I don't think baffles help or hurt.  I have the idea, probably self generated, that George Aldrich designed the pinched back tank to manage the leaning out of the engine during the pattern.  Maybe it was to hold more fuel, however.

I'm sure I've seen GMA claimed his tank is uniflow, but it is not what I understand as uniflow. I've also seen that he claimed his tank gives increasing rpm as the tank empties, giving more power towards the end of the pattern, when a bit more power is welcome. This does make sense to me. Maybe that is what George means by uniflow, but it is a bit different from what I understand as uniflow.
I suspect that if you plumbed a GMA tank with conventional uniflow plumbing, it would work quite o.k., - a uniflow as we know it.
I'm not sure about baffles, I always put one in because that's what Bob Palmer said.
Come to think of it, completely rectangular tanks with no wedge or pinch seem to work o.k. with uniflow.

     Of course, as shown on the Nobler plans, it gives uniflow for about the first 1/3 of the tank, then leans out afterwards. That's because the vents aren't right up against the inner edge of the tank. The pinch or not pinch or wedge or not wedge doesn't really make that any different. George did not really seem to understand the physics of the tanks and he and I had some very interesting discussions on the topic back on his old RCO forum. He also thought the routing of the plumbing outside the tank was a factor, for instance. It's not, of course.

    That having been said, the pinch corner tank works fine and about like any other wedge tank that has a constant width. The very shallow angle of the pinch helps the cutoff, and it cuts off better than the steep angle of a Veco T-21 type. The Kenn Smith tank was an angular version of the same idea that got even more fuel in a given space.

    Either type can be vented for uniflow very easily, or made switchable between suction and uniflow per normal practice.

     If you make the tank straight off the Nobler plans, two things become apparent - one, it actually ends up with a bit of "reverse taper" because they didn't flare the sides to accommodate the added distance along the wedge, and two   - it doesn't fit in the airplane! It's about 1/16 too wide to fit between the doublers, someone didn't measure something right; probably made the fuselage formers a bit too narrow.
  
     I think the tapered wedge tank is even better and that's what I use. If I need more capacity I make it deeper and if necessary make the wedge off-center.

     None of them need baffles as far as I can tell. The Veco type may have gotten some advantage from baffles but the real solution is to make the wedge more pronounced. There's a critical angle that I can't recall right now, and the Veco is too flat.

     There's really nothing mysterious or interesting about tanks. It's a can with pipes in it and the principles are dead simple. There is some tendency  to treat the topic as if voodoo is somehow involved, but it's really as simple as it looks.

    Brett

I have used two unusual tanks on my 1/2As.

The first has flat sides with the wedge at the back,not on the side. This was done so that normal tank end caps could be used to make a small capacity tank. The space between the tank caps is 1" for a 1 ounce tank. It seems to work just fine.

The second one is a rectangular tank with a clunk. The weight is a length of copper tube with a wheel collar in the center. This leaves room for the fuel hose on one side, and a narrow pickup end on the other. This type tank holds the maximum fuel for a given space.

Both tanks are Uniflo vented.

The tanks I use in my NoblARF's are rectangular Kap Pak free flights replumbed and turned into a clunk tank. They hold 5 1/4 oz and run perfectly. No, they are not Uniflo. I do use Muffler pressure.