Dale Bradly

To answer to this, would need to know how you're operating the throttle on the stand. If it's a just a manually operated pushrod/scrap of wire etc, then you will stop it when you fully close it, and its a fine movement between idle and stopped. Until you're more experienced, operating that pushrod by a servo will be better (more precise), even if it's just a simple servo hot glued adjacent your test stand. What i do when servo operated (irrespective of on stand on in plane) All but identical to what Jonathan M does: I leave throttle trim at midpoint, and use end point adjustments to set the permanent idle position. Then when actually flying i can tweak using the trim lever to tweak as needed. If i find i need to permanently trim, this adjustment is then moved to the endpoint adjustment. I have a separate throttle cut switch, which when operated, irrespective of throttle position, overrides the previous throttle position, fully, firmly and promptly closes the throttle, thus ensuring the engine stops. No, it can't tick over with the throttle fully closed. This means no air into the carb, thus no fuel, and subsequently no running. Idle will have a sliver of opening in the carb barrel.

Final post for today: Slight divergence: Being in a land with little engineering heritage of it's own, thus surrounded by everyone elses imported, I tend to wander all over the place in terminology, units, spelling conventions etc. Furthermore a pet peeve of mine is when reading/watching something, and the author provides dimensions of the same item in both their preferred (alternative) units - see what i did there? Really detracts from the context. If i can't understand, it's up to me to translate. Whine over! - Note i find imperial measurements really good for approximates (e.g. a couple of feet) but metric for precision. I felt the need to get some glue on my fingers, so knocked up the tailplane as the typical starting point. As per plan, internal structure is 6.5mm, sheeted in 1.5mm balsa. Will be glassed at some future date. In case anyone else reads this: Mentioned elsewhere on the interwebs, but reiterated here: There is a giant flaw in the Duellist MkII plan on OZ: There is some distortion in the plan from when being scanned presumably, or the print from which was subsequently scanned. Regardless, the end result is the left wing and the right wing are different spans when measured from centre, on the wing the difference was nearly 1/2" at my scale. The tailplane, being on the same page, has the same issue, being about 3mm different (on mine) comparing one side to the other. Of course a simple fix when building. Enough from me for a couple of days, i'm off to a model flying event for the weekend 🙂

In terms of “the build”, intentions are at this point: (note subject to change at short notice!) The GMS47 will be the first cab off the rank, but be able to swap these out for alternative options in due course. (in light of the previous posts, i might leave the engine bays large enough to get a .52 2 stroke in there if needed) Retracts, tricycle layout. More on that later. Fiberglassed wing/fuse; control surfaces probably iron-on covered. 3 piece wing. Investigate possibility of removable engine nacelles. (But since dreaming that up, have almost discounted that idea). Flaps on inner wing section, (i.e. between the engines) ailerons on outer wing panels. Reshape the fin& rudder Investigate some "alternative" materials in construction. Although having the short kit, and not seeing any other sheeting options out there, i have limited scope for this.

I agree with this! Anyone who wanted to do the same, i wish them the same luck. As the OZ article was originally written by Dave Platt, I won't argue with his design knowledge and can expect he knew what he was doing. (Same article also states the prototype flew on a pair of .29). To put this to bed, all the articles i have read on the original, and all the youtubes of same, suggest that going to .46's on my 80" will be fine. I don't want ballistic fast. I don't want heavier than i need. Both of these points will be consequences of putting in engines that are larger than i want. I can only assume this is directed at me: I don't fly off a mile of tarmac, so i don't know why you've assumed i do. At my regular flying site, i am happy to carry on straight ahead in event of a engine failure on takeoff if that's what is needed. In 1:1 scale aviation you don't turn back to the strip if you have an engine failure on takeoff (many have died trying), so i don't see any different set of rules applying to my models. However, i want to learn a bit more about this side of things, so your points are noted, and i thank you for them.

Got the plan printed locally. Or tried several times, seemed this was a problem! to do it in one piece, the paper needed to be just over 1m wide, which several printers i approached couldn't do, and couldn't get their head around printing it in "two halves" on whatever the standard roll width around these parts seems to be, 36" i recall. Eventually, local model store Hangar One https://www.hangarone.co.nz/ got it sorted for me, as at least dealing with them i could understand what i was trying to achieve. It appears that the Balsa Workbench short kit isn’t just the standard kit blown up, but has actually been redesigned to suit, e.g. the wing spars as designed are 1/2" x 1/4". If you enlarged that to 116%, then the spar cutouts wouldn’t be that size anymore, But in this case, they have been redrawn and cut so they remain 1/2" x 1/4”. A few other things appear to have a similar thought process applied, so the build might go relatively simply in most areas. The wing is designed (and cut) to split into 3 pieces, splitting at the outboard side of the nacelles. Another redesign 👍 To do this, it is designed to have tube and sleeves through the wing sections, as is common on many ARF's. Obviously can't progress the wing without these, so credit card was introduced to the internet again, and some shiny carbon tube sets wing their way to me from the US. (https://www.cstsales.com/a-carbon-fiber-tubes-sleeves.html) These cost more to get to me than the short kit to which they are to be installed, but it is what it is! Speaking of costs, I don't think i want to know what the whole project will come to. Because I’m at the end of the world, everything is expensive and/or rare. But when i factor in the hours spent in the shed, dollars per hour ain't high. (And also - I don’t want the wife to know! We all know how that story goes.) This is a dry run on of the centre section ribs on it's carbon outer sleeves. Realised that since u/c installation is all up to me, i probably should have the u/c on hand and work through this before Mr Glue turns up on set. So, this is now on order and en route. Meanwhile, staring at the plan, trying to think through all the various gotcha's and the like are keeping me entertained.

In that case, the valve core has been removed. Fit another core, or whole fill valve assy.

Nigel, I have no concerns about that, it'll fly just fine. Not looking to overpower it. Appreciate your concern!

Looks similar to a Robart fill valve. (which contains a non-return valve). What's the other side look like? (on the outside of the fuselage)

Revised 69". (Blown up to 80")

Sorry, just realised the previous post of mine has a typo or two: This should read: Also not supplied, or even provisioned for in this case, is u/c mounting. (And) A large amount of redesign has gone into the airframe, so this has a cost. (More on this in future posts). (These are two seperate points. As originally written, this is unclear and it makes no sense). Most importantly, especially if Balsa Workbench happens to read this: All in all, I'm very happy with the product supplied, at the price BW advertises.

Yes. Usual expectations: ribs, bulkheads, nacelle sides, firewalls etc. And fin&rudder as these are sheet. No strip/sheet, of which there is a lot of sheet especially. Also no blocks supplied ( for nose, wingtips etc). Also not supplied, or even provisioned for in this case, is u/c mounting. A large amount of redesign has gone into the airframe, so this has a cost. (More on this in future posts). Wood quality looks quite acceptable to my amateur eye. All in all, I'm very with the product supplied, at the price BW advertises. (I might less like the freight costs, but that is the cost of choosing to send packages half way around the world). Note pic is not whole kit.

If its any help, i paid the equivalent of 127 GBP for kit inc freight, and i would expect that half of that is freight. I'm at the end of the world, so freight is always expensive. YMMV as always. And yes, prices shown on there are USD of course.

For years I’ve had a hankering for a proper twin. I remember the first twin I saw flying, was probably about 60” span, and with a pair of 15’s or thereabouts. The sound was captivating. Ive had electric twins. I have many electric models. I enjoy electric models, even though I sometimes believe electric models are soulless. I’m not necessarily saying an electric twin is twice as soulless, but it’s certainly not what I’m after. Ive had an ARF B-25, powered by a pair of ASP .52’s. Had a few good flights. Then had one not so good flight. Then didn’t have a B25 any longer. What I do want in my future is more twins, maybe even a 4 engine. Maybe. Definitely more twins. Got plans for a DH Hornet in the queue. A DH Comet is also in that same queue. Maybe near the front. A DH Dragonfly is also in that queue. Probably even closer to the front. Need not mention the Mosquito, it's a given in every modelers wish list.... (Not sure where the DH fetish has come from though, is this normal?) For several years, I have held onto a brand spanking pair of ASP 46 2st from another project that never went ahead. Quite literally NIB. Because, you know, one day I might build a twin. More recently have acquired one, then another of OS 52 4st. Both preloved, but appear in good condition. Store them away because maybe one day… Along the way, found myself with one and then two GMS2000 47 2st. Could use those in a twin some time in future, you know? 6 months ago, I was having a cleanup in the shed, putting some order amongst the modelling detritus. Found one of the pair of engines. Swiftly followed by another pair. Then stumbled over the third pair… Ok, stop procrastinating, it’s time to build a twin! Re my modelling career to this point: Models are getting bigger. I like building. Cost (assuming not stupid) is of less concern, especially when the time spent building is factored in. I like building as much as flying. Maybe slightly more. Design “tweaks”, or minor alterations to construction are not a problem, although I’ve never designed a model from from scratch. Ive had dozens of ARF’s, but I now i like building a project, not assembling a quick fix. Obviously I need a kit/plan that suits a pair of 46 glow motors. Took a while to find something that suited the above, with the extra requirement of “had to look good to my eye”, to the extent that I was about to push play on a Super Sportster 90/120 and hack it into a twin, along the lines of the SS40 Twin. Along the way, I had seen the classic Duellist (2/40, MKII etc), but it’s a size too small. I wanted bigger, and not so interested in the silly fast plane that would result if I stuck with the “factory” size Duellist and fitted one of my engine pairs. (both on OZ https://outerzone.co.uk/search/results.asp?keyword=duellist) Then one night, late one night, I stumbled across Balsa Workbench has a Duellist scaled to 116%, to suit 2x .46 https://www.balsaworkbench.com/?product=duellist-116-short-kit Bingo! Short kit ordered. Stand by for more ramblings, all comments welcome!

Echoing Jon's reply, on every set of pneumatic retracts ive seen, the fill valve is the non return valve. If this is what is leaking, then this is what is faulty. Get yourself a new fill valve. A photo would probably clear this up.

That's small!