In this case the factory screwed up royally. The recommended CG is simply wrong. Fly2XS (Scott), dmyers0403, and I have all done research on the CG issue and have all concluded, and successfully flown, our Lysanders at a more appropriate CG. At least 27-35mm further back than factory, and in dmyers0403 case, much further back. You should also look at the manual for the 126" Phoenix Lysander at TowerHobbies.com and compare that factory CG to the Seagull CG. Theirs is way farther back than is the Seagull recommendation. How can that be? The planes are about the same size and have the same double taper wing -- simple -- the Seagull recommendation is wrong.
I know moving the CG back goes against everything you know about setting the CG of a new plane, but in this case moving it back is the right thing to do. The plane will fly, glide, and land much better at a more aft CG.
Your plane will fly at the forward CG -- it just won't fly well, and you might not have enough elevator authority to raise the nose for landing. If you persist with the factory CG at least setup double the recommended elevator throw so you have a chance of getting the nose
up for landing. At least one maiden flight ended poorly because of the wrong CG and too little elevator throw.
Yourplane will likely need to fly much faster than needed to get enough airflow over the elevators to give them enough authority the overcome the too forward CG. This is not good for take offs and landings.
When properly setup this plane is a joy to fly -- slow and stable, and will draw a crowd where ever you take it as it is so unusual. Every weekend my flying club members ask me: "Where's the Lysander?" when I don't bring it out.