These are my thoughts, others may think differently.
- Gyroscopic force affects whether the blades move towards or away from the tower during yaw. It adds to yaw pivot friction and causes vibration on less than 3 blade props. It probably has little real effect on furling.
- Rotation decides whether the prop moves towards or away from the tower as it yaws into furl. No real other effect.
- I can't and there are not many of us even prepared to accept that the phenomenon exists.
- With a machine with fixed tail and no offset you can get some idea by pulling the tail with a rope to see how much force is needed to get it out of the wind. Compare this with the tail force with prop tied stationary.
You can get a fairly good idea by comparing the thrust with the effective furling force as deduced by the tail moment against its stop.
This force vanishes at some critical angle ( in the order of 45deg). At this point it suddenly pulls out of the wind and there is a dramatic reduction in power out.
This largely accounts for the falling output in high winds as most machines furl, much more so than the peaking of the tail moment at about 45deg with the common scheme.
The larger the offset the more the power tries to stay constant after furling .( Take it too far and you need a monster tail to keep it into the wind below furling. Make the offset too small and it doesn't furl).
If you want to resolve this to a precise mathematical figure, abandon furling and design a pitch controlled hub, replace the tail with a servo motor and it will be analysable and you remove all the nasty gyroscopic forces, . You will have a nicely defined maximum power, no problem of over speed with loss of load and lots of other good things, but you have a mechanical challenge that will defeat the basic home constructor.
Flux