SOH P-61 project

[warchild]

No, not inappropriate.. and appreciated.. If there is one thing i would LOVE to do, its would bre to put an end to the bickering between the P-61 camp and the mossy camp once and for all ( but i font imagine theres much possibility at that ). Your defining mossies in such a succinct way has clearly put them in a completely different realm than the P-61. Although there is overlap, the two clearly are not even related, and thats what ive been attempting to say all along ( albeit with zero success.. meh, i'm a number cruncher, not an orator ). They are both splendid aircraft. The only thing they have in common was that they were both purpose designed aircraft that were adapted for other roles. The mossie became a nightfighter and the p-61 became an intruder. Thats really about as close of a comparison as can be made..
Of course, we could compare individual systems, but where would that get us?? The P-61 could carry bombs, but its crews werent trained as bombardiers, sooo,, when it came to dropping bombs, they sucked.. Not the planes fault.. With the P-61s four canon alone its considered to be the most devastating aircraft of world war two. it could shred anything.. Then when they added back the turret on top ( politics again, during the later half of the P-61A cycle and the first half of the P-61B cycle, all turrets being manufactured were slated for the b-29 ) and cemented the title.. The Mossie didnt have that kind of firepower. it wasnt originally designed for it. Not the planes fault..

its like trying to determine which is better, a fast freight locomotive or a bulldozer. The P-61 was a bulldozer. It had two speeds, slow and 421 mph ( although pilots were known to fly it past 470 mph in dives ) but it packed a major wallop in its guns. The mossie was fast freight. It was capable of a lot of devastation, but it wasnt a bulldozer. Speed wise, it didnt fly as slowly as the P-61 but its top end was about the same..
They just arent comparable to each other..

[AndyG43]

Far from just being a number cruncher Pam, you are a skilled artist!!!

[SkippyBing]

The Mossie didnt have that kind of firepower

The Mosquito FB Mk XVIII might have been close though, a 57mm anti-tank cannon makes a hell of a mess!

[PRB]

And as my contribution was obviously not appreciated, I'll make this my final post in the FSX forum. Mods, would you please remove my comments from this thread, as it appears to have been inappropriate. Thank you.

Good luck with the P-61 project gents, looking forward to the results.

I appreciate your contributions to this thread, just for the record, so don't go away!

[warchild]

The Mosquito FB Mk XVIII might have been close though, a 57mm anti-tank cannon makes a hell of a mess!

I think you hit the nail on the head skippy.. These planes were all very close in armament capabilities. But if we started looking at only that aspect, we'd have to pull other aircraft into the picture as well out of fairness.. The B-25 mitchell with its eight nose mounted fifty calibers, The A-26 with its nose mounts, turret and rocket pods, The Ac-47 with its five inch howitzer.. I mean, the list would go on and on.. yeah, these planes were all very close, but each of them was a thoroughbred with completely different mission objectives in their designs.

Truly, the most devestating aircraft to be used in world war two, was the C-119 ( but it took thirty years to make it that way ). They added four 7.62mm gatling guns, two Bofors canon and a five inch canon in the nose.. It stands to this day as the only american aircraft that the Viet cong would not fire at. Indeed, they were ordered not to fire on her.. The reason?? Quote " You might make the dragon angry".

Obviosly the C-119 is in a class all of its very own, but the owl, the mossie and the widow were very close.. Of the three, only the owl and the widow were alike in that they were both designed from the outset for one very specific job. And theres always debates raging on that field as well as to which one was better.. To me, they were all great planes.. The Mossie and the Widow werent comeptitors. They were part of a team, and flew alongside each other in a manner of speaking. They're crews didnt care whisch was better, they cared more about just getting home for christmas and ending the damned war.. Hell, they even got each other drunk.

The bottom line is ( in my opinion ) that as soon as you take any of these aircraft out of the context of the history they inhabited, the observation is made invalid. Its reduced to nothing more than a catalog of components. That isnt right.. The men and women who flew these things deserve so much better than that..

Pam

[davidwbray]

Sorry for this being my first post. I have been following this since the onset of the project. The P-61 is one of my all time favorite aircraft.

I just don't think that you can compare the Mossie and the Black Widow fairly. That is unless you look at 2 totally different designs that evolved beyond their original capabilities. The Widow started out on the drawing board as a night-fighter/interceptor. Eventually she was doing fighter-bomber raids and guiding crippled B-29's into Iwo Jima. The Mossie started out as a medium-bomber, as has been said she eventually came to do just about every job possible in a plane (including transporting live lobsters fast from the east coast.)

[warchild]

Sorry for this being my first post. I have been following this since the onset of the project. The P-61 is one of my all time favorite aircraft.

I just don't think that you can compare the Mossie and the Black Widow fairly. That is unless you look at 2 totally different designs that evolved beyond their original capabilities. The Widow started out on the drawing board as a night-fighter/interceptor. Eventually she was doing fighter-bomber raids and guiding crippled B-29's into Iwo Jima. The Mossie started out as a medium-bomber, as has been said she eventually came to do just about every job possible in a plane (including transporting live lobsters fast from the east coast.)

Wellll, you cant compare David, and thats what we've been saying. I think though, what is capable of being explored here in this thread in regards to comparrisons has been explored. there a lots of good publications on all these planes that go into far greater detail thaN we're capable of here. and like robert suggested, i think that if people wish to discuss it further, that a seperate thread should be started. But with passions the way thery can be, i recommend against it. Its far better to allow each person to own their own opinion rather than to try and prove your own. Nothing is ever gained by being the loudest and most demanding, but entire worlds can be had with a smile and a nod... And no David, that wasnt directed at yoy, but merely a thought on the reason for my suggestion for everyone.

Pam

[Rich]

P61 superior fire power over the Mosquito ?? forget the P61 turret 4x20mm cannon is 4x20mm cannon, Mosquito 4x20mm cannon is 4x20mm cannon, kindly explain how the P61 is a more powerful armament.

[stansdds]

Mmm, turrets - I always thought we Brits proved that turrets on fighters were a bad idea early on, with the Defiant and the Skua (and even trial installations on the Mossie & the Beaufighter (probably a better candidate if you want a genuine P-61 competitor)- thank goodness they dropped that idea). Personally I think the turret ruined the lines of the Widow, can't have helped the performance any either.

It did not help the flight characteristics. With the turret turned to the sides, it is reported that it induced instability resulting in the aircraft buffeting. I think the designers would have been better served by using a low profile turret similar to those on the B-29 Super Fortress.

[warchild]

ummm, ::chcukles:: not meaning to be insulting, but those WERE then turrets on the B-29. Thats why so many of the P-61s didnt have turrets. They got given to the B-29. But you folks are right.. The turrets caused buffeting during dives. I imagine they caused buffeting at high speed as well.
Originally a high dome design, the military tried everything from bubblegum to coolie hats which were a little inverted bowl shaped thing welded above the turret. The coolie hat worked ( to a degree ) but had a nasty habit of getting ripped off during a dive. Then, GE changed the shape of the dome, and gave it that nice low profile dome you see on our P-61. This was released on the later P-61Bs and worked beautifully, as long as you didnt rotate the turret during a dive or at high speed..In which case, the buffeting returned..
Some commanders had the turrets locked in the forward position, other commanders flipped washington the bird and left the turrets off.
I dont really know a lot about what went on behind doors at Northrop and GE regarding the turret. Originally with the R/O acting as a gunner it seemed like a great idea, but it obviously had its drawbacks when it came to the aircrafts performance.

Part of the problem I believe is that the problems were caused by the fact that the turret was longer than the plane was wide, so when you rotated, parts of the turret were hanging off in the airstream. It was unavoidable.

[warchild]

OK Gentlemen, We're open for business.. It was the concensus of many that the information in this thread was too valuable to lose. I've removed some threads do to their irrelevancy to the subject, including one of my own. As for people wishing to argue and cause problems, I will quote an admin... "You know who you are and if you do it again, you won't even be able to find this site, much less this thread!"

I think that covers it..

Pam

[Roger]

[AndyG43]

Aye aye Cap'n Pam

[Walter]

YAY! It's Back! Thank you soooo much!!

Walter

[hairyspin]

Gosh! Thanks Pam!