Terry Dactil

This works well on my Thrustmaster pedals. Reduces the effect of the initial pedal movement, so now it needs a lot more pedal movement if you really want to stick the Corsair on its nose.

That's great news. You certainly had a weird problem to fix.

Can you show us a screenshot of your brake axis tuning. If you are using the setup you showed on page one of this thread it appears to me that your brakes are operating from 50% to 100% and are never fully released. If so it would explain the very sluggish performance during take off.

Nah! I checked my system and I get pilot bodies in external views, but not when I am in the cockpit. Strange - Maybe there is not enough room for 3 of us in the cockpit.

Thanks, Boson. I think you've nailed the explanation perfectly. Back in those days aviation was more a 'seat of the pants' operation rather than the 'fly by numbers' we have today. An interesting fact in passing.... There have been fatal accidents demonstrating VMCA where 'higher is safer' can be exactly the wrong idea to apply. This is when your engine power decreases with altitude and the asymmetric thrust is less. This means that full rudder can now maintain the heading to a lower speed, and this may be below stall speed. This means encountering the aerodynamic formula (YAW + STALL) = (SPIN + CRASH). This is why smart instructors will always block full rudder travel with their foot so the student encounters the effects of VMCA well above stall speed.

The SnapViews.lua file appears to be OK in my system. I scrolled down a long way to the Mosquito section and the default VR entry exists. Perhaps the full 'repair' will fix your problem?

It certainly appears that you can move the control according to this bit in the manual. (Unless you are expected to enter combat with gear down).

Me too !

Another original manual is at https://www.vmfa251.org/pdffiles/Corsair Manual.pdf Om page 15 is No mention of the locking pin when folded, only the jury struts. Maybe there was a later modification, but that seems unlikely. (I asked DeepSeek ( AI ) and it found 16 references, none of which was about a lock pin when folded.)

Sorry, my mistake assuming potentiometers were out and everything was rotary encoders now. Not so easy then ... Perhaps the folks on the cockpit builders forum would have the solution for you.

That's easy ... You missed the last step You use the AuthentiKit Tuning App to synchronize the movements PS> Not as accurate, but close enough for me; Use Bodnars setup to increase the number of key pulses per encoder click.

Are the guns armed? (Left Shift + Space_

Agreed that's a fair comment if you ask it about something disputed and there are many different opinions on the internet. However, asking for stuff from official historic documents like aircraft pilot manuals and performance regulations is a pretty safe bet to be correct. What errors did it make in this thread?

Yeah. It's understandable now. My aviation career was after WW2 and performance calculations were greatly improved and more precise. In particular I used (and taught) that the Take-off Safety Speed (V2) was the greater of 1.1 times Vmca or 1.2 times the stall speed. I guess if I was also carrying bombs that would be nowhere fast enough to keep me happy.

Thanks for your explanation Holbeach, what you say is correct. I managed to find a great site for aviation manuals Avialog: Aviation Library and downloaded the Pilots Notes for our Mosquito. It looks like your reference. Since I have been happily flying the Mosquito on one engine at max power by staying above 150 mph, I think adding 65 mph and calling it a 'Safety Speed' is a bit excessive. I would call it a 'Feel Good Speed' All this is understandable since Vmca in performance calculations was not official in WW2. ChatGPT has some interesting stuff on this subject ... The concept of Vmca (Minimum Control Speed Airborne) as a formalized element in takeoff performance calculations did not exist in its modern regulatory form during the development and operational service of the de Havilland Mosquito in the 1940s. Key Points: Vmca as a defined regulatory term became standardized in post-WWII civil aviation regulations, particularly with the introduction of FAR Part 23 and Part 25 by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the 1950s and later by ICAO and EASA equivalents. During WWII, aircraft performance calculations—including for multi-engine aircraft like the Mosquito—were based on empirical testing and operational experience, rather than a codified set of performance speeds like V1, Vr, V2, or Vmca. The Mosquito, being a military aircraft, was not subject to civil certification standards. Its performance charts and procedures included speeds for safety, single-engine climb, and control, but these were not labeled using modern terminology like Vmca. However, the underlying concept of a minimum speed at which directional control could be maintained after engine failure was understood by test pilots and engineers. They considered factors like asymmetric thrust, rudder authority, and yaw tendencies in both design and flight test programs. Summary: Vmca as a formal part of takeoff performance calculations was introduced in the postwar era, particularly with the advent of civil aviation regulations in the 1950s. For the de Havilland Mosquito, such a parameter was likely considered in practice but not named or standardized as "Vmca" in the way we know it today.