SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I did buy book entitled The World's Worst Aircraft.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I did buy book entitled The World's Worst Aircraft.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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The vast majority of Mosquitoes built were NOT faster than the P-61. Some were, IX, XVI, 30, 34, and 35.
All the bomber and PR versions (except the very early ones without ejector exhausts) were faster than the P-61.
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 F-15 was post war.
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.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.
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)
Just a quick note: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.
I thought you meant the F-15 (as in the F-15 Eagle) was post-war.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.
Please share.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
Alan,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 1that 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