CRAN,
Your list of eleven objectives certainly does not describe "Just another helicopter". A craft with all these attributes will be far more than that. The concern, in my opinion, is not the objectives. The concern has to do with the means or the ability of implementing all, or most, of these objectives.
To build a craft that does more than "Just another helicopter" requires more than a collection of yesterday's technology. I doubt that all or even most of these objectives can be met solely by stepping down to the Very Light Rotorcraft category.
In addition, there are others looking at the same category and market. The spoils will go to he who has the better craft. (or perhaps the better marketing
).
______________________
Since you asked;
We probably both agree that 3-blade rotor will not provide as good a thrust/weight ratio as a 2-blade rotor. In addition, the increased rotor moments caused by the hub spring will necessitate a stronger (& heavier) craft. The advantage, of course is a faster and more positive cyclic control.
"Dave, your hub sounds great in principal, ...... But how will you convince people to bet their lives on the fact that:
(a) It works properly
(b) They can build it
(c) It won't break"
CRAN, I'm not trying to sell this 3-blade CVJ+HS rotor. It may not work in the real world. But, I feel good enough about it to build one and have fun testing it. This testing may eventually satisfy the above (a) and (c).
A solution for (b) may be to copy the method used by the world's cheapest rotorcraft. The full set of Gyrobee plans can be freely downloaded off the Internet, but the rotor hub is a purchased item.