"There are 'ideas' looking for 'needs' to be satisfied, and there are 'needs' looking for 'ideas' to provide satisfaction."
Dave, I think you misunderstand the point of my last post. I am saying that the next gen rotorcraft needs to address all of the aerodynamic design points, to be commercially competetive. Ease of hover will then require augmented stability. I am suggesting practical and reliable ways to go about both.
"My concepts are open to public scrutiny, let them do the same."
The comments i often raise should be seen as constructive criticism. Rather than simply dismiss your ideas, i try to highlight what i see as good points while explaining my concerns with areas i see as bad points - hopefully to provide realistic engineering feedback.
Mart