Dave,
As many have pointed out, symmetry is not always the answer. People aren't really symmetrical, neither are cars or planes. Only race cars put the driver in the center, and even then the guts of the car aren't symmetric. Sure, some twin engine planes have counter-rotating props/engines, but it's an unnecessary expense. Actually, a plane that I find fascinating is the Boomerang
Apparently, it performs quite well.
Your helicopter idea sounds like fun, and asking for input is certainly a good first step in your case. However, I think you're kidding yourself with respect to the vast superiority of your design. It won't be cheap, it won't be significantly easier to fly, it won't be more efficient, etc...
Consider the cost of helicopters. Compare the Mini500 to the CH7. Both are single pilot, small, homebuilt helicopters of similar size and performance (I'm not entirely sure of this), but greatly differing quality and therefore cost. It seems as though your concept would fit in the same class as these designs. I know you have wild dreams of cost control through volume, but I don't have your optimism. It's gonna be expensive if it is designed and made well. Your advanced autopilot/governor ideas only make low cost more far-fetched.
Now, to the basis of your design. As I see it, the performance difference between conventional (main and tail rotor) and contrarotating designs is miniscule. Kaman designs are popular with the Russian navy because of their small size. The induced power losses losses due to a high disc loading of most cr designs are comparable to those of the tail rotor. The weight advantage of no tail rotor is offset (perhaps even more) by the addition of a stronger, heavier main rotor gearbox. The control systems aren't necessarily that different. One design has a complex rotor head, while the other puts stuff on the tail boom/tail rotor.
Another point of contention is handling qualities. You argue that a more symmetric design would be vastly easier to fly than conventional designs. I argue that after 10 or 20 hours, most beginning pilots have that all out of the way. Sure, finesse and smooth flight all improve with more experience, but I don't think the 1000+ hours that are required to get a turbine job or even become insured in some aircraft has anything to do with symmetry or the difficulty of juggling the coupling caused by asymmetry. Heck, larger helicopters have mixing boxes that take care of a lot of this already. Now, on the other side of the argument is the control of a contrarotating helicopter. I have no experience with any, but my understanding that yaw control is not as direct/crisp, and that control in an autoration is also cause for concern. Pilots like to be in control, and giving them mushy response or requiring them to be moving fast enough to get some semblance of control out of a vertical fin is not what they want. I think they'd much rather deal with translating tendency, transverse flow effect, and all the coupling that accompanies a conventional helicopter. This can be be "band-aided" by mixing boxes and blade tip spoilers on a cr helicopter, but I thought we were going with simple, light and cheap!?
I'd personally like to know more about contrarotating rotorcraft, and think they have promise, but I don't think they are going to solve all the problems you predict. As an aside, I think you've probably reached everyone on this an other online forums that you will, and are starting to sound like a broken record. I don't mind, but it seems others are sick of it. If, as I presume you haven't done any helicopter flying, I'd strongly suggest you take a bit of dual in a small helicopter. Take at least enough so that you can hover, and you'll see why all the pilots who have responded don't care for your ideas vis-a-vis ease of control are concerned ;-)
Good luck