Saxman

So 100 yards should at least be an option. And good GOD that AI video thumbnail is cursed...

It was STILL an issue at release, it just wasn't as bad.

I wouldn't call them addressed. There's still issues like overboosting when according to the POH it shouldn't be.

It's not as sensitive to temperature, but overboost when it shouldn't is still an issue (the only time the POH warns against possible overboost is if you shift supercharger speeds without backing off the throttle).

Any chance you'd be putting the files up for download?

Do you have a better drawing of the left cockpit wall than what's on Air Corps Library? I'm working on a 3D model of the Birdcage Corsair for other purposes and it's so faded it's impossible to read. As for the consoles themselves, is this all 3D printed, or was there some hands-on fabrication involved?

Want.

That's the case for the cowl flaps, oil cooler, and intercooler. However the propeller governor is a positional lever that functions like the throttle handle. It would be most accurate to map it to an axis if you have one available.

It's still there. You can just see more AROUND it, but you the mirrors are still focused on the pilot unless you adjust them so far you can hardly see them at all.

Mirrors: Mirrors have a wider field of view, however they still can't be angled correctly. Engine: The engine still overboosts at full throttle with ADI turned on. This is contrary to the POH, which gives no indication or warning of overboost occurring EXCEPT if the supercharger gear is changed while at high manifold pressures and without reducing throttle first. The POH says WEP is at fully open throttle and max RPM until you get to around 25,000ft or so, at which point RPM should be reduced for propeller efficiency. Taxiing: As others have already noted in the dedicated threads, the aircraft can still be incredibly difficult to turn on the ground; even applying one wheel brake tends to cause the entire aircraft to stop, rather than rotating in place.

Cowl flaps in the Corsair don't work like that. They work exactly as it's already mapped, by holding the lever until the desired position is reached. The only controls that ought to be set as an axis but currently aren't are the flaps, gear, wing fold, and tail hook, all of which would work like the supercharger and mixture handles.

Can we please get axis mappings for: Landing Gear/Brake - Though I'm not sure how that's going to work with the Corsair's forked landing gear position. Flap position Tail Hook Position Wing Position This would be tremendously helpful for sim pit setups.

So I seem to be in a weird half-way state. I've only tried it once so far, but it seems to work properly if I brake once the aircraft is moving. I got a rapid rotation even when the aircraft was only crawling forward. However once I come to a complete stop the aircraft won't rotate even with full brake and rudder.

That might have been the case for early Corsairs that had the cowl flaps going all the way around, but by the time of the 1D the upper flaps had been replaced with a solid piece of sheet metal so that's no longer a factor.

AFAIK it won't go past 54in without ADI turned on. I've never seen it, at least.

Correct, the clipped wings were to improve roll rate. However, as I stated they were considerably more clipped than what was done to the Corsair.

Those clipped-wing Spits (and the A6M3 Model 32) were clipped CONSIDERABLY more than the Corsair's.

Should the vortexes even be visible at all?

There's anecdotal claims the clipped wing Corsairs had a faster sink rate during landing, but AFAIK there's no actual flight tests that confirm this.

The R-3350 isn't remotely a comparable example to the R-2800. The 3350 suffered numerous problems inherent within its design (including the use of flammable magnesium components, bad cylinder head design,excessively lean fuel-air mix, etc.) because of a rushed production cycle. The cooling issues were only part of the problem. The R-2800 didn't have those problems. It was an engine that could LITERALLY have whole cylinder heads blown off and still get the plane home again.

In which case I would use IAS and kts, because kts is what's actually on the dial, and I believe it's what the original POH used.

Sorry, I lost track of who was working on this. @BIGNEWY is there any update?

Part of the problem with determining what the specs should be is it's unclear what configuration the Navy evaluations were performed under. The F4U-1A with ADI was able to hit about 420mph TAS at critical altitude with a combat-condition bird. A specially-prepared, stripped, and sealed 1A (tail hook removed and its compartment faired over for maximum drag reduction) was able to hit closer to 430. However, there's a question Rudel pointed out about what being flown "clean" meant for the F4U-1D. The 1D normally retained the knuckle pylons even when not carrying ordinance, with an aerodynamic cap fitted over the bomb/tank shackles. What we don't know is whether those pylons were removed when the Navy ran performance evaluations on 1D (or -4, for that matter) airframes. So if the Navy clocked the 1D at 410mph at critical altitude, is that with or without the pylons in place? That's an important distinction, because if that's without the pylons that could potentially knock another 10mph off top level speed once they're put back on (the 1D was heavier than the 1A at the same fuel and ammunition load which would add some induced drag).

@-Rudel- Poke

Clarification: Not as bad IN the real thing, or not as bad AS the real thing. My understanding has been pop culture has exaggerated the drop, especially when flown in a clean (no gear/flaps) configuration IE during combat maneuvers. Also, incredibly jealous you've gotten to fly the real thing. As for the controls, I wonder if there ought to be some sort of stick length setting that will adjust stick input automatically to correct for the difference in the amount of deflection.