Jim,

Important part of that is "may" in your statement "RCU reviews may not be written on the kit that you can buy". We note clearly in every review if anything is substituted and why. Sometimes it is a change in power and other times it is just the writers call to make something easier or safer. Sometimes it is because something doesn't work right so we modify it completely so it does. I just did the GP Extra 1.60 review and when you have throws set to 3D your servo will stop because the tailwheel setup they have hits its maximum throw. I substituted a Sullivan Tailwheel which is TOTALLY different from their setup. I had to do it though in order to make it work. Another writer may have accepted that or solved it differently.

I do know that we get tons of email praising the quality, detail and honesty of our reviews here on RCU so while a few may have issues with it or cetain aspects of the reviews which they don't like, the majority seem to really appreciate them. I get 100 glowing emails with praise for every 1 email I get saying I missed something or was off the mark. That is a pretty good ratio. I know we won't make everyone happy but we are operating in the real world so we will review the models as close to stock as we can but make changes when prudent based on some of the factors I noted in my posts. None of these changes is beyond what a modeler could do or would likely do. If everybody built stock according to the instructions RCU wouldn't have 1 million plus posts and 4000 new posts every day. We would all be drones.

Want entertainment? Read my review of the Giant Scale Planes Spitfire. (note the Metric Conversions)

Why cant you fix the fiberglass fuse??..Glassin is way easy, and reinforcing a fuse or wing section thats already done is like a 1/2 hour job,lol.

Im glad to see theres some interest in this....I have just bought the Corsair review plane..Erick did a fine job on it, and i likeley wont have to do much to it when I get it.

I have to say, I am shocked at the diffrence in "ARF" planes over the last 15 years...ARF used to be ALL junk....no one did those that was a serious modeler in those days....for 300 bucks, it is a totally killer deal....even if you do have to do some rework or beef up...I remember building a 1/4 scale Sig J-3 cub...what a nightmare,lol....tons of stick work, and die cut junk parts...took months to make it look decent...now all we do is open the box, and assemble and BOOM, were done,lol...

have you thought about writing for larry flynt?

dave

Here is one manufacturer's side:

We started getting a lot of requests for review planes last fall. We sent some no charge, other were paid for by the magazine reviewers. We gave everyone standard kits off the shelf just as we normally would with any customer. To date, 2 reviews have been completed and published. We never spoke to the reviewer or had a copy of the review before it was published. (RC Scale International is the Magazine). Some magazines offer to let us ok the review before it is published, but I usually tell them to publish the review as they see it. The last thing we want is for our customers to buy a kit expecting something other than what we advertise. If nothing else, a bad review would help us improve anything that is not up to standards.

I realize that different people have different expectations. We have some guys call with nothing but praise for our kits and others will call with nothing but complaints. Most of the guys doing the magazine reviews are very skilled builders. It seems they can just shake the box and have the kit assembled. I think that is one reason why a lot of the kit reviews are good - those guys never complain about anything. I could send them a block of wood and they would tell me how much fun they had sanding it into a plane!

Mike Grey
Skyshark R/C

I don't think we've even been introduced!

Backafter 30 said, "Jerry, along time ago I read a post about that the reviewer says....and what it means. It was funny, but more importantly kind of true at the same time. I remember you commented on it, did you happen to save it?
If so would you mind posting it?
BTW, thanks for having you son do the flying on some of your extreem aerobatic reviews... "

Sorry, but I don't have that post.....but I think it was one of Gordon's 'Tongue-in-cheek' descriptions of how to read a Product Review.

And as far as my son doing the 'extreem aerobatic' flying - heck (proud pop here) he is MUCH better at flying than I am...heck he doesn't even see the ground when flying - totally confident (and sharp too).

Jerry

PS I know a lot of you guys would like to read a KIT review, but the sad fact is that there aren't many new kits being introduced! I'm biting at the bit to BUILD again....how about you guys?

Iread that review and was wondering if it wasnt a little sugar coated. wasthinking of getting one .what can you tell me about it ?


THANKS LONNIE

Dave & grandpa Ed, no need to worry. Where my fingers may yet fail to reach across time and space to probe the inner most feelings of a reviewer writer on his inaugural test flight, his digits can surely peck buttons on keyboard to express the same.

crownvic, which plane are you referring to?

Jerry

world models GS zero

You'll be happy to know that any day now I am expecting a GP Profile P-38 KIT to arrive for review

For what mag are you doing this review for?

Jerry

Jerry - he's doing it for the RCU Online Magazine - http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine

COOL, that means a lot of pictures! And that is good - Go for it Mike!

Jerry

PS I'm glad someone still knows how to build

Who said I knew how to build?

The article was written by [link=http://humane.sourceforge.net/home/]Jef Raskin[/link] and can be found on his [link=http://humane.sourceforge.net/humor/how_to_read_plane_review.html]website[/link]


ARTICLE:
Before you can understand how to read and interpret a model plane review, you must understand the relationship between the magazines and the companies that make the products they write about.

First of all, the magazines are completely independent entities, not owned or run by the model companies. This gives them the freedom to act completely in the interest of self-preservation.

There are different kinds of companies whose products the magazines write about. First there are the ones that are really tiny or which are teetering on the edge of financial ruin (or, usually, both). For these firms, a bad review would sink the company completely. Then the magazine would never get any advertising revenue from them ever again, and the magazine would lose money. So, out of pure compassion and altruism, the magazines don't write bad reviews of products from small or "financially challenged" companies.

Then there are the corporations that are industry powerhouses, actually making scads of money, and which sometimes take out ads under three or four different names. These are expensive, full-page, color ads. They are very nice ads. They are the ads that bring in a lot of money to the magazines every month like clockwork. A bad review might make them stop advertising, and the magazine would lose a lot of money and couldn't provide its readers with the unbiased information they deserve. So, out of respect and to maintain the credibility of the industry as a whole, the magazines don't write bad reviews of products from large or successful companies. Besides, the executive editors of the magazines and the presidents of the big companies are old drinking buddies, and there is nothing more important in this world than maintaining personal relationships.

With those two minor exceptions, the magazines always run reviews that tell it like it is. Meanwhile, the magazines have developed a code that lets the readers know what is really going on. Let me show you how to read the code. What the article really means is in brackets [like this].


REVIEW OF THE ZITZ SCALE MODEL OF THE 1935 P2-R KIBBLEFRITZ

The prototype Kibblefritz was designed in 1935 by Olsen and Funston in Cleveland. It made history on its first flight by crashing into... [I'll leave out this historical section. The author is putting off getting around to the model, and it was just copied out of a book].

Zitz has done it again with this kit! [The last one didn't fly either]. I couldn't wait until I opened the box, the box-art looked so enticing that some of us actually drooled over it. [that's my five-month old daughter who drools over everything]. The manufacturer carefully lists the needed accessories right on the box [In Latin so you might not notice that they add up to five times the price of the kit itself and that some haven't been available since 1953]. All the pieces were expertly packed [less than 50% were broken-not bad, in baseball it would be a .500 batting average] in carefully numbered plastic bags. [The bags were all number 15.]. I took out the neatly rolled plans [the folds were hidden inside] and decided how to attack the model [a hatchet would do nicely].

I like to start off with the wings because they are the part that flies the plane [you have to say "I like to start off with the..." and give a silly reason or they won't run the article]. These are built flat on the board [the instructions forgot to tell you to put in some dihedral]. All the parts fit perfectly [into the jigsaw puzzle my wife was doing]. Most of the balsa was well-chosen [the three ribs that weren't of wood so hard that it broke knife blades were usable] but I like to kit-bash [when forced to] so I cut a few new ribs, using the provided ribs as a pattern [it was slightly better than guessing]. The die-cutting was good [I could see the faint impressions left by the die if I held the sheets up to the light at an angle] and the parts nearly fell right out [after an hour's work with the scroll saw.] I was puzzled that some of the ribs were of different lengths, since this is a constant-chord wing. I called the manufacturer, who said that this was a problem only with the first few kits [the first run of 1,750] and will be corrected on the ones being made from now on [they don't plan to make any more.]

The instructions are conveniently placed right on the plans [on the back where you can't read them while the parts are pinned down on the front] and are well written [they read like they were written at the bottom of a well]. The only glue I used was my favorite Klingztite VSB [they sent me a free bottle on condition that I mention it favorably by name. I mean, if I had money would I be writing these dumb model plane reviews? Besides, who am I to look a gift-horse in the mouth? By the way, did you know that "VSB" stands for Very Small Bottle?]. The fuselage is cavernous and there is lots of room for standard size servos, batteries and receiver [but no way to get to them after they're installed]. Once the plane was framed-up [this whole thing is a frame-up] I measured the completed components for scale accuracy. Every part proved just the right size [so long as I used just the right ruler.] The parts fit perfectly [with the help of a hammer], so it was time for covering.

I always use Koverkote since it adheres to wood so well and goes around compound curves easily [If you believe this, I've got a bridge you might want to buy] because of its new high-stretch formula Z-24 [Betcha the KoverKote company won't sue me for stealing this line directly from their ads. Besides, they sent me a free roll]. It always gives a professional finish [any finish I get is professional since I get paid for doing these reviews]. When I was done, all my flying buddies [the three who don't read my reviews and still trust me] ooohed and aaahed over the model [that's my niece Ann, who does shampoo ads]. The provided decals look just right [the few that stayed on weren't so bad].

For better scale appearance I added wing struts [this also kept the wing from breaking under its own weight] and did some cockpit detailing [the one thing I'm good at] using the 1/7 scale instruments from I. M. Dresstup and Co. [The editor says that if I mention them they'll run an ad next to this article]. I am always nervous about flying a new model [especially one from Zitz] and waited for a perfect day [one where there would be no witnesses] before attempting a first flight with the help of my buddy Igor, seven times world champion pilot [anybody less skilled hasn't a ghost of a chance at flying this thing].

To make sure my favorite TNT 1.20 engine [look for the big ad opposite this review] got adequate cooling for the first test flight [to keep the pot-metal piston from melting] and to make engine adjustments easier [boy, does this engine need adjustments], we left off the cowling [it didn't fit, anyway]. After range checking the radio and running the engine from idle to full a few times while the nose was held aloft [my nose, I'm allergic to model plane fuel], I set the plane at the edge of the runway and moved back to the pit area [ran like hell, actually]. Igor taxied the model to the end of the runway and turned it into the wind [he'd rather have turned it into a good airplane]. He advanced the throttle and...

I have to interrupt this article to let you know that due to short deadlines, the flying portion of a review is sometimes wholly made up or based on one flight with a sagging, not-quite-broken-in engine. Who has time to build and seriously test fly a model plane in two weeks? Besides, flying qualities are subjective so who am I to say how it flies? To get photos, we used to just suspend models from trees with nearly invisible fishing line so that they looked like they were flying but now with computer retouching we don't need to bother. We just scan a picture of a lovely flying field (the one that was bulldozed last week for a new shopping center) and take a picture of the plane (or scan in the box art) and put them together electronically. This technology really helps when you want to show a low knife-edge pass that the plane (or your thumb) is incapable of flying. After all, if National Geographic can move a pyramid to make a photo more dramatic, why can't we move a model?

In order to help protect our industry, and now that you know how to read a review, we hope you will use these techniques in describing model kits to your friends. As an example you could be proud to emulate, here's how Igor-a real pro-described the test flight, "The Zitz Kibblefritz flew in a scale-like fashion, and performed beyond all our expectations." By putting it this way, Igor is telling us in magazine code that (i) just like the prototype it crashed on its first flight and (ii) it crashed so hard that its parts were scattered over the entire 10-acre flying site and the adjoining county park, the motor was buried so deep it was never found again, seismometers in Sri Lanka recorded the impact, and the goat we used to keep our field mowed left for good.

Now THAT is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time!

ROFLMAO!