I think it deserves repeating that Peter S. is very cleverly and profitably building airplanes with an expected/design lifespan of 5 hours or less. That changes the game considerably.
Then, he's building airplanes that have an expected/design loading of 2G or less. That changes the game even more.
It is entirely possible that if you hired Lockheed ADP or Boeing Phantom Works to build an aircraft to the same design and mission and budget and construction time specifications as Peter's airplanes, they might come up with something very very close to what he is doing.
Our job, as the "old guys who want a future for aviation", is to do two things. First, capitalize on what Peter is doing, by finding a way to convert his trillions of youtube watchers into people who stay interested in aviation. Second, we need to find a way to convince Peter to continue building airplanes, but airplanes that are a little less disposable each new version.
One way we can do this second thing IMHO is to convince him that the future of his "enterprise" is to have a growth plan for when all those youtube viewers get tired of what he's doing now. Sooner or later it will be "oh, another quick and dirty foam airplane... naahhh, let's look at the Kardashians"
So what I would tell him is that he should be planning to build something a little more utilitarian, which his video channel can smoothly shift over to "This week, Peter is taking his self-designed homebuilt airplane to his friend's airstrip in the next county"... or "This week Peter is testing the STOL performance of his new plywood and carbon fiber plane, trying to win a $100 bet with his friend that he can't land inside the basketball court", etc. etc.