richb1492

My Feedback: (4)

When you read reviews on Airplanes or RC related products do you take them as the truth or do you take them with a grain of salt.

I remember seeing a review of the Ultra Stick where the reviewer said that it could be used as a trainer. When i asked a few people I was told to think about the fact that the reviewer is already a flier so there idea of whats easy to fly is slightly colored.

I also noticed that reviews tend to come out well after products are released. I just saw a review of The Kadet Sr Arf. Its been in wide production for over 1 year.

Borzak

My Feedback: (2)

I take me with a grain of salt. It's nice to see the pictures they put in - and list of features - especially stuff like radios/chargers etc...

But as for the reviewers opinon on how well something was built or how handy it was ....blah.

Name the last review you saw in a magazine where the reviewer basically said it wasn't worth buying - you probably can't. Yet everyone here can name a piece of equipment/plane etc.. they bought and thought it was total junk and not worth the money.

Every plane they review can magically be slowed down enough to teach with as a trainer yet arobatic enough to do 3-D. Every radio they review has every feature that your likely to "actually" use and the ones it doesn't have no one uses anyway right? Every engine you see reviewed amazed the reviewer with how easy it was to start and get tuned and made so much power they pondered putting it in a bigger plane.


YEAH RIGHT - either they fluff a LOT or us "average" folks get all the duds made by sheer randomness.

Rodney

These reviews do give you a reasonably good over view. you do have to read between the lines at times. When you see such items as some problems, weak dihedral brace, etc. you can be assured that all was not perfect. When you see "I really liked the ------", it is probably a pertinent complement. Some magazine reviews are better than others, get to know the author through long term reading.

richb1492

My Feedback: (4)

How can a reviewer say a Ultra stick is gentle enough for the beginner to learn on and they say its Great for 3D.
Then when a new flyer wants the ultra stick as a 1st plane he will usually say I saw it in a magazine thats it can be used as a trainer.
I think it would be better for reviewers to say whats wrong with a product so they company can used the info to make it better.

Borzak

My Feedback: (2)

Most reviews are written THEN sent to the company in question to respond to before the review is published.

Not a lot of people know that. Many times the problems the reviewer had will be adressed by the company and the review changed.

Problem is Joe's like us don't have the power to grab the attention of a company when we have a problem.

2 Piece

My Feedback: (8)

One thing to remember is that magazines are in business to make MONEY. They make their money by selling ads, they do not directly make money through subscriptions/ news stand sales. What I mean by this is; the subscription/ sales price might cover the printing and distribution cost- and the more circulation a mag has the more it can charge for the ads.
It's hard for a mag to sell ad space to a company when the mag just gave a bad review on one of the company's products.
Most of the times the review is less than perfect they will not publish it. Thus all you see are the good reviews.
2 Piece

richb1492

My Feedback: (4)

I totally agree with that last comment. Its hard too bite the hand that feeds you. Looks like it would be in modelers best interest too have reviews be people who don't have a financial interest in the outcome

Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

IMO, magazine reviews are a load of it for the most part. Really, how can anyone truly believe something that is written by someone paid to do it...I don't most of the time.

I would MUCH rather hear from an 'end-line' user. They are going to have the real story on a product without all of the 'fluff' that most paid writers put in to keep companies happy with their reviews.

Greyhawk

I don't put too much stock in the overall reviews, but there often are some hints or tricks that the author discovered in the building process. If its's something I plan to build later in the year I will save the article for that reason alone.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Fair points. I have seen a well know guy do a kit review and simply forget to mention that the instructions mention several times in big bold print that the design was subject to flutter. I lost faith in his ability to do a reasonable review. I have noted that he does several kit reviews every year which explains how he missed those warnings.

I was asked to review a kit and was astounded by the poor design and quality of the kit. During the build I ran into several major show stopper problems that should not have been there. What started out to be a summer project took almost a year to redesign and get flying.

When I ran into the third show stopper, I withdrew the review as my attitude had changed from open to severe dislike. I could not find enough good to say about the kit to justify the work a review would take. I basically re-engineered three or four portions of the kit to get the bird in the air.

So where is reasonableness? I guess if there is a problem, the public should be told along with the vendor. Problems should be of an engineering nature, not 'I don't like red and white'.

GRANT ED

I really don't pay a lot of attention to product reviews. Every body that has been around models for more than a year knows that not everything is "Great" or "Perfect". I for one can't remember the last time I read a bad review. About the worst it gets is something like "undercarriage could be stronger". As a modeler if i'm looking at spending some hard earn't cash on a model the last thing I want is someone telling me that such and such a plane is awesome when in reality its a piece of crap. But ah well we can always dream of a perfect world where there is world peace and reviewers tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

This is a good thread topic.

Along with Marc and Nathan, we started RCUniverse Magazine last summer to provide an alternative to the current magazine review format. It has been a learning curve and we have polled and processed the feedback we received from our members to see what direction we should take with our reviews.

Each month we are learning more and expanding the scope of the reviews. We try to provide an honest overview of every product.

The problem with reviews is that they are based on one persons opinion. For that reason, what the person thinks, especially when it comes to flight performance, is purely an opinion.

As an example, I consider myself an above average pilot. If I review a plane, especially a 3D type fun fly plane such as the Graupner Showflyer, I might say that it has "trainer-like" qualities when referring to slow speed handling. Does this mean that If you are on a trainer, that this should be your next plane? NO. I am just trying to come up with a description to best describe the plane.

Reviewing is not easy. To be a professional reviewer, you need to learn how to properly convey your thoughts and opinions to the reader in a professional manner. We can not simply say, "this plane is junk. do not buy it". While it may be fun for the reader to see something like that, how is that beneficial? We take reviews to the next level, if we encounter a problem we work closely with the manufacturer to resolve the problem and then put our findings in the review. We prefer the "Problem-solution" approach.

We realize that many of you take the writers thoughts with a "Grain of salt", so we decided to expand the format to include many photos, construction comments, and even video.

Personally, then I read a review, I like thoroughly see the product before I buy it. I like to know if any challenges are met along the way and how to solve them. I like to know its general flight performance, even though I realize my skill level could be lesser or greater than that of the author. I like to see detail shots of everything. And Finally, I like to see it in action.

I think we have been doing a good job of meeting all of these requirements with our reviews.

If anyone has any suggestions or comments, I would love to hear them either in the thread or you can email me personally at [email protected]

Thanks
Erick Royer
Director of Business Development
RCUniverse.com

2 Piece

My Feedback: (8)

As I see it, the Review Game, when speaking of printed published material is filled with catch 22 situations.
Here's an example; I am personally tired of all the ARF reviews, I contact three or four major magazine publishers with my concerns. They all state that they would love to have building reviews, but no one is sending them any. OK, I discuss my idea of doing an in depth scale review with a publisher. It's going to be a three or four part running review filled with pics. I spend a lot of time preparing the review taking pics making notes on problem areas of construction trying not only to provide a fair review of the product but to also show the readers some of the tricks and building methods I have developed over the years.
I contact publisher and tell them I am ready to send in the first of the four part review. Guess what he tells me? I need you to get the kit manufacturer to buy some ad space! They said the major advertisers wouldn't like the fact that they were running an in depth, scale review from a manufacturer that didn't advertise with them. And that if the manufacturer of said kit wouldn't advertise with them they couldn't take the chance of upsetting their major advertisers. So I checked with the other major puslisers to see if they were interested. And they all told me basically the same thing the first publisher said. I guess thats why you only see reviews of ARFs from Hobbico and Horizon.
Most reviewers that want to be published know that a less than average overall review means that they will not get published. Now what reviewer wants to spend the time building a kit, preparing the honest review just to find out the publishers will not print it?
2 Piece

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

2 Piece

If you have a construction review that you want posted, email me

[email protected] and I will see if I can get it on RCUniverse.com

Thanks
Erick Royer

Borzak

My Feedback: (2)

Look familiar...?

http://webpages.charter.net/rcfu/Kit...eadReview.html

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

i try to do fair reviews on my site for nobody but the people that want to know regardless if i know the manufacture or no, and im no super pilot that can make anything 3D, tho i try

i've gotten thanks from Cambrian and S2G for my comments and reviews and thats great, better still is the people who read my reviews and make their own choice, those who then got one have their opinions added, good or bad.

as for mags,.... outdated mostly and full of brown nosing.
MDS's are reviewed with castor fuel so thick it hides the carb problem. good engine my ass, the 38 sucks the worse.
and i saw a NEW review for... the 2+ year old ARTF Magnum. no one in the UK hasn't heard of this plane by now, and no mention of the current problem with stickers.

RCU's reviews seem fair and unbiased. dont think i've read a bad one yet tho, that would be funny.
however, i dont have a bad review either, probably coz i wouldn't buy something that looked crappy in the first place.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

A lot of it comes down to a matter of tact. When doing a review, you might come across an instruction that makes you think:

"What idiot came up with THAT ridiculous way of doing it???"

But you write, "I really didn't like their method of..."

Yes, tact is a part of it. Are we lying? No, we're just being tactful.

It's hard to look at what is otherwise a really nice piece of workmanship and say "Don't buy this piece of junk" just because it has a bad instruction manual, or because their clevises are weak. That wouldn't be fair to the manufacturer, or to someone who might otherwise have really enjoyed the plane.

However, If I find something I don't like, I will (and have) let you know. But you can't just look at the pictures and read the summary, you have to READ the article.

For example, let's say someone did a review for a plane that was really outstanding, but it had really bad push rods. The reviewer might say, "I think all of the push rods need to be replaced."

One person might say, "Replace the push rods? Piece of cake! That's all I have to do, and I will have an outstanding airplane."

Another might say, "If I wanted to replace push rods, I would have built from scratch! No thanks, I'll pass on this one."

But the reviewer is certainly not going to say, "Don't buy this piece of junk" because it has bad push rods.

We give you the info, it's up to you to use it. And as always, if you have a question about an RCU review, feel free to PM the reviewer and get a direct answer.

richb1492

My Feedback: (4)

Has anybody ever seen a review of an RC product that the reviewer said was bad or not to buy? I was just wondering..
Or are the products so tested before the reviewers get them that
there are no bad flaws in them?

mvigod

Products are not pre-screened at least not what we get I can assure you.

Minnflyer put it very well above in his post. There is a lot to be said for tact. I have had pushrods I didn't like or whatever and simply might write "I replaced the elevator pushrods with carbon fiber..." because I thought the other ones were not sufficient. For some that might be overkill but it is just my opinion and I do what I think is right for each plane, heli, car or boat. Safety is most important to me. I don't want anything failing and putting somebody in danger. I won't review anything "stock" if I think that stock part might become a safety issue.

One reason you don't see a total bash review is that very few products are beyond fixing. When things are tough to assemble we state why and explain how to get around shortcomings. A shortcoming doesn't make a model a total loser necessarily.

The other thing we do is provide video of the models so you can see them fly or drive yourself. Since we aren't limited to static shots and words we can show you how these products perform. The videos don't fluff things up or lie. They are what they are, period.

Jim Finn

My Feedback: (2)

When I start reading a review as soon as I see "ARF" I turn the page. Sooooo..... you see ,I seldom read reviews.

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

some of my fave planes are ARTF!

Marc, i'd love that reviewing job, but.....
1. i'm in the UK
2. no way i could do the 30-60 day turn around ( Royal Zero on build for 3 years now ) (( then again, Microjet in 3 days ))
3. you can go 60 days here without flying weather

cdsmith

The reviews printed in the magazines are pure toilet reading for me. I read these reviews purely for entertainment.

Everyone knows where to come to get a true non discriminatory review of a product…………….RCU OF COURSE!

If the reivews are sent to the product manufactuer prior to printing, what other reason to read the review other than entertainment?

Would a car salesman tell you that the car you are interested in is a piece of $#it? NO!

That'll be a dime please.......

scottrc

I get a kick out of the radio equipment used in some of the magazine reviews:

For example.....

Kit: Hobbico Sturdy Birdie trainer
Engine: O&S 52 Surpass with Krause supercharger and electronic fuel injection.
Radio: Futaba 9ZAS 9 channel PCM with 4 9202 digital servos.

It's like they go to the extreme by putting in $2000.00 worth of engine and radio in a $49.99 trainer kit.

Heres what they SHOULD write:

Likes: All around good trainer blah blah blah...

Dislikes: Since I blew all my money on this radio and engine that I am too dumb to program and break in, all I could afford was this cheap, POS so called ARF.

Frankenthumb

My Feedback: (2)

You will almost never see a bad review in a mag because the manufacturers don't send their crappy products to be tested. If during a review the reviewer finds a major problem with the plane it is usually addressed by the manufacturer. The manufacturers are interested in putting out a good product. They know when they have a crappy product because they are modelers.

I learned this from a conversation that I had with one of the editors from one of the big mags.

Scott:

The reason you see park flyers being flown with JR 10X radios is because that's the radio that the reviewer uses. They don't typically send an entire setup, just the stuff that they want reviewed. The reviewers tend to be better pilots, and typically have good equipment. I wouldn't trust a review from a beginner, would you?


Finally (and I think that we can all agree on this) the products that are on the shelves these days are generally pretty good. When was the last time you read an article that raved about a plane, and when you got it you found out that it was a miserable piece of crap? I'd bet almost never. Particularly if it was built as the manufacturer suggested.

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

i find some tend to know the right people to brown nose some free stuff and write a review, having seen some of them fly in real life, im not impressed.
one of best reviews i did read was from a beginer building trainer, who better to not know how to get round this problem or understand that funny translated instruction, any fault here is jumped apon with both feet for a newbie, as it was, he had no trouble, a good result.