Originally Posted by
BobbyMcGee
I'd rather read the National Enquirer or any other trashy tabloid than to waste my time reading anything written in the MA magazine.
Model Aviation should just put a caption above each article that reads, "The manufacturer told us what to write and paid us a lot of money for this ... It's not an article about this plane, it's a paid advertisement."
MA should also describe themselves as pure fiction, or science fiction.
On the rare occasion of an actual article that is not about a new product, MA merely writes a revamped version of an earlier article, or a complete re-posting of an article that is a year or two old. They must have a very short attention span (ADHD). MA has beaten the "downwind turn" subject to death more times than the subject has appeared on RCU. Now that's bad!!!!!!
When MA arrives in my mailbox, it goes straight into the trash can. Never makes it into the house. It's not even worth putting it into the recycle bin.
Hey Bobby,
Note sure what magazine you are reading??? I don't see any of the "manufacturer told us what to write" that you refer to. In fact, every review has a Pluses and Minuses section and I have never seen a review that didn't have at lease one minus. Most have at least two or three. With the discontinuation of RC Report, all of the other commercial magazines only refer to the positives in their reviews.
You write that that it is rare for them to have an article on something other than a new product... if someone wants to have a critique of MA, it could be that there are not enough reviews of new products. Usually they have just one or two per issue. The majority of the articles are from SIG's, explaining what's new, what's developing, how to's, and so on in their areas. I might have missed the article on the "downwind turn" so maybe there was one, but I've never seen the plethora of articles on that subject that you refer to.
Like someone else said, you send yours right to the trash and don't read it, so on what are you basing your critique?
Lars