Just Flight Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Flight Products > C-46 Commando
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Fixes?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Fixes?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
snave View Drop Down
First Officer
First Officer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Location: Southampton-ish
Points: 351
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote snave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 8:32pm
The aircraft was renowned for being under-powered.

You got what you asked for.

Not sure why this is even a conversation starter at this point.

500 fpm with NO load was normal. 

What did you expect? And why?

This is what makes the aircraft a challenge. 
If you're not up to it, why did you buy into it in the first place?


Back to Top
Merlin59 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Location: TN
Points: 214
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Merlin59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 8:47pm
It's not a matter of not being up to it. There is underpowered and there is broke. This is broke. Won't climb 100 fpm with nearly no fuel and zero cargo weight. No it's not a fighter jet as stated above. However with this performance it's a paperweight. If you don't have it you might not want to get involved. Trust me Snave it's broke still.
Back to Top
Merlin59 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Location: TN
Points: 214
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Merlin59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 9:15pm
Good luck with it. I requested a refund. Not worth it!
Back to Top
snave View Drop Down
First Officer
First Officer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Location: Southampton-ish
Points: 351
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote snave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 7:32am
Originally posted by Merlin59 Merlin59 wrote:

Good luck with it. I requested a refund. Not worth it!

Actually, as it gets closer to `real` it takes on a whole new interest for me - the aircraft was known  to be underpowered, even in the later versions and had poor altitude performance. It had no rudder control until about 50 knots, but would lift the tail at 40. It also would not accelerate until it was cleaned up so gear up, flaps up would need to be done while pretty much in level flight.

It was best known for the operation over the `Hump` of the Himalayas during WWII and it is hard to think of a less suitable aircraft for high-altitude operations. 
The aircraft was (over)built with the intention to be pressurized but it was never fitted so it was heavy, even before you added fuel and freight. It's climb rate was so poor that the aircraft almost doubled the journey distance because of the need to circle climb interminably to actually get over the mountains and at high altitude it was always close to `coffin corner`.

It's a brave choice to model the aircraft to a degree of accuracy, precisely because of these limitations. 

That's why I say it's not for everybody. It's metier was in `humpin stuff` short distances at low altitudes with low fuel loads, managing throttles very carefully. 

Your purchase choices and reasons are your own. But now you've got your refund I presume you will play no further part in this forum.
Back to Top
Paul K View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Cambridge U.K.
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Paul K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 9:29am
Mr. Evans - may I ask you if you own the A.H. C-46 with SP1 installed, and if so, are you stating categorically that the model's performance matches that of the real-world aircraft ? 

Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 9:58am
+1?

I have this aircraft ,I would like to hear from some one who owns it if they have managed to get past 9000 ft as i cant even reducing the load makes no difference,also the speed guages are in kph not mph ok that might be correct dont know! they both read differently!.
do we know whats modled as i see no  difference when using super chargers.
also the heading hold switch wont work inthe vc ,
a list of what works and what dosnt would be helpful.
at climb rate 2300 rpm and 35 man press it stalls ,

I realy woud be grateful if someone could advise me on some of these issues i seem to be having.

many thanks/

Richard.


































Back to Top
Merlin59 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Location: TN
Points: 214
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Merlin59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 3:22pm
@Snave I said requested refund not received. As of yet. I know all about the plane and also like any add on that approaches realism. I think the point you are missing is that broke is not real. I've seen you complain about enough that was not modeled or needed fixing. Why are you having a hard time accepting that some of us are having genuine issues. I respect your opinion try respecting ours and leave it at that.
Back to Top
Paul K View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Cambridge U.K.
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 4:39pm
Just been giving the C-46 another try - at a constant 54" MP, and varying the r.p.m and mixture as much as I dare, I can barely get 130 mph out of it, and that's trimmed for level flight. Any attempt to climb, no matter how gentle, sees the speed dropping to the point where I have to red-line the props again.

I'm going to persist with it over the coming days, read up a bit more on the realworld performance figures, and try various weights. However, at the moment it's not really usable, which is a shame considering how good the external and VC models are.


Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 5:12pm
Hi, Paul,

There is pdf manual on line a simple google will get you there cant do the link thing,

you mention 130mph, it says knots i think,as i see it there are 2 speed guages and on mine give to different readings. it took me nearly an hour or more to get to 090 with the stall warning going on and off.
I am stuck for time a the moment so cant test more at the moment, there are more issues though!.

I am still waiting for someone important!!!! to throw us a line on this one,also i would like one off the beta testers to show us where we are going wrong,

All the best,

Richard.
Back to Top
Paul K View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Cambridge U.K.
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 5:40pm
Hi Richard,

Just checked to be sure. It was 130 mph ( about 115 Knots on the inner scale ). I've got plenty of time off at the moment ( and soon to retire altogether !) so I'm going to plug away at it. It is a good model - that's the thing - it just doesn't seem to fly right.

I'm sure A.H. will get there. 
Back to Top
Chock View Drop Down
First Officer
First Officer
Avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Location: The grim north
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Chock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by spooky spooky wrote:

+1?
I would like to hear from some one who owns it if they have managed to get past 9000 ft as i cant even reducing the load makes no difference


Here we go, just to prove it can be done - all the way up to 14,000 feet, and it probably would have gone maybe another thousand feet if I'd have managed it carefully. It's a bit tricky, don't expect to be up there in five minutes, but if you watch the video, you can see it does get there eventually climbing at about 97 knots or so with the mixture set right, props forward and the superchargers working to help:









Back to Top
icedon View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote icedon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 5:46pm
Originally posted by snave snave wrote:

The aircraft was renowned for being under-powered.

You got what you asked for.

Not sure why this is even a conversation starter at this point.

500 fpm with NO load was normal. 

What did you expect? And why?

This is what makes the aircraft a challenge. 
If you're not up to it, why did you buy into it in the first place?


As stated above, cannot get 500FPM climb with empty plane and 45''MP. Flying by the book does not work.
Back to Top
snave View Drop Down
First Officer
First Officer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Location: Southampton-ish
Points: 351
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote snave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by Paul K Paul K wrote:

Mr. Evans - may I ask you if you own the A.H. C-46 with SP1 installed, and if so, are you stating categorically that the model's performance matches that of the real-world aircraft ? 


No, I haven't installed the update. I don't even have the C46 installed in P3D v4 at present. While I don't have long enough in the SP to be able to offer comment that covers the entire flight envelope, after a few circuit and bumps in a fellow simmers rig while I was tweaking his settings yesterday, I can say that the SP's characteristics in the take-off and landing regimes seem far closer to realistic than the initial version that I removed... 

I, like many others are waiting for confirmation the fixes cover not merely the flight model, but as many of the other faults of the first version as possible. Wink


Back to Top
Paul K View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Cambridge U.K.
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 6:17pm
Right, well, based on all of the above, including that video ( nice video Chock ), I think I'll withdraw from this discussion until I've got more time with the model.
Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 6:22pm
Originally posted by Chock Chock wrote:

Originally posted by spooky spooky wrote:

+1?
I would like to hear from some one who owns it if they have managed to get past 9000 ft as i cant even reducing the load makes no difference


Here we go, just to prove it can be done - all the way up to 14,000 feet, and it probably would have gone maybe another thousand feet if I'd have managed it carefully. It's a bit tricky, don't expect to be up there in five minutes, but if you watch the video, you can see it does get there eventually climbing at about 97 knots or so with the mixture set right, props forward and the superchargers working to help:




ok thanks its the mil version im  in sorry should have said




Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 6:27pm
Originally posted by Paul K Paul K wrote:

Hi Richard,

Just checked to be sure. It was 130 mph ( about 115 Knots on the inner scale ). I've got plenty of time off at the moment ( and soon to retire altogether !) so I'm going to plug away at it. It is a good model - that's the thing - it just doesn't seem to fly right.

I'm sure A.H. will get there. 
Yes i hope so im trying to get over the hump.Iam retired now less time than when i was working'
Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 8:23pm
Originally posted by spooky spooky wrote:

+1?

I have this aircraft ,I would like to hear from some one who owns it if they have managed to get past 9000 ft as i cant even reducing the load makes no difference,also the speed guages are in kph not mph ok that might be correct dont know! they both read differently!.
do we know whats modled as i see no  difference when using super chargers.
also the heading hold switch wont work inthe vc ,
a list of what works and what dosnt would be helpful.
at climb rate 2300 rpm and 35 man press it stalls ,

I realy woud be grateful if someone could advise me on some of these issues i seem to be having.

many thanks/

Richard.

Ok i have just spent the last hour cruising at 21000  after my first succesful take  of a/c fully loaded

last night i was fooled by trying to get the correct speed only i see the captains speed guage reads slow the first officers looks about right this is in the mil versionClapso looks like we could be on to something, now to try the hump!!!!!!
































Back to Top
Mike Hart View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Location: Australia
Points: 81
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike Hart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017 at 10:25pm
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. 

Point 1 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.  

I have no comment to make on the other issues about VC switches etc. 

Back to Top
spooky View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Location: Donegal
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spooky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2017 at 8:51am
thanks for that i suppose all the reading  i had done about the cbi  etc the c-46 was mentioned a lot but  untill this model came out didnt realise the ful story so now thanks to all the posts it makes one realise its not a jet and to think all those involved in the hump operations had a job on there hands

Thanks,

Richard.
Back to Top
Paul K View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Cambridge U.K.
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Paul K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2017 at 3:22pm
I don't know about the Hump - just being able to clear the fence at the end of the runway would be nice.

Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down