heedm,
Thanks for your reply. In my analogy of the fully articulated rotor head, I was just trying to make the point that in this particular case we had a rotor head that could not be controlled through the rotor mast, unlike the previous "rigid" rotor, because the simple articulation by cables would not transmit a force to the gyroscopic arms. Of course, as you state, any displacement of the arms by other means would result in precession of the rotor system but would not affect the mast. This is my main point. A helicopter rotor produces gyroscopic behaviour, but as a by-product of aerodynamic reactions on the blades and not by the pilot's controls causing gyroscopic precession directly. However, it is the latter forces, "feeding back" through the aircraft structure that cause the hull to follow the rotor.
I think this entire discussion (previously an argument, on another thread) actually started because of a disagreement over "cause and effect", namely does gyroscopic precession result in aerodynamic effects or rather aerodynamic effects resulting in gyroscopic precession?
I strongly favour the latter as far as helicopter control is concerned.
ShyT