John Stainforth

Actually the aileron set-up in the manual (which I used) does not look like 1:1 (see attached), and is very different to the recommended set-up on the Funtana 125, which has the control horn distance about 1".

In fact, the manual recommendation for the Katana 50 is pretty much the "reversing the mechanical advantage" you describe in your second paragraph.

There was no slop in the linkage, but the hinge-lines were not sealed, because that was not called for in the manual (another difference from the Funtana).

My Funtana seems to be perfectly fine structurally. It looks and feels 100% after three years of usage. I did *not* condemn the whole line. I bought the Katana because I like the Funtana so much (in fact it is my favorite plane). And I am perfectly happy too with my Hangar 9 Spitfire and Twist 40 (I have had three of those). The only Hangar 9 plane that I bought and I don't like is the Tango, which I don't think I mentioned before.

I bought this issue to the attention of this forum because it seems that every other Katana 50 that is set up exactly as described seems logically doomed to break up in the air at modest speed, assuming the wood and glue quality is similar. I wondered in my previous posts if that was the reason the model has been withdrawn so quickly. In the British aeromodelling press this was advertised with great fanfare in February's RCM&E (as a "new" product) - by April it was discontinued!!