The second version had a much larger fuselage. But the same wing.What was the reason for the second version?
Did the first version meet the forecasted performance specs?
Any information on the cause of thecrash?
Of course the first version did not meet the forecasted performance. Do they ever? But it was not way off. The main issue was weight like with most prototypes. There are lots of areas where weight could be reduced. For example they used a laminated glass windshield from a car instead of much lighter acrylic.
Version 2 crashed on the second flight. The first flight had an experienced test pilot and was successful but with areas for improvement. The second flight was with the company owner as the pilot. He was a very low time pilot (about 300 hours) and had almost no hours in the last 10 years. In the previous year he had about 5 hours. Aircraft 2 had high span loading, low aspect ratio main wing, even lower aspect ratio canard, a wide nose and a higher aspect ratio horizontal tail in the back. All of these are destabilizing. But I think the root cause was the pilot pitching too much nose up in an attempt to climb and getting way behind the drag curve. He just needed to push the stick forward and gain airspeed.
Version 1 is good to go. Just built it light with all molded parts. Version 2 would need changes. Molds are included for both. There are even some carbon fiber already made.