Posted for "Bryan J. Burr" <bjburr@mwheli.com>:

 Well said Mike.  I have been travelling a lot and have followed this
 discussion but have not been able to offer my input.  I have done
 several stalls.  Clean, dirty, power on, power off.  All at high
 altitude.  Never have I had anything but a very gentle break preceded by
 a slight buffet.  I have had very small loss of altitude and easy
 recovery.  I have practiced landings at 85 kts, 80 kts, 75 kts, 70 kts.
 No flaps, 1/2 flaps, full flaps.  For me, my ES, does best with 82 kts
 over the fence and 75 kts at flare, Full Flaps.  Touch down is almost
 unnoticable at 68-65 kts.  My stall speed in this configuration is 58
 kts.
 
 On takeoff I rotate at 72 kts.  Accelerate to 90 kts climb 200 ft
 accelerate to 140 kts and continue my climb at 900 fpm to altitude.
 
 I have wings that had 2.0 plus degrees difference in incidence. We must
 remember that the tools we have to measure this are crude at best.
 Basically a blueprint that is transferred to a template (1/2" plywood)
 that is cut with a jig saw. After placing the template on the wing at
 the appropriate BL and comparing the two wings.  The airplane is leveled
 using any variety of means.  Mine was using a transit.  Who's to say
 what the real difference is other than that they are different.  My
 airplane rolled to the right at 10/sec.  After installing the banana
 bracket eccentrics (I raised the right wing incidence and lowered the
 left wing incidence) the roll was eliminated.
 
 I feel Tim Ong did a great job in supporting this problem.
 
 As a note, at the same time that I was having this problem Mark Manke
 had just solved the identical problem on a IV P (Turbine I think).  He
 used the eccentric solution as well.
 
 Bryan Burr
 N132BB
 Super ES