No problem Jerry....
 

Now your column and Lowe's are the ones to read in RCM......the rest is a catalog.....

Pug

Complaint about the MAN!
 

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

Complaint about the MAN!
 

R/C Report is ok in my opinion no better than any other mag out there. There last review on the h9 Sukio could have been done at least by someone with aerobatic experience. This is a plane that was made for unlimited aerobatics and should have in my opinion been reviewed that way. the flight report states that the pilot is not an acomplished aerobatic pilot but some day hopes to be. If I wanted to know how a sukoi flew around the pattern I can imagine what that would be like... I do not need someone to tell me that. on the other hand If the reviewer were to get an acomplished pilot in aerobatics to do that portion of the flight testing in my mind would have been wise. I could review a jet and say man is that fast and handles like it is on rails means nothing to anyone because I have never flown a jet. It could go 75<MPH and by my standards that is fast, But to a Jet Jock they would say it could not get out of its own way. I take reviews with a grain of salt and now before I purchase a model (i like arfs no time) I download the instruction manual and read it in its entirty before purchasing. Now that I have found RCuniverse I will also do some reaserch on this site. But, I do not trust the opinons of most reviewers In particular those in MAN but R/C Report and others are no better, although I do belive R/C Report to be more Honest and MAN more manufacture driven.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I do love these types of discussions! Why? Because each comment is an opportunity to listen and learn and improve. One interesting thing Jeff Bezos of Amazon fame always said was that he never bothered to pay attention to his competitors because he could not change what they do anyway. All he could do was change what they did so it was most important to listen to their customer.

I will say all reviewers do not get paid so they have no stake in it. Many of the products we review also come entirely or partially with substantial cash outlay out of the reviewers pocket. I'll tell you that Erick has spent $1000's of dollars out of his pocket already to put review models in the air. He's not going to sugar coat anything.

I also let the writers know to just be honest. If there is a problem then say so and explain it. The manufacturers are allowed to review the pieces for accuracy or errors. They do not review it to "rewrite" any part of it to put the product in a better light. A few companies here and there weren't thrilled with some of the things said or the way certain things were modified but on the writers end we were just being honest (from our viewpoint).

Honesty in reviews seems to be the holy grail of RC Magazines. RC Report always gets high marks from crowds when it comes to this it seems. RCU is striving for the same raw brutal honesty. Most of the time (at least so far) we have not encountered any bad arfs or kits. Some have had minor issues but that was it.

As for matching writers to plane/helis/cars/products we do as best as we can. Some deadlines occur where the "best" match is not always made. Sometimes some matches are made intentionally for certain reasons like the U-CAN-DO-3D review I did. I am not the greatest 3D or funfly pilot BUT this plane claimed that a "normal" flyer could actually do stuff in the 3D realm. What better way to try this than have a slightly above average flyer like me to see if I could do it? I never could hover any of my other planes but I was hovering the UCANDO the 1st day at the field. Proof positive this plane does what they say. Will it do more? Sure. I will update my review with more info and video as time goes by. Other reviewers who might not have got enough flight time in at press time can also add updates and will do this.

The reason we publish the reviews without a huge amount of flight time on them is because we CAN update them later. Also many companies want certain products to appear sooner rather than later (and sometimes vice versa) so we work with them as much as we can. Other times we need material so we put the review in and update it later.

Also we are only in our 6th issue ( I think..) so we are REAL new to this and learning as we go along. We are ignoring any past rules or assumptions and listening to what people want with each passing issue. Go look at our first issue and then at our latest...you will see the progress...

As for MAN, RCM, RCR...I honestly like 'em all...I could read a magazine full of just ads...if it's RC I'm happy...

I am skeptical
 

Agreed the advent of internet based forums offer some chance of getting honest feedback, but do not forget it is as easy for a manufacturer to log on as a buyer and and sing praises of his product. Also the sheer number of comments is so overwhelming and varied often times you come away even more confused than before, after spending a lot of precious time sitting in front of the computer. So my two cents worth, rely more on actual experience at your field or personal one on one feedback from a modeler. I have personally bought several ARFs including World Models, Kangke and VMAR after seeing great-there-is-nothing-like-this-ARF-out-there comments, only to find I have been suckered into getting an overpriced overtouted piece of junk. Keep you eyes peeled on the field and be your own judge.

I agree......
 

Personal experience and one on one contact is the way to go if someone you know already has the model you are considering. There is always the chance that nobody you know has had the one you want....that is where reviews should come in handy. What I am trying to get publications and on-line reviewers to do is use a strong objective approach when it comes to writing reviews....you must consider your audience. When criticizing give a complete explanation of why (where are you coming from?). If you didn't like some aspect of the model (i.e. shelf paper covering) tell why and give a good example of how to fix (or a way for the manufacturer to fix....even better), i.e. use ultracoat or monokote instead. I just wish there was a universal standard writers should go by.....a code of ethics if you will.

Most of all don't be afraid of criticizing!!!! Afterall what do you have to lose from the review....nothing. The reviews should also be for the manufacturers to use as a "heads-up" to correct problems.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

RC Report is without a doubt #1 in magazines, couple things that stand out....

hardly any adds

reviews are GOOD reviews

there pages are STUFFED with info

Complaint about the MAN!
 

From what I understand, there are some folks that refuse to advertise in MAN. Reason, because in order to even get products reviewed, you MUST grease the publisher with lots and lots of ads.

In any case, I take MAN for what it is, pure eye candy. Every month it comes, I drool for a day or two at the stuff I can't afford and throw it away ;)

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I wrote helicopter kit reviews for MAN back in the late 80's for approximately two years. If memory serves, I did six different product, mostly pod and boom but one BK-117 scale.

It was an enjoyable experience and I am proud to say my services were often requested by a manufacturer or distributor for two very simple reasons. (1) I communicated with them on problem areas I encountered and they took steps to correct or clarify the issue which was then included in the review. And (2) I never modified or substituted any part of the product during the review process.

The manufacturer/distributor was able to preview the review and feed back questions or comments to Man's editors who then made the judgement call concerning changes. I can honestly say my reviews were printed 99% the way I wrote them.

I read reviews in all the publications today and glean good information from them. However I am disappointed when the writer laments silly little things just for the sake of making a negative point or immediately begins making modifications or discarding hardware, etc.

Personally I think the product should be assembled as intended by the manufacturer, unless a serious defect is found. It should not be modified to one's personal preference as this no longer represents the original product.

If the writer feels the product is really marginal then the review needs to be held until the manufacturer has the opportunity to correct the issues. Once that is done, or if they choose to not respond to the issues, then publish it, warts and all.

Reviewers are people too, blessed with fairness or ravaged with bruised egos. One needs to read between the lines ( and sometimes it is blatantly obvious) today to see the writers intent. Take from the info that which is useful to you.

One only needs to go online here to see exactly opposite comments about the same product. Absorb what you can then make your own decision.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Amen to Calflyer. Personal experience is best, followed in short order by personal experience by someone you trust. You can get lots of bulls**t from fellow flyers at the field, too. If anybody reads Model Aviation, they started doing product reviews, but made it clear that they would not publish a bad review. In other words, if the product stunk, they wouldn't publish the review. Their advice was don't buy anything that hadn't been reviewed. I thought this was a little fishy at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it made (a little) sense. Same probably goes for other mags, bad reviews don't get published. So if new gear hits the market, wait for a review or buddies experience, otherwise you're taking a risk. No review probably means junk product. Course, all bets are off for most gas or other low volume products.

My two cents,
Rein

Product reviews ??????
 

Any time you have a product that is advertised in a magazine there is no way you will ever get a 100% COMPLETE, and truthfull review. The magazine and the person that did the review both rely on each other to make a living. To say or publish bad things would just be cutting each others throat. If you want an honest report the money has to be a non issue. Till then it won't happen. I can give you an example. I subscribed over the years to a gun enthusiast magazine called "GUN TESTS". IT has no advertising. Totally supported by the subscriptions to it. They will take 2 or 3 of generally the same model gun from different manufactures and compare most everything you can think of about them. Then tell it just the way it is. They have nothing to loose. And it can save the public thousands of $ by preventing them from purchasing inferior products. There are many times they tell of missing items, parts that fall off or simply just don't work straight out of the box. And they also offer unbiased opinions. If you get a chance to read an issue do so, even if your not a gun enthusiast. Just to see what it is the RC community needs. These reports are done by people that know what they are doing. If we read a report on the internet done by Joe Blow we have no idea of their capabilities of doing a proper job. Untill the advertising money factor is done away with you won't get what you want. The best thing you can do till then is simply don't purchase their magazine. Money talks, BS walks. And if money starts to get tight for these magazines they will either change their ways or go out of buisness!!!!!!

Complaint about the MAN!
 

What pis''''' me is 99% of all the articles, where ever they come from tend to be construction based...even when it's a AFTF. Detailed accounts how they joined the wing????... wonderfull references to how the instruction included a box to tick of as you do each stage?????, how easily the cowl was trimmed???? and 1 million other trinckets of irrelivence!!!!!!!!!! page after page.
Then at last the flying of which if you analyse the 10 zillion reports aways concludes in
"exceptionally well." We'll in my opinion thats exceptional rubbish. I have people turning up with all sorts of aeroplanes and asking for help... advice...can you show me how to do this and that.
These are people that fly well but they just can't be helped because the aeroplanes they have are basically dreadful. They fly, period. Guys with kyosho this or that...flashy eye candy...man if these people are going to get on the learning curve they'ed be better of with a Coas or Tiger.
All aeroplanes fly but they sure don't fly equally well. Say this in a test report... a kiss good by the the ad-spend. There's the answer.

Even if you answer a post in these forums when an obvious rookie(ish) ask how a perticular model fly's and you answer "in my oppinion badly" You'll get 30 replys from other rookies saying "well I been flying for 3 years and I think it's great so go for it!"
Hummmm never mind.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Rein has it correct in that a really bad product won't make it to the review page at all. This was the policy at MAN during the peak RC helicopter years, presume it still is.

Eagle Flyer has a great point too as I have seen the very magazine at several friends homes. However a subscription only magazine in the RC world will never be a reality (it has been tried). Reasons are (1) the circulation base is too small to be cost effective and (2) Most RC'ers wont spend $10.00-$20.00 per issue to make it cost effective.

Again, I personally like all the magazines available and do appreciate the reviews. However it is still my responsibility to research a product before plunking down my money. And yes, I too have bought a few clunkers.

That is why....
 

someone needs to do one on the web......

Not a lot of overhead.......

Pug

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Bla Bla I hope you are not knocking Kyosho in particular, I have flown several and they are excellent models. Their Majestic is the best flying plane I own. Having said that, you have a point in saying that most of the articles are construction. Especially with ARF's, if it was a decent kit all you have to say is "The plane is an ARF. You guys are big boys, just follow the instructions."

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I agree with blabla. Its amazing how useless some of these reviews are getting. What annoys me the most is spending the money to buy a magazine with a review of the plane I am looking at buying only to find that the reviewer has little flying skill and to say "personally I cannot do 3d but with the large control surfaces it should do it well" or " My best friend did the test flight" If these guys cant even do a test flight then really what use is it to the experience flier who is looking for a good flying plane. How exactly does this help the buyer. I can remember one that said it had quite allot of roll coupling but holding in a bit of aileron seemed to fix it!! he then said it was one of the best models he had ever flown.... reviews are good but I still think seeing and flying one before you buy is the only way to be 100% happy at knowing what model your getting.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

3DMike

I agree with the fact that it would be nice to see the aerobatic potential of a plane in a review by having it flown by a pilot with those skills. Marc (RCadmin) brought up a good point with the UCANDO, that he was able to fly 3D on the first flight and he is not an expert 3D pilot. I would not want to read a review of a plane like the H9 Sukhoi from a guy who just got off a trainer. We are pretty careful about who we match up with particular models to ensure that you get a broader view of its flight capabilities.

Now the second part of your post, regarding having someone test fly the plane, I want to expand on because I am one of those guys who has other modelers fly my review planes in addition to myself. There are a couple reasons for this:

1) We do not have a staff photographer, so it is the reviewers responsibility to make sure that pics are taken of the plane. I also try to get video of the planes at the same time. I only have a couple friends that I can trust with my review planes. I know that if there is a major failure, they will be able to react accordingly. I start taking pics from the minute it breaks ground. Thankfully out of 12 planes, I never had problem.

2) Most reviews give you one persons opinion on the planes flight characteristics. I like to have several people fly them to get a couple opinions. Most of the pilots that I fly with have about the same flying level. There are a couple guys that are better than I am. So Why should I cut a review short if they can perform a maneuver that I can not. I want to give as much flight info as I can. That is what you guys want in the reviews, right???

I have been watching this thread because of my involvement with RCU Magazine. I think there are a lot of good points that were brought up. I also think there are a few people who just do not understand the nature of how this all works. Like I said, magazines are businesses. They have bills to pay and need to make money. Does this affect what reviews get shown and which ones do not? I am sure it has something to do with it. I read everything and I make my own decisions ultimately. MAN, RCR, RCM are all excellent publications. They put out a fine quality product and all have something unique to offer. Knowing people that work with these publications, I applaud all the hard work that goes into what they produce.

I have the same opinions as many of you when I read reviews. I am doing my best to take this feedback and work on my(our) reviewing styles to be sure that you (the reader) are getting everything you want out of a review. I am sure we will never be 100% to your liking, but we are trying.

Feel free to email me offline at [email protected] or PM me and if you have any thing that you would like to see differently in RCU reviews. We are really working hard to produce a quality product for our readers. Your feedback is always welcomed.

Also, If anyone has any questions or comments on any of the planes that I have reviewed, please shoot me an email. I do try to be as thorough and detailed as I can but sometimes people want to know more. My email box is always open!

Thanks
Erick

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Well, I've been reading this thread, with only one snide comment I made earlier. But I'd like to seriously ask a question, mainly to Dick T. I really don't mind that bad reviews don't make it, who cares about what stinks. But, and I'm serious here and I know 5 or 6 in my club who have said this too, what's really bad is that the reviews that are published are not accurate, especially on (OK, hold on tight, I'm gonna say IT!) GREAT PLANES products! Every GP product is perfect when reviewed, but every one I've gotten, and every one my friends have had at our club (I'm counting about 23 in my head) have had serious problems, most had to be there in the reviewed model. Covering, mardware wrong sizes, incidence wrong, firewall w/ wrong thrust, etc., etc.

Yes, I'm picking on GP, but can you honestly say that these reviews were honestly done, or are they advertising for the biggest Manufacturer out there?

I'm not mad, just sad. I'm happy with the planes I'm happy with, and my one remaining GP plane flies great after extensive changes.

Respectfully,
Gordon

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Gordon,

Since you bring up GP....If you read my Great Planes U-CAN-DO-3D review I told it exactly as I saw it. The plane in my opinion was put together well and at least to me extremely fun to fly (I know this is shared by many being that the ucando thread is almost the largest on RCU to date with praises littered throughout). I did document a problem I had with no right thrust in the firewall and how to fix it. Does this make it a bad ARF? I don't think it does. Just an issue that needed to be known and dealt with. A few washers to get this fixed and I was on my way.

I also replace the long 2-56 rods for ailerons & rudder for some carbon fiber. I don't know if the stock ones would cause flutter but it was easy to substitute and took no additional time on my part. Again a minor issue I would not knock an ARF for. Just my preference for what I was comfortable with for those pushrods. Others might disagree...lots of opinions we all have.

I'm also doing the Great Planes Venus. So far everything has been according to plan except for the wheel pants & a wing bolt I had to shorten. I'm not comfortable with the attachment method shown in the directions and will modify it and note why in the review. Does this mean the ARF is not a winner? Of course not. There is lots of subjectivity in how to do things with model aircraft and that is why many might not agree with the writers. I've seen stuff writers do to planes/heli's and say "I'd never glue that thing like that". Again just depends on what your comfortable with.

My UCANDO came out of the box with flawless covering. Not a single wrinkle or blemish. The Venus had a couple areas that needed tightening and a few minutes with an iron and it was perfect. No big deal in my opinion. Many kits come from overseas and the temperature and humidity changes in containers can wreak havoc on covering. All my models seem to loosen up a bit down in my cold basement. Again I wouldn't strike a kit down for it but that is me. Even before I ever take an iron to any ARF the covering blows away anything I could do on my best day.

There are things that are well outside of opinion like the absolute need for right thrust. While important it was not difficult to visually spot or to fix as I did on the ucando and noted it.

I've personally pointed out all the things I didn't like or had to fix/change in my reviews and why. None of them have prevented the model itself from being a plane I would not recommend (at least as I type this post).

Many peoples experiences and views may differ but that is what is so truly awesome about these discussion forums. We can express them and take away what we want to.

Often times the forums are a godsend. With that long bolt mentioned above on the venus I would never have known until the model was done what was happening. It was a 1/4" or so too long and hits the pushrod. I had to clip it shorter and it was fixed. Without these forums I might have spent more time figuring out why the control surface wasn't acting properly. A minor flaw and with the help of the members here a complete non issue as it will be for all readers of the review who may decide to get this plane.

I don't think in 26 years I've ever had a model where I didn't have to fix a few small things or change them to my preference. Usually minor nit picky stuff but perhaps that is what makes this hobby interesting at times.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I'm not sure what Gordon is asking of me here, but based on the comment that 20+ people in your club have had problems with GP kits/Arf's, I have to say you are looking at 20+ different opinions and expectations of what the product should be. One fellow may think nothing of ironing out a few covering wrinkles but the next guy goes ballistic over it. The same reaction can be applied to the review author. It is all a matter of perceived expectations.

As mentioned in other posts, the review needs to be taken as the author's opinion. Glean what you can from it, add what ever information you can get from RCU (probably now the best source of pro/con) and make your own decision before buying.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I agree with Marc that this type of conversation is very good and constructive as we all can learn from each other. Our "community” of modelers is very diverse and not shy about expressing their opinions. This is what has made the online forums so popular AND valuable. Here, you can express your individual opinion about a product and we as readers can make a decision to buy or not based on the general opinion of the group. I tend to treat these comments like a diving score, throw out the high and low and average the rest.

I am pretty happy to be involved with the writing of articles for RCU. I don’t get paid and thus far have purchased my own review material. I am giving my best and most constructive opinion about the models and hope to write articles in such a way that is useful to the modeling community. I can honestly say that the editors of RCU may have questioned one or two of my comments before release, but only in the light of “make sure what you are saying is correct” context and never have told me what to write.

Any publication will go through its growing pains, as will reviewers when they start writing for the first time. I hope you guys will continue to provide good feedback to RCU, as this is what drives the direction of the magazine. If RCU can provide useful information in the format that YOU are looking for, then it is a win for everyone.

I for one would love to hear your thoughts, positive and negative. I’m a big boy and have no ego to bruise, so let me know what you think. I will use it to hopefully write better reviews

Complaint about the MAN!
 

It seems to depend on which particular box you open. For example there are plenty of people who are delighted with their H9 Edge but mine sucks and was extremely poorly put together. Nothing fit.
Same for GP products and others.
However it seems to me that even after spending months on a kit there is always something thats not quite right or you wish you hadnt done.
Mass production and low prices have some drawbacks and for those of you that think it shouldnt be like that..get real.
My Truck cost a lot more than any ARF/kit and is riddled with defects and design flaws yet it got excelent reviews.
Treat all with a pinch of salt.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Quite a statement!

Experience, knowledge, preference, and personal opinions are what makes up a review. All of which lead to an excitement for a product. I've yet to meet two people who are identical in every way, so it's not possible to turn a review into an absolute truth for everyone. The best you can do is match reviews with reviewers based on the criteria above.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

WELL!!! Case in point. MAN has released an article in the new February 2003 issue on the SIG Sukhoi SU-31. NOTHING BUT HIGH PRAISE! but not a single word mentioned on the hundreds that had in-flight wing failures. SIG is FULLY aware of the problem and has been working the last year to fix it. However, not a single mention of the problem. They could have said that there WAS a problem and that it has been fixed, but they didn't.
IS THE PROBLEM FIXED??? or are a few more flyers going to experience the helpless feeling of seeing a big, heavy plane flying without wings and on it's own! Another case of irresponsible magazine article creation without giving any facts! Probably because the writer and editor are afraid for their jobs or really don't have the true technical expertise to make a factual assessment which should always include a call to the manufacturer to see if what kinds of complaints they have received on the plane in review.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Not a good case in point!

The Sig Sukhoi is a nicely done ARF that flys exremely well and did not experience "hundreds" of wing failures. It was more in tune to a dozen or so out of one thousand plus kits.

The overall quality and parts fit of mine was 98% positive, flyability excellent and capable of more than my flying skills. I saw over a dozen fly at various fields and fly ins and no owners there had any complaints.

The folks at Sig took care of me by sending a replacement fuse/tail kit at highly reduced cost (after a few good phone laughs) after I tripped and fell on my newly finished Sukhoi!

But once again, this is a single persons opinion which happens to coincide with the MAN review.