What are the differences between these two kits? Since EarlyRC has taken the trouble to re-issue the original Falcon 56, I would think that the differences are significant.

Not 100% sure but if I remember correctly, the original "56" has rubber bands to retain wings, and the "III" has bolt-on wings. I believe the tail surfaces were held on with rubber bands as well on the "56".
Who or what is "EarlyRC"? Link?

Early RC Models: http://www.earlyrcmodels.com/

They sell laser-cut re-kits of classic designs.

The Original Falcon 56 had the wing and tail surfaces rubber banded on and the front of the fuselage was narrower because this plane was meant to fly with a .15 in it. (I have one that was my fathers). I had the Falcon 56 mark II for my first plane. The wing was rubber banded on and the tail glued. It was a wonderful flyer. The plane was a great trainer/intermediate flyer. (I built it with half the recommended wing dihedral) The falcon III is similar except the fuselage where the wing is mounted is taller to wrap better around the wing, which is bolted on.


Jeff

I too learned on the 56. Great bird. Have flown both, and they both fly good. Either would be a good trainer. The tail surfaces on the 56 are built up and have an airfoil shape. Can't remember now how the III was cause I didn't build it, just test flew it for the guy and taught him on it. Seems they were not build up, but I could be mistaken here.

On my 56, I knocked the tail off once and put the tail on from an RCM 40 and it was flat. Still flew good.

Can anyone give me a reason that I could not/should not build my Falcon III with the wing attached with rubberbands instead of bolts?

Rubber bands allow the wing to shift/move/pop off in the event of an "unschedualed" landing.

The down side to rubber bands are: the inconvenience, the bands "cutting" into the wing and if you don't put an adequate number of bands on the wing WILL SHIFT DURING FLIGHT, especially in high G manuvers, and, IMHO, it looks "tacky".

Bolting the wing down eliminates many of these problems, HOWEVER, in the event of an "unschedualed" landing, not only is the wing subject to more damage, but the fuselage as well.

Considering that the majority of people learning to fly with an instructor these days use a buddy box, I would build the plane as called for in the plans. The chances of an unschedualed landing are very remote, while the wing shifting during flight is still a good possibility.

The new Falcon III has lite ply fuselage sides. In the kit that I had, the parts were mashed out, ...oh sorry, "die cut". Some of the parts needed trimming to fit together. The older Falcon 56 used truss system on the fuselage as will as the slab sides. Tail surfaces are shaped slightly different I believe, but still built up. My kit went together very well, even with the so-so diecutting. I think there is provisions in the plans for rubberband mounting of the wing, but I think If you crisscross the rubberbands across the top of the wing the canopy will not fit. Without the canopy, plane looks like every other Stik, and it will NOT be a Falcon.
I fly mine with a OS 32F and a 11-4 prop. Has more vertical than I can see. Very very nice flying plane. Lands fairly fast so you have to fly it in.
I also have the plans for a Falcon 56. Looks very similar and aside from the previously mentioned fuselage width, the plane looks just about the same.
If I every write mine off, I'd go through the trouble of building another one. I'd increase the control surfaces slightly and build it lighter.

If you want to use bands, use bands. My 56 had them. Huge pain in the tail, but they work. I won't use them again but if you want to, no reason not to. Just make sure you use enough.

It looks like I might be getting a Falcon III from an old friend who is never gonna build it. One of my flying buddies is still flying an original Falcon 56 that he framed up when his son and I were just kids. (that makes it at least 30 years old now, and still flying great too!) I don't think he would ever part with it cause it flys so good, and because of it's sentimental value. I have also enjoyed flying it as it's such a pleasure to fly, and not so demanding.

I'd like to ask from those of you that have built the Mk III version, what changes would you make, or improve upon to make the plane better?

Simark- you indicated that you'd build it lighter, and increase the control surfaces. My friend rebuilt the wing half of his Dad's 56, after a mishap, and he increased the size of the ailerons. He also used a servo for each aileron to add flaperon capability. Which controls would you make larger?

He flies his with an OS .40, which is what I'd also be using. Any thoughts?

The reason I would build it lighter is that I have this compulsion to fly my planes with the engines on the LOWER end of the recommended scale and still get a kick flying it around. My 32F is one hot little number. If I were to bolt a 45 size engine in, the weight would not be such a concern. As it was, when I had a Enya 40 in the nose, the batteries and receiver had to get moved to the back of the plane. The plan had excessive power, so I put the 32f back in and put the batteries and receiver in the normal spots. I can still blow the doors off a friend's Great Planes Easy Sport with a TT46.

Even so I would replace the lite ply sides and top and bottom with balsa and just beef up the area of the landing gear. I would keep the trike gear because a tail dragger Falcon won't look like a Falcon.

I would increase the aileron size, maybe make them barn doors, and maybe increase the elevator and rudder size about 1/2". I would definately put individual servos for the ailerons. That way I can use flaperons to slow the thing down for landings.

I found that when I was framing the wings, the big spar that was constructed was a shade too wide. I ended up planing it down slightly in thickness to fit into the rectangular holes in the ribs. Otherwise the plane went togerther reasonable fast. Like I said earlier, the diecutting on mine was so great, but I have a band saw, so it wasn't a big deal.

When you assemble the two wing halves you should have another person helping you as I found it rather a interesting experience when I did it alone. I would also use a 24 hr curing time epoxy for this stage if I did it again, because I'm just so damn slow.

I replaced the supplied wing bolts with 1/4" nylon bolts. I cut a small slice just below the head to encourage breakage in case of a crash.

Have a great time with the Falcon. There is a great number of RC'ers that learned on this plane and probably still fly them. It is a great design with a much vaunted pedigree.

If it turns out that you don't want the plane, give it to me. (sorry, couldn't help myself).