XB-42?

[MIflyer]

Few things speak to the USAAF's attitude toward the P-61 than does the development of the P-38M. They were looking for much higher performance but concluded in the Pacific that the P-38M's drawbacks overcame its higher performance and the P-61 was still a better night fighter. I could post that section of a book if you would like.

Perhaps the best thing that could be said about the P-61 was that it was WWII's best Heavy Fighter. The Mossie was a wonder plane, and good for many more things than a night fighter, but any version of the DH 98 versus an FW-190 or BF-109 in daylight without a wingman to cover his Six was at a serious disadvantage, one on one. If the Mossie could not outrun that single seat fighter he was toast. In contrast. the P-61 was considered to be the USAAF's "most maneuverable fighter" and one highly experienced P-61 test pilot said that in a P-61 with a top turret and an a good crew he could take on any four WWII prop fighters and win. But ironically the Heavy Fighter concept was not one the USAAF embraced and by the end of the war everyone else had found out the hard way that it had its severe drawbacks, at best.

 

[pbehn]

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

I agree. Her assertion that "Yet more than any other World War II fighter, the P-61 foreshadowed the highly instrumented cockpits and two-man crew arrangement that could make the most of radar in the air battle." is nonsense. The P-61 was designed for a three man crew when people were enamoured with turrets. Taking the turret out leaves you with what a single Defiant was, something too big slow and heavy. Designing a night fighter when you have only a vague idea of what is needed of a night fighter doesn't guarantee success. What was needed was speed altitude and endurance/range plus a pilot and operator. The size and weight of RADAR equipment was quickly driven down by the need to fit it into small airframes.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

To those wanting copies of the documents to which I refer in my previous posts, I regret I cannot and will not share them.

As for why, if I've been able to spend the time and money to go research the topic, so can you. Second, I have been privileged to have access to the many, many documents and photos other historical researchers have gathered for their individual projects and must, therefore, demur from spreading that information any more than I already have. I wish to protect the bona fides of the REAL researchers and authors and not do anything to help the "gatherers and writers".

That all may sound self-serving and self-righteous. Frankly, I don't care. That's the way it is. I will always share data in a forum in situations where I don't need it for one of my projects or where it represents a miniscule portion of what I will eventually produce.

AlanG

 

[pbehn]

To those wanting copies of the documents to which I refer in my previous posts, I regret I cannot and will not share them.

As for why, if I've been able to spend the time and money to go research the topic, so can you. Second, I have been privileged to have access to the many, many documents and photos other historical researchers have gathered for their individual projects and must, therefore, demur from spreading that information any more than I already have. I wish to protect the bona fides of the REAL researchers and authors and not do anything to help the "gatherers and writers".

That all may sound self-serving and self-righteous. Frankly, I don't care. That's the way it is. I will always share data in a forum in situations where I don't need it for one of my projects or where it represents a miniscule portion of what I will eventually produce.

AlanG

I dont think you will find many in disagreement, it is forum policy AFAIK.

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi all,

I know this isn't another P-61 versus Mosquito thread, but I wanted to clarify that Alan is protecting my research. We often shared research tables and lunches at the Nationl Archives - two opportunities to jump up and down and call out "OOH, OOH - look what I just found!" (There's nothing more fun than sharing with a research buddy!)

Most of the P-61 problems were buried by Wright Field. When the first XP-61 was evaluated by the Materiel Division's offices, there were two types of reaction: the static tests were relatively positive, with somewhat minor changes called out. But the flight tests were very critical, recommending that a new aircraft be ordered. Notes on performance advised that there was little chance the P-61 would improve, and a likely chance that performance would be further degraded when "upgrades" were installed. The coverup came from Wright Field's reports to Washington that emphasized that ALL reports were enthusiastic - there was no mention that flight tests had been disappointing.

The failure to report problems to Washington - to actually lie about recognized performance failures - might help explain why so many books and articles praise the P-61. Authors viewing only the HQ AAF files will see only the recognition of this new wonderplane, while those digging into Wright Field internal reports pain a completely different picture.

BTW - wait 'till you all see the new material Alan has dug up for the B-32, B-24, and his other projects!

Cheers,



Dana

 

[33k in the air]

BTW - wait 'till you all see the new material Alan has dug up for the B-32, B-24, and his other projects!

Intriguing. Any teasers that can be shared?