Talk:Northrop P-61 Black Widow/Archive 2

Archive 1

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)

External Links

User:Davegnz has reverted my changes to external links made under the External Link guidelines that External links should not normally be used in the body of an article;. I cant see any reason why this article should be different then any other aircraft article. Any comments please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - and I'm not sure whether Warbirdregistry.org counts as a WP:RS anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree too - and this isn't even an "aircraft" convention - it's a Wikipedia-wide one. I also agree with Nigel that the site doesn't appear to qualify as reliable - we should see if it can be replaced. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on why Warbirdregistry.org is not a reliable source. I was just looking at it and it seems like a good source of information on surviving aircraft. --rogerd (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This relates to the requirements of WP:RS - which does not necessarily relate to the quality of the source - it appears to be a comprehensive site ran by two or three dedicated Enthusiasts - none of which are published in the field and so may not meet the strict requirements of WP:RS. Self published websites of similar quality (such as Joe Baugher's site) have been rejected as Reliable Sources when other articles (e.g. F-4 Phantom) have gone to Featured Article review. As the article clearly aspires to that sort of quality -(see the GA failure), if possible we should try and replace non reliable sources with ones that pass WP:RS. Certainly the site is still entirely suitable as an external link.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User Rlandmann does not appear to like any reference on the internet - why don't we all give up and leave wikipedia to him - he does not seem to like anyone elses input. Quite honestly, I am getting sick and tired of this nitpicking and other crap people like him keep throwing in the paths of people trying to serious articles on wiki. No wonder so many people just give up and leave. pretty soom it will just be Rlandmann 24/7 Davegnz (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Davegnz please read Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from commenting on other editors and address the content of the article and related policy and guidelines only. If you have an issue with any guidelines and policy quoted then your are welcome to comment on the related talk pages. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for whatever it's worth, I personally think that the Reliability policy as it applies to internet sources is a little too strict (you can read my comments on the subject during the F-4 FA review saga). Furthermore it's ludicrous to suggest that I don't like internet references when I make such extensive use of them myself in my contributions.

Anyway, whether I like them or not or you like them or not isn't the issue here. Nigel has already explained why (as a privately published website) warbirdregistry.org fails Wikipedia's reliability standards. Like Joe Baugher's website, it has the virtue of (most of) its information being properly sourced, and therefore there's no way I'd support removing information from articles simply because it's been sourced from warbirdregistry. All I'm saying is that if and when someone gets the chance to check this material against the source that warbirdregistry cites (Chapman & Goodall's Warbirds Directory), a reference to this reliable source should replace a reference to an unreliable source. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:43, 5 June 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 the photo 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

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Northrop P-61 Black Widow/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is B-class, because in my opinion, it just failed its good article nomination. Some P. Erson 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC). 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: [1]