Backwing

My Feedback: (3)

I was reading throught my newest edition of Popular Mechanics last night, and while flipping through the automotive section, they have thier usual long term test drive results.
I thought that would be so much better if airplane reviews were done the same way. Instead of just building it and having a flight or two on it, they should have at least 10-15 flight on a plane before writing a review. Get the emotion of a new plane out of the system. Fly it off different surfaces, different weather conditions, etc... Then hopefully we could get the real dirt on how it has held up, and get a REAL honest review.

What do you think?

jongurley

My Feedback: (29)

It would give a better perspective on some planes,,,,, like the Wild Hare ARFS I have a buddy who bought one and said you could see saw marks were they cut out the landing gear(aluminum), the hardware was non-existent, the covering down the fuse was pieced together three times,,, and a couple more cheap building strategies, I am not trying to start a argument but that is from first hand experience, if maybe a short term durability and a long term durability were preformed you could get a better quantity of info....

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

You are absolutely right.

However, what you're asking, in most cases is just not practical. There are many times when we need to get a few flights in to finish a review, and Mother Nature just isn't cooperating.

There have been times when I have had a first flight on a plane, then wanted to change something (Like the CG) and between weather, and personal commitments, it was weeks before I could get back to the field.

To try to wait for 15 or 20 flights, it would be months before a review got finished.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

What would be bad about a review taking months to finish, if that review provided more useful information? I guess I'm just not seeing the downside to doing a more thorough review of what it's like to own a product.

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

mags dont like to be last with reviews, however i did see a Magnum reviewed 2 years after it was out, and that one was new for the review[&:]

much easier to do that when you have your own website as i do, i keep updating my reviews, at least i did when i could still access the site.

mvigod

The biggest problem is that modelers love the latest and greatest. So everyone pushes to get a review to the public as quick as possible why the rose is on the bloom so to speak. Long term is 6 months to a year at which point it is yesterdays news. The Magic fun fly while still a popular plane is a good example. What if we released our review now or even updated it with more flying review? I hardly think there would be a huge amount of interest in it. At this point the review plus the forum threads on it cover just about everything and then some. Guys who buy and try everything are off to the newest releases already.

So if you are talking long term from a perspective of 60 days maybe then sure. But going too far out the interest level in most any product starts to wane and gives way to the newest. Why do you think companies keep coming out with new planes every year?

I do think that all pilots or drivers should have more than one day out with the product. At least a handful to truly get the feel for the product and give an accurate report based on its performance under several conditions. Plus only after flying a plane/heli or driving a car/boat for awhile can you really assess its performance.

scottrc

I really don't look at the flight report as much as I do the report on the quality of the kit, instructions, and construction.

I guess a long term flight report would tell the consumer how long the covering stays on, glue joints at the firewall and other places, or any other structural concerns that appear with use.

beardking

My Feedback: (4)

I just come here for my long term reviews. If there isn't at least 20 or 30 threads on something I want, I'm not going to get it.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

I agree that a plane should not have the flight review after only 1-3 flights.. Thats not enough time to tell get enough time on it to know. IMO, 10 flights min. I know time is the factor.. So, those review models should be sent ASAP so they can be done asap. .02

dr_wogz

My Feedback: (3)

Well, there should be no qualms about a 'follow up review' in teh mags, but that I guess, takes away form precious 'advertising' and 'new product' space..

But like some toehr mags do, and initial review at eh time of offering, and a follow up a few onths later. Al we need is a pilot, witheh airframe, and a a few flights on it.

I beleive we also see reviewers as teh type who get the airplane to review, write and build the plane & review, fly it that one day, then strip everything out of it, for the next review airplane... So, it really dosen't stay in thier flying fleet too long..

hookedonrc

From observations I have made on this site over the last couple of years, the consensus has seemed to be that most reviews are only the positives with very little negatives. Taking that into consideration what would make them any more believable than the ones done today after only a few flights?

BTW: I am not talking about reviews on RCU, just the comments on reviews on threads on this site.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

I guess it comes down to what a person expects from a review. If it's just a brief overview of contents, construction, and performance that's fine. My experience has been that such reviews aren't worth much compared to the amounts of information available on the forums. Those reviews just validate a purchase decision, rather than really answering the real question: will I be satisfied with this product if I buy it? I don't usually have my mind made up about something until I've owned it for a while. It takes time to learn the quirks, the tendencies, and how much maintenance an item requires. That's where the real value of a review would be found.

On the whole, I don't find RCU's reviews more valuable than a magazine review. The differences are really just that RCU's reviews have multi-media content, where magazines don't. Are you targeting early-adopters, or are you targeting the average modeler who probably doesn't purchase an item the moment it comes on the market?

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

When I do a review for RCM or RCR, I make every effort to have 2 or 3 weekends of flying on the plane before finishing the review. I especially like to let others fly my plane and get their opinions also.

But like what was said earlier, time can hurt ya....but now that I live in "Paradise", flying is a 365 day done deal

Jerry

DBCherry

My Feedback: (4)

I guess that I'd also add this; if a reviewer is giving an honest assessment of a plane's flight characteristics, two or three flights will determine what those are. Reviewers have sufficient experience to judge those characteristics against a myriad of other aircraft, so long term flying shouldn't change that perception.

Now, I think what you're saying is, a lng term commitment to a "reveiw" airplane should tell you whether or not it will last, but the general construction, fit & finish, and overall quality of the kit or ARF should tell you the same thing. At least for the most part.

All things considered, I'm not sure it would accomplish much.
Dennis-

rc-sport

My Feedback: (12)

I think a flight review is based on the builders piloting skills. I'm working on a review that I'm hoping gets published but I plan on having a very very skilled 3D pilot t=do the flight review for. I don't think my flying skills would do this plane justice nor would it be fair to the skilled pilots out there that would want to know how this plane performs. I do plan on having about 10 flights on the plane before I file my review and we will try different set ups.