Mighty Gem, yes there are; those that are 4 axes. On the 155 the collective is coupled when using vertical functions on their own, but with the IAS below 60 kts (ie ALT, V/S or G/S ) or when the IAS and a vertical function are coupled together. If above 60 kts and a vertical funtion is coupled but not the IAS, then it uses the cyclic to control that function, and effectively the collective becomes a speed controller.
When fully coupled on an ILS it has to be seen to be believed; you can merrily beep the IAS from 165 to 30 and then back and the needles don't budge at all. It will then take you all the way down to 25 ft and 30 kts down the centre of the runway, hands off (well, lightly guarding the controls, perhaps!) On top of that, it has no gear limiting speed, which is a bonus.
I'm surprised by how many people advocate glideslope control using cyclic, especially the 76 drivers; I always thought it was delightful to hand fly accurate ILS' with its PBA. An accurately trimmed aircraft in smooth conditions needs very little cyclic input and just small, smooth, collective inputs, usually. If, however, you then factor in a bumpy approach, what are you using the controls for (those that advocate cyclic for glideslope)? Do you still keep the glideslope with cyclic, but accept bigger speed variations, or do you adjust the collective to reduce the speed variations, or do you move everything and adjust both speed and glideslope with a combination of both inputs? If you stick to the primary effects of control, the principle doesn't change; you still maintain the IAS with cyclic and the glideslope with collective, you just need more frequent and larger inputs.
One advantage of our flexibility with IAS is that by keeping it high in the initial stages of the approach we can minimise the wind's drift, then by reducing it in the final stages we can remain within the rapidly constricting cone more easily.
Was once asked by ATC to "slow down" behind an Airbus A320, which brought a smile to my face.