Welp...first of all, if you have a decent design, you're usually able to get it to darned near zero mix, depending on a number of factors, such as whether or not you have snaps and spins, how "hot" you like your set up, how much expo you can handle, etc.

Trying to answer this question is like painting with a VERY broad brush, but there are some similarites in most designs with most set ups. I may get poo-pooed for posting this, but what the heck.

First of all most people run thier CG too far back and don't have enough positive incidence. This was the trend a few years back as we transitioned from the ballistic style of flying to the more slowly constant speed larger planes. As with everything when you make a large change in total overall concept, there is a steep learning curve. A leading pilot/designer/builder made common a set up that used darned near zero on the wing, negative on the stab and the CG pretty far back. it worked, but with strange effects. Some of the problems associated with this carried over into modern day, but due to the work and guys like Bryan Hebert and myself to a much smaller extent, we're running somewhere around 1/2 degree positive on the wing, stab at zero or very close, and a much more forward CG.

This does a number of things, most good, but everything has a trade off. First it darned near nullifies mix, all lines track better, the plane is much more stable, and has a very locked in feel around neutral. This is a good thing! but we deal in balance, so here is the down side.

You usually end up running a good deal more throw for snaps and spins, but they do land much cleaner with a LOT less displacement. And since the planes are flying slower to begin with, this "problem" is compounded by a more forward CG. So if you're able to handle a hotter set up, with more expo, there is no "problem" to speak of. Most guys that fly masters and FAI have become accustomed to this hotter set up because that's what it takes to get through the patterns with snaps, spins, etc. you can use a condition switch to alleviate some of his but it's troublesome and slightly more work.

Rolls require a little more rudder input at slower speeds with a more forward CG so this is something else to get used to.

But I will say that this general set up theory is the best I have ever personally used and is well worth getting used to. I now fly my whole pattern with no need for throwing any switches, and that is also a plus. The other is in severe wind. if you run a lot of expo, you much more likely to hit that banzai curve in the throw that sticks an unexpected and very high rate of throw at you making it very hard to correct smoothly in the wind. The less expo you can run, the easier it is to fly consistently in high wind. Generally speaking that is....

Now with all that being said, and understanding that you CAN get most modern planes to zero mix if it is a good design, some people are very uncomfortable with the "feel" of this set up and seem to need to work into it. This approach is debatable, some will tell you just jump in and learn NOW. Easy to say at this time of year, much more difficult in say, June

So...what most people do is a bit of a compromise. They use the more forward CG, but not to the fullest extent. They run higher wing incidence, but not to the fullest extent. They run higher throws, but again....not to the fullest extent. What they end up with is a fairly nuetral plane that requires very little mix for thier set up. It's not perfect but most people live with it. The more "common" mixes end up being:

1 Rudder to elevator: usually the plane being tail heavy pitches to the gear on KE. This is easily fixed for KE flight, but at hard over extremes such as a KE loop, a lot of planes need the mix removed at the ends. So they use a curve or they don't fly FAI LOL

2 Rudder to aileron mix: Less common and dpepends on design, CG, Incidences of the wing. Roll coupling. You can get this out usually by adjusting your incidence, CG and retrimming from scratch. This may affect #1 though....since this is normally offset by dihedral, a good design needs little to none of this.\

3 Aileron differential. This will depend mostly on the design of the plane and the incidence. In order to get the plane to roll axially (and not wallow), it is sometimes necessary to move one aileron more than the other. This is fairly common but not always. A good design and careful attention to linkage gemoetry and symmetry and usually this is minimal or non existant with modern planes.

4. Throttle to elevator. A lot of people experience a pull to the canopy on the downlines. usually 1-2% down E at idle takes care of this, but be warned: this is one you need to fix without mix. because it will bite you all over the place in the upper classes especially. You hit idle, inverted, the plane doesn't need as much down to hold level...speed up and it changes...go into a 45 and it changes again...get the picture? It ain't good but you can get away with a very small amount with enough practice.

5. Throttle to rudder: a plane that has a wider speed envelope and a rearward CG will experience this fairly dramatically. You trim the rudder for level cruise speed, but a downline the plane yaws right. So people mix in L rudder to idle. Again not a good deal.

6. Down elevator to left rudder: This is a rare mix but depending on the design, prop, engine, set up and everything else, the plane might yaw hard in a push such as the double immelman. Some people mix in rudder to the elevator to "fix" this. Depending on the plane and set up, I have seen it work flawlessly, and I have seen it spell unpredictable disaster. Proceed with caution.

Now here's the rub: Most very good designs end up with a very minimal amount of 1-2, and occasionally 3-4. Some have mixes numbering in the teens and more...and some are unmixable/untrimmable due to inherent flaws in the design. if you're not flying the FAI finals sequence, you can get away with a lot more mix and a much less "perfect" airplane, but if you ever intend to fly on that level, you're not doing yourself any favors. 5-6 are usually sign that you have pretty severe problems elsewhere, and might be due to set up but more likely design.

So if I have any "advice" it would be the same as you're likely to hear from many others.

1. Take the time to properly trim the CG, incidences and engine thrust. if you do this your mixes will be minimal to non existant.
2. If you still have a few strange characteristics, go back and repeat step one.
3. Repeat step one again for good measure.
4. Add mix as necessary...but it needs to be VERY minumal and you need to fly your plane through everything imaginable to look for unintended consequences.
5. If after doing this you find the plane just "feels" too nose heavy or hot on the sticks, back off and compromise SOME for the time being until you get used to it...then at a slightly later date, ease back into it and "retrain" yourself.

Now anyone who wants to paint a broad brush and say "if a plane isn't perfect you gave up" or "there's no such thing as perfect", I'll go ahead and concede that you're both right. But I believe the best set up is the one you can fly and make it look good doing it....and the more "true" your plane flies, the easier that becomes. Start down the road to perfection and never give up and never get lazy or complacent. You don't HAVE to do it all in one swift stroke, but it's easier on you if you take as many steps on that journey as you're capable of. if some of this sounds contradictory, it's because it is. We're dealing with balance, and a changing balance at that. As your skill improves so will your "feel". What feels great to you today may not feel so great after a couple hundred flights. Do what is necessary to fly that elusive perfect sequence. And remember, the fun and reward is in the journey, the destination is it's own reward.

-Mike