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...
ORIGINAL: CAPtain232
Here is an excellent example....
SEPT 2006 issue of MAN, page 82, A review of the new LANIER YAK done by STAN KULESA (whoever the heck that is)... Stan really praises the YAK with highlights being EXCEPTIONALLY QUICK ASSEMBLY, VERY LIGHT CONSTRUCTION and REDUNDANT SERVOS ON ALL FLYING SERFACES
Stan powered this plane with a DA 50, awesome little engine right....... Well how many of you would like to fly this 20 lb 8 oz YAK with that DA50? That's right, even though he stated as a HIGHLIGHT of the aircraft that it was VERY LIGHTLY CONSTRUCTED, it weighs 20.5 pounds.... He must be used to flying little tanks with wings. Yeah sure there was a time when a 50cc size plane would have been considered light at that weight, but that was years ago. A light 50cc plane today is 15 or 16 pounds, but the average weight is nearer to 17 or 18 pounds.
Point being, nearly every single review is going to be done with a certain degree of BIAS, but most importantly it is the reviewers perception. For these reasons, I will never take a review to heart. I will only trust those people that I know that have flown different aircraft and can do a comparison based on experience.