This post may contain affiliate links. You can view our affiliate disclosure here.
This is a comprehensive review of the TaylorMade AeroBurner game-improvement irons, part of the AeroBurner family of golf clubs.
Touting a “new performance package” where “explosive distance meets unsurpassed playability”, the main focuses of this iron are distance and forgiveness.
Just how well do these irons deliver on their claims? Are they worth the buy? What are their strengths/weaknesses?
Read on to find out everything you need to know to make an informed purchase.
Classification: Max Game-Improvement
Best suited for: Those with a sub-$500 budget who want value-packed game-improvement irons.
- excellent value for the price
- very affordable
- great look
- very good directional and ball speed forgiveness
- feel is solid and consistent
- longer on average than the RSi 1
- not quite as forgiving as one might expect for an iron in the max game-improvement class
- visible trailing edge in the long irons and thick look of scoring irons at address can be unappealing to some
- mishit feedback is not very helpful
Best Places To Buy Online
There are a few really good options, and because these irons have been out for a few years, you can get some pretty amazing deals (under $400).
Check the listings on this eBay page. Many times, their prices are unbeatable.
Also look at Global Golf. They regularly offer coupons and run different programs to make the buying process as smooth as possible.
Want a high-resolution look at the AeroBurner irons? Click on the composite image at the top of the page and navigate the photos on the left-hand side of the screen.
What are the reviews like?
Overall reception for the AeroBurner irons has been very positive, with average customer ratings of 5/5 (perfect!) on Global Golf, 5/5 on EWG, 4.7/5 (100% recommended) on the TaylorMade website and 4.9/5 at RBG, as well as generally positive verdicts from critics.
What People Like
- easy to hit
- great mishit forgiveness both in terms of direction and ball speed
- very good overall distance
- solid feel
- consistency and precision with the scoring irons
What People Don’t Like
- many users would prefer better-feeling mis-hit feedback (and better feel in general)
- some feel the irons aren’t as forgiving as they should be
What are the features?
The clubface of the AeroBurner iron has a coefficient of restitution (COR) that is “up-to-the-limit” or at the maximum that is legally allowed.
This means that the clubface transfers as much energy to the ball as possible, maximizing ball speeds and hence distance.
The 4-7 irons feature TaylorMade’s innovative Speed Pocket (also found in the RSi 1) which, through increased face flexion, helps preserve ball speeds and launch angle from strikes low on the face.
Low & Deep CG
The center of gravity (CG) is positioned low and deep to generate higher launch, improved feel, and more stability/forgiveness through a greater moment of inertia (MOI).
For those who aren’t aware, MOI essentially determines how much the clubface twists in response to off-center strikes; the higher the MOI, the greater the resistance to twisting and the better the mishit forgiveness.
The stock shafts available are the steel REAX 88 HL (High Launch) and the graphite AeroBurner REAX 60/50 (men/ladies); both are engineered with a low kick point designed for a higher trajectory (and more distance for those who could use the height).
The full specs for the AeroBurner irons are below:
|Name||Loft||Lie||Offset (mm)||Length (men)||Length (women)||Swing Weight (men) (88 HL/60)||Swing Weight (women) (50)|
How do these irons perform?
The AeroBurner turns out to be one of the longer game-improvement irons on the market.
Relatively speaking, and based on testing, yardages are on average slightly greater than those of the RSi 1 but tend to have a greater variance.
This is a negative in my view; when it comes to irons, I’d take consistent yardages over greater average distance in most cases on the golf course, but that’s just me. Then again, the RSi 1 is definitively more expensive.
Mild to moderate off-center strikes seem to only give up a few yards in lost distance.
Directional and ball speed forgiveness are both very good, which is not all that surprising considering the AeroBurner iron is marketed as max game-improvement with a high MOI.
More specifically, the long face reduces the likelihood of you hitting too far towards the toe and heel where ball flight is compromised the most.
The Speed Pocket does a superb job of salvaging the common thin shot, and the high-MOI design makes for stable impact across the face.
Despite the relatively strong lofts, most people will be quite pleased to experience a mid-high ball flight — this is mostly due to the location of the CG as well as the high-launch attribute of the stock shaft.
Although this tends to be the norm, I would like to stress that your exact trajectory/ball flight will depend on your swing, shaft and specific iron configuration, so it would be dishonest of me to guarantee performance or results in any way.
It should be noted that, according to TaylorMade, the CG produces a slight left bias (or right bias for lefties) of about 2.5 yards; this can help golfers who routinely push their iron shots.
The wide sole of the AeroBurner has little problem cutting through the turf and taking some of the sting out of any fat shots you might hit. It does just fine out of the rough, bunker and any other trouble lie you can think of.
As expected, workability is limited, but able golfers can shape shots to an extent.
What about look, sound & feel?
Overall the look runs in line with what you would expect from a max game-improvement iron.
The AeroBurner iron has a dark matte finish that reduces glare and makes for a sleek appearance.
Offset is substantial (much more than the RSi 1 all throughout the set) but not enough to be distracting or impractical. The top line is thick, the sole is wide and the blade length is long, all serving to inspire confidence at address and enable easier striking.
The badge features an appealing black/gray/red/white colour palette with fairly simplistic labeling.
One thing I dislike is the fat/thick appearance of the scoring irons which might turn some people off. In addition, the trailing edge of the longer irons (5 and below) is visible at address and this can be distracting to some.
The Sound & Feel
Feel is pretty consistent throughout the set, which is nice. Pure strikes feel very solid and satisfying, minor mis-hits feel almost as good and severe mis-hits don’t feel overly jarring.
The irons themselves feel comfortable (to me at least) and stable throughout the swing.
I wouldn’t say mis-hit feedback is the greatest, but it does seem to be distinct enough for troubleshooting purposes.
The AeroBurner irons are a worthy and now extremely affordable addition to TaylorMade’s family of game-improvement irons.
There’s plenty in them for mid to high handicappers including great distance, superb forgiveness, solid feel, and a confidence-inspiring look.
I strongly suggest that any golfer with a low budget who wants a bang-for-the-buck set of game-improvement irons give these a try.
If you have any thoughts or questions about the TaylorMade Aeroburner irons, feel free to leave a comment below!
These sound exactly like the kind of irons I’m after – affordable and forgiving.
I’ve neglected golf recently (partly because of poor clubs – I know blaming the tools!). I think game improvement clubs are what I need.
The Aeroburner irons look a good choice especially considering that I don’t want to invest too much.
One question I’ve been thinking about. With game improvement irons what is the disadvantage over players irons? Is it that you don’t get the same feel so don’t get as good a feedback of how you are hitting the ball? Could you just continue to use game improvement clubs or is it best to move to players clubs at some point?
I had a more lengthy response typed out but I lost it after the power flicked off and on, so here’s the concise version: with players irons it’s usually quite easy to distinguish between center and off-center strikes, while with game-improvement irons it’s generally more difficult (but not impossible by any means). So in that sense, feedback is generally better with players irons. Players irons often feel better in the hands and throughout the swing as well, but this isn’t always the case or even mostly the case. Other things to consider when it comes to game-improvement irons are reduced workability/control (a natural consequence of increased forgiveness) and a bulkier head profile — whether or not these can be considered disadvantages depend on the individual.
As for your last question, if you feel that you can hit the ball consistently solid and want to take your game to the next level, transitioning over to players irons would probably be a good idea. This isn’t set in stone, however, and you can have a ton of success with game-improvement irons no matter your skill level. It’s really up to you. One of TaylorMade’s newest better-player models is the PSi — you can check out the full review of it on Golfstead here. I hope this helps!
I wish I’d found this review last week! My cousin’s birthday was on Friday and he’s been looking for a new iron.
That being said, it seems like the Aeroburner is great for any golfer to improve the distance of their swing at an affordable price. I like its trajectory and ball speed; the fact that it picks up is awesome. For a rookie like my cousin and myself, it is an advantage that the Aeroburner helps keep my swing on its path.
Maybe I’ll get him one for Christmas. Lol
It would still be a great belated birthday gift if he didn’t already get new irons; Christmas is a ways away! That aside, I appreciate the comment. Let me know if you have any questions.
I’ve always used Taylor Made Irons and woods, something about the design that I prefer over the other leading golf brands.
The problem I have found with these oversized heads is that the weight in the head usually feels too light.
How does the head weight of these compare to a TP edition of the Taylor Made iron range?
Thanks for the comment. Perhaps the manufacturer is trying to compensate for the larger head size and overdoes it a little bit. When I tested the AeroBurner irons, the head weight didn’t particularly stand out to me. Which TP irons are you talking about specifically? That line goes back to at least 2009 and comes in three different variants (CB, MC and MB).
These comments are 3.5 yrs after your first article, but I want to thank you for a well-thought out review of the irons. I am in my 60th year of playing golf, have shot my age, have actually designed clubs, and would be described as a decent, but boring, player. I am losing distance as I age. I was never a long hitter, so distance retention is important to me. For a sense of scale: Right now playing in the swamps I average 220 yds carry and roll on a driver, but I am down to only about 105 carry for a 9-iron. These are real distances, not some bogus manly ego distances. My scoring requires “fairways and greens”, and precision on my clubbing. Not make big mistakes, and mitigate the small ones.
I have extensively tested the game improvement and super game improvement irons. I found a “variance” as you term it (I call it my dispersion ellipse) in my ability to hit graphite vs. steel shafts. You referred to it as “feeling stable throughout the swing.” After years of graphite shafts, I switched back to steel for that downswing location of where my clubhead is/was. The Aeroburner steel shafts reward my senses, and produce straighter, consistent, and stable ball flights that are LONGER than other iron models. I do think they possess some left bias for a right-handed golfer, but that is fine. I can play with what some might term a slight “power pull.” With the proper lie angle, that can be controlled into an asset rather than a liability. I find them to flight a bit lower than some of the balloon trajectory ultra-game-improvement irons. My limited energy goes out, and not a wasted up. This is a function of their very strong lofts.
I won’t give model names, but I surprisingly found the Aeroburners to win my “iron club tests” a couple of years in a row. I won’t divulge specifics, but this over three Wilson Staff, four Ping, three Callaway, one Cobra, two Hogan, and some lesser distance brand sets., My Titleist and Mizuno testing has been with demo clubs, but they also lost to the Aeroburners. The focus with my irons has to be consistent good, straight strikes, and then go as far as they can. Move a “tight” distance ellipse as far from where I am standing as possible. Stability/consistency first, and distance second. The Aeroburners (not the Aeroburner HL model) win the annual contests, particularly in the regular flex steel shafts. Only one older Ping (Hint. The one with the shortest name.) equipped with stiff flex Steelfiber shafts comes close to the Aeroburner steels, and I am selling all my older irons except for the Aeroburners and the one Ping model.
I think your review was accurate, informative, and written from the prospective of what might work for a reasonably competent, old golfer like me.
Thanks for the great comment. It’s clear you have a deep understanding of irons and their mechanics, and that can be really beneficial, as long as you don’t reach the point of “paralysis by analysis”.
It’s good to know that you’ve found success with the AeroBurners. To a large extent, different golfers will experience different results with any given iron model because of differences in swing and ball flight tendencies. As for the PING model, perhaps you’re talking about the G? Anyway, best of luck out there!