Blazer1

My Feedback: (1)

I am looking for an inexpensive, throw around 3D plane and these two seem to fit the bill. How do they compare? The U-Can-Do is a littleless moneybut the Reactor looks better. Flight quality is my first concern. Do they need similar sized engines, they seem about the same size and weight.Has anyone flow both and care to give a report?

TruBlu02

I have flown both planes and would tell you to spend a little extra on the Reactor. They are both good airplanes that fly well but the Reactor has a better flight envelope. You can set it up to fly fast and do pattern all day long or max out the throws and hover it around. It is a very stable plane that is rewarding and easy to fly. I love mine. They do need a little more TLC than the UCD though. The covering is not the most durable and the landing gear set up is so so. If all you are looking for is just a plane to toss around do some hovering the UCD is a good match but like I said is DOES NOT like to go fast. Don't ask how I know. Also I would reccomend looking at  profile as well. There are quite a few good ones on the market right now that are cheap and easy to transport. They are going to be your best bet for 3D stuff.

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

Well, I've had the .46 size UCD with an OS .91 4stroke and now am flying the Reactor with a Saito .82.


With its huge & thick barn door wing the UCD is a much softer flying machine that amost floats in the air. It is easy to hover. It seemed to struggle a bit in knife edge, but I was using a 15x4 thrust prop so speed was not that great. I did not try spins or harriers. Take-offs and landings were nice and easy although the tail was dropping during landing due to the aft CG.


The Reactor is a different beast as the thin wing causes a faster flying machine that is harder (for me to hover) as you have to be hard on the controls; quicker to react, no pun inteneded. It does fly nicer, more precise, "sharper" etc. Snaps and tumbles are fun and my first spins with it were also good. I don't like the stock landing gear. It is too bad Great Planes had to go with the "sexy" look and ignored the real world need for a firm gear that doesn't want to tip the plane forward on both take-off and landing. I fight this by using 3D throw on the elevator to keep the nose up until take-off speed is achieved. I suppose I will cave and buy some aftermarket gear that attached to the bottom of the model.

The Reactor's covering is also sub-Great Planes quality, but if you keep up maintenance on it, it should last for a while. Personally I would not use an engine smaller than a .82 or .90/.91 for 3D work.

Blazer1

My Feedback: (1)

I am really interested in 3D flight only, I have other planes for pattern style flying. What about over all quality and ease of build, either stand out in these areas?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

The tank height is a problem on the UCD planes.

You may have to re-engineer the tank floor to get the tank centered on the needle valve.

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

I changed the hardware to 4-40 pushrods, clevises and Sullivan metal horns on both models. I lowered the tank height, reinforced the landing gear area, firewall, stabilizer attachment point on the UCD-46. I didn't reinforce anything on the Reactor.

opjose

I've never bothered with tank height on the UCD or with many other planes.

It's an often OVERSTATED problem.

Even a 2" offset is not going to be as dramatic as say the difference in tank height during uplines and downlines... and the engines still run just finee with over an 8" offset on say a Giant UCD doing an upline and even when you pull the throttle to idle during the upline.

The engines will run fine if properly tuned on the UCD's as they come. The height only factors in with siphoning and once the engine is dialed in, this is only a minor issue.

Blazer1

My Feedback: (1)

I need some more input from guys who have flown both planes. These two planes are very popular so there has to be a bunch of guys who have flown both.

I need to pick a winner based on these parameters,

3D flight
quality
ease of build
durability

And the winner is????????

opjose

I've flown both.

No clear winner.

3D Flight - I give it to the U-Can-Do
Quality - About equal but I prefer the UCD covering.
Ease of build - SAME
Durability - The Reactor is a bit stronger IMHO.

Both planes have different characteristics.

The Reactor's thinner wings are less prone to creating a detached turbulence layer at higher speeds, so the plane can be flown faster than the UCD. But it has less lift at low speed, so the UCD can do slow 3D more easily.

If you are worried about airframe durability, then look elsewhere. 3D planes are fairly weak.

Both of these are LIGHTLY built planes that can take almost NO abuse or hard landings.

Blazer1

My Feedback: (1)

Very helpful report opjose!

rclement

My Feedback: (1)

I've flown both. I've had 3 0r 4 U Can Do 46's and 2 Reactors and currently have a Reactor and a Frenzy. This being my second Reactor, I'm not crazyabout it and if I could trade it for a Do I would in a heart beat.
3D flight - U Can Do. It's not technically good at 3D but a lot of fun.
Quality - Definately U Can Do. The covering and landing gear on the Reactors is terrible. There are some minor issues with the gear and tank position on the Do's but they are so easily fixed it's not even a concern in my book.
Ease of build. Either one really.
Durability - U Can Do. Mine have held up much better than the first Reactor I had. Biggest thing with the Reactor is the covering isn't going to last long at all and the landing gear will probably rip the side apart on a really bad landing / minor crash. You'll take out the landing gear with a minor crash with the Do's but it's easy to replace and get it flying again.

malcolmm

I've owned both, 2 Reactors .46 and one U-Can-Do 60.

You can't go wrong with either. The U-Can-Do is a floater, it's great as a first 3D plane.

The Reactor is more capable, but things generally happen at a higher speed, and there is less margin for error. One thing I found that was poor with the U-Can-Do was upright harriers, lots of wing rock. The Reactor is a bit difficult to lock into a harrier, but once locked in it is rock free.

You can't go wrong with either.

Sierra11861

Wondering if anyone on this thread could help me out since it sounds like you all have a lot of U Can Do 60 experience. I just completed the build with a YS-110 and the CG is coming out nose heavyat around 4" from leading edge instead of the recomended 4-7/8" and this is with my huge 2000mAh 5 cell battery to the very rear of the compartment. I tested some weights at the tail and found I would have to add 4 onces (a quarter pound!) to meet the specs of 4-7/8" I thought about cutting out the bottom of the fuse and installing the battery further aft but with all the structural failures I have read about here I am hesitant to make this move. I am thinking of just flying it with the 4" nose heavy CG and see what happenes. Any suggestions?

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

I currently fly the Reactor with a Saito .82 swinging an APC14X4W prop. This plane with it's thin Pattern type wing handles the wind great. The plane can be flown fast or slow and it does fine with no flutter issues. Thebuildwas pretty much standardand the covering needs a lot of attention as the clear seems to seperate from the color pigment. Very nice flying plane, one that I always take to the field with me. I have also owned the U-CAN-DO .46 and it's a much different flying plane. Like stated this plane and the 60 size are floaters and not quite as good in windy conditions as the Reactor. It's not a precision type flying plane but fun to play around with. I have seen a few of these blow apart in the air from flying them to fast. IMO the Reactor 3D is the much better buy and can fly IMAC, Pattern, and 3D very well.

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

Sierra11861
Can you slip your large battery in the rear part of the UCD60 through the ply holes just by opening up the covering? If so I would just build a strong box back there and place the battery in it. You probably already know it is critical to anchor it down and use heatshrink on the battery connection, etc. It is probably best if you can get your CG at specs or even further aft for 3D work. Best of luck.

Sierra11861

[quote]ORIGINAL: GarySS

<a class=No because the bottom of the fuse from the aft of the wing to the rudder is solid light ply with no lightening holes. I would have to cut the light ply somewhere between the ribs and build a box. Seems like everytime I build one of these modern ARF's I come out WAY nose heavy. BTW, I mounted the engine at the exact location specified forward of the firewall, now I am sorry I did that and NO I am not moving it back after having at least an hour in cowling installation.. Frustrating[:@]

Sierra11861

No because the bottom of the fuse from the aft of the wing to the rudder is solid light ply with no lightening holes. I would have to cut the light ply somewhere between the ribs and build a box. Seems like everytime I build one of these modern ARF's I come out WAY nose heavy. BTW, I mounted the engine at the exact location specified forward of the firewall, now I am sorry I did that and NO I am not moving it back after having at least an hour in cowling installation.. Frustrating[:@]

Sierra11861

In the end I was able to get the battery far enough back in the compartment to get within 3/8" inch of the recommended CG. This left it 3/8" nose heavy but I decided to fly it anyway and see what happened. I flew it today for first time. I flew without any trim at all and it flared very well on landing. I really like it and the 16X6 prop seems like a perfect fit for this plane. Point the nose straight up and it climbs forever. I like how you can nose dive, with no throttle, level off and it slows down to a craw out of the dive almost like it has air brakes. Knife edge is effortless. Slows for a landing like a baby.

Rocketman_

I found that moving the battery to the rear of the radio compartment had little effect on the UCD 60's CG.
The bottom of my UCD is balsa, not light plywood. I cut a hatch for the battery in the bottom of the fuselage at the location shown in the pictures. That was the location where the battery had any significant effect on the CG.
The hatch cover is held on with a single wood screw but note that the battery does not rest on the hatch cover.

SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

my exp is only with the 60 sized UCANDO and I have had mine for over 5+ years and its still going strong

good luck with your decision

Sierra11861

Wow, nice job! I have this crazy large heavy battery pack - 2000mAH 6V, I don't think it would fit that far back but I probably would only have to move it to the next rib section aft where I know it would fit in order to get the CG the plans call for. I am very impressed with the way this plane performs, it may be the most fun plane I have flown since I have been in this hobby (20 years). It comes down out of a dive (with no power) pretty fast and I have not noticed any loss of control that everyone warned me about. I guess we will see what happens. Thanks for the pictures, very informative!

nmking09

My Feedback: (61)

Go with a funtana over either of these, flown all extensively and a funtana or the Aeroworks Edge 46-60 will beat any GP 40 size.

Reactor doesn't 3D, period. I don't care what you do to it or what people say, it just doesn't 3D. it isn't designed for it.
UCD doesn't go fast, doesn't KE, and doesn't harrier (well), it does everything else spins etc, and hovers really well, an absolute floater.

My 2c

WiLL-3D

I am sorry but the Reactors can 3D very well too trust me. The only bad things to say about the reactor is the covering and the landing gear which is quickly fixed by putting the landing gear the opposite way, instead of turned backwards, turned to the front, it stops the frontt tipping problems completely and in my opinion it looks better, gives it a angry look, like a pittbull

Jezmo

Yep Will, I'm with ya on this one. Mine does awesome waterfalls, blenders, harriers, flat-spins, knife-edges, rolling harriers, walls, etc. It ain't the best at hovering but will do it. The UCD is just much better at hovering.

opjose

While I like your suggestion about the Funtana, and agree on the observations on the UCD ( though who cares it flies slowly, it's a 3D plane after all..) saying that the Reactor does do 3D is plain wrong.

It does 3D very well thank you.

You DO have to move the C.G. back though.