Paul, that particular airplane that you showed flew with the tail lifting up under all trimmed flight conditions. At low angle of attack (when flown with little ballast), full down elevator had to be kept in for the entire flight and it was landed by pulling back on the throttle all the way (which btw matched the simulations prior to construction exactly). The pictures are very deceptive - the horizontal is placed in a very strong upwash from the wingtips, which is the reason why they are mounted at such a nose-down incidence. However, they still lift up: the local angle of attack is always positive for trimmed flight, and even with up elevator the local CL is positive. The NP calculations on the plane and trim incidences were very close as calculated and no CG or incidence adjustments had to be made during the test flights prior to the competition. You can ask Mike Cross whether it was stable in pitch - his only complaint was roll stability due to the lack of dihedral, but otherwise he was very happy with the stability of the model.

I am not an advocate of OHS designs either, but the one in your pictures was a very interesting design project and from what I remember the configuration was chosen more out of curiosity towards that particular concept than anything else. My use of the OHS as an example in this discussion was because it is a good example of a design that relies on an upward lifting tail. It still does not mean it has to be an OHS to have an upward lifting tail - the same can be true for a conventional configuration with the right sizing and location of the tail.