Chad,

I am really confused. You reduced the downthrust a lot and then increased the wing incidence a little - so the net result is you reduced the downthrust a little apart from the attitude at which the fuz flies which is a cosmetic thing but see below? Now you have increased the incidence a bit more so you are aerodynamically pretty much where you started apart from the fuz angle again. Can you please explain a bit more?

My model balances on the front of the wing tube. It initially carried a lot of left aileron and up trim and went to the canopy on up and downlines. It also needs a lot of rudder/up elevator mixing. At landing speeds it sat tail low making it difficult to judge the descent and set it down smoothly. I checked the wing incidence and found the roots aligned perfectly but that there was a 3/4 deg. difference at the tips so increased incidence on the left panel until they were aligned. It now carries no aileron and less up trim, goes straight up and still pulls slightly to the canopy vertical down. I have this mixed out but the only way I can see to get rid of the mixing is move the CG back which isn't going to help the rudder/elevator mixing. I need to fly it some more but I also think it tends to climb when coming back on the power exiting for example the half outside loop which suggests too much downthrust.

All this says to me that the CG could do with going back but that this wouldn't be good for the rudder/elevator interaction. I appear to have mutually exclusive requirements on incidence and CG and am now at a loss what to do next.

Malcolm