Originally Posted by Dave Jackson
If we agree that aerodynamics is the major cause of instability, then it makes sense to look, initially, to aerodynamics for the solution.
But that's my point, Dave - it isn't. The fault really does lie in the control system. Many helicopters have sprouted aerodynamic devices to control attitude or directional stability, all have the same fundamentally high pilot workload to fly.
The problem really does come down to small cyclic inputs controlling pitch and roll acceleration, and not velocity. This means that the pilot sits there for hour after hour keeping the cyclic centred, with only tiny inputs to make the machine go in the direction required. The skill required never ceases to amaze me. You can't take your hand off the cyclic to scratch your nose like you can in a fixed wing. I'm way out of my discussion depth here, but i believe the same is true of larger rigid rotor machines.
You are proposing a method to improve the ability of the machine to return to a "wings level" state after any given input. What you really have not considered is how to improve the fundamental flying characteristics. This is the fallacy in the symmetrical rotorcraft arguement.
My arguement is get the control system right, then optimise the aerodynamics. The reason i suggest a mechanical gyro system is to avoid unecessary control system complexity.
Mart