Not sure where you get this stuff from, but have you ever tried to do an inverted Harrier with a bipe, its almost IMPOSSIBLE. I don't want to argue your Rudder theory, it sounds like you read it in a book, but I do know from experience the fin area has little or nothing to do with wing rocking.
Chip
ORIGINAL: Blow n Go
OK guys................let's get this straight.............
If your ailerons work in a fully stalled harrier, it is because you have prop wash over the inner surfaces. Period. Not all airframes get wash over the ailerons, so you can't blanketly say the ailerons work fine in a harrier. On some planes they will and on some they won't.........but that's not causing the rocking.
Bipes are also more stable in an inverted harrier, and the CG is way above the wing centers in that condition (or aerodynamic center to be correct) . If CG location was the cause, then the plane would not rock, but just flip over and stick with the CG down. That's not causing the rocking either.
This whole wingrock deal is yaw instablility. What everone is describing are the characteristics of particular airframes and at what point they become unstable in yaw. Every design is different, and it is not simple to predict the airflow over the rear of a fuselage....... stability is affected by the wash from the wings, the prop, and the elevator location and deflection to name a few variables. Even the big boys have messed it up on full scale airplanes on occasion. They solve it by adding bigger vertical stabilizers - not more elevator throw, or bigger ailerons.
You are all correct in describing what your planes are doing. Just remember that if the rocking is a problem on your plane, then rudder is what is going to fix the problem.
Here's another grain for thought.......I bet most of you guys that get wing rock have more effective rudders than those that don't...........How come?
CJ