Reely, I think you got the wrong idea from my posts. If you go back two pages in this thread you will find me asking angled questions about these issues.
If I may quote again;
Originally Posted by Freewheel
Not true. I was shown a 360 with power applied and pedals unchanged at the bottom of a standard descent profile. yaw ceased in less than another 30 degrees.
I still have the same question regarding that: How much room would be necessary for this recovery? Instead of an answer all I got was a faint attempt of mocking my terminology.
What if the bottom of that mentioned descent profile is in a somewhat confined area? Is it really recoverable in practice under different conditions?
I also specifically picked the 269 to fly and to train, also I'm no Robinson fan and also I'm one of the very few people who don't see the Guimbal as the hottest thing since sliced bread. We are on the same page on all of those!
However I think that you missed the context and that you are totally off track with most of your conclusions. I clarified that in detail already.
As for the K1: I was speaking about production helicopters only. Not taking into account the numerous projects that are currently promising to soon be the holy grail of light or ultra light helicopters. Also for some reason UL helicopters still do not play a noticeable role in the training market. Who knows, maybe that will change at some point.
Originally Posted by Ian Corrigible
Marketed yes, designed no. Per Flight:
Duly noted. Thanks for clearing it up and thanks for the link, interesting material. It certainly invalidates some of the things I read on different web pages.
Edit: But the article does certainly read like this: Bruno G. was an engineer at AS to start with and started this as a private project, eventually at some point succeeded in pitching it. So no wonder it has the typical AS design elements. Also granted that it was in fact targeted to compete with the R22. How very ambitious it was to match the price tag...