Questions and Answers If you have general RC questions or answers discuss it here.

Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

Reply

Old 05-10-2008, 03:04 PM
  #1  
JollyPopper
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (6)
 
JollyPopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mountain Home, AR
Posts: 2,682
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

Does anyone know if the current Falcon 56 kit, I believe it is the Mk.III now, is the same airplane as the original 56 right down to and including a built up horizontal stabilizer? I think the new one is laser cut. Anyone????/
JollyPopper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2008, 04:44 PM
  #2  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,085
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

The Mk III is the fourth variation of the Falcon 56 design.

The original has a very narrow nose and was marked for .09-.15-.19 engines
The "Deluxe" had the nose widen and the kit was marked for .15-.19.-.35 engines. Both these first two versions had all balsa spars. With a bigger engine, the spars sometimes failed. The Deluxe version is the one that most think of as the original, but it's not.
The MkII had hardwood caps on spars.
The MkIII has a lite-ply fuselage.
HighPlains is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 09:21 AM
  #3  
buzzard bait
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 3,276
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

Also, the fin and rudder changed with the MkII and that is carried over into the MkIII. The Mk.II added ply doublers and glued on stab; except for the stronger spars noted above, the wing and stab construction were unchanged, and I'm pretty sure that is true for the Mk.III also. Basically, it got beefed up, and the stab-fin was slicked up, but the aerodynamics didn't change.

Jim
buzzard bait is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 11:47 AM
  #4  
David Bathe
 
David Bathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oslo, NORWAY
Posts: 1,229
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

Ahhh the classic Falcon. Heyt you know what? Build it with a flat wing and increase the size of the ailerons (just use larger stock) and you've got the sweetest Sunday sports come fun fly.
Many hours of fun to be had and more than able to hold it's own at the field against modern Sunday sport designs.
David Bathe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 01:49 PM
  #5  
JollyPopper
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (6)
 
JollyPopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mountain Home, AR
Posts: 2,682
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

I have an original Falcon 56 and it is sweet. But it is so old and has been virtually destroyed so many times that it probably weighs in at somewhere around 7 lbs. It is the .35 version, whichever Mk that happened to be. I would like to have another one if the flight characteristics are similar since they are much more affordable than an original when you can find one.

Never thought of flattening the wing. How do you do thatsimply slice the arc off the lower part of the ribs? Or do you mean to take the dihedral out? Interesting thought.

By the way, I am now running a Tower Hobbies .46 on mine. It is a power house. I guess I got lucky as I have read that they are either very good or very bad. Mine is good.
JollyPopper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 01:52 PM
  #6  
David Bathe
 
David Bathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oslo, NORWAY
Posts: 1,229
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Original Falcon 56 vs. Falcon 56 Mk.III

Yes sorry, I ment build the wing without dihedral.
You can also leave of the last couple of wing ribs (if it's an original), leaving it with a shorter span. This together with the larger aileron stock, revolutionises the roll without effecting it's general pleasant nature.
Just keep it as light as possible... as one does these days.
David Bathe is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service