Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I wasnt gonna reply but I gotta say what I've seen over the years. I'm an instructor in the club and pretty much all the students that solo go on to some new arf that LOOKS cool. The magazine's are mostly responsible for that. I try to stear them to something more appropriate for continued learning but its usually to no avail. They buy the arf, ASSEMBLE as instructed and fly. Most are good at following instructions, but not in analyzing the overall plane and setup. THEN, it doesnt behave as advertised. Thats when they start seeing the difference between kit built, plans built and heavily modified arfs. Everything from pushrods bending, firewalls pulling out in flight and on the ground, retracts and mounts that dont hold up, parts that just break, screws that strip, tanks that leak and so on. I acknowledge there are good arfs, but a newbie just doesnt know the right questions to ask or what to look for in a properly built plane. This year I'm not renewing MAN and I dont care if RCM folded cause I wasnt gonna renew them anyway. Just hope the plans will still be available. I read RCREPORT reviews exactly as Ed says he does. I'm more interested in flight, balance, weight, special mods and such. The only arf I did not have to make lots of mods to was the Rascall 110. All others get changed to fit the way I do things and I seldom use the hardware. I didnt even read the reviews done in RCM or MAN. I constantly hear, "I paid a bunch of money for this arf, I shouldnt have to change ANYTHING". And I have to tell them, "Thats just the way it is". Sorry guys, just my opinion.
Edwin

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,

Very interesting discussion from what I read. Here's my take. I read the magazine "reviwes" for information, not to base my decision from it. Where do I base it then, right here from fellow RCers on RCUniverse. DP

sbd-5

My Feedback: (4)

one thing that has not been discussed here is the actual plane setup.what i mean is a plane can be built fine but the choice of engine or equipment can turn it into a dog.i have two different cases for examples.years ago i built an islander designed by ken willard but instead of using monokote and the recommended os 10 r/c i used an os 35 and silk and dope.at four plus pounds and aimost 3oo sq inches of wing this thing was a dog it would snap in an instant.recovered with monokote and a os 10 installed weight was 2 1/4 pounds it was really nice to fly.the other side of rthis was back in 74 built a stafford p-39 fibeglass finish and epoxy paint weighs 6 1/4 pounds used a st .46 .it flew but took about 150 feet to take off,replaced the .46 with a hp 61.take off's were reduced to 50 feet and flys like a pattern plane.still flys after 31 years.point is choice of engine either overpoered or under powewred makes a difference in the way a plane performs as well as total weight.another case in point is the wing a-26,built at the design weght with the recommended engines the main gear placement is fine,but go to four strokes and an increase in weight makes it impossible almost to rotate with out moving the main gear forward 3/4 of an inch.i am sure most of you have read threads were flyers want to put moki 2.1 in 60 size planes.i shudder sometimes just thinking of the stresses on the firewall and rest of the airframe.

50+AirYears

I still have the first several issues of RCM, starting with issue #1 in which Don Dewey made the statement about how his reviews were going to tell it like it was, and let the chips fall where they may, and the apology several issues later when he had to face the econ0omic facts that when one advertiser gets a bad review, the word gets around, and other advertisers pull out, which removes the money needed to keep the magazine in business.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

But then it wouldn't be a review of the Airplane would it? It would be an article on "how to IMPROVE" whatever your subject plane is.


Contact Erick Royer or RCadmin here at RCU

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

It may seem a bit simplistic, but how about when reviewing a TRAINER type, that it actually be built by a beginner, and first flown by a beginner.

When reviewing a SCALE type aircraft, it be compared to the real object, not to the latest and greatest aerobatic type of the same name.

When reviewing an ARF type, note what fit and finish, time to complete, and what the reviewer changed or did not like about it. Or, and odd concept, have the reviewer use what is inside the box, specified on the plan, or use something obsolete.

The review ought NOT to be done by someone who has 1000 hours under his belt and may alter the finished product to suit their needs, but instead by someone who the aircraft is intended to sold to. OK to have an expert write the article, but not do the testing.

Novel concept or dreaming?

Wm.

50+AirYears

Sometimes some of the reviews seem to be coming from a beginner, especially when you read how the reviewer finished the plane, got to the field, and almost (or actually did) crash becausethe balance was never checked, or a servo/control surface was operating backward.

mscic-RCU

My Feedback: (6)

I use the same rule of thumb that is used when buying a new car: Don't buy it the first year out. I didn't adhere to this rule with my H9 corsair. I had to have it as soon as it was released. I spent last summer suffering through all the retract woes that model was plagued with. With any new product, the consumer is the final R&D site until the bugs are reported back and corrected. So, be patient and wait a year. Besides, sometimes the price falls dramatically as the GP gee bee did.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

The biggest difficulty here is finding a beginner who can do all of the things required for writing reviews (IE, shooting and editing Digital Pics and videos, knowledge of wrtiting HTML, ability to write well, etc) On one review I did, I wanted to have a rookie build it, but finding time when we could BOTH get together came out to about 2 hours a week, so it would have taken months to get the article finished. However, I DID have several rookies fly it - which was reported in the review.

That's exactly what we do.

Again, that's what we do, and as you can see, CoosBay wants us to use what's in the box, while RCpilet wants us to customize things. So it just goes to show that you can't please everyone.

See first answer

Flypaper 2

One of my students bought an ARF trainer that had adjustable clevices on the surfaces as normal but on the servo arms, had the screws that clamp down on the piano wire. Made him take it home and put Z bends on it ,after I showed him how. I told him I wouldn't even test fly it with them. Didn't want to see his new plane go down the toilet.[] Seen it happen to many times.

50+AirYears

I've never had one of those connections fail, but for the 20 some years since the retainers were introduced, I've always replaced the included screws with hardened cup point Allen set screws The regular cap screws or set screws that come with the retainers rarely get a decent grip because of a pretty flat machine screw point, but the hardened cup points dig into the piano wire and not only squeeze the wire, have a raised dimple captured by the cup. I've broken servo arms, but never had a piece of wire slip or slide once I've torqued down the screw.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Those Ez Connectors are a good case in point...

Suppose you were doing a review and really hated thoise things - so you gave the hardware a black mark, and said something to the effect of, "I can't believe they woulkd use such crap on an aerobatic model".

Well, it just so happens that I really LIKE those Ez Connectors, and have never had a problem with them, so I'd say "This guy really isn't being fair to the Manufacturer".

Bottom line, report what you see in an unbiased way and let the reader decide for himself

<Edit> Interesting, I recently got a new computer, and I just now figured out that my Capital "z" doesn't work.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I did contact RCU admins and was approved to write a full review.

Now I have some questions about doing it.

Minnflyer--if ya wouldn't mind:

Is it okay to go ahead and customize the hardware if I want to do that--while not slamming the manufacturer for their choice?

Let's say I want to install a larger motor--can I get away with doing that and writing about it in the review?

I really want to write a review and get a taste for it--but as you, and everyone else knows, I rarely build a model to it's intended stock configuration.

I think that there may be a few modelers who would appreciate reading a review where some of the items in the box were modified to give the model that "strong and light" feeling that a lot of us want. I know that lots of guys don't use the hardware that comes in the box. And, a lot of us who want to fly a 3D plane will grossly overpower it--so that we can hover at 1/2 throttle. It just needs to be noted that throttle management is crucial at that point.

Can I write a review like this--or will it get sent to the back room?

It's not my intention to slam a manufacturer or try and discredit the design--just to build a plane the way myself and a lot of others would--and report on it.

What do you think?

Flypaper 2

I wouldn't relate that I hated the connectors. That doesn't tell people anything. I would tell them why I wouldnt use them, that vibration can loosen them over time. Using the hardened setscrews could be construed as having the same problem and was learned through experience. The mods are done to improve a model and hopefully a plane wouldn't be lost through one of these faults. Why is it so hard for a manufacturer to teach good practices such as how to make Z bends and put lock nuts on the clevices so the vibration won't wear the threads out and slip off the wire. After all this is the first plane. Maybe they're trying to save paper Why don't they give a few how to lessons to a novice with their first plane. They used to do this in trainer kits 30 or 40 yrs. ago. To big a hurry.

Al Lewis

I have to say that although I don't base a purchase on a review I certainly read everyone I can find on a plane that I'm thinking about buying. Usually, if you find more than one review on the same plane the chances are they used different engines, different setups, etc. You can learn a lot from them. Paid for or not.... they sure beat shooting in the dark. With regards to the paid for thing, if someone took money to rate a bad plane good, how long do you think it would take for the word to get out on here. Reviewers can't survive for long like that.

john flynn

G'day all, I'd like to add my bit too. I think that most reviews I've read have always been favourable to the manufacturer, justified or not. After all it is a form of Advertisement and that market is not known for it's glowing integrety. Regards, John.

KW_Counter

MinnFlyer,

You are Bang On Correct!!!!!!!!

I think the most frustrating was my first transmitter, a Hitec Falsh V.
They were talking about how to do all those neat things you can do with a computer radio without explaining what they were and what they are used for.
Real frustrating for a newbie.
My first plane was a Soarstar. They didn't mention making sure the wing and horizontal stab were parallel. Second nature with a little experience....
Boy was it hard to trim!

My next ARF was a great Planes Super Sportster. Excellant instructions!
Then I did a Sig 4*40 ARF. The instructions were mediocre (fortunately the plane wasn't) and what I learned from the Super Sportster really helped.


While I am commenting on instructions I disagree with most of their sequences. They all seem to say to build the plane and then install the engine and radio gear.
I want that stuff installed (and sometimes removed) before I build the plane. I feel my tail feathers will last longer that way!

Your appraoch is greatly appreciated!

Later,
KW_Counter

baywriter

To All;

I'm new to this sport (1 1/2 years) but not new to reading manmuals, instructions and reviews - if you think airplane reviews are suspect, you should read boat reviews! They rate every boat reviewed as wonderful; even those that the Coast Guard deems dangerous.

In any case, my first plane was a SIG LT 40 - used. Learned a lot flying that, but little about construction. My second plane was a Bridie Aircruiser kit - 45 years old. I cussed that kit so much it's a wonder it didn't catch fire. However, the learning experience was invaluable. THird plane - a SIG Kadet Senior. Everyone in my club said what a great flier that plane is. Maybe so, but talk about being wind-sesitive. Only after flying, crashing, fisxing, flying etc. did I notice that the MANUFACTURER stipulates that is to be used in calm or light wind conditions. It's not that it's a bad plane, i't not, but it does float like a kite.

Currently, I've just finished a Goldberg Tiger 60. ARF. Had a few minor glitches but my kit building experience helped me here, but what a great flying plane. I've not read a review on this plane, but several club members own more than one and rate it as one of their favorites. That was the information that caused me to choose that ARF.

All this tangenital information simply underscores the need to READ THE REVIEW CAREFULLY. With a little experience, you can generally determine the actual quality of the plane in question. However, I wouldn't ever let this be my only source of information. I'd ask anyone in my club, who might know, his experience with the plane in question. Further, I'd look at forums such as RC Universe and read user reviews.

One thing I've noticed is that quality ARF manufacturers often mention the fact that they use quality (Du-Bro, Sullivan) hardware. That tends to make me think that the ARF is probably pretty good.

50+AirYears

I'd agree wholeheartedly with that. The hardware included with a couple ARFs I've tried had clevises that slid onto the metric threaded rod, and 3 mm landing gear wire that could be bent by hand. And in one kit, for the pushrods on a 40 size low wing job, they specified that the 1.5 mm threaded rod was all that was needed for the rudder and elevator.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

How many of you think a manufacturer would actually go to the trouble of designing, building selling and shipping a plane that was 'junk'? What would be his point?

Jerry

50+AirYears

This particular plane came to me in an attractive box, well packaged. Written up as a very good plane in both RCM and Model Builder. Very good instruction manual. Even illustrated the need to carefully trim the covering material from the contact areas of glue joints. All major components nicely bagged. Good looking plane. After assembly, a pretty good flyer, except for one particular defect: The airfoils on the two wing panels did not match. I had to trim the height of the wing joiner to match the LE and TE. The upper and lower airfoil cambers didn't match on the panels. There was almost a millimeter difference on both the upper and lower.
I replaced all the hardware with DuBro or Sig, except for the T-nuts for the engine mount and the engine mount itself.
I used hardwood dowel for the elevator and rudder pushrods.
I bent 3 new LG legs from American 1/8 K&S music wire. On the 7th landing, the RH main pulled out. LG blocks set into balsa ribs with no ply reinforcement. The other gear did the same on landing 14. Fuel started releasing the adhesive on the contact paper wing covering.
After regular flying season was over, I took the plane and stripped the covering. I added 1/8" ply for the LG mounts. I actually had to glue ribs to the spars, sometimes adding backing plates where the spar notches were cut too wide to fit, and thus weren't even glued in at those points. I had to cut the stab out and add a splice plate to the stab LE because the two LE peices were butt joined with no backing plate. I added a 1/8" birch ply backer for the firewall. The stress of the running engine and the landing load was cracking the poor quality original original plywood.

What kind of manufacturer would design, build and sell something like this? Any manufacturer who is trying to use bottom line low ball business theories to produce the highest volume product for the lowest cost, without understanding the market needs. Form over Function. One who knows that anybody can sell anything that looks good without having to spend a lot to make the internals match the apparent quality of the externals. They don't deliberately go out to design a bad plane. They only want the lowest possible production costs, so they don't spend the time and money to design and produce a decent model.

A former CEO of my company tried to push us into the Faster, Cheaper, Better Concept. Normally, most companies only manage to get 2 out of the three. You can probably guess which one usually gets missed.

Don't get carried away telling me that things aren't that way any more. I have had a number of reasonably well made ARFs. I have also seen people get stuck with similar junk, even today. I generally find I can build a better plane from either kit or plans than what I have gotten from the ARF mfgs.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

A Chinese manufacturer who has learned that MANY Americans base their buying decisions on lowest price with little regard to quality. It's our own fault. Look how many people are gushing with praise for the poor service and low quality products offered by some of the cheap online vendors who do nothing more than import containers of junk and sell them off a web site or eBay. I saw one recently that listed no address or phone numbers. Customer support was supposed to be handled by email.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

oops

bobwrc

My Feedback: (8)

Interesting factual comments by some, and also a lot of misinformation by others!
As one who has written quite a few reviews (I lost count of exactly how many, a long time ago): I can assure you that very bad reviews are sometimes written, but are not published. I know because I've written several.
In the case of the "bad reviews" that I wrote; the manufacturer/distributor/importer was provided with a pre-publication draft copy of the review that would be published, (by the magazine) and in very case, the kit was discontinued.
As the kit was no longer going to be available from the manufacturer/distributor/importer, there was no point in publishing a review of a kit that would probably not be readily available by the time the review was printed.
(Keep in mind that there is a minimum three month lead time for most magazines, and due to the type airplane being reviewed, and the backlog of reviews that the magazine might have on hand; the time before a review is actually published, frequently is much longer.)
I also know that the manufacturer/distributors/importers pulled the affected kit from their ads and used their remaining inventory of those particular kits, as solicited "prize donations" for various RC contests.
Are there "sugar coated" reviews? Absolutely; and all of the RC publications have published them, no matter how much they may claim to always "tell it like it is"!
Any review is subjective, and reflects one person's opinion, and that's also the way it should be accepted by those reading it.
In my opinion, any review where the reviewer has made any changes from the manufacturer's assembly instructions, or substitutes parts, hardware, etc.; should be deemed "bird cage liner" as the review has been compromised, and is worthless.
For example; if a reviewer reinforces, lightens, modifies, etc. any portion of the aircraft structure, replaces supplied parts, substitutes better quality hardware for what was supplied, adds additional hinges, etc.; this completely defeats the purpose of the review!
If a structural inflight failure occurs, or any of the supplied hardware fails as a result of building the aircaft exactly as the manufacturer suggests; "so be it", and the review should refect those flaws.
As the reviewer has been supplied with the kit, and most or all of the related items necessary to complete the model, free of charge; all they have lost, should the aircraft be damaged or even destroyed, is whatever amount they might have realized by selling the aircraft after the review has been completed.
Nuff said.

da Rock

I've had articles published in a/c model magazines, shooting magazines, and a couple other special interest publications. In most cases, the publishers aren't really interested until you send them an article. It's how they decide if your work is worth using, by looking at the work. If you don't have an idea what they want for pictures (sizes, types, etc) or have other questions, then write them and ask. If you have unique ideas you want to get across, by all means discuss it with them, but don't be surprised or disappointed if they're less than enthusiastic. And don't be surprised if they don't use your submission. And don't expect to get rich. And if your work makes it "to the bigtime" don't expect to win fame and acclaim. Oh yeah, and don't be surprised or angered if they wind up editing your best paragraphs or editing out some of your most important ideas or best of all.... making typos....