Falcon 56 (oz2424)
About this Plan
Falcon 56. Radio control sports model. Wingspan 56 in, wing area 558 sq in, weight 3.5lb. OS .15 engine shown.
Quote: "The bird that obeys your R/C command. Falcon 56 for .09 - .19 engines. If you're just getting into R/C, or moving along into Multi then build and fly the functional, rugged, smooth new Carl Goldberg FALCON! Every design element engineered to make the simplest,sound, attractive airplane. No unnecessary gadgetry or required skills. Builds up quickly - in half the ususal time. And in the air, what smooth response to your commands - you'll soon be an expert flyer.
Longer tail moment arm, much smoother flying.
Coil spring nose gear, coil flusjwith bottom.
Formed main landing gear
Shaped and notched leading and trailing edges.
Cleanly die-cut ribs, fuse sides, formers, etc.
Semi-symmetrial wing section.
New, simple 'Symmet-TRU' wing construction.
Tough Butrate canopy.
Complete full size plans, step by step, etc."
Update 09/07/2014: Replaced this plan with a clearer version, thanks to pd1.
Quote: "Hi Steve, The Goldberg Falcon 56 plan is one of the first ones I did. Didn't get the fuselage top view accurate. Dave Plumpe added the top fuselage view and the plan has been everywhere. I redid the plan and replaced the drawings and text between the views."
Update 07/05/2017: Added an alternate version of this plan, thanks to MarcBird. This is a slightly later revision of the plan (circa 1975) and shows a wider nose.
Quote: "Steve, Here are the plans for Carl Goldberg's Falcon 56. I looked up your current plans for that airplane, and noticed the firewall width is different than the plans I'm sending you. I imagine this means there may be other modifications between this plan and the one you already have ...I called Carl Goldberg Models sometime in the early Eighties, asking for a copy of the Falcon 56 kit plans. This was about the time CGM released the Falcon 56 Mk II (oz6155) version, with the swept-back vertical stabilizer and a different firewall area for accepting a .40 engine. These plans just predate that version, still with the straight tail, but has a wider nose and firewall to accept a larger engine than the .19 originally recommended on the earlier kits.
It seems the Falcon 56 kit plans you offer currently are an earlier version. Straight tail but narrower nose. There are some other minor differences as well, so I thought I'd send this version to you so modelers would have a choice for a particular kit version.
This can be confusing, sometimes, as Carl made small changes as needed in response to customer reports after they built and flew his designs. He would also update his kit plans to show newer radio systems as they appeared through the years. Unfortunately, he never dated his revisions, that I know of. Thank you for doing this plan library. I'll bet it involves a lot of work but is very worth it. Marc"
Direct submission to Outerzone.
Update 14/01/2021: Added kit review from MAN, December 1967, thanks to RFJ.
Supplementary file notes
Alternate later plan version, from 1975.
Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)?
That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction
by Carl Goldberg
from Carl Goldberg (ref:G-15)
IC R/C Kit
formers incomplete :(
Found online 13/02/2012 at:
Format: • PDFbitmap
Credit*: pd1, MarcBird
Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email email@example.com
User commentsHi, Steve. I thought I would share a couple of comments regarding the Falcon 56, based on the experiences of my friends and I, back in the 1970s. The first was built 'full-house' with ailerons and a McCoy .35 up front. This was a lot more power than the airplane really needed, and the wing eventually folded after several sessions of enthusiastic aerobatics. The second Falcon came along a couple of years later. Common sense prevailed with this one, and it was built and flown with rudder, elevator and throttle control - no ailerons this time. An OS .30 RC had been ordered, but didn't arrive in time for the first flights, so we stuck a Fox .25 RC in the nose instead. This turned out to be the perfect combination. The Fox provided enough power for good takeoff and climb performance, and cruise was acceptable. Our only complaint was that the engine didn't idle very well, so we usually landed dead stick. We did try flying it with a Fox .19, and this was definitely not enough power. If I build another, it'll have the same rudder, elevator and throttle control the last one had, and I'll probably stick my 1970s-vintage OS .25 in the nose. The later Falcon 56 Mark II was strengthened to handle a .40 up front, but I've always felt that the added weight really detracted from the gentle behavior of the earlier version. Keep the weight down and the power reasonable. Thanks again for all your hard work on the site!
Moeregaard - 08/07/2014
Add a comment
* Credit field
The Credit field in the Outerzone database is designed to recognise and credit the hard work done in scanning and digitally cleaning these vintage and old timer model aircraft plans to get them into a usable format. Currently, it is also used to credit people simply for uploading the plan to a forum on the internet. Which is not quite the same thing. This will change soon. Probably.
This model plan (like all plans on Outerzone) is supposedly scaled correctly and supposedly will print out nicely at the right size. But that doesn't always happen. If you are about to start building a model plane using this free plan, you are strongly advised to check the scaling very, very carefully before cutting any balsa wood.
© Outerzone, 2011-2020.
All content is free to download for personal use.
For non-personal use and/or publication: plans, photos, excerpts, links etc may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Outerzone with appropriate and specific direction to the original content i.e. a direct hyperlink back to the Outerzone source page.
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site's owner is strictly prohibited. If we discover that content is being stolen, we will consider filing a formal DMCA notice.