Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

The Great Planes U-Can-Do-3D is intended for intermediate fliers who want to learn 3D flying or want a back up or practice plane for a giant scale full aerobatic machine. This is definitely a sport flier that assembles easy and is easy to fly. This makes a great third plane or second if you played and are good at a lot of video games (aka good hand eye coordination). My first plane was a GP PT-40 kit which I built myself. The U-Can-Do-3D is my second plane and I thought is was a great flier and found it to land easier than the PT, especially in a cross wind.

As with everything there are pro's and con's to this plane and I'll try document them here as thoroughly as possible as well as indicate where I made modifications and adjustments. My basic set up is as follows;

Radio Gear:

Tx: Futaba 6EXA
Rx: Futaba R127DF
Servos;
-Throttle - 1x Hitec HS-81
-Rudder -- 1x Hitec HS-605BB Throw is 45 degrees
-Elevator- 2x Futaba S3004 Throw is 45 degrees
-Aileron---2x Hitec HS-605BB* Up and down travel is apx 3.5"
Battery: JR 6V 1100

*Was originally Futaba S3004 until they broke teeth.

Power:

Saito .91 on 20/20 Wildcat fuel
14x6 Master airscrew (white tips)

Before getting into the review I'll break it down on a scale of one to ten ten being the best as to what I liked and didn't like about the plane. Overall I'd say I'm turned off by the lack of quality demonstrated by Great Planes on this model but am highly impressed with the models flight capabilities.

Packaging, Assembly and Instructions : 9
Fit and finish :6
Overall flight characteristics :9
Reliability/Durability :3

Packaging, Assembly and Instructions :9

I have read many reviews on RC universe about packaging issues with the U-Can-Do-3D about it showing up with broken wing ribs and fuselage damage, however mine came in pristine condition. Not even a dent in the covering so I can't fault GP for packaging quality on this model. Assembly was also very straight forward, however I took MANY liberties with the hardware. I didn't really like any of the hardware shipped and the only thing I used from the kit was the wire and hardware for the throttle linkage. I installed aluminum control horns on all control surfaces and linked them up to the servos with custom made carbon fiber/titanium rods. I used safety links and ball ends to connect the rods to the servo and control horns. I also used metal hinges instead of the supplied CA hinges, and installed an Ohio RC tail wheel assembly which I modified to fit. I also used Du-Bros pull-pull rudder system which I had to create a servo tray under the plane to mount the servo. I'm a big reliability freak so overkill is in my nature. Even with all of the modifications I was finished building the model in a day and a half. The instructions are up to the hype of GP literature in that it misses nothing. I was quite impressed up to this point.

Fit and Finish :6

The fit of all the components was actually quite good. Nothing required any tweaking or sanding to make fit, it just all went together and lined up well. One gripe I have is that they designed the plane to run a 2 1/4" spinner and nobody makes a spinner that small that fits the props needed to fly this plane. I would have liked to see a 3" spinner or something I could shove my 14x6, 15x6 or 16x4 into. The finish left a lot to be desired though. There was no damage to the covering but it was badly wrinkled under the canopy and along the fuse sides. To this day no amount of ironing or heat gun application has made them disappear. As I mentioned earlier I built my PT-40 and covered it myself and it looks much better and to this day is absolutely wrinkle free. The only part GP did better on the covering than I did was on the edges, but in comparison I'm quite disappointed that the "expert" covering people at GP did such a half @$$ job. The wing was just fine, like it was done by a whole different person. The covering is even peeling off at the edges now on the fuse!

Overall flight characteristics :9

Takeoff:
-With the Saito .91 and 20% fuel this plane will take off of a table top. Lately I have been practicing taking off across the runway, doing a roll and transitioning to a hover. It's such a blast to fly and easy to control. On a roll out take off you only need to give it about 1/3 throttle and let it pull itself into the air, using a little rudder to keep it straight down the runway. For a "scale" take off some down elevator would be necessary to keep it on the deck longer.

Landing:
-Sooooo easy! I wondered why I even had a trainer. This was easier to land since it's much less affected by crosswinds than my 6" dihedral PT-40. Comes down very slow, flares nicely for a perfect three point touchdown. (Trainer war VERY useful for learning how to FLY)

Slow flight and "Scale" speed:
-Forget it, it's too much fun to mess with that stuff. you want scale and slow? Buy a Cub. This thing was meant to ROCK!

Aerobatics:
-Les Pizza dee resistor or whatever the French phrase is. The Saito .91 is a nice match for the plane but wont pull it vertical out of a hover, but it recovers without much loss in altitude so hovers about 15-20 feet off the ground with this setup is safe. I don't have the gomers to go quite that low yet, but I could (really I could ). This plane does most things very well and won't execute only a handful of maneuvers that are common to most long tail moment aircraft. The knife edge is a little tricky as it wants to roll toward the belly. It wont waterfall well as the tail is too long. Does spectacular blenders and walls very well. I even got it to do a knife edge wall and turned it into a hover. Quite nice. Rolls and loops are nice, but I need to adjust the CG back to it will track level while inverted. It even snaps well which IS unusual for a long tail plane. It's nothing like and Extra or Edge but still quite good. With the light wing loading it's very easy to recover from stall maneuvers without losing much altitude.
This plane is fun, fun, fun to fly...

Reliability/Durability: 3 :angry:

...until it breaks. This has been the real sore spot for me and the ultimately the straw that broke the camels back. My final analysis will always rest with Reliability and Durability and the most important factors. What fun is a model if you cant fly it? Lesson 1 about ARF's: Hot glue sucks. This whole plane seems to be glued together with the stuff and I'm debating whether scotch tape would have made a better adhesive. The first problem I had was after about a half dozen flights and all above average landings. While TAXIING back to the pits the landing gear fell off! Hmm, that never happened on the PT-40 I built! Inspection revealed the culprit, hot glue and absolutely no reinforcement. There wan't even much area for the glue to stick to. My repair was to 30 min EPOXY!!! the gear block back in place and EPOXY!!! some tri stock to support it. And for good measure to satisfy my overkill needs, I drilled some holes through the wing dowel plate on the fuse through a truss I EPOXIED!!! in place on the other side of the LG block and EPOXIED!!! some carbon fiber tubing in place. Good to go! Until the next weekend when the right side wing tip broke from flight stress and tore the covering. A wing tip? What's up with that? Glue it up, recover and re-fly. Canopy flew off... I guess the four supplied screws didn't do it. OK, how about 20 screws! Take that!!! Day is done, take the plane apart and I put my thumb through the belly pan under the wing. :boxing: Remove belly pan, reinforce with tri stock, remove covering from under wing where belly pan goes because belly pan came off too easy and EPOXY!!! the whole thing back together. And now finally for something that was MY fault. Left elevator servo comes unplugged in flight. Plane goes in softly. I actually managed to more or less belly flop the plane onto the ground. I was happy to see my landing gear EPOXY!!! job was so good that the weakest point was the block itself which tore apart where the carbon tubing was drilled through. I was unhappy to see the firewall laying on the ground in perfect condition next to a fuse in near perfect condition. Apparently coming apart only because the hot glue sucks and there was absolutely NO reinforcement for the wall. So I made a new landing gear block and gave it the same treatment and EPOXIED!!! it and a U shaped montage of tri stock around the firewall back into place. While I was at it I tri stocked some of the formers and the wing dowel plate on the fuse as well. After all of the repairs and mods, I have successfully flown the plane three straight weekends without something breaking which is a record for me.

Summary :
What to make of this thing. I'm pretty sure I'm done with balsa ARF's My next plane is going to be a composite Giant Scale like an Extra or Edge. If those ARF's don't work then I'm just going to have to build 'em myself. And I'm fine with that. The U-Can-Do-3D is a very fun plane to fly, but I would not recommend it. For $180 and all the mods I put into it I could have paid $199 for a FiberClassics (now composite-arfs.com) Skydancer which is slightly smaller, but is a composite plane (strong and light), painted (no more monocote wrinkles) and comes with much better hardware and a legendary reputation. I may just sell the U-Can-Do-3D and get the Skydancer to replace it, but I'm wanting to convert to all Gas so we'll see. If you have any further questions about the U-Can-Do-3D feel free to email me or PM me. Thanks for taking the time to read my review.

Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

Since my initail review I've made a couple of changes to the UCD.

Change #1: CG adjustment

I moved the battery from near the fuel tank to behind the wing in the fuselage. This moved the CG back to 5.5 inches. I didn't notice a great deal of in flight performance difference. For example, while inverted it still pulled to the deck to the same degree as before. Keep in mind, I had it set to factory spec which was 4 7/8" so it wasn't a major adjustment. The only thing I did notice was that I had to force it out of the air to land (just a little less down elevator to flare). I'll probably work on it some more to get the CG back a bit more.


Change #2: Squared off wing tips

I've read a few posts and talked to a few people about wingtip design and the pro's and con's of the tapered wingtip as opposed to the flat wingtip design. Some people have taken their UCD's and hacked off the wing tips and the last couple of inches of aileron to square off the wingtips. I wanted to do something similar, but did not want to loose any length of control surface or wing surface area. If I wanted to go with a bigger (heavier) motor, more wing would be better than less wing. So, instead of hacking, I added. I broke off all the old wingtip formers and sanded the sides smooth. I then added lenth to the tips and thickened the leading edge of the ailerons to match. So now what I have is a UCD with MORE Wing area AND squared off tips. Still 65" wing span and not apx. 59" like a hacked UCD would be.

And it made a much bigger difference than moving the CG back.

I noticed it tracked through manuevers better, was less affected by cross winds, was easier to knife edge, flew inverted with less down elevator input and made it easier to land. It didn't move through any manuever any faster than it did before and hovering seems about the same. I havnen't experienced any drawbacks to the new wingtip design so for now it gets a . I would recommend this modification to anyone with a UCD that thinks it could perform better.

And it just looks better.

Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

Got the CG back to 6" and still not satisfied. I don't know if its the design but it still wants to pull to the deck inverted, although very slightly. I thought more than an inch of CG adjustment was pretty major but it has had a very minor impact.

I'm thinking of installing a Reese hitch and towing a mobil home behind it to see if that helps.

Thanks for reading and please take the time to take the poll.

CAPtain232

My Feedback: (40)

this has been a really good review CASEY.....keep it up

Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

Thankyou sir.

Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

Tried out the 16x4W on my plane this afternoon. I normaly run a Master Airscrew 14x6 and the 16x4 was a no go. I'm usually at around 2/3 to 3/4 throttle to hover. With the APC I was at full throttle. Didn't work too well. I could tell when running up the engine on the ground that it just didn't have the power the 14x6 had. It didn't pull at my legs that hard. On take off my thoughts were confirmed as it went verticle slowly and ran out of pull at a rather shallow altitude.

The APC 16x4W turns 7800 RPM on the bench.
The MA 14x6 turns 8500 RPM on the bench.

Very easy to hear and feel the difference.

On the plus side, my Tru-turn 2 1/4" spinner fit (with a lot of trimming). I can't get the MA to fit as I can't even get the lock-nut on...not enough threads left over.

I think I'll try a Zinger 14x6 or maybe a 15x6 to see if those will work AND fit in the spinner.

Casey Frost

My Feedback: (1)

The Saito in my UCD decided to take an early retirement and ground itself to death on Saturday.

It looks like it had ingested a foreign object and chewed up the counterbalance and engine casing. It may be saveable, so I'm going to rebuild it and retest it to see if that works.

The reason I'm posting this here is because I'f this were a slowly forming condition then it may have affected my prop tests. I'll retest the props once the motor is fixed. Let's just see if I can get it done before the flying season is over.

Jim Oliver

My Feedback: (1)

THANKS CASEY,
YOUR REVIEW OF THE U-CAN-DO SAVED ME SOME MONEY--I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL FLY REALLY WELL BUT THE LACK OF QUALITY/DURABILITY TAKES IT OUT OF THE PICTURE FOR ME.

pequeajim

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Casey:

I tend to agree with you in every aspect except that I would not have labeled the plane as 3D, (Great Planes I am talking about). It does some of the 3D stuff, but does not torque roll well, tumbling is weak, and the Knife Edge coupling is terrible! Other than that, it is a very enjoyable plane to fly, and it is probably one of the easiest planes to hover that I have ever had.

General Aerobatic flying : 7
All Around 3D Flying : 5

Quality of construction : 5

Jim!

runover1

My Feedback: (10)

Hello Casey,
This is only your second plane. It was my 4th. I have the UCD46 and it is a great flier. I have an OS 46FX in it, but I am sure it would be better with a OS 70 SF. I really enjoy the way it lands. The landing gear seemed pretty decent, until I dead sticked and ran it off the end of the field into weeds. Fixed in no time. I am new to 3D, but my instructor can get it to do a lot more.

no1speshal

My Feedback: (1)

Can you tell me any more about the difference between the UCD that was in the article and the UCD 46? I will have one in about a month (Christmas) and I am very excited about it. Let me know.

Red

runover1

My Feedback: (10)

Marc has a great review on the UCD46. Here is the link: http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=187 Also, there is a great forum on it in the 3d flying thread.

goofy

My Feedback: (4)

I have just finished the build and rebuild of the .46 UCD. I was happy with how the plane went together, packaged, and appeared. Perhaps Great Planes has made some improvements from compliants I have read from earlier reviews, don't know. Very little sanding a trimming to fit. I am still skeptical of the landing gear, and the reviews are right....although the pants are fiber'd they seem like they are going to crack just sitting on my bench be careful and do not install if your going to grass it. The CG was tricky. Assembled with a Saito .72 it still came in tail heavy when all the servos are assembled as shown. After taking it apart and putting it back together several times I got a 5" CG when I changed the throttle servo to a mini, moved it forward and placed the rudder servo in the throttle servo location. I added a rudder pull pull system. This made the rudder MUCH more responsive. When I have been setting my Saito .72 it doesn't feel that it is going to have enough to pull it out of a hover vertically[]. I'm no expert, but I kind of feel the dual elevator servos are a tad overkill. If I would have not glued in my elevators already, I would have connected both elevators and ran them with one servo. This would have helped a bit for the planes weight to power ratio. It looks very nice completed. Can't give any flight characteristics until the wind dies down around here. Good luck. OOh almost forgot! Put the battery in with the fuel tank compartment for the 5" CG.

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

If they would just make a cooler looking canopy I might consider buying one. Looks like someone hit it in the nose. It needs a nose job.