nbcguy

A heli pilot at our field has purchased the UCD3D and has a YS 1.10 to put in it. He has never flown a fixed wing before, but has read that the plane is stable and forgiving enough to be used as a trainer.

I am by no means the definitive expert, but stated to the guy that I think he's making a huge mistake with this. For one, the UCD has no self recovery. A YS 1.10 is well outside of the recommended range for this plane, and will teach some bad habits.

I learned on a Trainer and buddy box and still feel that this is the best way to learn. Am I way off here? I hate to see $600 turned into a lawn dart (or kill someone).

motormouth1

Sounds like the hot ticket for a new balsa tree. I wouldn't want to risk an expensive motor like that on a first time plane. I dont have a Ucando but the magic extra is somewhat similar, The plane can be slowed down to a crawl at landing.
I'm just getting back after a number of years, i prefer the ME to my rascal, landing is much easier. the rascal glides forever, you need a long approch, in the past 2 "instructors" have put it in the bushes for me. The ME slows quickly and lands on a dime.

In short its probably not a good idea. There is some truth in saying that 3d aircraft can be easy to fly with minimal throws and proper throttle, but unless your friend is wealthy he should try to heed conventional wisdom. At least get a semi symetrical hi wing type (trainer) with an affordable 2 stroke.

jagnweiner

My Feedback: (1)

NBCGUY-

Can it be a trainer? No. It won't be a trainer no matter what because of its flight characteristics. Could it be used successfully as a first plane? Possibly.

I "learned" to fly 15 yrs ago on an Andrews Aeromaster biplane with a Veco .50. That was the plane I had available at the time. I had an experienced pilot helping me take off and land, and was able to handle the rest relatively easily. I say "learned" because I flew for a few summers, always with the supervision of an instructor and then got out of the hobby until now. Although I could take off, fly fine, and do quite a bit in the way of aerobatics, I never really mastered landing on my own, as I recall. I am now getting back in the hobby.

Was this the best course? Probably not, but I inherited the plane from my brother and did the best I could. Like the Aeromaster, the U Can Do has a light wing loading and probably a relatively low stall speed. I'm sure your friend could fly it with some assistance, but it still is not a trainer. The engine choice makes no sense, however.

When I decided to start flying again, I made another semi-poor choice. Instead of getting a real trainer, I bought a GP .60 size Cub with a Saito .91. I am having a ball building the kit and am almost done, but I will still need to hone my flying skills with our local club's loaner trainer.

-Scott

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

Which UCD the .46 or the .60? And he is making a big mistake but at least the instructor will have fun.

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

I instructed a heli pilot for his first time on fixed wing this summer. He did quite well. Much better than I expected. I still agree with you that it is waaayyy too nice a plane for a first timer though.

nbcguy

It is the 60 size I believe. Wow, a YS 1.10 on a 46 size would be like putting a G62 on the front of my PT40. Man, talk about anti-gravity...

hardlanding7

talk about a bomb waiting to hit the ground...

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

The Y.S. 1.10 would be the best choice for a .60 UCD. All of the serious 3D guys are running a Saito 1.00. The Y.S 1.10 is in the same class though just a bit heavier than the saito it does produce more power that justifies the weight increase. I have seen guys successfully run saito 1.80's on the .60 UCD without a huge weight or wingloading problem. These UCD's are fairly flexible when it comes to what motor to hang on it. There is a guy at our field that is running a Saito .91 on the .46 UCD and it seems to be the perfect motor for it.
As far as recommended engine sizes go some of the manufacturers are still lowballing the engine size to make the airplane seem more affordable. Many of the new wave of airplanes (in the 3D field) are being targeted towards certain motors.

phread59

I can see tears on the horizon. This is a bad move for several reasons. Yhe UCD has no forgiveness at all. And from what I have heard (through this site in the pattern forum) that the YS's can be very finicky. They are good engines but are very labout intensive. I think if he really wants to use the plane to get a decent 60 2-stoker and use that. And fly always on a buddy box with an instrucer untill he can fly the beast on his own. Then install the YS and go for it.

I still think in the long run a good trainer will cost him less. With out all the breakage he will go through with the UCD. He will also learn faster with atrainer also. I wish him well in whatever he chooses.

Mark Shuman

Mike_Mc

I have to disagree (as usual). I've had a couple trainers after I learned to fly and I'm still unclear why a trainer makes good trainers. They bounce all over the sky like a rag doll. Unless the theory is to teach somebody on the worst plane so they can handle anything, I don't get it. A low wing sport plane is the way to go. A lot of low wing planes can fly slow too and respond much better to contol inputs. I've flown a few and seen a lot of trainers, and they pitch and roll when and if they feel like it. So a trainer recovers hands-off... so what, does that ever happen anyway? I agree that's too much engine and a big cost risk but the UCD does fly pretty darn slow and all the helicopter guys spend plenty of money already so I don't see why not.

Personally I think a rudder/elevator only .15 size is the best. The controls are just about as simple as you can get and plenty of stability with all thet dehedral. This is what my buddy taught me on 15 years ago and I was flying on my own in less than an hour. He still did the landing for me for a couple days. Still even better is a Gentle Lady (or like) with and electric motor. Not a plane but it still teaches the same hand-eye coordination required.

IMHO marketting guys and hobbie shops sell poorly designed trainers and 99% of the people out there buy their BS because it's a "trainer".

Mike

jucava

The first hard landing and it is goneeeeeee

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

I actually almost agree with you for once mike.

However, Trainers are not trainers b/c of some marketing ploy. I know where your coming from when you say they fly bad but hear me out.

A trainer plane is/has:

A wing designed so that it will have a self correction function. It will NOT fly for you but if the wings are a little off center it brings them back to level.

Cheap. This is the number 1 reason trainers exist. They are super easy to manufacture and build, they pass some of the savings on to the customer and thus give more people a chance to enter the hobby. Cheap doesnt have to mean the plane is cheap it can mean that you can get away with putting a low dollar engine and sub standard servos on there.

Durable. Trainers are built so that they can take a hard hit and not suffer a lot of damage. If damage is inflicted then the shape and design allows for ease of repair. If you catch a wing tip on landing it is likely to break a rib or two. However if you catch a wing tip on landing with some of the lightweight models you will more than likely be rebuilding a whole wing and parts of the fues.

Tradition. These high wing ugly things have been around long before marketing ever played a roll in R/C. When you hear about someone first starting out the first thought that comes to your mind is a ugly high wing airplane with dihedral.

Im not so sure that I agree with the idea of the wing being designed to help correct its self but I guess the R&D guys are comfy with it. I also dont like the idea of the co-pilot thingy they came out with. I guess it saves airplanes but it seems like cheating

Mike_Mc

Southern, good points.

Hey, sorry about the other thing, I've been having family things that I shouldn't let affect what I say here. <- public apology

Chuckr53-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

I don't really think the YS110 on the 46 UCD is the real issue since you can always throttle back. I think the real mistake is using this plane as a trainer. I think your friend would do better to get a 60-sized trainer, and use his 110 on it with some good servos, then make the UCD-60 his next plane with the 110 & the good servos. Still not the cheapest and safest route, but probably better then going straight to the UCD. Of course he could be a natural born flier, greasing every landing, and start flying 3D right from the get go...wonder what the odds are for that?

Flyfalcons

If he's flying helis then he can probably pick up fixed wing using a UCD. The engine is pretty large but the airplane can fly so gentle it's scary. Just because the plane is capable of hot maneuvers doesn't mean it is tough to handle. It'll fly slower than most trainers out there, is big and easy to see, and with reduced throws is very easy to fly.

desertmike

I have to agree with the pro ucd as a first plane or trainer if you will. Plain and simply put the UCD 46 is twice as easy to fly and land than a high wing trainer w/ dihedral. The stall tendencies on my UCD are phenominal. It creeps in for landings and doesn't think of tipping. I tried the same thing with my superstar select and about 10 feet off the ground it dropped like a rock. Also rolls and loops were sucky on the trainer. I had to compensate with down elevator to keep from losing too much altitude on rolls with my trainer. Basically the trainers don't "Want" to roll....they just want to float. It was darn near impossible to come in on landings because it didn't want to descend (Dihedral). Then if you came in too slow....boom you stall. With the UCD you can water it down so the throws are like that of a trainer and the plane in my opinion is tons more stable than any trainer I've flown. Maybe the issue isn't whether the ucd is a good trainer or not. Maybe the real issue is that trainers shoul not have Dihedral. It just doesn't make good sense to have an airplane fight the natural tendencies that an airplane should have. Either get an inexpensive trainer and take out the Dihedral or go for it with the UCD.

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

Your post makes perfect sense desertmike as your comparison is with the superstar. There's several of those in our club and they all fly like crud. I would rather train someone with a UCD than a superstar. There are however, FAR better trainers. The Midwest Aerostar, Sig Kadets, and the H9 Solo Sport all fly waaayyy better than the superstar.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

One thing as a newbie to flying. Not a newbie to building. I just built my Kadet Senior and it was a real labor of love, not an easy task at all.. BUT... easy to fly. Im so excited, I was making unassisted landings on my 3rd flight with a trainer box and soloed on flight #6. Maybe its me, maybe its the plane but as far as learning the basics of flight control I cant imagine anything being any easier than my big ol' slow flying Kadet...

The reason I replied however is that theres a guy at the field flying a U Can Do ARF and I have my eye on it bigtime. From what I see it can perform anything the pattern planes can just not nearly as cleanly. His has a 4 stroke .71 in it and he says its a little sluggish on vertical maneuvers, but I have seen it almost complete a knife edge loop. If it flies as well as you guys say it does I will have one pretty soon because flying around in circles wont satisy me much longer.

Crashem

Without getting into an opinion war over this. Here is my suggestion have your friend approach the club instructors and ask them if they will be willing to train him using the UCD3D. Thats really all that counts. If it winds up as a pile of sticks then you got your answer if not... well then he saved money on not needing a 2nd or 3rd plane!!

Chris-_-Memphis

My Feedback: (3)

wish i woulda known this before i won a NIB superstar w/ os40 last night[&o]

LarryC

I have a U-Can-Do 60 size with a YS-91. It will fly slow, land gentle, etc. But, it is built to fly, not to crash. Most decent trainers are fairly rugged, and will stand hard landings, dragging wingtips and the like without much damage. Do those with a UCD and you will most likely have a new kit without and assembly instructions. And since copters do fly differently, even if he is an excellent pilot, it might be best with less plane til he gets used to it. There isn't much doubt that a good copter guy hasn't got the skills, but ouch the noise of crunching balsas...

Larry

Billy Hell

My Feedback: (2)

I have said before and I still stand behind it. A good 3D plane would be a great first or second plane. I prefer the Morris Knife because you can beat the tar out of it. Mine has gone full speed into a drainage ditch in a take off and 50 feet straight down into a muddy field. It is still flying.
3D planes in general are sweethearts. All you have to do is get the throws nice and gentle and it will forgive you all the way to the deck. My second plane was a scratch built Gee Bee profile and it is still flying. The only drawback is it will teach habits that a normal plane won't tolerate BUT after owning a plane like this you probably wouldn't want a plane that like that.

Rotcivv17

I wouldnt recommend using the engine (YS 1.10) en the UCD 46!! Ok, you will have unlimited vertical and 3D, BUT (note the BUT), as you are learning to fly, you will fly level, and this engine is way heavy, and will have a higher wing loading, so that means you will have to keep it a little fast, and come in hot for a landing. Plus, it is a very big gamble to learn to fly on such an expensive engine.

Viktor

randy41

You can be taught with this plane.( I wouldnt recommend
you to start out this way).

But the fact is if you have a good instructor
that is willing to teach you with the U CAN DOO
and you are willing to listen and learn than
you can start out with what ever you want.
Your learning curve will be a little harder.
Most instructors will not want to train you
with a U CAN DOO.

GOOD LUCK.

Chris-_-Memphis

My Feedback: (3)

"u can doo" it ......if you try.. sorry had to say that