The magazines are partially funded by ads for the very manufacturers that they review products of. They therefore count their words when they point out shortcomings. Model Airplane News and RCM does the same. So , how much are their opinions worth then, if they are so biased ? That said, we all still buy them, don't we ! ? Their reviewers also do not seem do have access to an iron or heatgun, judging by the pictures of wrinkled covering on the planes that they review. And it looks like they are not ashamed to actually turn up at the field with the planes looking like that. IMHO - these RCU forums provide one of the best sources of info. As for CMPro/ESM etc -> the point I want to make is that these companies are getting better all the time. My first H9 ARF was not nearly as good as the stuff they (H9) are producing now. The same is true for the industry underdogs as well. As the industry leaders improve their products, the industry standards go up and up all the time. What was exceptional a few years ago is seen as the minimum requirement now. The budget level ARFs now offer you what the top notch ones did a few years ago. The ARFs of today offer you a lot better product often for less money than what you would have paid a few years ago. I know a few hardline kit buiders who would not have touched an ARF a few years ago, who now builds mostly ARFs. We as RC builders and flyers are the ones that benefit from these continued improvements. Just like the RC industry needs the leading companies like WM, we also need the budget ones like CMP, Seagull etc to keep up the pricing pressure on the leading companies and keep the hobby affordable for the bulk of RCers out there. You vote with your wallet.