BTW, one reason the CAP 232s have a bad rep has to do with their wing. (Sort of the same reason most tapered wing models have bad reps with newbies.)

It is a straight taper, but it's also a forward swept wing. If you notice in the attached picture, there isn't much LE sweep. But there's a lot of TE sweep. That actually means that aerodynamically, that wing is swept forward.

A CG is actually an "average" value. And we place it according to where the average of the wing is along the fore/aft line on the fuselage. Where is the average of the wing along the fuselage? Depends on the sweep of the wing. With a CAP, the root chord isn't a good indicator of where the wing works. And on tapered wings, you really have to consider the tip chord's size and location to even begin to guess where the MAC might be along the span.

I had an excellent flying Kyosho CAP and a buddy got a knockoff of it. I wound up assembling it for him and setting the CG where I'd worked out mine, but a little forward. I wanted to use the same throws, but his to work a bit slower for him. Some time later, one of his buddies was checking the plane out and balanced it on his fingers. The buddy suggested the CG needed to be moved back because the plane was nose heavy. Keep in mind that it flew like gangbusters and was anything but noseheavy. The buddy was using one of the simple tests. And it was too simple for the layout of a CAP wing. AND getting just one little detail about his test wrong.

It's kewl to simplify things, but it's then best to apply those things to just the simple models.