Saxman

This case is a combination of BOTH: First, he's reading it in Knots and not MPH. Second, he's reading IAS and not TAS. 258kts IAS is about 300kts TAS at 6000ft, depending on exact conditions. And 300kts is about 345mph, which is right around where the 1D's TAS at 6000ft should be. @LeCuvier Your Corsair is going EXACTLY how fast it should be at that altitude once you factor in all the conversions.

The performance curves you posted are for a 1A. So 420mph at altitude on WEP would be typical, with some potential for as high as 430. Rate of climb would be about 3500fpm at SL, down to about 3000fpm up to 5000ft. I can't provide specific numbers for a denavalized Corsair, but you're probably looking at gains in turn rate, rate of roll, and rate of climb with the reduced weight (roll especially because the removed weight would be coming off the wings).

An FG-1A (Goodyear Corsairs were usually delivered denavalized, shaving off about 1500lbs dry weight) with water injection and the paddle prop (after VF-17 tested them on their Corsairs they were retrofit on many others in the field) would be AWESOME.

It says slowly increase to Auto Rich. I don't think the manual mix went beyond 50%, tho.

To reiterate what felixx said before: They're not the same engine. The F4U-1s used the R-2800-8 or 8W (the only difference between the two being the 8W has water injection). The P-47D-30 has the R-2800-59. They have completely different tunings, configurations, and power bands.

250kts Indicated or True?

That's definitely a bug/exploit. I don't think it was physically possible to set the RPMs past 2700 in the real machine.

The point they're arguing is those tests are only comparative, but don't provide actual measured numbers.

In the original Corsairs the red band on the mixture control between Idle Cutoff and Auto Lean was a manual lean, which was primarily provided for cases where there were problems with the engine, but could also be used by the pilot for maximum fuel efficiency if desired. Currently, there is no manual lean implemented. Can this functionality be added?

From the 1942 version: Warning is less marked, not non-existent. Is the stall light actually working?

In the Corsair you pull the handle DOWN for max RPM, not forward. Depending on whether you're using an axis or the clickable cockpit that can make a HUGE difference.

Those charts are for an F4U-1A. Note the serial numbers: 17930 and 50030. The F4U-1D began on BuNo. 50360. The 1D lost about 10-15mph of speed because of drag from the knuckle pylons (BuAer gives the 1D a top speed of 410mph at ~20,000ft).

Watch your altimeter.

The thing to keep in mind is that Navy and Marine squadrons for the most part didn't have personal aircraft like the USAAF. VF-17 and a few CAG birds were rare exceptions. Pilots flew whatever airframes happened to be available (and in the case of carrier squadrons, whatever order they happened to be spotted on the deck because the crews didn't have time make sure the aircraft were spotted so each pilot got "their" plane). In the case of the Marines, those aircraft were often not even assigned to a particular squadron. Instead, it was quite common that every squadron at that particular airfield would draw aircraft from the same shared pool. So 17883 may have very well been flown by VMF-214 on one mission, and VMF-124 on the next. So there was no such thing as "Pappy Boyington's Corsair." Merely Corsairs that happened to be flown in a sortie by Boyington. And as I said before, he's confirmed to have flown sorties in both 740 and 883, and was shot down flying 915.

This is contradicted by Vought's operations manual: There's aerodynamic warning during carrier approach in the form of increasing heaviness in the left wing and a corresponding necessity for right rudder input.

What about the Zero? And are the regular loaded weights on the mod even accurate to start with?

Currently, the Corsair's guns can be set to harmonize in a range between 300 - 500 meters. The US wouldn't have used meters for measuring range when boresighting, and these ranges also don't fall under what the ranges used by the Americans, being much longer. The US typically used convergence ranges between 500ft and 1000ft (Wikipedia cites works by Colgan, Bergerud, and Nijboer giving ranges of 500ft, 750ft, 900ft, and 1000ft, though I don't have the referenced books to confirm the data). According to Hammell (also cited in Wiki. I have that book, Aces Against Japan, but I don't know where my copy is off-hand) at least one Marine squadron centered the guns of their Corsairs as short as 300ft. I've seen charts for the P-47 with ranges as far as 1200ft. Well short of 500m. I have found one harmonization chart specifically for the F4U, though I can't read any of the ranges given: Regardless, the ranging ought to be given in yards or feet, and the range of convergence points for each gun should be brought in much closer.

I can only speak to what was done historically, but initially it would have been something like: 40% AP / 40% Incendiary / 20% Tracer (so each group of five would be two AP, two Incendiary and a tracer). By Late War the USN had gone entirely to the M8 API round (four API and a tracer in each five). I don't know if that's what M3 did with the Corsair's load.

Yeah, IIRC the early J2Ms especially had durability issues. It'd be nice if someone could fix the flight models on some of these mods, at least to the point they were reasonably usable. It's not fun losing every advantage you're supposed to have because the modeling is off.

I think by late in the War the standard USN mix was four rounds of M8 API (armor-piercing incendiary) and one tracer per five rounds. API would absolutely be more effective than the mix of tracer, ball, AP, and incendiary used prior to that point since its more likely to start a fire in the target.

Forget about the engine, I want my oil cooler scream. You can't call it Whistling Death if there's no death whistle.

I'm firmly of the opinion that when Japanese aircraft get modeled, they should be modeled based on their ACTUAL performance, not their "on-paper" specs. No Homare engine ever produced its rated power for the Ki-84 on that 87/91 gas the Japanese had.

That would still indicate its implementation is wonky. If maxing the throttle already gives the additional power as it should, there's no need for a separate WEP button. But I've only ever seen the Injection light turn on a few minutes after pressing the "WEP Button."

I'm suspicious of the flight modeling on the Zero mod on that site. I've tried it, and watched a Zeke follow me through a power-on dive to 400kts IAS. I've seen another mod elsewhere for a G4M2, but it apparently has no hit box and can't be shot down.

There's no switch in the cockpit. Water injection was activated automatically when the throttle was maxed out. There was a stop wire that would block off the final 3/8in of the throttle and the pilot would have to push through it to turn on injection. The consensus right now is that injection doesn't appear to be working properly.