Well, you might continue your bizarre name dropping, but I know what I saw in that "prototype". I supported Richard's decision to send it back to you. Its been a while, but I'll recount some of the issues with it. #1: the canopy was VERY roughly finished on the outside (not to mention the Playboy bunny pubie on the inside!). Again, we could have smeared filler on the outside and made it look OK, but if it is coming out of a mold, why not do it right? And talk about HEAVY! I remember the canopy weighed at least three times what, say, a Kangaroo canopy would weigh and about the same size (seriously). It was crap. #2: the high aspect ratio wings were far too whimpy and flexible. A few of these things may have flown with pusher props (very few I'd bet), but I was seriously concerned about that thing at any significant speed. Had Richard decided to continue, I would have used full throttle to get off the ground, and then throttle back and fly it as slow as possible. For all your talk about pre-preg this and that, why did you simply not put some carbon in the upper and lower skins and stiffen that sucker up? The wings alone showed a serious lack of design knowledge with respect to aeroelasticity. Like I said, maybe survive with a prop, but not a turbine trying to push it at 160 mph. Just a flutter experiment waiting for a place to make a crater. #3: there was no easy or well engineered way to attach the booms to the center body. It was going to have to be glue them on and glass the heck out of the area. We could have made it work, but it would have ended up an eye-sore and would have necessitated adding more unnecessary weight to an already WAY over-weight airframe. It was total crap. Very inefficient structural design (and I do aerospace structures).

Well, don't loose hope. Maybe one of those Playboy bunnies can help you with aero-structural design!!!