RE: Which Mag
 

$135 for that "field box"? Please. What's a review without some measure of cost vs utility?

You and I aren't going to agree here. I see the reviews from the standpoint of a critic, and you see them from the standpoint of someone involved in them.

RE: Which Mag
 

Well, I'm sorry that you're so cynical.

Who in their right mind would pay $1000 for an airplane for their hobby? Obviously some people would and some wouldn't.

We'll just agree to disagree

RE: Which Mag
 

Is a check O.K or do you prefer cash? Local pick-up only?

RE: Which Mag
 

With all the "controversy" over this field box review I decided to read it myself.

First of all I really like the design of this unit. The fuel pump is integrated, and serviceable, I love how the starter connectors are molded in, the battery is replaceable, and there is plenty of room for the essentials. The only potential negative I saw was that it had no place to plug it in to charge. From what I saw you would have to remove the battery, and charge as a separate unit (maybe you can charge from the front mounted glow charger connections). I might be wrong and if I am that is just one more plus in this things favor.

As I am very new to this, and still not actually soloing this is more box than I need. However once I get a couple new planes under my belt this might be going on the gift list. So much more elegant than the plywood box.

Now to comment on the review, it was obvious that the reviewer was very impressed by the item. It is true, I didn't see any negatives listed, or even a mention that no negatives could be found. A statement as simple as that would add a lot of validity to the review. Where I think the review really went off the track was the little scenario described at the end. There is nothing about this field box that will prevent you from forgetting to charge the unit. Sure there are bells and whistles that help you easily determine if system is charged, but if you don't turn it on to check you still won't know.

Ultimately, although kind of glossy the review does go into a lot of technical details, and even though I have not put my hands on one it looks to be a very well made unit. If it works and feels as good as it looks I can certainly understand the desire of the reviewer to pass on their enthusiasm over this product.

As it has been said, with everything you need to read between the lines. I also think that you can't just the value of a site's ability to review products based off of a single review. I have read several reviews here and for the most part find them to be very valuable. I definitely would trust them. One thing I would offer as a suggestion to the staff here at RCU is the ability for users to comment on reviews, then if you think a review is too biased and you have experience with the product you can offer alternative opinions. Just a thought, and not really worth 2 cents, but there you go.

Thanks

RE: Which Mag
 

First, any field box battery can be charged through the electric starter or fuel pump plugs.

Second, and review may be commented on here in the forums, or you can email the writer directly.

RE: Which Mag
 

No comment on the Dual Ace review, Mike? I thought that one was rather telling.

RE: Which Mag
 

Never read it

RE: Which Mag
 

Take the opportunity. Perhaps it'll be an eye-opener.

RE: Which Mag
 

Mike,

By same token...if you read all 600+ reviews I am sure you cannot say that every single review here glows throughout. Many point out lots of negatives and some are fairly brutal of the likes you would never see in any print magazine. When you get 600+ articles running the gamut of products and variety of writers you are going to slide through many ends of the scale. Some may be brutal, some may be average in their assessment and others might be glowing and be deserved of it or some may not deserve it. Alot depends on the writers and the product.

For those who write for rcu (and this can be ANYBODY who can write, take good digital pics and do video...there is no secret club here...I urge anyone to submit reviews to us...the more the better...we want members to participate) they can tell you that my instructions are to tell it like it is. If there is a problem they can and should point it out. If the issue is serious we contact the mfg and give them a chance to address it (i.e. was this a one off defect, is there a solution, tech bulletin, etc). We note this in our reviews when applicable.

Ultimately I believe you have to have transparency on these reviews or they lose value to the members and readers here. If a few of these appear to fall short of that from your perspective (or anyone's) I apologize but can say that it isn't by my editorial pen. Another thing I insist on is video for products that can be "shown" performing. Seeing is believing and you cannot fake a video. A magazine could tell you anything about the performance of a plane/heli/car/boat/truck but on RCU we show you what it did and you draw your own conclusions about performance if you want to disregard all the writers interpretations. Again I understand this only applies to certain products and perhaps not some noted here.

I appreciate your comments, feedback and criticism and I am glad we can all discuss these sorts of things in such a mature fashion with an eye towards constant improvement of the content we publish here.

Marc

RE: Which Mag
 

Marc, the reviews here come from the marketing side of RCU. You know that better than anyone. There are deadlines for publishing that would be entirely artificial (after all, there's no need to print anything), if it weren't for product introductions and advertising campaigns on the part of the companies providing the products for review.

The writers, to my knowledge, don't control the content of the reviews. Addendums must be run through Erick Royer, who coincidentally also handles the advertisers. Am I wrong about this?

Reviewers aren't paying for the product. There's rarely any discussion of value, and there's never discussion of competing products that may provide better value/quality/performance. Why is that? My assumption is that it is because it would quite naturally spoil the opinion of those providing the product for review, and might turn some of their ad budget to outlets other than RCU.

Reviewers will often encourage people to PM them about the product, for the "real" details. What does that imply? It certainly doesn't imply that the reviews contain all of the reviewer's opinions.

Nothing is ever said about the disposition of the models. How many of the authors sell or give away the product after the review? The final disposition of the product certainly is a fine indicator of what the reviewer really did think. Sometimes you see that mentioned in the forums.

RCU's "reviews" aren't done with impartiality and a willingness to openly say "hey, this really is not good, and I would not recommend buying this product." The only substantial difference between magazine "reviews" and RCU "reviews" is that RCU offers amateur video and the opportunity to ask questions of the authors. That's it.

RE: Which Mag
 

Dead wrong

I have only had one thing removed from one of my reviews without my prior approval, and that was an off-topic comment that in retrospect was in poor taste. (In case you're wondering, it was a joke about a well-known actress)

I know that I often encourage readers to email me to ask questions that I may not have addressed, but the "real" details are in the review

I started making a living with a video camera in 1985.

http://videoserver.rcuniverse.com/rc...76/ultvidh.wmv

Not bad for an amateur huh?

RE: Which Mag
 

There really are no "marketing sides" as we are way too small to have divisions. RCU is made up of me, my partner michael, erick who handles ad sales and a handful of part time contractors (all hobbyists) and volunteer moderators. We have no deadlines to publish anything here and no due dates. As a courtesy to the companies that do send product for review we do ask that writers turn stuff around as fast as they can. Sometimes that is a week, a month, 3 months and other times over a year.

The writers control all the content of the reviews on RCU. Your statement above is false. There are no addendums that are not given to the writers to put into the reviews. They get them and add them. Erick Royer has nothing to do with the review process at all other than putting the vendors in touch w/me if we need to find a writer for a particular product review. Once that is done I handle everything w/the writer and often put the writers in touch w/the vendors when applicable thus keeping my influence out of the mix.


Writers don't pay for some product and others they do. Not all product we review is given to us at no cost or discount. Some of it the cost is borne by the writer. Additionally most reviews require substantially MORE investment on behalf of the writer to complete then the product they are given. Try completing a 90 size arf or giant scale plane and figure out the cost for rx, servos, engine, etc. No great bargains here. Yeah..once the review is done they can keep it, sell it, give it away, crash it, put it on display or whatever. If they do go the route of selling it they are lucky for their 40 to 100 hours invested to get back what they put into it to complete it considering the 50 cents to 75 cents on the dollar resale value of anything out of the box in this hobby.

Doing reviews is no glamourous or money making venture. You do it because you love it, period. If you don't believe me and want the inside track on this do a review for RCU. I'll get you whatever plane you want. You complete it and then you walked the mile in the writers shoes and can comment firsthand on the rcu process and how it works and how profitable it can be for your time. These review writers do what they do out of passion. Do just one and you will realize that is the only reason anyone would do one, period. I guarantee it. You will have to take the challenge to see it though. There is no other way to realize this so just lmk.

RE: Which Mag
 

Mike, I'm not wrong. I had a discussion about this with the fellow who's done the RC sim reviews. He had to ask ER's permission in order to get the specs for his computer added into the reviews after they'd been finished.

You're one of the people I've seen encourage users to do this, Mike.

Plenty of "detail" that could be in reviews certainly comes out in the threads about the particular products. There's ample opportunity. There is, however, spin involved. That P-38 review, for example. Rather than saying that it was a product you'd not buy for yourself, you said it's a "builder's ARF." That's faint praise, but it certainly isn't how most people would choose to communicate the message.

I think that's great. How many of the other reviewers have been making their livings with video cameras? I'd wager that the vast majority of them are amateurs. If I'm wrong about that, please do correct me.

You're taking this personally, and that's unfortunate. RCU's reviews are tainted because of the economic realities that support them as well as the overall design of the review program. Near as I can tell, you're not responsible for either of those. If you want to take offense at a specific comment I've made about or to you in particular, shoot me a PM and let's hash it out.

RE: Which Mag
 

You're creating your own spin now. What would make you think that this is not a product that I would buy myself?

Did I ever insinuate that?

As a matter of fact, I sold that plane last year at an auction because I needed the money to fund another review, and now that flying season is here, I'm really kicking myself for it. I really liked that plane. Yes, it needed work, but nothing that I wouldn't do again for that price.

RE: Which Mag
 

Yay! Another thread dragged hopelessly off-topic by one member with a point to prove at any cost!

*unsubscribe*

RE: Which Mag
 

You're right about that. "I will work up a revision to the articles and submit it to Larry for update." My memory stuck Erick in place of Larry.

Thanks for the offer, Marc, but I'll pass. I have no more desire to do that now than I did a few years ago, for the exact same reasons.

RCU's reviews simply are not impartial, free-speaking reviews in my opinion. I've come to this through talking with the people involved, reading a great many of them, reading of other peoples' experiences in the forums, and my own experiences. So much more could be done with the format, to make them truly useful. Incorporating certain small facts, such as the disposition of the model, and number of flights prior to the review being written (is two or three really enough to get to know an airplane?) wouldn't just add credibility, they'd add some real basis for understanding the author's opinion of the model. Follow-ups wouldn't be very difficult to do, would they? My opinion on a product often changes as time goes on. Some discussion of value and comparison to possible substitutes would certainly make the reviews follow a thought process much more like that of a person considering a product, rather than a person accentuating the positives and minimizing the negatives. Linking to forum threads discussing the products certainly would help the reader to find more opinions.

When it comes down to it, Marc, what's the purpose that you see the RCU review program serving? Additional page views? Positive relations with advertisers? Rewarding those that have put time into RCU with a token of thanks? Informing members about products they're likely to be interested in? Providing the real skinny on such products? I think those are all purposes of the program. What order they fall into in terms of priority I don't know--I can only form my own opinions about that. I do know that there is room for improvement.

RE: Which Mag
 

First off, you've offered it up as an example of a less than complementary review. Second, you sold it. Third, you've not bought another. Yes, you've insinuated that.

RE: Which Mag
 

No, that's what YOU have spun into it.

Did I not portray it in a genuine light? Did I fail to mention its shortcomings? Did I "gloss over" anything?

Yes, I sold it, and I explained why. Need I mention that I bought 2 OS 70s, 11 digital servos, and God knows how many extensions for that thing? Not to mention the little items like new gearwire and accessories. I'm not a rich man. I can't be laying out that kind of money on a regular basis. And BTW, I didn't even cover the cost of ONE engine when I sold it.

And no, I have not bought another. I did however recently buy a GP Seawind to replace the one I reviewed last year which died due to radio failure. Will I buy another P-38? Probably not. I rarely have time to fly my own planes anymore, and I have a few favorites already (And I shot my budget on the Seawind) - But it sure would be nice if I still had that P-38 ready at a moments notice.

I spend a lot of time here at RCU. A lot of members respect my opinions and advise. I'm not about to jeopardize that trust by lying to them.

If you don't want to believe me, there's nothing I can say to make you.

RE: Which Mag
 

Mike,

Ok..so I tell you the same thing that I would tell anyone.....do it better. Don't cop out here on us. You are passionate enough to go on here about this topic which you seem to care about and now you have a chance to make a difference and change it all. Do it your way. Mix it up. Set an example for others to follow.

Submit your own and we'll publish it. If you want to buy the stuff on your own to retain your 100% impartiality go nuts :) If you want me to get you something and you think you can remain impartial because you got the airframe free, I'll get it. Then you can write it your way, with your spin and we'll publish it right in the rcu magazine I won't even fix any grammar or spelling and will put red type at the top saying "This review is unaltered from Mike L's submission".

I offer this to anyone as long as they can write (decent spelling/grammar), take photos of reasonable good quality and get video. Nothing more I can offer in terms of being 100% open and transparnt here. Our magazine is an open publishing platform that anyone can take part in including you and do it your way. It is your pulpit for the taking but as you noted above...you pass for "lack of desire and same reasons". That is fine but I would be more hesitant about knocking others works down when nobody, including you, is willing to step up to the plate and show how much better it can be done your way.

Even though you may not like our reviews we get 1000's of emails and pm's complimenting how good they are, useful and hepful. Based on the views they get somebody keeps coming back to read them which means somebody finds something of value they can take away from them whatever that may be. All our writers give 100% effort and tell it like it is from their vantage point regardless of whether that coincides with your opinion.

Do reviews help RCU, the members and the mfg's? Of course they do. I think anyone who reads any review realizes this in not only here but in any industry. That doesn't mean that one should not review products simply because everyone benefits. One of the only companies who does a full arms length deal is Consumer Reports. However they are funded by subscriptions and can afford to purchase everything they review and also have ZERO ads. That ecosystem does not work online in the rc industry so we work within the system that we have to maximize the benefit to our members/readers which also benefits the site and of course mfg's collaterally with incremental exposure for products.

RE: Which Mag
 

How about deleting this thread ? It serves no purpose. Lets get back to flying , MikeL want to fight , go over and give the troops a hand.

RE: Which Mag
 

:) If I could, I would. Instead I've made some simple suggestions that would, in my mind, improve the review program here at RCU. You'll either consider them or you won't. You know as well as anyone that I want to see RCU reach its potential, and you know I've put my share of time in towards making that happen.

RE: Which Mag
 

First...I didn't know that, and can I just say Whoohoo! No more taking my battery out of the box just to charge. Knowing this I might just solder my battery to my panel. At the very least implement something more stable than just alligator clips.

Second...Again didn't know that. I was thinking of something more direct like a link at the bottom of the review where you could submit comments. I sort of just threw that off the top of my head at the time. Given a little more time to think about it, and adding your comment to this I can see where that would become a little confusing having two places to make comments.

Thanks for the response!

RE: Which Mag
 

Actually, I sent your suggestion to Marc and he like it. So you just mat see a "Rate this Review" area soon

RE: Which Mag
 

Hey if he implements I am glad I could help. This site has been a nearly endless source of information to me since I started back. Now if I could just focus as much on work, I might really be able to get some things done :D

RE: Which Mag
 

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.