Author Topic: A nice Warbird fix: XP-82 Twin Mustang in flight at Oshkosh a few days ago (Read 2351 times)

RocketMan · « **on:** July 30, 2019, 03:36:24 PM »

Youtube video of the only flying XP-82 Twin Mustang in the world at Oshkosh just a few days ago.

Andiron · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2019, 05:30:46 PM »

It's like they wanted to build a P38, but only heard of it by rough description.

Interesting bird.

Ben · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2019, 05:35:40 PM »

That's cool.

We had these guys here a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.ericksoncollection.com/helicopterwarbird-flights

They were here for the weekend, and I only learned about it that Sunday. Otherwise, I would seriously have considered ponying up the $450 for a ride. I think that would have been awesome.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2019, 06:06:49 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEJwLcj6qEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTch92szbg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KQ_TtcH6Qw

HeroHog · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2019, 07:35:21 PM »

I assume one side is the pilot and the other the gunner?

BobR · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2019, 07:52:21 PM »

Quote from: HeroHog on July 30, 2019, 07:35:21 PM

I assume one side is the pilot and the other the gunner?

Pilot/Pilot or Pilot/Radar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang

bob

TommyGunn · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2019, 08:07:18 PM »

Quote from: BobR on July 30, 2019, 07:52:21 PM

Pilot/Pilot or Pilot/Radar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang

bob

What happens if it's "pilot/pilot" and they don't agree on which way to turn?

HeroHog · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2019, 08:16:48 PM »

Pilot/Gunner-Radar would make more sense to me.

brimic · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2019, 09:11:00 PM »

Every thing about it looks wrong, like it’s a mutant or something. Proportions seem wrong.
As weird as the P-38 looks, it looks like it’s supposed to look like it does (for a lack of better words) and a lot sleeker.

Unisaw · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2019, 09:27:30 PM »

Quote from: brimic on July 30, 2019, 09:11:00 PM

Every thing about it looks wrong, like it’s a mutant or something. Proportions seem wrong.
As weird as the P-38 looks, it looks like it’s supposed to look like it does (for a lack of better words) and a lot sleeker.

I had the same reaction, especially when it was on final.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2019, 10:04:13 PM »

My grandmother used to say, "Handsome is as handsome does."

RocketMan · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2019, 06:25:00 AM »

You're right about the proportions looking wrong as the P-82 wasn't really two P-51s bolted together. It was pretty much a new aircraft just inspired by the P-51. There wasn't much commonality of parts between the two.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2019, 09:15:00 AM »

Was that an actual plane someone intended to sell or was it just a hobby build someone made with Mustangs were more common?

K Frame · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2019, 09:20:40 AM »

I had no idea that the F-82 actually saw combat.

K Frame · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2019, 09:23:27 AM »

Quote from: HeroHog on July 30, 2019, 08:16:48 PM

Pilot/Gunner-Radar would make more sense to me.

As originally designed they were to be flown by two certified pilots who could trade off flying duties on super long escort flights.

In combat one pilot was always the designated combat pilot and the other was along for the ride if not operating the radar.

There was no gunner duties -- the primary pilot controlled the guns.

WLJ · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2019, 09:37:28 AM »

Quote from: Andiron on July 30, 2019, 05:30:46 PM

It's like they wanted to build a P38, but only heard of it by rough description.

Interesting bird.

Designed for totally different roles. The 38 was designed as an interceptor with high speed, high rate of climb, and a weapons layout meant for taking out bombers being the primary goals. The fact that it was later used as an escort and fighter/bomber was more of matter of need than design. The 82 was designed as a two seat long range fighter escort which enabled two pilots to share the work burden since it was recognized that the long range of the 51 was already pushing the endurance of it's single pilot to the limit. The 82's design later proved useful as a radar equipped night interceptor.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:18:11 AM »

Quote from: WLJ on July 31, 2019, 09:37:28 AM

Designed for totally different roles. The 38 was designed as an interceptor with high speed, high rate of climb, and a weapons layout meant for taking out bombers being the primary goals. The fact that it was later used as an escort and fighter/bomber was more of matter of need than design. The 82 was designed as a two seat long range fighter escort which enabled two pilots to share the work burden since it was recognized that the long range of the 51 was already pushing the endurance of it's single pilot to the limit. The 82's design later proved useful as a radar equipped night interceptor.

That answers my question. I didn't know it was an actual military plane.

fifth_column · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:30:46 AM »

My first thought when seeing the plane was "that's just a bad idea." It looks like it might split down the middle at any moment.

WLJ · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:52:08 AM »

What I said above about about the design of the P-38 is similar to what happened with the F-4 Phantom II and to some extent the F-14. The F-4 was design as a pure interceptor that was later pressed into the fighter/bomber role. One shortcoming with the F-4 is that it originally didn't have a gun at all so later they added guns as pods and then internally in later models after they got the message that if you're going to use it as fighter it really needs a gun. The F-14 while being designed as an interceptor as well did have some fighter elements incorporated in the design from the start such as having an internal gun.
The F-105 was design as a tactical nuclear strike aircraft and then was pressed into the fighter/bomber role with, shall we say, poor results.

K Frame · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:05:06 AM »

Talking about doubled aircraft...

How about the Heinkel HE-111Z Zwilling?

WLJ · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:19:45 AM »

Yep, basically two He-111s fused together with a fifth engine thrown in for good measure.
What happens when a German engineer says hold my beer.

WLJ · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:30:36 AM »

The world's biggest plane has 6 engines and a 385-foot wingspan
https://www.popsci.com/worlds-biggest-plane-stratolaunch-first-flight/

WLJ · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:32:39 AM »

WLJ · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:38:06 AM »

Wiki has a list of twin fuselage aircraft though many are just design concepts.
One I didn't know about was a proposed twin fuselage C-5 to serve as a Space Shuttle transport. Makes me want to drink just thinking about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-fuselage_aircraft

WLJ · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:42:59 AM »

I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue
Still 87' less wing span than the Stratolaunch though but still

News:

Author Topic: A nice Warbird fix: XP-82 Twin Mustang in flight at Oshkosh a few days ago (Read 2351 times)