Super Duellist 2/60 Build
06-26-2011, 06:02 PM
#551
My Feedback: (30)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tennessee
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Super Duellist 2/60 Build
ORIGINAL: skyracer32738
http://rcacf.com/Photos/RCACF10BigBird.pdf
here it is ,flies on rails ..my 2/60
http://rcacf.com/Photos/RCACF10BigBird.pdf
here it is ,flies on rails ..my 2/60
05-12-2015, 03:51 AM
#554
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: palm coast fl
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking of building a duelist. Due to the scarcity of kits I think I may make this my first plans build. Could someone give me a rundown on the differences between the different variations? Thanks, Gary
Last edited by fly20; 05-12-2015 at 03:54 AM.
07-25-2015, 05:25 PM
#556
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Fly20,
Here's the rundown as far as I'm aware of it. It won't be 100% accurate but is my understanding.
Dave Platt designed the original Dualist which was kitted by Pica. I believe early kits credited Dave but later kits list Morten Tanger as the designer (Pica may have changed the design a bit). This kit is now referred to as the Mark 1, it had positive incidence in the wing and tail plane, and a large amount of down thrust in the engines. Kits turn up now and again.
Dave designed the Mark 2 Dualist with a more standard set up of 0 incidence in the wing, tail plane, and thrust line, and a larger wing. This change meant the fuselage shape changed a bit, mainly around the fin. Dave changed the fin fairing and also has the fin protruding below the fuselage in a sub fin and rudder. The wheels were moved outboard slightly giving better prop clearance for the bigger engines that most people seem to use now (the Mark 1 was designed for .29 to .40 engines but people use up to .55's now). The consensus is that the Mark 2 flies better. There were some kits but I believe they are very rare.
A group of modellers enlarged the Mark 2 plan to suit .60 engines to create the Super Dualist 2/60 which is the subject of this thread.
Cox acquired the rights to the Mark 1 from Pica and produced the ARF model.
The Mark 1 and 2 plans are available at Outerzone so you could download them both and compare side to side.
Hope this helps,
Dave H
Here's the rundown as far as I'm aware of it. It won't be 100% accurate but is my understanding.
Dave Platt designed the original Dualist which was kitted by Pica. I believe early kits credited Dave but later kits list Morten Tanger as the designer (Pica may have changed the design a bit). This kit is now referred to as the Mark 1, it had positive incidence in the wing and tail plane, and a large amount of down thrust in the engines. Kits turn up now and again.
Dave designed the Mark 2 Dualist with a more standard set up of 0 incidence in the wing, tail plane, and thrust line, and a larger wing. This change meant the fuselage shape changed a bit, mainly around the fin. Dave changed the fin fairing and also has the fin protruding below the fuselage in a sub fin and rudder. The wheels were moved outboard slightly giving better prop clearance for the bigger engines that most people seem to use now (the Mark 1 was designed for .29 to .40 engines but people use up to .55's now). The consensus is that the Mark 2 flies better. There were some kits but I believe they are very rare.
A group of modellers enlarged the Mark 2 plan to suit .60 engines to create the Super Dualist 2/60 which is the subject of this thread.
Cox acquired the rights to the Mark 1 from Pica and produced the ARF model.
The Mark 1 and 2 plans are available at Outerzone so you could download them both and compare side to side.
Hope this helps,
Dave H
07-27-2015, 01:31 AM
#558
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem Gary,
Good luck with your model if you decide to go ahead with it.
I would recommend using the Mark 2 plan with a pair of good .46 engines (or electric).
Add shear webs between both spars at least beyond the nacelles if not to the tips (very light but a huge increase in strength). My preference is to have a spar doubler across the centre joint to tie each of the four spar caps together and ply (say 1/16) shear webs for the first few bays. This is stronger and if not lighter, then not heavier than the traditional butt joint with fibreglass reinforcement.
If your preference is to stick with the fibreglass method, at least add the shear webs.
I would love to see a build thread if you do go ahead.
Cheers,
Dave H
Good luck with your model if you decide to go ahead with it.
I would recommend using the Mark 2 plan with a pair of good .46 engines (or electric).
Add shear webs between both spars at least beyond the nacelles if not to the tips (very light but a huge increase in strength). My preference is to have a spar doubler across the centre joint to tie each of the four spar caps together and ply (say 1/16) shear webs for the first few bays. This is stronger and if not lighter, then not heavier than the traditional butt joint with fibreglass reinforcement.
If your preference is to stick with the fibreglass method, at least add the shear webs.
I would love to see a build thread if you do go ahead.
Cheers,
Dave H
07-27-2015, 10:05 PM
#559
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shear webs
Add shear webs between both spars at least beyond the nacelles if not to the tips (very light but a huge increase in strength). My preference is to have a spar doubler across the centre joint to tie each of the four spar caps together and ply (say 1/16) shear webs for the first few bays. This is stronger and if not lighter, then not heavier than the traditional butt joint with fibreglass reinforcement.
I added those on my Duellist 2/40, built up from a Pica kit. It is obviously a Mark I, it has the downthrust engines and the positive incidence on wing and stab.
The incidence issue makes that slightly "nose down" attitude when flown level at full power, it looks nice...
Wing span was stretched by maybe 2.5" per side, and fin area enlarged - didn´t know that time that there has been a Mark II version. I was concerned those 2 OS 50SX would be little bit much, but It flies very well.
Dominik
08-07-2016, 08:20 AM
#562
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought it on Ebay from Tim, "amamodels". I think it's a bargain at the price.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231688810933...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
He also has the 2-40 Pica version. I might just buy one of these also.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231794444383...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231688810933...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
He also has the 2-40 Pica version. I might just buy one of these also.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231794444383...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
08-15-2017, 08:31 PM
#566
My Feedback: (11)
I could go with a pair of OS 61fx, which would be easy, or a pair of Super Tigre 60 blue heads, but finding good mufflers for those is a problem, and they would be down on power a bit from the OS engines. My other choice would be to use a pair of Super Tigre G90 engines. My engine choice will be affected by the building methods I choose.
I'm thinking of building really light, building the wing with D tube construction, using cap strips, and shrink covering on the wing and fuselage. Would it be sacrilege to do it this way? It seems like I could take a pound or so off the plane if its built without all that sheeting and fiberglass and paint, making the smaller engines more viable.
I have Spring Air retracts set aside already, and plan on using pull/pull for the rudder, and I'm still thinking on how to work the elevator, either with dual servos up front, or one in the rear..
This afternoon I started building, and got the horizontal stabilizer framed up, and glued up the fin and rudder, and the Robart hinges in place. Tomorrow I plan on building the nacelles. Next, I'll start on the fuselage framing, and then I can think over my choices for building the wing. I'm thinking of building it as a two piece, but that may be a bit too much trouble. We'll see...
I'm thinking of building really light, building the wing with D tube construction, using cap strips, and shrink covering on the wing and fuselage. Would it be sacrilege to do it this way? It seems like I could take a pound or so off the plane if its built without all that sheeting and fiberglass and paint, making the smaller engines more viable.
I have Spring Air retracts set aside already, and plan on using pull/pull for the rudder, and I'm still thinking on how to work the elevator, either with dual servos up front, or one in the rear..
This afternoon I started building, and got the horizontal stabilizer framed up, and glued up the fin and rudder, and the Robart hinges in place. Tomorrow I plan on building the nacelles. Next, I'll start on the fuselage framing, and then I can think over my choices for building the wing. I'm thinking of building it as a two piece, but that may be a bit too much trouble. We'll see...
08-15-2017, 10:19 PM
#567
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rennerod, GERMANY
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2/40 Duellist came out nose-heavy (2 OS 50SX with custom made inline headers and pipes.) I installed the elevator servo back in the right side of the fuselage and still needed some lead in the tail.
Dominik
Dominik
08-15-2017, 11:39 PM
#568
My Feedback: (20)
As Dominik says the Duellist comes out nose heavy. Hollow the nose block and the nacelle blocks as much as you can. Fully sheeting the wing only adds a couple of ounces over cap strips. Don't really need to glass the wing if you dont want to. Try to not be too critical over empennage weight...again you will come out nose heavy.
Don
Don
08-16-2017, 10:32 AM
#569
My Feedback: (11)
Thanks guys, I'm now thinking I can build it light and use the OS 61s. In my short kit, the fuse formers and the ribs are all solid, so I can lighten them up using the scroll saw. I guess I can use shrink covering over the sheeting, and that should result in a nice enough finish. This is going to be a flyer, not a scale masterpiece.
08-18-2017, 06:23 PM
#570
My 2/60 short kit is being shipped to me next week, and I am super excited to start this. I'm thinking I'll go with twin Novarossi .61's as well!!! This is a great build log, and look forward to seeing some of the builds and getting your inputs.
08-22-2017, 09:53 AM
#571
My Feedback: (11)
This is a good kit, but you do have to do a lot of interpretation in order to figure out where the pieces go, and what pieces need to be fabricated. Keep in mind that the plans are just blown up versions of the 2/40 kit, so some of the wood stringers, spars, etc. wiool need to be re-sized.
I managed to cut out 6 ounces from the fin/rudder, fuse formers, and wing ribs. The tail is all done, and the fuse is mostly framed up. I'd post pictures, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to do it. It sure doesn't work the way it used to!
I managed to cut out 6 ounces from the fin/rudder, fuse formers, and wing ribs. The tail is all done, and the fuse is mostly framed up. I'd post pictures, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to do it. It sure doesn't work the way it used to!
Last edited by RDJeff; 08-26-2017 at 10:03 AM.
08-22-2017, 10:23 AM
#572
My Feedback: (20)
RCJeff,
I wouldn't be too concerned about building light behind the center of gravity. You are most likely going to replace wood weight with lead if you go too light.
just my 2 cents. Your mileage my vary.
Don
I wouldn't be too concerned about building light behind the center of gravity. You are most likely going to replace wood weight with lead if you go too light.
just my 2 cents. Your mileage my vary.
Don
Last edited by hattend; 08-22-2017 at 05:13 PM.
08-22-2017, 06:25 PM
#573
My Feedback: (11)
Yeah, I'm with you there, mostly I'm trying to reduce the overall weight, and not focus on any one section of the plane. Today I built the nose piece, laminated it out of precut 1/2" balsa, so its quite hollow and very light.
Last edited by RDJeff; 08-26-2017 at 10:00 AM.
08-25-2017, 08:01 AM
#574
My Feedback: (11)
The fuse is ready for sheeting now, the nacelles have been framed up, almost time to start the wing construction. I had to order up a bunch of sheeting for the wing, and it'll be here next week.
I looked up and compared the specs of the OS .61fx, and the Super Tigre G90, and was surprised to find that they are very, very close! The weights are within one ounce of each other, and they list all the same props. I'm more inclined to run the ST 90s, as the pair of them I have are brand new in their boxes, and they can run on my home brewed 0% nitro fuel, although I was going to save them for my C-46 project. I have a few of them that are used, so I can think about it for a while, and maybe swap them out later. I have four of the OS 61s, but they are all used to differing degrees. Maybe I'll ask for opinions on the engine forums. Any opinions here?
I looked up and compared the specs of the OS .61fx, and the Super Tigre G90, and was surprised to find that they are very, very close! The weights are within one ounce of each other, and they list all the same props. I'm more inclined to run the ST 90s, as the pair of them I have are brand new in their boxes, and they can run on my home brewed 0% nitro fuel, although I was going to save them for my C-46 project. I have a few of them that are used, so I can think about it for a while, and maybe swap them out later. I have four of the OS 61s, but they are all used to differing degrees. Maybe I'll ask for opinions on the engine forums. Any opinions here?
