Orion or Taurus, my opinion.

I did ask for and receive some additional information of Chino and my conclusion is, the designer did use the Orion basically to built this variant.
First there are some general observations related to the past.
It was often done to modify a Orion direction to the Taurus, but there always where the shortcomings and the characteristics that did show the basic design of the plane looking at the fuselage.

With that we see Orion as a tricycle plane never called a Taurus, see picture 1 for example and even still if there were Taurus wings used.
I some way I see limited possibilities of the past and the country of designer, materials and information as I do expect the designer had to work with in Argentina.
Of course I see he did a good job by designing a plane and trying to combine all the goods as read of the Taurus in the plane as known the Orion, but for me still visible, too much of the Orion

My observations.

The width of the fuselage is about 6 mm more than the Orion, while the Taurus is much sleeker than the Orion. See my picture 2, dark blue the outlines of our plane shown on the plans of the Taurus.

Remember the Orion was designed to have three Bonners side by side, the Taurus 2 Bonners. The Orion for older (relais) receivers the Taurus for smaller receivers . So why the width? It is what the designer did want, so no Taurus but the Orion was in mind of the designer I think.

When we look at the nose it has a lot of drag. The material isn’t there to sand the nose like a Taurus, outside is about 20 mm too wide and an open bottom. Also the inside dimensions of the engine compartment is much too wide and more than the outside of the Taurus! The designer did want easy mounting of a big engine and these where all not Taurus related choices. I think the designer did not know the original dimensions of the Taurus, because he could have saved material and drag if he wanted to.

Length of the nose. The Taurus has a very short nose. Why? The engine is close to the CG and can be balanced with the tail, all weight close to the CG is needed for maneuverability. Second point is the tank is close to the CG and the differences in location as result of changes in fuel level are less. The plane of Chino does have a much longer nose designed that way, so no Taurus but more related to Orion. Also the hatch is related to the Orion and “having not a hatch” was a pro for the Taurus told by Ed. When the choice of material is limited you better can use the Orion to design a “own”plane than the Taurus to prevent it will become too tail heavy.

While the tail feathers look like a Taurus, the stab is mounted in backwards location related to the original, possible because there was no internal lever used. Indication of scratch build fuselage. Choice of the designer and an indication of “no stock” fuselage either. Mounting the stab in another location as original can give a less good recovery of the spin but that’s the choice of the designer too. There was a Taurus MK2 (shorter tail cone and original position of the stab in the cone end) but the designer did not know this I think.

Other details, as sheeting and construction details of fuselage not Taurus related but some details Orion.

Was the Taurus of light construction we see all surfaces sheeted, choice of the designer, but with that the weight is more and not characteristic for the Taurus. It can be the result of limited choice of materials.

So My choice is, Orion used as design background and all what was needed for easy handling. Easy mounting and rugged structure. So wider fuselage, local related materials, and own design of the look.

Will I personal call it an Orion? No.
Will I call the plane related to the Taurus? Only the plan form of surfaces but not the plane basically and construction. The fuselage is normally characteristic for the choice of name, so for sure no Taurus.

What would have the designer called the plane? I don’t know.

Cees