I had an Enya 35 in mine. It flew just fine.
A 40 or 45 would work well though.
and I agree with daolyn
Jeff

well i dont think i would do that because i wouldnt know how to and this will only be my second plane (first nitro) so i really havent had much experience.

if i were to cut the dihedral in half how would it help the plane?

K-Man 15: I guess I was asleep...I didn't realize your age or true experience; with the above in mind let me step back a bit a try again. First: build the Falcon 56 per the plan to ensure an excellent trainer as your first nitro plane. Trace all wing/aircraft parts that are not drawn full size on the CG plan; you may want to build a second wing with less dihedral later. Second: per your background let me suggest an O.S. 40 LA engine for your first nitro plane. This engine is reliable and steady in the air and the price is reasonable and parts are readily available. This should make for a much more docile first nitro trainer that will be a lot of fun to fly. Seek out an instructor who is willing to assist with the build and those all important first flights. Ask ALL the questions you care to and we'll do our best to help you succeed. Most of all have fun with this model...it's a winner!

Soft landings.

Joe

All things considered I would have to agree with squeekalong if this is your first nitro build it per plans and power it with a .40 LA or a good BB .35
taking the dihedril out makes it more aerobatic. Dropping the wing saddle down, and adding bolts instead of bands is mostly for looks.
The dihedral is set during building when you join the wing half's together. The more dihedral the more stable. Like I said in my previous post I have very little dihedral in my falcon wing and it flys fine just like the falcon. but i shifted the balance rearward added a BB .46 and maxed the control throws. fun little plane. most RC pilots do not believe it is a falcon 56.

I basically agree, except that I don't think the OS .40 LA is a very good buy these days. I'd prefer the TT .42, which is also a plain bearing .40 of about the same size and weight. I also think the TT .36 or similar would work well. It has more power than needed, but it is as light as the OS .40 LA. Learning on this plane is going to require a buddy box, so I don't think some extra power will be a problem. Definitely keep the rubber bands rather than nylon bolts because they give more in a bad landing. Jim

well i havent come across any parts that are not full sized ( i have only done the wings) are they just part of the fueslodge??

i have the wing kit for my falcon 56 so if i wanted to lessen the dihedral i could always do that later

I have a Falcon 56 MK III Kit that flies very nicely with an OS .40FSR. A fellow at our field flies a MK II ARF with a .46 and it was wicked fast.

My Falcon had over half the dihedral removed and sometimes I wish I had taken all of it out. I think that most who have soloed might be fine with a reduction of dihedral.

Removing the dihedral from the wing will reduce the model's tendency to level the banked wing by itself, without pilot input. This is a good feature for someone just learning to fly and for a year or two later for most new pilots. Some folks learn faster than others. I like the dihedral in the wing for that reason. What could be changed to some advantage is to replace the stock ailerons with ailerons made from larger chord (front to back dimension) bought from a hobbyshop. They will do more for giving the new pilot lots of control when needed than reducing the dihedral.

Plain bearing engines need fuel with 20% castor oil content. How many model clubs buy this kind of fuel in bulk for its membership? None that I know of. Ditto local hobbyshops. The beginner is better off buying a ball bearing equipped engine that will happily burn any fuel that you can throw at it. The Thunder Tiger .36 Pro is an excellent candidate, as is the MECOA .40, the OS/ASP/Magnum .32, etc.


Ed Cregger

The last kit built one I saw had an OS .32 in it and it hauled it like a pattern plane. I had experience with two in high school in the early 80s. One was an orignal with an OS .15 built by a friends father in the 60s and never flown until we had it. Very nice plane. The other was my best friend who built his with a K&B .40 FIRE. Fast was not the word for it. On the first flight, I did a low pass at 100+ and said it is going to blow the wings off it; 6 flights later they did.