Shame on you M.A.N.
04-19-2006, 12:37 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose,
CA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame on you M.A.N.
Just got my June issue of M.A.N. and it hit a nerve.
On the cover, there's a picture of the new TT September Fury and the cowl is on UPSIDE DOWN!!! Funny how the article says it was prototype kit with no instructions. He should have waited for the instructions. Come on guys! Most builders would have at least looked at a picture of the real airplane during assembly. M.A.N. must have had two kits to review because some of the photos in the article show the cowl correctly installed and the pilot's helmet is a different color.
I don't know what urks me more: the upside down cowl on the cover or TT's advertisement on the back cover with Captain Eddie at the controls of September Fury. Geez!
On the cover, there's a picture of the new TT September Fury and the cowl is on UPSIDE DOWN!!! Funny how the article says it was prototype kit with no instructions. He should have waited for the instructions. Come on guys! Most builders would have at least looked at a picture of the real airplane during assembly. M.A.N. must have had two kits to review because some of the photos in the article show the cowl correctly installed and the pilot's helmet is a different color.
I don't know what urks me more: the upside down cowl on the cover or TT's advertisement on the back cover with Captain Eddie at the controls of September Fury. Geez!
04-19-2006, 02:53 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
Actually what irks me it the horrid quality and uncritical writing in today modelling magazine.
I picked up some old 1980 & 90s copies of model magazine and was amazed at how much deeper reviews were and how critique was more professional and knowledgeable. Today mags are really really shallow and obviously cater to the manufacturer. Take for eg the engine reviews, there is no to minimal technical information. Furthermore the strip down after the running section is a fallacy to say the least as the human eye is not capable of detecting engine wear. I looked at the review of the ASP 36 last year and the model mag said it runs great!! but did you know they reported minimum idle at about 3200rpm!! try landing with 3200 rpm!! my MVVS and other engines idle at 1800-2000 rpm .. that is "great" idling!!
essential on my ARF reviews there is little information that could not be found on the net. Every plane "flies great" etc. and is well made (even with 32 oz/ft wing loading on a 40 size model!! hah!! hah!!). last year a model mag reviewed Graupers Giles 202 40 size. It weighthed 6.5lbs!! and they said it "flew great". flew great for a brick I think..any modeller worth his salt know a good sport weight for a typical 40 size is about 4.5-5.5 llbs. maybe 5.75 lbs but 6.5lbs!!, 6.5lbs is 60 size. I think the wing loading on that giles was some 30oz/ft
I hope the modelling mags in general improve their reporting somewhat or it really won't be worth buying them. Worse culprits are the US magazine, the British one are somewhat better and from what I've seem the German mags are still pretty good (more unbiased and discearning). Perhaps this has something to do with a less "engineering" culture and more "ARf/toy" culture the hobby has moved into but I really feel the overall standard of most modelling magazines has gone down somewhere from technical school level to just above primary grade and that is sad.
I picked up some old 1980 & 90s copies of model magazine and was amazed at how much deeper reviews were and how critique was more professional and knowledgeable. Today mags are really really shallow and obviously cater to the manufacturer. Take for eg the engine reviews, there is no to minimal technical information. Furthermore the strip down after the running section is a fallacy to say the least as the human eye is not capable of detecting engine wear. I looked at the review of the ASP 36 last year and the model mag said it runs great!! but did you know they reported minimum idle at about 3200rpm!! try landing with 3200 rpm!! my MVVS and other engines idle at 1800-2000 rpm .. that is "great" idling!!
essential on my ARF reviews there is little information that could not be found on the net. Every plane "flies great" etc. and is well made (even with 32 oz/ft wing loading on a 40 size model!! hah!! hah!!). last year a model mag reviewed Graupers Giles 202 40 size. It weighthed 6.5lbs!! and they said it "flew great". flew great for a brick I think..any modeller worth his salt know a good sport weight for a typical 40 size is about 4.5-5.5 llbs. maybe 5.75 lbs but 6.5lbs!!, 6.5lbs is 60 size. I think the wing loading on that giles was some 30oz/ft
I hope the modelling mags in general improve their reporting somewhat or it really won't be worth buying them. Worse culprits are the US magazine, the British one are somewhat better and from what I've seem the German mags are still pretty good (more unbiased and discearning). Perhaps this has something to do with a less "engineering" culture and more "ARf/toy" culture the hobby has moved into but I really feel the overall standard of most modelling magazines has gone down somewhere from technical school level to just above primary grade and that is sad.
04-19-2006, 07:03 AM
#3
My Feedback: (27)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Norton,
OH
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
Agreed!
Most of todays magazines are aimed soley at beginners.
Heck, they are written and edited by beginners!!!!!
The only magazines that are still honost and intelligent, are Model Aviation and R/C Report.
Thank goodness we have electronic forums these days! RCU and RC Groups are the best places for "real" information.
Doug
Most of todays magazines are aimed soley at beginners.
Heck, they are written and edited by beginners!!!!!
The only magazines that are still honost and intelligent, are Model Aviation and R/C Report.
Thank goodness we have electronic forums these days! RCU and RC Groups are the best places for "real" information.
Doug
04-27-2006, 11:49 PM
#4
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
Yeah, I had a good laugh when I saw the cover too... Since I work with the Sept Fury crew, I took over the magazine to show the crew chief. He had a good chuckle.
Reviews have certainly changed and are not what they used to be.
Michael
Reviews have certainly changed and are not what they used to be.
Michael
05-18-2006, 09:41 PM
#5
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose,
CA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
This month, they have an article on the Cermark Alley Cat (Reno Formula One Class) flown by Jason Somes. Well, they didn't bother to put a spinner on the review aircraft, so it looks really lame.
For those that don't know Jason, he's a full scale Reno racer, warbird pilot and an RC pilot when he's not jabbering away on his cellphone. <g> He's on RCU too. Usually in the jet forum.
FWIW, I have cancelled my sub with MAN after being a loyal subscriber for 20+ years. Mostly because I prefer TA's mag over theirs.
For those that don't know Jason, he's a full scale Reno racer, warbird pilot and an RC pilot when he's not jabbering away on his cellphone. <g> He's on RCU too. Usually in the jet forum.
FWIW, I have cancelled my sub with MAN after being a loyal subscriber for 20+ years. Mostly because I prefer TA's mag over theirs.
05-18-2006, 11:10 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: corona del mar,
CA
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
Thought you'd like to see some pics of Jason's T-6. In this pic, my brother Stu is in front and I'm in the back catching some rays!
Scott McAfee
Scott McAfee
06-17-2006, 12:42 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mahomet,
IL
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
That's part of the problem. Magazines have to stay on board with their advertisers in order to stay in business, and the huge amount of free info available on the forums and other places is not helping the paid magazine cause.
I think it would be more accurate to say the magazines are aimed at the sport flyers, which obviously includes beginners also. The more specialized areas such as scale, turbines, sailplanes etc. will always get very limited magazine exposure.
In MAN's defense, they did publish an apology/correction for the Fury cowling issue. Not that big of a deal, people make mistakes. The no spinner on Alley Cat was lame, may have had something to do with the electric conversion.
I think it would be more accurate to say the magazines are aimed at the sport flyers, which obviously includes beginners also. The more specialized areas such as scale, turbines, sailplanes etc. will always get very limited magazine exposure.
In MAN's defense, they did publish an apology/correction for the Fury cowling issue. Not that big of a deal, people make mistakes. The no spinner on Alley Cat was lame, may have had something to do with the electric conversion.
ORIGINAL: firstplaceaviator
Agreed!
Most of todays magazines are aimed soley at beginners.
Heck, they are written and edited by beginners!!!!!
The only magazines that are still honost and intelligent, are Model Aviation and R/C Report.
Thank goodness we have electronic forums these days! RCU and RC Groups are the best places for "real" information.
Doug
Agreed!
Most of todays magazines are aimed soley at beginners.
Heck, they are written and edited by beginners!!!!!
The only magazines that are still honost and intelligent, are Model Aviation and R/C Report.
Thank goodness we have electronic forums these days! RCU and RC Groups are the best places for "real" information.
Doug
10-02-2006, 07:32 AM
#8
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Holliston, MA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
I always get a laugh out of magazine review - especially MAN and Fly RC.
Other things I love is when you see:
- A .60 size profile fun fly that they test using a .40FP and a 10x6 prop and claim it hovers great.
- A giant scale and they list a 600mAh 4 cell as the battery used and they run a dozen digital digital servos.
- Reviews of 50cc planes that weight 20lb and they use standard servos and claim they are great 3D performers.
-A racing plane of some sort but they run an 11x5 or some other low pitch prop and say its soooo fast!
-Fly RC electric conversion articles where they state that "electric is the only way to go" not mentioning it costs 2x-3x the glow or gas equivalent - we dont all get our planes for free like the reviewers do!!
-Any scale cub without dummy engine cylinders. i just cant stand that - it looks so wrong
-I wont even get into the lack of actual kits for those few of us who still build - thats business and wont change unless sales trends do.
And on and on.
But yet I still read them so what does that say about me? At least it gives me ideas to search on here for real info...
Other things I love is when you see:
- A .60 size profile fun fly that they test using a .40FP and a 10x6 prop and claim it hovers great.
- A giant scale and they list a 600mAh 4 cell as the battery used and they run a dozen digital digital servos.
- Reviews of 50cc planes that weight 20lb and they use standard servos and claim they are great 3D performers.
-A racing plane of some sort but they run an 11x5 or some other low pitch prop and say its soooo fast!
-Fly RC electric conversion articles where they state that "electric is the only way to go" not mentioning it costs 2x-3x the glow or gas equivalent - we dont all get our planes for free like the reviewers do!!
-Any scale cub without dummy engine cylinders. i just cant stand that - it looks so wrong
-I wont even get into the lack of actual kits for those few of us who still build - thats business and wont change unless sales trends do.
And on and on.
But yet I still read them so what does that say about me? At least it gives me ideas to search on here for real info...
04-21-2007, 06:14 AM
#9
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Victoria,
MN
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
better late than never...
I think it happens when you get over 21 years of age but you then start to realize that the magazines (no matter what topic) in RC airplanes it ends up being nothing more than a manufacture sales opportunity...
Thank GOd for RCUniverse and it's members to tell what really goes on with RC Aircraft kits and ARF's or I might be in another hobby.
I think it happens when you get over 21 years of age but you then start to realize that the magazines (no matter what topic) in RC airplanes it ends up being nothing more than a manufacture sales opportunity...
Thank GOd for RCUniverse and it's members to tell what really goes on with RC Aircraft kits and ARF's or I might be in another hobby.
04-21-2007, 08:16 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Camden, TN
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
I enjoy the mags. But IMO the best information I've found is here. You can ask a question here and get an answer. Maybe not the best one every time but at least it can get you to thinking, and lead to the right one. Some very bright people read these forums,also some very helpfull ones. The mags have become just a big book of ads.----------Revver Bro#164
07-08-2007, 04:44 PM
#12
RE: Shame on you M.A.N.
Is bad when you would rather dig out the magazines you read as a kid in the 80's; there is only so many ways you can join an arf wing in the center and talk about it. Flying Models is not bad except it is small.
Tom
Tom
