Lu
>"
Why do you feel that a Bell rotor system emulates the qualities of a gyroscope just because it has a 90-degree pitch horn?"<
I don't.
The following statement is from an aerodynamist, who's name I've forgotten. "For blades freely articulated at the center of rotation, or teetering rotors, the response is lagged by exactly 90-degrees in hover".
The pitch horn does not make the rotor emulate the gyroscope. The pitch horn only aligns the cyclic control stick with the rotor.
____________________
>"
Yet you totally discount the Sikorsky and all of the other multi blade helicopters. "<
I don't discount the Sikorsky. Its only that I, you and perhaps a few others are having difficulty understanding the basics, so it is probably a little premature to introduce additional complexities.
____________________
Re the Robinson helicopters:
Lu, we are currently having trouble with one attribute of the rotor. The rotor has dozens of attributes. It is therefore a little premature to come to conclusions on the Robinson's rotors. The best we can do, at this point in time, is speculate.
_____________
Re non-relativistic rotational kinematics
Nick explained gyroscopic precession a couple of days ago. Heedm went to even greater lengths in explaining it a couple of months ago. How can you keep asking for an explanation when it would appear that you are not attempting to delve into what they are saying?
I feel that this has to be understood before phase lag and delta-3 can be considered. You may wish to re-digest what they have said.
[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]