MinnFlyer,

I do appreciate your honesty in that review, and it seemed as though I got a pretty good idea of what to expect. Notice the title is labeled "SOME of these reviews" some in most cases does mean most but not all.

I am glad you addressed the "Team-3D" stickers. Most good 3D pilots could look into the weight, wingloading, etc. to have a guess at how it would perform 3D. HOwever the problem lies with newer pilots that have the 3D bug. They read a lot of reviews about this type of airplane (not yours) and hear how the author raves about how great it flies, and rolls, and loops and how he just knows in the hands of "an experienced pilot, the sky would be the limit". So after reading that our newbie 3D goes out and buys the plane, trys for days, weeks and months to make the plane 3D and finally gets fed-up with the idea and leaves the hobby (or worse, buys a warbird [sm=lol.gif] ) When all he really needed was an honest review of the airplane to convince him to buy something else.

In the amateur sailing world there is a pub called "Practical Sailor" tha does not accept advertising and lives off subscriptions only. They provide a valuable service by writing honest reviews of boats and gear. The manufacturer gets the opportunity to reply and often does.

I keep hoping someone will start one for RC. I think a lot of guys would pay $50/yr or so to get good info.

I see your point with that publication, however I think advertising is fine, but swayed opinion review advertising is not so good. I like the idea though.

Maybe a high line magazine where the manufactuer could boast that their plane was in the magazine and didnt get torn apart. Maybe a magazine or website that only runs ads for the best of the best. Any one is free to buy space for the ad BUT their product could be up for a critical review at any time (not a sugar coated review). Maybe this would weed out some of the lower quality companies??? (yes I have a marketing degree and know its not the best approach to selling advertising space but thats not what were trying to accomplish here)

Great discussion!

I have been saying the same things for years now. It is sad that even in RC plane forums one has to watch what he says about his experiences with particular products. I used to think these forums were like the flying field, where you could make honest judgements and even vent your frustrations. Sadly that is not the case, it appears that the ones who pay the bills get to have the final word.

One of you guys gave some great advice, or made a great point. As 3-D flyers gain more experience with the hobby they in time will be able to determine if a plane is worthy of their $$ by comparing weight to wing area, etc. The one thing that I have accepted is that even the best ARF's can be much better and if you dont mind the critisism stand up and point out the flaws, so the rest of us can make an informed purchasing decision and know what we are getting into when we do make the purchase.

ARF's will only get better if we demand the best. That includes reviews and honest discussion.

That happened to me when I was first experimenting with 3D. I read some very positive postings on the China Model Productions (CMP) Katana 72". Lots of comments about how great it was in 3D, "better than my 50cc gassser", that sort of stuff. I bought it and found out it was a boat anchor.

It is bad enough that there are reviews of 3D planes written by people who don't know how to fly 3D. But if the reviewer explicitly states that they haven't tried to 3D the plane, at least the review isn't misleading. But I find that I often have to read between the lines of the review to determine how the plane has been tested.

Malcolm

I have always tried to tried to report my reviews with as much information as I can so that the READER can determine how the plane might suit their needs. For the very reason the all people have personal preferences.... and if I review a plane based soley on my personal preference, then I'm only catering to those that like this hobby in similar ways.

Very soon RCU will release my Lanier 87" Yak review. It's very realistic and tells it like it is. It also goes into great detail on a variety of weight saving options... my DA50 equipped Lanier Yak was a hair over 18 lbs... and was reduced to 17.5 lbs after the review was written. A FAR cry from the 20.5 lbs in teh magazine review.

I consider my self an experienced builder and try and share tips and techniques to gett he best out of the airplanes I review... sometimes they are in need of nothing at all like the GP Ultimate... other times they need a whole lot of caressing like the Lanier Yak.

I do find magazine reviews to be VERY milktoast, and often rehashed manuals. Space is limited as are review slots. Not so with RCU... pics galore, video and unlimited capacity...

What IS in short supply are people who are willing to do the work. It is VERY easy to sit and criticize the process... it's much different to have to build an aircraft, document each step, do the design, the writing, and take the risks. Not to mention the $$$ outlay to complete these birds.

Everyone WANTS to do a review until they get into one... then all of the sudden it's WORK. There are many who never do more than one because they realize that their "free" plane took an extra 20-30 hours of work to complete for pictures, html, writing, video (and finding someone who is available AND willing to run the camera), editing.

It's not easy, it's not a payday, and it's not perfect. All I can tell you is, if you find someone whose opinion you trust, you can follow their reviews/reports with some level of confidence... and if you don't... well... don't read reviews... read only the forums and you get plenty of "average man" opinions.

Oh... and I'm about as average as they come...

David, I look forward to your review as I have been following your posts about the plane and we have discussed it in the past. I beleive that your review will no doubt tell it like it is because I know that you went to a lot of trouble to make the plane light enough for the DA-50 to do its thing. You didnt build it stock and say it is fine for 3-D with a DA-50. I think most DA-50 owners know the limitations of the motor and 20lbs is way too much, 17.5 lbs with that wing loading should be a sweet flyer, I cant wait to see some video.

I would like to start seeing some type of rating for all airplanes and their capabilities like the following: 1. Full 3-D capable, 2. Agressive Areobatics-some 3-D, 3. Sport-low power Aerobatics, 4. Sport-Trainer, 5. Trainer.

So the end of a review would look something like this. (This Edge-540 is a dream to assemble and the hardware is top shelf, however, the plane is only cabable of agressive areobatics and some 3-D due to its high wing loading. The seasoned 3-D pilot will want to take a pass on this one as it is not capable of performing all of the extreme 3-D maneuvers. This Edge is a good IMAC competator an a great Sunday-flyer. The plane gets a performance rating of "2".) I think that some reviewers already provide this type of information, but it would be great if it was the standard. Plus 3-D planes should be flown by 3-D flyers. I dont own or fly pattern, so I dont feel that I have the right to comment on how a pattern plane flys.

This is probly a mute point for a lot of 3-D flyers because it doesnt take long to figure out that only a handfull of manufacturers are capable or willing to actually make a 3-D capable plane that is worth our money and time. Its just nice to be able to have a short cut when deciding on a new project.

Dave, do you have a video of the YAK?

Big Barry,

I have always tried to do just as you mentioned... for instance, in my recent GP Ultimate review I stated:

On the Yak... yes I do have video... but it's part of the review... hopefully within a week or two it'll go live and you'll be able to see it... it's really not all that much... mostly the clean IMAC stuff... but I do show 3-4 flatspins, a really nice wall with no snap tendency... and a poor excuse for a hover... I kept goosing the throttle and the BME 22x8 spun so fast (7400!) that I kept creeping upward.

My buddy shooting told me he was suprised at the pullout at 18 lbs 2 oz... (I did NOT cover the single aileron mod in the review as I felt that was more than the average builder might be willing to do. Nor did I review the gear because they don't actually have Yak gear for it... I used 33% Edge gear that saved 1/4 lb...)

I wasn't able to get video of the 17.5 lb version... but it wasn't all that much "more umph" but plenty. I was able to get several more flights though, testing the blenders, hovering, harriers, etc...

I,m looking forward to the review as I am thinking about getting a so-called 33% YAK or Edge and using my MVVS 58 Prosport on a cannister. So I will need some tips on lightening the air frame. As far as your reviews go I think you should keep on doing what you are doing, I think I have you figured out and I can honestly say that I have agreed with you on the majority of subjects.

Take care

Big Barry

I agree with MinnFlyer. What some people use to call a plane poor means nothing to others. I read someone here on RCU who said if a kit had bad hardware he thought the whole plane was "crap." Personally, I replace nearly all of the ARF hardware, especially the little white clevices that break when you open them too far. I prefer locking clevices, 4-40 rods and pull-pull. I also put a lot more emphasis on how a plane flies.

I normally review 3D planes and twins for RC Report. I normally have a short section on building, then get to the good stuff, what it can do in the air. I figure if you can't stick an ARF 3D plane together, they are pretty much out of your flying class anyway. I would assume that people reading a review of a 3D plane might want to know how it does certain maneuvers.

For twins, I feel you have to throw in the cost of the kit. There aren't many ARF twins out there. Take the Twin Stick at $115. The only thing cheaper is the TwinStar and it's a trainer with no roll rate and small fuel tanks. Sure the Twin Stick kit has some faults, but at that price I can add $50 and still not be up to other kits that aren't nearly as much fun to fly. It has a narrow, weak gear and it builds nose heavy. I spoke to the manufacturer and you can fly the plane with a pair of .32s, some plain bearing .40s or 46s. I put 2 OS .46AXs on mine and it comes out way nose heavy. I know I can fix that, I just move 2 servos to the rear. Should I have to do this? Maybe not, but look at it from the manufacturer's standpoint. Suppose someone wants to try a first twin and he has 2 OS .40LAs. Really light engines. If the plane is set for 2 heavier .46s, this guy with no experience is going to end up tail heavy. Maybe he adds enough lead and maybe he doesn't. The CG looks pretty good, just a little far back. Maybe he makes it and maybe he doesn't. I'd probably build it to be safe, too. Overall, the Twin Stick is a great flying plane. Fast roll rate, tight squares, good flat spins, lands nicely, flies like a Stick. So you have to buy a stronger gear. It still comes out cheaper.

Back to reviewing kits. As the man said, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm sure all reviewers try to be objective, but we all have our own viewpoints and biases (I hate little white clevices that break), but I don't know of anyone who purposely gives a false review.

In this forum reviews look more like advertisements. When I was flying electrics the flyers comments in that forum were a lot more candid.

The other thing about this forum is that everyone seems to comment in one thread about a plane and not start a seperate thread.

Another great thing about RCU reviews is that we link our email addresses to them - So if you have questions that the review didn't answer, you can easily drop us a line and ask!

Sure; if you're talking a "regional" or special-interest publication. But, with the possible exception of R/C Report, submit a warts-and-all piece with negative information to one of the "big" mags, and see if it gets published without a lot of editing; or if it gets published at all.

I did a column in a model helicopter magazine for four years. The vendors (merchandisers; people who sell the products- this may or may not be the manufacturer) do NOT want to hear anything negative; period. If their product has a problem, and you publish it, you WILL pay for it (if not now, then later) in lost ad revenue. This is a basic fact of the game. When was the last time you saw ANY really negative info on an R/C product in one of the "glossies"? Me, neither.

Steve Campbell...

What you say is true...at least for now. Again referencing the motorcycle industry...they have been doing critical reviews for a number of years now. The manufactures don't like it but the magazine sells their bikes. They HAVE to advertise in that magazine because that is where the readers are. If they don't want negative comments they must make a better motorcycle. Recently I haven't seen a review on any motorcycle that didn't have some negative comments. Even the ones they like. Somehow their advertising doesn't suffer.

The same should/will be true in the hobby industry. As soon as people expect the critical reviews and hold the magazines to a higher stardard they will change. The manufacturers will get better too...and they will continue to advertise in the magazines. They willl have to...because they can't afford not to.

Only then will we get reviews that are worth their salt. But it can take a long time. I know personally how violent the readers of reviews of certain planes can be. Perhaps the readers aren't ready yet. They still have their favorites and they must be perfect....because the owners don't want to listen to any advice on how to improve. These manufacturers will be passed by the other guys who improve.

Thanks
Barry

For anyone who thinks we don't point out flaws in our reviews, I would like to direct you to the following:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=734

Please note the sections on "Tail Wheel" and "Servo Reversing"

Like Barry said, the Manufacturers don't like it when we publish negative stuff, but that doesn't stop them from advertising here.

Soooooo....

We're getting there.

Thanks
Barry

PS: Good review on the H9 Razorback

I would have never seen that review had you not brought it up. warbirds [:'(]