ORIGINAL: John Stainforth
The main point I would make is that I set this up exactly as per the Hangar 9 instructions, using new servos of the make and model that they recommended. I think it is highly likely that anyone else foolish enough to do the same will have the same problems. Hangar 9 should change their instructions.
Perhaps... but the set-up shown in the manual is a typical 1:1 3D set-up; IOW, the distance from the servo output shaft to the center of the ball link is the same as the distance from the control surface to the hole where the clevis attaches. Sometimes referred to as "linear", or "boxing up the system" (which means the four points of contact- servo output shaft, control surface hinge line, two pushrod connection points- in a given control surface/servo represents a parallelogram), this ensures maximum throw consistent with not overloading the servo.
When I mentioned "reversing the mechanical advantage" I was talking about some folks' habit of using the farthest point on the servo arm and the closest (to the control surface) hole on the control horn. This gives max possible throw... and also gives the control surface more leverage that the servo arm. Combine that with large surfaces and flight loads- sometimes referred to as "blow-by" - and unless you've got a big-nut servo, it will likely be over-powered/stripped during strenuous aerobatics.
You say you used a servo as called for in the manual. Assuming your linkages were proper (no slop) and the aileron hinge lines were sealed, that pretty much narrows down the possible culprits. To me, it says either a weak structure or weak servo. So you may be right. But I don't recall any other complaints of this nature from others flying this model. Nor have I heard any gripes regarding this issue from folks I know flying other, similar H9 models with the same sort of set-up... specifically, the 27% Extra 260.
Now, the original Funtana did indeed have a weak wing structure. Please do not think I'm casting doubts on your situation. I just take exception to your categorization of one incident condemning the whole line.
Its a moot point, in any event. This model has been discontinued; probably because it was priced $50 higher than the similar bamboo specials in the latest Tower flyer. I have over 30 flights on mine now, and have been impressed with it from Day One; particularly the quality of the hardware and kit goodies.
I am by NO means a cheerleader for Horizon; I've had my issues with them in the past. But it has also been my experience that the Hangar 9 brand of ARFs (at least, the ones I have seen) has always been of top quality. The SeaGull line, not so much.
I'm just glad I was able to score another one of these kits NIB. When I eventually kill mine, I'll immediately assemble the other one.
.