Talk:P-61 Black Widow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

	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 a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

P-61 Black Widow was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 4 September 2006

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

Contents 1 Merger of introduction with Night Fighter article 2 Whoops 3 heh 4 infobox 5 References 6 Unstable? 7 how was it? 8 Failed GA 9 End of Operational Service? 10 Tone tag

[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..."

[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

[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)

[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)