XP-82 project

Danno · **Posted:** Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:20 pm

Chuck,
Do you guys need a F-82 throttle quadrant? I have one...sort of! I may even have one or two small NOS F-82 bits. Maybe we could work
something out.

Dan S.

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:45 pm

RobC wrote:

There is another, much cheaper, answer to this problem that is almost painfully obvious. Most large twins don't have counter rotating propellers, the B-25, A-26, B-26 to name three. Admittedly not original, it would allow the CAF P-82 to fly again without the enormous expenditure of producing blades that turn the wrong way.

The first prototype supposedly had that arrangement, but the airflow from one prop disrupted the airflow for the other one and they either couldn't get the airplane off the ground, or dang near didn't...depending on who's story you listen to. Either way, since the props are so close to one another and have nothing in between (such as a fuselage, in the examples you give), the counter rotating setup was apparently the only way it would work on the P-82.

Aerodynamics is an odd thing sometimes.

Gary

B29Gunner · **Posted:** Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:57 pm

Danno wrote:

Do you guys need a F-82 throttle quadrant? I have one...sort of! I may even have one or two small NOS F-82 bits.

Dan, check your PM's :wink:

carseneau · **Posted:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:21 pm

Helo Dan,
I would be interested to know what P-82 parts you have available. We are restoring a P51-H Mustang at Chanute Aero Museum and may be interested.
Thanks,
Curt

Old SAR pilot · **Posted:** Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:07 am

..Would a prop from a Griffon-powered Fairey Firefly work for the ccw-turning prop, matched up to a cw-turning prop from a Spit? Not original, but a whole lot cheaper than new-from-scratch...

John Dupre · **Posted:** Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:41 pm

mdb4360 wrote:

I am doing research on the Aeroproducts Propellers used on the XP-82 with the Packard Merlin for a new restoration project.

While I am dreaming I thought I would inquire here if anyone had knowledge of any resources out there for fabricating blades for the elusive left hand propeller.

I know there are a growing number of craftsmen in places like New Zealand, Australia...even Russia.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

I won't even bother to ask anyone where I could find a set!!!! (I'm sure the CAF would already have them if they were out there)

Thanks!

Some years ago Hamilton Standard had new blades built for the propeller used on the Mustang. They didn't make the blades themselves since they had long since gotten rid of the tooling and no longer had the experience in house to make that type of blade. Ham. Standard partnered with a company in what was then Czechoslovakia to have the blades made. That might be a lead for you.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11280

John Dupre wrote:

Some years ago Hamilton Standard had new blades built for the propeller used on the Mustang. They didn't make the blades themselves since they had long since gotten rid of the tooling and no longer had the experience in house to make that type of blade. Ham. Standard partnered with a company in what was then Czechoslovakia to have the blades made. That might be a lead for you.

Avia Propeller makes those blades. They also make T-6 blades.

Quote:

http://www.aviapropeller.cz/
Licensed blade and spinner manufacturing for propellers made by world famous U.S. company Hamilton Standard, for "Warbirds" like the P-51 Mustang, T-6 Texan etc.

http://www.aviapropeller.cz/mus_6547blade.htm
http://www.aviapropeller.cz/mus_spin.htm
http://www.aviapropeller.cz/texan.htm

pbeegle1 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:49 am

mdb4360:

Can you share any pics of your restoration?

gregv · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:05 pm

retroaviation wrote:

RobC wrote:

There is another, much cheaper, answer to this problem that is almost painfully obvious. Most large twins don't have counter rotating propellers, the B-25, A-26, B-26 to name three. Admittedly not original, it would allow the CAF P-82 to fly again without the enormous expenditure of producing blades that turn the wrong way.

The first prototype supposedly had that arrangement, but the airflow from one prop disrupted the airflow for the other one and they either couldn't get the airplane off the ground, or dang near didn't...depending on who's story you listen to. Either way, since the props are so close to one another and have nothing in between (such as a fuselage, in the examples you give), the counter rotating setup was apparently the only way it would work on the P-82.

Aerodynamics is an odd thing sometimes.

Gary

Another story being that they had to swap the rotational direction side to side to get it of the ground? Thought I'd read that some years back somewhere.

So is there any merit in the idea of using a matched set of (mirrored) blades, as would be found on a contra-rotating set-up? Or are the blades on such a set-up actually different? I could guess that overcoming blade-to-hub issues could end up costing enough to make a new proper blade set more worth while?

greg v.

Warbird Information Exchange

XP-82 project

Who is online