What Wikipedia says about counter-rotating propellers and the P-38:

Generally, the propellers on both engines of most conventional twin-engined
aircraft spin clockwise (as viewed from the the rear of the aircraft).
Counter-rotating propellers generally spin clockwise on the left engine, and
counter-clockwise on the right. The advantage of counter-rotating propellers is
to balance out the effects of torque and p-factor, eliminating the problem
of the critical engine.

In designing the Lockheed P-38, the decision was made to reverse the
counter-rotation, making both engines critical, and having the "tops" of the
propeller arcs rotating outwards, away from each other. Tests on the initial
XP-38 prototype demonstrated greater accuracy in gunnery with the unusual
configuration. The German World War II Henschel Hs 129 ground attack aircraft,
Heinkel He 177 heavy bomber and Messerschmitt Me 323 transport's
counter-rotating powerplants used the same rotational "sense" as the production P-38 did."

I have some more P-38 literature on the way - you can never have enough
research.

I am floored by the info on planetary gears and the reverse ratio NOT BEING
THE OBVIOUS, like using the same gears and rings. Do I have it right? The
math formulas seem to prove it.

Someone asked "why not go 62.5%", and the simple reason is what I call
"growth creep". Doesn't linear growth in reality translate into cubic or
volumetric growth? I started with 50% (wingspan 26'), then 55%, and on to 60%
(wingspan 32.2'). This is my line in the sand for the best fit of essentials,
like engines and pilot, with the least amount of dimensional fudging. Yet, the
jump from 50 to 60% was a six foot + increase in wing span, plus there will
be all the other added 10% of this and that. Any more percentages, and I
can't afford it, because everything needs to be bigger, and costs more and
more.

There were some fellows, recently, called themselves Team-38
(www.team-38.com), wanted to do what I am thinking of doing. Last I looked, they were at
an 80% 2-place tandem Experimental, twin 502 cu in 510HP Chevy Big Block
engines - "quick build airframe kit, incl engines, redux drives, props, no
avionics, projected cost $300,000", except their place is  closing down and maybe
they will get around to it some other way. All this in the same "corporate
speak" they were using when they were hot to trot. And how many can afford a
$300,000 kit?

And, you know, I might not get there either, but trying it is fun, and a
big bonus is that none of you are party-poopers. I see only positive thinkers,
sometimes with tongue-in-cheek, and that's fun too!     Thanks!