Gringo Flyer

My Feedback: (18)

I have noticed a trend in every RC review I have ever read (including here on RCU). They are all positive and almost always end up with a comment like "this new ARF/kit/motor exceded my expectations" I have yet to read a review that said "this new kit is really sub par and not worth the money." How can every product be fantastic and exceed expectations?

The problem with user reviews is that you never know who is reviewing the product. It could be a bozo who has no clue about RC giving the review.

Is there a such thing as objective priduct reviews from experienced flyers?

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

Unless the reviewer is unsponsored, and bought the item with their own money,
I generally don't place a lot of stock in anything they have to say, beyond any
actual "build" instructions and tips/tricks that they might offer. I read the reviews
just to take a look at the construction, and color scheme, as applicable.


I'm sure there are a few reviews out there, on private websites, that are truly
objective, and not sugar-coating the truth in any way. These sites are rare, and
aren't usually well-visited, else they'd soon become sponsored, and then they'd
be subject to the same old "don't bite the hand that feeds you" line as the rest of them.

Not saying that every review is a misrepresentation, by a long shot. I'm quite sure
that a lot of the reviews really are truthful. I haven't personally had bad luck with
"everything" I've purchased... so no, I don't think all positive reviews are bogus.
The problem is that, on those occasions when a kit/arf really is a dog, we never know the
difference, because the sponsored website/magazine/tv show/whatever will glaze it over.

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

read my mini-review (or whatever it's called) on the airhobbies engines


dave

TTARK

I spoke with Eric Henderson on this exact matter and offered some real insight. His opinion is if it is a good product tell the world, if its bad, tell the manufacturer. This is fair, as it gives the manufacturer a chance to correct the problems, expecially if it is a new product and not on the market yet. Hopefully by the time it hits the market the major bugs will be worked out. If it is a bad product then dont submit the review for publication and let the maker know why.

Terry

dr_wogz

My Feedback: (3)

TTark, that's what I've heard / understood as well. Tell the manuf. that teh product sucks rocks, and they'll fix it pronto. No need to slander a design / designer for a mistake they didn't catch on their first 'pre-production' run..

And yeah, most reviews pay off when positive, from teh customers, and the suppliers. Everyone wins with 'positive' critisism. It's that old work saying: "Praise me in public. Scold me in private"

And read my review of teh Sig Kadet MkII (not theLT 40) on this fine site... Again, not a pretty picture, as I told it how I saw (built) it..

mvigod

Out of the last 10 products you assembled in this hobby. How many of them deserved a negative review? Products are pretty damn good today and the mfg's are doing their homework. We get a few klinkers here and there and we let those be known but overall the quality (at least for the stuff we do) has been very good. So how many products would you give a bad review that deserve a bad rap? I'd safely venture to say not very many as a percentage of those that are good or great.

Bob101

Out of all the reviews listed on RCU please show me a negative one.

I bet there are several listed here got a "glowing" or at least positive review - yet if you go to the search function on this very board that will come up with issues that everyone has put together experienced.

So that last 10 planes you put together you had no negative reviews? Now I know never to read an RCU review and expect anything out of it.

But maybe I'm just one of those people that expect what I pay for to be good and in working condition. If it's not I stop buying from that company. Period. You think a company is more impressed with lost sales of the masses or one reviewer who told them something negative and refused to write a glowing review?

Reviews in this industry are designed to serve one purpose - sell an item. Out of all the reviews you've read in magazines/internet (not including general reviews from an individual) I bet you've bought more based on that review than you've avoided after reading the review.

ajcoholic

My Feedback: (10)

I have three printed engine reviews in Fly RC magazine, with 3 in que... if you read them, there are small "issues" or negative points if you will, that are stated within the review. Now, the latest engine, the Saito FA 82a was an absolute dream, and yes, it did match and exceed ALL of my expectations.

I have gotten to know some of the reviewers and I dont think its as many think. I know personally I have been running engines for many years (started in 1977) and I treat each review engine as I went and bought it personally. I owe nothing to any manufacturer... I owe my Boss ( the editor) a fair and honest evaluation of the product as I saw it. Thats it!

I know what you mean though, I have bought many things based on past reviews that didnt work out so "well" for me. I also write my reviews remembering that someone may purchase a product based on my review. No ommissions and nothing played up that doesn't deserve it rightly...

On a similar note, if I look at the last 20 engines I purchased, of various brands, They all worked well for me. I know guys that I can take a perfectly fine, running engine to and in 1/2 hour they have buggered with the prop, settings, etc beyond belief. Then they call the engine a piece of junk.... if the same fellow read a positive reveiw about the same engine, he would say I was lying. But perhaps sometimes problems with product is the fault of the user, and not the company.

Andrew Coholic

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Thing is many major manufacturers feel that because of their name (OS), their product is perfect thus we who use their product (two 91fx's both returned) don't know what we are talking about. On another dish. When the Sig Cap came out , I bought one but Sig strongly recommeded the Irvine 120 in a way in which the plane would not fly well without one.
Shoot it flew great on my ST 3250.
The R/C world is strange, they remove from the market what is a good seller and stock what is not. The lack of Sportscale Prop jets is a clear example.

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

TTARK, Dr. Wogs...
Reviewers are not the QC, QA, UA, or R&D departments for these manufacturers.
When you've received an item for review, it is supposed to be representative of what
they're shipping to the public. No more, no less. Your "job" is simply to offer opinions--
on building, setting up and flying-- to the public... not to the manufacturer.

I can understand your views, if you're asked specifically to do a "beta build" or something.

If approached, and asked beforehand, to build a kit, or try an engine, and render my
opinions to the manufacturer, in exchange for the finished product, then yes, I'm sure
I'd do just that. If they take the input and make a better product, then I'd be happy
to give it the glowing review it deserves, when the thing is completed. Everybody wins.

If the product is already on the shelves, or available for mail order... and my review
item sucked... that's when the gloves should come off. Glossing it over at that point
is good for the manufacturer, but bad for your personal reputation, the entity you're
doing the review for, whether online or other... and for RC in general.

Example?
Do you think a manufacturer is going to switch to name brand fuel tanks, because I tell them
theirs suck, and bust after three flights? Nope. Would I want to know that, as a buyer? Yup!

As hinted to earlier... I'll agree that most products don't deserve a negative review, as most
of the stuff that's out there is fantastic. It's just the knowledge that, if there ever is a real dog,
we won't be reading about it in a review, that sets off some of our BS Alert Monitors sometimes.

AIRPLANENUTS

My Feedback: (2)

How can you be objective when reviewing a sponsor or client's product? What we need is a magazine such as Consumer Reports, with professional unbiased reviews. Their revenue does not rely on advertisement from the manufacturer of the products they review. Short of that, I'll just take reviews with a grain of salt, r/c or otherwise.

RCUniverse forums are similar to what I have described, but not identical.

mvigod

This shows me you have NOT read all our reviews otherwise you never would have written what you just wrote. Why not read all of them front to back before making a statement like that. Once you do read them all then feel free to come back and comment on how biased or unbiased we are. To make a statement like that without ever having read all our reviews is not doing your due diligence and I know you have not read all of them. Have you even read 1/3 or half of them? I issue you a challenge to read them all from review #1 to the latest and then come back here and tell me you still stand by your words posted above.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Well said, C Watkins... well said!

My sentiments precisely.

As for Fly R/C, I've purchased my last issue of that rag. Its "reviews" are simple product overviews; and abbreviated ones, at that.

The few RCU reviews I've read have been quite detailed and well written. Such would never fly in one of the glossies, because it would take away too much ad space...

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I am neither a sponsor, nor a client of the manufacturers whose products I review for RCU.

When I first started doing reviews, I was an ARF basher. My views of ARFs has changed dramatically to say the least. When I did my first ARF review, I remember thinking, "How am I going to be able to keep myself from bashing this thing?"

The answer was simple, the airplane was remarkable. I was so impressed that it was HARD to find anything to complain about.

In the reviews that have followed, here is an example of what may transpire:

You get a plane - The box is damaged. If the plane is ok, is it a sign of good packing or good luck? If damaged, bad packing or bad luck? In either case, not worth bashing the mfg for.

Covering wrinkled - Well, if I built a plane in China, and shipped it over here on a "Slow boat to America", I would expect to have to tighten up the covering a bit.

Crappy Hardware. OK, it's cheesy, but it works. Now if it broke, I would say the hardware was not acceptable, but if I simply don't like it, they won't get a 5-star rating for hardware, but I'm not going to cry "Foul"

Now let's look at the good things:

Laser-cut, jig-built components that are straight as an arrow. Put this thing together in 13 or 14 hours and you have a fantastic plane. Now, what am I going to say?

"The covering was wrinkled, and the hardware was crap. I don't care that the thing looked great and flew like a homesick angel, that company had better figure out how to avoid wrinkles, and upgrade their hardware (Cause God knows I'M not going to spend another $8) or they are going to find themselves out of business. Don't buy this thing until they start using Du-Bro hardware and Robart Hinge Points!"

No, I will say:

This thing is built very well, and is an excellent flier. I found the hardware to work with no problems, but others may choose to replace certain items.

That is called being OBJECTIVE. YOU may think the hardware is crap, while others may find it more than adequate. What YOU need to do is to READ the ENTIRE review. Find the things the reviewer didn't like. They are in there, we're not going to hold up a red flag and draw your attention to it (Unless, of course, it IS a red flag item), but all of the comments are there.

Gringo Flyer

My Feedback: (18)

Overall everything that I have bought (minus one engine) so far I have been happy with. And I do like the idea of alerting a manufacturer about problems rather than bashing them.

My question had more to do with glowing reviews. It seems that they are more than just positive but every product is "one of the finest flyers/motors/radios etc available."

Its just an observation. BTW I do rely on lots of reviews from magazines, RCU, etc to buy stuff (including my 7CAP that basically I bought bc of RCU).

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Believe me, if I give a "Glowing" review, it's because I really like the product. And I have had many products that I REALLY liked!

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

It does not matter what RCU, MAN, R/C Report or any other magazine comes up with. I would guess that a majority of the R/C world is tuned into RCU. Those who are not computer savvy know people who are and get advice from what they read on the RCU.

We pretty much call things like they are here. I cannot tell you how many times a person says he is making his choice based on what we said about a product. And make no mistake. Most of the major R&D , distributors and whoever is selling sniffs around here to see whats going on. Some do something about it and some don't.

If their is a slam on a G90 on RCU I cannot find it but its loaded with the 91fx. You want speed, go with a Jett. The OS 40 LA? The list goes on. Thunder Tiger planes with their Hotglued landing gear blocks. I think we carry more weight than all those magazines combined.

There have been a few guys here that have wanted to get certain products and I have told them pros and cons based on what is said here. I have seen the market explode over the last year alone. If the long time Major Distributors don't wake up soon and give us what we want, somebody else will. And in my case, sombody else is.

Many of these reviews are based on what the manufacterer recommends, not what should be in it.
Thats where problems can begin. Installing a .60 size engine in a Hangar 9 P-51 is going to yield poor performance. Remember how great the H9 Edge 540 was until everybodys wings were breaking. shoot I haven't seen one here in two years.

You know what we should do is review the review right here by magazine name and topic.. Just a thought. Of coarse it would be a bit delayed until the items get out into the system. Such as the Lil Toni and Rare Bear just to name a few. Rumors of a new TT.90 2 stroke. and whatever else is out their.

How many people wonder if this can be done or that can be done with this plane and the answers are right here. Can the Lil Toni hold a Jett.90 or Saito 100 or should you stay with a .60. Answers are right here. Shoot, I'm running an OS 1.08 in my WM Midget!

I think we are holding our own and getting the real word out.

Bob101

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a negative review, by that I mean "Don't buy this product". In a lot of other areas besides R/C when you get to the end of the review you get a "I can recommend this item/ I can not recommend this item".

Not in R/C magazines or on RCU everything is QUALIFIED - "well the covering sucked, the manual was in a foreign language, after I spent more on replacement hardware than the cost of the ARF, after I got the CG right because it was not in the manual/incorrect it was a GREAT flying airplane.

Just looking back at the end of the reviews (I read the current ones as their posted) you still see planes like the Kyosho Pitts getting 4 or 5 stars on every item except the manual which gets a 3 (gee having the CG listed at a point that makes the plane likely to crash on maiden should get a low number). Yet at the end of the review in the summary he says it's a great plane. Do a search like I suggest here on RCU for "Kyosho Pitts" and you'll see how many negatives it gets. Every time it comes up in the ARF section 10 people chime in right away and say run away from it before you buy it.

It's like the Olympic scoring system, how can I fairly judge when you give a "less than great" plane 4/5 stars on every item and a great plane gets 4/5 but mostly 5's? Use some zero stars and 1 stars so that we have an accuratate representation.

I'm getting personal or anything like that. I love RCU. But reviews are for one reason, to sell an item. Most fliers I know (those I read about on RCU or at the field) say that they read a review and become AWARE of an item/arf/kit etc.. and THEN do research thru friends/internet/other reviews before going with it. That's fine with me, but you will see 100 "its a great plane/item" reviews for every 1 that says "never buy this product" yet I bet everyone that has posted in this thread can easily list a long list of stuff in the R/C field they have bought in the last few years they would classify as "never buy".

greedy

In the mosy recent issue of Airbourne (Australian mag) one of the reviwers stated that whenever he recieves a prouduct that fails to meet his expectations it is returned to the manufacturer with an explaination of its failures. While this policy still only results in positive reviewsit at least screens out some of the shoddy products.

H. Wayne S

My Feedback: (18)

Darn Minnflyer, Post # 14, that was one impressive reply. Pity there are those that lack the capability to comprehend what you have stated.

Bob101, there are 10 ways to tell 10 people to kiss your behind and 8 of those people will not comprehend your statement.
"I prefer rubber wheels over the foam ones supplied with the kit, but they worked well".
"I had to modify the servo openings in the stabilizer in order for the servos to fit properly"
"All in all this is a well designed and manufactured plane and flies like it's on rails."
"I can think of few other instances where the old saying "you get what you pay for" rings true."

I found those statements in 2 reviews in five minuets in RCU reviews. Now, I agree none of those statements came out and said this is a POS, but they do tell me there are some problems to look out for when and if I purchase the plane.

It's there, all one has to do is read. Read ALL the words. Even if the plans do show the CG off 5 inches, the review gave you a heads up there was a problem there---- but the product itself, well its a great product, well engineered and well constructed and a real bargan. I don't think one can state otherwise.

All in all, I think RCU reviews are a cut above the others and I agree Fly RC reviews are not reviews at all.

Don't know what product you purchased that your so unhappy with but I think your being a little anal about this review stuff.

Relax, breath, have another cup of coffee, smile. It will go away tomorrow.

mvigod

It is somewhat true that in the rare case where a plane has major problems that would cause us to say DO NOT BUY THIS PLANE we go back to the manufacturer and point out the problems. They sometimes ask that we hold off publishing the review because they intend to immediately go back with the factory and fix the problems that we found and then send us out a fixed product asap. I can count these on less than one hand though keep in mind. Just doesn't happen that often.

One of the times the company actually said they were going to fix the issues and then even told us to go ahead and publish the review anyway! We made the decision to wait for the revised version and review that with hopes the issues were fixed but when it comes to our reviews I tell the writers to always call it exactly as they see it. The companies behind the products are allowed to check the reviews over for material errors (i.e. the battery was 11.1V when it was really 7.4V or stuff like that). They never ask us to change something so it says "this thing is great" nor would we. Not a single advertiser including some of our largest has ever even mentioned they would stop or decrease advertising if the review wasn't glowing. There have been times where they didn't love some of the things we said about the product but our response is "then go fix it" or tell us you intend to and we'll add a footnote.

RCU unlike any print medium has the additional advantage of showing you what any car, plane, heli or boat can do in action. Even if you don't believe any writers opinion or review of a product the videos always speak for themselves. Trust me we aren't good enough to digitally animate these products in action to make them look realistic. What you see is what you get. The videos show what these products do. You mention the Kyosho Pitts so go look at the kyosho pitts video and no matter what, it is evident that at the end of the day you can get a plane to do what this one did in our video. Also the writer points out in the text various issues he found. A lot of what is found is also based on problems that a single unit may or may not have plus the writers perspective. http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/r...yoshopitts.wmv

hookedonrc

This is not the first thread of this type on this website, but it sounds like all the others. I haven't been in this hobby all that long (3 years), but know one thing. Anyone that buys a product only from a published review, regardless of who is doing it, is not doing their homework. Especially if there is a site like this one. I may read the review, but then start talking to other flyers, my LHS, anyone that has the product already, also do a search on this site to see if it has personal experiences from others that have it. I wouldn't buy a car based only on a review, nor anything else. If I can't find others with the experience with the same product, I take the conservative approach and wait till it has had the time to be out there a while. So far, I have only one plane that I wasn't real happy with, a Magic Extra. The plane flew great, but I did most of what I do on others, make modifications that I feel are improving the product, change the hardware, make minor construction modifications and other things. Even with this plane, I enjoyed it, the covering sucked however. I have bought and flown (and yes crashed some) about 15 different planes now. Each with their own idiosyncrasies, and need for minor changes and never have I had one that I read the review only and went out and bought it. There is just too many ways to check out what you want. And yes, I subscribe to MAN, Fly RC, and like the AMA magazine as well. I know what they are and accept them for what they are. If you buy something simply on a review, then it is buyer beware as far as I am concerned. I mean, I bought a Triumph sportscar just on the looks alone. Did I pay for that?, yes dearly, but I learned from the experience. geesh...I think I am finsihed now...glad to get that off my chest.

dr_wogz

My Feedback: (3)

I think the general sentiment is that negative reviews are not published, so the co. can 'save face' and correct anything these' professional / well knowledged' RC buffs say.

With all these 'reality shows', I guess we're becomming used to people slandering others... And are startign to expect 'negative reactions' from everyone!

My Sig Kadet MkII review. Go read it. IMO it sucks! But it flies, and does what it is intended to.

All kits will have some little thing wrong, dosen't fit, or just dosen't seem right. Most 'experinced' modellers will seee this as a larf, then shake their head, then jump on teh 'challange'. This new 'on demand' society seems to expect 'problem free' everything, and they feel justified to yell at teh help desk because it dosen't work, despite 'glancing' at the manual....

Bob101

The problem I have that if a reviewer gets a really bad product and returns it to the manafactur and the review is never run etc..We as consumers never know that.

All we have to go on is what you publish - and if you never say you return stuff or just refuse to publish a bad one - we can't factor that in.

Do I know that XX product doesn't have a published review because no one had a chance or because you had a chance and passed on it?

Seems like a small difference, but it's there. I'm glad you came out and said it tho.

Even today you still see "classic" reviews like the kyosho pitts special in RCM where it crashed seconds into it's first flight and then the second one was nearly "unstable" in flight according to the reviewer - but then he recommended it at the end.

mulligan

<Yawn>

This thread is like a broken record... but I'll prolong it anyway

Biased or not, fair or not, positive or negative, a review is still only one guy's non-interrogated opinion- that's why we have these forums . A quote from a New York Times editorial on December 10, 1903, one week prior to the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk flight:

"...We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time and the money involved in further airship experiments. Life is short, and he is capable of services to humanity incomparably greater than can be expected to result from trying to fly. ...For students and investigators of the Langley type, there are more useful employments."

Don't always believe what you read... espeically if written by only one person.