mmattockx

I know the UCD series has no following on this forum and is not thought very highly of at all. I am wondering why? Is it the flying characteristics that aren't that great? Crappy build quality? What?

Mark

evan-RCU

I am in the minority and get laughed at but I LOVE the U-Can-Do, I'm on my 4th one, all .46. The first was one of the very first one's years ago and I started with a OS.46 in it, not enough power. Then I put a old ST.75 in it and wasn't happy with the way the motor ran so I bought a Saito .91, bingo, perfect. It flew so well my son learned to fly basic flight on it. His first few flight were on a Quaker then he moved to the UCD. The First one after a very easy landing ripped out the landing gear block. Tower replaced it, didn't even ask them too but while ordering a replacement the said send it back. I cut the stabs off put it in the box and they sent me a new one. The second one got fiberglass over the gear block and firewall to beef it up. First flight I was banging it around hard and the battery came loose, oops... #3 was retired after functional failure of the fuselage following a mishap caused by turbulence, honest it wasn't me... I still fly #4 regularly and it's now 3 years old I think.

I have a lot of mixing in it and love the tight loops, quick rolls, and high alpha stuff. I will admit it does not do everything great(no airplane does) but it does what I do with my competition fun flys and if it crashes $125 buys a new one.

mmattockx

Thanks, Evan. I have been thinking of drawing a set of plans and scratchbuilding one more as a sport/pattern model for close and slow flying and was wondering why they get sneered at here. I agree, the 46 size is way too big for a 45 size engine, it is more like a 60 size to me. If I could stand ARF's, I would buy the 60 size and put a ST90 in it, but I have some inner need to build my own planes before I crash them...[&:]

Mark

AKFireMedic

My Feedback: (2)

I have 1 and I also fly profiles. A properly designed profile from 1 of the top companies ( Swany's House, OMP, etc.) will fly circles around the UCD. It is a GREAT slow flying sport aerobatic airplane. Easy to land, flies inverted as well as right side up, good rolls, loops etc. When you start trying to do any type of pattern or hard core 3D you will fight the design. It doesn't knife edge well, doesn't harrier well and doesn't track very well just to name a few. I really like mine but it is more of a lazy flier than a hardcore pattern or 3d machine. Mine has a Saito 82 and flies great with it with tons of vertical power.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

Ditto on what AKFireMedic said.

A UCD 60 with a ST 90 was my first "real" 3D plane. The UCD 60 works great for hovering, torque rolling, harrier rolling, blenders, KE spins, and inverted flat spins. But in harrier flight it pretty much sucks due to severe wing rocking tendencies, and knife edge has serious pitch and roll coupling. Since harriers and knife edge are some of the fundamental 3D manuevers, the UCD 60 is a handicapped 3D plane right from the start.

I still have my old UCD 60, but it's pretty much been gathering dust since discovering how much better profiles are at 3D flying. Once you've flown a Mojo 60 or a Katana 70, the appeal of a UCD 60 quickly fades away.

mmattockx

Thanks for the info, guys. That is what I wanted to know about the UCD. I find it surprising about the pitch and roll coupling with rudder, but if it does, it does.

BTW, I have a Mojo 40 on the building table right now, so I do appreciate a good 3D machine, but I was looking for something different from this one.

Thanks,
Mark

AKFireMedic

My Feedback: (2)

If you are specifically looking for a UCD style plane, look into the Sig Mayhem. I only have experience with the larger of the two versions but it is a much cleaner flying plane than the UCD and has many of the same attributes such as the slow flight, good landing etc. It is still no profile though.

piroflip2

there are two UCD60s at my club in England.
Mine (120AX) has a very small amount of K/E mixing and my friends (OS90FX) has none.
They K/E and K/E loop all day with no issues. I have put myself in the target zone by stating this on RCU before but anyone
with large coupling problems with their UCD does not have it set up correctly.

evan-RCU

I agree. Also as I said I fly this in place of my competition fun flys which aren't known for their 3D, K.E., etc either... Also I have the .46 size which may be different than the .60.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

Please enlighten me on the proper setup of a UCD 60 for hard core 3D flying.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

Please enlighten me on the proper setup of a UCD 60 for hard core 3D flying.




[/quote]

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

[sm=thumbup.gif] You're going to LOVE your Mojo!!! I bought this one from Snap It last fall and finally flew it last weekend. Power is a Webra 50 with APC 12X4, 821 Digitals on all flying surfaces. Vertical performance is ballistic, yet in can slow down to a crawl in harrier - looks like it should fall out of the sky, but it doesn't because it is so light. The lightness is the reason for all the hype about profiles like the Mojo... Mine came out at 4 lbs 2 oz, and I didn't even try hard. I have a 1200 6V Nimh batt, standard RX and a HS85 on throttle. If I had used lighter servo's, RX, and battery, I could have easily been under 4 lbs., but I am very happy with it the way it is. The performance is amazing.

evan-RCU

[/quote]


Dave just because someone doesn't agree with you 100% is no reason to go jumping on them... What you find a flaw in design might be something others are willing to live with. There are those of us that like the UCD, obvious there are those that don't, it's that simple.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

I just noticed the duplicate post. Not sure how that happened, but it was an accident.

The intent wasn't to jump on Piroflip2, and I apologize if the duplicate post made it appear that way.

Mmattockx wanted to know why the profile enthusiasts don't like the UCD series. I felt that AKFireMedic pretty much hit the nail on the head based on my experiences with four different UCD 60s. I flew a UCD 46 once, but not really enough to wring it out. So I limited my post to the UCD 60.

I really am curious about what Piroflip2 is doing different from me to eliminate the severe pitch and roll coupling from a UCD 60 that's setup for hard core 3D.

mmattockx

I am curious as well. A lot of pitch issues can be trimmed out between CofG location and wing incidence adjustments, but roll couple does not respond to much that I know of (short of dihedral changes, that is).

Mark

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

DING! DING! DING!
Give this man a cigar!

When the CG is pushed far enough forward on a UCD 60 to minimize the pitch coupling during normal knife edge flight, the plane becomes way too nose heavy for hard core 3D. At that point it's only good for hovering and normal knife edge, but high alpha knife edge will still have pitch coupling problems.

Not sure about the UCD 46, but the wing on the UCD 60 is flat.......as in zero dihedral. Since the UCD 60 is a low wing plane, this creates adverse roll coupling issues that causes the plane to roll the opposite of the rudder input. (left rudder = right roll.....right rudder = left roll) Adding the correct amount of dihedral could cure it. Upswept wingtips might fix it too. Mixing out the roll coupling with a computer transmitter can be done fairly well at normal flying speeds, but those mix settings aren't correct at higher rudder deflections.

AKFireMedic

My Feedback: (2)

I don't have a 60 but from what I can tell the 46 is designed the same. The 60 is just scaled up. My wing has 0* dihedral and the plane does roll couple pretty bad. It also pitch couples and I have it trimmed as neutral as possible with no down stick needed for inverted flight. I have heard that people set their UCD's up to 3D well also. I can't do it, and I've never actually seen 1 that was but I hear it is possible. If someone could give me some tips I'd gladly try them on mine.

rclement

My Feedback: (1)

Mark, If you want to build a plane that does really good 3D stuff then by all means get a Mojo. I haven't built one or even flown one but from the threads here I read there's nothing but raves about them. The Do's are really fun planes though if you happen to get one or get to fly one. They are definately not great at 3D but sure a lot of fun to fly. They do need some simple mods to set them up right and the reason that Great Planes states putting such wimpy engines on them is that they aren't made for speed and will come apart with too much speed. One of the guys at the field had a 46 Do with an AX 55 on it and shreaded his Do by zipping it around like it was a race plane. [X(]

mmattockx

Got one framed on the board right now, just waiting for work to slow down to finish it and get the covering on. With the UCD, I was looking for more of a sport/pattern type of plane that can be flown in slow and close. No 3D required. I think what I want is an OMP Fusion and will likely be ordering one next week. I would prefer a full fuse over a slab, but if it flies like I want I can get over that...

Mark

rclement

My Feedback: (1)

I've had 4 U Can Do's and several profiles and have to say that they are better flyers than the Do's are. The Do's are just great fun fly planes. These two profiles are my favorites now.

MIXMASTER

My Feedback: (15)

My last Do (.60) is my 5th one, I used a little rudd-ail mix for roll coupling, wasnt perfect but the thumbs could handle it from there.As for the KE & pitch coupling, my thumbs could handle that too, once you get used to it, you stay ahead of it. I liked my Do as well, took some flak at my local club for it,now that I have some 50cc's & a Fusion, they asked me to bring the Do & burn it in our next campfire!!!
It's still flying but the Fusion does almost everything better, less work at it, better thrust/weight. However, with some mixing(magic & mirrors,smoke to some)you can do true square loops, inverted flat turns very low, very slow HE KE, & some are doing rising inverted flat spins, not bad for $150 bucks on sale. And like one guy said-some dont mind "tinkering" around to see what they can make of it.