Andrew symmetrical airfoils of 15 to 17 percent thickness work great. The Ultrasport series of models have been proven in flight so those airfoils shouldn't be a problem. 19 percent isn't all that much different. You will need about 1/2 to 1 degree of wing incidence with 0 tail incidence to fly level with no up elevator trim. You can't get level flight without the wing lifting some. Look over the designs that are published and you'll find similar setups. The airfoiled tail would be ideal, flat surface is less than ideal but works OK as we have seen in a lot of airplane over the years. You can compromise and use a diamond shaped airfoil on the tail. It's not that much more work to do and works fine. I have all three in my hangar of airplanes.

I respect Dick but his comment of, "Sounds impossible but in the area of super low wing loadings the rules can be badly bent." isn't quite right - sorry Dick. All things that fly do so in accordance to laws of physics and aerodynamics. When you think of super low wing loadings and flat foamy types of flying surfaces all you have done is move into a lower Reynold's number flight regime and as a result you certainly don't have the same flight conditions as a .60 powered airplane or a Boeing 747. Each is flying in it's flight regime. Some have money implications and thus are studies more than others but all are working. Think of a Fruit Fly. There is a real low Reynold's Number flight condition but things work fine and according to physics. The rules aren't bent, they just are usually not understood - or studied that much. Years ago I saw some interesting studies about the different ways that wasps, flies, dragon flies, regular flies and so on fly. Interesting stuff to an aero nerd like me.

Good Luck

Ben