Every product reviewed is based on one persons opinion of that product!

This is important so let me repeat:

Every product reviewed is based on one persons opinion of that product!

What you feel is poor quality hardware, I might like. For instance, I use CA hinges on a lot of my models and I have never had them fail. But if I am reviewing a model and I say that I like the hinges, you might be a Robart Pin Hinge fan and think CA hinges suck. Who is right and who is wrong?

I reviewed the Creek Hobbies Staudacher. I said I did not think the engine mount was stong enough for an OS 160, so I put a H9 Aluminum mount on. Jim Eble at Creek tells me that they fly with the stock mounts on all the planes with 160's and have not had a problem. Does this mean I was wrong? I did not like the mount, but it could have worked. Would you prefer that I call the kits hardware crap? What I did was expressed my concern and I ran it past Jim. He did not try and change my mind. I wrote it like it was. I merely offered an alternative solution.

I can tell you that the magazines and RCU management has very little to say regarding your review. You simply report back what you think. Now, you must expect some editing for grammer, etc. But the content is the content.

RCUniverse reviews are done by modelers like you and me. We do not get paid to do them. So there is nothing keeping us from saying what is on our mind. The whole concept of RCU is an open forum, isnt it?

I read through some of my reviews (because I can not speak for anyone else) and I can honestly say that I have not had a "Bad" plane from a "bad" manufacturer yet. I have been happy with everything. I point out my concerns and address them in my review. Nothing is made up! Does this mean if you buy all the planes I reviewed that you will be just as happy, of course not! You may fly differently, build differently, etc.

I had someone comment a few months ago that they feel the reviews that we do simply rewrite the manual. We do not rewrite manuals, however, if you have ever assembled a Chinese kit the term "poor quality manual" can easily come into play. You could never compare to a H9 or GP manual. So on these kits, I really like to go over each step and put in notes to clarify what was rough in the manual. I have received over 50 emails with people thanking me for my detail in the reviews. Many say they print them out and use them during the assembly process.

Unfortuately, the print mags are limited by space. They do hit the highlights. RC Report would be great if they just included more pictures. I try to put at least 25 pictures in my reviews because "a picture is worth a thousand words".

A comment was made about matching the planes with the reviewer. I would like to know more about what prompted that statement. I think we do a good job matching up reviewers.

If a plane is highly aerobatic, we make sure there is something in the flight report about its aerobatic capabilities, over and above loops and rolls.

Speaking for myself, I am not an expert 3D pilot by any means. And if I was I am not sure you would want my opinion on many small aerobatic planes. I give you feedback from a slightly greater than average modeler, which I am sure is the category that 80% of the RCU members fall into. If we were all of Chip and Jason's level, then the TOC would need places for 20,000 competitors.

I have other friends in my club that fly certain styles better than I so I always get their opinion. IN a lot of my reviews, I will "pass the transmitter" and get opinions from other pilots and add that feedback to my reviews. It gets away from the "ME" "My" perspective.

Thanks
Erick