Serge, what I posted above was kinda superficial. I'll add to that, but still keep it superficial, because real numbers require some work. The more lift, the more downwash. Downwash is destabilizing: you put in a little up elevator, and the downwash acts as even more up elevator. You could get the same effect from widening the handle spacing.
Stuff affecting cornering as tail length changes includes:
1. The effect of downwash, stated in the first paragraph above. Longer tails make this better.
2. Pitching moment due to pitch rate. This is caused by the change of angle of attack on the tail because of the air being round in a loop, rather than flat in level flight and maybe from the change in direction of the wind on the tail from airplane rotation. The longer the tail, the more negative pitching moment due to pitch rate is, hence the more stable the airplane is. Longer tails make this better.
3. Pitching moment due to rate of change of angle of attack. The tail contribution to this is maybe (according to Etkin) due to the time between when the wing starts making downwash and the downwash gets to the tail. I would reckon that this effect would make the airplane worse as tail length increases, but I don't know.
4. Contribution of pressure distribution on the tail to pressure distribution on the wing. An elevator hinged at the trailing edge of the wing acts as a flap going the wrong way, limiting the lift capability of the wing. Longer tails make this better, but may not have to be very long to make this evil go away. Maybe that's why the later, balanced-elevator Fierce Arrows fly better than the original.
5. Tail lift fighting wing lift. The longer the tail, the less it has to push down to rotate the airplane to the requisite angle of attack, hence the higher net airplane lift capability. Also, given the stabilizing effects of a longer tail, a longer tail lets you get away with a farther aft CG, hence even less force required of the tail. Longer tails make this better.
6. Structure and pushrod weight. Weight goes up fast as tails get longer, particularly if the airplane is designed to withstand indignities such as hitting the ground. Pushrods get fatter to maintain stiffness. Longer tails make this worse.
7. Pitch moment of inertial (barbell effect). Longer tails make this worse, although the leverage of longer tails helps them get the airplane rotating.
8. Ground handling (fitting into cars and shipping boxes). Longer tails make this worse.
9. Reduction in dynamic pressure at the tail due to wing "wake". If this exists, I wouldn't know how to avoid it without doing some work.
10. Sensitivity to CG position. The stabilizing effect of a longer (and larger) tail let you get away with a wider CG range. Longer tails make this better.
I had some of this stuff in mind when I came up with the Nemesis II combat plane as a kid. It had a way-longer tail than its contemporaries. I think the main things I had in mind were items 1., 4., 5., and 10. above. I found 1. in a library. I knew about 4. and 10. from a flying wing I made, which sucked.
I persisted in having longer-tailed combat planes than most. A Dane was teasing me about my Snort having a long, vulnerable tail at the 1990 world champs. He said he would cut it off. I thought that would be difficult for him to do with the Snort behind his plane nibbling his streamer.