Print Page | Close Window

Fixes?

Printed From: Just Flight Forum
Category: Just Flight Products
Forum Name: C-46 Commando
Forum Description: Discussion area for C-46 Commando
URL: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=31673
Printed Date: 04 Jul 2020 at 9:11pm


Topic: Fixes?
Posted By: Merlin59
Subject: Fixes?
Date Posted: 26 Aug 2017 at 11:20pm
Any ideas on a time frame for a service pack for this airplane? Don't mean to seem impatient but it would be nice to see or either hear that it was going to happen. I bought it on day one with ideas of using it in AH2. However it has since just been shelved and I hate to have to do that. I want to love this plane. Any thoughts would be welcome even if they are rough estimates. Thanks ahead as always!



Replies:
Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 4:33am
I guess quiet means their working on it right? I hope! Anybody figured a fix for the fuel issue?


Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 9:51am
Hi Merlin, no, quiet just meant it was the weekend and then the Bank Holiday over here and guess what we were blessed with fine weather for a change so we just had to take the opportunity to enjoy it while it lasted!

Service Pack is underway and there will be one, maybe more than one...we'll give you more details in the next day or so.  Look out for posts from Martyn on the subject.

Thanks for your patience.


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 2:09pm
Thank you for your response. Glad you had a beautiful weekend. Ours has been full of hurricanes I'm afraid. Sorry for the impatience. Glad to hear of the service packs. It's a wonderful airplane that just needs a little more love. Have a good one! ☺


Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 4:18pm
Originally posted by Merlin59 Merlin59 wrote:

Thank you for your response. Glad you had a beautiful weekend. Ours has been full of hurricanes I'm afraid. Sorry for the impatience. Glad to hear of the service packs. It's a wonderful airplane that just needs a little more love. Have a good one! ☺

Yes, heard much about the Hurricanes, hope you and yours are safe and sound. Sounds horrific!

We'll be back soon with news on the Updates.


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 5:13pm
I'm fortunately well north of the actual hurricane itself. However far enough south for all the rain that goes with it. But thanks for the thought. My prayers are with those further south. Look forward to any info and a service pack as well.


Posted By: SSI01
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 4:03pm
I suppose you could view any impatience on our part out here as real enthusiasm about this airplane.

It is a beautiful job, long looked forward to for personal reasons.

No complaints on this end, waiting for the "fixes" to come down the pike.  Will be worth it.


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 4:44pm
My complaints is not that it won't be fixed. How it got out of the door with these obvious issues though is beyond me!


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2017 at 2:07am
Any more ideas on when we'll see fixes for this bird? She's got a lot of potential. Hate to see her just getting dusty in my hanger. Sorry to be impatient, just curious.


Posted By: jeansy
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2017 at 2:27am
I know you guys are the developer behind this, but is there any word on this fde being updated to fix the outstanding shortfalls


-------------
Matt
Painter @ https://www.facebook.com/thyhanger - The Hanger
Or http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/pro/11700-jeansy//&=downloads_ - All my Repaints


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2017 at 8:08am
Hi James/Matt,

Please see my post here -  http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=31637&PN=2&title=nav-radios-on-commando" rel="nofollow - http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=31637&PN=2&title=nav-radios-on-commando

We hope to receive the SP files from the dev this week and will keep you updated with any new info that we have.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: jeansy
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2017 at 8:39am
thanks martyn

Again im aware you guys are limited to what the developer delivers

And i do feel sorry for you guys that wear the brunt of our frustrations

Its just one of your supplier that continues to fall short needs to lift their game and maybe some of the beta testers 


-------------
Matt
Painter @ https://www.facebook.com/thyhanger - The Hanger
Or http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/pro/11700-jeansy//&=downloads_ - All my Repaints


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2017 at 2:08pm
Yes thank you Martyn. My impatience is because I see the potential for this airplane. You are put in a difficult situation as a go between. I appreciate that difficulty. Looking forward to its release. Thanks for the info on it!


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2017 at 7:21am
Well I guess next week is our new goal, huh? Wouldn't have guessed it would take this long. Still holding out for some fixes.I bought this the first day it was released because I was excited to see it. It's just been gathering dust ever since!
I've been eyeing some of the planes in the "pick any 4 " sale on JF's website. I don't know which might be from the same developer so I'm reluctant to hand more money to them. Dang shame!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2017 at 8:47am
Work on the SP is well underway and I've asked the developer for an update on the ETA.

Some of the aircraft in the sale are produced by the same developer however only the C-46 is currently awaiting a SP.

Thanks
Martyn

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: ThomasAH
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2017 at 10:04am
Originally posted by Merlin59 Merlin59 wrote:

I've been eyeing some of the planes in the "pick any 4 " sale on JF's website. I don't know which might be from the same developer so I'm reluctant to hand more money to them.

You could check https://www.justflight.com/category/developed-in-house to see which were developed by JustFlight. While this doesn't fully answer your question, it helps avoiding the problem of "JustFlight waiting for another developer" completely.


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2017 at 1:50am
Thanks for the update Martyn. Sorry mate to put you on the spot as the go between. I have several Aeroplane Heaven add ons and love them. That's why this is so frustrating. Fix this plane and I know it should be a good one.


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2017 at 9:07am
Hi all,

We are aiming to release a C-46 service pack this week.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2017 at 2:09pm
Thanks for the update Martyn. Thanks as well for all the help and for putting up with our pressure. Much appreciate it! ☺


Posted By: Beyenne
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2017 at 8:07pm
Hello,
That's right this plane need some serious fixes to be usable !
After how many time (I buy it today) can I expect a refund in case of disinterest from the developers to fix the C-46 ?

 


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2017 at 8:37am
Beyenne, please read my replies above. There is no disinterest from the developer and work is ongoing (we are testing a new build now).

If you purchased the product from our website and would like a refund then please contact the support team and they'll be happy to arrange that for you.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2017 at 2:07pm
Martyn, will we be notified when the update is released? Or do we need to just keep an eye on the patches list on the website? Thanks again!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2017 at 2:31pm
You'll receive an email notification when the update is released.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2017 at 4:02pm
Again, thank you!


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 28 Sep 2017 at 7:28am
Just thought I'd post a small update on my fuel woes. I thought I'd try the advice given about just filling the front fuel tanks to see if it would start. It wouldn't. In fact I noticed a somewhat strange behavior. When I set the fuel wheels to the front and then tried to start the plane it wouldn't. So upon looking back at the fuel wheels they were closed. I tried this several times to make sure I just hadn't forgotten them. Always the same results. Just thought I'd relate the info in case someone could help or the developers needed to know. I finally just gave up on it again. Maybe with service pack, we'll see!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 28 Sep 2017 at 8:35am
The fuel system is being looked into as part of the service pack.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 28 Sep 2017 at 2:08pm
I was aware. This was just a new quirk I hadn't seen before so I thought I'd relate it. Thanks!


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 5:47pm
Any possible hope of seeing this, this week? I know exact dates are impossible but either there was more wrong with this plane than stated or they aren't working on it. I feel I have been mostly patient but this seems extreme. I don't even know if I can get a refund now. I bought it on the first day of release. I would rather have the plane but... I'd also like not to get reemed out by the developer for just asking! No I don't mean you Martyn. You've been very helpful. Others well, not so helpful. Thanks for any info!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 7:17am
The update went live yesterday but a problem with our bug logging system prevented us from compiling the list of included fixes. That is no longer an issue and the update will be announced shortly.

Thanks
Martyn

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 1:55pm
Again Martyn you came to the rescue.

Just saw the service pack come up. Won't have a chance to download it till evening but looks nice. Thank you very much for your patience and diligence on this. Have a good one! Hopefully later I'll get to finally fly this great looking bird.


Posted By: spooky
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 3:47pm
just had quick flight all seems good so far .

Thanks,

Richard.



Posted By: ezunino
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 5:59pm
Same .net crash when exit the sim.


Posted By: ezunino
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 6:31pm
Sorry...fixed last update


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 7:47pm
Is it just me or did this thing lose all power or giddyup? I realize it's not the peppiest plane around but sheeesh...


Posted By: finksther
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2017 at 9:53pm
found the same. lost all power. can't fly it by the recommended power settings by the manual it stalls 


Posted By: pnsthomas
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 7:24am
Same here. Plane has no power. Succeed to make it worst after a sp Wink


Posted By: icedon
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 9:18am
Same here, cannot even use METO to accelerate in level flight. Climbing out seems impossible. Have to use 50MP to get 500FPM climb ...


Posted By: buckman
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 1:24pm
I Concur, can not get 1000 pounds off the ground, bigger rubber bands maybe? Anyhow rolled back to Sp1 and I can fly in AH2 again.
Great Airplane just a few kinks to work out.
Cheers
Buckman


Posted By: buckman
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 1:28pm
I Concur, can not get 1000 pounds off the ground, bigger rubber bands maybe? Anyhow rolled back to Sp1 and I can fly in AH2 again.
Great Airplane just a few kinks to work out.
Cheers
Buckman


Posted By: Paul K
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 6:27pm
Hi gentlemen, bought the Commando at Cosford today ( nice to briefly meet you, Martyn ).

I too am having difficulty getting any performance out of her. I can barely climb and even then I have to thrash the engines to get to 120 mph.

Something else I noticed - the prop pitch lever positions don't match. For a given identical pitch as shown in the tool tips, one lever appears to be further back than the other. Minor gripe, but hopefully fixable.

Still exploring this model, which I must say looks terrific. Smile


Posted By: snave
Date 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?




Posted By: Merlin59
Date 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.


Posted By: Merlin59
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 9:15pm
Good luck with it. I requested a refund. Not worth it!


Posted By: snave
Date 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.


Posted By: Paul K
Date 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 ? 



Posted By: spooky
Date 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.




































Posted By: Merlin59
Date 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.


Posted By: Paul K
Date 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.




Posted By: spooky
Date 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.


Posted By: Paul K
Date 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. 


Posted By: Chock
Date 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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAAwACcALQ&feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAAwACcALQ&feature=youtu.be










Posted By: icedon
Date 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.


Posted By: snave
Date 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




Posted By: Paul K
Date 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.


Posted By: spooky
Date 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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAAwACcALQ&feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAAwACcALQ&feature=youtu.be



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






Posted By: spooky
Date 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'


Posted By: spooky
Date 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!!!!!!


































Posted By: Mike Hart
Date 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. 



Posted By: spooky
Date 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.


Posted By: Paul K
Date 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


Posted By: gagsy
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2017 at 3:51pm
I like this


Posted By: Mike Hart
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2017 at 12:15am
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. 


Posted By: Mike Hart
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2017 at 12:26am
One last comment about the C-46 what would have really made this aeroplane shine was four engines not two, it never got that far, it wold have been a very different beast with 4. A bit like the Avro Manchester which had 2 engines, which was a dog, they put 4 RR Merlins on it and hey presto, it became the Lancaster and a legend with performance to boot. 


Posted By: icedon
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2017 at 6:49am
This!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2017 at 9:04am
The performance issue is being investigated by the support team and developers. We'll have more news soon.

Thanks
Martyn


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Paul K
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2017 at 3:14pm
Thanks for the info, Martyn. This C-46 is well worth polishing up. Thumbs Up

Mike, thanks for that post above; i.e. the info from a C-46 pilot. I'm going to copy that and keep it with my download. Some very valuable information there. Thanks again


Posted By: finksther
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 2:42am
Hello all.

Just did a video to demonstrate a test based in what the real pilot in Mike Hart comment said. i did the takeoff and tried the power reductions and rpm settings as suggested and the results where not even close to that. with 36" and 2300 RPM can't climb, started loosing altitude, any climb attemp would cause stall. in order to achieve the desired climb at 105 kts and at least 400 fpm had to use 46" MP with the 2300 RPM. Had a gross weight of  18,783 kilograms and the air temperature was 25C.

here's the short video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOnY-lMnxrQ


Posted By: Paul K
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 10:42am
That's a great video, Finksther. By about 6:58 you seem to be getting some sort of climb rate which, given the airspeed, prop and MP values, indicates all is not lost. It was a struggle to get there, though.

Looking forward to AH and JF's review of things.


Posted By: finksther
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 11:34am
Thanks Paul.

Yes, in order to get some climb speed had to raise the MP from 36 to 46, which is 10 inches above the recommended for climb power.


Posted By: gagsy
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 12:40pm
I've managed to climb above 10000ft twice in succession but I also have found that reducing power to 36" results in a descent , 45" works fine and a steady speed of 103 kts is obtained but vs is about 300 ft/min.

I've achieved this thanks to mike hart's post as before that I could climb to 2000ft before an unstoppable descent began.

Also the long runway at Edwards AB helped especially with the absence of trees and buildings, didn't need flap for take off.


Posted By: CW46
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 2:35pm
It has been about forty years or so but I do recall warm summer time temperatures resulted in climb rates around 300 feet per minute due to the need to use higher airspeed in the climb. Climbing at an airspeed of less than 130 would result in oil and CHT temps pushing red line limits when fully loaded and at climb power setting. Sounds like it needs a bit more tweaking but when around the max takeoff weight the actual airplane performance is not exactly inspiring on a hot day.



Print Page | Close Window