Nice FM Update

[Rob]

2 hours ago, theIRIEone said:

Plus, wouldn't the relatively high wing loading make for a lot more vicious stall behavior compared to well balanced fighters like the P-51, Spitfire etc?
 

Wing loading is total weight divided by wing area, so depends on fuel, ordnance, pilot, etc.  The Corsair has roughly 33% more wing area, but is only 17% heavier (empty*), so assuming the same weight of ordnance and fuel, the Corsair will have a smaller wing loading. 

(* assuming the numbers I found online are accurate, with 235 sqf, 7635 lbs for the Mustang, and 314 sqf, 8,982lb for the Corsair).

45.6 lbs/sqf for the Corsair would correspond to the maximum weight (approx. 14330 lbs divided by 314 sqf = 45.6).

Edited Tuesday at 08:49 PM by Rob

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

55 minutes ago, Saxman said:

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already.

They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first.

Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat).

When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines.

The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

Once again, poor little Brewster can't measure up.

Beat me to the explanation though.

[Nealius]

The exaggerated talk of the Corsair's supposed difficulty in carrier landings also comes from before they fixed the oleo struts and added the stall strip to the starboard wing, correct? By the time the -1D came about I assume much of the initial quirks and difficulties had been mitigated enough to make it a pleasant aircraft to fly. 

[Rolds]

If you guys want specifics why not just compare the DCS F4U to descriptions from actual pilots?

Spin as described by a pilot, 2000ft apparently needed to recover:

And what we now have, prompt recovery and only 550 feet lost! About the same spin characteristics as a Cessna 172 which I have spun in real life several times. Spin was much more dramatic pre July 23 update. 

 

Torque as described by pilots:

Torque as we now have it, aircraft in landing configuration, full throttle rapidly applied. A little bit of left yaw, no real roll. The first two I don't touch the controls, the last one I hold to show how it can be countered by just the tiniest amount of right pedal and stick. Nothing even the least experienced pilot can't handle, but apparently a fatal danger to fighter pilots? It will "turn the airplane over"? This also was much more closely aligned to testimony from real pilots before the July 23 update.

 

[Etask]

1 ora fa, Rolds ha scritto:

And what we now have, prompt recovery and only 550 feet lost! About the same spin characteristics as a Cessna 172 which I have spun in real life several times. Spin was much more dramatic pre July 23 update. 

Not saying the current model is perfect, but spinning in previous FM was not more dramatic, it was just very weird, like any kind of unusual or extreme manoeuvre, where the aircraft had a very unrealistic behaviour, kinda like being in a no gravity environment. Somebody posted a video a while ago of what I mean. It was very annoying.

1 ora fa, Rolds ha scritto:

Torque as we now have it, aircraft in landing configuration, full throttle rapidly applied. A little bit of left yaw, no real roll. The first two I don't touch the controls, the last one I hold to show how it can be countered by just the tiniest amount of right pedal and stick. Nothing even the least experienced pilot can't handle, but apparently a fatal danger to fighter pilots? It will "turn the airplane over"?

In the previous FM it was not “turning the airplane over” either…maybe there was a bit of extra yawing moment but not so much roll. Agree the effect could be added. 

I’ve tried the P47 for comparison, at slow speed fully configured, going from idle to full power there is a lot less yaw and more roll compared to the current F4U. It is not particularly hard to counter it, and it feels more realistic than in the Corsair.

[ldnz]

Try full dirty, 80kn, left turn and apply throttle anything other than smoothly - you'll definitely see an aggressive snap roll. Easy to avoid if you're conscious of it, but I've replicated all the spin into the drink footage by accident  

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, ldnz said:

Try full dirty, 80kn, left turn and apply throttle anything other than smoothly - you'll definitely see an aggressive snap roll. Easy to avoid if you're conscious of it, but I've replicated all the spin into the drink footage by accident  

Did that relatedly in the Corsair when it was new. 

I'd try to land but at 70 or 80 knots but with full flaps down, i basically just hovered over the carrier, almost standing still over the carrier as it was steaming forward at 30 knots.

I'd slam the throttle and RPM forward. No problem at all. 

According to sources i should have died 4 times there.

This was before the FM fix.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

13 hours ago, Rolds said:

And what we now have, prompt recovery and only 550 feet lost! About the same spin characteristics as a Cessna 172 which I have spun in real life several times. Spin was much more dramatic pre July 23 update. 

 

 

 

I'm going to pretend that you got an instructor to go up with you as a safety pilot and told them "I have to back my critique of a computer game!"

It would've worked for me and at least I know said student would have been trying to kill me from the start. 

[Rolds]

32 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I'm going to pretend that you got an instructor to go up with you as a safety pilot and told them "I have to back my critique of a computer game!"

It would've worked for me and at least I know said student would have been trying to kill me from the start. 

lol I get the sense actual spins aren’t taught at all flight schools, are they at yours? Mine did them dual from hour one, but had a rule that spins were prohibited for solo flights. The spin during the intro flight I believe was seen as a selling feature!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 hours ago, Rolds said:

lol I get the sense actual spins aren’t taught at all flight schools, are they at yours? Mine did them dual from hour one, but had a rule that spins were prohibited for solo flights. The spin during the intro flight I believe was seen as a selling feature!

Mostly spin prevention, but I never forced students to do it. I did encourage them to ask.

Edited Thursday at 01:08 AM by MiG21bisFishbedL

[=475FG= Dawger]

On 7/30/2025 at 12:53 AM, Rolds said:

If you guys want specifics why not just compare the DCS F4U to descriptions from actual pilots?

Spin as described by a pilot, 2000ft apparently needed to recover:

And what we now have, prompt recovery and only 550 feet lost! About the same spin characteristics as a Cessna 172 which I have spun in real life several times. Spin was much more dramatic pre July 23 update. 

 

Torque as described by pilots:

Torque as we now have it, aircraft in landing configuration, full throttle rapidly applied. A little bit of left yaw, no real roll. The first two I don't touch the controls, the last one I hold to show how it can be countered by just the tiniest amount of right pedal and stick. Nothing even the least experienced pilot can't handle, but apparently a fatal danger to fighter pilots? It will "turn the airplane over"? This also was much more closely aligned to testimony from real pilots before the July 23 update.

 

This is what I am referring to. There is essentially no torque in some DCS warbirds above stall speed. You can go throttle stop to stop without touching the controls at any speed above stall speed.

There are plenty of stories about the Mustang and Corsair as well as all the other high HP WWII single engine aircraft. The P-38 was designed to have counter-rotating props to avoid the issue all together and it was well known that the 109 would torque roll off trying to climb with the P-38.

In DCS, the Mustang shows almost nothing when throttle is slammed stop to stop under the conditions described to demonstrate the powerful torque roll. 

The Spitfire is a bit more sporty and the 109 demonstrates the most torque of them but it certainly never loses rudder authority at full power at any speed .

The Corsair looks pretty milquetoast in the above video.

This doesn't make the airplane 'easy' or 'hard'. 

If you know that your throttle hand is connected to your right foot and right hand, you will not have any problems, especially if you apply throttle slowly. However, rapid application of throttle below 120 knots in anything with 2000+ hp without simultaneous control inputs should result in something very exciting happening.

We aren't seeing anything like that. DCS is supposed to make the FM realistic, but they have failed in this area. And the customer seem to encourage this error for an unknown reason.

Engine torque is always present. At a given MP/RPM combination, torque is a CONSTANT. What changes is the available force to counter it via airspeed over the flight controls. We don't see that in DCS. We see hard snap rolls to the left at stall speed and torque is magically erased or reduced to negligible levels once above stall speed.

 

NOTE: When I say 'torque" I mean all the forces that contribute to aircraft rotation and yaw opposite to the rotation of the propeller. 

[Nealius]

8 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

This is what I am referring to. There is essentially no torque in some DCS warbirds above stall speed. You can go throttle stop to stop without touching the controls at any speed above stall speed.

This is complete fiction. I have every warbird (except the I-16) and every single one of them, including the Corsair, reacts to torque above stall speed. 

  

8 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

However, rapid application of throttle below 120 knots in anything with 2000+ hp without simultaneous control inputs should result in something very exciting happening.

First you make a claim relative to stall speed and now you've changed that claim to be relative to 120kts. Which is it? Furthermore, we don't have any warbirds with greater than 2,000hp. The P-47 and F4U have engines that are rated to 2,000hp (no more) but the hp you actually get is going to vary greatly depending on altitude and power settings. All the other warbirds we have are in the 1,700 range and that's at WEP.

Additionally, the criticisms using that "Taming the beast" video as evidence are blatantly ignoring the context in order to fit their own confirmation biases. First, that's a British clipped wing corsair. Then someone jumps in the standard non-clipped module and attempts to make a comparison but it's an invalid comparison because they're in the wrong aircraft. Second, in the real footage of landing practice you can see that there's no stall strip installed on the starboard wing (19:55), which further invalidates any attempted comparison to what's in that video to the DCS module. Third, the pilot interviews don't specify what timeframe these happened. Most likely it was pre-stall strip installation. Which brings me to the fourth point, the "flipping on it's back" is NOT caused by torque alone! It's caused by a combination of torque and the port wing stalling before the starborad wing, which is the whole reason we have that stall strip in the first place. 

Edited 7 minutes ago by Nealius