Remember the Goldberg Falcon/Skylark 56? It too was designed to fly with a .15 to .19 or a .19 to .35, I forget which. The latest versions of the series recommended a .40 to .45, IIRC.

It is funny how our idea of reasonable power has changed over time.

In 1971/72, my wife's Falcon 56 three channel was powered by a reasonably energetic Fox .25 baffle piston engine. Our grass field was considered average in the south Jersey area. Her Falcon would not ROG (takeoff from the ground - Rise Off Ground). It had to be hand launched. Paved fields were a rarity in those days. We adapted to using the grass field, or a good hand launch. With the point being that your model with a TT .46 Pro shouldn't have any problem taking off of any kind of flying field,

Of course, you are probably wondring about how the largish engine will affect the balance point (the correct term for modeling's Center of Gravity - which is incorrect). And you are right to be concerned. Generally, the engines that you have described as substitutes will be four to five ounces lighter than the TT 46 Pro and they just might make balancing less of a chore.


Ed Cregger