Johnny, please don’t misunderstand. Asking if a helicopter is inherently more dangerous than a fixed wing is like asking if experimental aircraft are inherently more dangerous than factory-certified. Or if a student pilot is inherently more dangerous than a 20,000 hour veteran. The answer is “yes” but to be fully accurate you need a "yes, BUT - " followed by an explanation.
As you yourself pointed out, a heli is inherently UNstable. Unlike an airplane - where I can adjust the trim, power, and even autopilot then neglect the flying duties for entire minutes at a time if required - you have to be on top of that rotorcraft at all times without exception as you pointed out. This is sometimes a GOOD thing - military fighter airplanes are ALSO inherently unstable by design. It is part of what makes helicoptors so very nimble and versitle. But it does require that constant attention that’s the “inherent danger”. They can be exceedingly UNforgiving of any sort of mistake or malfunction.
There are also items like rotors vs. fixed wings. Without power fixed wing aircraft do glide nicely, and indeed sailplanes have no engines yet they fly. In rotorcraft those blades HAVE to move, and when the engine quits you go down quick and sometimes quite hard. In an engine failure you basically land on what you’re above - a fixed wing may have more options in many situations. And then, if you break a prop blade in flight in a fixed wing your chances of survival are MUCH higher than having heli rotor depart in flight (in that case - you aren’t surviving from what I understand)
Like any other form of flying, flying helicoptors involves learning the risks and how to manage them. Because that skill varies so widely among pilots it tends to overwhelm the inherent characteristics of the aircraft to a large degree. Thus, a well-flown helcioptor (i.e. good pilot) is actually safer to be in than a badly flown fixed wing. Although “catastrophic failure” of a rotorcraft part may have greater consequences (on average) than in a fixed wing, this can be offset by diligent attention to maintenance. In other words, a well maintained heli is safer than a poorly maintained fixed wing. There is also the manner of flying. Fixed wing flying is generally pretty safe - but crop dusting is a much riskier form of such flying, as is banner towing. As is combat flying, operating off an aircraft carrier, and so forth. For someone operating a heli within the proper envelope 99% of the time a heli probably is just as safe as a fixed wing, all other things being equal. But a lot of helicoptor flying is NOT within that envelope, and any time you step outside it the risks go up. And a LOT of chopper flying is outside that safe zone - construction, military operations, etc. The ability to fly low, hover, and so forth is part of why helicoptors are so damn useful. And fun.
So no, I don’t have a cite, just a feeling, but it’s also a refelction of what rotorcraft friends and acquaintances have told me. If there are risks they can certainly be offset by training, practice, proper maintenance, and good judgement - just like in any other form of flying. On the whole, chopper pilots have also struck me as more attentive to details - because they HAVE to be. You can be pretty out of it and still get a Cessna off the ground and back on again - but I don’t know any clueless rotorcrafters.
Or, to extend the analogy - fixed wing flying is inherently more dangerous than driving a car. But the vast majority of pilots will NOT die in a plane crash but of something else. Why? Because training, skill, and good judgement off set the risks involved. Frankly, I’m much more afraid to drive down the freeway than fly through the skies - because so many auto drivers are… are… well, this isn’t the Pit, let’s just say they’re stupid and clueless and ignorant of physics and leave it at that.
The problem with military aviation - and not just the heli’s - is that you are engaged in activities that, by civilian standards are crazy-dangerous (such as flying at high speed at low altitude at night without lights) AND, in war, you ALSO have to worry about people who are seriously trying to kill you. All of which makes military aviation, on a certain level, inherently more dangerous than civilian aviation. Because the nature of the job demands it. That doesn’t mean the military pilots are stupid or incompetant - on the contrary, they are the best at what they do because only the best are capable of doing what they do. Their skill and training offsets the inherent danger, reducing the total danger, which is really the danger you have to worry about.
Now, go back to fixed-wing vs. helicoptors: military missions for fixed wings include fighters and bombers - who often have the option of flying high, thereby evading obstacles, avoiding some of the shooting, and they have more time and options to deal with malfunctions should they occur. Including having the option (in some birds) of ejecting. Contrast this with helicoptors: they fly low, within range of enemy fire, they’re often operating outside of a “safe enevelope” due to what they’re trying to accomplish, and because of that, if something DOES go wrong there may not be time or options available to do something about that. All of that has driven the technology behind better and more reliable engines and parts for helicoptors, better maintenance schedules, better training, and all the other components of risk reduction.
A Bell JetRanger MAY be the safest single-engine aircraft statistically, but it also costs a heck of a lot more than a fixed-wing single and requires more intensive maintenance. Is that bad? No - of course not. No point in having an aircraft if you don’t operate it safely.
I guess what I’m saying is that something can have an inherent danger yet still be handled safely. Which is why I like to ride in helicoptors with pilots I know and trust - I feel that the situation overall is a reasonable risk.