This does bring up an interesting question. What is the difference between a design flaw and a published limitation?
Obviously if a flaw in the design is discovered and it is found to be more economical to narrow the envelope than fix the flaw, then that flaw becomes a limitation. Doesn't mean it's not a flaw anymore.
______________
My take is this. When you design a helicopter, you have a purpose for that helicopter in mind. That purpose defines a minimum envelope. A published limitation that narrows the envelope to an extent that any part of that minimum envelope is excluded could be considered a design flaw.
Let's say that to post on Pprune, the programmers decided you must hit the "Add Reply" button. They write the software and find that you have to double click it. They are perplexed and can't fix it. Instead, they add some text to say to double click the button. It's still a flaw.
_______________
It sounds like the AS350 limitation is at an extreme of an envelope. From my line of thinking, that means it's not a design flaw.
What's been said about sideslipping a Robinson seems unusual for a training aircraft. That
may qualify as a design flaw that became a published limitation.
________
Of course, I haven't flown or touched either aircraft so what the hell do I know?
