RE: engine selection???
 

Please check the posts again Chuck. He was correct, I have flown a mid wing plane. I have at my disposal a GP 60 Ugly Stik ARF belonging to a friend. And yes, the Senior is mine and it is my first, but through the year I have been flying r/c I have flown others.

I'm sorry, and probably due to ignorance since I have not posted before to include all the information. Having said that, my original question was directed at the engine controversy and not my ability as an r/c pilot. I did however, ask about a 2nd plane and I guess that is where the added "which plane"controversy reared it's head. I thank you for your post.

Now to everybody. I will, if you care, share what my decision is. Based on posts by bkdavy and daboosailing I will go with the .61 in the Ultimate. If they are wrong I will be the only one suffering the consequences. If it works great. If I fail then I will post a note describing that failure. I really don't believe a safety issue is at stake here only a performance one. I thank you all for your opinions I'm sure they come from a desire to help and instruct. ;)

RE: engine selection???
 

Stick with the .61 and throw a 12-4 prop on it and there is your extra thrust. If you have a relaxed flying style and are careful, the ultimate bipe will fly fine with the OS .61. Keep the rates on your radio LOW. I flew this motor in a Super Stick ARF and it was missle.[X(] My friend I was teaching thought it would be a good second plane. It turned out to be more than he could handle on his own and it still is not rebuilt.[:o]

I would recommend the Lanier Dart/ARF. I had one set up as a tail dragger and would do all the basic and not-so-basic aerobatics with a Super Tigre .61 and 12-6 MA prop and it was cheap! I think you can still get them for 59 bucks. They have semi-semetrical airfoil and are low wing and they will fly well slow or fast, whichever you prefer.

RE: engine selection???
 

So sorry, I missed the comment that you've got 3 flights on an Ugly stick. Best of luck with the Ultimate. I suggest asking someone with more experience to help you, and possibly even have them take it up and then give it to you on a buddy box. If you thought the Ugly Stick was "a lot of plane over what I'm used to", the Ultimate is going to kick it up a few more notches.

RE: engine selection???
 

Thanks Chuck, good advice I'll do that.

RE: engine selection???
 

I almost always go small on the engine. And folks are always asking what I have on that bird. ( they perform well ) Going small has its advantages. For one thing, the taste of the airframe isn't overpowered by the characteristics of the engine. To me thats the big reason. But prop clearance, run time, wieght, less vibration, less reinforement because less vibration, and smoothness all resutlt from going small.
I ordered a CG Ultimate once, it was damaged in shipping. The company and I had it out. I didn't order a replacement after I shoved it down thier throat with the help of the good folks at Visa . However, at the time, I was in the same predicament. A 60 or a 90. After seeing the plane and handling it, but never actually flying one, I was leaning towards the 90. The 90 is the same size, and I believe it weighs slightly less. They do shake more. But the Ultimate is one of those birds that really shines with a big engine. I don't do 3D. But vertical is vertical. And an Ultimate can't have too much of that.
So, what am I saying ? You have zigged where others have zagged. Thats not a bad thing. You might fly your plane slightly differently than others might with a 90. An entirely new style of flying might be revealed to you that you might have otherwise not stumbled upon. Its Zen and the Art of Aircraft Maintanence. Live it your way and fly it your way.

RE: engine selection???
 

Papa John,

You have a bunch of advice above to sift through. It’s all basically good. A lot depends on you. Here are some thoughts that might help you find where you’re at.

The Ultimate, if set up for gentle response and good stability, is actually a relatively honest and predictable flying plane compared to other highly aerobatic designs. Setup (CG and Control throws) has a huge effect on fly-ability.

Finished weight has a big effect too. I have seen the kits finished under 7 lb and fly nicely with a .60 for sporting around. I don’t know what the ARF finishes out at but probably higher? Since it is very capable of precision aerobatics, the 90 is probably more appropriate to the “personality” of the design, especially if weight is up.

The Ultimate can be less forgiving than a typical low wing sport plane, especially regarding the setup and rigged. Minor adjustments are more critical on this type of plane. Good experience with the finer points is more important.

A big thing to consider is that its structure won’t take as much beating as a typical low wing sport ARF will. Hard landings, running off the runway, dead-sticking in short or long, and such, might tear it up pretty fast. Any rebuilding when needed will be more involved.

For these reasons the Ultimate is more like a third plane than a second. Although you might be able to start flying it, you might not have the background to make it last long just yet. You might consider something more simple and robust like the old Kaos for example to move up to next (I believe the 40 size is available as an ARF). Planes like this are plenty aerobatic, great experience, and survive rough treatment well, especially regarding the landing gear.

But if you really want teh Ultimate next, it can be done. Just get some good experienced help to check you out and get you going with it.

Hope this helps.

Multiflyer