Dale Bradly

This. If you do this, and do nothing to the transmitter at the same time, they HAVE to swap. Im not saying its the case here, but i certainly have unplugged servo connectors, and swapped them over, only to find i hadn't swapped 1 & 2, but put them back right where they came from.

Outstanding. I have no other words that do this justice.

Recommended. In terms of functionality, perfect for beginner and Sunday club flyer. It's small size and light weight also make it ideal for kids or those with smaller hands. It can be converted to 10ch, so you're a long way in before needing to replace it. Only negative in my opinion is the battery, designed for 4x AA cells, so an upgrade in this area is worthwhile if it gets regular use. I have one for buddy boxing in the other mode, and the Flysky Rx's have become my go-to (with a different Tx) to the one under discussion.

Luke, thanks for the response. Your description of the expected flight characteristics sounds exactly what I expect and want, so thanks for the feedback. Now go get one of your toys out and go fly!

Feels like a couple of weeks since progress... Because it was! Stupid everything else getting in the way. Fin & rudder also made. Used the same construction methodology as the tailplane, rather than the sheet construction the plan (and my kit) instructs. It always baffles me how some designs have a confusing mixture of shapes, and unfortunately the Duellist does suffer from this. The worst example has to be the Supermarine Spiteful, which had a square/tapered wing, against a classic rounded Spitfire-esq tailplane and rudder. Redesigned these (well, reshaped anyway), and some decent bloke named Philip Avonds thought the same co(http://avonds.com/Duellist.htm) so i followed his example, along with a handful of TLAR. So now that i have two parts, it's time for a test assembly! And much to the wife's disappointment, the dining table is starting to look like an aeroplane! Fanta can to hold the thing down, and also provides some scale. The tailplane is 800mm span, so it's not small.

Atx power supplies have both a -12V and a +12V (with respect to 0V). Beware the -12V is of little use fir what you are using it for, as this output will be capable of very low current only. I wonder if the comment you made inferring the polarity was incorrect means you have found this -12V output. The +12v output will be capable of delivering 30A or some such figure, so by all means connect two chargers to this.

I can't answer that, as I don't have your setup in front of me, and I didn't quite follow your question. But as you are ok using a multimeter and therefore have the smarts to figure it out, give it a go. No reason you can't run 2 chargers from one power supply.

Ive got 3 20cc gassers. Love them. 2x singles, and a twin cylinder. The reason i went to them all relates to reliability, which then leads to confidence. I want to have IC powered motors, and ive had too many issues with glows. (Deadsticks, failure to start etc.) I have nowhere near the same number of issues with gas. For a lesser reason, availability of appropriate sized motors. Price of fuel did not factor into my decision process,. Neither does the "reduced power output compared to glow motors" which is a hollow argument in my mind. I'm not trying to match 2 otherwise identical models with a gas vs glow powerplant comparison. I fly models with an appropriately powerful propulsion system. Here's my example on the pointless "comparison" argument: The 21cc twin also spins a 3 bladed prop. So anyone might argue it is down on power compared with the singles. But in the real world, it's on the biggest model, with the thickest wing, and it suits this model perfectly. The singles are on slightly smaller, more aerobatic and/or heavier/draggier models with 2 bladed props, and they are perfect. maybe they are more powerful, but does it matter? The installations are ideal for their own situations. In my installations, the gassers of course require space for, and the ability to carry the weight of the ignition module, the rc switch, and the ignitions own battery. so, as always, YMMV. I have no intention of going smaller, e,g, there are 9-15cc gassers on the market, but the ignition module, the rc switch, and the ignitions own battery don't scale down with CC size, so the entire powertrain is getting big and heavy for a (presumably small) model that would run a motor this size.

I do plan on 3 blade props, (only 'coz they look good on the ground!) But want to have the ability to swing correct 2 bladera if needed. I admit i havent considered swinging the nose gear the other way around as you suggest, but that would put a pretty small distance between nose and main gear, but worth a consideration!

Tailplane complete, as far as ready for a final sand and then 'glass some time in future. Retracts come in. Well the first set anyway. However, once offering these up to the plan and the cut wood, these ight actually be too big, so will look into other options. Despite the size of the thing, as always space is tight. With the carbon tubes that run through the wing, this eats into the space available for the retract mount. The interwebs suggests that ground clearance to prop is an issue, so moving the retracts outboard one bay, which puts them into the engine nacelle (or even half a bay) possibly gives some more room for things. Nosewheel storage is an issue, might have to recess this into the wing leading edge. Decisions and commitments yet to be made. As usual as soon as you start a new exciting project, other things get in the way, recent trips to the flying field have resulted in some repairs to other models, so these might take immediate priority. We'll see. Often have two models on the bench anyway.

Correct Paul, my half awake brain. 5% oil for mine.

Hey Vic, I've got a Saito FG-14. Its a great little motor. But note it is messy, exhaust residue everywhere. Note that mine uses a 20% oil mix, so incompatible with my chainsaws etc. So this presents its own hassle of mixing a dedicated fuel a litre or two at a time, just for one engine. Not overly powerful, but heavy for its stated capacity, and thus perfect for the more sedate models (e.g Cubs and things to be flown in a similar manner). I have made glow fuel in the past, but not worth it now (costs, storage space, risks of having that quantity of flammable/toxic chemicals lying around etc). Just pay for freight to get premade glow fuel to you. And i don't believe the cost of fuel (regardless of fuel type) really factors into it, most of us consume a higher cost in petrol/diesel in our motor vehicle (and related vehicle costs) driving to the club than we do in our models while there. So: buy the types of powerplant that you like using/tinkering with/suit the model etc, and dont buy them based on their perceived fuel cost.

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!