"...counter-rotating bicycle ... gyroscopic precession was gone... little more resistance ... when the wheels were rotating..."
Hmm, well the physics is pretty well established. I imagine that the wheels were not counter-rotating at the same speed...
"... masts on the intermeshing UniCopter are at 18º to each other."
The vertical axis components will cancel, but yes there will be some residual horizontal component. This would give some roll/yaw stability, and accounts for the Flettner direction of rotation - breaststroke is thus equivalent to single gyro going top forwards, bottom backwards. In sideslip the vertical tailplane would input yaw torque, to cause gyro precession roll as if dihedral. Same sideslip causes downwind rotor to produce more lift, so precession causes yaw towards sideslip (like a tailplane). Don't forget sideslip "dihedral" is being countered, to some extent, by incorrect lift balance of rotors. There is also the yaw effect caused by torque imbalance of downwind rotor seeing more lift, breaststroke rotation causing yaw into wind.
However, non of this will really reduce pilot workload in hover, however , unless you have accounts of F282 hovering hands-off - this has to be one aim of your project...
"...Unicopter turn outside forward ... 'wanted' lateral dissymitry of lift."
I do see this, but my concern is that you will not be using synchrolite to learn how to stabilise an intermeshing heli with rotors turning the "wrong way" (ie outside forwards). To my mind the whole point of intermeshing is to improve aerodynamic efficiency, otherwise just fit the lockheed gyro system to an R22 - far simpler. Basically i believe that a large tailplane, above heli centroid, would overcome the adverse stability of the effective gyro going top rearwards - and the resulting T-tail is perfect for high speed flight without downwash affecting trim. Alternately fit a gyro running top forwards (engine flywheel?) to counter rotor precession
. Either way, you have to admit, Synchrolite is the perfect test bed...
"... in powered flight the rotors are driving the air where as in autorotation the air is driving the rotors. "
Not completely with you, since in either case increasing blade pitch will result in opposition torque!?! I can see that there would be loss of this torque strength with autorotation, becoming noticeable below powered descent (approx zero pitch). The real danger comes from reduced g manouvreing, where there will be pedal ineffectiveness. I'm willing to eat crow, but have thought this through
. Maybe this is not worth dwelling on, since the Unicopter twin pusher arrangement solves the problem...
BTW do you still prefer unducted over ducted pusher props? Bearing in mind various pros/cons.
Mart