So while I do freely admit the proposed relationship MAY NOT be EXACT, I do say that any difference is just bathwater and not a substantive point. Quantifying the difference might be quite complex and subtle, but at least we can say it is comparatively small.
So I say that my point (whatever it was) still holds ‘in essence’.
AND the onus would be on dc/da to substantiate his objection otherwise.
This passage shows some insight AnFI. Quantifying the difference might indeed be quite complex and subtle. If you care about public acceptance of your UCA hypothesis you are going to have to enlist the services of an independent aerodynamicist. Given that you're probably not offering a fee, you need to ask nicely, pique their intellectual curiosity, and not harangue them every time they offer you some help.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, after some really tricky maths, some heroic assumptions (which because of the spirit of open intellectual curiosity in which you'd embarked on this venture, you would both agree) you jointly conclude that the inflow term drives a 10% sensitivity of CA to Rrpm in the hover and 3% at Vy and 1% at Vne. Now those who care are all a step forward.
At this point you could publish the results, and the aerodynamicists who can follow this can stand back and say, wow that's a good bit of work. Everyone can form their own views as to whether this correction counts as a hair on the egg (what on earth is that ?) or something more significant. And the pilots on this forum can go blissfully about their business knowing that it is totally irrelevant to their work, because the bit that affects them was dealt with a few pages ago.
Or you could conclude, as you hint in the quoted paragraph above, that the point you're making isn't sufficiently important to warrant that level of investment.