Flight model how is it and how's FFB

[Etask]

16 ore fa, Hummingbird ha scritto:

My question is wether it can really be true that the F4U was so unstable in yaw and pitch? Reading pilot descriptions it does mention light controls, but nowhere anything about directional instability in yaw or that its twitchy in pitch. Infact once cleaned up and in the air, it was supposed to be really easy to fly. So yeah, strikes me as very odd that the FM of this plane is so unruly in the air.

I know you can use curves to dampen the sensitivity in pitch, but it just doesn't feel very convincing even after that.

On a final note, this is ofcourse early access, so things are bound to change. In other words, Im expecting things will ofcourse improve with time.

I agree, FM needs some tweaking especially in pitch and yaw. It feels a bit too light and twitchy, and weightless. I’m using a 35 curvature on a warthog stick with a small extension and while it feels better it doesn’t feel right. In other warbirds I use 0 to 15 curvature. Also the behaviour when deflecting controls too much needs some adjustment; I know you wouldn’t do that in the real thing, but pushing down strongly on the controls, the aircraft starts making some weird maneuvers that an extra 330 would be embarrassed in comparison.

Now, that’s not to say it feels horrible and I don’t like the aircraft, quite the opposite I really enjoy it and it’s probably my favourite warbird in DCS already, thanks to Magnitude for bringing us this module, but please please adjust the FM!

 

[PL_Harpoon]

On 7/16/2025 at 5:00 PM, Hummingbird said:

Reading pilot descriptions it does mention light controls

Here's a million dollar question: does "light controls" mean that the aircraft controls do not require a lot of force to operate or that small movements produce exaggerated results?

I doubt it's the latter.

[Saxman]

41 minutes ago, PL_Harpoon said:

Here's a million dollar question: does "light controls" mean that the aircraft controls do not require a lot of force to operate or that small movements produce exaggerated results?

I doubt it's the latter.

If control forces are light it's easier to make bigger movements and potentially overcorrect.

[PL_Harpoon]

54 minutes ago, Saxman said:

If control forces are light it's easier to make bigger movements and potentially overcorrect.

True, but if <1cm movements* produce large difference in pitch than it's understandable to be suspicious.

*based on the stick movement in the in-game cockpit, not my actual joystick.

Try to compare stick pitch movement here with what we have in game.

 

I'm not saying the flight model is garbage but some tweaks are necessary.

 

EDIT:

Here's a better example. Compare the stick movements with aircraft rotation. Then try to replicate them in DCS:

 

Edited Thursday at 09:11 PM by PL_Harpoon

[Rob]

On 7/16/2025 at 11:00 AM, Hummingbird said:

My question is wether it can really be true that the F4U was so unstable in yaw and pitch? Reading pilot descriptions it does mention light controls, but nowhere anything about directional instability in yaw or that its twitchy in pitch. Infact once cleaned up and in the air, it was supposed to be really easy to fly. So yeah, strikes me as very odd that the FM of this plane is so unruly in the air.

I know you can use curves to dampen the sensitivity in pitch, but it just doesn't feel very convincing even after that.

On a final note, this is ofcourse early access, so things are bound to change. In other words, Im expecting things will ofcourse improve with time.

Curious as well.  After looking at various Corsair cockpit view videos on youtube today, I don't see any of the large amplitude, undamped yawing oscillations that accompany even tiny control inputs, even when trimmed.  Here is a video where you can see the pilots legs through several maneuvers:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-pBV5GD8flc

In the DCS corsair the pilot would be doing so much rudder work they would look like they were running in place in the cockpit.  I know such a video doesn't provide quantitative 'proof' by any means, so I'll just file it under 'interesting observations' and leave it at that.

Edited Thursday at 09:37 PM by Rob
grammar

[Zimmerdylan]

  For the past few weeks I have been really thinking about purchasing this module. But I have been stung so many times by ED and their associates with promises never kept, and issues never resolved that I am very hesitant. I have not purchased anything from them in quite a while. I do not own the Mosquito, or the newer 190 A-8. Which is very sad because I am a devoted fan of WWII stuff. After reading this thread, I'm glad I refrained from purchasing this plane. So....Thanks guys!

Edited Friday at 05:09 PM by Zimmerdylan
Grammar errors

[Etask]

3 ore fa, Zimmerdylan ha scritto:

  For the past few weeks I have been really thinking about purchasing this module. But I have been stung so many times by ED and their associates with promises never kept, and issues never resolved that I am very hesitant. I have not purchased anything from them in quite a while. I do not own the Mosquito, or the newer 190 A-8. Which is very sad because I am a devoted fan of WWII stuff. After reading this thread, I'm glad I refrained from purchasing this plane. So....Thanks guys!

I get your point, I was also very hesitant; however at the end I just pulled the trigger and I don't regret it.

It is not perfect, FM definitely needs some tweaking and I hope it'll get addressed...but it's still a good module, armament is great (just try tiny Tims or a bat bomb!), and carrier ops is a great addition to DCS WWII. 

I didn't wanna wait forever for it to be perfect or fixed 100% (if it'll ever be), I just wanted to enjoy it now. If you like WWII birds and if you like the Corsair, I would say just go ahead and get it. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

On 7/17/2025 at 2:32 PM, PL_Harpoon said:

Here's a million dollar question: does "light controls" mean that the aircraft controls do not require a lot of force to operate or that small movements produce exaggerated results?

I doubt it's the latter.

Its both.

Many moons ago, I flew the Emb-120. Un-boosted controls. At speed, the control column felt like it was set in concrete. When maneuvering, there was no discernable control movement in the pitch axis, just varying amounts of pressure, yet you could maneuver the aircraft reasonably well for an airliner.

The Lear 60 (also un-boosted) required 80 lbs of force during stall recovery to keep the nose up. I had a F-15C pilot training in the 60 and he wanted to try head on lead turn on a traffic target. He blew the pass because he wasn't expecting the huge control force required to generate G at speed.

So "light" controls is going to have a different meaning in an un-boosted aircraft. Not requiring both hands to move the stick would be light controls at 300 knots.

Many boosted jets artificially increase required control forces to prevent the pilot from over controlling because a little control movement goes a long way.

Most airplanes are going to require a fist or less aft stick movement to get to maximum G.

The Corsair videos above demonstrate this quite clearly. He clearly isn't moving the stick much in pitch and not requiring much force to do it.

 

Also, a note on rudder movement. If you watch the 'legs' video, that pilot is dancing on the rudders, especially during takeoff. You aren't seeing big movement once the speed builds because the rudder is more effective and he is correcting extremely rapidly, needing only slight changes of pressure to achieve the desired result.

 

If you watch carefully you can see the amount of rudder required at slow speed, high power versus high speed, high power by right leg extension.

[PL_Harpoon]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Its both.

Many moons ago, I flew the Emb-120. Un-boosted controls. At speed, the control column felt like it was set in concrete. When maneuvering, there was no discernable control movement in the pitch axis, just varying amounts of pressure, yet you could maneuver the aircraft reasonably well for an airliner.

The Lear 60 (also un-boosted) required 80 lbs of force during stall recovery to keep the nose up. I had a F-15C pilot training in the 60 and he wanted to try head on lead turn on a traffic target. He blew the pass because he wasn't expecting the huge control force required to generate G at speed.

So "light" controls is going to have a different meaning in an un-boosted aircraft. Not requiring both hands to move the stick would be light controls at 300 knots.

Many boosted jets artificially increase required control forces to prevent the pilot from over controlling because a little control movement goes a long way.

Most airplanes are going to require a fist or less aft stick movement to get to maximum G.

The Corsair videos above demonstrate this quite clearly. He clearly isn't moving the stick much in pitch and not requiring much force to do it.

 

Also, a note on rudder movement. If you watch the 'legs' video, that pilot is dancing on the rudders, especially during takeoff. You aren't seeing big movement once the speed builds because the rudder is more effective and he is correcting extremely rapidly, needing only slight changes of pressure to achieve the desired result.

 

If you watch carefully you can see the amount of rudder required at slow speed, high power versus high speed, high power by right leg extension.

Makes perfect sense to me. Speed = more pressure but also more lift (by the power of 2 if I recall correctly) so with speed you need less movement and more force.

But my suspicion with the DCS Corsair is that it's too sensitive in pitch across the board. I'll try to record some footage to show what I mean.

[Cgjunk2]

I actually suspect that the Corsairs FM is just fine, but we have trouble "feeling" it because most of us are flying on spring centered joysticks that give the same pressure at 80kts as they do at 300kts.   It's the same for rudders, it's super easy to overshoot how much movement you'd need causing wild yawing.  I had a lot of problems with the huey and how it felt fake, until I really thought about how much movement I was commanding with my stick.  And since every overcorrection on one axis affects all other axes, it just felt bad.   In a way, I had to train myself to imagine forces on my joystick that weren't actually there, once I did (and when I got a joystick extgenstion), things started to feel more real.  

Most warbirds in DCS have a one to one relationship between the movement of the joystick and the movement commanded to the control surfaces, regardless of the speed.  There is good reason for this because that's how it works in real life.   The only exception is the Bf109 once airspeed gets high, where the virtual stick becomes stuck in cement despite your input...in order to simulate very high IRL control forces.  The whole idea of keeping a one to one relationship between joystick movement and control surface movement is really a philosiphical choice in how airplanes are simulated.  You could argue that forces are more important to model and then model things to where you have to move the stick more at speed in order to simulate forces experiences.   Either way, you can't have both displacement and force accurately simulated at the same time...unless you have force feedback.  

I suppose there's something to be said for a "filter" of sorts that would dampen your input a tiny bit in order to minimize the effect of micro-movements on our light spring-centered sticks, which could be done by delaying the transmission of signal from the stick to the simulation very slightly....  I could see a variable filter where micromovements are increasingly damped out with speed, but don't ultimately affect total control throw range.  It could give the impression of "weight".  I suspect that some modules might use something like this.     This isn't the same as curves, because curves just shift the sensitivity of the stick from center point and shift it to the extremes.  

 

Edited yesterday at 01:11 AM by Cgjunk2

[Etask]

You’re probably right, however I suspect most of DCS users have that kind of joystick, so the issue of stick movement vs control deflection vs speed is applicable for all other warbirds (and most of other airplanes and helicopters). Maybe they do have that kind of “filter” you mentioned.

But then again just try to push the Corsair slightly out of it’s flying envelope (I know you wouldn’t do that in real life, but just for the sake of it), give it a nice nose down pitch command (even at low speed, where control deflection should be more accurate), and check out the airplane manoeuvring like a spaceship with no gravity…

FM is not extremely bad by any means but it does need some tuning. Aircraft has just been released, so I hope in the next few patches it’ll get fixed.

 

[Gunfreak]

7 hours ago, Cgjunk2 said:

I actually suspect that the Corsairs FM is just fine, but we have trouble "feeling" it because most of us are flying on spring centered joysticks that give the same pressure at 80kts as they do at 300kts.   It's the same for rudders, it's super easy to overshoot how much movement you'd need causing wild yawing.  I had a lot of problems with the huey and how it felt fake, until I really thought about how much movement I was commanding with my stick.  And since every overcorrection on one axis affects all other axes, it just felt bad.   In a way, I had to train myself to imagine forces on my joystick that weren't actually there, once I did (and when I got a joystick extgenstion), things started to feel more real.  

Most warbirds in DCS have a one to one relationship between the movement of the joystick and the movement commanded to the control surfaces, regardless of the speed.  There is good reason for this because that's how it works in real life.   The only exception is the Bf109 once airspeed gets high, where the virtual stick becomes stuck in cement despite your input...in order to simulate very high IRL control forces.  The whole idea of keeping a one to one relationship between joystick movement and control surface movement is really a philosiphical choice in how airplanes are simulated.  You could argue that forces are more important to model and then model things to where you have to move the stick more at speed in order to simulate forces experiences.   Either way, you can't have both displacement and force accurately simulated at the same time...unless you have force feedback.  

I suppose there's something to be said for a "filter" of sorts that would dampen your input a tiny bit in order to minimize the effect of micro-movements on our light spring-centered sticks, which could be done by delaying the transmission of signal from the stick to the simulation very slightly....  I could see a variable filter where micromovements are increasingly damped out with speed, but don't ultimately affect total control throw range.  It could give the impression of "weight".  I suspect that some modules might use something like this.     This isn't the same as curves, because curves just shift the sensitivity of the stick from center point and shift it to the extremes.  

 

The stick does not get noticeably heavier with speed using my brunner force feedback. The only force feedback effects I have that i feel is shaking on the stick when close to staling.

I can dive to 400+ knots and the stick is the same as if I was flying at 200 knots. Now generally force feedback effects on warbirds in DCS isn't that great. They have stall warning, movable stick with trimming (missing from corsair) abd on slight stiffening at high speed. I know with other force feedback sticks you can use their native app to force more powerful FFB effects. But DCS native warbirds FFB isn't great.

In several other ww2 sims the effects are much more noticeable. Diving past 500mph in a p51 will make you work to pull that stick back. You'll find if you're outrrimmed you'll have problems placing the gunsight on the enemy because the sticked has moved so much during trimming during violent manovours. 

[Cgjunk2]

10 hours ago, Etask said:

You’re probably right, however I suspect most of DCS users have that kind of joystick, so the issue of stick movement vs control deflection vs speed is applicable for all other warbirds (and most of other airplanes and helicopters). Maybe they do have that kind of “filter” you mentioned.

But then again just try to push the Corsair slightly out of it’s flying envelope (I know you wouldn’t do that in real life, but just for the sake of it), give it a nice nose down pitch command (even at low speed, where control deflection should be more accurate), and check out the airplane manoeuvring like a spaceship with no gravity…

FM is not extremely bad by any means but it does need some tuning. Aircraft has just been released, so I hope in the next few patches it’ll get fixed.

 

I agree about the need for tuning.   How they work their magic to tune I;m not sure, but hopefully it will be made a bit less "touchy".  

 

10 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

The stick does not get noticeably heavier with speed using my brunner force feedback. The only force feedback effects I have that i feel is shaking on the stick when close to staling.

I can dive to 400+ knots and the stick is the same as if I was flying at 200 knots. Now generally force feedback effects on warbirds in DCS isn't that great. They have stall warning, movable stick with trimming (missing from corsair) abd on slight stiffening at high speed. I know with other force feedback sticks you can use their native app to force more powerful FFB effects. But DCS native warbirds FFB isn't great.

In several other ww2 sims the effects are much more noticeable. Diving past 500mph in a p51 will make you work to pull that stick back. You'll find if you're outrrimmed you'll have problems placing the gunsight on the enemy because the sticked has moved so much during trimming during violent manovours. 

 As an aspirational force feedback stick and rudder owner (dang that stuff is expensive!), I really hope that the FM gets properly done with regard to force feedback.   The lack of trimming/stick position changes is disappointing.  Hopefully it's not an oversight, but just something they haven't gotten to yet.  

As far as the amount the displacement forces as a function of speed, I guess I'd  have to research more on the Corsair's handling.  Even heavy planes could theoretically have very light forces at all speeds based on the mechanical and aerodynamic design of control surfaces.  Regardless, I hope that just as much research goes into figuring out a good force feedback profile as the FM itself.   Force feedback is the largest untapped flight simulation advantage there is to increase realism, and I really hope that developers get serious about it soon.   If they don't, the ship may sail and there will be nobody left interested in simming with old airplanes that have aerodynamic forces.  I fear that time is already near given how many people think force feedback is about feeling the gun make the stick vibrate... sigh.  lol

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Cgjunk2

[MAXsenna]

15 minutes ago, Cgjunk2 said:

Force feedback is the largest untapped flight simulation advantage there is to increase realism, and I really hope that developers get serious about it soon.   If they don't, the ship may sail and there will be nobody left interested in simming with old airplanes that have aerodynamic forces.

Exactly this!

16 minutes ago, Cgjunk2 said:

I fear that time is already near given how many people think force feedback is about feeling the gun make the stick vibrate... sigh.  lol

Yup, those are rumble effects, common in handheld console controllers, and should be called as such.

[PL_Harpoon]

Continuing on the topic of stick deflection, I did some more tests.

I took a Corsair and P-47 on a short flight and did some basic maneuvers to compare stick movements: 30 deg turn, 60 deg turn and pull up from a shallow dive.

I then recorded both flights and compared stick movement on the inputs window. I drew a line at the bottom of the diamond at the lowest point (unsurprisingly both were at a 60deg turn).

The results are interesting:

null

I chose P-47 because it too was supposed to have light controls and subjectively it's flight model feels very good. 

So it appears that while the F4U feels worse to fly it's not due to stick being over-sensitive.

PS. I've added tracks from both flights if anyone's interested.

 

Corsair Short flight.trk Thunderbolt Short flight.trk

Edited 22 hours ago by PL_Harpoon

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Exactly this!

Yup, those are rumble effects, common in handheld console controllers, and should be called as such.

I mean pilot descriptions of firing 2 Hispanos on a Spitfire was violent shaking. And rather nasty surprise if one of the guns jammed. If the guns are that powerful. I would assume the stick together with everything else would shake. However in some ww2 sims the force feedback effects of cannons are more akin to recoil. Moving the stick backwards. Like in a gun. Which isn't correct.  That said base sakers or pads give a better effect of aircraft shake from weapons fire.

[MAXsenna]

35 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I mean pilot descriptions of firing 2 Hispanos on a Spitfire was violent shaking. And rather nasty surprise if one of the guns jammed. If the guns are that powerful. I would assume the stick together with everything else would shake.

Did the stick actually shake? Or just the whole aircraft? 

36 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

However in some ww2 sims the force feedback effects of cannons are more akin to recoil. Moving the stick backwards. Like in a gun. Which isn't correct. 

Exactly! 

37 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

That said base sakers or pads give a better effect of aircraft shake from weapons fire.

I assume so.  

[Cgjunk2]

4 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I mean pilot descriptions of firing 2 Hispanos on a Spitfire was violent shaking. And rather nasty surprise if one of the guns jammed. If the guns are that powerful. I would assume the stick together with everything else would shake. However in some ww2 sims the force feedback effects of cannons are more akin to recoil. Moving the stick backwards. Like in a gun. Which isn't correct.  That said base sakers or pads give a better effect of aircraft shake from weapons fire.

I’m fine with rumble effects, even on a FFB joystick.   The problem is that there seem to be more and more folks that think rumble effects are FFB.   
 

Unfortunately I recall seeing this  with “influencer” review videos when the Moza FFB stick came out.  Slick professional “hey guys” videos by people who had no idea what FFB was supposed to be modeling as it relates to airplanes.   I saw reviews that basically seemed like they were unaware of what they should be feeling, skipped commentary on FFB, and instead worried that the gunfire effects werent very strong, and “geez it’s big, probably cant use on on a desk” comments.   I’d hate for Moza or other FFB manufacturers to feel pressure to appeal to influencers or other gamers that don’t understand airplanes and how to model forces. 
 

But I feel like I’m taking this off topic.  Wouldn’t want to turn into an old man yelling at clouds with my ranting lol. 

[MAXsenna]

6 hours ago, Cgjunk2 said:

I’m fine with rumble effects, even on a FFB joystick.   The problem is that there seem to be more and more folks that think rumble effects are FFB.   

Same, as long as there's a choice. 

6 hours ago, Cgjunk2 said:

Unfortunately I recall seeing this  with “influencer” review videos when the Moza FFB stick came out.  Slick professional “hey guys” videos by people who had no idea what FFB was supposed to be modeling as it relates to airplanes.   I saw reviews that basically seemed like they were unaware of what they should be feeling, skipped commentary on FFB, and instead worried that the gunfire effects werent very strong, and “geez it’s big, probably cant use on on a desk” comments.   I’d hate for Moza or other FFB manufacturers to feel pressure to appeal to influencers or other gamers that don’t understand airplanes and how to model forces. 

Agree!  

6 hours ago, Cgjunk2 said:

But I feel like I’m taking this off topic.

You're not!

[GTFreeFlyer]

So who’s got a decent Moza AB9 profile for the F4U?  I’ve been using the default one for the Mustang, which is okay, but I’m getting a lot of stick shaking when pulling G’s in a turning fight and can’t seem to get rid of it by adjusting the telemetry settings.  I turned off the G effect, and also increased the critical AoA for stall, yet I still get the shakes which I’ve seemed to tune pretty well for the other aircraft I fly, but just can’t seem to get it right for the F4U.  It’s causing me to go gentle on the turns because my brain keeps telling me I’m going to stall when I feel the stick shake, but it’s far from true in this bird, so I just keep pulling thru the “stall feeling”.

Edited 10 hours ago by GTFreeFlyer

[Hiob]

11 hours ago, PL_Harpoon said:

Continuing on the topic of stick deflection, I did some more tests.

I took a Corsair and P-47 on a short flight and did some basic maneuvers to compare stick movements: 30 deg turn, 60 deg turn and pull up from a shallow dive.

I then recorded both flights and compared stick movement on the inputs window. I drew a line at the bottom of the diamond at the lowest point (unsurprisingly both were at a 60deg turn).

The results are interesting:

null

I chose P-47 because it too was supposed to have light controls and subjectively it's flight model feels very good. 

So it appears that while the F4U feels worse to fly it's not due to stick being over-sensitive.

PS. I've added tracks from both flights if anyone's interested.

 

Corsair Short flight.trk 8.45 MB · 0 downloads Thunderbolt Short flight.trk 11.77 MB · 0 downloads

From my (very subjective, not backed by any deliberate testing or anything) pov, the issue is, that the control surfaces on the Corsair in its current (EA!) state are way to effective.

You only need to pull the stick milimieters to pull 4+ Gs, and if you even glance at the pedals, the nose swings wildly..... 
So, while the relative movement of the ingame controls to the physical controls seem indeed not to far apart from other Warbirds, the effect of those inputs is too big I think.

[PL_Harpoon]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

From my (very subjective, not backed by any deliberate testing or anything) pov, the issue is, that the control surfaces on the Corsair in its current (EA!) state are way to effective.

You only need to pull the stick milimieters to pull 4+ Gs, and if you even glance at the pedals, the nose swings wildly..... 
So, while the relative movement of the ingame controls to the physical controls seem indeed not to far apart from other Warbirds, the effect of those inputs is too big I think.

That was my first guess too. But if the similar inputs produce similar results (in my tests I did level turns at similar speed so the g-forces had to be the same) than it has to be something else.

It's just a conjecture but perhaps it's either the torque produced by the control surfaces is too high or the rotational inertia of the aircraft is too low. Or there's not enough rotational drag to dampen the effects. In short, it's the poor dynamic stability of pitch and yaw that is the problem.

[Hiob]

34 minutes ago, PL_Harpoon said:

That was my first guess too. But if the similar inputs produce similar results (in my tests I did level turns at similar speed so the g-forces had to be the same) than it has to be something else.

It's just a conjecture but perhaps it's either the torque produced by the control surfaces is too high or the rotational inertia of the aircraft is too low. Or there's not enough rotational drag to dampen the effects. In short, it's the poor dynamic stability of pitch and yaw that is the problem.

Too little weight/inertia could also be the problem. In an earlier statement I said that the Corsair feels like a kite.... That's kind of what I meant with that.
It's a testiment on how difficult it must be to tweak the "feel" of a flight model.

[PL_Harpoon]

49 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Too little weight/inertia could also be the problem. In an earlier statement I said that the Corsair feels like a kite.... That's kind of what I meant with that.
It's a testiment on how difficult it must be to tweak the "feel" of a flight model.

Well, technically speaking if all the other forces remain constant increasing weight/inertia in a straight line would mainly slow the aircraft's acceleration. In a turn increasing inertia would slightly increase the turn rate. Decreasing pitch rate would just be a side effect.

It would not fix the "twitchiness" of the aircraft which is the effect of low rotational inertia or moment of inertia.

In other words I highly doubt they "just" put in a wrong weight number as it would affect a lot of other things: the aircraft would climb faster, accelerate faster, turn faster, top speed would be higher, it would be more affected by the wind etc.

PS. I'm fully aware it's not our job to find the cause for this as we don't even have the tools to analyze the flight model at an adequate level, but since the devs so far didn't acknowledge (or deny) that this as a problem all we can do is speculate.

[=475FG= Dawger]

19 hours ago, PL_Harpoon said:

Continuing on the topic of stick deflection, I did some more tests.

I took a Corsair and P-47 on a short flight and did some basic maneuvers to compare stick movements: 30 deg turn, 60 deg turn and pull up from a shallow dive.

I then recorded both flights and compared stick movement on the inputs window. I drew a line at the bottom of the diamond at the lowest point (unsurprisingly both were at a 60deg turn).

The results are interesting:

null

I chose P-47 because it too was supposed to have light controls and subjectively it's flight model feels very good. 

So it appears that while the F4U feels worse to fly it's not due to stick being over-sensitive.

PS. I've added tracks from both flights if anyone's interested.

 

Corsair Short flight.trk 8.45 MB · 0 downloads Thunderbolt Short flight.trk 11.77 MB · 0 downloads

You probably want to compare the rate of control surface deflection to see if there is a difference. At 300 knots for example. Move the stick back as rapidly possible and observe if there is a rate of deflection difference.