This is only an observation I'd like to air out. No offense need be taken. I've been involved in r/c airplanes as a flyer for a little over a year and as an interested spectator for a long, long time. Many times I've read posts where someone is saying 'be careful, that kit is terrible, it builds tail heavy', or 'it's a piece of crap, you can't build the tail light enough'. Most always the writer is referring to a biplane or some type of warbird. The 'problem' is not usually with the kit or it's design but rather the design of the plane the kit is modeled after and it's not a 'problem' at all! Think about most real biplanes, with radial or opposed engines, and how short they are from the firewall to the CG compared to the tail moment. There are some real good reasons for this design characteristic. First and foremost-To balance the airplane! Radial engines are relatively heavy, and with the larger prop and massive amount of torque available another thing called gyroscopic progression enters into the equation. But, that's another story... Now, with the more modern Pitts and Skybolt type designs (real planes), large and very powerful engines are stuffed into very tiny aircraft. How do we balance the plane with that big heavy engine? A short nose!! In order to create a model with ideal balance we would need to move the firewall forward; CAN"T DO THAT--IT WOULD BE VERY UGLY!! Or, use good sense with construction in the rear and add ballast to the most forward portion of the engine mount, a heavy hub on prop and engine at the top of the recommended range. Warbirds-same story. The real birds had massive powerplants and armament forward of the CG. So, our light weight model engines and lack of guns out front may make it seem as if our kits are poorly engineered. Build 'em, balance 'em and fly the heck out of 'em!! And by all means, have fun!