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. 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
Martyn

Hmm.. 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?

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

[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

[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) 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.