Lu,
Firstly, thanks for the history, it makes informative reading. I think we are in danger of a consensus about certain matters soon!!
a. We are agreed: Cyclic application and sideslip are separate things.
b. You have neglected to quote from the POH where it contends that cyclic application under zero G creates severe flapping moments. Does it actually say that? Please quote. We will restrict discussion of cyclic causing flapping to para (b) from now to reduce repetition, so I will cover one of your statements in your para (c) : you said >> The reason for the high level of flapping is covered in the history paragraph. I personally believe the high flapping loads are generated due to the design of the main rotor and that mast bumping is caused by the design of the main rotor<<. Firstly, what is a history paragraph? Secondly, I understand that you think the flapping occurs due to the main rotor design but my question still remains HOW?
c. We are agreed that the disc is neither unstable nor wild during zero G maneuvers. We will keep cyclic “flapping” to para (b).
d. I had pointed out that the 90 degree phase angle argument is irrelevant to the topic at hand, so we will ignore it. The topic at hand remains the fact that you need to be able to demonstrate a distinct difference attributable to a component before it can be RELEVANT. So far you have not done that with either the conning hinges or 18 degree offset. The proof, therefore, must be that there are demonstrable differences in the way the aircraft behaves under zero G, and that these differences can be attributed to the components. Merely repeating the recovery theory is not meeting this proof as the same technique is valid for the Bell.
e. You state: >> It is not the 18-degree offset on the Robinson that causes the problem it is the entry into zero G and improper technique in countering the problem. It is the same for the Bell.<< So we are in agreement: the 18 degree offset IS IRRELEVANT to zero G, it is merely a piloting technique that is at fault. IE the Robbo is not dangerous – just the pilot whom mishandles it. The same could be said about the Bell teetering head, the UH-1H lack of tail rotor, or even the stall characteristics of the MU-2 in icing, etc, etc, etc. Nothing bad about the Robbie per se.
f. Settled.
g. You have not attempted to answer the questions which were: Lu, how do you think the offset increases roll rate? Do you believe this always happens, or only with zero G? If only with zero G, how does the G affect the offset? Instead your response indicates that you believe the offset will now >> add to the right roll thrust caused by the tail rotor<<. Although this is a radical change in your theory (left roll rate of the disc increases to now adding to tail rotor roll) could you explain how rather that what please?
h. I will add an (h) in response to your test. Can you outline the test parameters and what are the objective objectives (don’t you love that phrase?!!). That way perhaps the test could be performed by many to give a more realistic outcome.