<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>I flew my Integral 'stock' for the first 2 years, then last year, I added
adjusters to follow thru with Bryan's trimming method. In stock form, I
had the CG at about 175mm, any further back, the plane was 'unsettled' for my
taste, would drop a wing in corners or pitch unexpectly in turbulence.
Also, in stock form, it had zero/zero wing/stab incidence. With the
stock downthrust, I had to mix in rudder to elev (4-5%) for knife
edge , rudder to aileron (4%) since the plane is a little shy on dihedral,
left rudder at low throttle (2%) for downlines and down elev at low
throttle for downlines.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After going thru Bryan's trimming method, I eliminated the rudder to
elev mix for knife edge and some of the down elev at low throttle for
downlines. I added about .3 degrees positive incidence in the wing and I
reduced the downthrust by about 33%, left rudder still required for
downlines, my last 3 electric planes have required that mix (Brio, Genesis,
Integral). Most of the Integrals here in NorCal are using that mix
also. My CG is even more forward now, around 155-160mm with this
setup. No differential in the ailerons. Plane is very solid, spins
and snaps stop almost instantly. Very solid elev response and rolls very
axially.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Warped wing, 2 of the 3 Integrals I have built came from the factory
with the right wing twisted about .5-.75 degrees. My guess is they have
multiple molds and one or more are twisted. It seems about 50-50 whether
you get straight or twisted right wing. The good news is, with adjusters,
you can adjust the wings so the ailerons fly with no trim and stalls are
very predictable. Would still prefer to have straight wings, but my
original wasn't and I am still flying it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All in all, the Integral is the best plane I have ever owned. I have
a white one in the shipping box in my workshop, next in project in line.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/6/2010 1:00:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jim.woodward@baesystems.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks
Bryan,<BR><BR>This plane was so "mixed" up (pun intended) I'll offer this
advice to the owner and ask for a report back after this weekend.
Jim<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: shinden1@cox.net
[mailto:shinden1@cox.net] <BR>Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:50 PM<BR>To:
General pattern discussion<BR>Cc: Woodward, Jim R (US SSA)<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] C'ARF Integral - Mixing secret?<BR><BR>Jim ,<BR>The
airplane "Is" set up with the c/g too far back, that`s all there is to it.
<BR>I`ve fixed way to many of these ,,for the same problem.<BR>Add inc, to the
main wing, move the c/g forward to 25% mac .<BR>All these mixes will disappear
up elevator with rudder, rudder low throttle , wing dips on hard pull outs ect
airplane requiring aileron differential ECT.<BR>Trust me, I fix um all the
time.:)<BR><BR>You would be surprised to know how far back you can fly the cg
and it seem ok !<BR><BR>---- "Woodward wrote: <BR>> The other test was to
simply fly a straight line and cut the power - plane yawed off something
fierce. Maybe the fuselage is warped. Rudder cables were
snug. Control surfaces were indexed close enough. Wings and stabs
were nice and tight against the fuselage. Positive loop tracking, and
square loop tracking, with constant throttle position, was very good.
Outside loop tracking needed a SLIGHT amount of rudder (certainly no
biggy). It was the speed/throttle dependant. Rudder trimmed for
uplines, looked very normal and straight down the line.<BR>>
Thanks,<BR>> Jim<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
CHV69@aol.com<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:04 PM<BR>> To:
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] C'ARF
Integral - Mixing secret?<BR>> <BR>> In a message dated 7/6/2010 2:59:47
P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Andrew.Jesky@soaringsoftware.com writes:<BR>>
I'm with Jason on this, I have had 3 of these and they havnt had but 2 percent
for the downline. Not to say that something couldn't have changed<BR>> In
manufacturing but all of my integrals are the same.<BR>> Downline yes I add
about 2% down elevator at throttle back so it won't pull to the
canopy.<BR>> <BR>> Mine also was off the first cargo container over
here. So I wouldn't doubt there were some bugs that needed fixing after the
first boat load.<BR>> <BR>> Off my soapbox before the flames
start.<BR>> <BR>>
Carl<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>