Yep, if designed to be "clean", I think good economy cruise fuel burn and climb as good/better than a fully-loaded (1750 Lbs) RV-9 with an O-320 is reasonable. But I don't think the Beetlemaster will match it's cruise speed if we use fixed pitch props. That RV-9 that goes 188 MPH at 8000 ft (75% power= 160 HP x .7 = 112 HP ) using a fixed-pitch prop has a prop pitched for high speed. Unlike the Beetlemaster (which must be able to create a lot of low-speed thrust from both engines to be able to climb at best climb speed when running on just 80 HP), the RV designer can assume all the engine power is available all the time, and so the prop can have a fairly "coarse" pitch and still produce acceptable thrust for TO and climb (because they have 160 HP to throw at the problem, efficiency isn't critical). Anyway, maybe there's a way to pick a FP prop that will produce acceptable low-speed thrust and enough high-speed thrust to still allow high cruise speeds. The Prince P-Tip props are popular among the Sonex set--they've proven reliable and people have seen improvements in both climb and cruise. They are designed to flex a bit, and vary their "bite" according to the prop loading. Price and weight is about like a Sensenich wood prop. I regarded it as hype at first, but now I think there is something to it. Another thught: If compound curves are required (with or without built-in CF structural members), then the molds are complex and a centralized production facility (making kits) makes a lot of sense. If 90% of the work can be 2D curves (wings, fuselage sides, fuselage bottom, Booms, tailfeathers, even gear leg fairings), and the compound curves were limited to the "usual suspects" (front cowl, rear cowl, wing and tail tips, wheel pants), then the kits can be a lot smaller and the ability to homebuild the panels (with built-in CF framing members) becomes more feasible. Of course, these 2D parts could still be made available as a kit. One attraction (meantioned in the "21st Century Volksplane" thread by Matt/Cluttonfred) is that a plane that >looks< easy to build gets the attention of a lot of potential builders for that reason alone. "Even I could build that!" I suppose molds for 3D parts could be rented out, with a suitable deposit. If a builder had already built his 2D parts, maybe he'd want to try this, too. Buying finished ones would be alot more practical, but there's no accounting for whta people might want to do (heck--building an airplane at all makes very little sense if we're only looking at the economics--well, except the Beetlemaster. You really >can't< buy a twin for the price this airplane might be built for). If mass appeal is a goal, then having an affordable pathway to a suitable twin engine rating will also be attractive. There's no economical way to do that today. Could a company formed to sell the Beetlemaster kits offer that multi-engine (centerline thrust) rating/Beetlemaster transition training in the company Beetlemaster? Transition training in E-AB aircraft is approved (and encouraged) by the FAA, big kit makers do it. But that's not a new rating. Hadn't thought of that. Going with Matt's eariler idea, I wonder if a simple/light cable-operated disc brake like on mountain bikes would be enough. Squeeze it in the cockpit, the handle ratchets as pressure is applied. If you want to give the engine a re-try, release the ratchet.