P-61B Black Widow Proposal

[RG2021]

(Feb 28, 2022)             RG2021

     With the DH.98 Mosquito FB MkVI being released last year, the plausibility of a twin-engined, multicrew aircraft is no longer a question, so, my proposal for the next twin-engined WW2 aircraft, if not simply the next WW2 aircraft, is the P-61 Black Widow.

 

     Reasons for this suggestion are plentiful, so, without further ado, here are my reasons why a P-61B Black Widow would make for a revolutionary and impressive module.

1.) Versatility. Some may think the P-61 is simply a night-fighter, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, the Black Widow was fielded as a multirole aircraft, capable of attacking ground targets and air targets with equal means of authority. For ground attack, the P-61 could carry approximately 4,000lbs of bombs and up to 6x 5” HVAR rockets. And, of course, 4x 20mm Hispano cannons and 4x .50cal heavy machine guns.

2.) Radar. DCS is yet to include a radar-equipped WW2 aircraft. What better to start with than the very first aircraft designed from the ground up to include radar? Equipped with the SCR-720 radar with a range of approximately 5 miles, the P-61 is certainly capable of delivering its venomous bite with precision, despite complete darkness.

3.) P-61B Restoration! Since 1991, the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum has been restoring a P-61B to flightworthy condition. Once the restoration is complete, that would make it so 1 of 4 known P-61s to exist. This would be the perfect opportunity to bring such an iconic yet under-loved aircraft to DCS!

 

     Was the P-61 the best fighter of the war? No. Did it have an astonishing kill count? Nope. Is it the most important or influential aircraft of the war? Nah. But it makes up for this with its sheer innovative design and cool factor. I think a P-61 of any model, but especially a B or C, would make for a fantastic DCS module, and would bring a whole new experience to the greatest flight sim to ever have been developed.

     Imagine this: you set up an EWR in the Mission Editor, then you and your radar-operating buddy take to the skies in the middle of darkness. The EWR you set up finds and relays the position of an enemy aircraft. Once you get close enough, your buddy manages to pick up the aircraft on your radar. He guides you in to the target. The enemy aircraft has entered the Black Widow’s web, and there is no escape. You unleash her four Hispanos and .50cals, ripping apart your victim. Splash!

     Thank you for your time and I hope this is taken into account when choosing what WW2 aircraft to bring next, or at least what twin-engined aircraft to bring next. Though I do know Mr. Grey loves the F6F…

-RG2021 (Rhys)

Edited July 6, 2022 by RG2021

[nairb121]

I think this would be an awesome module. First real multi-crew WW2 module (Mossie navigator isn't really very necessary), radar unlike anything else we have, remote turret... lots of unique features. Plus it served in both the European and Pacific theaters, and within our late-war DCS timeframe.

[RG2021]

7 hours ago, nairb121 said:

I think this would be an awesome module. First real multi-crew WW2 module (Mossie navigator isn't really very necessary), radar unlike anything else we have, remote turret... lots of unique features. Plus it served in both the European and Pacific theaters, and within our late-war DCS timeframe.

Yep! The precedent of a divided, heavy workload was set by HeatBlur’s brilliant F-14, so I think a P-61 would be perfectly feasible. 

The biggest problem would be getting real-life flight data and SMEs. However, the longer we wait, the less SMEs there will be. The sad reality is that people who have experience with the P-61 are getting older and are passing. To my knowledge, the P-61 restoration project isn’t yet complete, but it will provide the best shot at getting a Black Widow.

Edited July 6, 2022 by RG2021

[Mogster]

Both the He 219 and P-61 are fascinating aircraft with he same mission in mind. Both are very cool looking planes, if looks were the only criteria they’d have been war winners... However Like the He 219 the P-61 was also a average/bad aircraft suffering from protracted development and poor design decisions. 

With the P-61 program the AAF had all its eggs in one basket. There was immense pressure to convince Washington that the basket was a technical marvel and the eggs were tastiest when in reality neither was the case… The AAFs cover up of the disastrous P-61 program was so effective that the lies told to Washington about its performance still pervade the literature to this day.

In reality the P-61 was too heavy, too slow and too late, if the AAF could have procured Mosquitoes it would have done so, but it could not. Anyway by the time the P-61 was available it’s projected primary mission was effectively being covered by other types so fortunately it’s failure had no impact on the war.

There are many other types that had a greater impact on WW2 that could be included in DCS. Of course this is just my personal opinion 

[_Hoss]

P-70 (A-20 Night-fighter), F7F-1N, 2N, 4N, F6F-5N, P-61 has three crew members, two is the max I would want to go.  For Europe, the Beaufighter as a Night fighter is the better option.

  The Northrop P-61 Black Widow gets a lot of attention considering the relatively small role it played in World War II. Unlike the P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang, it did not have an impressive number of kills. It downed only about 127 aircraft (18 were V-1 Buzz Bombs). Its overall impact on the war was minimal and its victories were sporadic. In comparison, the Junkers Ju-88 had more night victories than all Allied fighters combined. Only 674 P-61s were built during the war (32 more after the war's end) and it served in the war just over a year. The bottom line, a lot of resources went into an aircraft with very little to show for it. It didn’t go into combat until after D-Day and by the end of the war, the Allies had established air superiority on all fronts. Enemy aircraft were few and far between—particularly at night, which accounts partially for the low tally of victories.

[Mogster]

3 hours ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

P-70 (A-20 Night-fighter), F7F-1N, 2N, 4N, F6F-5N, P-61 has three crew members, two is the max I would want to go.  For Europe, the Beaufighter as a Night fighter is the better option.

  The Northrop P-61 Black Widow gets a lot of attention considering the relatively small role it played in World War II. Unlike the P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang, it did not have an impressive number of kills. It downed only about 127 aircraft (18 were V-1 Buzz Bombs). Its overall impact on the war was minimal and its victories were sporadic. In comparison, the Junkers Ju-88 had more night victories than all Allied fighters combined. Only 674 P-61s were built during the war (32 more after the war's end) and it served in the war just over a year. The bottom line, a lot of resources went into an aircraft with very little to show for it. It didn’t go into combat until after D-Day and by the end of the war, the Allies had established air superiority on all fronts. Enemy aircraft were few and far between—particularly at night, which accounts partially for the low tally of victories.

The P-61 often flew often with only 2 crew, there’s even several photos of aircraft in the field with only 2 names painted on the side.

It seems the turret was frequently removed by squadrons, either when they broke down and proved impossible to field repair or just to improve performance. Also apparently the aircraft often shipped without the turret, it was the same item as on the B29 and the B29 installations had priority. Northrop’s intention seems to have been to retrofit the turrets in the field when they became available but in reality the opening was faired over and the second crew member could then move through the fuselage and interact with the pilot which the crews preferred. Further there are apparently reports of crews being night blinded by the muzzle flashes from the turret so that could be a further reason for its removal.

The whole 1930s turreted heavy fighter concept that was so popular quickly proved to be flawed when aircraft like the BP Defiant were readily hacked from the skies early in WW2. It’s bizarre that Northrop continued to pursue the concept in the face of real combat evidence.

[Dragon1-1]

It's more understandable when you think of the P-61 as a night fighter first. There, the turret allows an attack much like the German Shrage Musik, only without the awkward fixed mount. Turreted day fighters have proven a poor investment, but on night fighters and attack aircraft, a movable gun was of some value. Meaningful dogfighting at night is nearly impossible even today, hard to keep tally on a small aircraft in complete darkness, even with NVGs. As such, performance mattered less, but the ability to pull up under a bomber and hose it down with the turret would presumably have been welcome if the turret wasn't so unreliable.

That said, I'd rather see an A-26. The thing served from WWII to Vietnam. Surprisingly few changes between versions, too. Far more useful than a P-61, and not only for WWII.

[_Hoss]

I have been doing this flight sim stuff for awhile now... The birds I most would love to play with are the late WWII birds that did not see action in WWII.  The F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, the P-47N with wet wings, then  the A-26, A-36.... I mean if we can get the Stunt Yak-52, the Christen Eagle II, and the I-16, whats holding anyone from doing these birds. I'm really surprised the Mosquito came out before a P-38. I end up getting P.O.d at DCS/ED for the lack of focus on finishing any Theater of War. Three WWII maps and very few planes of the period to make it more interesting. If all the AI were flyable it might be a bigger draw for the IL2 crowd to finally come over here for good. The Me-262 still needs to be started/finished after waiting for it this long. With a good map of Korea we could use the late war birds in a "What if we had to invade Japan" scenario... and Korean War on in to the cold war, to present. I absolutely have no idea why I have bought maps and planes I still have not used or mastered. Huge waste of money here on bits and pieces that may never fit together to make any real sense.

And don't get me started on Bugs, why anyone would want to play on a Bugged out Open Beta Multiplayer server is beyond me, but here we are killing it..or trying to anyway. LOL

  

Hoss

[Ala13_ManOWar]

11 hours ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

I mean if we can get the Stunt Yak-52, the Christen Eagle II, and the I-16, whats holding anyone from doing these birds

As always, money, it's a hell of a lot of work and a highly time consuming task to later sell only a few copies for a meagre profit. We usually never know about figures, but I'm relatively sure those you mention were less than stellar sales wise.

 

Quote

I'm really surprised the Mosquito came out before a P-38.

Don't be, it's usual in DCS some aircraft come before others apparently "easier" from our eager compulsive buyers perspective, but it's usually all about info available. You can't make a hardcore simulation out of thin air. You can in arcade games where a few hints here and there are more than enough, but not a real simulation where deep engineering information is a must. Sometimes it's just that what makes a difference, and what makes possible to model something, while the opposite is either true, the lack of that info hinders, when not directly prevents and stops, any further approach to some models, even some very well known from a historical standpoint subjects aren't possible to model. Remember we were close to no P-47 at all because of that and we aren't talking about a rare and obscure subject here. Mosquito happens to be a very well and highly documented aircraft, P-38 I'm not that sure. Anyway don't get me wrong, I want it along so many other warbirds , just commenting the struggles they face to model things.

Think of DCS like a kind of archaeological job in some regards where you know something was there because hints and so but you are unsure about how it really worked, what and how whatever was really used for and so. If many times that's a problem even in modern jets were info is lacking about this or that apparently unimportant detail but needed for modelling the thing properly, think of stuff made, used, and scrapped 80 years ago and… I don't envy them facing that kind of troubles just to give us a game.

 

Anyhow, I'm stopping there trying to answer your somewhat rhetorical questions we all have made at some point, I thought we were talking about P-61 wishlisting here and we derail threads too easily .

[RG2021]

You all make great points, and I thank you for bringing them up. Sure, the P-61 didn’t make a bit impact, didn’t get many kills, and sure as hell wasn’t a “war winner” like the P-47, P-51, or Mosquito, but what makes it interesting is that it’s different. Many pioneering innovations in modern aircraft came from the P-61, and gameplay would be completely different from anything any of us have experienced in DCS.

 

Of course more famous and effective aircraft should be welcomed, such as the F6F, P-38, A-26 (I would LOVE an A-26), etc., I think there should also be the addition of less effective, but more unique aircraft, such as the Black Widow. But as one of you hinted at, a German night fighter would be a great addition. Since DCS WW2 is currently inclined to the end of the war, a German, radar-equipped night fighter such as a BF-110 or Ju-88 would be wonderful. They (it) would be unique, like the P-61, but it would also be an aircraft that was effective and noteworthy.

 

Really any radar-equipped night fighter would be a wonderful addition. A Mosquito, Beaufighter, BF-110, Ju-88, or, of course, a P-61 would be fantastic and brand new to DCS, and flight simulation as a whole. What other sim has fully simulated, clickable-cockpit WW2 nightfighters with fully-functional early radar with all the quirks? None!

On 7/9/2022 at 1:31 PM, 352nd_Hoss said:

In comparison, the Junkers Ju-88 had more night victories than all Allied fighters combined.

This is a great point. A BF-110 or Ju-88 night fighter would be much better suited. They were effective, while also bringing the unique WW2 night fighter experience to DCS, as I so crave.

 

But on the other hand, the P-61 was just so damn gorgeous! But yes, a BF-110 would be fantastic, as it’s probably one of if not the most (in)famous WW2 night fighters.

[HotTom]

Put radar in a Mossie and call it a night fighter.. Case closed.

[Blitz1293]

On 7/8/2022 at 11:53 PM, Mogster said:

Both the He 219 and P-61 are fascinating aircraft with he same mission in mind. Both are very cool looking planes, if looks were the only criteria they’d have been war winners... However Like the He 219 the P-61 was also a average/bad aircraft suffering from protracted development and poor design decisions. 

With the P-61 program the AAF had all its eggs in one basket. There was immense pressure to convince Washington that the basket was a technical marvel and the eggs were tastiest when in reality neither was the case… The AAFs cover up of the disastrous P-61 program was so effective that the lies told to Washington about its performance still pervade the literature to this day.

In reality the P-61 was too heavy, too slow and too late, if the AAF could have procured Mosquitoes it would have done so, but it could not. Anyway by the time the P-61 was available it’s projected primary mission was effectively being covered by other types so fortunately it’s failure had no impact on the war.

There are many other types that had a greater impact on WW2 that could be included in DCS. Of course this is just my personal opinion 

This is the most backwards thing I've ever read on the widow. 

If anything the people who actually operated the aircraft adored the plane, and it was command that was skeptical. If the AAF was trying to cover up the widows failure, they fucked that up by allowing so much open skepticism among the brass. Ground crews didn't care for it because it was maintenance intensive, but thats about as far as it goes. 

By the accounts of people who actually flew it, and not just skeptics, it was a robust, maneuverable heavy fighter, that was immensely reliable and stable. 

Also speaking of pervasive myths, the widow was not slow. The early 'A' models underperformed (as EVERY early model plane did, that's not unusual) but most of the 61s were 'B' models, not 'A' models, and only got faster with each revision.

You're right to say it didn't have a huge impact, but not because it wasn't a good plane (its actual combat record in a target deficient environment speaks for itself on that front) but because of production issues. The biggest one as far as I can find was Lockheed being at capacity with production due to being contracted to build Vultee Vengeance's of all things.

So we have these pros

•Maneuverable 

•In air radar

•Nightvision

•Very stable in flight

•"near perfect" stall characteristics

•Fast enough for the job

•All weather

•Well armed

•Flexible in it's role

•Deployed in every Theater of the War

•Loved by it's crews

 

(None of this to even speak of the unique gameplay opportunities of having a radar equipped WW2, twin engine, 3 man heavy fighter would provide in a sim like DCS. Fun factor IS a factor when you're talking about a game. But sure, let's get more single engine fighters, that'll really shake things up)

 

Cons

•Expensive

•Protracted Development/limited production

•Suffered Teething issues in the first dozen or so 'A' models

•Maintenance intensive

 

(It's worth pointing out that none of these cons actually impact gameplay or how players would interact with the plane, and in my opinion are therefore irrelevant in a discussion about adding it to DCS)

 

Saying its a bad plane is like saying the Mossie was bad because it wasn't very useful in the Pacific, thanks to the glue that held it together failing in the humidity. It's a very narrow, small picture assessment, that either dishonestly or ignorantly portrays the plane.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Blitz1293
Grammar, spelling, and additional information added

[Blitz1293]

I made a similar post about a year ago, maybe more. I still think the p-61 would be the most interesting addition, even setting aside my love for the aircraft, its just got so much going on, and so many cool gameplay opportunities, and at somepoint that has to be a consideration in a game. If it was just about most impactful aircraft we wouldn't still be missing the Hawker hurricane, p-38, Zero, Hellcat, ect. At somepoint variety has to influence what gets added, and damnit if the p-61 wouldn't be the most unique aircraft added to date. It could introduce night fighting to the game, it could exist in the European and Pacific Theater, it's multi-role as you mentioned. The only argument against it is that it wasn't very impactful, but I think I sufficiently outlined why I believe that's not a good argument above.

 

They probably won't do it, but I can dream.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Blitz1293
Grammar and spelling.

[Blackbird12]

Your love for the p-61 is as big as my love for the Ju-188/88 S-3, and as you I can only dream about them, WWII in DCS is niche inside a niche, that's the argument against these aircraft because they "won't sell" well, while I can understand this argument there are many things that could explain the "won't sell well" instead of only the "niche" issue :

For exemple there is the price issue with the maps and asset pack, but for me there is a "marketing issue" too, for exemple ED team makes many videos on features on the F-16/F-18/Apache and they start doing this before the modules come out, it increases the hype or the curiosity, for WWII there is nothing, not even an "official" startup tutorial, only the trailer comes out, of course you will catch only the people who already know the plane, the others will pass, I think many people fell in love with plane they didn't even know about it before trying it.

One more issue with WWII : the planes are hard to fly, take off/landing is a nightmare for new users and again without "official" help, people get discouraged and problably passes, I have 2 friends who started flying in modern aircraft, but when I made them try WWII planes they got discouraged and kept flying modern machines

And last issue : WWII in DCS was basically the same since the beginning (of course new planes cames, new DM) but the base has been the same for almost 10 years, take off, fire your guns, drop some bombs, get shot down or RTB and then repeat this all over again, some people probably got bored, it's mostly my case the mosquito is different in that way it brought some "new gamplay"

I think all of this can be part of the "niche" issue which make a limit on what they do, they are of course other elements, but I think this subject is complex enough to write a book 

[Blitz1293]

16 hours ago, Blackbird12 said:

Your love for the p-61 is as big as my love for the Ju-188/88 S-3, and as you I can only dream about them, WWII in DCS is niche inside a niche, that's the argument against these aircraft because they "won't sell" well, while I can understand this argument there are many things that could explain the "won't sell well" instead of only the "niche" issue :

For exemple there is the price issue with the maps and asset pack, but for me there is a "marketing issue" too, for exemple ED team makes many videos on features on the F-16/F-18/Apache and they start doing this before the modules come out, it increases the hype or the curiosity, for WWII there is nothing, not even an "official" startup tutorial, only the trailer comes out, of course you will catch only the people who already know the plane, the others will pass, I think many people fell in love with plane they didn't even know about it before trying it.

One more issue with WWII : the planes are hard to fly, take off/landing is a nightmare for new users and again without "official" help, people get discouraged and problably passes, I have 2 friends who started flying in modern aircraft, but when I made them try WWII planes they got discouraged and kept flying modern machines

And last issue : WWII in DCS was basically the same since the beginning (of course new planes cames, new DM) but the base has been the same for almost 10 years, take off, fire your guns, drop some bombs, get shot down or RTB and then repeat this all over again, some people probably got bored, it's mostly my case the mosquito is different in that way it brought some "new gamplay"

I think all of this can be part of the "niche" issue which make a limit on what they do, they are of course other elements, but I think this subject is complex enough to write a book 

This is a significantly better criticism of adding a plane like the widow or the Ju188/88, because it revolves around a critique of the game not the planes themselves. Of course that's a reason for ED to focus on building out systems to improve the long term experience, and if anything is an argument FOR these different roles to be added (like night fighting) because it would expand the experience.

[Doughguy]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Blackbird12:

And last issue : WWII in DCS was basically the same since the beginning (of course new planes cames, new DM) but the base has been the same for almost 10 years, take off, fire your guns, drop some bombs, get shot down or RTB and then repeat this all over again, some people probably got bored, it's mostly my case the mosquito is different in that way it brought some "new gamplay"

I cant see this applyin to ww2 only?

Most things we do are repetative in its core...  and yet you have eg formula 1 where 20ish overpaid 1d1ots drive around in circles.

How you apply planes and how mission looks is what adds the difference..  but in its core its still fly from a to b blow sh1t up and fly back to a. May it be in an f16 or fw190. Doesnt matter. Also it doesnt matter if you have a rio or youre going single.

[Mogster]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:06 PM, Blitz1293 said:

This is the most backwards thing I've ever read on the widow. 

If anything the people who actually operated the aircraft adored the plane, and it was command that was skeptical. If the AAF was trying to cover up the widows failure, they fucked that up by allowing so much open skepticism among the brass. Ground crews didn't care for it because it was maintenance intensive, but thats about as far as it goes. 

By the accounts of people who actually flew it, and not just skeptics, it was a robust, maneuverable heavy fighter, that was immensely reliable and stable. 

Also speaking of pervasive myths, the widow was not slow. The early 'A' models underperformed (as EVERY early model plane did, that's not unusual) but most of the 61s were 'B' models, not 'A' models, and only got faster with each revision.

You're right to say it didn't have a huge impact, but not because it wasn't a good plane (its actual combat record in a target deficient environment speaks for itself on that front) but because of production issues. The biggest one as far as I can find was Lockheed being at capacity with production due to being contracted to build Vultee Vengeance's of all things.

So we have these pros

•Maneuverable 

•In air radar

•Nightvision

•Very stable in flight

•"near perfect" stall characteristics

•Fast enough for the job

•All weather

•Well armed

•Flexible in it's role

•Deployed in every Theater of the War

•Loved by it's crews

 

(None of this to even speak of the unique gameplay opportunities of having a radar equipped WW2, twin engine, 3 man heavy fighter would provide in a sim like DCS. Fun factor IS a factor when you're talking about a game. But sure, let's get more single engine fighters, that'll really shake things up)

 

Cons

•Expensive

•Protracted Development/limited production

•Suffered Teething issues in the first dozen or so 'A' models

•Maintenance intensive

 

(It's worth pointing out that none of these cons actually impact gameplay or how players would interact with the plane, and in my opinion are therefore irrelevant in a discussion about adding it to DCS)

 

Saying its a bad plane is like saying the Mossie was bad because it wasn't very useful in the Pacific, thanks to the glue that held it together failing in the humidity. It's a very narrow, small picture assessment, that either dishonestly or ignorantly portrays the plane.

 

I don’t think the P-61 was particularly bad, just very average, like the He 219.

According to interviews with vet’s the NVGs didn’t work well and so were rarely used. By the time they could see the target aircraft in the NVGs to ID they were almost crashing into it. The squadrons had next to no training in how to use or maintain the NVGs, which is a re-occurring theme.

Most aircraft that crews felt at least safe in seem to have been viewed with affection. RAF crews spoke in glowing terms of the Stirling even, it was tough and could turn tightly in search light beams apparently, never mind it’s poor ceiling and horrible behaviour on the runway… The P-61 was America’s famous high tech bird, the crews wanted it when they were surrounded by all things English and defended its honour like one of their own. The crews made the very best of what they had and the USAAF worked hard to convince the kids they didn’t want Limey kit…

It seems there were never many P-61s in the ETO, most of the Bs went to the PTO. The night time ETO skies were dominated by experienced RAF crews. P-61 crews mostly flew night interdiction where their lack of speed wasn’t as big an issue. The radar sets were cutting edge but needed training and experience to use, the RAF had the experts.

Range was poor due to a lack of internal fuel. The P-61 would have been more flexible with external fuel tanks but they only used them very late in WW2. 

The Pax River fighter conference found the P61 could turn tightly but was described as clumsy in combat with poor low speed roll response and a very long take off run for a WW2 aircraft. The P61 was not a short field aircraft, and accelerated slowly. Climb rate was notably poor above 20k, no turbochargers. The Pax River testers also disliked the P-61s cluttered cockpit and poor visibility, the glass caused awkward reflections at night.

Cruise speed for best range (you haven’t got much gas) was 230mph, that’s similar to the B25. For reference all Mosquitoes would cruise at well over 300mph.

Turn rate is a strange one, large aircraft with broad wings can turn tightly. An unloaded Wellington could probably turn tighter in a sustained turn than a Spitfire. Any change of direction and the larger aircraft would be toast.

I agree the P-61 is a fascinating aircraft. I did read that there’s a new book being written as a lot of stuff surrounding the P-61s development has remained classified till recently. It should be a good read.

[Blackbird12]

8 hours ago, Doughguy said:

I cant see this applyin to ww2 only?

Most things we do are repetative in its core...  and yet you have eg formula 1 where 20ish overpaid 1d1ots drive around in circles.

How you apply planes and how mission looks is what adds the difference..  but in its core its still fly from a to b blow sh1t up and fly back to a. May it be in an f16 or fw190. Doesnt matter. Also it doesnt matter if you have a rio or youre going single.

It depends on where you level the core because Formula 1 is a car race, rally is car race too, of course but I highly doubt it's "the same". We are flying planes so it's always "the same"... then flying a fw190 is "the same" as flying a f16, I doubt it, the missions you will do in them can be similar in its core but not similar in the way you will do it, for exemple you have a navigation system in f16, in fw190 you don't have that, you will not do your navigation in these aircraft the same way... Ask people if flying (doing mission) in a f16 is the same as a WWII aircraft, I don't think they will tell you it's the same.

[Doughguy]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Blackbird12:

It depends on where you level the core because Formula 1 is a car race, rally is car race too, of course but I highly doubt it's "the same". We are flying planes so it's always "the same"... then flying a fw190 is "the same" as flying a f16, I doubt it, the missions you will do in them can be similar in its core but not similar in the way you will do it, for exemple you have a navigation system in f16, in fw190 you don't have that, you will not do your navigation in these aircraft the same way... Ask people if flying (doing mission) in a f16 is the same as a WWII aircraft, I don't think they will tell you it's the same.

Still you fly from a to b and back to a.

Or fly from a patrol zone x and fly back to a.

Yes, a f16 i quite different than an fw190 in many aspects ... but still...you take off in a f16, fly /patrol the target zone, chit chat in between some fancy codes, barrel roll *great balls off fire*, go home.

For what it is, its quite the same... just some different flavors.

[Blitz1293]

11 hours ago, Mogster said:

I don’t think the P-61 was particularly bad, just very average, like the He 219.

According to interviews with vet’s the NVGs didn’t work well and so were rarely used. By the time they could see the target aircraft in the NVGs to ID they were almost crashing into it. The squadrons had next to no training in how to use or maintain the NVGs, which is a re-occurring theme.

Most aircraft that crews felt at least safe in seem to have been viewed with affection. RAF crews spoke in glowing terms of the Stirling even, it was tough and could turn tightly in search light beams apparently, never mind it’s poor ceiling and horrible behaviour on the runway… The P-61 was America’s famous high tech bird, the crews wanted it when they were surrounded by all things English and defended its honour like one of their own. The crews made the very best of what they had and the USAAF worked hard to convince the kids they didn’t want Limey kit…

It seems there were never many P-61s in the ETO, most of the Bs went to the PTO. The night time ETO skies were dominated by experienced RAF crews. P-61 crews mostly flew night interdiction where their lack of speed wasn’t as big an issue. The radar sets were cutting edge but needed training and experience to use, the RAF had the experts.

Range was poor due to a lack of internal fuel. The P-61 would have been more flexible with external fuel tanks but they only used them very late in WW2. 

The Pax River fighter conference found the P61 could turn tightly but was described as clumsy in combat with poor low speed roll response and a very long take off run for a WW2 aircraft. The P61 was not a short field aircraft, and accelerated slowly. Climb rate was notably poor above 20k, no turbochargers. The Pax River testers also disliked the P-61s cluttered cockpit and poor visibility, the glass caused awkward reflections at night.

Cruise speed for best range (you haven’t got much gas) was 230mph, that’s similar to the B25. For reference all Mosquitoes would cruise at well over 300mph.

Turn rate is a strange one, large aircraft with broad wings can turn tightly. An unloaded Wellington could probably turn tighter in a sustained turn than a Spitfire. Any change of direction and the larger aircraft would be toast.

I agree the P-61 is a fascinating aircraft. I did read that there’s a new book being written as a lot of stuff surrounding the P-61s development has remained classified till recently. It should be a good read.

Okay so

• You did say it was "average/bad" in your initial reply, you can retract the second half of that now if you like, but don't say you didn't say it was bad. You did.

• Crews not being trained on a piece of equipment in my book is not a condemnation of the equipment but the training, or lack thereof in this case.

• Right but when crews talk about the p-61 it's a pretty common theme of 'at first I thought it was ugly and too big, but then I flew in it and was surprised at what it could do." Most of the issues, even ones you laid out in this response are issues of the earliest models, like the cruise speed due to lack of external fuel tanks were addressed with later revisions, which again is a pretty ubiquitous trait of wartime... Everything. Not even planes. Something was always improved, or added to improve the qualities of the tool. 

• Well, it wasn't used much in Europe because the air war was basically over. That was the biggest reason, not because of a monopoly from the Brits or anything. From what I've read/seen reported the SCR-720 was relatively simple to use, and didn't require overly involved training, I've read accounts from crews and seen an interview from one of the guys who helped design the plane that confirmed as much. It's also worth pointing out that in the same conference you mention later, something like 95% of made contacts with the AI in the 61 resulted in a kill. That's an insane success rate.

• Range was addressed later. Mid B models I believe once the Pacific bore out the necessity. It was built for loiter in mind initially (which it did very well) which is why your latter point about its low cruise speed for Max range doesn't really apply, and again comparing it to the mossie in this sense, which was designed as a fast bomber didn't really apply either. For instance, I could say that the p-61 was better for humid climates, but I don't think that would be a fair comparison for the Mossie for.

• I feel like I've already addressed the range, this was fixed with later revisions to the aircraft, but also was not a concern with the early concept or in Europe.

• Ok the Pax conference. I feel like your read is a little cherry picked. To be clear they didn't say the cockpit was too cluttered, the key remarks said they liked the grouping, only that the instrument panel felt too far from the pilot seat, but this seems almost nit picky tbh. Commander Booth went out of his way to point out the 61 as being the only plane at the conference with "...proper directional stability for a fighter...". When reading the summary it largely got good marks or "other" and that just meant that there was some small tweaks that needed to be done, most of those tweaks came in the mid to late B models.

• I already addressed the cruise speed multiple times so I guess I'll skip this one.

• The maneuverability was just not a weak point on this plane, it was pretty ubiquitously praised exactly for it's surprising maneuverability, so what might hinder a wellington in or after tight turns, would not apply to the Widow. It had strong roll authority, and the only time it was specifically noted at the conference as suffering in these regards was at or below a "clean 110 miles per hour."

 

At the end of the day, even if I accept the stance that it was "average", that's not an argument against it's inclusion. I would say that most aircraft in service were "average", that seems obvious. What the 61 would offer as a twin engined, turreted, 3 man, radar equipped heavy night fighter actually makes it an obvious choice for it's inclusion in DCS. It offers gameplay that very few planes of the period would. It has one of the most striking designs of the entire wartime period, and even afterward. It's a really cool plane that would actually bring something new with it to the game and I think that's what matters most, and I think like most of the combat machines of the period, pilots who really learn what it can do in a sim environment will take it from average to well above average, and this is born out in it's combat record.

[Blitz1293]

12 hours ago, Doughguy said:

Still you fly from a to b and back to a.

Or fly from a patrol zone x and fly back to a.

Yes, a f16 i quite different than an fw190 in many aspects ... but still...you take off in a f16, fly /patrol the target zone, chit chat in between some fancy codes, barrel roll *great balls off fire*, go home.

For what it is, its quite the same... just some different flavors.

If I may, I think what blackbird is getting is that on the surface, yes they are the "same", but it leaves a lot out. The actual experience of flying the fw-190 vs the f-14 is going to be pretty substantially different. So while yes what you're doing on paper is the same, the experience you have will be different and that's where his race car analogy comes in. 

Now to wrap it around to the topic at hand, that's why planes like the p-61 would be valuable to the game because it would offer a substantially different experience from any other aircraft in the game. It would introduce new systems, and new possibilities that you can't get otherwise, even if the basic mission promise of 'fly from A to B and then back to A' doesnt change and that's what's important, that's how you inject variety in a game like this, because the planes are the medium by which we interact with the sim, so different planes in unique roles is what will shake it up the most.

[Angelthunder]

I don't know if we'll get one from ED but from a third party probably.More likely ED will add the Black Widow as an AI asset for WWII at least since they would fit with the Normandy Map since an actual P-61 squadron was based there.