Cox planes CG

Gotcha

I imagine they errored on the side of nose heavy . It’s easier to control a nose heavy airplane in my opinion.

IMO, like others have said, @Kim and @akjgardner , Scientific, Cox, Wen-Mac / Testors, Goldberg, Sterling / Estes, Top Flite, Enterprise, Midwest, Dumas, Veco, and etc. had nose heavy half-A aircraft especially with their "beginner" series was for stability for the neophyte. Balance was around the leading edge of the wing or a bit forward. A seasoned flyer could modify the fuselage to shorten the nose / install a lighter engine to give a better CG location.

Besides, most of those aircraft weren't laid out for stunts, around and around and up and down, crude wing overs, maybe a wide loop.

I think it was Bob @rsv1cox who noticed that his early 1960's TD-3 (or TD-4?) with Babe Bee tank engine was more nose heavy than the others with earlier plastic tank Space-Bug Junior. The integral plastic tank engines were lighter, moving CG back.

But, to the then adolescent / teen, now senior, they still are fun.

Nothing like a tail heavy CL airplane. Launch, loop, crash!

I’ve got 2 Cox spitfire planes… they balance in different locations… there’s a video on YouTube showing one them. It was hard to keep in smooth flight. I think it is nose heavy. I plan to add ballast and fly again and fly the 2nd one at some point.

That would be Great to see your Spitfires. I saw a Spitfire on YouTube video of a guy flying a Cox Spitfire. On a very short concrete pad the prop kept hitting the ground and dying. Must have had bent landing gear. So they threw it into the air and then it flew well. But no good way to land it in the grass so it’s always a nose over type landing. I don’t like that. I want my planes to be able to land well

The landing wheels are not easily removed without nipping off the factory flattened pinched music wire end that holds the wheel on.

One could probably bend their own music wire landing gear replacement and up wheel size so it rolls better.

This is where the beginner balsa planes do better. Back in the early 1970's, my 21" wingspan Sterling Beginner Fokker E-III Eindecker would take off when released on a portion of lower cut or bare spot in a mowed grass field.

When engine ran out, being considerably lighter, it lost enough forward momentum that it sort of "parachuted" down, didn't even get a quarter circle. But in soft grass even if it flipped on landing, was undamaged.

Me personally, I'd dread to fly such a venerable collectable off a hard surface, as more likely than not, might be my last flight with it.

But I do enjoy watching others give it a go.

Greenman38633 wrote:That would be Great to see your Spitfires.  I saw a Spitfire on YouTube video of a guy flying a Cox Spitfire.  On a very short concrete pad the prop kept hitting the ground and dying.   Must have had bent landing gear.  So they threw it into the air and then it flew well.  But no good way to land it in the grass so it’s always a nose over type landing.  I don’t like that.  I want my planes to be able to land well

That guy would be me