So there you have some explanations from test pilots AnFi - doubtless you will refute elements that don't fit your present and ever-changing argument.
For a simple pilot like me - in a steep dive when I need to pull out to avoid an 'annoying' visit to the scenery I can use aft cyclic either with or without the addition of extra collective. At this point the coning angle isn't high on my list of priorities.
Now the aft cyclic will change the direction of induced flow (flare effect) and increase rotor thrust but also Nr - because the blades will tend to cone up - I still don't care about the coning angle because the ground is coming up quickly.
Now I add a big handful of collective to further increase my rotor thrust - because I don't want to be 'annoying' to AnFi and hit the ground - does the coning angle increase? Probably but I don't care and can't measure it anyway.
Now I am at max engine limits and pulling hard with both hands - the amount of thrust I need to avoid being 'annoying' can't be achieved because the Nr starts to decay from the high levels of collective pitch and the blades cone up further - I still can't measure the coning and it is still the least important thing on my 'to-do' list - apart from cancelling my booked late lunch.
I hit the ground with
both engines at max chat, full collective and the cyclic in my groin - does it matter what the coning angle is or whether the blades reach the stall???
Maybe if I had listened to AnfI and calculated my desired and critical coning angle before I went flying - now where is that graph in the RFM? - I might have been saved.
Perhaps I should have just given myself enough height to pull out and listened to crab
