regarding low speed flight:-

At the extreme of v.low power to weight, yes CG is nonsensical: who cares where the CG of a brick is if it can't fly. (this is a rather pointless observation though isn't it!- it doesn't really get us anywhere)

but in v. high power to weight - e.g. rockets/missiles - I bet they have to have their CG in the right place. - probably head of the stabilising fins if in use - Can someone fill me in the aerodynamics of rockets out there? I suppose an-auto stabilising rocket with fly by wire and the CG in the wrong place could still fly. But I wonder if the drag would decrease or increase. I expect "un-stable" aircraft like the eurofighter are actaully higher drag than if they were stable because of the drag increase from continually moving control services. However drag is not the driver here - manouverability is.

Certainly in the v. low Reynolds number regime of indoor fliers, flat plates do remarkably well. There are a lot of Gottingen studies of flat plates and curved flat plates at low Re, and they seem to be pretty good at v.low Re - e.g. sub 60 000.

Am I right in saying these sections work because the more boundary layer is a more significant component at v.low Reynolds number rather than high reynolds number. Is it because the boundary layer is laminar at these Re's?

The point about where you sit on this discusssion, is not whether CG matters - because clearly you can mess with it and still have a plane you can fly, or not whether high Power to weight allows you to thro your theory book out the window; It's that what set up produces a plane with the best performance and/or the best flighting characteristics for what you want to do.

There is a competition aerobatics pilot at my club who puts his CG as far back as 45% on his Capiche (a 3D pseudo-Cap) because he likes it back there for prop hanging type manouvres. Hand's off it will dive or climb, but its still stable-ish.

My position is that although I wouldn't try this (because I am nowhere near a good enough flier), HE IS NOT WRONG. And neither is Dick. Though I think if you are starting out with aerodynamics and design, its good to follow the rule-book to the letter before you start messing with it.

If you want to be a great classical composer - start with early classical - Bach and Talis, not Stockhausen !