Talk:Northrop P-61 Black Widow/Archive 1

Range
Didn't the P-61 have a range of like 1,500 nm? The 600 nm range figure seems quite small. AVKent882 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Combat Range" has been confused with "Combat Radius?" 199.30.157.148 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Missed step 5
I missed Step 5, didn't I?GarageBay9


 * Brandon T?Moriori 01:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be my name. Set it as my auto-sig eons ago and forgot to change it--I've been doing my sigs by hand the whole time. o_O  Just changed it in my preferences and decided to fix it here.GarageBay9

Merger of introduction with Night Fighter article
While I can fully understand why, to somebody who reads the article in it's current state, the text that covers the progress of nocturnal air combat might seem more appropriate there, I have found as a P-61 researcher that the aircraft's history is much easier both to understand and to explain when a parallel precis as well as important aspects and milestones of nocturnal air warfare are presented in key places. Several significant events and effects concerning the P-61 and its service were intimately tied to the state of evolution or the character of night fighting at the time. Omitting that crucial context and reference makes the conveyance of the P-61's history much more difficult to successfully undertake, and to understand.

Said sections may not be in the article yet, but the passages about night fighting will click into place once they are. Until then, they don't really detract, either--it's a solid link to the aircraft's early origins.GarageBay9 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)\


 * Section 'To fly and wage war in the dark' should definitely be merged into Night fighter, with a link to the latter article placed in this former's 'References' section.

The last sentence in the opening paragraph doesn't make sense-"It was the first American – and only Allied – purpose-built aircraft to serve as a radar-equipped night fighter." If there was a later American purpose built aircraft to serve as a radar equipped night fighter then the P-61 would not be the only Allied fighter to server in that capacity. The sentence should be something like "only American and only Allied..."


 * What about the Beaufighter? Greg Locock (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or the de Havilland Mosquito N.F. models? They were purpose-designed modifications of the existing airframe and not ground-up designs, but they were still mass-produced as new variants. Duncan Jaques (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the contested sentence with It was the first aircraft designed specifically as a radar-equipped night fighter to be used operationally., and provided a print source. This should be less ambiguous, and emphasizes that the P-61 was the first aircraft to be designed, built, and used as a night fighter, by any country. This will exclude the Beaufighter and Mosquito NFs, as they were both variants of existing designs. - BillCJ (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The P-61 was designed around the then state-of-the-art British centimetric Airborne Interception radar system that had been brought to the US by the Tizard Mission, as such, it was the first aeroplane anywhere to have been designed to incorporate radar for the specialised night fighting role. All the other aircraft had been converted from other uses. The earlier metric wavelength British AI radar systems had the aerials (antennae) distributed on various parts of the aircraft, fuselage, wings, etc., whereas the centimetric system used a single parabolic scanning aerial, (a dish) and this meant that it could be installed in one unit in the ideal place in the nose of the fighter under a radome. This meant that it became possible to design an aeroplane with the radar and armament in a logical arrangement, the guns being positioned under the nose, because British experience had shown that guns (cannon) mounted anywhere else dazzled the pilot at night with their muzzle flash, temporarily destroying his night vision.


 * If it (the P-61) had been used in its originally intended role of defending against attacking enemy bombers it would probably have had more success than it did, unfortunately, the types of aircraft it was coming up against when it entered service were not the slow Heinkel 111s and Dornier 217s that it had been designed to shoot down, but rather the higher-performance single-engined fighter bombers such as the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, and the German twin-engined night fighters such as the Me 110 and Junkers Ju 88. The only other German bombers that made any sort of impact (if you'll pardon the pun) on the Western Allies at that stage of the war where the smaller ones such as the Me 410s that were used at night in small numbers, and the P-61 was not really fast enough to catch any of these reliably, as you need a fair margin of speed over your target to get into position to shoot it down. The P-61, and Northrop, was just a bit unlucky in its timing, if the Luftwaffe had been in any sort of position to mount a serious heavy bomber offensive in 1944-45 the P-61 would no doubt have been very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry about that time lapse, folks. Other stuff came up and I had my hands full. I'll get the rest of the article and references up as soon as I can.

heh
I really hope you're planning to break up that giant paragraph at the bottom there. Also - have you considered shifting some of the content here to bulk up a separate article like night fighter? Some of the information about background, while intriguing, doesn't seem to quite 'fit'. Also, the section on the dangers of flying seem very far removed from the actual aircraft and better suited to yet another article on, say, Air combat in World War II or something like that.

Don't get me wrong - the stuff is good, it's just not what I'm used to seeing in a detailed aircraft article and so it feels a bit out of place. I'll check back when you're done, though, and maybe it'll fit more solidly then. -eric ✈ 09:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

infobox
In addition to being rather garishly colored, the infobox looks horrendous in (at least) Firefox - not sure about other browsers. Superfluous couple-pixel-wide table columns, strange blank spaces, etc. — ceejayoz ★ 16:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Unstable?
What's this about WWII fighters being unstable? Most were fairly stable, the unstable ones almost never made it into production. Check any website on German X-planes, most were unstable and almost none ever went into production. If you mean engine torque, that wasn't an intentional part of the design, that was the laws of physics. LWF 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

how was it?
There's lots about the development not almost nothing about the plane in service. How did the performance match up with the expectations? Anybody? KarlM 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done!!-Ken keisel 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, the P-61's performance was marred for several reasons. The turret caused buffeting which they never really were able to fix; The propellors caused buffeting between 1450 and 2200 rpm therefore limiting the range that the plane could be flown in; the engines were, for a 28000 pound aircraft, underpowered. It wasnt until the advent of the P-61C model that there was really enough power for the big plane to fully realize its potential, but by that time, the war was nearly over, and very few P-61C's saw service. Cruising speed on the p-61B's was approx 225 mph, the same as a B-25, but its intercept speed was approximately 376 mph ( when using war emergency power ) and 421 mph and faster in a dive.. The main drawback in the P-61B was that there was only enough coolant on board for 20 minutes of war emergency power. In the P-61C which in order to achieve the 2800 hp its engines delivered, had a greater coolant usage, the time in WEP was reduced to 14 minutes. Stability and maneuverability in the p-61 were both excellent. Many pilots as well as Johnny Meyers himself have stated that it could turn tighter than an F-6F. Stability wise, it was one of the most stable aircraft to be conceived and developed during world war two. With a minimum maneuvering speed of only 110 mph, the P-61 stands out as one of the easiest to fly aircraft ever developed..

67.204.156.22 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Pam Brooker

Failed GA
I failed this article partially because of the lack of references, and also because of the lists that occur in the article. Some P.  E  rson  14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

End of Operational Service?
The info box states that the P-61 was retired in 1952. I seem to remember that it was used in the early part of the Korean War. It would be nice to read about the later part of the Black Widows operational life.--TGC55 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no records of any F-61 being used in the Korean War It was replaced in the night fighter role in Korea by the F-82. The last F-61 unit in Japan (347th FG (AW)) retired their last F-61 in May 1950, less than a month before the Korean War began.

Bwmoll3 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it was used in the Korean war or not, the Korean War started in 1950 and ended in 1953. If the design was retired in May 1950, it would have been retired prior to the start of the war; if it was around in 1952, it would have been used during the early to mid parts of the war AVKent882 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually maps made from aerial photography taken by RF-61Cs of the 8th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron were used extensively by United Nations forces in Korea, as they were the most accurate maps of the peninsula, However those aircraft were retired in 1949.


 * The F-61Bs in Japan before the Korean War were sent to Tachikawa Air Base where they were cut up for scrap as soon as the F-82 Twin Mustangs arrived to replace them. It was cheaper for the Air Force to dispose of them there than to fly them back to the States.  When the Korean War broke out in June, the ones at Tachikawa were assigned to the 6401st Field Maintenance Squadron, Far East Air Material Command (FEAMCOM), which was, basically, a scrapping unit.   If any were operational, I'm certain that FEAF would have used them.


 * An F-61C that was retired from ADC in 1948 were loaned to NACA for research until early 1950s, but it wasn't performing combat duties. It was carried on AF inventory rolls until it was returned (1953).   Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone tag
It wasn't me that tagged it but every time I read the first paragraph under "Origins" the tone nags me.GraemeLeggett 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged it. This article is terrible from an encyclopedic standpoint—it's written like someone's love letter to the P-61. ericg ✈ 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese P-61
I found the serial number of the surviving plane in China and added it. Also, Chinese sources says that it's a P-61B (instead of P-61A) Finally, the university's site says that this plane belongs to the 426 night fighter squadron and no the 427th. Who wrote that it was in poor condition and there could be two more planes. No source claims that. Maybye I will remove that later. Atchom 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This site gives a different s/n and confirms that it was a P-61A. There are two s/n cited:42-2234 (all the chinese sites) 42-39417 (thissite only) I<m a bit confused now. Atchom 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Baugher's USAF Aircraft Serial Number lists (http://users.rcn.com/jeremy.k/serialSearch.html) or (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_1.html) shows the following for Northrop P-61B-1-NO Black Widow 42-39417..

"39417 condemned salvage Apr 23, 1947. To reclamation Nov 19, 1947"

Serial 42-2234 was a Beechcraft AT-10-BH (42-2064/2413).

P-61 1942 serial numbers begin at 42-5485 and end at 42-39397 for P-61As, 42-39398 to 42-39419 for P-61Bs.

However it also shows that P-61B-15-NO 42-39715, construction number N1234 is on display at the Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, China. The plane was left in China at the end of the war and was seized by Communist troops.Bwmoll3 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Added photographic proof that Chinese P-61 is 42-39715 - should put this to restDavegnz (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

With some relatively minor improvements...
...this could be a good article! Problems that really draw my eye are 1) few sources cited, and 2) excessive passive voice. I didn't see too many lists, which the GA Failure person noted above, so we may consider that addressed, IMHO. Outstanding features of the article include the in-depth description of the physical characteristics. This is the first aircraft article I've seen on Wikipedia that goes into such minute detail, and I love it. JSC ltd 14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at standardising the headers and organising paragraphs into the correct sections. It certainly needs more inline refs and more wikilinking (not a lot of blue in there). I agree about the technical description but in a review it would almost certainly be deemed too long. Might be worth a read through just to make sure I have not got things out of order and that it all makes sense. This article might be a good candidate for project peer review. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did some rearranging to bring article to wikiaircraft standards I think I got the order correct - did a lot of merging and rearranging for clean-up but think some more work is needed - maybe a seperate section on the P-61A / P-61B with the P-61C & F-15 sections following.Davegnz (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

relationship to P-38
Jack got his start with Lockheed and according to Northrop employees who knew him said that Jack contributed to the P-38 wing design as he was considered the best at wings. Certainly Jack understood the advantages of the P-38 form. Saltysailor (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought airframe design similarity was just coincidence, even though the F-15A/RF-61, especially, looked basically like a gigantic P-38 AVKent882 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet the wings are among the least similar features of the two aircraft. We'd need more than an uncited claim to add anything about a relationship between the two designs. Saying that he "understood the advantages of the P-38 form" proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact he appreciated the advantages of a pod and twin boom design, but it doesn't make the designs "related". - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Convergence
Does this article really need a paragraph on Convergence - seems to me it would either be better as a stand alone article or deleted - breaks up the flow...Davegnz (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)