nashman

I have caught on pretty quick with my avistar and am now planning for my 2nd plane. thought about the 4star 60 arf but nobody has any instock so I thought I might go with the u-can-do 60. Thoughts anyone??

Pilot Chad

My Feedback: (4)

I think you'll do fine with it, long as you go on a buddy box for while. The only thing is that they land incredibly slow...

bubbagates

My Feedback: (32)

Personally the UCD should be more of a third plane. Yes, it flies well and lands very slow but there is much more to it than that. As I have said many times before. What may be easy to fly for one person may not be easy for another. Skills mean everything, especially with a 3D plane

Chad,

Have you flown the UCD yet???

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

nashman,
As an instructor for the last 6 years I have seen a lot of people get into too much plane as a second plane. I know that there are those that are going to come on here and say that the UCD would be a great second plane, but I disagree. Maybe a 3rd plane, but for a second plane you need a plane that is a "step up" from your trainer. That means you want a plane that will do more than your trainer, but still doesn't have bad habits or tendencies. The UCD is designed for one thing, and one thing only, to fly 3D. Which means that it has big control surfaces and can get very wild in a heartbeat. Plus, the UCD's have very tender landing gear which can get ripped out if your landings are a little rough. The Sig 4-star planes and the Goldberg Tiger II's make great 2nd planes. They are very nimble meaning you have plenty of plane to use as your skills get better, but they will tame down and land like your trainer. My advice would be to wait on the UCD.

That's my 2¢ worth

Ken

britbrat

Is this a serious question, or are you just pulling our tails?

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

No disrecspect to our fellow pilots, but I have a lot of experience with U CAN Dos and I say it again, and I know this from personal experience.... that with the elevator deflection set at about 8-10 degrees, the ailerons at about 12-15 degrees and the cg at 4 7/8 the UCD is as, if not more, gentle than any trainer except something like a Kadet Senior. It will fly slower and land as easy as a nexstar or lt 40,, and its all but impossible to stall. I think this holds true for a lot of the fat wing long fuselage 3D/Sport planes like the UCD.

I know this because I have personally witnessed it with new pilots. I've never actually trained anyone with a UCD( I would in a heartbeat if its what the student wanted to learn on a BB with) but I have seen them make the U CAN DO their second plane within weeks of soloing, and love it. It is MORE gentle than a 4 star or a Somethin Extra if setup right. The big surfaces only matter WHEN YOU CRANK UP THE RATES. At low deflection they are insignificant.

Now all of this hinges on the instructor and the pilot. If the instructor is worth their salt and teaches the student to be truly proficient in basic skills, is sure that the trainee has passed the point of getting disoriented when the plane is coming at them and has made SURE that the trainee can takeoff and land competantly (not by the seat of your pants, high five, "Whew you got it down" landings) the U CAN DO will make a fine second, 3rd and 4th plane when the pilot is ready to move on.

Conversely, if you are flying solo,,, and as happens too often,,,,your instructor cut you loose still struggling with orientation, and you typically come to a stop nose down, in the weeds or bounce 15 times before the plane stops as everyone exhales,,,, the U CAN DO may not be good for you.

Mike

WCB

I have to agree with RCKen on this one. The 3D planes are built extremely light and will not stand up to hard landings and being banged around like we all know a second plane is going to get. Granted they can be very docile with the throws tamed down. I would advise something a little sturdier as a second plane.

tukkus

My Feedback: (2)

I agree with BigNed because i went from a H9 Alfa trainer to a UCD .46 with a Saito .82 and i had no problems...broken landing gear yea but it's a easy fix and most of them are from trying to do harrier landings. I wish i had the opportunity to learn on the UCD instead of the trainer. Like BigNed said with the proper setup and a good instructor it can be a easy transition and nothing to be scared of.

If you feel like growing into a plane instead of growing out of one then i think the UCD is a good choice.

plane_freek

I just came off my LT-40 to a Goldberg Tiger 2, i only have one thing to say, BUY IT!!! They are really nice planes too fly, they are a bit quik, but its easy to get used to. Today was my first flight on it and i was doing loops, rolls, cuban 8's.....a fun plane to fly


P.S. im only 14!!!! here's my babies!

Pilot Chad

My Feedback: (4)

Bubba, Just going by what many people at my club have told me.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

I will concede 1 thing. The UCD Landing gear sucks.

I finally remedied that with some epoxy and drywall screws at the time of initial assembly. Just put 2 screws through the former near the dowel pins and into the gear block. I actually put two there and one on each side after I peel away the monokote, then just slightly countersink the screws and put the covering back down.

That probably destroys any reputability I might have but if done right its clean, and the landing gear will never and I mean NEVER come off. May add an ounce of weight but its negligable.

britbrat

BigNed -- what you say may be true but it is not necesarily what will happen -- You are looking at it from the perspective of an experienced pilot, we are talking about beginners here. They won't turn the throws down -- they dont know any better, so they will follow the manufacturers recommendations -- one big hole in the ground comming up.

They won't stay off the throttle -- they don't know any better. Within a few flights their lovely bird will have fluttered itself to pieces.

They don't have the skills to land it like a feather & it will get bashed hard enought to shatter its delicate structure

All in all not a good idea for a 2nd plane

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

nashman, I love the UCDs, I've had 6. I think they are great planes and they instill so much confidence that I try to do too much with them. For a second plane I would go with an Ultra Stick 60 with a Saito 100 on it. That is a great plane as well and is also a favorite of mine. You will NEVER get tired of it. It's the kind of plane you'll want always. It's kinda like a Jeep. It'll do anything even pretty wild 3D although it's no where near the UCD. But with the 100 on it you'll love it. Put the srevos in the tail, lenghten the throws and WOW. It's a cool airplane. Lands as easy as a trainer and much tougher than the UCD. Then if you want to retire it you can through that nice Saito in the UCD. It's cool.
Thanks,
BArry

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

You must've missed this part of my earlier post..

A good I repeatGOOD instructor wont let a trainee off of the box until they understand all of the KEY attributes of good flight control. Brit you are probably right, many "instructors" are in a hurry to get a pilot off the buddy box and their "pilots" come off the buddy box half cocked. In those cases it doesnt matter if its a firebird, trainer, UCD or whatever, they are going to crash learning to fly.

As far as a second plane its no worse than a 4 star, somethin extra or any of the other old school second planes. Those are great planes too by the way, but in the hands of a half trained or untrained newbie.... all are destined to return to kit form in short order.

bruce88123

In some ways I must agree with BigNed about having competent instructors or no instructors. Case in point would be the trail of destruction (un-named pilot) has left and continues to leave behind him. He never received proper training and was turned loose without the basics and continues to pay for it. This is one reason for a solid built airplane such as a Tiger II which can stand up to some abuse while a pilot finishes up learning. We all have gone thru stages where we wanted to go faster than our skills permitted and paid for it. You don't turn a student driver loose with a Ferrari and just tell him to use first gear only.

Edited to remove name.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

I gotta agree with Mike too. If the newbie isn't ready, he's going to trash an "old school" second plane just as quickly as a UCD.

Well, perhaps not AS quickly, since the UCD is pretty darn fragile. But I certainly was impressed with the flying qualities of mine, and my grandson flew it for many flights before he graduated from his trainer with absolutely no drama.

I guess the key to all of this is the experience level. If nashman is giving himself too much credit (IOW, he's not as good as he thinks he is ), then no, a UCD wouldn't be such a great idea.

BUT... if he is past the occasional disorientation phase and can fly competently, why not a UCD?

Nashman, only you can decide this. All the advice given in this thread is valid, with your best interests in mind. As long as you realize that the UCD is a fragile airframe (due to its light construction) and will NOT tolerate any abuse, and as long as you realize you need to stay on low rates and NOT fly it at full throttle, then I believe the UCD will be a splendid second airplane for you.

Just read again -and again- what britbrat wrote. Newbies tend to get over-confident, and this almost always leads to trying things they're not ready for, with resulting disaster. Don't fall into that trap.

Let us know what you decide, and how it went...[&:]

britbrat

The new 2nd-plane pilot should also consider the relative costs involved. A U-CAN-DO, in addition to being a questionable 2nd plane choice, is significantly more costly than most of the more conventional "second model" birds. I don't think that it is in the inexperienced pilot's best interest for us to encourage him/her into getting a handfull of expensive model that has a good chance of becomming spare parts in a hurry.

Our own enthusiasms for any particular model (I like the U-CAN-DO a lot) shouldn't color our thinking when making a recommendation to inexperienced pilots. We can't help looking at models from the point of view of being accomplished fliers -- of course it's easy to fly when you don't even have to think about flying. We lose sight of how easy it is for a new pilot to get in over his head, without the tools & presence of mind to make a save. We don't do them any favours at all by talking them into high performance planes too soon -- and they are easily lead by their own desire to have a new set of hot wings. Basically, they are sitting ducks for mis-guidance.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry Brit, I very respectfully disagree one this one[]. Thats ok, I am comfortable with disagreeing doesnt mean we have to dislike.

It just that I know from experience on this subject that this one works and works well.. To be honest as I get better, I dont like the U CAN DO that much for 3D, its a great plane for learning basics and as a getle flyer when handled properly, but it really stinks if you want to do anything with any relative precision.

On this subject, I guy I trained, Bryan,, built a 4 star as his second plane and although I had fun with it he found it difficult to fly,, yet he could fly my U CAN DO or his Cessna 180 (an unforgiving plane which he learned with by the way) with ease. Come to find out he had set the deflections too high and it was very sensitive and almost impossible for him to fly. We cranked the rates down and it was a *****cat for him from that point on. It was way worse than a UCD on middle rate settings I can assure you

Also to be honest you speak of my experience, but to be honest I am relatively new to the hobby but have been fortuante to become pretty accomplished very quickly. For a 37 year old I progessed very rapidly, so I can relate the the difficulties a new pilot experiences from my recent memories. I will celebrate my second birthday this go round ( I flew a little in my late teens and early twenties) as a pilot in August. I have gone from a Kadet Senior to a U CAN DOx2,( I wore 2 out in 1 year then gave both away to friends in the club) to pattern planes and several different gas 3D planes of various sizes. I have trained I dont know how many pilots in the last 1.5 years and all are safe, successful pilots. I now compete in pattern at the Masters level and I do pretty darn ok, and I can fly 3D with anyone,,, well almost anyone[8D]. My pride and joys right now are a 37% Ultimate and a handbuilt custom made pattern plane. So it really depends on how you want to classify experience.

This probably sounds way too cocky but I really dont mean it to be..My point is, perhaps you are right, I learned so fast and became so proficient in such a short period of time that I dont relate to the average pilots learning curve. However, I do know that the guys that I have trained have all had great success and none that I know of have crashed significantly yet. 2 of them flew U CAN Dos within weeks of soloing and have had great success with them. They all but one or two got bored of trainers and now fly scale areobats or sport planes or something.

It all depends on the quality of training, the instructors ability to identify and help overcome problem areas and how good the instructor is at judging when a pilot is ready.

britbrat

Disagreement is often a good thing -- it makes you think -- I wouldn't dream of disliking someone for disagreeing with me, 'cause sometimes I'm wrong & I need to get back on track.

I think that we will probably stay in disagreement in this case, but that's OK with me. [8D]

I'm pleased for you in your rate of progress & your personal skills.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Normally I track with your thoughts, britbrat; and in truth, what you say probably applies to the majority of newbies. But youngsters these days have a lot more snap than we sometimes give them credit for. The increased reliability of our equipment means that the slow, painful learning curve we had to go through can be circumvented somewhat. I have seen this numerous times, including my grandson. His experience with video and computer games saw him flying competently by the second tank on the LT-40; the only times he got in trouble was while he was learning orientations. Once he knew what to look for, he flew like an old hand. It was rather humbling, especially when I thought about how long it took me to become comfortable on the sticks...


I just did a quick price check:

1. UCD 60.....$180
2. UCD 46.....$150
3. Tiger II..... $160
4. 4 Star 40.....$150
5. 4 Star 60.....$209

So I don't see your price argument. The UCD 60 is $20 more than a Tiger, and $30 more than a 4 Star- both of which are benchmark "second planes". All of these are top-quality ARFs; yes, he could get a VMAR or some other sub-standard offering for less; but why would he want to???

Is $20-$30 "significant"? Not to me. I assume nashman knows how much the costs are.

My enthusiasm for the model (which is lukewarm, at best) isn't coloring my thinking. The fact that the airplane flies so well, in so many different aspects, does color my thinking. I think we (Ned and I, anyway) have written enough "warnings" to nashman; we're not advising him to blindly jump out there and get after it.

britbrat

Like I said -- I can be wrong. [&o] My pricing comes from Canada, where that U-CAN-DO is a bit more expensive. I'll accept that it flies easily enough, but I still think that it is a very fragile airframe, & mishaldling in the air (too much speed) & on landing will kill it. [:@]

Maybe I'm out of touch on this one []

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

It IS a very fragile airframe; which is why I mentioned it a couple of times.

And I think you're missing my point.

Would I reccommend a UCD, out of the blue, as a second plane? Nope- at least, not as a first choice. But nashman asked specifically about it. I told him what I told a newcomer here a while back who asked the same question; "Yes, you can handle it. But be aware of its specific idiosyncrasies."

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

Let's keep something else in mind, as well. (since nashman hasn't returned, I think perhaps britbrat was right to ask if this was a joke...but this thread raises an interesting issue I've noted recently, so I'll toss out my $0.02 for you guys to make fun of. )

Despite the reluctance of some (and I do not mean to suggest anyone in this thread...just the general 'they' that seem to populate most airfields) to admit it, there ARE those of us running around who simply EXPECT an aircraft to be much quicker/more responsive than your average trainer or even average 2nd plane.

My second was an ElectroStreak ARF...it taught me more, and gave me more valuable experience (and confidence) than the Telemaster EVER did. my 3rd is a SuperStick...again, same results.

How twitchy are they? Twitchy enough that several of my club's 'old men', all with > 10 years experience, simply don't like flying them because they're 'too jumpy'. In fact, I recently sold the ElectroStreak to a club member who is far more experienced than I and, imo, is a much better pilot. His immediate action? He turned the rates down about 40%

In fact, even now that I can sling the stick all over the sky with great comfort, I STILL can't get comfortable flying the Telemaster, or the ElectroStreak on low rates...they just don't do what my brain thinks an 'airplane' should do.

Now, please understand...I'm not suggesting I'm a 'better pilot' than others, or anything of the sort. I am CLEARLY still a newbie, with truckloads to learn, and hundreds of skills left to master.

I've simply begun to realize that the plane-brain connection as my LHS owner calls it matters a great deal....and that some folks really ARE more comfortable with quick and responsive planes than they are with slower, gentler aircraft. In my case, maybe it's because I grew up around fighter jets and their pilots. THOSE planes always seemed to be hyper-responsive, so my little 6 yr old brain probably presumed ALL planes should be. At this point, I'm likely too stuborn and set in my ways to ever accept an alternative.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Good point; where IS Nashman? Here we've been cussing & discussing the pros & cons of his question, trying to help him out, and... nada.

Give us some feedback, guy. I'd hate to think that we have been evacuating into the breeze...

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

GB, strangely enough, I trained on an Electrostreak kit converted to glow with a .15la. After that I bought a trainer (it was cheap) and it seemed to fall out of the sky. I hated it. Four years later, I have another E-streak kit on my workbench. Yep, a .15la is there too! (might even be the same one) Your point is valid and well said. To boil it down- everyone is different. I did better when they went where I pointed.