Respectfully disagree.
Musk’s Falcon 1 finish wasn’t exactly Michealangelo, but it was painted with a logo
View attachment 459402
Good reasons to paint model rocket prototypes include visibility (I launched an unpainted FlutterBye in fall. Unpainted body tubes and balsa look a lot like autumn leaves. I found the upper half with the nose cone. The thing only went up about 200 feet), aerodynamics (smooth light paint jobs can fly higher), and water resistance (wet grass warps bare balsa in a hurry.). Plus some designers may look at a paint scheme like an autograph on their designs. So while I choose to fly (my rockets) naked, it’s very much an individual choice.
in the case of horizontal spin, Dotini is doing something generally not done before (at least according to Tim Van Milligan’s book.). Not that Horizontal Spin is done much at all (to my admittedly limited knowledge,
@Dotini and I are the only ones at least in recent years to post on this technique.). But per Tim’s book and in my flights, usually the nose is blown and recovered separately.
@Dotini is doing it with nose cone intact, he’s “borrowing” or “adapting” a trick from Back Sliders to interrupt the initial streamlined forward trajectory. Presence or absence of paint may make a bigger difference in these rockets than most, as it will definitely move CG well forward (since his are classically long skinny rockets). Likely there is a point where the forward CG overwhelms the effect of spin and the rocket “refuses” to turn horizontal. Also the added inertia of the painted tube may make it more likely to flex.
back to theory and practice, to stay on topic.
what if we placed two ports, equally spaced forward and aft of the CG, pointing in opposite directions? I don’t think this would ELIMINATE bending stress, but it might distribute it more evenly across the airframe (or conversely make it even worse, focusing it right AT the CG.....course you could but a coupler there, but it’s gonna cost you some mass and may just focus the bending force at the fore and aft marines of the coupler....)
another unknown is just how far forward does the port have to be? Could you put a port in the rear, just forward of the engine block, and blow the tail of the rocket sideways enough? Would that cause more or less lateral bending stress?