Shawn, IŽd have to disagree.
In the cases of the Bo-105, BK-117 and the Lynx, the rotor hubs are rigid (i.e. NO FLAPPING OR LEAD-LAG MOTION POSSIBLE!), wheras the the blades themselves flex (about their virtual hinges) in order to accomplish flapping and leading/lagging. They do, however, have actual feathering hinges and the associated bearings.
The RAH-66 Comanche and the EC-135 are both developments of the MBB Bo-108 program which resulted in both types being truly bearingless (i.e. the evolution away from even feathering bearings).
The EC-135 does not even have a rotor head (in the conventional sense), just a rotor mast and four rotor blades attached directly to it. No hinges. No bearings. It's as simple as that.
However, on the question of terminology, I admit to being confused from first day I entered the "Rotary World". The seeming obsession with trying to put all the wierd and wonderful rotorheads (No,not you guys!) into three or four categories. People fretting over how to classify an A-Star, compounding these restrictive terms to come up with fully-articulated-semi-sigid as opposed to the traditional Mr Sikorsky-vanilla-flavoured-fully-articulated. Mister, how come my rigid rotor headed Bolkow's got bearings in it when I was told in training that.........? Can't we stop being "Head-ist" and just learn to love and respect each rotor head as an individual???
Sorry..... Low blood sugar level...... Must...Lie.....Down.....