Lack of IMAGINATION in design is a very DIFFERENT thing than lack of design QUALITY, which is what I think you inferred from my comment. Imagination has little do do with design quality, and they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Design quality has to do with proven engineering. It CAN be imaginative, but not necessarily so.

I think we can agree that the vast majority of all pattern designs in the last 20 years or so look very similar to each other. There are some variances in fuselage shape, wing sweep, length/span/area relationships and such, but most of 'em look similar to one another. Not too imaginative or creative, if you ask me. Some designers even openly admit "borrowing" layouts from other existing designs!
Granted, there is a reason for this, and that is that form follows function. This is why all NASCAR cars, racing boats, etc., look very similar (along with rules restrictions). Nothing wrong with this concept, just that it becomes sort of boring to see year after year, in my opinion. The appearance of a few CANARD racing hydroplanes in boatracing a few years ago is an example of imaginative design.

Jeff's design shows IMAGINATION. A very different way to get the same job done.

Hopefully it will prove to be a good (i.e. quality, well engineered) design, as well.

Sorry to have offended you with my opinion.

Rick