One was fantastic, two would be ...?

[Simon Thomas]

The Mosquito had different aileron deflections via the pulley. It wouldn't be hard to setup dual controls for each cockpit.

 

[GrauGeist]

AN aircraft is designed to maneuver on it's centerline, regardless of configuration.
A Bv141 had the same control orientation as an A6M or a P-61 or a Spitfire.

In other words, take the aircraft's span (regardless of design or configuration), divide it by half and this is where the controls will be centered.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

The XP-82 performance closely matched the P-51D, except it was faster and climber better at same RPM/Boost.

At 20000 pounds combat weight full internal fuel (575 gallons) the W/L was about 47. The 1650-11/21 developed 1405 Hp at 25000 feet, but capable of 1780 Hp at 22500 feet at 90" and 1860 hp at 19,400 at 90" and 2270 Hp at 4000 feet at 90"

By contrast the P-38L with full internal fuel 410 gallons, full combat load was 17,700 pounds and engines at 60" (Max Combat Power) at 26500 feet generated 1600 hp.

At max combat power the comparisons between the XP-82 (with Merlin engines) and P-38l (or K) were
P82 WL = 47, Hp/GW@ Max Combat Power = 2x2270/20000@90"= 0.277, carries 575 gallons of internal fuel. The P-82 HP and max Combat power at 22500 feet = 2x1780/20000 @90" = 0.178

P38L WL= 54, Hp/GW@Max Combat Power = 2x1600/17700@60"= 0.181, carries 410 gallons of fuel. The P-38L HP and max Combat Power at 26500 feet=2x1600 Hp/17700@60" = 0.181

The engine/boom mass combination for the P-82 is a smaller distance from Center of gravity than the twin boom P-38, has no center gondola and a shorter wing span (51 vs 54 feet). It should roll as well or better than the P-38 and accelerate, turn and climb better. It will certainly Dive better.

I have not seen maneuverability related data but the wing loading and Power ratios strongly suggest a significant advantage in all aspects from Drag and overall agility plus guaranteed speed and climb advantage based on the hard data.

The P-82 was much faster

Sorry again to resurrect this thread, but have there ever been reports (official or anecdotal) on the F-82's maneuverability, be it compared to single engine single seaters or other twin engined fighters (single or multi-seat)? Been thinking about that in context of it's originally planned role as a long range bomber escort and in terms of being a night fighter/AW interceptor. Also, the Merlin F-82s never got full powered controls (only rudder and elevator was standardized), while the Allison powered ones also got powered ailerons as standard like later P-38s did.

And we do have to remember that despite its size, the P-38 could turn with or even outturn Fw-190s and Me-109s, but it's roll was abysmal until the powered ailerons were introduced.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And I also have to wonder if such data or info (maneuverability) for any F-82 variant does exist today. But then again, there's a debate on dimensions for the different F-82 variants in several sources and who knows what got thrown away and got saved when NAA and Rockwell got rid of a lot of World War II era/early Cold War era documents. Kind of got the fire to post this (and some stuff about general purpose high altitude fighters) after reading though the Grugenhagen P-51 book (that also covers a bit of the F-82's story) last night.

And there's also the variable of powered controls. The XP-82 and P-82B had powered rudder and elevator, but no powered ailerons (to my knowledge). Everything was powered on the E and later versions. Could it be wise to assume if more than 22 Merlin powered Twin Mustangs were built that they would've had full power assisted controls?