The BDH is obviously a way to correct an issue with the simulation software not handling reality correctly and get it back closer to real world.
If you want to eliminate the BDH, you need to correct the simulation software, or at least define which programs don't need the hack and which ones do.
You can't have it both ways. If neither the sim or the hack is right, tell us what is.
Having re-read the PoF articles just now, I'm kinda changing my mind on the BDH. If you look at
#1 in the series, the Fat Boy the author has modeled has a stability margin 13% of its length without the BDH. That's less than a caliber, but well within the rules of thumb for short or long rockets. So for rocket-shaped objects, the BDH may not even be necessary. I can see its usefulness for oddrocs (spools, cones, etc.). The question is where to find the line between the two. I suspect that the difference is whether the airflow at the aft end of the rocket is flowing along the tube or is still being pushed outward. Looking at two extremes, the air at the aft end of a Mean Machine (and probably a Fat Boy too) is going to be more or less parallel to the body tube. On a spool, the airflow is going to be going outboard pretty significantly.
Taking
@lakeroadster's excellent designs as a reference, I would tend to put
R2 and
Red Columbine in the oddroc category, since it's pretty plausible that the hemisphere-to-slightly-flat nose cones induce airflow outboard. The L
ratio is also approaching 1. The
Warhawk is right on the line, with an L
around 3 and a pointy enough nose cone that you'd get airflow down the side. The fact that it swing tests well clearly means that reality needs to adjust itself to my theory.
So I guess I'd come down on the line that it's not time to put the BDH out to pasture, but really to define what kinds of projects it is applicable to, and also to discourage its use when just looking at percentage of length resolves any perceived stability issues.