Exactly! Well sort of. It's entirely possible to build a pure synthetic composite VP-1 or VP-2 but probably it makes more sense to build an already proven all composite design? For me the VP attraction is the slow flying nature and simplicity of construction and most especially I like the really ugly look (Ha!) and I simply like wood materials better than I like aluminum or steel tube structures. My gravitation toward mixing in some synthetic composite materials has much to do with the insane prices of aircraft quality spruce and plywood not to mention the cost of shipping materials long enough to make longerons or wing spars in one piece and large sheets of plywood are not so easy to ship too. Therefore, I'm thinking more in terms of making use of alternate types of locally available wood and reinforce them with synthetic composite materials. Notice how I keep saying "synthetic composites"? That's because all wooden aircraft are already built from composites, just natures version. I just put a new MT propeller on my 182 and it's built with a wooden core wrapped in carbon fiber. MT calls it "MT-natural" composite. Man does this propeller perform better than the old aluminum one.You guys have just made the argument for a composite VP-1.
Anyhow, the wood species I have available locally and which I would consider for aircraft use based on NACA wood report 1941 are Douglas fir and Hem Fir. However, most of the available Douglass fir found in long lengths is of fast growth variety and full of knots. Sometimes available are 3/4"x 1-1/2" furring strips made from really close grained Douglass Fir but only in 8' lengths which means splicing material for long lengths which is not so good for wing spars and makes me a tad nervous for longerons. The available Hemlock fir is fairly close grained and rather consistent in grains structure and can be found fairly clear of knots but not always in long lengths and is somewhat low in density but Hem fir is pleasant to work with having almost no splintering (unlike Douglas Fir) and is very low in resins or oils making for low odor and good bonding of joints. The NACA report 1941 says Hem Fir's strength is similar to Sitka Spruce.
Suppose I frame up the basic fuselage structure (minus the plywood skins) using Douglass fir in the two main bulkheads as called for on the plans but I use Hem fir for the cross members and the longerons. I'm good with the main bulkheads made from Douglass Fir and with the short Hem Fir cross members but I'm not so comfortable with spliced longerons? What to do about it? I grab my router and cut a full length groove into the side of the longerons, perhaps 1/4" wide and maybe 3/8" or 1/2" deep. Now into that groove I laminate carbon fiber tow until said groove is plum full. I end up with a pretty good cross section of unidirectional reinforcement for not too much money and not too much work. Carbon fiber tow is perhaps the most economical and insanely strong form of composite reinforcement available yet not very seldom considered due to it being just a loose yarn. Want to take this idea a little bit farther? If we cut some cross grooves into the surface of the firewall and tail bulkhead which line up with the grooves in the longerons, now our carbon tow can tie the longerons into each end of the fuselage and wrap around in one continuous piece.
So many possibilites.