Talk:Northrop P-61 Black Widow/Archive 2

photo of NMUSAF aircraft
I was wondering why an editor chose to replace Image:P-61 Black Widow NMUSAF.jpg with Image:P-61C-1NO 43-8353.jpg to depict the aircraft that is displayed at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Yes, I took the former image, but I feel that it is a more interesting image and it depicts the way the aircraft is currently displayed at the museum. The side view image is a little washed out and only shows a straight side view. --rogerd (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Felt the other image was much too dark - liked the view but the lighting was horrible. Davegnz (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no problem with either image. I put one of the two images up at the 550th Sq section to illustrate their livery. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question and suggestion
Maybe it's just my ignorance in these matters, but the term "deactivated" seems more fitting than "inactivated". Is that official terminology?

IMHO a slight change of format would improve the appearance of each of the sections within "Operators". e.g. from:


 * 426th Night Fighter Squadron
 * Activated 1 January 1944, Madhaigani, India. Assigned: 14th AF – Served in India, and China to protect B-29 Superfortress bases from attack. Inactivated 5 November 1945, Shwanglu, China


 * 427th Night Fighter Squadron
 * Transferred from Pomigliano, Italy in October 1944. Stationed at Barrackpore, India. Assigned: 14th AF – Served in India, Burma and China. Inactivated 29 October 1945 at Kisselbari, India

to:


 * 426th Night Fighter Squadron
 * Activated 1 January 1944, Madhaigani, India. Assigned: 14th AF – Served in India, and China to protect B-29 Superfortress bases from attack. Inactivated 5 November 1945, Shwanglu, China


 * 427th Night Fighter Squadron
 * Transferred from Pomigliano, Italy in October 1944. Stationed at Barrackpore, India. Assigned: 14th AF – Served in India, Burma and China. Inactivated 29 October 1945 at Kisselbari, India

Just a suggestion – any comments? --Red Sunset   22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deactivated is the correct term. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Cheers! --Red Sunset   22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Last air combat of WWII
I've deleted the reference to the B-32 air combat on August 18th, 1945. The paragraph clearly states that a P-61 is credited with destroying the last two Japanese aircraft destroyed BEFORE the end of WWII. The B-32 combat took place three days after the Japanese surrender, and is not appropriate in this context, particularly since it detracts from the object of the article. I also wish to point out that "Moonlight Serenade" did NOT actually shoot down the last aircraft it claimed as a kill, rather it flew it into the water without firing a shot. The crew were still credited with the kill, though, making this the last official U.S. of WWII. This is all described in Gary Pape's marvelous book "Queen of the Midnight Skies". Ken keisel (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

P-61 ailerons
The article says that the P-61 lacked ailerons. This is wrong. Primary roll control was achieved through spoilers, as stated (not "spoilerons, though), but it did have small ailerons.

Top Gunn (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know it had small ailerons, I thought it was just spoilers. AVKent882 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It had tiny fairy wing ailerons located on the tip of the wings. their primary job was to provide tactile feedback to the pilot. It served no mechanical purpose otherwise.. Reference Miroslav Balous Northrop P-61 Black Widow 67.204.156.22 (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Pam Brooker

Credit for Kills section
I don't see that the Credit for Kills section needs to be in the article. I think the content is obvious, and even if it is not, it is not sufficiently important to require its own section. Ronstew (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

P-61 at Étain-Rouvres Air Base, France? Wrong location?
I added this nice old photo of a rocket-armed P-61, with the location from the SDASM archive. But the background of looks like the ocean, and this airbase is far inland. ???? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell, but if you look at the contrast between light and dark bands in the background behind the rudder, it sort of could be the outline of a forest in the distance, and there is a forest near the airbase. Link to satellite view. But then the soil in the foreground seems to be sand. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hadn't noticed that. And the horizon-rise behind the photo-right wing could be a hill. See, forex, this photo and /this. Presumably the AA defends the air base. So location is probably OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that Étain-Rouvres Air Base wasn't constructed until the 1950s. It was new construction, not the World War II Airfield used by 9th Air Force.   The World War II base is now  Verdun-Le-Rozelier Airport and the 426th NFS operated from it starting in November 1944.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move at Black Widow.
For any editors concerned, there is a proposed moved at the disambiguation page Black Widow. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Widow#Proposed_move Weebro55 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Zap flaps
The name of the engineer who invented "Zap flaps" was Edward Zaparka, not Edward Zap. And as far as I know, he was never a Northrop employee. He developed Zap flaps a couple of decades before the P-61 was designed. There are plenty of references to Edward Zaparka and his flaps in the literature, if you need a citation.173.62.12.218 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the Zaparka patent from 1934, so I made the suggested changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Turret discussion makes little sense
The following part of the article makes very little sense: A brief assessment of the turret by the British Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment in 1944 found problems with the aiming and "jerky movement" of the guns,[11] and some authors claim that the turret had buffeting problems on the airframe, but any problems with the final designed turret were minimal and the turret was not installed for many production runs because the turret mechanism was unavailable due to priority use on the B-29 bomber.[citation needed] It looks like it was written by two authors writing at cross-purposes. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's Wikipedia for you! - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bung a full stop after 'airframe' delete the 'but' and capitalize 'any'. Instant improvement.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The turret buffeting was entirely due to the use of a non-symmetrical teardrop-shaped turret fairing, the deletion of which, and replacement with a normal circular fairing, would have eliminated.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mosquito v Black Widow
The section on the fly-off between a tweaked P-61 and a Mosquito NFXVII (which was an old NFII with updated radar) gives a misleading impression. Even after that event, Gen Spaatz still wanted Mosquitos and not P-61s. See C Martin Sharp & Michael JF Bowyer, Mosquito, Faber, London, 1967, repr Crecy Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0-947554-41-6, p.379:- 'On 4 July 1944 the British Government informed the Americans that they could still not supply Mosquitoes to their Mediterranean based U.S. night fighter squadrons. General Spaatz responded by requesting help with re-equipping just two British-based P-61 night fighter squadrons. It was pointed out to him that if Mosquito production permitted it his Mediterranean squadrons would already have received Mosquitoes to relieve pressure on Beaufighter availability [the USAAF was operating Beaufighters in the night-fighter role in the Med] because those aircraft were needed by British and Allied squadrons.' The reason for the rather tough British position on this was that the Americans had been offered a licence to build their own Mosquitos and turned it down on the obvious protectionist grounds. In December the 416th NFS in Italy was re-equipped with a mix of Mosquito NFXIXs and new NF30s. These aircraft had the same radar as the P-61 and considerably better performance except in rate of climb, which was relatively unimportant in night-fighter operations because patrols were not ordered at short notice. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * An interesting perspective on possibly why the US did not licence-produce the Mosquito here: