Talk:North American F-82 Twin Mustang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent updates

Bill- I'm flattered that you consider the text of this article, which I originally wrote back in 2005/2006, to be so good that you deleted all my recent additions to restore it vitrually intact. Unfortunately you distroyed all the research that I've done in the last few months to update what I had written two years ago. For one thing, some of what I wrote back then now needs to be updated as new information has surfaced. In addition, the surviving aircraft thankfully haven't just sat around gathering dust. I'm extremely pleased to report that Tom Reilly just purchased Walter Soplata's XP-82 airframe and it's now another hulk off his fam and on its way to a glorious restoration (that may take longer than our combined lifetimes, but if anyone can do it Tom Reilly can). If you want references please check out Kevin Tanner's article in the June 2008 issue of Air Classics magazine. He sites most of what I've added. Other information came from David McLaren's excellent book "Double Menace". I got a copy after I had originally written this article and am just now getting around to updating my errors and ommissions (propellers DID interfer with the SRC-720 radar set, which was why the dish had to be positioned in front of the props). "Double Menace" is still the only book ever written about the history of the F-82, though I hope to get with Dave someday and write an updated version, and use a better publisher. I tried looking up the ISBN # for the book, but unfortunately it appears to be so rare I wasn't able to find a seller who listed the book with the #. As far as citing references, I'm sorry but I've never been any good at figuring out how to use Wikipedia's citiong system. I'm not a computer geek, and a lot of this programming language still doesn't make sense to me. I would welcome your help with citing Dave's book and Kevin's article for the updates I've added. I've also sent Tom reilly an E-mail asking him to post a photo of his XP-82 to this article so everyone can see what a task he has ahead of him, god bless em'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a lengthy response, but my computer ate it! Really! I'll try to write it again later, but I have errands to run at the moment. - BillCJ (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill- Ya, ain't computers wonderful! No problem though, if you want to write to me off Wikipedia you can reach me at kkeisel@gmail.com . Always nice to see another fan of the "Twin". Ken Keisel 11 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bzuk- Thanks for the fixes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill- There's a rather lovely article about the CAF's F-82 and the legal battle between them and the USAF in this month's "Air & Space" magazine. It also has some commentary about the other surviving F-82's. I've referenced it, and have someone more adapt than I who will complete the references shortly. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The war story

The combat story about engagement with Yaks and Las doesn't make sense. No two-seat Yak-9s were ever produced, which suggests that the target was a Yak-11 (my references also cite a Yak-11 as the first air-air loss of the war). But could a Yak-11 with a mere 570 hp and a single machine gun really engage an F-82 and score hits on it unless the pilots were real buffoons? Or was there a Yak-9 attack followed by the Twin Mustang engaging a Yak-11? Can someone clarify this? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yak-11 were trainer aircraft, no fighters. They had provision for two seats.Dirk P Broer (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've seen the photograph taken by Lt. Frazier of the aircraft they shot down (taken from inside the cockpit using a hand held camera). It does appear to be a Yak-11. These planes were designed as trainers, but did have a single machine gun in the forward cowling. There seems to be no dispute that there were two crew in the aircraft, which also pretty much indicates a Yak-11. The North Koreans wern't expecting any air cover over Kimpo that day, so they probably sent up anything that had a gun.Ken keisel 10 June 2008

The combat story about engagement with Yaks and Las also conflicts with the main Wikipedia article on the La-7. It says no La-7s were used by North Korea. Could be a later version, like the La-9?

Design

Why was it designed the way it was? // Liftarn

The airplane was meant to be a very long-range escort fighter in the Pacific Theatre of Operations. The big "trump card" the US military was intent upon playing in the PTO was the B-29 Superfortress. As soon as that airplane began development, planners began looking at ways to employ it to bomb the Japanese home islands. The entire strategy in the Pacific was driven by efforts to obtain islands to place B-29s within striking distance of Japan. The US Army Air Forces learned in late 1942 & through the first half of 1943 that our bombers, when penetrating deeply into enemy territory in Europe, suffered heavy losses without adequate fighter escort, & it was felt the B-29s would suffer the same fate at the hands of the Japanese. By the beginning of 1944, it was obvious that the US bomber forces in Europe had a winning escort fighter in the Merlin-powered P-51, & efforts were underway at North American Aircraft to improve the design. The problem in the Pacific was distance; the crew members in the B-29s could be expected to share the flying duties on the long missions required to cover the vast distances to reach Japan from their hard-won island bases, but for one pilot in a P-51, those vast distances probably would be debilitating. The thought of "too bad there isn't a second pilot in a P-51 to help the poor guy out as a relief pilot" drove the designers at NAA to take their winning escort fighter & provide just that. The original P-82 concept took 2 fuselages of the "light-weight" Mustangs under development at the time (specifically the P-51F) & joined them on a common wing with proven advanced aerodynamic attributes. The resulting design provided a highly maneuverable fighter aircraft with multi-engine reliability, combined with lots of airframe capacity to carry fuel (in that long wing & in the two fuselages) to provide the extended range required in the Pacific, plus a relief pilot to share in the tasks required to fly the airplane to the target & back (originally, the left fuselage cockpit had a full set of controls for the airplane, while the right side cockpit had just enough controls to provide relief to the left side pilot). The layout of the design itself probably started out as a curiously unusual, albeit appealing, approach to a daunting mission requirement.71.228.225.234 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Forty years ago actually talked to a man who flew (as a passenger and not in combat) in one of these. His comment was that it was pure hell to fly in maneuvers (i.e. combat) as the asymmetric seating for each of the pilots produced incredible, bi directional forces. In a sharp turn, the inside pilot experienced violent negative forces as the plane rolled followed by immediate (but normal) positive forces. Outside pilot got the reverse. Someone who actually knows or cares, please research this and include in the article.76.20.10.235 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, it might be interesting to have some information on the layout of the two cockpits. Were they identical? Were the two pilots performing the same function, or did they have two specialized functions? Did the planes ever fly with just one pilot?Newell Post (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In this section it is implied that the aircraft, with outboard turning props, couldn't fly until, a month later, the engines were swapped so the props would turn inboard. Mention is made of the outboard turning props' propwash causing "drag" on the wing center section negating lift and preventing flight. However, next to that paragraph is a photo of the second prototype in flight (as well as the photo above it) and careful examination will show it is flying on outboard turning props. The real problem appears to have simply been the wing center section blocking the somewhat ground parallel propwash from the upward moving blades preventing it from flowing coherently over the stabilizer and elevator and preventing elevator control. Simply tapping the brakes during takeoff roll (the same technique used to get the Me262 prototype flying) would raise the tail into the free flowing airstream allowing elevator control before takeoff speed. The switching of engines for inboard turning propellers would provide a downward propwash over the center wing and good air over the stab/elev very early in takeoff roll but at the expense of some slow speed and accelerated stall stability but improve single engine performance while the original outboard turning props would provide milder stalls at all speeds but slightly worse single engine performance. This very same problem (wing blanking of stabilizer on ground) was experienced on the Me262 prototype which was fixed by switching from a tailwheel to a nose wheel. JetMec (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this thing about having two pilots reducing fatigue, by switching the person flying the plane, should be more clearly mentioned in this section of the article. There are plenty of sources that talk about it, and visitors to the article are going to wonder about the unusual desing. 85.76.45.103 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Survivors

Back in November I proposed a change of layout for the Survivors articles (to a table layout) and a number of articles were changed (the rest are still in the pending tray). User:Davegnz has reverted A-20 Havoc survivors back to the earlier fanboy style including all the external links which as has been discussed previously are not allowed. As far as I am aware this has not been discussed since and the table style has still got consensus, any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a RFC/whatever out on the survivors issue that Dave has yet to respond to? He has made it clear form his recent edits that he not interested in abiding by consensus on anything that diasgree's with his "style". Time to take things to the next step, whatever that is. (Seriously - I don't know the next step? ArbCom?) - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bill, he hasn't shown any interest in following consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another user has now decided they dont like the table format and reverted the article back! I have invited him/her to discuss it here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Heretic checking in. I actually like the graphic layout that Dave uses. I know it may not have received official sanction, but it does look "priddy." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

I dont have an objection to not using the tables what I didnt like was the fanboy layout with all the imbedded external links and abbreviations and stuff (like condition codes as used in warbird books and an addiction to variant codes) that would just confuse anybody who wasnt into warbirds. I dont have an objection if somebody could come up with an alternate layout between the fanboy and the table layouts that doesnt include all the specialist stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the use of external links is "not on". WP:EL: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The reversions and ownership issuers are continuing using IPs, per this diff. Edit summary: "If you can not conform to the rest of the series keep you hands off - Why do you not grow-up and creat you own articles..." - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an admin should do a sockpuppet check to me. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - looks like he has gone over to the New Jersey State Library to get a new IP address - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise to MilborneOne I am going to once again try and turn a survivor article into a table type article... I do want to point out to everyone the wikipedia rules for tables:

• [Wikipedia:When to use tables] specificially:

Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format. This might include:

Mathematical tables

Multiplication tables

Tables of divisors

Lookup tables

Lists of information

Equivalent words in two or more languages

Person, birthdate, occupation

Artist, album, year, and label

Often a list is best left as a list. Some articles include very long lists which might be difficult to edit if they were in table form. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 March 2009

Just to make it clear the compromise solution doesnt have to be a table it just need to address some of the presentation and content concerns we have already discussed. So if you dont think tables will work then we can look at other ideas you may have. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

With a bit of co-operation and discussion between us, Davgnz has changed the A-20 Havoc survivors article into a different non-table format. We have tried to get a balance for the need for detailed information but yet remain readable and encyclopedic. Comments are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There haven't even been any comments yet and the new "style" is already being implemented on other aritcles, including types. This is not consensus! Wikipedia is not a directory, which is what these types of lists are turning into. Personally, I HATE tables, but this is not much of an improvement. Bullets work best for one entry per bullet, and it's too confusing for other editors to add info (a similar objection I have to complex/long tables). Straight linear text works best for me, as many editors, such as Ken Keisel, like to add a little history on each aircraft. As long as that history is sourced, I think it's a good thing, as it breaks up the dry data. Also, similar multi-bullet "styles" are being implemented in the variants sections of a number of aircraft articles, and they do not work any better. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel? - BillCJ (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is starting to impact me as well I have to pipe in here. What Davegnz is doing to articles constitutes vandalism, plain and simple. Not only is he implementing his "policy" while editing under an unregistered i.d. (see F-82), he also claims that the idea of having the "Survivors" section as a table is MilborneOne, not his, and has told me so. The "Survivors" section must be kept in a simple text format for several obvious reasons. First, it allows the individual aircraft's "story" to be told in a clear, easy-to-read format. A table is incompatible with a section that is meant to tell a story, or provide a history. Second, the use of a table limits the ability of other editors, particular inexperienced editors, to add their own information to the article, and discourages them from doing so. I just found out that the CAF's F-82 has been dismantled and is being shipped to the NMotUSAF in Dayton because an editor with limited experience on Wikipedia was kind enough to update the survivors section on the F-82 with this breaking news. I contacted the museum in Dayton and have found out that it is all true, so good work to the new editor!! Had the F-82 survivor section been formatted as a table there would have been no way for a new editor to add this information, and I'm sure we wouldn't have it at all. A simple text format for the "Survivors" encourages such additions, giving folks like me the opportunity to research the accuracy of information, and if it's true, have new information that we otherwise wouldn't have had. This is the whole reason for Wikipedia in a nutshell. On the other hand, I can't think of a single good reason in defense of having the "Survivors" section as a table. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked with Davegnz on a compromise solution half way between his original fanboy format and a table format that had also been used. Yes the table format was my idea but it was clear from the comments received and some sandboxing (on my talk page) that it did not have a future. The A-20 Survivors article was modified as an example of a bullet format. This was then brought up here (a few lines above) to seek opinions and to gain a consensus or otherwise. At this moment it does not have consensus and we should not really have any format changes while we are still in discussion. At the moment I am happy to go with the eventual consensus the two comments so far indicate that a free text format is best and we dont really need a proscribed format. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The free text format does offer the greatest flexibility, as Ken mentions above. The key thing for me in these articles is to make sure that the entries are properly referenced and that there are no external links in the text, otherwise it all looks like advertising for other websites - so far we seem to have made that last point. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The bullet point format looks terrible to me, particularly in a general article, appears less readable and loses information. It also seems to be in breach of Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists - # Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again! Davegnz just remade the F-82 survivors section as a table for the third time! I don't think he's even listening to us anymore. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical engine

I tried to get through the bit with the engine rotation direction and wanted to link to "critical engine". While reading it I got thoroughly confused about which way a critical and a non critical engine are turning. At the moment I think this article and the "critical engine" article may be contradicting each other. Maybe a pilot that's got a twin engine licence could look at that and make sure it's all correct.--ospalh (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From a purely aerodynamic viewpoint, with both engines turning the same direction the critical engine would be the one with the inboard rotating propeller as it produces a slightly inboard thrust line due to P factor versus an outboard rotating prop which would have a slightly outboard thrust line requiring more corrective rudder and consequent drag. The P-38 had both props turning outboard so neither prop produced an inboard P-factored thrust line --> but <-- at higher power settings in potential stall situations the two propwashes tended to both keep the outboard wings from stalling while inducing the inboard wing to stall. So, overall, outboard prop rotation gave the aircraft milder stalls and better slow speed handling than inboard turning props at the expense of some single engine performance. JetMec (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread seems to have died, and the problem hasn't been resolved. I believe JetMec summed it up the "critical engine" issue pretty thoroughly. I don't have any particular sources to cite but, logically, the article seems to be correct in its description of the engine gearing for left and right engines, resulting in out-ward turning props on the prototype XP-82. The statement "which in theory would have allowed better single-engine control" is likely incorrect, unless the engineers were aware of some unique element that put this design completely outside of normal Critical Engine theory. I'm no aerodynamicist, but I'm sure those would be very unique elements indeed.

Assuming that statement is incorrect, the next questions is: what aerodynamic considerations drove the engineers to try outward turning engines first, counter to Critical Engine convention? That will take some research; it could be a more obscure aerodynamic issue, or FOD considerations during TO and Landing, or any number of other reasons. Considering the enormous profile(s) of the F-82 aft of the CG (a benefit not enjoyed by the P-38), perhaps they weren't overly concerned that both engines were "critical". I welcome any feedback, while I continue my occasional search for good F-82 sources. Rule303 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons

I've made a number of high-resolution scans of F-82 photographs and have uploaded them to Commons and expanded the gallery considerably. Have also expanded the captions of several others. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Extensive?

This article states: "Radar-equipped F-82s were used extensively by the Air Defense Command..." Five squadrons operating the aircraft for two or three years is hardly "extensive" - perhaps this modifier should be deleted or even changed to something like "briefly" or more accurately "to a limited extent" (although that's a bit wordy). At least, this article doesn't claim the aircraft was integrated into the SAGE system as the F-94 article mistakenly does (the F-94C was never equipped with the datalink equipment and was almost completely phased out before SAGE came on line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled comment

Here's a video on the XP-82 posted Aug. 23, 2018. Looks like it's almost ready to fly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQP0IHH3FTs Bizzybody (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How were they used?

I was curious about how they were used. Could either pilot take over control at any time? Did one pilot sleep while the other flew on long trips? Did one fly and the other fire the weapons? The article does not really make this kind of thing clear, and I think other people would be interested too. Thanks. SpecInterest (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Flying survivor

Came across a Feb. 2020 article about a restored flying F-82. Apparently it's a surviving prototype, so XP-82 is more accurate. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/last-long-distance-escorts-180973974/ "No Twin Mustang Has Ever Been Restored…Until Now". They had to copy parts off a damaged fuselage and use replica composite propellers.
Not sure if this info. is suitable for the article. 220 of ^Borg 05:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is also mentioned above, back in 2008!, at Talk:North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang#Recent_updates when the initial 'half' of the fuselage was located. @MilborneOne and Ahunt: who may be interested. 220 of ^Borg 06:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The flyable XP-82 is already covered in the article under North American F-82 Twin Mustang#Surviving aircraft as the first entry there. I read the Air & Space article earlier this year, and it was very interesting. If there are any important details that can be added that we don't cover there already, you can add them if you want to. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assumed that this was all new, but as you said, I had finally seen that it is already on the page at North American F-82 Twin Mustang#Surviving aircraft. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll just slink off and find something useful to do. Breakfast, there's an idea! Regards, 220 of ^Borg 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it just proves Wikipedia is often more up to date than many sources. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. And I did have breakfast, at 5pm in the afternoon, Oztralian time.
Far too much WP editing late at night, on a 10 inch tablet. 220 of ^Borg 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

First flight

• Acording to the infobox: 15th June 1945, I found referenes suppported by warhistoryonline.com, flightjournal.com and classicwarbirds.co.uk (but it's possibly that they have the date of the first flight from here)
• In this article: 26th June 1945, referenes suppported by 318fis talks about first succesful flight. And I found:

„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 contra-rotated, 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 generally as it had been designed to, much to everyone's relief.“ on airvectors.net

• 1945 in aviation 15th April 1945 with ref.: Angelucci, Enzo, The American Fighter: The Definitive Guide to American Fighter Aircraft From 1917 to the Present, New York: Orion Books, 1987, p. 340.

So which date is correct? MestskyVlk (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)