I would like to know what you guys think of this rough design I put together tonight.
It's an idea I've had for a long time, just gathering dust in the 'ol noggin, until now.
What are the aerodynamic advantages/disadvantages you can see. Any suggestions on things I could do better?
I know I'm going to regret this, but do you like it?

Looks, dare I say it, conventional.
I'd suggest adding a sting to the upper part of the vertical similar to the ends of the horizontal to give you a good zero trim reference point for the rudder.
Other than that, build and fly.

Looks good.

I think most aeronautical eng' students have, at some point in their career, come to the conclusion that a V/stab and rudder distributed evenly above and below the fuselage will produce a 'clean' yaw control with no adverse roll or pitch effects. The only problem with having so much fin below the fus' is that you cannot lower the tail at take off, which prevents the wing from creating enough AoA and therefore lift to leave the ground (unless you have a very long runway or big flaps. Apart from this little teaser, the principle is solid.

Similar to this, the aerodynamic advantages of having a v-tail with the fins angle down (inverted v-tail) are that a yaw command does not have an adverse roll effect, but actually compliments roll. The US's UAV (Predator?) uses the inverted v-tail, but you can see that tailplane clearance at TO and landing is very marginal only allowing an inch or two clearance during rotation and flare. This could be solved by using a twin boom fus'.

Because the moment arm is so small, I think you can 'raise' the whole V/stab without creating too many adverse effects. With todays programmable transmitters, its hardly an issue anymore since we can just remove unwanted effects by mixing in a compensating control coupling.

The final observation is that when you stick a propeller on the front and wash the fuselage with rotating air, you'll still get adverse roll/pitch effects at various speeds as the v/stab will be in various positions within this tube of rotating air depending on AoA, rudder deflection and fuselage shape.

I'd add to Paul's comment and say that adding some area in front of the hinge line of the rudder (an aerodynamic balance) would be a good idea.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.
I did some tinkering and came up with the following modifications (see picture):

1. Slimmed the nose and moved the cockpit further back (where did the name cockpit come from?).
2. Added larger fin area in front of the rudder with fin-tips enclosing the rudder.
3. Increased the tail moment by 10%.
4. Split the fuselage, toward the tail, into 2 booms that rejoin at the tail. This should minimize prop-wash/fuselage interfaction. Comments?
5. Add a double hinged flaperon that is able to more accurately reproduce camber changes and therefore increase efficiency when there are large deflections. Also, the flaperon allows for take-off flaps that might be needed since the bottom fin keeps the tail high off the runway.
6. Retracting gear the folds backwards into the underside of the fuselage.

What aerodynamic factors (positive and negative) have I change/introduced by making these changes?

Well as long as you're moving some lines around I'd suggest you make the rudder wider. It's FINE for the original pattern syle but seems a little small for this new 3D look.

If you go ahead with the compound ailerons this thing will tie itself in KNOTS. You've been warned....

The compound ailerons are a NEAT idea. The linkages to make them work will give you headaches.[&:]

As noted... what is best for Pattern style flight is not necessarilly great for 3D. Pattern has very little in the way of stall speed/hovering and 3D has very little in the way of HUGE round loops and straight flight maneuvers. A compromise between the 2 might do neither satisfactorilly for competion. (but it might make a heck of a NICE Fun-Fly and sport flyer.[8D])

Pick your purpose... and stick to it. If you want to design another for another purpose...

********

My guess is... "cockpit" has a bit to do with the "cocky" guy that sits in the "pit." The best pilots always have a bit of a superiority complex. ("Top Gun" got one thing right... if you don't have the attitude you are not cut out to be a great fighter pilot.)

I agree. It will make a NICE fun-fly/sport plane at the very least.

Well, my design goals are a plane that has the following characteristics:
1. the sleek lines of a pattern plane, but not its "traditional" look
2. minimize any adverse yaw/roll/pitch coupling inherent in the airframe i.e everything on the fuse centerline and symmetrical (except for the cockpit)
3. aerobatic qualities that approach a pattern plane with the ability to perform some 3D stuff.

Where did the term cockpit come from?

One theory:
A cockpit is a hole in the ground (or other enclosed area) where cock's fight (like dog fights).
There was a council chamber at Westminster named "the cockpit," since it was built over the site of one.
A fitting name, since a council chamber is a "control center" where debates are argued and decisions are made.
The "control center" of a plane is therefore called a cockpit? Esp. a dog-fighting airplane?

Those crazy English...