Saxman

The water injection was first introduced in the 1A, serial numbers 55910, (Vought) 13992, (Goodyear) and 11208 (Brewster). The system was also retrofit onto aircraft already in the field as possible so you can't rely on serials alone. The only model Corsair that to my knowledge never received water injection were the Birdcages since those machines were already being withdrawn from front line service by the time it was introduced.

The Mk.8 gunsight reticle was designed for two purposes: The first is for ranging. If you knew the wingspan of the target, you could estimate its distance using the rings. IE, a 30ft wingspan is at 400 yards if its wings span the middle 50mil ring. A 60ft span would be the same distance if it spanned the outer 100mil ring. The ladder below the pipper was used both for lead shooting, and for aiming ordinance. I haven't done much practice with dive bombing in DCS to see how it compares, but my experience in other simulators is if you're coming in at about a 70 degree dive, putting the target roughly half way between the top of your cowl and the bottom of the 100mil ring should place your bombs right on top of it. I don't know if that will translate to DCS, too, but it's worth a shot.

It's a separate position. Looks like if you left-click the gear handle to extend it goes to brake, and right-click it sets to gear down. The brake position only lowers the main gear.

IMO it should also be in yards, not meters, because that's how it would have actually been measured. And agreed, we also need options under 300.

Max throttle and RPM, Low Blower, ranging from 10,000ft to the deck.

There is the 3-minute warning light which comes on, and I've gotten twice. However I've not seen any change in power. So I think the underlying coding may be there, it just no workee.

There wasn't a detent, but it did have a stop wire the pilot had to push through the first time he engaged the water injection.

Find the point on your throttle where water injection kicks in. Back throttle off to just a hair below that point. Get yourself a strip of self-adhesive felt or velcro. Apply to throttle. Voila, instant detent.

I think that's part of the problem. Injection doesn't seem to be working (it also shouldn't be a separate key map, but should be automatic when the throttle is pushed to full).

Water injection definitely doesn't seem to be modeled right. It shouldn't even be a separate mapping; the injection was automatic when the throttle was pushed to full.

The original source for this quote is the scan I posted.

That needs to be addressed, then, because the 8W was introduced in the 1A and AFAIK none of the 1Ds were produced without water injection.

Shouldn't the DCS version be the 8W? Because that's what the 1D had.

I'd like to be able to bind the flaps to an axis so I can use an actual handle to set the position. Same with the landing gear/air brake. Since raising/lowering the gear has to pass through the "brake" position, anyway, you should be able to treat it like the Supercharger and Mixture control.

I can't remember if it was 1942: The Pacific Air War or Aces of the Pacific, but one of them had a mechanic where you signaled your readiness to land, and it popped up an inset box showing the LSO.

So here's the scan of the report: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/fw-190a-vs-f4u-pdf.836443/ No actual numbers are given.

You misunderstand me. VR would be EASIER to see it with because the scale and FoV are closer to real life than a flat display. It'd be even less likely the LSO would be visible on a flat display.

I'm trying to find scans of the original but every link so far turns up dead, and I'm not where I can do a thorough search. However, the report in question is cited as "Captured Aircraft Equipment Report 14" on a couple of the pages in the search results. I'm going to see if someone over on ww2aircraft.net has a copy.

I'm thinking about limitations in resolution and render distance, not visibility. Even on a Pimax 8KX with the FoV almost 1:1 with real life the resolution is simply too low to render that level of detail. The Crystal might be cleaner, but it's still only 4k per eye.

First off, here's an April, 1943 BuAer communique: This came from around the same time as VF-12 and VF-17 were undergoing carried qualifications (both squadrons completed them by the end of April). VF-17 spent the entirety of the spring and summer of 1943 after completing qualifications embarked aboard Bunker Hill, and were successfully operating from the carrier during that time. It was also VF-17 pilots that helped train the first group of Brits when they arrived in the US in June. When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific, VF-17 was embarked aboard and fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October that orders changed and they were redirected to Espirtu Santo. Tommy Blackburn was emphatic in his book that it was NOT because the Corsair's were unsuitable for carrier use, but was entirely a logistics decision: The Navy didn't have the supply chains in place to support the Corsairs aboard the carriers, so VF-17 was disembarked to take advantage of the existing Marine logistics. There's also the strategic situation to consider: The US carrier forces spent most of the first half of 1943 rebuilding. Enterprise and Saratoga were in need of refit and repair, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until later in the spring, and major carrier operations didn't resume until the fall. The Marines, however, were still in combat and desperately in need of fighters NOW. The Corsair was available in numbers first, so every airframe available (minus VF-12 and 17, with VF-12 eventually relinquishing their Corsairs) was being sent to the Pacific as fast as they could get them off the assembly lines. This meant there were no Corsairs available for the carrier squadrons.

This comes from a 1943 evaluation between the F4U-1, F6F-3, and Fw-190. I don't remember off-hand if any specific numbers were given as far as deg/s, but the results were explicit that the Corsair's rate of roll was equal to the Fw-190.

Nope, it was an F4U-1. It was from a 3-way test in 1943 with the Fw-190, F4U-1, and F6F-3. The boosted ailerons were first added late in the Birdcage run.

That could definitely explain it. And could also be why even light back-stick tries to throw it into an accelerated stall. The rate of roll also looks like it's off. During head-to-head tests run by the Navy, the Corsair's rate of roll was found to be equivalent to the Fw-190 at about 150 degrees per second. In DCS it clocks around 60, not even half what it ought to be.

The Corsair actually had quite light stick forces. And that's a BIG rudder with a lot of authority. (That said, it's way too twitchy.) The roll rate is definitely off. The F4U had a rate of roll equivalent to the Fw-190, so about 150 degrees per second. He's giving it a rate of roll of 60 degrees per second, less than half of where it ought to be.

Especially a late 1A with the paddle prop. It'd be more of a pure dogfighter than the 1D by carrying less ordnance, but being faster (no knuckle pylons) and a bit more nimble (the 1D had a heavier empty weight). Also, an option for a land-based Corsair with the wing fold mechanism and arrestor hook removed to shave off extra weight. It could be differentiated as an "FG-1A" or "FG-1D," since most of the Goodyear Corsairs were denavalized.