It's pretty much accepted throughout the airplane industry that the landing gear be placed relative to the CG.

They look at where the tires touch the ground. Some people call that the footprint. And where the CG is. Sometimes they actually work out where it actually is in the airplane, not just where it's projected to be on the wing. (Because it's usually not really where the wing is, and for designing the gear, that matters.) And they design the gear to put the footprints a certain angle ahead of the CG. The attached picture shows what one model designer suggests is a good angle.

In practice, the angle is really a range of angles, but don't usually see a picture or drawing that shows more than one. And designers know that in practice (especially with full scale airplanes) the CG usually moves throughout the flight, so that also needs to be considered. They also know that there are more considerations than just landing where the location of the footprint to the CG does things that need to be thought about. For example, ground handling is affected. I've got a Corsair that is tippy with a full tank of fuel, and isn't when it's almost dry. Why? The fuel tank is actually fairly oversized for the usual engine and it's entirely ahead of the CG. When it's full, all that excess weight wants to lift the tailwheel off the ground. And it wants to tip the nose into the ground. Yup, there are some other good reasons to place the footprint where the industry, and experienced model designers, have figured out works.


BTW, I plan to retrofit that big tank with one about 2/3 it's size. And I plan to place the smaller one with it's rear where the rear of the original is. That big one has proven the engine draws perfectly from that distance. Heck, the smaller one might get placed a bit further back just to find out if the engine would draw with the tank closer to the CG. It's good to have some weight on the tail wheel, but even "gooder" to have your fuel at the CG. Then you get no trim change at all.