Brett you have tried to interject some hypothetical scenario of a plane that does not exist mine does and this is what has been done to my airplane. So any formula you come up with is just that. I can feel the difference in the way it flies with the concentrated weight shifted closer to the CG while remaining the same CG as before.
The "hypothetical" 6.5 and 16 ounces was *from your own example*, straight out of the post. You are simply incorrect about this particular point. And changing the argument halfway through.
In my example, you first talk about light weights on long sticks versus heavy weights on short sticks and which one is easier to stop/start. For a given airplane, and assuming that is all you change, it's not a debate and you don't get to have an opinion about what it does to the physics, since it is an immutable law of physics.
In fact, as I mentioned the first time (something like 10 years ago), what you are doing is the exact opposite of what you have "analyzed" and stated as a fact. Maybe you prefer something with a disproportionately large moment of inertia and don't actually like high entry and exit accelerations, that I can't determine for you.
Then, you say you build the airplane as light as possible all the time. If you do that, you are not comparing apples to apples in the physical argument. If you reduce mass of the back half of the airplane, then your example is invalid, because you are not keeping everything else the same and changing the one thing you suggested. The "balance moment" is not longer constant and so the argument (both your original one, and my example) is not possible to resolve. You say you like the "feel", and I wouldn't dispute that. It's almost certainly wrong and most everyone else who actually understands the engineering thinks otherwise, but if it fits your needs (right now...) then obviously, build it as you want.
But one bit of advice, and I mean this with absolutely no malice, because I have seen people thrash and thrash many times over the years, and also seen them get out of it. I think you are a good guy and I hate to see it when the solution is clear.
Sometimes you have to change what you are doing to make advances. You have been building every airplane you could as light as you can for, well, ever. You also have been mired in the "not quite a qualifier" area for a similar amount of time. Numerous people have tried their level best to give you good advice and assistance. I can give examples if you like.
I will also admit to declining it in one case, the night before the 2006 Walker Flyoff, I had to decline to test-fly your airplane (when you asked Crist Rigotti to ask me). I think the reason is obvious, and I offered to do it after the competition.
If you are going to improve, doing what you have always done, just more extreme, is not going to cut it. You are going to have to accept, at some point, that *a lot of people know a whole lot more about making, trimming, and flying stunt planes than you do*. In some cases, VASTLY more. And many people with *vastly more* of your vaunted "experience", too.
There's nothing shameful or embarrassing about it, it's the nature of the game. You would to well to listen and actually be willing to make changes and evaluate them fairly. Not go out of your way to pick fights and alienate the very people attempting to get you out of the deep rut you are currently in.
I expect you will sputter on about the rest of is "not getting it" and edit/delete/lock the post, but at some point you are going to have to decide what you want out of this event. If it's to be a website impresario and a gadfly, then you are going about it right, if it's to become competitive in stunt contests, you need to listen to other people's advice and make it work for you. Just exactly like everyone else.
Brett