Very interesting debates and extremely helpful.

I have not been building much lately (maybe due to the above) and going over the airframe with a magnifying glass. PERSONALLY, I believe the model will handle fine. I forgot to tell you guys that in addition to all the other improvements, few other things need to be mentioned and worth noting:

1) The roots of the fuselage have full 1/8 ply inside and additional 3-5" of 1/8 at the point of the spar openings. This is an update which I don't remember on any previous model - ususally its just FG.

2) on both sides of the fuse in the main hatch opening, there is a 12-14mm (can't measure as it is bonded) solid CF rod that runs from the fron to back between formers to stiffen the center section as well as the hatch.

3) the composite lay up on the entire fuse and wings is light but very strong - there is no flex at any point of the fuse etc.

i measured the fuel capacity last night by just filling the tanks and draning them out in measuring cup.
The front tank holds 94 ozs and EACH of the saddle tanks holds 64ozs. This is measured by not having the tanks full to the brim but rather close. Based on that, the fuel capacity (standard config) is 160+ ozs. I was able to easily slide a 32oz dubro tank on top of the front tank so that can be used for smoke (I will). There is still more room but as you can see, its PLENTY.

FYI the isuue with the SB spar failure was put to bed as it was not getting anywhere. The BVM speculation about the spar damage due to wheels up landing was the same as my speculation that the spar was defective (water under the bridge at this point)

If we want to talk about the SB issues, maybe we need to bring out some of the other ones that were lost recently due to rear end departures I'm sure though that those as well are results of user mishandling or transportation techniques

Adil