Complaint about the MAN!
 

I can't stand the fact that MAN reviews of new ARF's are nothing but fluff! I know they depend on manufacturers for revenue (I think) but jeez, can't they come up with some good constructive criticism? Some of the airplanes they have reviewed are just junk....but you would'nt know it from their articles. If MAN and others were to give very objective reviews we might have a totally different line of ARF's to choose from (most likely of much higher quality). I want to see complaints about insufficient gluing, cheap covering, weak retracts, poor instructions, cheap hardware, etc. etc. etc. I have'nt seen an ARF yet that didn't contain at least one of those poor qualities................................ :mad: :mad: :mad:


Good thing the internet has some alternative resources, but I like magazines.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Hi Kurt, that is why I stick to my RC Report magazine. They generally "tell it like it is" when it comes to ARF's as well as kit built models.
And just because they are located in "Bama" has nothing to do with it!! :)
Just my .02 cents worth. John

Complaint about the MAN!
 

If someone wanted to send me planes to reveiw I would give you all the details you could handle in my own opinion,not enfluinced by anyone,I may have already built one you might be interested in.

MAN should get it together......
 

I will check out RC Report, but I still think MAN stinks! I think I won't renew my subscription this year and go with something else. Also, no offense to all of the authors of On-line reviews but I think most are a bit biased. People tend to hype up things they own or if they just put down some serious cash for it. Reviews should be brutal if anything is found wrong or could use improvement. :mad:

Complaint about the MAN!
 

i dont hipe up anthing cause I don't have MONEY to put down on things what do you want a reveiw on?

Thanks, but this is just a complaint in general.
 

I am not looking for a review but am voicing my disappointment about publications many people trust or depend on.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

The manufacturers are just as much at fault as the magazines. They know what flaws their products have but they have too much money invested in them to change anything.

Mike

I can't believe that you just figured out that all MAN reviews are fluff!!
 

That has been true for as long as I can remember.

The power of the internet is changing things though.

There are very few publications that have the courage of their convictions, I am glad to hear about RC Review Report, but I have come to depend more and more on the opinions on fellow modelers in forums just like this one.

There is a difference in the quality of manufacturers because there is a difference in their philosphy of doing business.

How many bad things have you heard about World Models?

Or Hangar 9?

You learn who makes a good ARF, and then stick to them like glue.

Reputation to me is more important than the variety of available ARFs, so I will stick to those manufacturers who have demonstrated excellence, and not given me the texas two step in responding to questions.

The difference in responses is night and day.

I will look into RC Review Report, that sounds like something I want to have, but the guys at the field, and the opinions of the modelers here, mean more to me than the platitudes that MAN heaps on a product or that some manufacturers rep heap on us here.

JMO

Steve

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Can you give us a point of contact for RC Review Report to either purchase or subscribe? i read an article in a magazine about a kit I'm currently working on. The article came directly from the manual!

Tazz

Complaint about the MAN!
 

It is actually RC Report and can be found here:

http://www.rcreport.ws/

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I agree with John on going with R/C Report. They cut no one any slack and pretty much tell it like it is. I've heard Fox manufacturing at one time pulled their ad from the magazine on account of a bad review they were given. I definitely give them 2 thumbs up.

Maverick, thanks for the correction
 

Going to order it tomorrow

My kind of magazine, sort of a consumers reports for RC Enthusiasts, doesn't get any better than that.

I have always used MAN, and the other Mags as just a fin read, never relied on their reviews, which I knew were pure fluff

Steve

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Yes, RC Report definitey gives the most objective reports. And they're done by very, very reputable builder/flyers.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

You will find a number of the columnists actually frequent RC Universe too!

MAN gets the boot from me!
 

I will subscribe to R/C Report today and give them a shot. ;)

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I've done a few reviews for UK magazines, the problem is even though you tell it as you find it (this is crap, that is crap etc) the editor cuts and changes your article so much that when you read it, you wonder who wrote it ? I guess the magazines rely on the advertising revenue too much, to rock the boat.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Well, guess all I can do is agree with all this. MAN stinks, RCM stinks, I read both of them at walmart while my wife shops. After all, each one takes about 15 minutes. Skip the editorials, the reviews, and all you have left are the ads (more pages of ads than anything else).

I read the Jan RC Report three times over the thanksgiving weekend, every article, every ad, I just looked at it again and I have 11 dogged eared pages, there's stuff there I can actually use!

I agree with the World Models ARF comment as well, mine was great! As have been all my SIG Somethin' extras. (I know, you should only have one but I love this plane!)

The biggest is the worst if you ask me. I will never touch annother Great Planes. Any company that would actually send screws that don't fit the blind nuts, etc. etc., etc.

Great ARFS are GREAT, Bad ARFS as sooooooo BAD!

Gordon

Complaint about the MAN!
 

You have to look at the reviews in magazines with some considerations.
First - the editor wants a review which arrives on time for publication -
It also needs pictures of interest.
The writing does need to be as positive as possible - these are exclusively, products being advertised, given to the magazine for testing and promotion.
The reviewer is apt to be a person with time to do the job and a reputation for getting it to print on time.
In some cases , the reviewers are actually accomplished in their field.
In other cases - not so accomplished.
A cold analytical review really does not read well- In today's market - buzz words and hype count.
- Mike Billingham, once did excellent engine reviews -I don't see this quality anymore.
The kit reviews I have seen for most larger ARF acrobats are all at a novice level - but really , that's where the market is directed.
Once the reviewer interjects some technical sh-t into the writing -the audience starts to drift away.
Writing articles also takes some time for the reviewer to develop a style which appeals to the editors.
If the reader feedback and sales are positive - that type review will keep being published.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Not sure what I am getting into here but...

Have you read our reviews on RCUniverse?

What do you think?

I think that they are very objective and list the pros and cons of the models. Our reviews tend to have a lot more information than the magazines offer because we are not limited to by space. When is the last time you've seen video in a magazine?

Personally, I am a big fan of all the magazines. They all offer something different. I have a good friend that works at MAN so I can apprieciate all the work that goes into the product that they deliver to you each month.

While It may be true that you do not see anyone in a magazine trash a product, they do offer some points that are of concern. RC Report is pretty open about their findings, maybe more-so than MAN or RCM.

Here is what you need to understand... There is a lot that goes on in the background of the every magazine and review media, including RC Report and RCuniverse. Each of these mediums is a business. Businesses are around to make money, hopefully! A magazine succeeds the revenue brought in from subscribers, newsstand sales, and advertisers.

Put youself in this scenario. You are a manufacturer of an ARF. It is a good quality ARF, that you take pride in. You spend $1000 a month to advertise your ARF with XYZ Modeler Magazine. You offer up a model for review to this magazine. Perhaps the reviewer does not have the same experience as you, or they are used to a different type of model. How would you feel when you open up your next issue and see your pride and joy with one "hit" listed and 25 "misses"? You would be very upset. Would you consider spending $1000 a month to advertise with them. Suppose you had no idea about the outcome of the review? Would you feel ambushed?

Most magazines with the exception of RC report let the manufacturer read the review prior to publishing it. This is done, not to have them change what you wrote, but to ensure that what is written is accurate. If the review is bad, then the manufacturer might choose not to have it published. I am sure this happens much more than you may think. I know that if my product was getting a bad review, I would not want it published. I would want an opportunity to make it better.

I know when I write for RCU, I am in contact with the manufacturers if there is something that I am not sure of, or I do not like. Most of the time the manufacturer will offer help, new parts, or expanded instructions. Sometimes they will let me make a modification to suit my needs. I have never had a manufacturer get mad at me for my comments. They want the feedback. When I run into a problem, I always mention it and I also mention the outcome. I am upfront with the manufacturer as well. If they tell me to "beat it" then that is exactly what I will report in my review.

Most of my reviews are very positive. That is because the final outcome and experience with the model/company was positive. If I do not like something I say it, but I also explain my reasons.

The same thing goes on with the other mags. RC Report is different. They review the product and do not consult the manufacturer prior to publishing. I like their reviews as well, though I wish they had more pics. The only problem I see with this method, is that if there is a mistake with the instructions, assembly, or components, and the manufacturer has a solution, you might not know about it.


I know that I would not want to pickup a magazine and read about all the "junk" out there. I want to hear constuctive comments and solutions.

I short example. There was a guy at a club I used to fly at that had a brand new H9 Cap 232 25%. This is/was a beautiful plane. He made a mistake with the epoxy mix for the wing joiner and it never really cured. He put the plane into a hard snap roll and boom! The wing separated resulting in a total loss of his plane. He came back to the pits and said "H9 is junk, I will never buy anything from them again, the kit is crap". When we looked at the glue joint you can see it was still not curred. There was no way we could tell him that thought! If this guy was doing a review, what would it have sounded like? I am sure H9 would have wanted to make it right rather than have it published that way.

Marc (RCadmin) reviewed an electric cap a couple months back. He crashed it during the first flights. Read the review. It was very good despite the crash!

Sorry to be so long winded, but this is a subject that I used to feel the same way about until I started writing reviews. There is so much that goes on before you ever get a chance to read it.

Thanks
Erick

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Hving spent ten years writing articles for a magazine -I have some insight on "reviews".
Making a well done -objective review is tough enough .
When the readers are from widely varied experience levels , some expecting a full capabability review of the model/engine/kit/whatever -- it makes things a bit tougher.

forget the politics
 

Forget the politics. If I read a magazine to get info on a product and the info is wrong what good is the magazine. I don't care about the editor or the manufacturer, I care about my hard earned dollar and if I buy a plane because some magazine says its good and it turns out to be a piece of junk I have been ripped off. I don't subscribe to any magazines any more. I buy an occasional R.C. Report if there is something in it I am interested in. And that piece of trash the AMA puts out is only good for wrapping dead fish in. AMA costs the same whether you get the magazine or not or I wouldn't even get that. The R.C. Universe magazine is showing some potential but when they test a fun fly plane they should get reviewers who know how to really fly this type of plane. Also if the weather was too bad to really test the plane then why release the review. If a review is incomplete it is useless.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

I started a web site almost six (6) years ago because of the complaints that are being expressed here. There are now over 150 kit reviews on the site. All of them are done by modelers who wanted to express their opinions about particular kits with which they were familiar. They got no compensation for submitting the reviews so they were not swayed by the manufacturers or distributors. Maybe I am biased, but I don't think you can get more honest reviews than those on my web site.

The biggest problem is getting modelers to write reviews. I have solicited many modelers to do reviews with mixed results. Some are more than willing to attempt it. Most of them say they do not have time to write a review, they are not capable of writing a review, or simply do not respond to the request. One person even asked what he would be paid for his service. I get no compensation for supplying the information. I don't even take advertising. I put the site out there strictly as a medium for supplying information to other modelers. After paying for the web space, there is certainly nothing left to pay for review submissions.

Anyone who would like the opportunity to express his opinion is welcome to submit a review for posting. There is a guideline article on the web page that will help in writing the review. It is not difficult at all to write a review. After all, it is not under the scrutiny of a heavy-handed editor nor advertisers.

RC Report......
 

RC Report is a great mag. Been reading it since it was news paper style......

They have recently lost a few good writers. Jerry went to the dark side (RCM - Just joking Jerry :) ), Kitchen Table is gone and replaced with Stu Richmond (I use to read RCM just for his column Sunday Flyer (For whatever reason I do not like his RC Report column), and they tend to focus on scale right now. There are two scale columns, and then the Sporty Scale column. IMHO - Frank is nothing but a self promoting writer. All he talks about is his events he puts on. He is in every picture of his column, and he is always dropping names. Maybe this is what Gordon wants him to do, I don't know, but I feel it is a waste of space (just my opinion). Ed's column is very good, and even though I am not into jets or combat, those columns are pretty good.

We need Jerry back, we need Kitchen table back, need to lose a scale column, or let Petit write more. His Big column and his reviews are the best part of RC Report right now.......

If magazines are there to promote....
 

....products they should make it abundantly clear that is their objective. The Reviews are only part of the magazine and should be as objective as possible (otherwise the purpose has been defeated). If manufacturers had their crap shoved back in their faces via very objective reviews then I think the quality of todays ARFs would be substantially higher. I know it must take some considerable effort to put a review together on time but it only takes a second to see bad manufacturing......weak hardware, cheap covering....etc. To me there is absolutely no excuse for these magazines to be putting out "reviews" like they currently do. They are nothing but big glorified Ads for the manufactures...........fluff....fluff....fluff.

Complaint about the MAN!
 

Thanks for the kind words Pugsley.....I guess Kurt hasn't read the last issue of RCR - especially the PTR on the RV-4 by Hollis Fenn:)

Not a lot of fluff there ;)

And Lightfoot - your site is GREAT! It's a "I MUST Contribute a REVIEW ASAP" for those who are dissatisfied with the glossies' reviews.

Jerry

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."