aart wrote:
Now that we are drifting towards innovative designs:
The 45deg prop makes it a wired mix of rotary-vs-fixed wings 
Now that we are drifting towards innovative designs:
It also ends few eternal debates: low vs high wing, front vs tail gear, turbine vs piston and biplane vs one wing
For the mathematically inclined, a lot of work has been done in the Parsifal research project covering boxwings. The main advantage is low induced drag.
At least there won’t be wing tip vortices ! Seriously – anyone know what the point of this design is?
Looks like the worst of 2 worlds. The only advantage I can think of is saving hangar space. I must be missing something, please enlighten me!
It turns out you can have both!
Here it is, black on white – statistics show that high wings have less fatalities than low wings:
I would not conclude so firmly. Yes, the high wings may offer better protection in case of tipping over etc., but what the numbers say is that accident severity is fairly well related to cruise speed. In fact, figure 5 shows that high wingers are right on the average line.
Figure 4 shows some high wingers with low fatality percentage, and low wingers being worse off, but 3 of the 4 low wingers are the C172, the C150 and the PA18, airplanes with very low wing loading and low stall and cruise speeds. C210 with its high wing loading are right up there with the heavy low wingers.
The Diamond DA40 is mentioned but not included in the figure. It is right down there with the C172, despite having higher speeds and wing loading. That, and the Columbia/Corvalis, are two designs that are statistically safer than other types with similar performance. I do not think it has much to do with how the wing is attached, but I would guess it is rather its flying qualities, good visibility and well though out crashworthiness.
I have never seen any evidence that wing position makes a statistical difference for safety and this source does not qualify either.
