What is a Review?

Model Airplane News, Jul 1998 by Marshall, Larry

WAS TALKING to one of our ad representatives about Lanier RC, and I mentioned that I liked their larger aerobatic airplanes. Somehow this got back to Bubba Spivey, owner of Lanier. Shortly thereafter, I was talking with Bubba at a trade show. As is his style, he looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why do you like my kits?" What came to mind was the fact that they were solid, wood kits with good-fitting parts. I also like the fact that Lanier doesn't include any hardware, allowing me to use first-class hinges, clevises, etc., as I see fit and not charging me for hardware that I would typically throw away. I also like the way Bubba designs his fuselages, as the interlocking construction speeds building time; my principal reason for building from a kit rather than from scratch.

Why am I boring you with this story? Certainly not to suggest that Lanier kits are better than those of many of Bubba's competitors; I could say similar things about many kits on the market today. Neither do I believe that my opinion about kits should matter to anyone. Rather, I've told you this story because it illustrates some important points about reviews that are worth mentioning.

First, Bubba didn't ask me whether I liked his kits better than someone else's; he simply wanted to know what I liked about his product. This is the sort of approach we take with Model Airplane News product reviews as well. We are evaluating the product, asking whether it does its intended job and how well it does that job. When we contract a reviewer, this is what we expect him or her to answer for you. How that evaluation is done, however, is largely up to the reviewer. This is important, as it is the reviewer who decides what and what not to emphasize. We at Model Airplane News provide a format that requires reviewers to answer basic questions to fill our specifications box. We require that they report on flight characteristics to fulfill our flight performance profile, and we expect basic photo documentation of the product. But the evaluation of kit construction is up to the reviewer.

The most crucial point to make about the review process, however, is that when modelers do product reviews for our magazine, or any other for that matter, they bring their expertise, their experience and their inexperience to the review process, and these things are reflected in their assessments.

Experience and expertise will affect how the reviewer assesses the product. This is especially true of model aircraft kit reviews. I mentioned that I liked the fact that Lanier kits are wood. Someone who prefers to work in foam and glass might view what I consider a "feature" as "high parts count." If most of their experience comes from foam and glass projects, they may have problems building a wood kit that I would not experience, simply because of our different preferences and/or experience with this type of product.

I like the fact that Lanier lets me use my own hardware, whereas another reviewer with a different view of hardware use might see this as something to complain about, feeling the manufacturer should provide hardware. Someone with less modeling experience than I might take issue with things I wouldn't even consider. For instance, he may not like the instruction manual. I tend to rely upon plans-not manuals-for my construction, and so I'm less likely to evaluate manuals in the same way as those who like to put check marks next to each step. Conversely, someone with more experience than I might find a product lacking in ways that I completely miss.

Because of these differences among reviewers, you should use product reviews primarily to acquire information about products. At the same time, use caution when a reviewer starts voicing opinions. The distinction between observations and opinions is sometimes difficult to discern, but it is worth the effort to try. In interpreting opinions, you should ask some questions. Does the reviewer have the same background as you? Are his priorities the same as yours? What about his needs; are they similar? Sometimes you'll be able to answer these questions, sometimes not. But at least by asking the questions, you'll have half a chance at interpreting the reviewer's opinions in a way that can serve you.

WHAT'S IN THE ISSUES

This month, Jerry Nelson brings you the results of some fine camera-pointing at the QSAA's annual meet in Nevada. Once again, Jorg Vogelsang made the trip from Germany to show us the results of his fertile mind and superb modeling skills. This time he brought a twin-turbine ME-328, an experimental jet developed near the end of WW II.

Our construction/plan presentation is a bit different this month. Jim Simpson presents not only his design for a simple, entry-level sailplane but he also tells us about a program he's involved with that gets young people started in R/C. Hope you like it.