Interesting that you would make a connection between this and RC planes. The Su-30 is so unstable in pitch in certain parts of the flight envelope that it would be very difficult if not impossible to fly without additional help. It has a fly by wire system in the pitch axis that affords it artificial stability so it will act like a conventional airplane. During the maneuvers that you see in the video, the pilot actually overrides the angle of attack limits normally imposed by the flight control system. In addition, although it looks like he enters and leaves departed flight with impunity, the maneuvers are actually carefully worked out. This type of aircraft typically is unstable in the linear part of the AoA range (at subsonic speeds) and becomes stable in pitch in the very high angle of attack range, but the lateral and directional stability is seriously degraded in the intermediate angle of attack range. The pilot applies a very high pitch rate so he can quickly shoot through this directional instability to the very high angle of attack range (70 degrees+) where the Su-series apparently becomes stable again in both the longitudinal and directional axis. Here the aerodynamic moments will actually automatically recover the aircraft. Certain versions in the Su range have thrust vectoring that help them attain the high pitch rates required. I believe the Su-30MK is one of these with the vectored thrust.

For fascinating footage of this so-called "supermaneuvrability", have a look at the joint US/German X-31 research vehicle. It does similar things to the Su series, but also in the directional/lateral axis. I believe you will find a link to images and video footage from the NASA website.

To get back to whether any of this applies to models: On models we can tolerate a slight negative static margin since the low inertia of models (especially your light foamies) keep the time-to-double of even a slightly unstable model within flyable limits. This is very different to the artificial stability required on the heavy fighter aircraft to make them flyable. If anything, the Su-30 is an example of how, when something works on a model, it doesn't always translate very well to full-scale or vice-versa. You can do similar maneuvers with your foamy - but the physics are different since the ratios between aerodynamic and inertia forces are different.

Another example of this difference is the modern highly maneuvrable aerobatic aircraft. Have a look at some of the tumbling maneuvers performed by the full-scale aerobatic champions. You will notice these tumbling maneuvers often give the impression of being more aggressive than we see on our models. The reason is that the propeller on the full-scale aircraft has, in relation to a model, a lot more rotational inertia. Many of those tumbling maneuvers depend on the gyroscopic effect produced by the spinning propeller when you apply very high pitch or yaw rates. The result is maneuvers that look noticeably different from what you get with a typical 3D model.

Full-scale and models can mimic each other's capabilities under certain circumstances, but there will always be differences due to the differences in inertia, aerodynamics, etc at the different scales. What stays the same, though, is that they all operate under the same laws of physics. That is why engineers and scientists don't spend much time during their training on the detail of how a certain airplane/bird/insect flies (except when examples are needed to understand certain concepts), but rather on the fundamental physics. Once you know the basic physics and how and why things scale in certain ways, applying it all to anything from a bumblebee to a B-52 becomes fairly straightforward.