Northrop P-61 and other night fighters

[Guest Murph]

DId they do their job? I have a soft spot in my heart for the old P-61A/B/C.

[RETAC21]

Why? the Mossie is the way to go.

[oldsoak]

or the He 219. All good planes and in the hands of a good pilot and radar operator not to be sneezed at. I understand the Northrop Black Widow was used in Europe with some success - any facts and figures anyone ?

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

or the Me-262. Kurt Welter was credited with 25 Mosquitos shot down at night w/ the jet, the majority without radar.

 

Were not Beaufighters also an important night fighter/intruder?

[oldsoak]

Thats impressive - considering the high cruising speed of the 262in relation to the mossie. Picking up a mossie visually at night and closing to firing range must have been quite a trick. A lot smaller than a lanc or halifax and at jet speeds pretty easy to overshoot.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Field trials of a 422nd NFS P-61 v. a 125 Sdn Mosquito NF XVII in July 1944 showed the former, suprisingly, faster at all altitudes tested (up to 20k ft), superior in climb and, not surprisingly, markedly superior in turn (the P-61 could outturn most single engine fighters). Mark XVII was not the highest performance Mosquito mark by any means but a satisfactory comtemporary operational type.

 

So the P61 was a reasonably capable night fighter aerodynamically in its time. Anyway the key was the radar, and in this the two were equal as most later Mosquito NF's had the same radar, SRC-720 (designated AI Mk. X by the British) or the slightly inferior British AI Mk. VIII.

 

I think the most impressive nightfighter of WWII though was the F6F-5N. This concept of single seat/single engine radar equipped night fighter relied on development of radars considerably more advanced and compact than SRC-720, like APS-6. The performance penalty over a day Hellcat was fairly minor. These were, against the opponents they faced, the first true all weather fighters, quite capable of meeting enemy single engine fighters successfully in visual combat as a regular practice, though some twin night fighters did it in exceptional cases.

 

Joe

[Kenneth P. Katz]

How successful in night and all-weather conditions were the single seat radar-equipped fighters such as the F6F-5P? It seems to me like the workload imposed by a night/all-weather fighter on a pilot alone without a WSO/RIO was unacceptably high until the F-15 generation of avionics technology.

[Burncycle360]

I kinda like the F-15 Reporters bubble canopy

[T-44]

Originally posted by oldsoak:

Thats impressive - considering the high cruising speed of the 262in relation to the mossie. Picking up a mossie visually at night and closing to firing range must have been quite a trick. A lot smaller than a lanc or halifax and at jet speeds pretty easy to overshoot.

 

Yes, but mossies didn't had any defense, like heavier, larger bombers. There defense was speed, and the Me262 certainly beat them there, so it could take its time to maneuvre into the right position.

[oldsoak]

One thing about the mossie was that there was little rearward vision downwards - the wings and the fuselage got in the way so any attack from below may not bee seen at all. The Black widow would have been an interesting target for a 262 - didnt they have a observer facing rearwards? - so attacks from behind and below more difficult and a fair chance or turning the tables. A pity the USAAC

could'nt get them into combat earlier - like the beginning of 44. Loads of intruder missions could have made life very uncomfortable for some and gone a nice way to lowering bomber commands losses.

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

Originally posted by T-44:

There defense was speed, and the Me262 certainly beat them there, so it could take its time to maneuvre into the right position.

 

Sounds like having so much speed on tap made it easier to 'catch the mouse' once it was found.

 

"But no one thought it possible that a jet could be flown at night, or that a fighter without radar could accomplish such things. "Actually," Czypionka explains, "it really wasn't that hard to see them. The fires below would reflect on them, or, if they were over clouds, the searchlights would silhouette them. Having an airplane that could catch up to them almost as soon as they saw them made it easy."

 

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wild...wilde_sau_1.asp

 

It does sound like Welter was one of those 'ace of aces' however, and not typical.

 

Interestingly, one problem with Mosquito hunting with Me-262's was that the quad 30mm cannon was overkill and would totally disintegrate them.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Kenneth P. Katz:

How successful in night and all-weather conditions were the single seat radar-equipped fighters such as the F6F-5P? It seems to me like the workload imposed by a night/all-weather fighter on a pilot alone without a WSO/RIO was unacceptably high until the F-15 generation of avionics technology.

 

You can't compare then's technology to now, but those aircraft were fairly successful. Marine night squadrons had over 100 victories, all but a few with F6F's, produced a few night aces, esp. over Okinawa, but Leyte also where the F6F had a double advantage over the P-61, faster v. night intruder single engine fighters, and could fight in visual conditions at dawn and dusk against escorted raids. The Navy had success too but not as not as many opportunities. Also compared to night Corsairs, F4U-5N later over Korea did have a reputation for too high a workload for one man esp. in the predominant night strike role there in mountainous terrain, unfavorably compared to the F7F in this respect (another impressive type from right at the end of WWII). The Hellcat had a lower basic flying workload, which benefitted it in day ops and carrier ops generally too of course.

 

Even night singles w/o radar could be successful with the right training, GCI and radar directed searchlights in point defence, like the German wild boars, and Soviet MiG-15 nightfighters over Korea which gave B-29's night raids a hard time for a while (especially fall'52-early 53) til ECM, B-29 nightfighter escorts and change of seasons (generally poorer visibility conditions) prevented losses after Jan '53.

 

Anyway the radar equipped single could do better than without radar and WWII twins didn't have real autonomous blind intercept capability either, they came across targets by patrolling likely places (like a bomber stream). By all weather also I really meant a night radar fighter that could routinely fight effectively in daylight too, not ability to fight in really bad weather, which again WWII twins couldn't do either.

 

Joe

[Guest Murph]

The P-61C model was used for weather work after the war, and became the basis of the F-15A photo recon plane. I have always liked the P-61 series of fighters especially the B/C models.

 

Apparently a Brit upon seeing the P-61 for the first time, made a comment that only a Yank could come up with something that big.

[gewing]

black widow had some impressive firepower for ground attack too, iirc. One of my favorites for some reason.

 

 

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Some excellent points. What you say is probably true, but an advantage to the mossie is that as a production article, on the line it could be altered to Nightfighter, bomber, interdiction etc relatively easily. A P61 AFAIK was designed specifically as an nightfighter. It was undoubtely excellent,(and ive many fond memories of making a model of one aged 6   but if trade was low (as it undoubtedly was when it entered service) then it begins to look like a waste of resources. Germany had a similar problem with the HE219. It was a great nightfighter, but you have to ask, how many FW190s did it consume in production? Both the Mossie and the Beaufighter (and Me110)look like better compromises despite the fact there were undoubtedly better nightfighters, simply because the line could produce other variants at less cost in time and production costs.

 

Performance wasnt as great an issue by night as it was by day. The tradeoff was that you often couldnt use the nightfighter by day, though as that often would have meant a loss of specialised equipment and crew, im not convinced that was always a bad thing. Me262 night fighter Im not conviced was a great idea. I did hear you could see the engines at night, which in something with good rear vision like a lancaster could be a distinct advantage. sure you could use the same aircraft by day and night, but considering the maintainance the 262 required, you have to ask how often you would be able to use it at night, worn out by the amount of operations it undoubtedly would have been forced to undertake at night. Sure it was a great mossie killer. But by that stage in the war, that probably was of minimal value. It wasnt the mossie that was undertaking the thousand bomber raids.

 

For that reason, Id argue the USAAF would have been better off with the nightfighter version of the P38.(J?) It might have got into service quicker, and able to use production of an excellent fighter that was begining to look outdated as the war went on, at least in air to air roles.Anyway, a 2 seater P38 looked cool  

 

[MiloMorai]

Stuart, there was two fuselage molds for the Mossie. One for the bomber version and another for the FB/NF version.

 

The Mossie NF30 was coming off the production lines when the P-61-Mossie comparison was made. The NF30, a much more potent a/c than the P-61A.

[Guest Sargent]

"Germany had a similar problem with the HE219. It was a great nightfighter, but you have to ask, how many FW190s did it consume in production?"

 

The He219 was conceived as a multi-role a/c. It could have done many other roles if Milch hadn't had a hair up his a$$ with Heinkel.

 

If your cities and citizens are being turned to cinders by night bombing, then the night-fighter which works is a lot more cost-effective than several multi-role fighter/attack a/c.

[Guest bojan]

How does late-war/post-war Mosquito NF Mk.38 compare to those?

[MiloMorai]

Stuart, some links for you,

www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt

www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html

www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie.htm

www.vectorsite.net/avmoss.html

[Guest Sargent]

re Stuart: The He219 was not designed as a specialist night fighter, it is thought of as such because that was what the few produced were used for. The He219C was a bomber version complete with tail turret, and the weapons bay could handle a lot of armament fits.

 

It could have been used for reconaissance, torpedo-bombing, or ground attack. It was a newer and more capable airframe than the Ju88 and Bf110, which were mid-30s designs. The Bf110 was only kept in service because the Me210 flopped, and the Ju88 would have been replaced by "Bomber B" if the Techniches Amt had ever pulled their thumbs out.

 

The P-61 is similar. It was used as nightfighter, but that central nacelle design makes for flexibility. It could carry a B-25's bombload faster and there was a recon version (which designation I CRS) built and used post-war. It was capable of doing the job of the B-25 and B-26, but setting up new training and logistics for a new type just wasn't on. There wasn't anything usable for a night-fighter (the P-70 was regarded as a stopgap & trainer), so it had its own little niche for training and the logistics tail for a few night-fighter squadrons doesn't really upset planning that much. But converting the entire medium bomber force to a new type was out of the question.

 

[Edited by Sargent (27 Nov 2004).]

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

What you had was yet another airframe being built for a role that could have been fullfilled by aircraft suitably modified like the P38.(which I recall from an issue of Flypast did actually exist in at least prototype form. P38M? Damned if I can remember)

P-38M is correct. The thing was that aviation electrinics was making tremendous strides. When P-61 design began, you needed that big central nacelle to house electronics and radar personnel. By late 1944, you had radar that could fit into a small pod on the wing of an F4U or F6F and be operated by the pilot.

For the US it didnt matter, you had production lines to cover all contingencies. Not really, we got the production we did by standardization. We could support a small digression like P-61, but switching B-25 or B-26 lines over was not possible unless we wanted no new bombers for a year or so.

But for countries that had their production lines squeezed like Britain and Germany, its an important issue. Germany had Me110, Ju88, DO217,He219,Me262, and nightfighter versions of Go229 and Do335 in development at the end of the war. Britain had 2 main nightfighter types by midwar, and by the end I suspect it was concentrating on Mosquito. Im sure that the US and Germany could perhaps build better nightfighters. But in the end it doesnt really matter. Germany had great designs coming out of their ears. But they couldnt build or operate them in numbers enough to matter.

They couldn't build anything else in quantities enough to matter either. Or fuel them and train pilots if they could build them. This may seem inconsistent with my remarks on US standardization above, but the truth was that Germany lacked the basic infrastructure no matter what road they took.

[AaronW]

Years ago I read an article in some warbirds type magazine, it related a contest in the Pacific between a P61 and P47, the P61 completely dominated the P47 in a daylight dogfight and that was strictly assuming use of the belly 20mm's no turret. It also said the turretless (B model?) P61's did quite well against Japanese fighters when caught after daylight.

 

Many see that large aircraft but don't realize it was actually built to be fighter, fast and manueverable. The wing and flap design were supposed to be very advanced for the time.

 

As far as if it should have been built or not I think it is a matter of timing, when it was proposed there was a need for night fighters, by the time it was available in numbers there were other aircraft that could do the job effectively. The P61 might have made a useful attack bomber like the A-26 if there had been a need.

[MiloMorai]

Aaron are you thinking off the Fighter Competition flown in 1944? The P-61 surprised quite a few fighter jocks.

 

The P-61 also flew night intruder mission with bombs and rockets late in the war.

 

Worth the read

 

 

In the appendices there is a list of P-61 'kills' by unit.

 

Osprey has a book each on Mosquito FB, NF and B units.

[shep854]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Fair point.Interestingly I gather that the prototype mosquito (with fighter bomber configuration I think)was written off in a flying accident, and a bomber version fuselage was fitted, so I suppose at least the wings and flying surfaces were common.

 

 

The Mossie was conceived as a high-speed, unarmed bomber that used few strategic resources. After its success in that role, it was realized that the airframe was highly adaptable. AFIK, the prototype is still on display at the DeHavilland museum.

[Balabanov]

OK guys, a bit of the inevitable off-topic Some parts of the discussion below prompted me to remember a question I've wanted to ask long time ago:

 

Does someone have a breakdown of the costs of the differenet WWII airplanes? I know it is a vague definition, but anything will be better than no info at all UK, US, German -- single or multi-engined machines? I'm really curious about this!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

All the best,

Ivan B.

[swerve]

Originally posted by Balabanov:

OK guys, a bit of the inevitable off-topic    Some parts of the discussion below prompted me to remember a question I've wanted to ask long time ago:

 

Does someone have a breakdown of the costs of the differenet WWII airplanes?  I know it is a vague definition, but anything will be better than no info at all    UK, US, German -- single or multi-engined machines?  I'm really curious about this!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

All the best,

Ivan B.

 

I once remember reading that a Bf109 took 60% of the man-hours to build that a Spitfire did, & a P-47 cost at least 50% more than a P-51, but that's all. Now if I can remember the sources . . .