Lu, for myself, I have never tried to contradict your assertion that there is a 72 not 90 degree offset in the rigging. The only fact I have disputed with you about is your original assertion that the R22 should not have been certified for a couple reasons:
1> the stick will not move in the correct sense to aircraft movement.
...several times we have stated that it does perform in a sense that is NOT objectionable to the pilot. I would like to note that the 1-2 degree difference you reference several times, near as I can tell, is your own number.
2> the flight manual restriction against sideslip means the certification sideslip could not be performed.
...Lu, all aircraft are required to perform during certification some procedures that are NOT normal procedures. The Bell 206 has a limiting crosswind component. This limit is less than .6 VNE. Does this mean that the 206 could not pass the certification test? Absolutely not. Is is capable of performing the test, but it is NOT a normal procedure.
===
I have wondered many times if you are reading my posts with the intent of learning from them. Obviously not. You asked another pilot to perform a test, lifting into a hover with the cyclic in the rigged neutral position, not moving it laterally and then accelerating forward. Lateral cyclic is required to maintain position against tail-rotor drift, left cyclic. I told you this before.
I have learned a good bit of information from your posts about the R22 rigging, accident statistics, and general perception of the aircraft, but I am tempering that with my own experience. When I get a chance to fly one again (sson I hope) I will try to answer some of my own questions, but I still find that I must contend that the primary assertion in your paper to the NTSB questioning the R22 certification is flawed in its most basic logic.
That is the point I tried to address, and I'll post a single response here vice the many other R22 threads to avoid dredging them up from the void.