Saxman

Back in the day on Aces High some of the best Corsair sticks would use them in turn fights on the deck. Not only to get speed down to bring the wonder flaps into play, but if you pull too hard, stalled it, and hit the deck you MIGHT bounce back up again, lol (I actually did see a guy do that).

The Corsair is a lot of airplane, but it's actually DAMN good in a turning fight. Excellent rate of roll, very effective rudder, and good flaps.

I've got a LONG history with the Corsair going back to Aces High over twenty years. IMO the Corsair is best when you use the vertical during maneuvers. Don't turn flat. Use high and low Yo-Yos to manage your E state. Also, going vertical will let you cut some of your horizontal turn distance off, allowing you to cut inside an opponent that has, ostensibly, a tighter turn radius. If you can't get lead without scrubbing your E, or if you're not going to get nose on target, try a barrel roll attack: Before he breaks past you pull up and barrel roll AWAY from him, and continue the roll until you can put your lift vector in front of him. Use that big barn door attached to the tail to help swing your nose around and drop back in behind him. Beware that you may lose visual for a moment during the initial break and need to pick him up quickly once you've rolled inverted. Be liberal with the application of that rudder. The Corsair has a VERY good one, and often you can get guns on for a snapshot by kicking the rudder to haul the nose over when your opponent thinks he's managed to slip out of reach. If you need to, remember those flaps. Those first two notches will automatically blow up when their speed is exceeded, and drop back down again as your airspeed decreases, basically making them automatic combat flaps. You might lose a little acceleration, but this will really help your turns. Remember that the Corsair's rate of roll IMPROVES with airspeed. Other than the 190s, the Corsair should out-roll any of the other Warbirds at high speeds. Take advantage of that. And when all else fails, point that big nose at the deck and run like hell.

I have not. That kinda IS their intended use.

I don't think the Corsair could set them that way.

@-Rudel- If it IS modeled, could you have them confirm whether it's tied to throttle position or a separate on/off key press? That seems to be the other point of contention about WEP modeling.

It's just "the curved approach." VF-17 was already doing it when they completed their carrier qualifications in April, 1943 (the FAA didn't begin training on Corsairs until June...under VF-17's tutelage).

That's counter to the training, which has you dip the nose slightly right as you get over the deck, and then flare for a three-point trap.

No good, still crashing. In addition to the previous Windows Log, this is coming up in the App Logs: Fault bucket 1471811971782953361, type 4 Event Name: APPCRASH Response: Not available Cab Id: 0 Problem signature: P1: ModelViewer2.exe P2: 2.9.18.12899 P3: 687e5a6e P4: ucrtbase.dll P5: 10.0.19041.3636 P6: 81cf5d89 P7: c0000005 P8: 0000000000026e53 P9: P10: Attached files: \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER789C.tmp.dmp \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER792A.tmp.WERInternalMetadata.xml \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER7969.tmp.xml \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER7967.tmp.csv \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER79E5.tmp.txt These files may be available here: \\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive\AppCrash_ModelViewer2.exe_b9aa88bf1a7d1fe49daf5c70c77b37d54ca59e90_28dd4121_c560fa4e-6d05-4ebc-9039-150d3124f1b1 Analysis symbol: Rechecking for solution: 0 Report Id: aa74877d-9096-449a-8bca-afd9ed25287d Report Status: 268435456 Hashed bucket: cb59a7844734223f346ced30ba4a4991 Cab Guid: 0 Report.wer attached Report.wer

I'll try clearing the shaders again, but I've already done that a couple times now, and it's definitely not just taking a long time to load but is crashing out entirely (as shown by the Windows Event Logs).

The citations I have are in my OP. That's the best copy of Pattern 2 I can find, and I can't find any information on what Pattern No. 1 is at all (ww2aircraft.net speculates it's for point convergence). According to Hammel (Aces Against Japan) VMF-213 zeroed all six guns to 100 yards. That's all I have.

Just wanted to poke this to see if there's any update from the team.

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already. They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first. Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat). When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines. The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

Well for starters there's BuAer's own report. The flight manual itself describes the stall behavior as "not abnormal." The problem with the stall in the landing configuration wasn't the stall behavior itself. It was the pilot RESPONSE to it, and how applying too much power too quickly could induce a fatal torque roll. The landing gear bounce issues are another matter entirely and not aerodynamic. The F4U's wing loading was LOWER than the P-51 at about 28lbs/sqft. The P-51 wing loading was about 40lbs/sqft (the F4U-1A even had better power loading, at .19hp/lb to .15). The Spitfire's wing loading varied heavily on the version, but typically around 24lbs/sqft.

Just to get everything in one place, full details: Event Viewer Error: Faulting application name: ModelViewer2.exe, version: 2.9.18.12722, time stamp: 0x687e5a6e Faulting module name: ucrtbase.dll, version: 10.0.19041.3636, time stamp: 0x81cf5d89 Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x0000000000026e53 Faulting process id: 0x28ce4 Faulting application start time: 0x01dbfe93ea9288bb Faulting application path: D:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\DCSWorld\bin-mt\ModelViewer2.exe Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\System32\ucrtbase.dll Report Id: bc5e41a2-6eed-4ac5-92bd-c0e2ab94e185 Faulting package full name: Faulting package-relative application ID: Troubleshooting So Far: Tried launch from both \bin and \bin-mt Reinstalled VC++ runtimes Updated video drivers SFC Cleared shader cache Removed all aircraft mods Ran as Admin Ran from elevated CMD Ran in compatibility mode (Win7 and Win8) Tried with local install (generates error about missing DLLs) Verified no AV alerts or AV quarantining files Verified File Integrity/Repaired Game Files Force recreation of Model Viewer cfg file (it does not regenerate) No logs are being generated by the model viewer itself, and no error is appearing. The mouse pointer simply spins for a few moments then stops, and the only record is in the Windows event logs. System Info: OS: Win10 Pro x64 Video: RTX4090 RAM: 64GB Platform: Steam

Could someone from ED please weigh in on this?

It's still your answer, because it's WHY you're not getting the MP you're expecting. At full forward throttle on the real Corsair ADI kicks in, which is what boosts MAP into the 59in range. Since currently injection is NOT being activated by throttle position in the M3 Corsair, it's not going to reach that pressure UNLESS you hit the "Water Injection On" button. Throttle alone isn't enough.

The difficulty of handling the Corsair has been GROSSLY exaggerated by popular culture. In reality, it was found to be not much more difficult to fly than any other high-powered fighter under most conditions. Flown in a clean configuration (no or combat flaps, landing gear up) it was stable and relatively benign, and gave ample warning of a developing stall. It was also not unique when it came to spins: The P-51 had wicked spin behavior, and was notoriously unstable if maneuvering while the fuselage fuel tank was full. Its low-speed "dirty" stall (full flaps and gear out) was a unique situation.

It's improved. Before the Corsair was especially suffering from excessive yaw instability. And I'm not talking about the rudder inputs, it's like the tail was just sliding out from under it in any sort of maneuver, which the historical aircraft didn't experience and was actually noted to be very stable.

Watch your side-slip indicator. If you don't retrim or counter with rudder input, any change in throttle position (or even just increases/decreases in airspeed) will cause the Corsair to slip left or right of center and one wing to grow heavier. So it's definitely modeled at all airspeeds.

I've seen a lot of "in progress" shots for sims like DCS and the upcoming Combat Pilot that show the full internal skeletal structure being modeled, along with internal components (guns, fuel tanks, etc.). I'm curious what the standard actually is for level of detail for the structural framework and internal bits. Is it "just enough" to establish the layout of the skeletal structure? Or is there a particular level of fidelity being used even for the parts that wouldn't be visible?

I mean that can happen if you whack your head against the glass on the inside of the canopy.

First of all, I think it's a cool bit of immersion that in VR you can actually stand up in the cockpit. I did it last night after landing aboard the carrier to watch the other planes come in, and I could almost FEEL my hand on the canopy frame for balance. Or being able to lean around the windscreen when the canopy is open (especially with how the sound of the engine/propeller and wind changes). The problem is, the pilot's head view doesn't appear to be getting properly restricted when the canopy is CLOSED. It's possible to put your head through it if you lean far enough to the side (I haven't checked yet to see if you can still "stand").

The detent doesn't work. Whether because it's not set up yet, or by design. If you go into the control bindings for the Corsair, there's a separate bindings for Water Injection On and Injection Off. These need to be assigned to either a keyboard button, or a button on your HOTAS (I programmed virtual buttons on my CH quadrant so I could bind it to throttle position).

The new patch significantly improves stability, especially in the yaw axis. She's no longer fishtailing all over the sky, but rudder authority is still strong (as it should be considering it's a big honkin' rudder).