Quickie
Colonel
Well, the S-97 has elevators & rudders, as do the Ka-50/52 (rudder), UH-60 as well as AH-64 (elevator). More importantly, so does the model of the full-size Chinese project that taxiya associated with this demonstrator (M-shaped empennage with 4 aerodynamic control surfaces).
Is none of these a helo now? See the problem with your definition?
If it comes to that, I like to think I have a pretty good eye for details, yet in my opinion the resolution of the photos is too low to tell whether the test bed does or doesn't have aerodynamic control surfaces in the first place. Is that in the text somewhere?
They may share some of the method of flight control and stabilization. Just sharing one or more of these features doesn't suddenly make them a rotor-craft or a fixed wing aircraft. Nevertheless each of the aircraft types share more of the same features.
Not sure what you mean here - by reaction force of the wing are you referring to the effect of rotor downwash obstruction by the wing? If so, why would it make any difference to this effect whether the blade is advancing or retreating?
Never said so. It doesn't really matter if the blade is advancing or retreating.
The point is reducing the downward force on the wing and the same and equal reaction force on the rotor blade, which reduces power and efficiency.