Has high-wing plane design changed that little in seventy-five years?

[snaildrake]

I want to understand how recently designed planes might fly or function 'better' than much-imitated designs from the 30s or 40s. I am most interested in LSA high-wing utility two seaters that can handle short runways (STOL not critical).
Here are the craft I've come up with that interest me the most:

1. Modern all-metal kitplanes -- Zenith CH-750, Just Aircraft Highlander, maybe Murphy Rebel (no kits)
   
2. Fairly modern designs with older materials -- Falconar AMF- 14H, Fisher Dakota Hawk
   
3. 'Classic' STOL or utility replicas -- Wittman Buttercup, Ragwing Stork

Since I bit hard on the kit/homebuilt bait, I have looked at a couple hundred plane designs, trying to learn what works better: what climbs faster, is safer, more reliable, or what does these things more affordably. But so far the biggest innovation (forgetting avionics) I can come up with is that the newest kitplanes take less skill to build to a high level of quality.

Here are some related questions:

• What's really new in high-wing aircraft design?
• Are any of the more recent designs clearly safer?
• If I decide build speed is not a key factor, am I just as well off with a Falconar AMF- 14H as a CH-750 or a Just Air Highlander?
• Is a wood/fabric design like the Falconar AMF-14H more advanced than a tube/fabric 1938 Wittman Buttercup?

 

[lr27]

 

[lr27]

 

[orion]

 

[addaon]

 

[bmcj]

 

[snaildrake]

 

[addaon]

 

[Dan Thomas]

 

[snaildrake]

 

[Dan Thomas]

 

[snaildrake]

 

[lr27]

 

[snaildrake]

 

[High Altitude]

 

[lr27]

 

[litespeed]

 

[Dan Thomas]

 

[snaildrake]

 

[needswings]