Who tested the Flight Model?

[Saxman]

1 minute ago, Nealius said:

I've seen similar evaluations but the F4U was not included in them.

 

35 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

It would probably help the team if you have the data for any claims being made, just like us at ED we can not just take peoples word for it, we have to see some data to compare and check. 

Please also include short track replays from your tests. 

thank you  

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.

[BIGNEWY]

13 minutes ago, Saxman said:

 

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.

thank you it would be helpful, I know your initial post and thread title was probably an emotional one, but to really help the devs good data and feedback is important. 

thank you 

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

thank you it would be helpful, I know your initial post and thread title was probably an emotional one, but to really help the devs good data and feedback is important. 

thank you 

So here's the scan of the report:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/fw-190a-vs-f4u-pdf.836443/

No actual numbers are given.

[Rougaroux]

7 hours ago, Saxman said:

So here's the scan of the report:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/fw-190a-vs-f4u-pdf.836443/

No actual numbers are given.

@BIGNEWYFound on a forum post. Sadly the link to the original book it was quoting is long dead but it claims to be from one of the original Corsair test pilots.

BTW I fully agree that the handling is atrocious. I was just flying in a MP with a guy i've flown with for quite some time (he's no DCS rookie) that described the Corsair flight as "handling like a bathtub."

 

Quote

from page 85 of "Whistling DEATH The Test Pilot's Story of The F4U Corsair" by Boone T. Guyton (one of the original test pilots)



"d.  Rates of roll.

The FW 190 and Corsair were superior to the Hellcat. The FW 190 and Corsair were about equal in rate of roll. "

...from PROJECT TED No. PTR - 1107
Report of comparative combat evaluation of FW190A-5/F4U-1D/F6F-3  (for the full report:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id91.htm

Peter Garrison in FlyingMag.com posted the rate of roll for several WWII aircrafts.  Among them was the FW:

"The following numbers are the roll rate, in degrees per second, at 87 knots, followed by the maxium attainable roll rate with the associated true airspeed in parentheses..."

P-47 34, 71 (250)
P-38 24, 78 (257)
P51B 33, 98 (260)
P-40 45, 134 (315)
Spitfire V 90, 150 (176)
FW-190 75, 151 (226)

Thus, at 226 tas, the FW could do a 360 degrees roll in just over 2 seconds (2.3).

 

Edited June 24 by Rougaroux

[Saxman]

Quote

"d.  Rates of roll.

The FW 190 and Corsair were superior to the Hellcat. The FW 190 and Corsair were about equal in rate of roll. "

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

[Rougaroux]

15 minutes ago, Saxman said:

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

Well there you go. The original test pilot says that the FW-190 were about equal in rate of roll. Two separate sources, one quoting a book by the original test pilot, one quoting a report. That should be good enough for Eagle Dynamics & Magnitude.

17 minutes ago, Saxman said:

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

 

[Nealius]

Specific deg/s numbers would be much better than a relative comparison that uses ambiguous language saying "about the same." How much is "about?"

[AJaromir]

From my point of view I have no issue with flight model.

This video explains the most often issue of the rookie players. You might see it:

 

[Hiob]

On 6/23/2025 at 3:52 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

With regard to Pitch sensitivity, it all comes down to the philosophy incorporated in programming the interface between what the human player inputs and what the elevator (or HSTAB in a fast jet) does and how fast. 
 

One philosophy is to program elevator movement rate for controls according to an ‘average’ pilot strength and produce schedules or algorithms of elevator movement rates according to this ‘average’ pilot strength and airspeed. This will make the elevator movement slower than the human input at any airspeed above zero.

Another philosophy is to make the human movement of the controller translate directly to corresponding elevator deflection no matter the speed.

It sounds like the Corsair has the latter.

If it does, I suggest a three foot extension on your joystick. 
 

 

 

 

NOTE: I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair

Personally, I would prefer a linear response to range of motion of the physical device. No matter what. In the sim space, a lot of players have "realistically" long extensions on their sticks and full deflection of those should correspond with full deflection of the virtual stick (and a linear response in between). That would also benefit FFB users.

And of course the second part of this (and where I feel the Corsair is a bit off right now), is the "twitchy" response of the Aircraft to the input of the simulated controls. Or lack of inertia, or both.

Edited June 25 by Hiob

[fargo007]

On 6/22/2025 at 6:25 PM, Merlins51 said:

Honestly, my biggest complaint so far is that dogfighting the FW190 is frustrating if trying to make-believe that it's a zero.  The FW190 is a bullet-sponge, whereas the Zero had no armor or self-sealing tanks and could turn into a fireball with only a few well-placed hits.

Thanks for posting that. I killed one but I was beyond surprised at how it could still fly and fight back with all that lead in it.

I can't wait for an AI zero.

dogfight-fw.acmi

[Archaic]

Just pretend the 190 is a ki-44 instead of a zero.