Talk:P-61 Black Widow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
P-61 Black Widow was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 4, 2006

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

A lot of great information in this article but when you go so in-depth, references are doubly appreciated for that "polished" look. I can provide citations for some general military aviation books and a nice publication in Polish (which I can barely read but it has great photos). Great job on the article everyone! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My original plan was to write much, much more, covering the Widow until the P-61C's and F-15's retirement, with a footnote covering surviving examples and restoration projects. Obviously, it's taken me longer than I expected. :) Either way, I do have all my references noted down for the portions I've posted, and sooner or later, I will get them up here. GarageBay9

Forgive me, ahead of time, if I do not place this in the correct form. I am just learning how this all works. I recently added a short paragraph under a heading that has since disappeared called "In the Media" concerning a great book I became aware of on one of the squadrons which flew the P61s in the Pacific Theater. I got a nice note which appeared briefly and which I have not been able to resurrect, that kindly and graciously slapped my hand for advertising - stating that it is out of place on this page. While I am very willing to play by the rules, I wonder should there not be a place where various articles and and books written about the Black Widow can be listed and information provided as to the contents? Short, concise book reviews can be a great source of information for those of us who are trying to learn what we can about this fantastic plane and the men who flew on it. My interest in the book I mentioned centers around the fact that my father wrote most of the squadron history for the Air Force upon which the book is based. For a number of years the author could not locate my father (now deceased), and when he finally located him and I read the book, I found information about the Black Widow in combat that I have been unable to find no other place. I am certain that there are other instances of the same sort of thing occurring. Again, I am in no way interested in commercializing the site, but feel that a place where books can be listed and reviewed might perform a valuable service for people, such as myself, who want to learn more about the P61 and the great men who crewed her.

I am not certain what exactly what is meant by signing this post with four tildes (yes I know what tildes are, just not certain how I can use them to sign my name. So, I can be reached at dan.appel-moose@wavecable.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelsSon (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The tildes is a keyboard accent that is usually found on the extreme top left of a keyboard. Using four of these automatically identifies your name and the current date/time. Read my message in edit mode to see what tildes look like: [~~] FWIW Bzuk (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. MelsSon (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)--MelsSon (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Erson 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]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 (this[2]site 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)