effective bomber. We could not hit anything from 31,000 feet with the B-29. I can only imagine what little the Ju-86 could hit from 10,000+ feet higher and almost no bomb load!

It may well have been a bust as a daytime fighter bomber or any other daytime use; I can't say. But the P-61 WAS a pretty good night fighter regardless of whatever else it might or might not do. We had a former P-61 pilot give a talk at the Museum once, and he had nothing but praise for it. He flew other night fighters after the P-61 but said that, for a piston night fighter, it was mighty hard to beat.

 

[wuzak]

Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.

I believe he said he has been searching the US archives for decades.

Anyhow, that's a small part of how I came to my conclusions. I've been researching America's search for a night fighter since I first hit the National Archives in 1972, and there are still many files I hope to dig through when Covid allows. With luck, I'll be able to release a small monograph on the subject next year.

Though I believe the P-61 to be a very good night fighter, I do not believe the P-61B would outfly all Mosquitoes. There were some fast Mossies. The F-15 version of the P-61 was pretty fast, too, though not a fighter. Also, the P-61 tended to be a bit better with the turret removed. It still had decent armament, was lighter, and faster in that configuration.

The F-15 was post war.

It was interesting that the fly-off was being undertaken with a Mosquito NF.II at the time that the NF.30 was in production.

The Mosquito NF.XVII and NF.XIX proceeded the NF.30 and were the first to introduce the AI.Mk.X radar - which was the British designation used for the SCR 720 radar, which was also used by the P-61.

I very seriously doubt almost all enemy bombers could escape a P-61 above 20,000 feet. The He-111 was 100 mph slower than the slowest P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The He-177 was 65 mph slower and had a lower service ceiling than the P-61. The Do-217 was 80 mph slower than the P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The Do.335 was definitely faster and had a higher service ceiling, but they only made 11 fighter-bomber versions and 12 trainers through April 1945. A total of 37 were built, but they were never exactly "operational." So, exactly which bombers do you think the Germans used that could outrun a P-61 above 20,000 feet?

4 or 5 minutes at top speed, which was usually the restriction, would not necessarily close down a bomber stream. A sustainable high speed cruise would be required to get the interceptor in position. We know that the Mosquito could do that, but I am unsure as to what the P-61 could do. Or what range it was capable of at sustained high power running.

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Dana Bell,

Where do you find all that information? I'd like to read the report, too. Not arguing with you and not agreeing. Am discussing only.

Though I believe the P-61 to be a very good night fighter, I do not believe the P-61B would outfly all Mosquitoes. There were some fast Mossies. The F-15 version of the P-61 was pretty fast, too, though not a fighter. Also, the P-61 tended to be a bit better with the turret removed. It still had decent armament, was lighter, and faster in that configuration.

I very seriously doubt almost all enemy bombers could escape a P-61 above 20,000 feet. The He-111 was 100 mph slower than the slowest P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The He-177 was 65 mph slower and had a lower service ceiling than the P-61. The Do-217 was 80 mph slower than the P-61 and had a lower service ceiling. The Do.335 was definitely faster and had a higher service ceiling, but they only made 11 fighter-bomber versions and 12 trainers through April 1945. A total of 37 were built, but they were never exactly "operational." So, exactly which bombers do you think the Germans used that could outrun a P-61 above 20,000 feet?

The Arado 234 was definitely faster, but could fly no higher, and it was used almost entirely in the reconnaissance role. The very few uses as a bomber were successful, but let's be honest, a Mosquito was also not going to catch an Ar 234. Neither was a Spitfire or a P-51. Now, if the Germans were flying at much over 33,000 feet, they didn't HAVE to outrun the P-61 because it wasn't going to climb up much higher than 33,000 feet anyway.

Maybe the Ju-86? But, it wasn't exactly an effective bomber. We could not hit anything from 31,000 feet with the B-29. I can only imagine what little the Ju-86 could hit from 10,000+ feet higher and almost no bomb load!

It may well have been a bust as a daytime fighter bomber or any other daytime use; I can't say. But the P-61 WAS a pretty good night fighter regardless of whatever else it might or might not do. We had a former P-61 pilot give a talk at the Museum once, and he had nothing but praise for it. He flew other night fighters after the P-61 but said that, for a piston night fighter, it was mighty hard to beat.

Hi Greg,

There is no single source for the story. As I noted, I had interviews and correspondence with several of the participants. The records were scattered across Record Group 18 (HQ AAF) and RG 342 (Sarah Clark/Wright Field). It's taken more than 45 years to find and copy what I have so far, and there are still several files to go. (So far the file covers a bit over five linear feet.) I have avoided secondary sources, other than to see what's already been reported or published. As I noted, I'm hoping to release a monograph on the the whole story, but there are three other books that need to be finished first.

Remember that by early 1944 the Ninth AF was concerned about enemy attacks against the upcoming beach head. There wouldn't be a long period to intercept an aircraft crossing the coast on its way to London or Hull - the Germans could be over the ground forces in an instant, drop their loads, and be headed for home before they were intercepted. A good night fighter didn't need to be as-fast-as or faster-than -- it needed to have vastly superior speed at all altitudes or it was just wasting fuel and adding to its crews' flight hours.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[GregP]

Hi Wayne, the P-61 was as fast as very many Mosquitoes. There WERE some faster, to be sure, but the P-61 could catch ANY German piston bomber that was in service in any decent quantities.

I saw him say he had been searching the archive for decades. That doesn't answer the question of where the detailed information about the test in question came from, which was my question. The vast majority of Mosquitoes built were NOT faster than the P-61. Some were, IX, XVI, 30, 34, and 35. Altogether, not very many airframes. The likelihood of the Mosquito in question being one the them is low. I seriously doubt the Mosquito in question was an NF.30 since the P-61 in the actual test came out faster. Much more likely, it was an earlier mark that was generally no faster than the P-61 or it would have actually BEEN faster. That's why I wanted to read the report.

A sustained high speed is not really required to get into position. They knew where the Germans were coming from and could see their course on radar. And night fighters didn't have to be vastly faster than their targets. It certainly helped, but the Ju 88 night fighters make that claim go away. They were slower than the daytime Ju 88s which, though fast enough, were considerably slower than a P-61. And the Ju-88 was an excellent night fighter. The fastest Ju 88 was just under 300 mph. The P-61 was 65 - 70 mph faster. The Bf 110 was another successful German night fighter that was quite a bit slower then the P-61. But you don't see people claiming they weren't fast enough, do you?

Again, the P-61 was not a great combat airplane, but it was a pretty good night fighter.

 

[wuzak]

I seriously doubt the Mosquito in question was an NF.30 since the P-61 in the actual test came out faster. Much more likely, it was an earlier mark that was generally no faster than the P-51 or it would have actually BEEN faster.

No, it was an NF.II

The vast majority of Mosquitoes built were NOT faster than the P-61. Some were, IX, XVI, 30, 34, and 35.

The vast majority of Mosquitoes were at least as fast, or faster, than the P-61A/B.

The F.II was slower, by about 10mph, the FB.VI much the same as the P-61. All the bomber and PR versions (except the very early ones without ejector exhausts) were faster than the P-61.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

All the bomber and PR versions (except the very early ones without ejector exhausts) were faster than the P-61.

Weren't both bomber and PR-variant Mosquitoes unarmed?

 

[GregP]

I actually SAID the Mosquito and P-61 used in the test were pretty even matched in speed. That would be MOST Mosquitoes. There were some faster, but the percent of the already low number built is low. A basic Mk.II had about 365 mph top speed and the NF equipment lowered that by about 16 mph, according to several books and sites. So the NF.II Mosquito was about a 350 mph machine at best height and max power.

I'm not overly surprised that a P-61 could be made to fly faster since it is specified as faster almost everywhere except maybe in places in this thread. I am not getting into a Mosquito debate and really don't want to pursue the P-61 anymore, either, in an XB-42 thread. The Mosquito was a pretty good airplane with an abysmal Vmc that was never produced in enough numbers for anyone but Britain to use very many of them. Very cool to see new-build units flying. But I have spoken with a few people who flew them during the war and also someone who has flown a new-build unit and am not a huge fan of the type except that it IS a WWII airplane and I generally love all of them if they are flyable.

What I said and am saying is the P-61 was a pretty good night fighter; and it was. It also had the last aerial victories of the war over Japan.

Cheers.

 

[Zipper730]

The F-15 was post war.

In WWII the designation for photo-reconnaissance in the US was "F" for "Foto" (probably as in Fotografia), which largely comprised a hodge-podge of aircraft from modified fighters and bombers, and a reconnaissance variant of the P-61C was called the XF-15 Reporter (in the post war it was re-designated the RF-61C).

Remember that by early 1944 the Ninth AF was concerned about enemy attacks against the upcoming beach head. There wouldn't be a long period to intercept an aircraft crossing the coast on its way to London or Hull - the Germans could be over the ground forces in an instant, drop their loads, and be headed for home before they were intercepted. A good night fighter didn't need to be as-fast-as or faster-than -- it needed to have vastly superior speed at all altitudes or it was just wasting fuel and adding to its crews' flight hours.

The margins wouldn't have been as extreme, at least in some ways, as a day-fighter, as it was generally a common practice among night-fighters to carry out standing-patrols, but you'd need to be able to run them down from the rear at a decent enough rate. That said, I'm of the school of thought that the turbo would have been the better choice depending on what the range/endurance requirements were at what time.

 

[wuzak]

In WWII the designation for photo-reconnaissance in the US was "F" for "Foto" (probably as in Fotografia), which largely comprised a hodge-podge of aircraft from modified fighters and bombers, and a reconnaissance variant of the P-61C was called the XF-15 Reporter (in the post war it was re-designated the RF-61C)

The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.

The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.

The redesignation occurred when the USAAF became the USAF in late 1947, more than 2 years after the end of WW2.

 

[GrauGeist]

The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.

The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.

The redesignation occurred when the USAAF became the USAF in late 1947, more than 2 years after the end of WW2.

Just a quick note:
The XF-15/F-15A name existed between 1945 and 1947, after the USAF came into being ('47 onward), the F-15A was renamed RF-61C.

 

[Zipper730]

The XF-15 Reporter was converted from an XP-61E, which itself was based on the P-61B. First flight was July 1945.

The second prototype was the XF-15A, which was a converted P-61C. First flight was October 1945.

I thought you meant the F-15 (as in the F-15 Eagle) was post-war.

 

[wuzak]

I thought you meant the F-15 (as in the F-15 Eagle) was post-war.

Why would I mean that?

To clarify, the F-15 Reporter was post war.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

GregP,

You seem to be slavishly devoted to AAF propaganda on the P-61. If you wish to find the truth for yourself, I suggest you go to D.C. (when NARA II finally opens again) and spend a couple of months (minimum) going through the ORIGINAL SOURCE FILES on the P-61 found in Record Groups 324 and 18. READ THEM ALL CAREFULLY.

I''m extremely confident that with the exception of interviewing those now deceased you will find precisely what Dana Bell said was the case and that whatever sources you are using - and I have personal doubts that any are original source - will be proven self-serving (to the AAF) and inaccurate.

AlanG

 

[BiffF15]

GregP,

You seem to be slavishly devoted to AAF propaganda on the P-61. If you wish to find the truth for yourself, I suggest you go to D.C. (when NARA II finally opens again) and spend a couple of months (minimum) going through the ORIGINAL SOURCE FILES on the P-61 found in Record Groups 324 and 18. READ THEM ALL CAREFULLY.

I''m extremely confident that with the exception of interviewing those now deceased you will find precisely what Dana Bell said was the case and that whatever sources you are using - and I have personal doubts that any are original source - will be proven self-serving (to the AAF) and inaccurate.

AlanG

Please share.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Air Force Magazine had a comprehensive artical on the P-61 - although I suppose it's all "AAF propaganda"...
They Owned the Night - Air Force Magazine

 

[Niceoldguy58]

Ms. Grant's article is very much like the icing on a cake - sweet and delicious but with little food or lasting value.

I have virtually all the books on the P-61, and while most are fun to read they - as with many aviation history books - walk across the surface of the ocean but never dive beneath the surface to find the gist of the real story.

The USAAF did all it could to hide the shortcomings of the P-61. They had little choice as the British would not sell large numbers of the Mossie NF's as they desperately needed them themselves to protect both the skies over England but the bomber's over Germany.

I repeat once again, there is NO way to know the true history of any aircraft unless you go to the Archives that have the original records or you find a book written by an historian known for his/her devotion to original source documentation used in the preparation of their books or articles. I cannot repeat the terms "original source" often or strongly enough. Most writers (NOT historians) don't do this depth of research as it is very time consuming, can be expensive if you're having to travel to the various archives around the U.S. - or in England, Germany, etc. - and stay long enough to dig through all the documents and photos pertaining to your topic of choice. I once spent three straight months in a motel in the D.C. area doing research at NARA II. That was LOT of years ago...and I scanned more than 17,000 pages and photos during that time, and probably went through nearly 1 that many to find the meat.

One more thing, you cannot rely on the title of the folders when going through them. This means that to find the one folder that holds The Holy Grail you may have to go through dozens of files checking their contents. This can result in some dazzling discoveries of unknown materials in the process, but it can also mean days of tedious page turning with little to show for it. Ask me or any other historian how I know. LOL

I hope the above helps to describe the research process and what a serious historian must do in order to obtain and maintain their bona fides. Just because someone has written a book or two on a subject does NOT make him an historian or researcher. It MAY make them a writer, but with little relationship to the TRUTH.

Submitted for your consideration,

AlanG

 

[BiffF15]

Ms. Grant's article is very much like the icing on a cake - sweet and delicious but with little food or lasting value.

I have virtually all the books on the P-61, and while most are fun to read they - as with many aviation history books - walk across the surface of the ocean but never dive beneath the surface to find the gist of the real story.

The USAAF did all it could to hide the shortcomings of the P-61. They had little choice as the British would not sell large numbers of the Mossie NF's as they desperately needed them themselves to protect both the skies over England but the bomber's over Germany.

I repeat once again, there is NO way to know the true history of any aircraft unless you go to the Archives that have the original records or you find a book written by an historian known for his/her devotion to original source documentation used in the preparation of their books or articles. I cannot repeat the terms "original source" often or strongly enough. Most writers (NOT historians) don't do this depth of research as it is very time consuming, can be expensive if you're having to travel to the various archives around the U.S. - or in England, Germany, etc. - and stay long enough to dig through all the documents and photos pertaining to your topic of choice. I once spent three straight months in a motel in the D.C. area doing research at NARA II. That was LOT of years ago...and I scanned more than 17,000 pages and photos during that time, and probably went through nearly 1 that many to find the meat.

One more thing, you cannot rely on the title of the folders when going through them. This means that to find the one folder that holds The Holy Grail you may have to go through dozens of files checking their contents. This can result in some dazzling discoveries of unknown materials in the process, but it can also mean days of tedious page turning with little to show for it. Ask me or any other historian how I know. LOL

I hope the above helps to describe the research process and what a serious historian must do in order to obtain and maintain their bona fides. Just because someone has written a book or two on a subject does NOT make him an historian or researcher. It MAY make them a writer, but with little relationship to the TRUTH.

Submitted for your consideration,

AlanG

Alan,

As a fan of all things aviation in WW2, in general, and the P-61 in particular, if you have information to share please do!

Cheers,
Biff