tryingagain

Well the weather here has been lousy enough that my winter project turned into a summer project. I bought this kit from one of the members here and I am thrilled with the condition and the kit itself. The wood is really nice and selected well for the different purposes. eg. the sheeting stock is almost bullet proof. The only minor glitch is one of the owners of this kit, (and it looks like there have been several from the shipping stickers on the box.) removed the platform jigging tabs from the wing ribs. A bit of a pain but no big deal. I have been working on the fuse and am about to start the tail sections. The build is proving far less involved than the Skylane 62 I built 25 years ago. Ater the lengthy lay off that is a good thing.
It is building up very quickly. A good reason for that is the advent of CA adhesives. I am still using my old favorite as well though. I am an Ambroid Cement fan. Not only dose it laminate well, a little balsa dust and Ambroid makes great, sandable filler.
The only downside to starting this now will be having to stare at it all winter without being able to fly it!
The die cutting on this model is very crisp though some of the plywood parts require a little persuasion to come loose.
It has been fun so far.
More as I progress.

squeakalong

My Feedback: (8)

Looking at those photos brings back some fond memories. I've built four Falcon 56 models ( three of them the MK II version) and all have been lots of fun. I'd like to build another if I ever run across a kit in nice condition. The Skylane is a nice model too and yours looks nice from what I can see. Put floats on it and you can fly off water or snow. Have fun with the Falcon build and post a picture or two for us when you have 'er finished. BTW: I like Ambroid!

Soft landings.

Joe

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Yup brings back some real good ones. Mine was the original version that I built back in the 70's. The Falcon was one of the best flying 40 sized planes out there. Subscribing.

tryingagain

I used to love watching the guys with their Falcons that was why I went looking for one. I looked at the Falcon III but I was a little disappointed with the kit. I realise that balsa is becoming harder to find and quality is iffy but...
A friend also had recently built the kit and was a liittle put out with some of the notching. Anyway, I do look forward to flying it.
As far as the Skylane goes it still flies well but it was my first R/C kit and I cringe looking at some of the mistakes I made. I like to say it looks good from far but it is far from good. I should have done the wing bolt thing with it and I am planning to convert the Falcon to wing bolts. (If I can figure out how)
The engine issue has surfaced. My old Webra does not seem to have much compression and is difficult to get running smoothly. I could move the 46 out of the Skylane but I would kind of like them both flying at the same time. I have only used OS and Webra and am considering experimenting with something else. There are a few guys at the club using Evolution and seem happy. Any suggestions?

Gord

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Allot of the guys up here are using GMS engines. Myself, I am not familiar with them, but from what I have seen they run very good. I suspect they are one of the more affordable engines.

squeakalong

My Feedback: (8)

Gord: I am Very pleased with the OS 46AX engine that I have put nearly six gallons thru since last fall. Still runs great and starts with a single flip of the prop nearly every time. I think the OS series is value for the money. The last three Falcons I built had: !st, a K&B .40; the the 2nd and 3th had OS .40 on the nose. If I were to build the kit today I'd put the OS 46AX just because I like it; plenty of power when you want it and a reliable slow speed/idle run when you want that too.

As for the wing bolts: I build the wing and fuselage as shown without the dowel holes in the fuselage but add one piece of 1/16 thick plywood on top of the wing at the rear for bolt head reinforcement (you dont want to crush the rear of the wing at the dihedral joint). Get a couple of 1" x 1" maple wing bolt blocks (or make your own as I do) without the pre-tapped threads. Glue these into the rear corners, to receive the bolts, with epoxy and reinforce as needed with tri stock balsa (gives a bit more holding power). Be sure the top of these blocks is even with the top of the wing saddle on both fuselage sides (this helps eliminate stress on the maple blocks when you tighten the wing bolts snug). Now take the wing and center it onto the fuselage and make SURE the wing is true to the fuselage. Double and triple check this. When satisfied tape the wing down in place and have a helper hold it or clamp it or whatever. Take your drill and drill thru plywood plate at the rear of the wing and through the maple block with the correct drill size for tapping the bolts you use (I use 1/4-20). Drill both holes and have them centered through the maple blocks. Remove the wing. Tap the holes for your bolts. Place wing onto fuselage and screw the bolts through the wing and maple bolt block and make sure all is correct. Remove bolts and wing. Wick some thin CA into the maple block threads to harden the threads and let dry. Try the bolts again to make sure everything is working and you should be good to go. Hope this helps.

Soft landings.

Joe

tryingagain

Ok I follow you so far. However, every wing with wing bolts I have seen has some mechanical means of securing the front of the wing down. I was thinking of trying to use brass tubing off the front somehow. I am just not sure how to anchor it to the wing. Or the fuse for that matter. The other thought is hardwood dowels epoxied in place on the wing that could slide into the the former at the front of the radio compartment.
As to the engine I agree with you about the 46 AX. That is the engine in the front of my Skylane. The only reason I contemplate a change was not out of dissatisfaction but curiosity about the others out there. You may be right however I could go with another 46 Ax and experiment with the next kit. I have an Astro Hog kit in the rafters that I want to put a four stroke in. I am thinking Saito.

Gord

squeakalong

My Feedback: (8)

Gord: You are correct..I was thinking you were asking just about the rear bolt mounting technique. Sorry, my friend. I use a 1/4 oak dowel piece placed into the center of the leading edge after the center wing dihedral has been glassed; in this way you just drill the 1/4" dia. hole through the fiberglass tape and don't disturb anymore of the leading edge joint than required. Use epoxy to glue the dowel into the wing. This dowel slips into the former in front of the wing. I admit I haven't built a Falcon 56 since '87 so I'm a bit "hazy" on just how I did this at the leading edge with regards to the former. I don't recall making much of a modification, if any, but then... Can you post a pic of the plan (top and side view) showing that location and I'll take a look, then I'll know? I do recall that I "faired in" the area on top of the wing (with some balsa block or thick sheeting) where the wing meets that former back about three inches or so onto the top of the wing. This was for looks sake more than anything else. Unfortunately my photo album with all my saved model pictures (from WAY back) came up missing after being packed by so-called professional movers in '88 along with a few other modeling items so I have no photo to share with you.

Soft landings.

Joe

552transco

My Feedback: (3)

Hi Guys,

You guys are right on about bringing back memories. This was my first RC plane way back in the early 80's. What a great flyer it is. I powered it with an OS .40FSR and it was quick. Of course I usually flew it at half throttle. My knees were shaking a lot at the time.
I wish I would have thought about using wing bolts instead of the rubber bands. Planes just don't look good with the wings held on by rubber bands.
This is an interesting post Gord. I am looking forward to watching this plane come alive.
Here is a picture of my Falcon hanging in the garage next to my first low wing (Sport Air 40)
I had some close calls with it but it survived because I learned on a Buddy Box.
Take care guys,

Wayne

tryingagain

I hope this photo of the plan helps Joe. There does not seem to be a lot of purchase between the wing saddle and the front former.
Greetings Wayne, welcome aboard. Although I realise the popularity of the Falcon, I am amazed that I have never seen anyone, who flew one, brush it off as just another plane. Just about everyone has fond memories (or painful ones ) about their Falcons. Maybe it is because it was so many aspiring R/C pilots first airplane. For me it will be my second so I am taking out some of the suggested dihedral, but not all. More pics soon.

Gord

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

Wow did that ever come out nice and clear.

squeakalong

My Feedback: (8)

Thanks, Gord. I was thinking about this and recall doing the change two ways.

1) I made a new former and extended the top upwards 1/2" or 3/4", thereby making the former taller. Drill a 1/4" hole in the leading edge exactly at the center. Use a 1/4" piece of Oak dowel about 2" long. Epoxy the dowel into the hole leaving the front of the dowel sticking out so it will extend past the former 1/8". Put a bit of lipstick, or grease pencil, on the front of the dowel and place wing on saddle correctly until the front of the dowel touches the former. Drill another 1/4" hole at this spot to receive the wing dowel. Slip the wing onto the saddle and the dowel into the former (take a piece of sandpaper and knock the sharp edge off the front of the dowel and round the dowel front a bit to make insertion into the plywood former easier) to check alignment and be sure the dowel goes into and past the revised former a bit. When everything is good to go I make a new fuel tank hatch cover to bring the rear of the hatch up to the top of the new former (hatch slants upward from front to rear) and sand everything to blend in. I then add some balsa to the top of the wing where the wing meets the former and blend this in. This process goes much quicker than the description would lead you to believe.

2) On one model I added a plywood extension to the front of the existing former to raise the former. I then basically followed the above completion steps and added a bit of ply to the back of the extension to bring everything in line with the back of the former.

I'd go with the first way unless you have the former in place. Also, take a couple of inexpensive triangles and draw this out right on the plan with a number 2 pencil to let you see what you are going to do. We "old timer's" draw on our plans all the time...well, I do anyway. Must be my old draftsman background refusing to go down easy . Hope this helps.

Soft landings.

Joe

tryingagain

Thanks for the tips Joe. As I have the former in place I will have to look at #2. I suppose another option would be bolts in the front. They would have to have the heads contoured so as not to disrupt the airflow though.
Anyway... the tail section is coming along nicely. Now for the part I remember not so fondly. I hate installing hinges! Maybe one of those hinge jigs would be the answer for me.
On the other hand I have never worked with the Klett hinges that come with the kit maybe they will make a difference.
I know it is early in the game for this but I have read on some of the other forums about a change (and not for the better) in Monokote.
Having never used Ultracote what are the experiences all of you have had and which way would you go?
20 plus years ago we had Monokote and Econokote and Solarfilm. I have used Monokote and Econokote, and Solarfilm is history. Monokote was the best of the bunch by a long way then but things have changed I gather.

Cheers
Gord

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

I was always a Monokote user as well. I haven't built a kit in reasent years, but working with arfs I have found that Monokote does seem different. It doesn't seem to stay down as well and at times wrinkles keep coming back. Keep in mind this is on planes covered in China with is more humid compared to where I live. The planes covered in Ultracote seem to adapt to the changes better and don't come as wrinkled up. The Ultracote uses less heat than Monokote so it takes a little getting used to.

squeakalong

My Feedback: (8)

Gord: If you use method number 2 for extending the former just be sure to attach the new extension piece securely. Actually, if I were to build a Falcon MK II today I'd go with the rubber bands just because of the nostalgia of the design. Use 10 - 12 #64 rubber bands on the wings and when you're done for the day drop them in a plastic baggie with some corn starch and seal up the bag tight. When you go to use them again snap each of them and the rubber bands are clean and good to go.

I'd like to suggest the use of CA hinges, like the ones SIG and Great Planes sell, as an alternate to the Klett hinges. I used Klett hinges for years and really like them but the CA hinges allow a neat installation and very narrow hinge line gap. I first apply a narrow piece of covering material the full length of the control surface, say the stab and elev and about 3/16" wider the the control surface thickness. Use a #11 blade to cut appropriate hinge slots. Place the CA hinges into, say the stab, and then attach the elev piece. Using a 6" metal scale I insert the scale between the stab and elev and the thickness of the metal scale is my hinge gap. Now I drill 1/16" dia holes in two places on each side of the hinge line going through the wood and hinge. Take a sharp pointed toothpick and cut it in half. Insert one half of the toothpick into each drilled hole going compleatly through the wood and hinge (4 halves per hinge) and clip off the excess toothpick with a toenail clipper (gives a straight cut). Now just place a couple of drops of CA on each toothpick (four places each hinge), let wick in and swipe the area with some sandpaper (will fill any tiny voids with balsadust). Cover the plane and note how nice a neat your control surface installation is. For an example: See Kit Building; Let's Talk About Hinging, Post #18 for a couple of pictures on my method.

For advise/comments on Monokote (which I DO NOT use anymore) see my thread in Kit Building titled: Anyone Else Having Trouble With Super Monokote. I've purchased Ultracoat and it is MUCH better to use.

Soft landings.

Joe

skyraider71

I too just scored an original Falcon 56 MkII kit. Mine is missing a few pieces that I'll have to
cut out myself, shouldn't be a biggie. I also have two Falcon III kits.
Please consider one of the great .34-.36 engines on the market. The Falcon was never a
true .40 size plane. Even the Falcon III will hardly accomodate some .40s
My Falcon III (50% finished) will get a TT pro .36. It out performs some .40s, is lighter, and
will fit the narrow firewall much better. Just my $.02.
I'll be watching this one!

donnyman

The falcon is one of the best models ever. just like the skylark (the low wing version) I have built several and have two on the workbench now for students.

you can take all the dihedral out and it will fly just fine be not as forgiving, but nothing to take notice of, it is actually more responsive that way

the falcon is a step above a basic trainer but suited to that purpose.

One caution... be sure to bind the spar brace to the spar as shown on the plans I lost two falcons because the brace delaminate.

Have fun...........DONNY

p.s. I have flown mine with a 30 thru 45's more fun with the 45's you can always throttle back.

John Hancock

I had a Falcon 56 as my first trainer. While waiting for my instructer to get to the field I asked a young experienced pilot if he would watch me. I had about 10 flights under my belt so I felt cocky. Long story short, he let me get to low, plane coming to me, got a wing low,gave wrong aileron command, pulled up which was downtook it home in a shoe box! Took a long time to fly again but I made it.

tryingagain

Life has reared it's ugly head in the last little while and I have been kept away from the building board. The wings are progressing and I hope to have the panels together in the next couple of days. The engine decision may depend on what I decide to do with the Skylane after this season. If it stays in the air I am debating the OS 35 AX or the Evolution .40. I have never used Thunder Tiger and would like to give them a try but parts are mail order only in this area. If I ground the Skylane I will use the OS .46 AX out of it.

More pics soon.
Gord

tryingagain

Well, she is starting to take shape. Another week and I will be down to sanding and covering.
The engine decision is made. I got such a sweet deal on an OS 35AX the decision made itself. I am sure it will drag her around the sky very well. I flirted with the Saito FA40a for a while but decided to do my first four stroke in the Astro Hog.
I am now debating whether I will stay with the wire gear or go with a preformed aluminum set of mains. The purist in me wants to stay wire but the landing characteristics would be better with the aluminum. Wheel size is also up for debate. The Skylane has 2.75" mains and a 2.5" nose wheel. There have been times when I wish they were a little bigger. (we have grass runways)
Ah well, these are minor details. Next stage is to finish the wing and get the modifications for the wing bolts done on the fuse. It has been a long time since I had to form wing tips from a block of balsa. I almost feel like a sculpter. Pity my artistic gifts are not great. I Keep telling myself people can only look at one at a time.

Cheers all!
Thanks for all the input.

Gord

Jim_Purcha

My Feedback: (8)

Hi, If you can finish for tomorrow there is a fun fly scheduled for the Big Sky Flyers field on Highway 75. The falcon 56 looks great. Would like to see it fly. My summer's been soccer with the kids, grass cutting, rain, more rain. Little flying. My winter project extended into the summer (painting). Darn mosquito's had to show up to make it a challenge to work in the garage. Maybe I'll catch you next year at the WRCC field. I'll probably be joing both clubs next year as either Big Sky or Winnipeg Radio Control Club are equal distance for me and driving time (<15 minutes). Until Imoved out to La Salle, 7 years ago, I was living in south St. Vital, 5 minutes from the present WRCC field. Who'd guess they would move there. It's gonna be hard to get the Club to wave the returning member fee (30 years).

Jim

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

She is starting to look like a Falcon now.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

You have created a work of art. A piece of resistance (40-50 ohms, I'll bet). Just kidding. It is very attractive. I envy you.

I still compare sport model airplanes to Falcon 56 models when trying to describe the flight characteristics of a different model to someone. I hope that made sense. I remember how surprised some folks were when I told them that their Byron Pitts Special with Quadra 35cc gasoline engine handled a lot like the Falcon 56 as long as the power was on. Naturally, it flew more like the Space Shuttle after power was reduced to idle. That or a dropped manhole cover. <G>

I wish now that I had held on to my Easy Sport 60 kit. To me, the Easy Sport 60 kit is the Falcon 56 or Senior Falcon modernized and updated to perfect. I wish Great Planes would reintroduce the Easy Sport 60 kit and possibly an ARF again. Bolt-on wings and side mounted engine, of course. Oh, and ailerons of 2" chord for those of us that would like to split them and employee crow.


Ed Cregger

tryingagain

I was a WRCC member about 25 years ago. Back in the days when the field was at Richot Park on Hwy. 59. I am in the opposite side of the city now and back in the hobby after a two and half decade absense. I am with WHAM now as the field is only about 15 minutes from home. I would love to be at the Fun Fly but unless our chores end a lot ealier than I think they will I will not make it.
Ed you are not the first person I have heard wax lyrical about the Easy Sport. It confuses me that companies remove perfectly good airplanes from the shelves. I am one of these weird people who believes the building is half the fun. I have not done an ARF yet though I probably will some day. I would also like to try my hand at scratch building. One of the guys at the WRCC field had a really nice Jungmeister that I would love to do some day. I haven't seen a kit for that plane but plans are available. My next project, as I have mentioned is the Astro Hog. I would have loved to do a Sr. Skylark but got the Hog first. Keep your eyes peeled. There are undoubtedly Easy Sport kits out there. If old Goldberg kits are still around others are too.

Cheers
Gord

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The bad part about it all, Gord, is that I had and sold an Easy Sport 60 kit some years ago. Talk about dumb moves. I hope others realize that I mentioned the Easy Sport 40 & 60 because I felt it was a natural evolution of the topic plane, the Falcon 56. I'm not trying to hijack the thread. And yes, I did see an Easy Sport 40 model on Tower Hobbies' website a short while ago. I think I'll go look for it again.


Ed Cregger