Earlier, (Shin Gou) wrote:

...Prove me wrong please.

Well, I'm not in any position to prove you wrong or right, but my
opinions a

* Based on my relatively meager composites experience, making a nice
composite fuselage from scratch is several times harder than riveting
together one of Vans' fuselage kits. To get a nice shape _and_ light
weight, you find yourself drawn towards using female-molded parts like
I'm developing for the HP-24 kit sailplane fuselage. And once you get
that deep into it, you're pretty much in the business.

* Based on my personal prejudice, and on many conversations with the
aeronautic engineer who designed the wing profile for the RV-10, I
don't feel so enthusiastic about the RV-9 wing as that I'd go to the
trouble of adapting it onto a different airplane. Don't get me wrong;
the RV-9 wing is a fine solution to the original set of constraints.
But I'd prefer to start with a blank sheet, and not be constrained by
the limitations imposed on the wing by a prior fuselage design.

* Based on other personal prejudices, I prefer airplanes that are
generally relatively homogenous in terms of construction methodology.
That is, metal fuselages with metal wings, and composite fuselages
with composite wings. Sure, there are often compelling reasons not to
hold with that - the HP-18 kit sailplane is a good counterexample. But
I think that people do better work, and enjoy it more, when they're
not always "shifting gears" and re-climbing learning curves as they
change between metal techniques and composite techniques.

And again, those are just my opinions.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24