am starting a thread on this glider mainly to have an index, as the other 2 dont, and it will make life easier to all.
https://www.banggood.com/Unique-Mode...r_warehouse=CN
there are 2 threads already:
this is the 1st: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...pan-EPO-Glider
shortly after that came this: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...-Glider-Review
both provide a great number of comments that help to build and fly it, but are scatered all over and are hard to find. lots of time browsing...
i also have a thread at my blog.
as i said, my purpose is to have at the start, an index so anybody will have the most common doubts answered.
so, if any1 has any contribution please bring it. polite, positive an to the point.

the beginning: when i saw this plane for the 1st time, i was impressed with the proportions: wings like the 1s with great performance: long, narrow; but the fuselage is way longer than all the others that i have seen. and the lines are so elegant!
a longer fuse means more stability, and a longer nose also helps to balance without the need to add unnecessary weight.

conclusions:
1-performance: the plane is an excellent flyer; stays up seemingly forever.
2-needs to be handled with care. it is not as sturdy as a radian 2 meters, for instance.
3-there is not much room for the components.
4-needs some improvements. particularly the prop/spinner/hub (see post 5). and the mounting of the wing (see post 4)

1-glue: post 3
2-short screws to hold wing to fuselage: post 4
3-propeller blades/hub/spinner: post 5
4-decalage-post 10
5-ailerons-post 11
6-tapping the mount-post 12
7-shaft for a motor-search at hobby king:
a-2 mm: Turnigy EasyMatch Park250 Series - Replacement Shaft
b-3mm: NTM Prop Drive 2826 Series Replacement Shaft
8-low voltage alarm-post 13
9-joining wing halves-post 14
10-ailerons or not: post 15
11-servos at tail-post 16

glue
to get started: uhu por for gluing tubings to wing-and tail to boom. also servos. whatever.
i am guessing that the glue that comes-or came-with the pnp version is something like uhu por, that does not melt-or does any harm- to the wings foam.
as i have some, will use it on my pnp version whenever it arrives.
my experience with goop was no good, as it melts the foam. the funny thing is that i tried before in the fuselage. rubbed some at the inside and did nothing wrong
perhaps the foam of the fuselage is different, even if looks the same. and the plane is advertized as epo foam.
from the ad: https://www.banggood.com/Unique-Mode...r_warehouse=CN
"General
Brand Name: Unique Models
Item Name: U-Glider
Material: EPO "
maybe not all epos are the same after all...
you can find uhu por here: https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s....0.WZvm4GId-Uw

if the plane comes with short screws to hold the wing to the fuselage, as happened to me, and if there are suppliers at the place where the customer lives, he can shop around for screws same type just longer. i think it is absolutely necessary to do.
as i didnt have longer screws, and with the weather as is here, i went the easiest way i could and used the long 30 mm for the rear (trimmed to size), so i only had to work on the front.
with the front i tapped the wing post saddle to m4 and them trimmed to lenght (about 36 mm), but i wonder what many that dont have access to taps and the like could do. the plane should have the screws of the necessary lenght and not place customers in this unexpected predicament. 1 of my screws had only 3 mm to grab, and the other nothing. if this happens to others (unless now they corrected this and are including longer screws) customers will be unable to fly and it is frustrating. and if we consider that the plane is an exceptional design that is able to perform as the best, having to face this for 2 screws is a ridiculous thing.
in case some1 needs details on how to do this, see post 12.

the stock prop seems fine, but doesnt fold completely. is all plastic (including the hub), and doesnt look very strong to me, so i ordered a hub/spinner and several blades from radical. they are very good quality and fit great. lightweight too. aluminum hub/spinner. no vibrations. well balanced.
http://www.radicalrc.com/category/Sp...ke-Folding-289
i ordered 1 spinner/hub for 2 mm shaft, to fit this motor. and blades 6/3 and 8/4.

Originally Posted by phil alvirez

the stock prop seems fine, but doesnt fold completely. is all plastic, and doesnt look very strong to me, so i ordered a hub/spinner and several blades from radical. they are very good quality and fit great. lightweight too. aluminum hub/spinner. no vibrations. well balanced.
http://www.radicalrc.com/category/Sp...ke-Folding-289
i ordered 1 spinner/hub for 2 mm shaft, to fit this motor. and blades 6/3 and 8/4.

Hi thanks for this info. Could you specify which one you ordered?

33mm x 2.0 Shaft x 6mm or 30mm x 2.0 Shaft x 6mm ?

And which blades too? Than you.

Item-103058 RRCAPSH30X20X6 Aluminum Spinner Folding Prop Hub 30mm x 2.0 Shaft x 6mm Yoke
$14.00
Item-103126 RRCFP8x4.5x6Y Radical RC Folding Prop Blade set 8x4.5, 6mm Yoke × 1
$5.00
Item-103127 RRCFP6x3x6Y Radical RC Folding Prop Blade set 6x3, 6mm Yoke × 1
$4.50
i ordered the 8" for testing too.
you may order another 7" prop (blades) for testing.

i also ordered a spinner for 3 mm shaft motors. same blades fit:

Item-103054 RRCAPSH30X30X6 Aluminum Spinner Folding Prop Hub 30mm x 3.0 Shaft x 6mm Yoke
$14.00
great quality products and 1st class service.

Thanks phil. I just ordered the same 6x3 blade and spinner for 2mm. I think I will stick with my stock motor at this moment until it fails. If so, I will then switch to 3mm shaft.

it is important to understand the concept of decalage. the word is french, and applied originally to the difference in angle of attack between the upper and lower wings of a biplane.
later, it became common to use for monoplanes (1 wing only). here it means the angular difference between the wing's angle of attack, and the horizontal tail's angle of attack (meaning the stabilizer). no matter at what angle they sit on the fuselage: what matters is how they are related to each other.
if an airplane porpoises, no matter what changes you make to the elevator trim, then is time to change the decalage. with a plane on which the wing seats on top of the fuselage (like this 1), the easiest way is shimming the wing leading or trailing edge. if the plane needs more decalage, raising the leading edge. or viceversa.no need to unglue the stabilizer and shim it.
on a foamie on which the wing is inserted at the center of the fuselage (an example: radian), if the plane's fuselage is twisted, then it may be necessary to remove the stabilizer and change its angle of attack. if the wing sits on top, you dont need to do so.
radian: https://www.horizonhobby.com/product...-basic-efl4750
from wiki: Decalage angle can also refer to the difference in angle of the chord line of the wing and the chord line of the horizontal stabilizer. This is different from the angle of incidence, which refers to the angle of the wing chord to the longitudinal axis of the fuselage, without reference to the horizontal stabilizer.

please notice that the following applies only if you are going into thermaling. otherwise disregard it.

now that i have the plane i was able to check dihedral: 4" (10 cm) each tip. it seems a lot for a plane with ailerons. seems more for rudder only instead.
anyway, as i already glued the 2 halves together, and have ailerons, will try and see how it behaves.
perhaps the designer was considering that the builder had the choice
nevertheless, i found some data on the issue of ailerons and dihedral that some may find interesting, and the source could not be better:
http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articl...rmalFlying.htm
it makes it clear that to make good use of ailerons, a plane has to have less dihedral than 1 without.
this means to me that, whenever i get the pnp, will build the wing with less dihedral and ailerons and then compare.
if the 1 with more dihedral does not performs as well as the other, will remove the servos/wires and seal the ailerons and use rudder exclusively.
but that, my dear friends, will have to wait until old man winter goes away...probably 4 months....
>>>july 14: an update: just was able to test it without ailerons. see post 15

1-if you cant find the long 1 locally, hobby king has it: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/metal-ro...10pcs-set.html
2-this is how i did it: to fit it you need a tap same size, or to make a tap with 1 of them, grinding it conical with a moto-tool. the idea is to taper 3 sides flat so the cross section looks like a triangle when seeing it from the end. cut the head off so you can hold it with a tap wrench
https://www.google.ca/search?q=tool+...TaiFxL_VaGpfM: or a drill, then you push it turning it slowly back and forth as if you were screwing it in the plastic mount where it is going to fit. if you have tapped before, you know what am telling you. you have to unscrew the mount to to this. once you are able to run it to the end, another screw will fit right.
if it is too long, you have to trim it to lenght. install the mount and assemble the wing in place and see how much the screw protrudes: that is the lenght you have to grind off. the screw has to barely touch the square cross section carbon fiber boom. in case you dont have experience doing this, here is a link to videos on how to tap:

How To: Tapping Screw Threads (2 min 45 sec)

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s....0.Xcl1OND9F1s
practice with a piece of wood before so you dont damage the mount.
but all of this could be avoided if only the manufacturer provided screws of the right lenght!

low volts in flight
in case you are not sure how much longer your plane still can stay up safely, hobby king markets this:
Quanum Pocket Vibration Telemetry Voltage Meter With Alarm (about $20).
and it goes with any radio: its independent. and it plugs on the charging plug.
check links below.
the good thing is that is post stamp size and weighs 4 grams, so fits anywhere.
and its independent-it goes with any radio.
so you dont loose a model due to reaching low voltage.
i cant fly without it.
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s....0.yRrXPQxghRE

from post 743/page 50 of the thread:
2 wing halves
even if at this crash the wing didnt split in half at the middle, nelicopter's did, so am joining mine another way:
the cf tubings take a 1/16" piano wire inside, so am running a 4" piece bent to fit the dihedral, 2" in each side for both tubings. epoxy. this will never break. and of course the halves will be epoxied together. see: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...-Glider-Review
see post 7, pic 4, that shows the break.

>>>july 14: ailerons-or not
just changed to no-ailerons and flew it.
1- saved 20 grams. now the auw is 345.
2- way easier to install the wing without those cables and connectors trying to fit them in a very small space. this is no unimportant thing. it has made the plane way more desirable for me.
3-get ready: the plane flies faster!
but havent mentioned that sealed the ailerons gap with tape. could be this the reason?
it is the only change besides reducing weight 20 grams.
but reducing weight wouldnt make the plane fly slower, isnt it?
anyway, i like it better
now, you dont have to believe me. no need to argue. i understand. perhaps if some1 tells me this i wouldnt either.
but it is what i got.
and ailerons didnt help me in any way, so i think the plane should be flown without them.
and the dihedral is what should be for a plane without ailerons.
anyway, am happy with the way it flies now.
and i have the servos at the tail: rudder servo in the fin; elevator in 1 side of the stab. short pushrods means no play and exact response, return to neutral; no drag means no wear of servos. a win-win solution.