Yep. Hence maybe the desire for blades to travel up on the inboard (like the P-38) so that inboard stalls first (although, again, other factors might have been more important -- I need to look at Bodie's book).
On the F-82, they seem to travel down inboard, so I guess other factors were more important (like Earl was talking about)?
Just to add to discussion, any aircraft which is sitting in a 3 point stance, i.e., with a tail wheel, is going to be subjected to stronger "P" factor and torque effects than an aircraft which is a tricycle gear, with a nose wheel. In any aircraft which the prop turns to the right, as looking from the pilots seat, The torque and "P" factor pulls to the left, confirming the theory that the "descending" blade takes a more effective "bite" of air, than does the ascending blade. In any twin engine aircraft, with counter-rotating props, such as the F-82, the effects of "P" factor and torque are pretty much balance out, because the decending blade is same away from the center line of the aircraft. However, you must understand that just as you lift off the runway on takeoff, and you lose power in either of the two engines, now, because the thrust line is off-set, the "P" factor and torque effect is very pronounced and very dangerous.
In viewing these responses, I am reminded of a problem that Piper aircraft company had with a "Twin Comanche"! What the NTSB found was this: if the power failed on the left engine, then, because of the short fuseledge and small vertical stabilizer and small rudder, the aircraft was almost uncontrollable below 110MPH IAS, because the effect thrust was so far away from the center line of the aircraft. If the right engine quit or lost power, the effects were nowhere as pronounced because the thrust area of the descending blade of the left engine, next to the fuseledge was closer to the center line of the aircraft. They applied the same fix as the fix on the F-82, and you had VMC the same with either engine loss.
About the same time they were having problems with this great little twin, Cessna aircraft company came out with the 337, which had one engine in front, and one engine in back, therebye eliminating VMC. The only problem that had was that if you lost the rear engine at or near gross weight, it would only climb, about 250 to 300 feet per minute. If you lost the front engine, it would climb about 500 feet per minute on the rear engine.
Business end of a Twin Comanche!
This us the military version of the Cessna 337, which was used as a FAC aircraft in Vietnam.
