MikeL seems to think that any impartial review is impossible from a publisher that takes advertising dollars. RCU is light years ahead of any other review sources out in the marketplace simply because of the User Reviews section here on the website. It's nice to read about one reviewer's recent experiences with an aircraft, but getting the general feedback of dozens of fellow RC flyers is even more enlightening.

MikeL's concerns on this topic are worthy of discussion, but MikeL hasn't taken a broad view of the hobby. MikeL is critical of MinnFlyer's review of the Nitro Models P-38 Lightning review because MikeL wouldn't buy that plane. The simple fact is that there are scores of loyal RCU readers who would buy that plane, warts and all. MinnFlyer told them in no small detail what the ARFs strengths and weaknesses were, and what challenges to expect. He also pointed out the positive aspects of the ARF, like once you fixed the issues with it and installed quality hardware in place of most of the included hardware, you ended up with a distinctive and nice flying aircraft.

MikeL needs to consider the RC community (or at least the RCU community) as a whole. There are a lot of pilots out there who want a P-38 Lightning to fly. Their choices for the most part boil down to the Great Planes profile kit, the GWS foamy, or the Nitro Models ARF. To simply issue a declaration that the Nitro Models ARF is a POS and nobody should ever consider buying it is myopic and of no help to anyone. It only discourages warbird pilots from looking at the P-38 if they don't want to fly a foamy or they want a version larger than the Great Planes kit. The only thing served by such a review is the ego of the reviewer.

There is a place in the market for the Nitro Models P-38, warts and all. MinnFlyer's review detailed those warts and explained how to fix them. Inexperienced builders would be steered away from the ARF while veteran builders who want a large P-38 to fly would be forewarned as to what they were in for and could make an intelligent decision.

At the end of the day, the sport of RC flying isn't about impartiality or logic. The sport of RC flying is passionate pursuit that involves us because of our excitement and our love of this hobby. There are more than a few readers out there who love the P-38 Lightning and they will read MinnFlyer's review and decide to purchase the Nitro Models ARF. The will build the ARF and they will fix the problems with it and they will have a blast flying their "fork tailed devils" regardless of whether or not MinnFlyer would decide to purchase one with his own money or not.

MinnFlyer's review was fair and even-handed and gave potential customers for the Nitro Models ARF a no-holds-barred look at what to expect if they decided to buy one. Simply declaring that "this plane sucks" or only focusing on the negative aspects of the ARF wouldn't have been fair to the manufacturer, and it wouldn't have been fair to RCU's readers. Every product sold is offered because the manufacturer believes that there is a demand for it in the marketplace. A reviewer can explore a product and figure out for whom a product is intended even if it isn't necessarily a product that the reviewer would choose for himself.

MikeL's criticism is valuable to help us all think about what kinds of pressures product reviewers may or may not be under. It's also helpful to make as all think about what makes a good review and what doesn't. MikeL is entitled to his opinion about the impartiality of reviews in RCU and other publications, and I hope he chooses to augment those reviews with comments in the forums and the user reviews section. At the end of the day, however, MikeL can't just read a review and decide it's crap if the review is favorable toward a product that he himself wouldn't buy. There are folks out there who happily shell out $130 for the Slimline flight box, even if MikeL thinks it's a waste of money.