Alright I've narrowed my next plane down to 2 different choices, the Harrier 3D 40 or the U-Can-Do 40. I've heard good things of both and just wanted to get some feedback from the people that already have them. All help will be appreciated.


Thanks,
Gavin

I'd go with the U Can Do. I've flown the Harrier and it's okay but I like my Do better. It's easier to see for one thing. Especially this time of year when it's starting to get more overcast days. It's easy to see the checker board bottom. People will say that the landing gear is weak and other stuff about it but that type of stuff has all been worked out and it's a great plane to fly. Jump on over to the U C Do thread and ask around if you need more info. [8D]

I agree with RClement.
I don't have a .40 Do but I do have a .46 Harrier, a ..60/90 Harrier and a 60/.90 U-can-do and I've had a fly of a friends .40 sized U-can-Do. All of these planes fly great but I think that the U-can Do is just a little bit better. Both can be a handful on high rates - it's what makes them great fun

the U-can-Do is certainly easier to see and read. Both planes are flimsy and don't fare well in a crash - welcome to lightweight airframes - they only need to be the minimum weakness to fly - none are strong enough to crash (much)