SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Aug 18, 2003, 04:30 PM
Registered User
Jeff Meyers's Avatar
Fayetteville, GA
Joined Oct 2000
3,663 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mcba





One other thing is that I often wonder why certain people review certain models. For example, (now I really don't want to offend anyone here) why was Dereck given the E3D to review in QEFI? Over the time I've enjoyed reading his column and his Ezone posts it has been quite clear that he advocates traditional flying and leaves hovering to helicopters.

The E3D is designed expressly for this purpose and while it may function as a normal sport plane, it isn't really suited to it.


Matthew
It wasn't designed to just hover...it was designed to be an aerobatic 3D plane that could do a wide range of manuvers...including hovering.

I've never seen Dereck fly...but I've been told he's actually quite accomplished on the sticks....therefore....an aerobatic plane like the E3D would fit the bill for him.

Now....all in all...I get your point...that's just not a good example.
Jeff Meyers is offline Find More Posts by Jeff Meyers
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Aug 18, 2003, 04:45 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mcba
Okay, maybe I was readin between the lines a little too much, but I certainly got the impression that the reviewers were really clutching at straws to make the plane sound better.

Interestingly, the Kyosho F16 had very similar reviews though as I recall, they came across as a little more honest.

Matthew
Yup. They probably WERE clutching at straws...as far as the GAS F-16, I notice that MANY mags did not publish reviews...hmm...
I did not get one, I had a pretty strong feeling that it would be similar to the Sabre, after seeing the same power plant and the size and the shapes.
The electric one, I had one. Like you, I read between the lines to see that it was only a fair flyer at best on the stock power system. The T33 flew much better...
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 04:46 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mrittinger
Easytiger.......not Herr
By a guy named R.U.?
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 04:53 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Meyers
It wasn't designed to just hover...it was designed to be an aerobatic 3D plane that could do a wide range of manuvers...including hovering.

I've never seen Dereck fly...but I've been told he's actually quite accomplished on the sticks....therefore....an aerobatic plane like the E3D would fit the bill for him.

Now....all in all...I get your point...that's just not a good example.
In defense of the magazines in general, I think it is hard for them to actually get reviewers! To get somebody to build a kit, sure, lots of guys will do that...but to get them to build it, photograph and document the process, test fly it with good pictures, write a readable article that follows the magazines publishing guidelines for length and content, and do it by a certain date...well, that's not as easy to find! I think if they have somebody like Dereck, who has a great track record of actually ACCOMPLISHING these goals, they will send him as many review kits as they can!

Me, I don't enjoy that kind of thing. I like building fast and furiously, and I hate stopping to take pictures and stuff. Just not fun for me.
I bet if any of you guys take the time to write a good review of a current kit and send it out to the mags, one of them will be glad to buy it, and if you tell them you are looking to do more, they will send you a free kit to review sooner or later.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 04:56 PM
ARFs make me BARF
mrittinger's Avatar
United States, MI, Roseville
Joined Dec 2000
8,950 Posts
I'm not saying any more
mrittinger is online now Find More Posts by mrittinger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 05:15 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
I'm surprised! I've built quite a few Rich Uravitch designs, all flew beautifully.
The HOB Mustang, built three of those...the A-7 was alright, and the Scaletech ARF OV-10 was BEAUTIFUL...
On the site, they show it only with glow power, what do they recommend for electric? Wonder if they actually TESTED it with electric power at all, or just recommended what they THOUGHT might work?
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 06:19 PM
ARFs make me BARF
mrittinger's Avatar
United States, MI, Roseville
Joined Dec 2000
8,950 Posts
Not his design, but Kalbfleish that used to own that co. kitted it without first testing it himself. Supposed to be DD s400.

Designer is A.P. , not R.U.
mrittinger is online now Find More Posts by mrittinger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 06:37 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
I think there was something of a trend over the last decade or so to do that, to just recommend a model for electric power without testing it, leaving the builder to find the right motor/gear/prop/cells to make a flyable airplane. No so much anymore.
Is AP the same guy who draws and kits those GeeBees? There are a couple of APs I can think of...
Actually, I have built at least a handfull of kits that were unflyable. I build a lot of vintage stuff, and it was a lot worse back in the forties and fifties. Just because it was kitted did not mean it would fly at all! You don't see that too much, at least not like in the bad old days. And sometimes a perfectly flyable design would lose something in the translation when it got kitted.
I wonder again if that supercub would not be just fine on a glow engine. Is it okay to say "glow engine" here? I don't want to get in trouble.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 07:35 PM
ARFs make me BARF
mrittinger's Avatar
United States, MI, Roseville
Joined Dec 2000
8,950 Posts
Same "AP" I was talking about.
mrittinger is online now Find More Posts by mrittinger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 07:38 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Don't beleive I have flown one of his planes. Have seen a few of the GeeBees built, and they LOOKED very nice! Never seen one flown.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2003, 11:47 AM
Build'em and Crash'em
Ken Lapointe's Avatar
Narragansett, RI
Joined Oct 2000
3,190 Posts
I hear what you guys are saying

In MAN I have noticed that even problems that are written about in the full write up are not noted as "misses" in the "hits and misses" section on the summary sidebar. Amazing how those problems got forgotten.

Of course, let me ask everyone, would you be happy if the next issue of your favorite magazine came filled with articles about planes that would not fly ???? What value would it have?

I think what the magazine should do is just have a running list of any and all planes it has reviewed with some type of star rating. Maybe 3 metrics, kit quaility, flying performance and overall value.

Of course the other issue is that the review is purely subjective of one person. What is a great plane to 1 guy could be a dog to another.


Ken
Ken Lapointe is offline Find More Posts by Ken Lapointe
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2003, 12:38 PM
Fixed Wing Fanatic
Jim Walker's Avatar
United States, TX, McKinney
Joined Jul 2001
2,344 Posts
A software magazine I used to read had a very good system for reviewing gaming software. They, like the plane mags, reviewed almost exclusively the winners. Why spend time and money printing material about losers? The big difference though was a monthly section they had called "Coaster Material" with a picture of an ice cold glass of something sweating away on a game CD. When a winning piece of software was reviewed it was usually spread over two or three pages with half page pictures of the graphics. In the coaster material section however, up to 20 games were breifly touched on in the same 2 or 3 pages. Each loser meriting a paragraph on why it was such disappointment. A great buyer beware tool!! Maybe plane mags could adopt this slant?
Jim Walker is offline Find More Posts by Jim Walker
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2003, 12:50 PM
BillBowne
Guest
n/a Posts
My pet peeve is along the same lines as what Ken LaPointe said. Too much subjectivity. For example, I've seen models described as being "highly aerobatic" that really could barely loop from level flight, whilst ones that were described as "stable trainers" were better-suited for novice pattern. This was one reason I went to designing my own -- If it doesn't work, I can cuss out the owner every time he brushes his teeth!

BTW, labor saving tip: With a beard, I only need to shave once or twice a week. Yes, it takes somewhat longer when I do shave and trim, but I don't have to do it every morning!

Bill B.
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2003, 06:12 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Walker
A software magazine I used to read had a very good system for reviewing gaming software. They, like the plane mags, reviewed almost exclusively the winners. Why spend time and money printing material about losers? The big difference though was a monthly section they had called "Coaster Material" with a picture of an ice cold glass of something sweating away on a game CD. When a winning piece of software was reviewed it was usually spread over two or three pages with half page pictures of the graphics. In the coaster material section however, up to 20 games were breifly touched on in the same 2 or 3 pages. Each loser meriting a paragraph on why it was such disappointment. A great buyer beware tool!! Maybe plane mags could adopt this slant?
You missed the basic answer to the OP's question...
You don't see bad reviews because bad reviews mean advertisers who drop their ads and magazines that dissapear.
So it does not matter what FORMAT you see the bad reviews in, you will not see them in most magazines.
To compare computer software...well, you can't. The model airplane biz is just such a teeny, tiny thing in comparison...ONE successful game can do more business than the ENTIRE RC hobby business in a year. So it's big bucks at stake, and a much larger audience, and the businesses involved are FAR from hobbyists...it's a lot rougher.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2003, 09:59 PM
Registered User
trinity tx
Joined Nov 2001
123 Posts
RCM= monthly catalog
MAN & FM= Popular Mechanics on Jap cars in the 60's
RCR= Still decent but showing signs of blowing with the ad winds
QF= elitest, but with poor layout and proofreading and condescending
drinksgin is offline Find More Posts by drinksgin
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Why don't you hear more about Swift wings Fearless Flight Flying Wings 8 Feb 26, 2007 08:00 PM
Why don't you see 9 cell systems very often? DesignGeek Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 4 Feb 08, 2004 05:14 PM
Anybody ever ask you "Why don't you build your own planes?" juantrinidad Electric Plane Talk 21 Feb 26, 2003 09:34 PM
Hey, Jim, why don't you get a spelling checker for this forum? Chuck Site Chat 3 Jun 11, 2002 05:50 AM