Which one is better out of the two.


It would be my first 3D plane.


I flew the regular yak 55 sd on g3 realflight simulator fine.

well the yak 55 has a 380 and the u can do has a 280

I wouldn't buy either. I've flown them both, and they do not fly very well, and contrary to what you would think, they aren't very durable either. The fuse sometimes rips when it bends, and will need repairs, which just keeps adding weight. They are just a frustrating experience. You'd probably be better off looking at a regular foamy, they fly better, longer, and are more durable.

so would this one be better?

[link]http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXJCC2&P=7[/link]

I agree dont fall for the flight flex gimmick. I have the yak 55 and it dont fly all that great. the foam is very thin and rips very easily on the first impact. The zipper fell apart on me the 2nd time. There is much better planes out there.

I have the Yak - it is one of the worst planes I ever bought.

Wow!
There are so many negative responses.
I had UCanDo 3d flightflex and it was my first plane after 3 years brake, not to mention first "3d" plane.
There is nice tread about UCD 3d here.
It will not do knife edge (at least stock configuration) and maneuvers required force the plane in those directions.
But it will hover, flat spin, wall etc
It is pretty durable, repairs easy.
I flew mine about 150 times and crushed it 145.
At the end it became a little heavier than it was original.
I retired it, because I grew up above this plane.
Bottom line if you are just beginning to learn 3D it is an option - I'd say pretty good one.
If you want good high performance plane that will do any maneuver - you need to find something else.

Pasha.

The plane does rip easily, and I've even had an aileron servo tear out on a landing I'd barely describe as 'hard'. But any repair I've done on the plane has taken 10 minutes at most.

I think Flight-Flex should be called In-Flight-Flex. The fuselage will bend or twist under moderately high rudder or elevator deflection, making most manuevers anything but precise. I flew it about 30 or 40 times before I felt like there were no more new manuevers to try with the plane.

Negatives aside, I did/do have a lot of fun with the plane (Yak). If you think of durability in terms of indestructibility, this plane is not durable at all. But if you think of durability in terms of resilience, it most definitely is. For example, after a wicked nose-in, all I had to do was hot glue the motor mount stick back in, straighten the motor shaft, and hot glue a few tears in the fuselage around the wings, and the plane was nose-up taking off out of my hand 15 minutes after it was nose down into the grass. If the same thing happened to a typical molded foam plane you'd be picking up and sorting through multiple pieces, same with balsa, and repairs would be hours, not minutes.

Because of it's resilience, it's the only plane I have that I'm not afraid to get way down low to the ground and try harrier's and hovers and stuff. Probably why I still have fun with it even though I feel like I've outgrown it.

I agree with thefalcon about his in-flight-flex comment.

I nosed mine in pretty hard also, and broke it in half. I repaired it but why did it nose in? After a couple of subsequant flights I realised that the elevator was flexing in flight! Give it 20 - 30 % up and sometimes it goes up and sometimes it does not. In fact the whole back end of the plane flexes.

I would recommend a different plane - a shock flyer, everyone loves those for 3D, or a [link=http://www.mountainmodels.com]Mountain Models [/link] Tantrum. I have never had a bad MM plane. I have an MM Miniflash and there is no comparison to these Flex planes.

I will say one good thing about the Yak. The DC motor setup kicks. You do not need brushless with this puppy.