but I don't need to have to understand control theory.
Theory and reality are two entirely different things.
Seeings how you have never flown Lynx, I shall pretty much ignore your 'theories' regarding NR control on that airframe if you don't mind?
just for clarity in this part of the discussion, by 'castoring' do we mean powered (like the Merlin) or free castoring? (like the Puma) as the Puma can ground taxi without a powered nosewheel so the Flynx should be able to.
As in free castoring like a Puma or err a Lynx Mk 9.
Currently doesnt the RN Lynx have a free castoring nose wheel to allow turns on the deck, same reason as the main wheels can be toed ? nd isnt that analagous to the puma situation, or am I getting my knickers in a twist?
Not really free castoring as it is unable to steer by use of yaw input whilst taxiing. The axle is situated directly below the nose oleo as opposed to a dragging wheel arrangement like the errr Lynx Mk9.
Look at the position of where the wheels are in relation to the oleo;
WG13: the 'problem' comes back to (from the users point of view) a poor defintion of the requirement, once more not the suppliers fault, you should get EXACTLY what you asked for, nothing more or less.
If you reread my post, I did say the Army failed to clearly specify that a helicopter with wheels should be able to ground taxi. I think some in the army thought that was a 'given' seeings how our current helicopters in the Army with wheels can ground taxi.
Without a detailed involvement in the design and qualification process (which I also dont have) why makes you think a release for a new aircraft with dedicated trails assets isn't achievable, it's pure conjecture (but I suppose this is a 'rumour' network after all)
DM
Its not pure conjecture, I can guarantee you of that.