May I please respectfully disagree, especially with the point that the kit is too heavy for good RC? Back in 1971 to 1977, I owned a H/S in Mt. Prospect, IL. I sold a lot of Japanese kits, both CL and RC. The Eureka, the Aristo Craft, Pilot, and several others. Those delegated CL were actually lighter than those designated RC. In fact, my first experience with Japanese CL kits was in the early '50s when I was in High School. I had a - Eureka, I believe - P-51 powered by an OS 29, early model before the OS Max engines arrived on scene through World Engines. It flew fine, just a tad touchy when landing time came. Hmm, maybe it was rather heavy.
The Eureaka kits that I sold were excellent quality. Once we actually set up the frame for a B-29 just using the parts, wing, tail and fuselage. NO GLUE! Remember back then there was no computer.laser cutting. The kits were excellent.
In the last Navy hosted NATs, Glenview, '72, 2 of the designated CL B-36s flew in RC Scale each powered by 6 K&B .19s pusher style. I watched one that lost an engine shortly after take-off and complete the flight pattern. He should have receiver lots of points for realism of flight. OOPs I dont think that DP had yet wormed in that realism of flight nonsense in '72.

I have kits, one of the Super DC-3, 60", CL, and one Aristo Craft Gruman F-3F designated RC. Either could wind up either way. The 6 has metal cowls, but I could go 1/64th ply and balsa rings very easily. Now if that C-46 is too much for ScottMcM, then he could easily get rid of it.

Here is a picture of an Aristo Craft Curtiss F-11C that was built from a CL kit. Some extra ribs and sheeting, and it flies well with a ST. 51. I kind of twisted the wings a bit, but enough trim tabs and all is well.

Just revise the stress points, and the C-46 should do very well.