Actually, to put the "light enough and the CG doesn't matter" into "real world, practical" context.

I've been messing almost exclusively with 46size airplanes for the last year. And have been instructing. And every student has brought a 46size highwing. And some of them have been HEAVY. And I've built a couple of highwingers. And enough of them have had about the same areas and moments that I'd suggest they were all basically "the same airplane".

And part of the "school sessions" were spent adding nose weight when it was needed. So I've seen the same planes with different CGs.

And when the heavy ones had CGs toward the edges of the envelope, they flew like it. And when the CG moved, you could see it for sure.

And I've got a scratch built of the same size and areas and moments. And have messed with it's CG as a way to teach myself what CG location does. But this scratch one is what anyone would call light. It's better than a pound lighter than the lightest of the student's airplanes. And I'd decided, after the experiments with it, that CG location was overrated. And then this last year, messing with heavy models of this class, I came to the startling conclusion that what Hanson just said is what it is....

In our real world, if the model is light enough (and my old trainer is) the CG don't do as much as you'd think.