Dave, why are you basing your arguements on machines that flew over half a century ago? Outside of the historical interest, i couldn't care less whether R4 or FL282 are technically better or which did what first. Both are good pieces of engineering, both had flaws which have needed to be overcome.
There is only one way for a good idea to survive, and that is through technical merit. This means that a specific problem must be identified, in order to start the process of finding a solution. If the problem is retreating blade stall, you will get no arguement from anybody that counterrotating is the solution. If the problem is just aesthetics, you will get no support from anybody. Engineers just don't think like that, and rightly so. When sales have asked the impossible, finance has offered a pittance, and service just want something that works, it it the engineer that has to dig his way out of the resulting hole. Aesthetics just are not part of the decision process.
You frequently site nature as being the inspiration of technology, so let me ask you this: Did nature make it to the Moon?
Mart