1) Not specifically but by doing the trimming of the plane as noted it also takes into account the thrust line and center of drag. A high wing model has it's center of drag much higher. This produces a positive pitch force that works in concert with the pitch response due to the decalage angle while a low wing model will have the drag couple from the low placed center of drag fighting the decalage trim. So if I took two identical top view models but from the side one was high winged and the other low winged and set them up in the dive testing so they both nose up at the same rate then the high wing model would end up with a slightly more rearward CG location than the low wing model. This isn't something that shows up in any of the online CG calculators. It's not a huge effect in any case so it is buried in the range of suggestions for % of stability. Along with this center of drag axis we also have such things as fuselage effects and likely a couple of other things that also don't show up in the typical stability calculations. The beauty of doing direct in flight testing is that all these factors are automatically taken into account as they add or cancel with the decalage effects and CG location.

2) I've only ever seen the inverted testing being suggested for aerobatic models. But since I don't fly pattern I've never had occasion to try it. It may or may not work with a cambered section but then such models don't make it a habit to spend huge amounts of time upside down or running nice stable vertical lines.



LOL Right to the "heart" of the matter as always Dick.