Why does the low motion of the control surface dictate servo resolution? It is the ratio of the control horn and servo arm that dictates this.
True, but even if you use the supplied servo horns with the kit, they only travel about 50 percent of their range at those deflections. Its kinda wierd. To fix would mean gutting the wing, moving the servo mounts closer to the surfaces, etc. The rods and control horns have to be seriously altered. Its thos kind of stuff that we warbird guys deal with in the arf world. We do what we can. The rest we live with. Its probably why the servos specified were some of the highest torque spektrum makes. Even flipping the servos wouldn't fully correct. Its also part of the reason my next plane, is a kit build. Another part of it is being clise to scale. They have limited space for servos, they kinda have to go where they fit. For F3A your aircraft are designed for maximum speed, tightest turns possible. You use every bit of travel you can get and, at times, probably wish you had more. In scale warbirds we're after making it fly like the full scale plane, only wanting extra power in reserve if we get in a jam. Its not about speed and turning on a dime with 9 cents change, so arf designs don't worry so much about max traveling the servos. Look at the aileron deflection in the screenshot. The mustang's aileron, to max travel the servo, would need a travel amounting to twice the 22 mm measured at the TE. No matter the position of the servo. At 22 mm, that amounts to a snap roll, for the mustang, at that deflection, the roll rate would send you to a chiropractor in a real aircraft. You'd definately see red as all the blood rushed to your head. Elevator maxed out would induce GLoC. The upward pitch of the plane would overstress a real P51, possibly causing structural failure..if the pilot had the upper body strength to move the stick far enough and the room in the cockpit to do it. They still "bent the bird" quite often. For the subject of the servos, the geometry just isn't there. In some ways, they are using the servo position, arms, and rod length to limit the amount of deflection we can achieve, so we don't overstress the design.
In a full build kit, if I know, from the start that I want more deflection, in the case of the ailerons, for neck snapping roll rates, for instance, I can reinforce the wing during the structural part of the build, beef up the spar, double ribs at key points, etc so I don't tear a wing off in a snap roll. With an ARF, to do that, would, again, mean gutting the wing. Instead, they compensate using higher torque servos, but placing them so that the aileron (or flap in this case) would hit it max long before the servo does. The result, if you mess up and set everything to 100 percent travel, is a. The aileron rips off its hinges, or b. The trailing edge of the wing twists and snaps. Neither is a good scenario. As it is, since you focused on the flap, is the area between the flap leading edge and the trailing edge of the wing I have to rework, as it is, just to get the flap to even come clise to the suggested deflection, an error in manufacture. I thought, initially, it was just ultrakote being kind of loose and bunching up. Trimmed that away and found out sand paper is gonna be involved. Its not a straight cut, but looks more like something Doc cut after two bottles of Sake. I can only hope to kinda fix it..it will never be perfect.
I figure I'm going to have the same issue with the ailerons, elevators. I addressed it on the rudder when I recovered it.
The blade in the cutting process has become wavy feom long term use. Be different if the factory were to stack, clamp, and laser cut multiple sheets, instead they press cut individual sheets. The result is a pretty substantial variation from blue print to production just from the wear of the die in terms of final product. Going back through early build threads of this kit, there were no inyerference issues, but lots if comments on the servos using maybe half the possible travel. It is what it is.