Giving up things like automatic connections would be down right stupid.

What I'm proposing is something like the V2/ASG29. Once you move the wing up to a pylon and join the inner halves, there's a large reduction in parts. 4 less half root ribs, 2 less shear web fillers, 4 less spar bolt inserts, 2 controls less (only one for flap, one for spoilers), one spoiler less, two push-pull tubes for the spoilers less, more room for a mixer and on and on.

One of the more interesting features of a pylon wing is in fact it's (potential for) practicality. Do away with the one-men rigging aids and put a spring-loaded joint on the pylon. Pull the middle wing from the trailer while the other tip is still in it's dolly, cant horizontal and put it on the spring-loaded receptor. No need to have a one-man rigging aid if your glider has it built-in. Vary required tip lifting by moving the wing dolly inboard a bit.

The interesting thing about the pylon-mounted wing is that nobody I discussed it with (including some involved in last-generation factory ships) actually disliked the idea that it had potential in the end. Especially for monocoque wings (like the Diana), there's a lot to be gained.

@ Bob,

Most countries around here have two regimes:
*Original design. Basically meet CS22/23/VLA/MLA, including ultimate load testing (SF 1.75-2) for every single major load case plus most of the load analysis/theoretical compliance.
*A design flying abroad. If built as it's flown abroad (same engine/plane combo, no extra winglets or structural/aero things), you can build and fly it with relatively little trouble. Given the nightmare that an STC for FES/jet sustainer for existing (certified to CS22) gliders can be, the HP24 might have a lot of potential there.