c-46 service pack

[avedis]

c-46 service pack is out.

Richard

[Fireball6]

Had a quick look at it - unfortunately they did not fix the "pilot thing" in the civilian variant - there are only half bodys, no legs. Why ..... ?

[Penzoil3]

?????
C-46 Commando Service Pack 1 (03/10/2017)

You do not need to install this update if you have purchased this product after the date shown below:

03/10/2017

[glennc]

Question about the service pack date: Is that March 10th or October 3rd? The reason I ask is that airplane was just released in August, correct?

Glenn

[oldpropfan]

Just Flight is UK based so that would be 3 Oct 2017

[manfredc3]

Did not get the email for the service pack. Checked the website and can not find a download link.

Edit: Never mind. Just figured out that I have to just re-download the full installer.

[Penzoil3]

DOH! face-palm. :banghead: It all makes sense now. Thanks
Sue

[BendyFlyer]

Well there is nothing on the JF Forum that a SP has been released. Nor on the download link. Where did this information come from?

[Martyn]

An email was sent to everyone who purchased the product. It would have be sent to the email address linked to your Just Flight account.

Refer to our support section for information on any SPs - https://www.justflight.com/support/c46-commando/c3a4681

We would usually post on our forum and social media (Facebook etc) but we are currently very busy getting ready for our annual Flight Sim Show this weekend as well as sorting out several new products. Also worth noting that our forum isn't a support forum like those provided by some other developers - support is only officially handled through the website but I'll endeavor to assist where possible on the forum.

Thanks
Martyn

[worknow]

Yep, just check the Just Flight account and you will find version 103.
Looks like the classic version is fixed now.
The modern VC got a new jumpseat but some bugs are still there:
OBS#1 turns compass cards on all VOR receivers (#1and #2) - haven´t checked if CDI is linked to NAV 1 or 2
3way switches on overhead panel (wing and tail light) don´t work on dim position.
Beacon is linked to dome light switch.
GPS shows no DTK or TRK.
Viewpoint (seatposition) on classic version is much higher than on modern version (probably different seat cushions, hehe) - I fixed that by dividing both versions into two separate aircraft folders and correcting the viewpoint.
Fuelselector on classic works perfect now - the modern version is still messed up on my system.
Aircraft.cfg might need some cleaning...I removed the double GPWS section etc. (Btw: -0.0 = 0.0 but might cause problems on some calculations.)

Love the classic version!!!
Cheers,

Marc

[WarHorse47]

An email was sent to everyone who purchased the product. It would have be sent to the email address linked to your Just Flight account.
Thanks
MartynHmm.. Never got one. I get your newsletter, but not an e-mail on the C-46.

[YoYo]

Question about the service pack date: Is that March 10th or October 3rd?

https://orig00.deviantart.net/092f/f/2017/039/4/2/star_trek_picard_s_double_facepalm_emote_by_speedf reako9-day6dl8.gif

How March like this plane was released in 10th of August this Year.
DD-MM-YYYY (Europe) or YYYY-MM-DD (US) .... mostly :biggrin-new:

[jeansy]

Does it still take off after 50m? And struggle to climb above 8000 and has the COG been fixed so it doesnt fly nose down on level flight

[bazzar]

With the correct engine settings you will need approximately 2015 ft to take off, less with high blower. Your climb rate will depend entirely on your load. As willl cruise lift on the wing, which is why the aircraft may or may not appear nose down. The FD has been developed to give level attitude using the gyro-pilot but as in the real machine, adjustments to load/position using the drop down will be necessary. Above 8,000 ft, the real machines had trouble climbing without subtle use of high blower which is why they flew large climbing circles before attempting to cross the Himalayas on the Hump run.

[flaviossa]

An email was sent to everyone who purchased the product. It would have be sent to the email address linked to your Just Flight account.

Hi, mr Martyn, just to note that i didn´t recieve the email either. (JF emails arrives ok for me, but this time it don´t)
Just got the information of the update thru here, SOH :encouragement:

[gaab]

I bought on JustFlight, but did not received any mail about update.

Thanks to SOH for diffusing the information.


Gérard

[manfredc3]

An email was sent to everyone who purchased the product. It would have be sent to the email address linked to your Just Flight account.

Thanks
Martyn

Guess not everyone, as I did not get the email either. Have been getting all other other JF emails so far.

And NO, my email ID has not changed, lol. I was able to log in to my JF account just fine.

[jeansy]

With the correct engine settings you will need approximately 2015 ft to take off, less with high blower. Your climb rate will depend entirely on your load. As willl cruise lift on the wing, which is why the aircraft may or may not appear nose down. The FD has been developed to give level attitude using the gyro-pilot but as in the real machine, adjustments to load/position using the drop down will be necessary. Above 8,000 ft, the real machines had trouble climbing without subtle use of high blower which is why they flew large climbing circles before attempting to cross the Himalayas on the Hump run.


So no change

Thank you for your answer

[avedis]

No email here.


Richard.

[glennc]

No e-mail here, and I did purchase from JF. On the date question, I suspected that, thanks for the confirmation. I should have just gone for it. No harm to try. Without going into literally gory details (dental work) :dizzy: I haven’t had time to follow up on it, maybe later today.

Glenn

[bazzar]

So no change

Thank you for your answer

Did I say there was no change?

[hairyspin]

...Above 8,000 ft, the real machines had trouble climbing without subtle use of high blower which is why they flew large climbing circles before attempting to cross the Himalayas on the Hump run.

Just been reading some Hump experiences of C-46 pilots in 1945: an empty (apart from fuel & crew) C-46 suffered both engine failure and was losing height alarmingly in the dark. The crew decided 11,000ft was the bail-out decision height and the aircraft got awfully close to that when one engine restarted. They got number two restarted shortly after and started climbing again at the best they could manage: 300 feet per minute. That's not a great rate of climb for an empty aircraft, so I wonder what rate they "enjoyed" with a full load.

China Airlift – the Hump vol.3, John G Martin, p122

[Mach3DS]

That's at 11K MSL...not sea level. Sounds about right? What's the normal cruise height for the C46? I imagine not much higher without oxygen. Of course I have NO idea!!! But it's not pressurized right? So not much higher would be normal cruise?

[hairyspin]

11,000ft would not get you over the Hump, which is why that crew was really worried. Service ceiling is generally quoted as 24.500ft and oxygen was used, since storms over the Himalayas could lift aircraft to almost 30,000ft very quickly and drop you really quickly too. I don't know the actual service parameters for the C-46 either, but I'm trying to find out: if I'm to evaluate a model it's going to be from a position of knowledge, not ignorance, and I don't know enough at the moment.

[BendyFlyer]

HairySpin I have managed to obtain original US AirForce Performance Data and more recent FAA Performance Data for the C-46, in addition I have been reading some good appraisals of actual flying technique and performance for this aeroplane.

You are correct about climb performance for this aeroplane it was actually terrible really, it was a big and heavy aeroplane and in reality underpowered for its size and weight. You could expect between 200 to 300 fpm with a load and not much better empty (Any aircraft's rate of climb is a function of surplus power over weight the C-46 had bugger all it seems). The aircraft's actual service ceiling was actually about 22,000 ft but the reality was that it was not operated above 16,000 ft because of control issues; the aircraft was unstable, in other words it was in coffin corner where the difference between its stall speed and cruise speed was so low you could not be anything less than precise and steady with control inputs in the cruise because the aircraft was unstable aerodynamically. The long slow circling climb was standard technique for this aeroplane especially if you had to get over significant terrain. General cruise altitude was generally about 6000 ft or lower if you could but higher terrain meant higher altitude the general technique was to circle climb at the departure aerodrome to the safest altitude for the first route segment and circle up at later waypoints if needed. They were heavy on fuel so much so that the benefit of the higher volumetric capacity and load (compared to the C-47) was almost wiped out by the extra fuel they burned to the point they actually had only 24% more capacity than the C-47.

At low altitudes and speeds control was ok and not bad actually but at cruise the controls were quite heavy and the aeroplane was a bit of a barge in the handling department. There was no V speeds for this aeroplane (it was not required for certification then) but the rule of thumb was effectively to get to 95 knots and then allow the aircraft to level to accelerate to about 105-115 knots for the climb, below 95 knots if you lost an engine you went for a forced landing above that it may or might, if everyone was sharp enough and the aircraft in good condition, you might, maintain altitude and get back for a landing.

On the ground it was a pig and the view from the cockpit was poor looking forward, there was no rudder effectiveness below 40 knots and but the tail would come up at about that speed. directional control on the take-off roll was via differential power, you could not use the brakes because they were a powered hydraulic system and would lock a wheel, giving you a flat spot or blow out. So it had very good brakes and apparently they did not squeal or creak and groan which is why you could get caught out pushing on the rudder pedals too hard and lock a brake without realising it until it was too late. If it swung on take-off and you did not catch it it would swing hard quickly and ground loop on you , apparently because the rudder pedals were actually off centre relative to the control column which caused some pilots grief in training to reach for example the right rudder pedal from the left hand seat and vice a versa for the right hand seat. With that big fin and rudder it had good rudder control.

Take off distance and landing distance were about the same, 2500 ft but the FAA data is factored for 50ft heights so it is about 4500 to 6000 ft dependent on temperature and altitude. One account I read by someone who flew them in Vietnam said that they were great to fly, reliable and comfortable, except like all aircraft of their era they leaked like sieves in the rain you could side slip them into a tight field without any problems and if you were really sharp could get them down and stopped in 1200 ft. The ones in Vietnam did not even have a VOR so it was all ADF and maps, fascinating flying in the period when you think about it.

I guess the above gives everyone a benchmark to see whether or not this release is a reasonable replica of this aeroplane or is not.

[hairyspin]

Thanks for that BendyFlyer, could I share a link I've found if you haven't seen it already?

https://www.scribd.com/document/11327612/C46-Manual# (https://www.scribd.com/document/11327612/C46-Manual#)

This is the Pilot Training Manual for the C-46 and appears to be contemporary with late WW2 operation as it directly references the Hump flights in its foreword.

[Penzoil3]

ROFLMAO
Today, I got the email. :applause:
Sue

[Mach3DS]

Yeah it seemed to me that although on paper the service ceiling may be somewhere in the 22-24K' range can't imagine it was practically flown there...so you're talking being at the half way point of the max altitude with a plane where the turbo critical altitude was prob in the FL160 range...so the 2-300 FPM climb seems accurate without ever looking at a performance chart...

[BendyFlyer]

FWIW and for those who would like to actually enjoy this aeroplane, because it is a challenge for various reasons, a lot of unreal expectations to begin with, I am reproducing a few notes I put on the JF Forum for the C-46 and thoughts on flying the C-46:

"I am not sure what environment some people are trying to operate this aeroplane. What is the ambient outside temperature at your take off point and what is the elevation of the aerodrome? These are very critical issues with this and any aeroplane's performance.

....As previous posts have stated this aircraft was always underpowered for its size and weight. It was notorious for its lack of climb rate (Rate of climb is a function of excess power over weight) even under good conditions it would normally not climb any better than about 100-250 fpm with a full load. The aeroplane may have had a book service ceiling of about 24000 ft but that is the ceiling at which the aircraft can no longer climb more than 100 fpm. This would have been done from sea level on a cool or standard ISA day (+15C). All performance data was based on the standard ISA day. Every degree above this reduces the performance. Aerodrome altitude is also important, the higher you are the worse the performance, hotter day higher airfield and you are already losing a lot of performance.


The normal cruise altitude for this aircraft was about 6000ft not high altitudes. The aircraft was notorious for not being aerodynamically stable at or above 16000ft, it ran out of power to keep the margin between the stall speed and cruise speed at a safe level (its called coffin corner).


Yes it was used on the Hump but that was a decision based on its volumetric capacity and the need to transport a lot of stuff, it used a hell of a lot of fuel to do it and was despite carrying almost double the load of a C-47 it used so much fuel the reality was only a 24% gain in load. If your going to do the Hump in this expect to fly round in circles to get any altitude before going anywhere and do more circling enroute once fuel burned off to get higher.


The aeroplane is fine at low altitudes and is good into and out of short strips (with a balanced field length of about 2500ft required). This was its forte and a reason it got a new lease of life with Air America etc in Vietnam.


It is what it is a big heavy underpowered twin piston engined aeroplane. It is not a high altitude flyer and it is not a good aeroplane to poke about in high mountains and high terrain. Despite all that it was a nice aeroplane to fly, it was comfortable, not too hard to operate and reliable. The C-47 would outshine it on just about any level except how much you could stuff inside. It is what it is - the Curtis C-46 Commando.

OK here's what a very experienced C-46 pilot has to say about flying this bird:

"There were never any certified V-speeds on normal C-46s. No "blue line," no Vmc, V1, V2, Vx, Vy, etc. Many chief pilots couldn't live with this, so they conducted their own rough testing, and picked some speeds that worked well enough, and with which they could browbeat trainees and checkees. But anyone who uses them is kidding himself, and possibly developing a dangerous thought process. Having published "V-speeds" also means that a "V1 cut" is required on check rides, and I've had quite enough excitement in airplanes, thank you very much, we don't do those, anymore. Without published V-speeds, the FAA does not allow even the simulated failure of an engine in flight below 500 feet on a check ride.


The old manuals usually call for a "minimum safe single engine speed," and it's generally around 95 knots, or "close enough," and that's what we use.


(Some C-46s were heavily modified, and certified under the old CAR 4b for transports (Everts has one working on a Part 121 operation, today!) Those do have true V1 and V2 speeds, along with appropriate charts. Those speeds are NOT good to use in the unmodified aircraft.)


Under CAF and FAA rules, we use full rated power (2,000 HP, 52", 2700 RPM) on ALL takeoffs, regardless of weight, a very good idea in ALL piston-powered airplanes.


With just a little help with forward elevator, the tail wants to come up around 40 knots or so, and with a little experience, we learn and hold a fixed attitude, slightly tail-low.


Somewhere around 80 knots the airplane obviously wants to fly, and we let it do so, holding the attitude at which it lifts off. The moment the airplane is off, that 80 knots instantly becomes 88 knots, as there is a built-in error in the pitot system when in ground effect.


Still maintaining the liftoff attitude, we allow a gentle climb and a gentle airspeed increase, and we accelerate to 95 knots. With that, and only when positive there will not be ground contact, pull the gear. Pulling the gear is the signal to everyone in the cockpit that we will continue flying with an engine failure. Before that, we'll probably put it back down. We continue to hold that same liftoff attitude and accelerate to about 105 knots, then pitch up gently (VERY gently) to hold that speed. Jet pilots have a LOT of trouble with this concept, and invariably they will haul the airplane off the ground and "rotate" to a nose high attitude as they do on the job. That is DISASTER in any old prop airplane, for the performance is simply not there.


(There is also NO SUCH THING as "Vr" or "Rotation" in a prop airplane! That is strictly a jet certification term, and has several very specific meanings that do NOT apply to props! I always get a chuckle out of the idea of "rotating" any prop airplane, especially something like a Cherokee.)


The Climb


As the gear comes up and the situation stabilizes at around 105 knots, we usually call for the first power reduction, to "METO" (Maximum Except Take Off) power, or 44" and 2550. When heavy, we'll delay that a few more seconds, to help gain altitude to protect from an engine failure.


At about 300 feet when light, or 500 feet (or more) when heavy, a second power reduction is usually used, to 36" and 2300 RPM, or "Climb Power."


105 knots makes an excellent pattern speed during the climb, and in level flight. The airplane seems to like that speed, using about 25 inches of manifold pressure and 1800 RPM on downwind, level. Any faster speed tends to overrun other VFR traffic in the pattern, and slower than 105 knots brings on problems with an engine failure. Trainees will almost always lose 10 knots while they struggle with the airplane, and while 95 is fine, getting slower will cause control problems with one engine at high power, and one windmilling."



I have emphasised a couple of very important handling issues here - the first is your aiming for 95 knots basically in level flight or about 2 -3 pitch up (not much is it) to get to about 105 knots before climbing, there is no use of flap and it all takes time the speed increases are actually very slow from 88 to 95 is only 7 knots to 105 is only another 10 knots all this time you need to be basically only slightly pitch up and then and only then will it begin to climb and very slowly, similarly with acceleration it is as the pilot politely described 'gentle'.


So it is a matter of technique with this bird. For those interested the minimum field length to clear a 50ft obstacle (a tree or fence) is usually about 4500 -6000 ft, so if your trying to shoehorn it out of a tight spot or do not have that minimum amount of distance in front your going to collect something before you get going.


Once its flying its fine you just can't chuck it about like a fighter or a light twin, smooth and gentle all the way and you will be rewarded. Push it hard and it is going to frustrate the hell out of you.


I will admit there are some issues still to resolve with the gauge coding etc, but I am confident this will happen and I am glad that it was done and I like it a lot. Best place to fly it - Alaska down low or anywhere else down low, take it into the hills expect to have some excitement.

[Martyn]

C-46 service pack 2 is now available - https://www.justflight.com/support/c46-commando/c3a4681 (https://www.justflight.com/support/c46-commando/c3a4681)


Changes include:




FDE improvements
Flight 1 GTN 750 integration added to modern cockpit
NAV/GPS switch added
Glideslope indicator in military cockpit fixed
HSI instruments fixed
OBS compass rings fixed
Radio tuning issues fixed
Magnetos, generators and ignition still on after using cold & dark switched - fixed
GPS backlight flickering at night - fixed
Co-pilot ADI texture issue - fixed


Thanks
Martyn

[big-mike]

Thanks Martyn---much appreciated.
Has the FDE in the SP2 changed,or is the version C46@151117 the same?
Mike

[warchild]

thank you Martyn :)..

[warchild]

Well, the new fde does add power. I find that beneficial if not realistic. See, I fly out of Kunming a lot. The alt. there is 6300 feet, so using real numbers, the plane couldnt even make it off the ground there.. The new fde allows it to climb out from there with little issues beyond losing some stability above 120 mph.. It's a good plane.. the only question i would have is: "How do you turn the brightness down on the kns-750??? its far too bright to see clearly..

[ceo1944]

With this new update, under P3Dv4.1 I'm unable to start the engines. They start, then die. Even with CTRL-E autostart. Under FSX, they start fine manually or automatically.

Copying back an aircraft.cfg and C46.air file from the previous version (SP1) restores the engine start - but of course leaves off the FDE improvements.

I'd expect a refresh to the SP2 coming soon, unless I'm the only one seeing this.

Dutch

[Timmy74]

Is there a way to taxi this thing with the rudder and not dif wheel braking/throttle inputs....!?!?!

I do not have the hardware to use dif braking and individual throttle quadrants for a twin!!!

Cheers,
Tim.

[Penzoil3]

Hmm, think I'll wait on this update. If it aint broke, don't fix it!
LOL
Sue

[AussieMan]

With this new update, under P3Dv4.1 I'm unable to start the engines. They start, then die. Even with CTRL-E autostart. Under FSX, they start fine manually or automatically.

Copying back an aircraft.cfg and C46.air file from the previous version (SP1) restores the engine start - but of course leaves off the FDE improvements.

I'd expect a refresh to the SP2 coming soon, unless I'm the only one seeing this.

Dutch

I have posted this as a bug over on the beta testers page.

[PhillRoath]

With this new update, under P3Dv4.1 I'm unable to start the engines. They start, then die. Even with CTRL-E autostart. Under FSX, they start fine manually or automatically.

Copying back an aircraft.cfg and C46.air file from the previous version (SP1) restores the engine start - but of course leaves off the FDE improvements.

I'd expect a refresh to the SP2 coming soon, unless I'm the only one seeing this.

Dutch

Advance the throttles a bit and they will start/continue to run. It is different now. Idle causes engine shut-down.

[ceo1944]

Is there a way to taxi this thing with the rudder and not dif wheel braking/throttle inputs....!?!?!

I do not have the hardware to use dif braking and individual throttle quadrants for a twin!!!

Cheers,
Tim.

Yes, but you'll need to modify the aircraft.cfg. In the [contact_points] section, modify point.0 and change the number 180 to 72. Or replace the line with this one:

point.0= 1, -34.550, 0.000, -2.940, 1200, 0, 0.600, 72.000, 0.420, 1.950, 0.700, 7.000, 7.000, 0, 165.1, 165.1 // 72=180 for free castoring

Dutch

[ceo1944]

Advance the throttles a bit and they will start/continue to run. It is different now. Idle causes engine shut-down.

I tried that too, I'm used to having to start the C-47 with throttles cracked, in fact this C-46 is one of the few I have that starts with throttles at idle.

Nothing, absolutely nothing I tried would get the engines to start. I tried selectively removing all the changes from the aircraft.cfg one at a time, and ended up with the old .air file and just a few lines from the old aircraft.cfg, and it works fine now.

I feel it's just a bit under powered out of the box at this point and adjusted the piston ratio a bit so that I could climb at the recommended speed of 105 knots and cruise at the expected speed of 150 knots with a 50% load. As distributed, I couldn't get it much above 120 with a 50% load. Also the CHT is off, like in most simulated pistons, and I adjusted the CHT record in the .air file to give more realistic temps (oil temps are fine, which is unusual, most sims get that wrong too.) I'll be happy to share these small easy changes with anyone who cares that much about it.

I enjoy flying the airplane. It's a nice simulation, and I appreciate the fixes in both SPs. Now I can read the glideslope/VOR in daylight, and the beacon switch is correctly labelled now :)

Dutch

[Timmy74]

Yes, but you'll need to modify the aircraft.cfg. In the [contact_points] section, modify point.0 and change the number 180 to 72. Or replace the line with this one:

point.0= 1, -34.550, 0.000, -2.940, 1200, 0, 0.600, 72.000, 0.420, 1.950, 0.700, 7.000, 7.000, 0, 165.1, 165.1 // 72=180 for free castoring

Dutch

Thank you very much Dutch. Now I can start to get somewhere. :wavey:

[warchild]

Welll, I'm a bit torn over the new fde, or rather the difference between the fde's. You see, I consitantly fly out of Kunming, which was an eastern terminus for the hump route. It's altitude is 6300 feet. Now, the original fde could barely get the plane off the ground there due to the barometric pressure experienced at those altitudes, and high hot chinese weather.. Obviously, flying the hump required that planes be able to take off and land, but the original fde, didnt provide for that at that airport, and therefore airports throughout tibet and pakistan of which some are over ten thousand foot in altitude.
This new fde fixes that, but does it go too far?? Takeoffs are easy. Speed is a dream; perhaps too much of a dream. It seems to me that in acquiring functionality, its lost some of its reality.
In all my years of crunching numbers, balancing operational components making certain that each part of the flight model played nicely with each other part.
I learned something..
I learned that although reality was the goal, that it couldnt always be achieved with real data.
Because fsx is very set in the way it deals with everything, you have to work within those constraints that it sets. Whereas in the real world you can simply add more power to overcome an obstacle ( numerically of course ) in fsx you sometimes have to fudge things a bit. In this case I believe adding more power appears to have been a mistake, when what was needed was more lift. The plane now has too much power to match reality, and becomes rather unstable in turbulent skies.. More lift and weight could provide the plane with whats needed to match reality while remaining stable in turbulent conditions.
I do hope ive made some sense. Things arent always so clear to me any more..
Pam

[jeansy]

I tried that too, I'm used to having to start the C-47 with throttles cracked, in fact this C-46 is one of the few I have that starts with throttles at idle.

Nothing, absolutely nothing I tried would get the engines to start. I tried selectively removing all the changes from the aircraft.cfg one at a time, and ended up with the old .air file and just a few lines from the old aircraft.cfg, and it works fine now.

I feel it's just a bit under powered out of the box at this point and adjusted the piston ratio a bit so that I could climb at the recommended speed of 105 knots and cruise at the expected speed of 150 knots with a 50% load. As distributed, I couldn't get it much above 120 with a 50% load. Also the CHT is off, like in most simulated pistons, and I adjusted the CHT record in the .air file to give more realistic temps (oil temps are fine, which is unusual, most sims get that wrong too.) I'll be happy to share these small easy changes with anyone who cares that much about it.

I enjoy flying the airplane. It's a nice simulation, and I appreciate the fixes in both SPs. Now I can read the glideslope/VOR in daylight, and the beacon switch is correctly labelled now :)

Dutch

Dutch please do share your changes as i trust your work after the payware you have worked on and seeing the end result

[warchild]

It only needed a little lift, reduction of beta max and a minor increase in prop thrust..

[jeansy]

It only needed a little lift, reduction of beta max and a minor increase in prop thrust..

maybe, but ive worked with dutch in the past on a payware package and know his talents and im interested to see what he has come with with

[ceo1944]

Dutch please do share your changes as i trust your work after the payware you have worked on and seeing the end result

Hi Jeansy,

I really don't have much time to do anything extensive, I'm too busy with payware projects. But I do like this C-46 and it's a fine Air America aircraft. I have an Air America career I pursue in FSCaptain, mostly as a test bed for the new missions system, but I'm a sucker for any airplane that matches a historical Air America plane. So far I have the PC-6 from Tim, C-45 from Milton, C-46 (this), C-47 (Jahn), T-28 (Ant's) and of course the UH-1 (Milviz). I would *love* a C-123, H-34, or C-7 but haven't found a high enough quality one of any of these. I'm spoiled by the ever higher quality of add-ons, freeware and pay, we have nowadays.

Warchild is right in that the main problem is it's a little under powered. It can't get to any of its typical speeds with a typical load. After tinkering a bit I found a boost of the piston power scalar to 1.27 gets the numbers about right between sea level and 6000 feet. With FSX/P3D you can't get everything right at every altitude, you have to pick and choose. I try to get the numbers right for the airplane's typical environment, which for the C-46 is NOT way up high.

I find like most pistons the CHT is too low. No matter what you do you can't get the cylinder temps anywhere near red line. Not true in reality, of course. To fix this you have to edit the air file. Record 541 is Engine CHT. Make the tuning constant 1.29, the cooling constant 0.75, max temp 960, and rate of change 0.015 - this will get it in a more realistic range. Abusing the engines can now get you over red line. Of course, there will be no consequences unless you have some external code like RealEngine to monitor these things. I have some XML I moved over from the old DC-3C I did long ago and I've put that into just about every piston I have, and changed the red line numbers.

All this is really just easy tinkering to make things a little more realistic.

Dutch

[jeansy]

Hi Jeansy,

I really don't have much time to do anything extensive, I'm too busy with payware projects. But I do like this C-46 and it's a fine Air America aircraft. I have an Air America career I pursue in FSCaptain, mostly as a test bed for the new missions system, but I'm a sucker for any airplane that matches a historical Air America plane. So far I have the PC-6 from Tim, C-45 from Milton, C-46 (this), C-47 (Jahn), T-28 (Ant's) and of course the UH-1 (Milviz). I would *love* a C-123, H-34, or C-7 but haven't found a high enough quality one of any of these. I'm spoiled by the ever higher quality of add-ons, freeware and pay, we have nowadays.

Warchild is right in that the main problem is it's a little under powered. It can't get to any of its typical speeds with a typical load. After tinkering a bit I found a boost of the piston power scalar to 1.27 gets the numbers about right between sea level and 6000 feet. With FSX/P3D you can't get everything right at every altitude, you have to pick and choose. I try to get the numbers right for the airplane's typical environment, which for the C-46 is NOT way up high.

I find like most pistons the CHT is too low. No matter what you do you can't get the cylinder temps anywhere near red line. Not true in reality, of course. To fix this you have to edit the air file. Record 541 is Engine CHT. Make the tuning constant 1.29, the cooling constant 0.75, max temp 960, and rate of change 0.015 - this will get it in a more realistic range. Abusing the engines can now get you over red line. Of course, there will be no consequences unless you have some external code like RealEngine to monitor these things. I have some XML I moved over from the old DC-3C I did long ago and I've put that into just about every piston I have, and changed the red line numbers.

All this is really just easy tinkering to make things a little more realistic.

Dutch

Its all good dutch i have custom fde i made up, im happy with what i have, i just wanted to see what you have done

Im happy now i can climb to 8000ft without stalling even when my climb rate is 100 fpm unlike the fde it was shipped with

[PeteHam]

Thanks for the tip to increase .... piston power scalar to 1.27 .

It's now got a respectable take off and climb performance.

What figures have you for the roll stability? Mine just goes back wings level if I release the roll input.

Thanks.

Pete.

[warchild]

Is there a way to taxi this thing with the rudder and not dif wheel braking/throttle inputs....!?!?!

I do not have the hardware to use dif braking and individual throttle quadrants for a twin!!!

Cheers,
Tim.

Hi Timmy. Yes there is.. Open the aircraft.cfg file and scroll down to where it says [Contact Points]..
Checheck line one and make zure its not the same s line two, then move over across the line to entry 7. In a castoring setup that muber will usually be 180, showing that wheel rotate 180 degrees. Change that to something lower. I prefer 34 myself but other people use other angles.. save and have fun,,,

[BendyFlyer]

Warchild and Jeansy - are these changes for the SP2 version of the C-46 or the first one? I have had time to have a look at this one again as I have been fiddling with another product the HS748.

[warchild]

BendyFlyer..
The changes I recommended are for the initial release. The update, which we just got, actually fixed a number of major errors. which i wont go into. the changes i recommended will allow a person to adjust the original flight model to behave in line with the description of the planes behavior given above. The corrections in the updated model, follow documented datum from the manufacturers. They arent exact however, but pretty close..

[BendyFlyer]

Got it. I have not had a chance to run the updated version about yet. I have most of the relevant technical data on the C-46 (some useful stuff from the USAF) and the FAA. It was clear when you had a close read of the data this was not a hot and high aeroplane but worked fine at low altitudes but was not a great performer which is hardly surprising given its size and weight (should have had 4 engines not 2). The notes about engine specs, AIR file data is spot on, amazing how so many developers get this wrong, which I guess is down to a lack of understanding of how piston engines work and the FSX engine which makes it happen.

Thanks.

[sp762]

Hi all,

I picked up the Commando in the JF pick and mix sale that's on right now, and I'm generally impressed with it. The plane 'feels' heavy, if that makes any sense at all.

But I think I found a bug, unless I'm doing it wrong.

Several flights now, I've taken off, climbed to altitude slowly, with supercharger on 'low' and got there easily enough. Cruising at various altitudes between 4,500 and 14,500ft.

What I find is that after about an hour, the engines slowly lose power and there's nothing I can do about it. Plenty of fuel in the tank, supercharger on 'low' cowl flaps closed, no overheating, carb heat on.

This happens in different weather conditions and has happened in 5/7 flights so far.

Is it me, or a bug? I'm running P3D4.1, and have applied all the service packs.

Mike

[AussieMan]

Not sure if this is of any help but do you lean your fuel? Or set it to auto lean.

[sp762]

Yes, set to Auto-Lean

[thunderstreak]

I have uninstalled the AH C-46 and installed the latest version 106. I still have issues with how the engines and propellers behave in P3Dv4.1. The relationship between manifold pressure and RPM seems incorrect. During run up a lot of MP is required to increase RPM. Over 40” to get more than 1000 RPM. Propellers set to 100%, mixture and supercharger changes don’t help. Take off, full throttle 60”, superchargers low or high, propellers 100%, mixture auto rich, RPM is still low until part way down the runway, then it seems to come to life. 2500 RPM climbing out and I can reach 2700 straight and level. During climb and cruise it behaves as it should. During decent though if you cut the throttles to far, again props 100%, auto rich, etc. the RPM will drop again to around 1000. A bunch of throttle is necessary to get the RPM up again. Has anyone else experienced this?

I have recently flown MJ C-47 v3.14, FR DC-4, A2A Connie, Milviz Baron, Carenado C-185.............
All of which the engines and propellers perform as they should.

Real world pilot as well, so hopefully I have a reasonable understanding how this should all work 🤪😜

[Paul K]

Thunderstreak, I was about to recommend that you visit the Just Flight C-46 forum, but I see you've already posted there. To my knowledge, the C-46's flight dynamics have been altered at least twice since it's initial release, once by Aeroplane Heaven ( the developers ) and then by publisher Just Flight's own in-house team, in an attempt to answer user's complaints. Just Flight did what they could, but it was a compromise, and we now have something more useable, but less than perfect. If it's any reassurance, your experience with MP and RPM matches mine.

[thunderstreak]

Thanks Paul, I appreciate the reply. Since I now know this problem isn’t unique to me I can stop wasting time trying to figure it out.
I assume there’s a good chance this will never get resolved.
I have a bunch of JF/AH payware addons and many have issues, some perhaps only noticeable if you want to fly by the “book”.
They seem to quit after a few service packs regardless if all the issues are fixed.
Buyer beware I guess.

[bazzar]

Your comment is unnecessary. Many here know we will continue to work on these issues until we find solutions. We do not build products to "study-sim" level and do not pretend to. Neither are they priced that way. When we have fixes you will be notified of the issue of service packs for this and all our products. Thankyou.:engel016:

[Paul K]

In fairness to Thunderstreak, Bazzar, how long should it take to arrive at the solutions you allude to ? The C-46 is a fine model, inside and out, but the FDE has been problematical from day one. I don't wish to appear rude, but it's now been at least five months since the release - I bought it last October. Given that elapsed time, surely people's doubts about a prospective solution are understandable, don't you think ?

[bazzar]

No Paul I don't think that. If people still do not understand the way we work and support our products, then they never will. There are many reasons that affect work in this business, we are a tiny outfit that is sometimes like many here, afflicted by personal issues and other reasons for "delays" in issuing fixes. As I said, we do not pretend to create "textbook" style product and also do not price it as such. You will never see an AH product at $60 or more. Several well-known and highly respected (by this forum) FD creators have had time with this "problem" and so far, are having issues finding the perfect solution. If one puts a totally new engineer on the job, it is going to take a while for them to complete any work. If people would prefer a C46 built by a company that they feel would give them what they need, I would suggest they go there and find it. JF and AH have an excellent no quibble refund policy and we will always try to find a fix if people would do us the courtesy of contacting us directly instead of whipping up a storm in a forum post. We have helped many people who have emailed me directly. We stand for products that are well-made, fun to fly and beautiful to look at. We have never wavered from that path and never will. If that is not what you are looking for, don't buy.:engel016:

[Paul K]

Of course we are looking "for products that are well-made, fun to fly and beautiful to look at. " Everyone is looking for that - why would anyone not look for that ? Yes, I understand that you are a small outfit and sometimes real life gets in the way - but look at all the development and releases since the Commando came out, including the Otter, Spitfire and the Lancaster. All very admirable and eagerly awaited, of course, but the perception is that A.H. has moved on to other things and left the C-46 and its problems to rot. That's the impression people get, Bazzar and it's perfectly understandable.

I know there are problems with the C-46's FDE, and I know there are no quick fixes. I tested some of the alterations that Paul Frimston worked on, and so I know it wasn't a straightforward process. But at the end of the day, it is just a twin engined 1940's aircraft, of which we already have a wide variety, and they all seem to fly and handle reasonably well. Might it be an idea to tear the FDE up, and aim for something simpler but more reliable? I don't know - only you can say whether A.H. has the time or inclination.

I'll leave it there ( you'll be happy to hear ; ) )

[bazzar]

If people want just another twin-engined 1940s aircraft we can give them that. What I understand about the C46 and what people want to see in a replication of one, is a lot different. We continue to work. Thanks for the input. Oh by the way, you left out the Stinson, the VC10 and the P47...:engel016:

[WarHorse47]

Did someone say P47?? Where, where, where..??? :untroubled:

I know, I know. Soon... :indecisiveness:

[blanston12]

If people want just another twin-engined 1940s aircraft we can give them that. ...

Another 40's twin in the works, interesting.:jump:

[AussieMan]

Gentlemen, as a proud user of AH products since the days of FS9 may I suggest that if you have an axe to grind then go to the JF Forums or email AH but please stop using the SOH to grind your axe. It is the attitude of some posters here that drive developers away from the hobby.

Paul K I suggest you tone down your posts and take your problems over to the JF Forums. If you want to persist I will raise the matter in the Admins Forum.

Also I have been on the beta teams since the F-27 and FYI I have had no problems with the C-46 and I am starting to suspect the problem lies with people who want to play around and try to make their computers do what they were not designed to do. My computer is stock standard but I notice that a lot of the complainants are use a rather ancient OS known as Windows.

I am using the latest Build of Windows 10 (170107), Yes I am also a Windows Insider, and I have not had any problems with my system or P3D V4.2.

And a reminder, PLEASE STOP USING THIS SITE AS A DEV BASHING FORUM.

EDIT: And Bazz I have to wait until Thursday to update from the Beta Dunkirk Spitfire to the Release version. It is a great aircraft and I love flying it.

[Paul K]

Aussieman - please read my posts, word for word and in detail, then tell me where I am bashing the developer.

This has been about one unresolved problem with one particular model - it is not 'developer bashing' as you have chosen to broadly interpret it. It has been a perfectly civilized exchange of views, and I have acknowledged the accomplishments of Aeroplane Heaven in the process. Try reading Thunderstreaks' post above, and perhaps focus your ire in that direction.



Quote - I am starting to suspect the problem lies with people who want to play around and try to make their computers do what they were not designed to do. My computer is stock standard but I notice that a lot of the complainants are use a rather ancient OS known as Windows.

I'm sorry, but I really dont understand that statement. I am not tinkering with my computer at all, and yes, in common with most of the planet, I am using 'a rather ancient OS known as Windows' - W7 Pro to be precise. I am also using the latest version of P3Dv3. Both of these match or exceed the system specs required.



Just for info, as you mentioned it, I have already posted about the problems with the FDE at the JF Forum, as have a number of other people, going back into late last year.


Bazzar, yes, as soon as I posted that, I remembered the Stinson too.

[wombat666]

If people want another twin-engined 1940s aircraft we can give them that.:engel016:

OK. I 'clipped' your reply Baz but I would love another 1940s-1950s twin please, the mostly overlooked Convair 340 series...........:triumphant:

[Paul K]

... or an Armstrong Whitworth Whitley. I'd buy it - not sure how many others would, though.

[Timmy74]

.....okay its not a 1940's aircraft. But if AH did a DHC-4 Caribou, I would be all over like a fat kid on cake!!

[thunderstreak]

Gentlemen, I am not trying to bash the developer here. I was merely trying to find a solution to a problem and discover if anyone else has the same issue. I think my comments regarding the C-46 are fair. I have spent a lot of money with AH and JF over the years and there have been some issues that were never resolved. I am not asking for “study-sim” stuff here. I was just hoping for engine behaviour that is somewhat realistic. I did convey my concerns to JF before I posted here. Again, I appreciate the work that JF and AH do, I have been a customer of both for a long time. AH has released a lot of cool airplanes since the C-46. If time to work on updates is an issue, perhaps some efforts could be shifted from new developments to the existing products. Just my 2 cents.

[bazzar]

If I may, perhaps I can reduce the heat in here. Quite simply, AH has to develop at the rate it does to survive. Without new product at regular intervals, we would not be around. Period. This does not mean and never will, that we "neglect" previous releases. The C46 was a difficult aeroplane to make and a very difficult subject to get "right". The FDs in a product are what make it live. To be truthful we could just produce beautifully modeled and textured cardboard boxes, give them each a different FD and call them C46 or whatever. The sim doesn't care.

Contemporary accounts from pilots and pilot notes of the period all indicate that this aeroplane could bite and bite hard. We would like to get somewhere close to its wartime behaviour and to do that is a delicate balance of aerodynamics and engine simulation. OK we haven't got it right for some but we have something that does at least give people a taste of what it might have been like to fly in its original form. We will continue to look at it and as we improve it will release more SPs. There is no time limit, nor should there be one if you trust in what we say and do. If that is still not good enough then a refund is always there. Not a bad deal really is it?

However, we need to move on to new projects on a regular basis if we are to survive in this fragile industry. Not to do that is out of the question.:engel016:

[Paul K]

Bazzar, with regards to your efforts to incorporate some of the idiosyncrasies of the Commando's aerodynamics; there is a well known and high-profile figure** in our world of flight simming who once said 'we dont give people realism - we give them what they expect'.

Thinking about it, there is a truth to that. When it comes to how a model behaves, people tend not to miss details that are omitted, but do notice things that are there, and that don't work quite right. Might that be a pointer to developing a less ambitious but more stable FDE ? Something more conventional..something that people are comfortable with and that behaves how they expect it to ? Nobody would have any complaints about that.

I think the Aeroplane Heaven C-46 really is a fine model, both inside and out, as I said on post #60 ( and which was overlooked by some ). It's much more than ' the only one available' and I feel it really would be worth re-examining the FDE.


But not until the Lanc is finished.



( ** I can PM you the name of that gentleman if you wish. )

[hairyspin]

Paul, that's an impossible brief to meet. How many ex-C-46 pilots have we here? None, I expect, so people's expectations of how the C-46 actually flies are rarely grounded in experience. Some expect the Commando to need a really long roll for takeoff, others (who have at least watched a survivor fly) expect a sprightly performance off the ground. Some have read of flying the Hump and expect a really long slow climb after reaching critical altitude, others expect B-17 style peformance, while others disagree profoundly about where critical altitude is met (the C-46 is not the most comprehensively documented aircraft around). There will be no compromise that everyone will be happy with.

FDE development is a difficult, poorly understood science among simmers generally and those who really understand it are thin on the ground. At least cut the developers some slack if they've built an FDE you don't agree with, or have a bash at building one for real. I've tried it and it ain't easy, not easy at all. You should also consider that most FDEs are adaptations of existing models instead of built from the ground up.

I don't want a generic Large Twin Experience, just as when I buy a new SR-71 it shouldn't fly like a big, extra-powerful Learjet. Kudos to AH for giving us models that aren't cardboard cutouts of the stock FDEs.

[thunderstreak]

Just to clarify my position on this.
I have no complaints on how the current or previous (SP2 and SP3) versions of the C-46 flies.
My only concern is how the engines and propellers behave, which really has nothing to do with the C-46 at all.
The 46 has 2 R-2800's which for the purposes of flight simulation shouldn't be to hard to find some specs on how it should operate.
Whether that engine is mounted to a Corsair, a C-46, a DC-6 or a CL-215, again, for the purposes of flight simulation, it should behave in a similar manner.
I have zero experience in flight simulation modelling, but I am a RW pilot, aircraft owner and also a mechanic, so to me this seems simple, perhaps in the world of flight sim it is not.

That said, thanks to all at AH for their efforts making a bunch of cool stuff for us to "fly". Hopefully this will get sorted one day.

Cheers, Bernard

[Paul K]

Hairyspin, surely that applies to every model that comes out - how many Lancaster, Helldiver, P-47, Spitfire, C-47 etc etc pilots do we have here ? None, as in your example. But, FDE's are developed for all of these aircraft, and with little resulting controversy.

Take Manfred Jahn's C-47 as an example - who in here has flown a C-47 ? There might be the odd one or two around, but no more. And yet, everyone seems happy with the way it handles, myself included. And the reason for that ? Probably because it behaves in the way people expect. They don't know for sure...but it matches their expectations.

Now, take that over to the C-46. I would put money on the fact that if the FDE was taken from Manfred Jahn's C-47 and transplanted into the C-46, with maybe a few tweaks so that engine and flight instruments in the VCs dial match what people have read in a book - nobody would know the difference. They would say to themselves..well, this feels like a heavy twin...it flies nicely...it seems right - and that's where the analysis would end with most people. Feels like..nicely..seems right - those are the criteria that most flight simmers subscribe to, and nothing much beyond that.

Yes there are C-46 purists around, but I bet not that many

I honestly think that as long as the performance broadly reflects the basic figures gleaned from a book, you need go no further. And certainly, you don't need to add-in idiosyncracies which, though authentic, make the aircraft difficult to use. The vast bulk of simmers, again including myself, would be perfectly happy with something that's simply usable and feels right .

EDIT; IN fact, here's an idea for Aeroplane Heaven - take the FDE from your B-17, put it in your forthcoming Lancaster, and see how many people say 'Hang on a minute, this flies more like a Fortress'. I doubt there will be many, if at all ;O)

[thunderstreak]

Paul, perhaps you have discovered my problem!
I personally know people that do fly or have flown some of this stuff for real.

Not the C-46 mind you but Stearman, T-6/Harvard, Yale, Lysander, B-25, PBY, DC-3/C-47 and yes, the Lancaster.

I am very fortunate to be surrounded by some very talented and experienced people who I can talk to about how these things really fly.
They have also generously taught me more about flying than any of my instructors ever did.

[hairyspin]

That's what makes different aircraft interesting, they don't all behave exactly the same. It's what makes simming interesting too, otherwise we have hangars full of different-looking aircraft which are beautifully modelled but fly much like each other, yawn. Eye candy only appeals so long, it's the extra input by developers that makes their models interesting in the longer term. Some aircraft really are/were difficult to fly and many student pilots learned to respect the Harvard Mk.1 and its sudden, nasty stalling behaviour for example - the ones who didn't could end up dead.

[bazzar]

A couple of things. FDs are not a copy of Manfred's C-47. I would think the likes of Paul Frimston would be a little disturbed by that comment. FDs are not produced with engines in isolation to other factors. It is completely untrue to suggest that the engine component of a flight file is just the same as a similar engine from another aeroplane. It's performance is very different from other aircraft when a multitude of factors governing lift co-efficients, height, climb rate and the weight of the aeroplane all have a governing effect on how the power curves are assembled.

Lastly, a fully ticketed C46 pilot was on the beta test team. The one that approved the model.:engel016:

[Bjoern]

Anybody unhappy with the FDE has an alternative in the one from the Calclassic Commando.
http://calclassic.com/commando.htm

Back up the aircraft.cfg, point the repaint entries in the aircraft.cfg to the other .air file, replace anything relating to flight characteristics (tuning scalars, dimensions, engine and prop properties, etc...) and check the result.

[Paul K]

A couple of things. FDs are not a copy of Manfred's C-47. I would think the likes of Paul Frimston would be a little disturbed by that comment. FDs are not produced with engines in isolation to other factors. It is completely untrue to suggest that the engine component of a flight file is just the same as a similar engine from another aeroplane. It's performance is very different from other aircraft when a multitude of factors governing lift co-efficients, height, climb rate and the weight of the aeroplane all have a governing effect on how the power curves are assembled.

Lastly, a fully ticketed C46 pilot was on the beta test team. The one that approved the model.:engel016:

Bazzar, please read my post again - I didn't say Manfred's C-47 FDE had been copied. I speculated on whether people ( i.e. users such as myself ) would notice if it was.
The ticketed C-46 pilot you had on board - which of the two radically different FDEs that you released, ( the initial release one, followed by the service pack one ) did he approve of ?


Bjoern - interesting idea, I had Libardo Guzmans C-46 and liked it very much. I'm retired - it could be a project.

[bazzar]

He was invited onto the original beta team. In other words, the original flight files. I'm sorry but I do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion here anymore. Unlike you, although heading for 68, I am not retired and must continue to work for a living.:engel016:

[Paul K]

He was invited onto the original beta team. In other words, the original flight files. I'm sorry but I do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion here anymore. Unlike you, although heading for 68, I am not retired and must continue to work for a living.:engel016:

Of course, Bazzar. Thank you for your indulgence, and the discussion. All the best.

[PeteHam]

I initially purchased my JF C-46 from FS Pilot Shop and I've sent a note to Just Flight about how to download the service packs.
Just waiting to hear back.

Pete.

[WarHorse47]

I initially purchased my JF C-46 from FS Pilot Shop and I've sent a note to Just Flight about how to download the service packs.
Just waiting to hear back.

Pete.You just need to go back to your account at JF and re-download your order.