Tom, many of the "names" involved in TOC types of competition had found out a long time ago that a harrier was better performed inverted with some planes. It was later understood that the vertical placement of the empennage on the fuselage in relationship with the main wing was the cause of this.

Full scale aerobats had experienced the same situations, which was the primary reason for developmental changes in the Extra and Cap lines of full scale planes outside of engine horsepower additions. During the evolving years of the Extra, the primary differences in the airframe from the 230 to the 300 were in the tail group. There was the addition of the two place cockpit from the single place to be certain, but that was only a "baggage" issue. The major changes between the Cap 231 and 232 were in the shape of the cowl, and the re-location of the horizontal stab in relationship to the rudder and main wing, with an associated increase in rudder size. In both types of aircraft, there were subtle differences incorporated into the main wing, but to nowhere near the extent of the changes made to the aft portions of the aircraft.

These minor differences are why many pattern planes are developed and constructed with the ability to move the horizontal stab up and down a little and to be able to change the incidence of the main wing and horizontal stab without needing to construct a new plane to further your experiments.

As in all things aviation, there is no perfect solution, IMO. You can only achieve a pleasing balance. The rest of the game is up to the individual to properly set up the aircraft, while taking care to use the best components possible, install them correctly, and practice, practice, practice. I think it was Frank Noll who once said something to the effect that the only thing you needed to do to learn how to hover was to burn lot's and lot's of fuel. In that, I couldn't agree more.