ORIGINAL: southern_touch9
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.
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