Ustik,
I did make a little summary on my way to be complete for when it is proved on a moment in the future.

FIRST STEP

We know after the Orion Ed did make the Flop, with still the (frise?) normal ailerons, and inverted engine with very high thrust line but with tricycle landing gear.

The main disadvantage is in my opinion the wrong wing setting and tail cone of a tail dragger, so you have no profit of the tricycle plane during flight (only more drag more weight!) ,
Only during touch down this tricycle has a pro.

I still do not see a profit in the inverted engine? That very high thrust line maybe has something to do with the tail planes in straight line behind the prop? Spin?

SECOND STEP

So the next step was necessary to the Wester Taurus with the wing setting and the right tail cone of a real tricycle plane.

We also see the very low thrust line with the normal mounted engine in “lowest possible position”.

Very important is also the introduction of the strip ailerons.
So, these strip ailerons probably did fly in November 1961 that can an important fact when compare with other “known” planes.

And that fin? With the 45 degrees swept back rudder hanging line? Maybe it is an invention of Ed. We know they did use the principlke to get the plane (Taurus) on the right way in a spin, but that’s we will see in the future. In that (reed) period they did use an elevator servo with extra deflection when idled the engine.

ABOUT THE STEPS

It is also, I did write in the other thread before we discovered the Flop, you cannot change an Orion in a tricycle, you have to build a complete new airplane, because that is what really happened.
The first step was a Flop
Also the others made these two steps (I think), and so I did show the planes of Zel Ritchie. (Phantoms)

THIRD STEP
What you said, the long tail we all know about, was the next step. Introduced in the TF and other Taurusses.

Cees