RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
I agree with BTerry on points 1 and 2. But if you can scale down EXACTLY per the original, all you have to do is try to keep the wing loading down to 7 or 8 ounces per squares. If you have CAD and can input the laser cutter to any scale, it should be easy to offer exact scale models to suit the engine. Offer kits for the MANY .06 engines out there. Offer kits for the popular, OS .10 and even Enya 11s. There are a lot of small diesels that would also power either of these sizes. As you approach .15 engines though, that's getting "up there" for the small airplane crowd. Some will disagree but there are a lot more .06s around than .15s.
I've never been a fan of foam wings, too much glue to hold the sheeting on. And lots of sheeting means weight. Weight is a killer in small models. The Stik has a very simple, planked fuse. The Tsunami, far more complicated. I also sheeted the Tsunami wing to the main spar. Mistake. The next one will have no sheeting on the wing and I'd even eliminate as much sheet on the fuse as well. AND, I'd use a lightweight covering.
Wood selection is also a large factor. I've seen small kits tha used rock hard wood everywhere. Instead of the advertised weight of 20 ounces, they came in at 30,,, all just because of heavy wood.
I wouldn't try to standardize on any wing or airfoil platform. Airfoils can be a big factor in how well a plane flys. As with the Ugly Stik and the Tsunami, exact scale, smaller versions, with no deviation from scale, as long as the wing loading is low, will fly as well or better than the originals.