thanks for the various vigorous inputs
I feel that I have to summarise my postings for clarity;
Suppliers are only required to deliver what is requested by the contract and that is what is done. If the contract placed differs from the end users requirements, blame the specification writers not the suppliers (GND please take note)
I have never denied that with the current control system (ie GEM)Nr control at low tq is challenging (but please conceed that all posters here only have experience of that configuration), so as no one here has flown a Lynx with T800s fitted any comments on its Nr control are theoretical on both sides of the argument and no one will know until FLynx flies (or a T800 equipped Lynx pilot cares to comment)We are all entitled to our own views on the subject.
Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is.
Modern aircraft design rules placed on manufacturers mandate change to airframes that some users disagree with, but it's a non negotiable point.
I freely admit not knowing about the various undercarriage configurations and thats why I asked (terminology can be misleading so I requested clarification), the FLynx undercarriage may not be what the user wants but the point has been conceeded by WG13 that the design meets what was asked for. (see a pattern here?)
regarding the Mk9 undercarriage something rings a bell that the design evolved so that a Mk7 could be converted to a Mk9 without a substantial structural rebuild, therefore the loads had reacted through existing structure and that drove the geometry of the legs. If such constraints are placed on a design team we are back to Mr Scott again and there are few options available.
I think that summarises what I have been saying. It may make uneasy reading for some in the services but that's the reality of a cash strapped procurement environment.
DM