The inertia factor comes from the fact that weight doesn't scale with size. That is fortunate for us. Imagine a 1/4 scale Cub weighing over 200# empty.
On earth, lower weight translates to lower inertia which in turn means less kinetic energy. Or, models accelerate, deccelerate, and change angles of attack more rapidly than full scale man carriers.
Stall warning devices could be put on a model but the benefit to the pilot could be questionable in that the information may come at a time too late for positive action.
The 60s vintage Cessna would start to activate the stall warning just as you were half way through the flair and go to full on usually a second or two before touchdown. That was providing you had made a textbook full stall landing.
As for the Schweizer sailplanes the speed you are referring to is the minimum sink rate/best thermal climb rate which was 3 to 5 knots above stall.
I learned to fly full scale sailplanes in one of their old 222s serial number 11. Later I instructed in tha 222, 223, 232 the Schleicher ASK-13 and KA-7 plus the Grob.
Each had their own peculiar sounds when they approached stall.

]ORIGINAL: wsmalley

I suspect you're correct as far as the placement is concerned though there may be more sophisticated methods for designing these in larger A/C. As I recall, the Cessna's 'flap' was more inboard. I had some hours in a Piper Cherokee but recall nothing as to how it worked. Can you explain the inertia aspect, and how that translates to models. With my limited flying experience in the above planes, you 'feel' the stall coming on. Trying to compare the relationship of the speed curve between, e.g., 'slow' flying and a stall. I recall years ago flying an old Schweitzer sailplane wherein the the difference between speed at level flight and stall was maybe 2or 3 knots.
[/quote]