[ckoerner]

I was reading one of my mags and I see that they had a review on one of the 3D profiles that I have. I was interested to see what they had to say about it. Well the guy doing the review couldn't even hover. How do you do a review on a 3D plane when you can't even hover. And it's always the same. The plane took off, a click of right here and one click up. Loops fine, rolls fine. Any damn plane is going to loop and roll. :roll:

 

[jnohsey]

Hey, what mag and which plane? Heard some people talking a while back about someone putting a 40 on a profile in one of thw mag's.

 

[TailTwister]

Yeah, I vented a bit in our "Stupid Bastard" thread.

It was a Seduction Fun Fly with what the author called a "high performance" 40 in it. This "high performance" engine didn't produce enough thrust to hover the 4 pound profile. And yes, the author knew absolutely nothing about 3D.

To get an honest review of this kind of plane takes a special pilot. The "Stupid Bastard" thread was about some of the guys on RCU. You've probably read the "My ________ will hover with a _________ at half throttle." "My _______ is a perfect 3D trainer." "My _________ will do a harrier with absolutely no wing rocking." "My _________ engine will turn a ________ prop at _______ rpm." It's hard to take any of these statements at face value without knowing something about the author, no matter where you see them in print.

The Bros are generaly dead honest (brutally honest at times) about how a plane flies. The only differentiating factor in a Bro review is skill level. For example, I never could harrier my EF Edge 540T. I handed Gator the box, and he could do it all day. My review would have had poor comments (regarding a harrier), and Gator would have loved it. A year from now, my comments might be more positive as I progress.

What I like is to ask a specific question, and wait to see the answers. I'll expect lots of BS over at RCU or RCG, but eventually someone will pop in that I recognize as being honest, and of a similar mindset as me. Then I feel like I know the truth.

If you want the down and dirty info on a profile (or engine), ask the Bros. Odds are that someone here has owned or flown it here.

 

[John Wells]

This is the area where the Bros should be proud. Many of the mags would love to have at least one accomplished 3D flyer / writer, but they don't grow on trees, so the editors have to go with what they've got. The editors know where they stand in this area, and would usually welcome aboard a well rounded writer with those interests and talents. The bottom line is this, the mags don't carelessly and intentionally let an average sport flyer do the 3D reviews, they usually don't have one of you guys on hand to do it the right way. Be proud of your abilities because it's not as common as you think. :wink:

JW

 

[TailTwister]

I agree that good 3D pilots are hard to find, and surely not all will be good writers, but how hard could it be to solicit someone to write an article? Especially if there is something in it for the pilot...

I'd think that there would be someone that would be willing to do 3 or 4 reviews a year for a mag, right?

Heck, let's introduce ourselves to the mags, and maybe a few of us can follow in Billy's footsteps and get published.

I'd do a review for someone, as long as they agree not to twist what I write. Sure, ball it up and throw it in the garbage, but don't twist it up...

 

[ckoerner]

It was the EF Edge article in this months Model Aviation. He had a .46LA in it. When I got the mag this weekend, I was like cool a review on the EF Edge. I was hoping to compare my experience with the review.

 

[TailTwister]

Wow, an LA on an EF Edge? :?

Did he put lead in the nose? Mini balanced OK with a Saito 72... There must be 5 or so ounces weight difference there.

So, how well did it torque on a 10 inch prop???

 

[ckoerner]

He later said he upgraded to a Saito .72.

 

[TailTwister]

I went and read that one now...

It's not nearly as bad as the Seduction one. In that one, he used the wing mount servo option, and then proceeded to add lead to the tail to get the CG right. And the EF guy makes no bones about the 46LA being a soft engine. To me it almost read like he did it to confirm the potential of the plane without massive power. I guess I would have to see the KE loop with a 46 LA, however...

At least the EF reviewer seemed to pay attention as he assembled the thing too. He adjusted the plane to get the CG to fall in a good spot, and didn't just assemble it then correct with lead. I can appreciate that. A sidebar with the Saito flight report would have been nice too.

I saw a review of the H9 330 1/3 scale recently where the author had Jason Schulman fly the plane for a 3D report. I kinda' liked that. It gives a novice 3D impression, and then a pro perspective on the plane.

Maybe for profile planes, they should have a Bro write a sidebar called "Making it my Bitch" where he actually does some 3D with it.

 

[basmntdweller]

The "Makin' it my bitch" sidebar would be awesome!!!,,, but I doubt we'll ever see that in any commercial review.

I kinda did a "WTF" the other day when I saw the review for the GP Venus sport pattern plane in 3D flyer mag. It for damn sure isn't a 3D plane. If I'd have actually paid for the mag I'd been upset to have a review of a three year old non 3D ARF in my mag.
Matt

 

[Jim D]

I kinda did a "WTF" the other day when I saw the review for the GP Venus sport pattern plane in 3D flyer mag. It for damn sure isn't a 3D plane. If I'd have actually paid for the mag I'd been upset to have a review of a three year old non 3D ARF in my mag.
Matt

Same here, and I also have bones to pick with that Flip 3D review in the same issue. What CRAP! He puts a 46ax on a plane that finishes over 5lbs, admits it really needs more for 'serious 3D' and then states that it's a great plane 'capable of all the 3D moves'.

Dammit! If 3DFlyer wants to get my $ for a subscription, STOP THE BS. The Bro's are the ones that finally turned me on to profiles as the REAL DEAL in 3D trainers. You won't hear that in the mags.

I appreciate 3DFlyer giving some spotlight to the Bro's, but the second issue was a huge let-down except for Billy's piece.

 

[Gordo]

Jim, you stole my thunder. I haven't seen the 2nd issue, but Bill read a lot of that one review, what the hell is 3D Flier thinking, haveing a non-3Der doing a review? And OH YEAH, that 46ax ROCKED that flip...NOT!!

I don't even look at reviews for opinions, just cost, weight, and assembly.

 

[dhooks]

Don Lowes rep shot way up in my opinion when he let Jason Shulman fly the Extra 33% he reviewed. I thought it was a very welcome additon to the review. Id love to see a bro or bro s do a review of 3D/profile planes for a magazine. I could scratch out an article if I got say a free plane to review if I supplied the eqp. I wonder what would happen if someone did a review and submitted it to a magazine, if they would consider using it.Just thinking out loud hear.What do you all think?

 

[basmntdweller]

I'm sure they'd consider using it, after they edited out anything remotely negative about the plane. Then they'd make up some trivial item that was a problem and mention in passing that the mfg had already found the problem and the reviewer must have gotten one of the old ones that had not been corrected.
Magazine review=advertising in disguise!
Matt

 

[Gordo]

I'm sure they'd consider using it, after they edited out anything remotely negative about the plane. Then they'd make up some trivial item that was a problem and mention in passing that the mfg had already found the problem and the reviewer must have gotten one of the old ones that had not been corrected.
Magazine review=advertising in disguise!
Matt

Well put Matt, who could add to that?

 

[dhooks]

That is sad but probably true Matt, If the reviews arent glowing the stream of new planes to review will get shut off along with any adds the company pays for. Its unbelievable how many planes that are absolute crap get sold because of some glowing report in some rag. It would probably work better with a mag if one of their super pilots looped an rolled it then have someone that can actually fly 3D give a flight report.
That way they could do all their glowing crapola about it, but still possibly give a slightly more balanced picture. If it actually did do great 3D they would pee their collective pants an swoon that they had a real live 3D plane to review. If not they would talk up the awsome plane that will satisfy all but the most hardcore 3der. Oh an it only took one click of trim :roll:

Dan

 

[Gordo]

I guess that's why we have the net, eh? I was in the LHS the other day and he was pushing the Funtana 90 as a "full Blown 3D Plane" and "The plane will do best with the Saito 1.00 it was designed for!!" Then HE ASKED ME!!!!!I told him I thought it was a piece of crap, blah blah blah. He says "Have you read the magazine reviews? You gotta quit believing what you read on the net!!"

SB!!!

 

[Jim D]

This is the area where the Bros should be proud. Many of the mags would love to have at least one accomplished 3D flyer / writer, but they don't grow on trees,

.. Be proud of your abilities because it's not as common as you think. :wink:

JW

I still won't let these mags off the hook for sending out standard circle flyers to review 3D planes, but point taken. My club is somewhere between 80-100 people and as of now I'm still the only 3D'er in the club. There are about 3 others I'm working on converting to the way (Profiles and 3D ) but I'm still it. At our fly-in this weekend we had several people show up from all around the area, and only one other true 3D flyer, Tina Z from the Henderson KY bunch.

The Bro's are really a different cut. In the Brotherhood, routine 3D ability is commonplace and extreme 3D ability is not hard to find.

 

[Ulf]

well, I bought the 2nd issue of 3Dflyer at my LHS, and must say that the only article I enjoyed was the Pro Bro Story. Other then that the reviews sounded just like the ones from MAN. :x :roll:

 

[Quicker]

Well, at the risk of losing my "ride", I have done product reviews. The 1st one that I did was an eye-opener. I had the review done and submitted, but it didn't show up for nearly a month. I kept asking what the delay was, and finally I found out that the review got "reviewed" by the manufacturer before it got published.

Not all sites and mags are like this, but I think the more advertising you buy, the more glowing the review is.

You will see some honesty in the reviews, though. One that surprised me was one Erick Royer did on RCU of the Hobby Lobby mini Gee Bee. He was honest in saying it was a handfull and not for beginners. It was good seeing that. Hobby Lobby buys a lot of advertising from RCU.