Beaker, it is true that the original poster asked an academic, hypothetical question. And you gave an answer that is somewhat technically correct under a certain set of circumstanstances that may or may not have been implied by the question. But the issue is that the technically correct answer is dangerously wrong when applied in an operational sense - like a drug that seemed simple and effective in the lab but have life threatening interactions in the real world. This is the reason your responses makes everyone's hair stand up on their backs. And the fact that it dosent for you, or it does, and you didn't feel responsible enough to dilute your answer with an accompanying disclaimer highlighting how this could be dangerously misleading in the real world - just gives the impression that either you don't have much real world experience, or that you just don't care.

You kinda sound like these 3 examples- you just need to add the bit at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/AK3gB7DpaM0

With respect flying chicken, my original response was a neutral response, that made no operational suggestions whatsoever. I must admit to have been taken aback by the response, so I actually suggested leaving the discussion, it was your kind self that invited me to stay for a technical discussion.

But in all seriousness, you acknowledge my reply was under a certain set of circumstances technically correct, or a least somewhat... If may paraphrase what you have just said. Thank you!

On the issue of safety, having taught people of wide backgrounds, I do understand the importance of having a mental model which when called upon will support making the right decision. The fact the mental model may be technically incorrect is less important and sometimes more appropriate so long as it supports making the right decision.

However this is not a flight instruction forum? I thought it might be a place where professionals might discuss technical issues, with a certain maturity.
Perhaps I made another mistake

I had started a post with an attempt to provide a better explanation of the inverse advance ratio versus thrust/torque graph posted (figure 4), in your previous post it was not clear to me if you had understood it fully, apologies if you did. I shall refrain unless someone wants to continue the discussion.

It wouldnt be difficult. Nothing you've stated thus far has been correct.

People have honestly tried. Your information is simply incorrect, yet you continue to argue. What you are seeing is their frustration. Arguing with the Flat Earth Society gets tiresome.

Only FlyingChicken directly addressed the research reports. Perhaps authors EDWIN P. HARTMAN and Peter Sprunger are simply incorrect too... But never mind, I will refrain from posting, unless asked.

From the OP
A windmilling propeller regardless of type,shape, pitch or whatever, creates significantly more drag than the same stationary feathered propeller (sic), there is NO EXCEPTION. That's the simple and correct answer, if anything there is total agreement on this point.

You're a piece of work.....

OK, OK...
I never imagined this would turn into 6 pages when I asked.
Thanks for the replies.

This is the smartest thing you've said so far.

Just my .02: All multi AC have a published VMC (the blue line). This is determined by the manufacturer during the most unfavorable conditions ie windmilling propeller of the critical engine ect. This is not disputable........

Welcome to APC, where everything is disputable.