Sillyness....

Maybe Canadian planes got better fuel consumption at aft CGs. Depends on what you mean by Aft. 40% 50% ??

I was an Aircraft Loadmaster in the USAF for 25 years. For 24 of those years, I was responsible for the proper loading
of all the Planes I flew on. C-124s, C-123s, C-135Bs and C-141As. On all of those planes, the CG limits remained the same.
18 % to 34 %. Desired take-off percent was 30 %.
I have seen U S Airways ND 80s take off at less than 10 %. I have seen the British BME 146s take off at 46 %.

Even with all my experience, I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems to me, that if an airplane is tailheavy, you would
need additional power and some down elevator trim. Nose heavy would require more power and up elevator trim. Accessive
trim equals more drag, requiring more power to maintain planned airspeed, thus, poor fuel consumption. Some of our loads
did not allow for desired takeoff CG. (Missles, tanks, etc.) That's why T-tail Stabalizer/elevators that rotated came about. They
provided the trim necessary when desired CGs could not be met by non-normal loads.

I believe our RC models follow these principles to a certain degree, but I must admit that, beyond what I have noted, I am not
well versed on stalling. I know a noseheavy model will not do a good spin. I understand that too little airspeed will cause stalls.
I'll need to further my knowlege more, to understand tip stalls and snap outs.

Gerald