jkinosh

I was wondering if anyone else has had a problem getting their first issue of the magazine.

I received the bill for the subscription the beginning of august, but as of today, and several e-mails to Fly RC, I still have not received the first issue.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Jacob

rc-sport

My Feedback: (12)

I received my bill first also. The Magazine arrived later, believe its not worth the wait. Its just like MAN.

Barry-RCU

I got the first issue and never knew about the mag until it arrived. It seems to have more content than the other mags, will that continue?

SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

I got mine from the local book store. Its better than MAN I think. It is chock full of info. Has a boat load of reviews and nice pretty ads to browse as well. Over all good stuff

matt

jkinosh

W will see what happens, I just got a e-mail back from their customer service, and they said that they will be glad to send me out a replacement copy. They told me this same thing almost 2 weeks ago, and I still have not seen anything.

Jacob

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Still have not received mine..

depfife

My Feedback: (14)

Got mine a couple of weeks after the bill arrived. Actually got two copies. I may have John's.

Eric

RCPAUL

My Feedback: (1)

I signed up a couple of weeks ago here on RCU - I've heard nothing. If it is anything like MAN, I'll cancel immediately!

RCPAUL

Johnnylightning

Ditto

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

:boxing:

SunShyne

My Feedback: (68)

not to bash or flame anyone but maybe you all should of waited until it hit news stands and looked through it before maiking an annual commitment

matt

TomCrump

After getting the mag, I marked cancel on the bill annd mailed it in.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Some of you have stated (or actually did) that you would cancel the subscription if the mag was like MAN...

Can you tell me why? Very curious....

I borrowed a friends copy of the latest MAN with the H9 46% Ultimate review...

I really felt the review was skimpy. Altho it DID relay some info about the servo setup, nothing was mentioned about canister potential, finished weight, time to assemble/disassemble.

Engine mounting was : Bolt it on with 1/4-20 bolts after pinning the firewall.... No pics of the install.... Was there a spacer required? What's the front look like so MAYBE I could figure out if cans were possible.

How did it balance? Where was everything located to get it there? HOW did they actually balance it?

What about the fuel tank? How is it situated? Is it on CG or what?

A smoke system was used but not mentioned. The videos show the smoke, but nothing was written about it nor the placement of the "stuff".

So basically all I got from the article was "We arranged for our friend to get a free plane, we built it according to the instructions but made our own secret mods, we took 6 pictures and it flew "sport" just fine." "Check out the website for 4 videos showing the plane doing nothing."

I even read it twice thinking I missed a page.

I know nothing MORE than before I read it.

I think any good reviewer should sit down BEFORE writing the review, and determine what the readers might want to know... make a list, and address those questions directly.

To be honest, I can't imagine WHY the manufacturers would rather get a skimpy, tell nothing review in MAN than to have a comprehensive building article, complete with NUMEROUS photos, quality video and availability to the WORLD 24-7... PLUS link to it directly from thier site...

I bet we see some changes to this attitude in the next year!

mvigod

Well..that makes no sense. Just because you get the bill doesn't mean you have to pay it. The DEAL made with MapleGate for RCU members is that you will get the magazine and a bill for a year. When you receive the magazine you read it and if you like it you THEN pay the bill and if you don't like it you mark cancel on the bill and pay zero, nothing, nada.

There is no annual committment until you decide to get the subscription by paying the invoice. If you cancel you pay zip. This is a zero risk offer for RCU members to test the water. If the bill came before the magazine it is not a big deal. The distributors that ship the magazine out might lag the invoice. Just hold onto the invoice until you get the magazine. You are not expected to decide to pay the bill or mark cancel until you have had the opportunity to read the magazine and make a decision.

Is that clear enough I hope?

blue62

My Feedback: (3)

got the mag, mostly electric stuff, won't subscribe. i liked the free plan in the issue, if it would have been a gasser i prolly would have subscribed! if its gonna be all electric stuff i will not order it. now b4 somebody says" they had gassers in there" yes they did a couple of arf's! ok fair enough, but i don't do those either! kits are my deal.
so to sum it up and give feedback to whoever cares, i liked the mag and the plans but it doesn't cover what i am interested in so i will have to say no thanx!

john

Steve Campbell2

Finally got a chance to peruse one. It is very similar to MAN; no big surprise there, since Tom Atwood is the man running it. I agree that this particular issue has more solid content than your average issue of MAN (which is no trick; the editorial-to-ad-copy ratio in MAN is usually 1:3 or worse, and THAT is why, Mordib), but I also wonder how long before the ad kings take it over like they have MAN???

I'll pass; R/C Report still has twice the meat'n'potatoes.

Steve

WORNBOOTS

My Feedback: (33)

I signed up when the link was posted in C/H

Still have not rcv'd Bill or Preview copy?

Anyone else still waiting?

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Im still waiting...

Johnnylightning

Mega Dittos! However...

..."The best things in life are free"

Rocketeer10

I really felt the review was skimpy. Altho it DID relay some info about the servo setup, nothing was mentioned about canister potential, finished weight, time to assemble/disassemble.

Wow! you guys are a tough crowd! And I thought it was one of our better reviews. 6 pages in length with a lot more info than usually included... Weight? time to build? (see page 35, under Specifications) Did you really read this article? do you need glasses?

Engine mounting was : Bolt it on with 1/4-20 bolts after pinning the firewall.... No pics of the install.... Was there a spacer required? What's the front look like so MAYBE I could figure out if cans were possible.

No engine info? Did you read page 40? "Ultimate Power" Nice photo, I thought... Specs on the engine, Photo shows it is a drill 4 holes and bolt it into place... what more would you like to see?

How did it balance? Where was everything located to get it there? HOW did they actually balance it?

Balance point. According to Sal "my buddy" (lucky guy isn't he?) the model balance right where it was suppose to be. To check the balance, he and a friend (not me) held it by the wings in the garage. Nothing special and no extra ballast weight required.

What about the fuel tank? How is it situated? Is it on CG or what?

Where would you expect the tank to be? It is in the engine mount box right behind the firewall. (See page 37 and 38 text) It is under "Engine Installation"

A smoke system was used but not mentioned. The videos show the smoke, but nothing was written about it nor the placement of the "stuff".

Sal used a Don Harris Smoke System. As far as I know, it is no longer available, at least Don, doesn't answer the number I have for him. He doesn't advertise anywhere either. In a review if a new car, would you expect a detail description of how a turbo charger works? Since it was not available we did not mention it.

So basically all I got from the article was "We arranged for our friend to get a free plane, we built it according to the instructions but made our own secret mods, we took 6 pictures and it flew "sport" just fine." "Check out the website for 4 videos showing the plane doing nothing."

Hmmm! video online to see its test flight.... not impressive? I think so, what other mag shows you any videos of test models? Did you really read the article? Or are you just on an anti-MAN soap box? I have to tell ya, I wrote right up front that the article and test was done in about 2 weeks. 3 guys trying their best to do a good job showing what this big arf was all about. Instructions should be followed to evailuate a product. What secret Mods are you talking about? Putting gas in the tank and charging the radio? What about the radio Power Bus Pro Info, the JR Match Box info, the Nelson quad rudder servo info, I know, all useless bantering to the manufacturer... NOT!


I even read it twice thinking I missed a page.

I know nothing MORE than before I read it.
Wow! Im impressed

I think any good reviewer should sit down BEFORE writing the review, and determine what the readers might want to know... make a list, and address those questions directly.

Funny, that's exactly what we do. We have a reviewer template that we give our reviewers. They try to follow it and if they miss something important, I try to get the info included.

To be honest, I can't imagine WHY the manufacturers would rather get a skimpy, tell nothing review in MAN than to have a comprehensive building article, complete with NUMEROUS photos, quality video and availability to the WORLD 24-7... PLUS link to it directly from thier site...

Your definition of "Skimpy" shows me you would never be pleased with anything MAN would write about plane and simple. I feel for you man, and I do hope you don't waste your money buying MAN if you don't like it. barrow a copy... Doesn't sound like you've ever see the MAN website either. 85,000 subscribers who renew their subs must all be wrong!!!

I bet we see some changes to this attitude in the next year! [/quote]

Your attitude? I do hope so.

Please don't think I am ranting and raving here, I an just very surprized when ever I read these one sided, MAN is the anti-Christ or modeling threads. I won't waste my time trying to convince someone that they are full of hot air and just jumping on the public band wagon trying to drag down other people who are doing the best they can to make a living and produce an good magazine. Can MAN be better? Sure! Are we as bad as you say? maybe in your little world, but we would not be Celibrating our 75th birthday in 2004 if we were.

Personally, I'd like to see some of these strings be as honest as they demand publications to be.... Just see the strings in rec.models.rc.air and see what they say about RC Universe.... I don't agree with them either... I like RCU., Let's just be a little more honest and fair when we post.

GY

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

I sure am sorry to have stepped on your toes. I'm not anti-MAN or any other RC resource and my post wasn't meant to be a personal insult.

A couple different individuals made a statement regarding their percieved value of MAN, and I had just read the review. I asked about why they felt that way and then shared my opinion of the review...

You see, I have some legitimate interest in the product, but, to be honest, your review didn't tell me anything I hadn't already gleaned from the website or the online assembly manual. And I was disappointed because I really hoped to get a builder's and flyer's perspective.

Weight... did you all weigh the plane? The 40 lbs. you stated was the "target" weight... I really wanted to know what it came in at as MANU planes come in heavier that "the target" weight. It ouwld also help me determine how much mine might weigh using different equipment.

Maybe I DO need glasses because I don't see where you mentioned how long it took to assemble/disassemble at the field. Especially with a bi-plane, people might want to know just how long it takes to put all them things together.

The engine sidebar was an ad for DA... (which is fine by me they are awesome engines) but again, all available on their website. What about canister mufflers... you mean to tell me that it NEVER occured to you readers might want to know if canister mufflers were designed in, or at the least, could be worked in?

Fuel tank location? Why the snide remark? It would be nice to know if there was room for it at the CG... 32 .oz of fuel and smoke add up... and it would be NICE to know if there is opportunity to center these big dogs...

Smoke system? It would have been nice to have been told about installing smoke... MOSTLY because of the tank location.

Mods? You did a decent job of sharing what hardware used, but where were the batteries located to adjust the CG? Where did the receiver/power bus sit? How was the cowl mounted? That's a big cowl! 4 screws, 6 screws, more? What method was used to prevent that big beautiful thing from getting all cracked up or torn around the screws? Is the plane naturally noseheavy or tailheavy? If I decided to use big NiCads instead of Duralites, would I have a balance issue? I wouldn't know because I don't know where you located what you had.

How many extensions and what size were used? I could have done without the repeating of the manuals surface deflections and would have welcomed a list of extensions required.

Instead of "say nothing" pics of a spinner, wheelpant, cabanes, etc... how about a shot of the whole "guts" area? Maybe that one pic could have answered a lot of questions.

I suppose, giving the space limitations of a magazine review, I would have expected the review to be much less of a "thinned down" construction manual and more of a builder's and flyer's perspective.

Here you have a T.O.C. capable plane and instead of bringing in a pilot to make the plane perform for great video, there is just some very basic flight video. At least maybe a link to some 3D footage of Mike wringing it out or SOMETHING....

As a reader, I found the article only mildy informative and basically too generic.

I'm sorry if that opinion offends you. Criticism is a hard pill to swallow, but if taken with a positive attitude, can lead to bettering the reviews.

I wasn't bashing MAN, you or anyone else... I was just stating my disappointment specifically with the Ultimate Review.

Rocketeer10

In a nut shell, you ask for a lot of information that is not normally provided in a product review in any magazine. I did take the remarks personally because i took Sal's shop notes and wrote the article trying to cover all the bases. I do have thick skin though.

I did miss understand what you meant about assembly time. I wrote that it too about two weeks to build, test, evailuate and write about the model. The field assembly time is about 15 minutes since there are no rigging wires.

I was not meaning to be snide but your less than kind attitude and comments were also on the snide side of things as well. What would you expect in return.

When you write things like the article was skimpy and go off telling everyone how lame things are, you do no one a favor. It certainly does not make me and others on staff feel very good. I have visited "the club house" two times in two weeks and both times I am greeted with these strings about hot crappy MAN is. Frankly, I am tired of it. Especially when those who critisize don't even come close to offering a better solution or stepping up to the plate by offering better content for the magazine. it is far too easy to bad mouth than to try to help.

I don't like using forums for long technical disortations so if you would like further info or comments on the topic of magazine content and quality please feel free to PM me. or email me at my office email: [email protected]

GY

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Hi Gerry, thanks a ton for taking the time to respond here! We appreciate it.

FWIW, check out the thread about magazine reviews also.

Thanks again.

JV

WORNBOOTS

My Feedback: (33)

Still waiting

Still wondering?

should I re-sign up or just let it go??

Any Thoughts

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

That makes two of us..