Here are the 2 planes I have in mind:

The Laminar Research X-1 'Cavallo' IO-550

The Laminar Research X-1 'Cavallo' FJ-33

I would like to see one of these planes built to prove that it can fly, and evaluate it's performance. Once the performance is evaluated, I would like to produce the plane as a KIT if the performance is actually favorable enough that I think the kit could be successful. Once the kit is selling, I would like to produce the craft as a certified plane if kit-production is successful. Of course I am getting WAAAAY ahead of myself, and LANCAIR->COLUMBIA->CHAPTER-11 has shown that even the best plane in the world can't make it, but everyone asks me what the end-game is, so there it is in writing, just to answer your question.

For NOW, though, I would like to commission one of the planes above to be built so I can evaluate performance... If I like it enough, and if other people like it enough, then I can see about making more!

Now, I have to choose which one to have built.

Question: Which one is better? Well, let's say that how 'good' an airplane is for a given payload might be the following formula:

goodness=speed in knots * range in nm / fuel in pounds

Both planes are designed to carry 400 pounds with full fuel (and open up the back seats with partial fuel), so they both shall be built to carry the same weight, so we can evaluate them based on range and speed and fuel-use. So what are their scores? (Range will be with 400 pounds payload on board, full tanks, climb to cruise altitude and then fly at cruise until the tanks run dry at cruise altitude. It ain't perfect but it's enough to get a relative score).

For 17,000 ft VFR cruise at modest power settings:

OZ-1-IO-550: goodness=230 * 1150 nm / 600 lb = 441

OZ-1-FJ-33: goodness= 322 kt * 960 nm / 800 lb = 386

For 25,000 ft IFR cruise at high power settings:

OZ-1-IO-550: goodness= 230 * 1100 nm / 600 lb = 421

OZ-1-FJ-33: goodness= 310 * 1300 nm / 800 lb = 503

Well, there you have it. According to the most PRELIMINARY of simulations (a decent job of entering the acf into X-Plane, using the weights and dimensions of the Columbia-400 as a reference) and actually flying each mission profile above, the JET is the way to go, if you are willing to fly high. It uses more fuel, but gets you there so much faster that it is actually worth it... but are my numbers on the jet accurate? Do I have accurate fuel burn and thrust and airframe drag numbers? I will refine the models over the near-future to get more accurate numbers and post them here as I do.

NOTE: I looked at the scores for the Piper Meridian, TBM-700, Lancair-4-P, and Lancair Evolution. The big Piper and TBM had much lower scores (due to their much larger size and big metal frames), the Lancair-4-P had very comparable scores, and the Lancair Evolution had very comparable score at high-cruise, and a slightly BETTER score at low-cruise! This would seem to imply that if you want to maximize the multiple of speed and range divided by fuel burn, get a Lancair Legacy and fly at low power settings. If you want to avoid the P-Factor of a huge engine and prop, and scoot around in a little single jet that goes in a straight line when you add power, and you have 1 to 4 people to move, the X-1 seems the way to go. It scores similar to the Lancair-4-P because it goes faster and burns more fuel in the same period of time.. it is sort of like a Lancair-4-P in fast-forward, you might say.

FINAL RESULT: The FJ-33 version gives a very competitive or winning scores compared to other airplanes if flown properly, and when I ask people what planes excites THEM, they ALL say the same thing: The JET. Not a single person got excited about my ring-prop, which might boost efficiency by 10% or so... nobody cared! They all got excited about the JET! So, THAT is the plane I will start from for this design.