i am building a falcon 56 right now and want to know what engine would be best to put in it.

open to all suggestions

thanks

Back in the 1960s my Father use to fly one with a .15 and single channel escapement radio, silked and doped. I would think a .46 AX would be more than enough power, the airplane will develop with you; a good stable trainer taking you right into solid aerobatics, loved the Senior Falcon also.

Enjoy!

Fantastic flyer...lots of fun. I've had four of them over the years. Two with K&B .40 engines and two with O.S. .40 engines.
I agree with Pitts...if I were to build one today I'd put the O.S. .46AX on it. I really like this engine! Mine starts readily on one hand flip of the prop. It's on its 6th gallon of Byron fuel and really runs great in the air. Have fun with your Falcon 56 build and remember to make copies of the parts that aren't shown full size on the plan if you're building from an original CG kit (wish I'd done that!!)

Soft landings.

Joe

Thanks guys

i will probably end up putting an O.S .46 in mine since it is priced decently and you say it is a good engine

Magnum .46, K&B Super Sportster 40, Super Tigre 40 or 45.

I fly mine, that is almost 20 years old with an equally old FP 35. The newer .45's and 46's have way more power then the Falcon needs.

Mine has taught a whole bunch of people to fly. It is a good plane. It may become " Ole Reliable" The one you turn to no matter what, because she is ready to fly and flies very well.


Dru.

well i couldnt find the K&B Super Sportster 40 but i did find the other two.

im guessing the Magnum .46 and the Super Tigre 45 are older versions since you said the newer ones have more power than my falcon needs??????

While Dru offers some good engine choices I'd urge you to consider the O.S. .46 again. Absolute reliability, one flip starts, I have replaced the glow plug in the engine once in 6 gallons of fuel and rarely (I can't tell you the last time) touch the carb settings. All this and parts are readily available in case you have need for them. This engine runs really nice at lower speeds without sagging. It has plenty of power for many model choices and you only need make use of the throttle control on your transmitter if you don't want full power. As I mentioned earlier I have built and flown four Falcon 56 models and they fly well; I'd have no reservations about zipping around the sky doing rolls and loops and inverted flight at a fast pace and throttling back for some lazy fly-bys and whatever else comes to mind with this engine. It's just a real nice product.

Soft landings.

Joe

I was meaning about the OLDER engines from back in the day of the Falcon 56. Not mark I, mark II or mark III. Today's .46 puts out about as much power as my old .60's from way back when.

Yes O.S. is a good engine. I will not say it is not. Just a bit pricey for me. My Magnums work as well. I picked up a Magnum .46 on sale for $47.99. Hard to pas up. The only thing I have done to it is to take off the needle valve clicker and put a piece of fuel tubing on to seal the needle vale. I do that to all of my engines any way.

I just looked and the K&B is now a Super Sportser 45.

To me, there are no bad engines. Each has its own setup. You can not tune an O.S. like a K&B or a Magnum like a Rossi. Each brand has its own personality.

I have only had one engine that I could not get to run. It was a Como .19. Never could figure that one out. Flew great at full throttle only.



Dru.

Which version of the Falcon 56 are you building, K-man 15?

The original version flew with a .15 to a .19, though I flew ours (the wife and I) with a Fox .25 R/C (plain bearing). The second model of the same version (1) flew well with an OS .35 R/C engine (also plain bearing). Today's OS LA .40/.46, Thunder Tiger .42 would also power the Version 1 Falcon 56 well. The Falcon 56 II & III would benefit from the higher power of the .40/.46 FX/AX engines that have been mentioned. Be careful, this model tends to build nose heavy when fortyish sized engines are used. We loved our Falcons, both 56 and Senior.


Ed Cregger

its a mark II. it says it should go with a .19 to .40, but a .46 would work?? or would i be better off if i got something in the .30s so it wouldnt be so front heavy?

Consider the Thunder Tiger .36. Good engine, you won't lack for power and it's at least 5 oz. lighter than the OS .46 AX. I plan to use an Irvine .36 on mine...similar engine. The .32 - .39 size BB engines have a lot of power for the weight.

My Senior Falcon did outside loops with an OS .40 FP...a lightweight, low power engine on a much bigger plane. But it only weighed 5 1/4 lb. Keep it light and you'll probably enjoy it more, though that depends on your style.

Also, you can reduce the dihedral a lot on this plane.

Jim

Just noticed the Mk. II part. That's the kit I've got. The .46 AX seems like an awfully big, heavy engine for that design. You could do it with modification, but the engines it was designed for had smaller dimensions and they were much lighter. You can get an engine comparable in weight to the old .35 to .40 size engines of the time, but with a LOT more power, by getting a modern .36 type. Jim

K-man,
While the os .46ax is a very good engine it is way more than you need on a falcon 56.it is over 1.5 h.p which is what the .60 of the day could only hope to produce.I built my falcon in 1970 when I was 15,power was an os s 35 it was covered in silk and dope and had airlerons,used a Kraft series 70 4 channel with kps-11 linear servos weighed 5 1/2 pounds.took me 1 1/2 years of lawn cutting and snow shoveling to buy everything radio was $320 back then.after I had soloed I replaced the os 35 with a os h 40 p that produced a little over 1 hp used an 11-6 prop vs the 10-6 and flew that plane for 2 years before I could save up for a vk cherokee in 1972. That falcon could do almost any manuever except knife edge.if it was lighter a smaller engine would have been fine.I still have it the airframe itself is still airworthy but the silk covering has dry rotted and it needs to be recovered.Good Luck

Aerowoof and Buzzard Bait (and maybe others - bad short term memory here) are correct in that the modern, high horsepower .46 schneurle ported engines will only appeal to those that like to go blazingly fast and land at space shuttle velocities. I would pick a good .32 to .40 engine of a lightweight design. The OS, Magnum and ASP .32 sized engines would be about perfect, as would the Thunder Tiger .36. The latter would provide spirited performance and would not be slouches in the least.


Ed Cregger

I am about to start construction on a Falcon 56 Mk II I picked up through the forums here. The kit looks as good as I remember the old Goldberg kits looking. The parts just about fall out by themselves from the die cutting and the wood is excellent. The only downside to the kit is it looks like it has passed through numerous hands since it was new. Everything is there (with a few extras) but someone punched out all the wing ribs. Not usually a problem but when they did they snapped off the jigging tabs. A bit of a pain to recreate but not a disaster either.
Sorry I prattle on.
I have both a .46 AX and an old Webra Blackhead .40 on the shelf and I plan on trying the model with both (no... not at the same time) I am convinced the old Webra will be enough engine for it. My Skylane 62 flew like a charm with it.
Bottom line on engines is, use what you feel comfortable with and what you can access parts for quickly at either your LHS or mail order. Nothing irritates me more than a perfectly serviceable aircraft grounded while you wait for a $5.00 engine part. (or any other part for that matter)
Another consideration is run time. While I love the .46 for it's reliablilty and power, it seems to love fuel. The smaller engines listed in this forum should give you adequate power and longer flight time without having to shoehorn in a larger fuel cell.

I have never owned a Falcon 56 before but I have seen many of them fly over the years. That was why I went looking for one. They are terrific flyers.
Whatever you decide. ENJOY!!

you can fit an 8 oz tank in the falcon and the webra .40 on a 10-6 prop will be a good combo

I have one I have been flying for 12 years Had a OS fp 40 in it and it flew fine. but I wanted a little more so I put in a Magnum .46
If this is not your first plane I would suggest cutting the dihedral in half or more. I built mine with 1 inch of dihedral with one panel flat on the board.
The only other thing is to try to lower the wing saddle a little and go with nylon bolts instead of rubber bands. This is how I built mine and it flys like the falcon until you crank it up.

I did not even think of the .32 or .36's out there. They would make a good combo. I fly with a few guys that think a plane is under powered if it will not hover at 1/2 throttle. Let the wing fly it not the prop.


Any of the .28 to .26 engine would be fine for the Falcon.


Dru.

OS .46 would be great. That was the best trainer ever built. I learned on it in the 70s with a K&B 40 and it flew great. I have a kit for my new son when he is ready to learn to fly.

would the OS .46 be good for me even though this will be my first nitro plane or would it be to powerful and fast.
should i just go with one of the suggestions that are in the .30's????

That depends.

If you have the self discipline to limit the throttle manually, you will not have a problem, though you may have to mount your receiver battery behind the wing's trailing edge to get the model to balance properly. Adding weight to the tail is not the preferred method. Moving the absolutely necessary equipment around to obtain the proper balance is preferred.

If you have an instructor/helper person and if you need their assistance - I do not know your abilities - you might not have to worry about overpowering the model with the .46. I do know that some of the Falcon 56 Mk.II models would zip right along with a K&B .40 of the era and that it could cause low time pilots a moment of anxiety here and there. However you may be a fine pilot. I have no way of knowing. I do know that the modern .32 to .37 engines are considerably stronger than the old K&B .40 and are as light to boot. The more modern .46 schneurle ported engines tend to be heavier. The weight is more of a worry than the extra power.

I'm sure that the venerable old Falcon 56 Mk.II can be built to accept either size engine without a problem. You might have to be a bit more creative with the .46, but it can be done.


Ed Cregger

i think i will just go with something in the .30's because i really dont want to mess with any weight moving or any thing like that. when i can just get something like a Thunder Tiger .36 and everytning would be good wouldnt it?

The reason you might want to go with a 45 size motor is that when you go to that second or third plane you will already have a motor that is strong enough for it.
The os or st or magnum's are all going to be good motor choices and wont be too heavy for the falcon.

The cheapest .25 and the most expensive 40-45 size motors will all fly the falcon just fine.

Luck, Dewayne

On the other hand, how many people do you know in the hobby who have just one engine? Lots of uses for a .25 to .36 size engine later on - I have three planes with engines in that range right now. Keep it light; plenty of time to enjoy the heavy metal later, if that's your style.

I flew a Skylark 56 with an OS .25 FP ... it flew fine with that engine. It's basically a low wing Falcon. Anything you use from a .25 to a .36 will be plenty at this stage. I would buy a TT .36 from Radical RC for $80 plus $2 shipping. http://www.radicalrc.com/shop/?shop=1&cat=6&

People buy a .46 and then they have to have the newest .55 because it's only another ounce or two and "you can always throttle back". There's no end to that.

Jim

ok thanks everyone. it helped me alot. i will probably go with something in the .30's like a thunder tiger .36


thanks again