ovationdave

My Feedback: (16)

Agreed, and please understand, my comments were not directed at you specifically, just the inappropriate subject matter for RCU, I didn't mean to single you out if it sounded that way.


Now lets talk magazines... ;-)

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

MAN is nothing but a cheering section for every product they advertise. When was the last time they printed an honest review in which every problem was documented, rather than ommitted, glossed over, or minimized? Cases in point: They just reviewed the new Great Planes 30cc Escapade. The reviewer claimed that there was NO EFFECT ON PITCH when the flaps were deployed. I just finished this airplane, balanced right on the CG, and found that flaps cause a MAJOR pitch correction. This is NOT a problem as the correct amount of down elevator will cancel it out, but DON'T tell me flaps have no effect on pitch as though this new airplane is SO good it defies the laws of aerodynamics! Another case in point: Every 3D plane they review, the reviewer gushes about how EASY it makes 3D; how it "locks into a hover," etc. Puleease don't insult my intelligence! 3D, properly executed, is EXTREMELY difficult and NO PLANE "locks" into a hover.
This is all HYPE designed to make the rest of us believe that IF ONLY we could get one these new Wizbang planes, radios, or powerplants, WE TOO could be kings of the flight line...

Bottom line? Honesty in reviews will not discourage me from purchasing most products, but it would HELP in alleviating disappointments or surprises and provide tips on how to resolve. As most have said, RC Reports was probably the last honest magazine. The old RC Modeler reviews were also helpful. And let's not forget the IMAA magazine, HIGH FLIGHT - also honest.

MAN is nothing but manufacturer propaganda, which is very unfortunate for the hobby.

LJE4357

My Feedback: (74)

I have removed the few words that has caused this issue. It's amazing how one word can be used in different definitions, buy different people.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Yeah, let's go flying.....

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

just send your ma magazine back to them i told them i would burn mine if they keep sending them that was this month

MTK

That may be true, I don't know. Frankly, I couldn't care less. The words you used are inflammatory to all of us of a different race or creed.

And btw, I was born and raised elsewhere but educated myself here, in the States. I've felt my share of the sting of prejudice. My answer was to simply learn as much as possible and beat the likes of you at your own game. I didn't find the education lacking in anything. I'll put my wits against the likes of you any time.

JerryM

My Feedback: (685)

Has not been the same after RC Report went out of business, Jerry M

init4fun

Thank You Dave , and I do apologize for my reaction to your post .

As to the topic , someone here rightly said that the "reviews" are really just extended commercials , due to the nature of the review . If a company is paying for the review , and sees anything critical about their products , the right thing to do would be to correct the discovered issue if possible . It seems far too many companies these days would rather squash the negative review (and reviewer !) than address the product deficiency . I understand it's not possible in every instance but it's a goal that should be aimed for , by any company looking to build a reputation for quality . Funny , I remember well what happened to Fliton (hope I spelled that right) who built my 'inspire 60" . They build some wonderful 3D planes , like the inspire , right up till they seemed to learn just how little structure might hold them together , and then when the wings began folding their reputation took such a hit that they went under . To see reviews that gloss over flaws seriously throws doubt on all reviews , and that does none of us any justice when you can't trust a supposed truthful assessment of the good & bad of a new product , the very reason for the review's existence ....

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

I remember doing a review a very long time ago for a plane that exhibited NO bad habits....then a couple of years later the plane didn't fly as it used to (and was being sold by a big name distributor at the time) and everyone said I lied - WRONG - they changed the ARF, but everyone thought I was sugar coating the plane. Just wasn't the same plane! Also I frequently have 3-4 other pilots also fly my review planes and get their input and it is funny because one will say the plane can't do this or that maneuver well and the next day another pilot LOVES the way that maneuver is executed. I just have a hard time saying the plane (ARF or kit) doesn't have anything wrong with it. I guess writing for RCR MADE me look for deficiencies.

Jerry

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

" I didn't find the education lacking in anything."

I too was educated a l o n g time ago and as a retired teacher, things just aren't the same as they used to be - and let's leave it there and get back to a topic we all love and cherish.....model aviation - so whatyaall fly'n these days?

ovationdave

My Feedback: (16)

But that is a bit different, I mean, with all of the takeovers, buyouts and acquisitions that are made now between manufactures, I can not imagine holding someone responsible for something they wrote 4-5 years ago about a product. Things change, companies cut corners, that's understandable and a legitimate reason to alter ones opinion about a product. All I know is that when a magazine comes out with a review on a current (sometimes not yet released) product, it should be objective. Doesn't that speak more about the product AND the magazine than "were going to send you free stuff to try out but only if you give it positive reviews and omit any negative aspects that you may encounter"? Truth eludes us when they may only reveal the "pro's" about a product. I hope it changes........

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If you're only reading the magazine for reviews of products they advertise, then ya, I guess you might come away the conclusion that it might be a "cheering section" for products.

But..have you actually read through the magazine, lately at least? If you're talking about some of the other mags out there, they might be closer to that characterization, but I don't see that with MA. Lots more than just product reviews.

But even so...does anyone really base their purchasing decision on the views of ONE person? Do people have that much faith in a singular point of view? I guess so, but I'd rather read reviews from here, RCG, and then hopefully get my hands on something at the local hobby shop or even see if at the field. I look at the reviews of products like I do a Yelp or Trip Advisor review...it's one persons view, typically of one instance.

If all the mags you mentioned were so great, and the information they provided was so valuable, ya gotta wonder why none of them are around anymore. So many sources of information now with the web. MA has a "captive" audience for the most part, and appeals to the broadest spread of users. Shouldn't stop anyone who is a great builder/writer/techy person from starting and maintaining their own blog, or even site. Pretty cheap and easy to do that now, and it's a great way to preserve something for anyone looking for that type of information. It's amazing how many sites are out there that exist for a very targeted purpose.

edh13

My Feedback: (9)

Got my new Model Aviation issue today. Can someone tell me what that "model" is on the cover and what it has to do with the Academy of MODEL Aeronautics?
Eric

thepamster

I receive my Model Aviation digitally via email. Easy to delete and no paper trail. Lol.

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

So do I,, Doesn't mean I'm happy I have to pay for something I would other wise not buy.

airega1

My Feedback: (204)

I agree 100%, as a matter of fact I'm getting sick of seeing more and more of this quadrocopter fanfare. I have absolutely nothing against them but they seem to be having a negative impact on this hobby, especially when idiots purchase them and do all the wrong things with them. It seems the innocence of building an rc airplane and learning to fly it has gone by the wayside.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well lets see, looks like a model of aerobatic quad. Looks pretty clear to me.

Perhaps it's your definition of what a model should be. Does it have to be a model of a real airplane before it should be on the cover of MA?

All of these are not replications of scale aircraft but take skill and ability to build and fly, should they be barred from being on the cover or in the magazine?

ovationdave

My Feedback: (16)

Those are all FIXED wing aircraft though. Personally I would vote to keep MA devoted to fixed wing or single-rotor aircraft. There are plenty of publications that are catering to multi-rotor flying now, and like everyone else MA is just trying to jump on that bandwagon. The question is, should they? Do they really think that owners of multi-rotors are the ones that are supporting the AMA? I certainly don't.

Malydilnar

My Feedback: (1)

You all complain that there aren't enough young people in our hobby but at the same time have a dedicated anti-drone agenda. If you guys looked around you'd see plenty of young drone enthusiasts around. Why shouldn't MA cater to them? Its better to try to educate new AMA members about drones and regulations concerning them rather than ignore it. Also I never understood the "there are no more scratch builders our hobby is dying" complaint. Get of your high horse and realize the hobby has moved on into the 21st century, and if you want to scratch build then fine, more power to you.

ovationdave

My Feedback: (16)

I would simply ask you how many people you know that own drones, and how many of them (who were not already AMA members prior to owning one) have joined the AMA? Seems to me that they are bending over to please a crowd of people that couldn't care less if they existed, and ostracizing those that do. I have yet to meet a new quad copter owner that sees any value in AMA membership.......

init4fun

Model #6 looks like it would be just perfect on a kinda big pond I got close by ........

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Love those planes...they fly great, fun in the snow too! One of our members created a version of that, more than double in size, and slapped some EDF's on it. Amazing!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ah....you said what the other guy is probably thinking...I want to LIMIT what gets allowed in, and EXCLUDE other things. The fact that there are other publications that cater to the mutli-rotor crowd isn't reason to not show them in the AMA. If that held true, they shouldn't feature fixed wing or single rotor craft either, since there is already other magazines featuring them. Do multi-rotor pilots support the AMA...of course they do, as soon as they pay their membership dues.

Can you honestly say you've looked for a new quad copter owner and asked him about AMA? Your litmus test seems to be that they have to buy a quad, and then join AMA and then you would consider them supporting the AMA? As I noted above, there are plenty of multi-rotor pilots who also fly fixed wing, and they support AMA by virtue of their membership dues. I've seen a figure of 19,000 members, but not 100% sure if thats new, or current members who also fly both. I'll disagree that AMA is bending over for any one "crowd", what they are doing they are doing on behalf of the hobby, and it's members. Nobody else is that I can see.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Exceptionally well put. Progress marches on. This hobby had changed and adapted to the times...just as it did with giant scale, turbines, helis, etc etc. The hobby can be inclusive of multiple disciplines and still be a great hobby for each member.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

This work as a fixed wing?