Developed shortly after World War II, the Twin Mustang was not involved in the conflict, however, as it would have been his performance against the German fighters? The P-82 had anticipated the end of the war? What do you think? The link below provides an interesting report about these questions and an extensive collection of photographs, some rare and unreleased for me. To see the full report and the photos visit the link below:
http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/north-american-p-82f-82-twin-mustang.html
Best Regards!
By: TempestV - 9th February 2016 at 06:27
So, DH Hornet propellers rotate In at the top, same as the Twin Mustang (with the exception of the 1st one).
P-38’s all turn out at the top (again, with the exception of the first one)
In the case of the 82 vs the 38, I think the relative position of the wing vs the centre of the prop arc must have something to do with it.Anyone have any thoughts, or god forbid, facts!:D
I understand that engine failures in the Twin mustang were pretty much a non event, whereas the P-38 took some very quick and specific handling to maintain control after losing an engine.
This makes sense with regards to torque.Andy
Aerodynamically there must be a good reason for wanting the propellers rotating towards each other at the bottom, as several manufacturers have attempted it in the first place.
I don’t know the answer, but wonder if someone does?
By: DH82EH - 8th February 2016 at 23:22
Well then, it’s a good thing that I only mentioned P-38’s and not Lightning 1’s :dev2:
(Tongue planted very firmly in cheek)
Andy
By: Duggy - 8th February 2016 at 20:49
“P-38’s all turn out at the top (again, with the exception of the first one)”
Not exactly correct, British Lightning 1’s had non-counter-rotating props,and were designated by the USAAF as RP-322-I (‘R’ for ‘Restricted’).
Regards Duggy.
By: DH82EH - 8th February 2016 at 18:04
So, DH Hornet propellers rotate In at the top, same as the Twin Mustang (with the exception of the 1st one).
P-38’s all turn out at the top (again, with the exception of the first one)
In the case of the 82 vs the 38, I think the relative position of the wing vs the centre of the prop arc must have something to do with it.
Anyone have any thoughts, or god forbid, facts!:D
I understand that engine failures in the Twin mustang were pretty much a non event, whereas the P-38 took some very quick and specific handling to maintain control after losing an engine.
This makes sense with regards to torque.
Andy
By: TempestV - 8th February 2016 at 17:19
I think the same experience was gained on the DH Hornet where they tried up in the middle rotation and had to swap to down in the middle for rudder response reasons
It is true that the engines were swapped over on the prototype Hornet, but it still managed to get off the ground in this original configuration AND record the highest speed of this type. The engines were swapped due to rudder effectiveness on the hornet.
Strange the twin mustang couldn’t get off the ground?
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th February 2016 at 16:47
I think the same experience was gained on the DH Hornet where they tried up in the middle rotation and had to swap to down in the middle for rudder response reasons
By: Duggy - 8th February 2016 at 14:52
Any expert able to comment about the aircraft having counter-rotating props,both `inwards ` and `outwards` …?
“The first of two XP-82s flew on 16 June 1945, with NAA test pilot Joe Barton at the controls. Barton had actually tried to make the first flight on 25 May, but the machines absolutely refused to get off the runway, and the first actual flight was performed with a half-fuel load. The design engineers were frantic, thinking that the machine was fundamentally flawed, but it turned out that the engines, which contrarotated, had been installed so that the props swept upward towards the center wing section, which stalled the wing section. The engines were quickly reversed, and on 26 June the XP-82 took off and flew more or less as it had been designed to, much to everyone’s relief. Only one of the XP-82As was actually completed, and was rolled out in the late summer of 1945.”
FROM HERE — http://axis-and-allies-paintworks.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4783
Regards Duggy
By: Old Fokker - 8th February 2016 at 12:12
Any expert able to comment about the aircraft having counter-rotating props,both `inwards ` and `outwards` …?
Usually done to counteract torque which may cause the aircraft to veer one way or the other on takeoff. Most common method is just to stick in a bootfull of rudder.
By: sycamore - 8th February 2016 at 11:54
Any expert able to comment about the aircraft having counter-rotating props,both `inwards ` and `outwards` …?
By: Old Fokker - 8th February 2016 at 09:02
Couple of FJ-1 Furies in the colour photo of aircraft being assembled. Dates the photo to around 1947/48.
By: Supermarine305 - 7th February 2016 at 22:35
Would that be a Matchbox Porsche or a Hotwheels?
By: Propstrike - 7th February 2016 at 19:02
Lets all click the link madly, and see if we can help Pampa get a Porsche ! :eagerness:
By: Oxcart - 7th February 2016 at 18:22
Can’t really comment on its performance, but I do avidly read the updates on the XP-82 being rebuilt to fly in the States!
Sign In
February 7, 2016 at 10:10 am