Nick,
Now you've gone and done it.
It's tasers at 200 meters.
Nick, you said;
"If your 60 second analysis held water, designers would kill for the numbers you think you'd get."
Damn rights they would. However I said;
"...the craft would be able to increase its payload by up to a theoretical 500 hp * 8.0 lb/hp = 4,000 lbs" ~ and ~ "...a hypothetical maximum increase in the carrying capacity of this helicopter of 50%, during maximum yaw or sideward flight."
Your example used the optimal lateral flight speed for minimum main rotor power. You know that at maximum speeds and/or yaw rates the horsepower demands will be higher.
You said
"Most TR's are designed for 17 knots of max sideward speed,"
Obviously your 70 or 90 mph sideward flight in the Comanche was not a "most".
____________
Then you have the audacity to say;
Nobody is running for the patent office
Says who? Your Sikorsky has eleven new (and frivolous) patents related to the upcoming X2 coaxial.
____________
Obviously, I cannot debate your S76 figures. I must therefore assume that you would not bull!!!! the public.
However, you might wish to read chapter 14 entitled 'All Torqued Off' in Leishmans latest book. One of his concluding remarks is
"it [the tail rotor]
is not the the optimum design solution by any means. It has simply become a technological survivor of sorts."
Now for that KoolAid.
Dave