Well, this is unique.

[jmcquate]

XP-82. First flight

 

[Renegade One]

Pretty sweet configuration for an NFO. The radar-equipped night fighter version had the RADAR operator in the starboard cockpit.

 

[wink]

Always thought the P-82 was cool.
As a high time tail wheel pilot, it is dragging two fully castering tail wheels around that I can't wrap my head around.

 

[picklesuit]

Always thought the P-82 was cool.
As a high time tail wheel pilot, it is dragging two fully castering tail wheels around that I can't wrap my head around.

It’s like jetting around in a backwards shopping cart...

 

[jmcquate]

Always thought the P-82 was cool.
As a high time tail wheel pilot, it is dragging two fully castering tail wheels around that I can't wrap my head around.

Why wouldn't they turn with the brake inputs?

 

[Jim123]

Why wouldn't they turn with the brake inputs?

Think backwards shopping cart going fast. Being able to turn isn't the problem.

 

[xj220]

Being able to turn is the problem; it's too easy. Tail wheel planes always made me nervous but luckily I never ground looped one. Not yet, at least.

 

[Renegade One]

As a high time tail wheel pilot, it is dragging two fully castering tail wheels around that I can't wrap my head around.

Would the counter-rotating props do away with P-factor entirely?

 

[nittany03]

Would the counter-rotating props do away with P-factor entirely?

From the Wiki . . .

The XP-82 was to be powered by two Packard-built Rolls-Royce V-1650 Merlin engines. Initially, the left engine was a V-1650-23 with an additional gear in the propeller reduction box to allow the left propeller to turn opposite to the right propeller, which was driven by the more conventional V-1650-25. In this arrangement both propellers would turn upward as they approached the center wing, which in theory would have allowed better single-engine control. This proved not to be the case when the aircraft refused to become airborne during its first flight attempt. After a month of work North American engineers finally discovered that rotating the propellers to meet in the center on their upward turn created sufficient drag to cancel out all lift from the center wing section, one quarter of the aircraft's total wing surface area. The engines and propellers were then exchanged, with their rotation meeting on the downward turn, and the problem was fully solved.

Yes, I know, in actuality thrust counteracts drag, weight counteracts lift, blah blah blah blah blah. Still an interesting story about 1940s aeronautical engineering.

 

[Jim123]

Being able to turn is the problem; it's too easy.

We're saying the same thing, just phrasing it kinda different.

 

[wink]

It is a weird visual for me. It should handle on the ground like any tail wheel plane.

 

[picklesuit]

Would the counter-rotating props do away with P-factor entirely?

Only on a treadmill...

 

[xj220]

Refused to become airborne? Talk about an exciting (attempted) first flight.

 

[HuggyU2]

Tom Reilly spent something like 20 years working to get it flying. AOPA or EAA magazine (can’t remember which) has a good article on it from last year.