You are correct, Sir!

Since I do not have permission to post excerpts from Andy Lennon's book, "Basics of R/C Model Aircraft Design" (subtitle: "Practical Techniques For Building Better Models"), I can post Andy's credentials, and that he covers C.G. location and its effects in Chapter 6 - "CG Location and the Balancing Act", page 27. Andy includes a diagram (which can be found in numerous places in both print reference and on the 'Net) which shows the longitudinal stability of C.G. location - which I will post (see pic of airfoil profile).

The pic of the airfoil profile shows the longitudinal (pitch) effects predicated on C.G. location. It's pretty simple. The analogy of a steel ball placed in a saucer is used to give a graphic association to longitudinal stability. The more forward the C.G., the more stable the steel ball in the saucer. The more aft C.G., the more unstable. There's no room for argument - again - none. Andy is merely relying on his education:

Edward VII School
Strathcona Academy
Montreal Technical School
McGill University, Montreal
University Western Ontario, London, Ontario

Yeah, I'm gonna go with Andy. I'm also going to go with "The Rebel", Sir Isaac Newton. I'm also going to go with:
Boeing - http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...light/737.html
NASA - http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/forces.html
FAA - https://www.faa.gov/education/educat...ces_of_flight/

ALL of which offer that there are FOUR forces acting on an airplane in flight, NOT five. You will note that all three links are targeted at Elementary Grade children. Which means this is pretty basic stuff to grasp, eh?

Do not be surprised at potential chest-thumping and claims of full-size aviation experience. These fantastic claims are a pattern for some. Don't worry, I'm ready with accident reports that point to aircraft unable to be controlled due to excessive rearward C.G. locations as the cause of crashes and fatalities. I invoke Andy Lennon because his PUBLISHED reference is specific to model aviation, and R/C in particular. Any challenge to educated and proven results should be kept to such.

Personally, I think that it is a crying shame that accreditation be challenged by mere (and uneducated) speculation, only for entertainment and sport. It's a hobby. We're not going to the moon. Keep it fun - for all.

I have been along-time lurker of this thread. I have an older Dave Platt YMF-3 kit framed-up and almost ready to cover:

Build thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...1806391&page=9

My build starts at post #124 - for those that have access. Couple of pics of it in "rough" bones included in this post.

I have admired the skills of the many here on this thread, and learned a few tricks. I have asked a few questions during my build, and have not gone wanting for an answer. Thank you.