Man, that is sure one heck of a complicated thing to try to make fly like the real one.
The tailfins, being 90 degree curved arcs, have various issues. Aerodynamically, they will cause a "waterwheel" or Anemometer type of roll effect. Worst-case imagine that flying at a 90 degree angle of attack, wind from the side. The airflow will make it want to roll. Now in rocket flight it will not be at 90 degrees, but the restoring aerodynamic stability forces of the fins will also produce the same roll effect, just not as severe. I once had a rocket with offset fins that rolled due to this effect. And then for glide, you'd definitely have an angle of attack, wanting to make it roll.
BTW - there are "dumb" unguided air to surface missiles that use similar fin types. In some videos you can see them rolling, which is good in that case since the rolling helps to make them fly a straighter path, like a spinning rifle bullet or artillery shell.
The real thing must be using its own stability system to fight that roll.
Issue #2 with those fins is they are so thin, that anything like cardboard would flutter too easily. The real ones are some sort of very strong stiff metal (or usually are, I do not know if this specific one might not use carbon fiber).
Issue #3 with those fins is to try to work up a system to allow them to control pitch and yaw, and roll. Most likely the real one is not doing that. The "wings" are probably pivoting to provide pitch , yaw, and roll control.
And then of course those wings. For it to fit inside of a tube, they apparently are double-hinged. Not just swing-wings, since they do not swing out from recessed slots in the body. There appear to be flat spots on the outer body, so it seems the wings rotate in pitch 90 degrees and then fold "flat" to the body. So, that is a very complicated hinge system, with all sorts of "fun" to achieve the needed forces to get them to deploy fully (and lock open once deployed). Then on top of all that, as I said before, it seems the wings rotate a bit in pitch (angle of attack to the body) to achieve control for pitch, yaw, and roll, so the complex hinge system has to be even more complex to allow for that control motion, and for the mechanics of the "servos" (functional equivalent) inside the body to work properly.
As for RC glide......which side is "UP"? You've got 4 choices, choose wisely.... every time. Even if you painted it fluorescent on one side and black on the other, you might have trouble. If I was doing this (and I won't), I'd put an autopilot onboard, like an Eagle Tree Guardian in 2D mode (Wings and fuselage level to the ground mode), to keep it pointed wings level and fuselage level for glide (In this case, wings level would be set with the wings in the "X" roll orientation, not "+" orientation). The same Eagle Tree or other autopilot could not fly the boost vertically (if the model it was flown with wings deployed going up), you'd have to use another method, OR use a second autopilot oriented correctly for boost - one to fly the boost vertically, then flip a switch on the transmitter to go from boost autopilot off to glide autopilot on.
BTW - due to the glide in "X" pattern, you would need for all 4 wings to pivot for control, 4 servos . If it was something that glides in a "+" pattern, you would only need for two to be controlled, the horizontal surfaces for pitch and roll (2 servos). For yaw....bank it to turn as with an aileron/elevator model plane.
I agree that for landing, you'd want to pop a chute since the wings would be so fragile (especially the pivot system). But you'd want to fire it higher than 30 feet, more like at least 100 to give time for full deploy and deceleration.
A heck of a project to try to do like that.
Biggest thing no matter what.... you need to learn how to crawl, then walk, before you can run. So, you need to learn how to fly R/C first. The best bang for the buck to begin to fly R/C is something like the Ember. Almost indestructable.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpmWxKm5zdg
Now, you could also learn to fly using a flight simulator, like Realflight. That is preferable. If you did that , then after getting god at flying the simulator you could learn to fly a "real model" with something bigger, like the Radian Electric sailplane (It can take a lot of abuse but not as much as an Ember).
After leaning to fly R/C and being proficient with setting up a model enough to do a big scratch project... what about an A4b? No swing/deploy Rube Goldberg problems, the control surfaces could be in the tailfins. Basic boilerplate with a modified Estes BT-80 kit, and for R/C model, adapt an old Estes BT-101 V-2 off eBay