Diana-2 and overall performance discussion

[tommytoyz[_2_]]

I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
many. Or are there other negative factors?

Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
matter the competition.

Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?

I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
higher aspect ration of wing, etc...

Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

[mike]

On Aug 5, 5:12*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:
> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
> else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
> lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
> many. Or are there other negative factors?
>
> Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
> a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
> but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
> despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
> matter the competition.
>
> Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?
>
> I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
> reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
> the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
> performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
> other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
> will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
> approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
> higher aspect ration of wing, etc...
>
> Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
> performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

Some people do not fit.

It is a beautiful sailplane.

[Mike the Strike]

On Aug 5, 4:12*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:
> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
> else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
> lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
> many. Or are there other negative factors?
>
> Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
> a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
> but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
> despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
> matter the competition.
>
> Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?
>
> I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
> reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
> the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
> performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
> other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
> will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
> approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
> higher aspect ration of wing, etc...
>
> Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
> performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

Diana-1 appeared to me to be a 3/4 scale 20-metre ship. That included
the cockpit. If you're 3/4 the size of a typical adult, you will fit
it perfectly! (I have sat, or should I say, squeezed sideways, into
one). If the cockpit is similarly sized in the Diane-2, the number of
potential buyers will be significantly lower than for a ship with room
for the typical American/European.

Mike

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 5, 4:12*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:
> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
> else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
> lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
> many. Or are there other negative factors?

It is seldom that a contest pilot flying a modern ship says this of
another:

"The Italians came about 1,000’ over me, pair flying beautifully in
their Dianas. I have learned not to even try to follow them. The
Dianas have a huge performance advantage and just walk away from me.
" (John Cochrane, USA team blog).

However you have to get into it before you can fly it. I tried the
Diana (-1) for size and it was hoplessly too small for me. The -2
doesn't look to me to be any bigger.

Have to wonder how much performance it would lose it it had a decent
size cockpit.

Andy

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 5, 4:12*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:

> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
> else in the 15M...

Better than average? Sure, I'll buy that. Way better than average? I'd
want to see that quantified.

> I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick...

That might be. So far I've sent out several kits for converting side-
stick sailplanes to center stick, and nobody has expressed any
interest whatsoever in going the other way.

> or lack of manufacturer reputation.

There might be a little bit of that, too. The majority of competition
pilots count on resale value to step themselves up to the next hot
ship. They might be leery of buying the Next Hot Ship (tm) of the
decade only to find they're out of contention because they can't
unload it for enough to buy the Next Hot Ship of the next decade.

> Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped many.

It might be, but I doubt it. I think that most serious competition
pilots are level-headed enough to let one round of he-said-she-said
slide.

> Or are there other negative factors?

Well, it is a rather pricy ship...

> I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
> will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
> approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
> higher aspect ration of wing, etc...

That is certainly true. But also, less weight = less structural margin
for crashworthiness + less margin for ground handling loads = less
robust and more easily damaged glider (yes, even with high-tech
materials and processes). All of that stuff is great for cutting-edge
pure racing machines. But one of the things that makes soaring
competition work is that used racing machines get sold off to
recreational fliers, usually at prices very near their original cost,
and the proceeds go towards the Next Hot Ship.

When the cutting-edge ships get so finely optimized that they are more
damage-prone and offer little in the way of crash protection, they
will find less interest in the used market than more conventional
gliders. Less interest means lower resale value, and less money in the
hands of the original buyer for the Next Hot Ship. So, yeah, some
independently wealthy folks with high risk tolerance and good health
coverage stand to totally sweep the competition just by throwing money
at it, and some probably already are. But I don't look towards that as
any huge force in the future of soaring competition.

Thanks, Bob K.

[sisu1a]

>I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
> will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
> approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
> higher aspect ration of wing, etc...

I think the Australia fiasco coupled with the 'what everyone else
flies' factor have both worked against this fine ship, although the
sidestick and need for special trailer (male root-spar stubs are perm
attached to fuse; wings have the female recip joint) haven't one it
extra points with most though either. It certainly holds it's own on
the comp circuit though, especially considering numbers, so I'm sure
there are many others out there now looking closer at it though.

If someone loaned Jim Payne their Dianna 2 for a while I bet he could
make it more popular ;)

The Duckhawk will be an even more extreme example of the lighter
materials=less wetted formula by utilizing prepreg carbon, making it
look basically like a 2/3 scale model of an open class ship but with
an extreme envelope(300lb empty/>900lb gross, 200ktVNE & 165ktVA, 50+/
1 L/D, +11/-9g's, 2sec roll rate, 30/1 aspect etc...). Sure looking
forward to seeing more progress on that project, which seems to be
backburner'd by projects like Perlan, Goshawk, TwinHawk, etc, but in
the meantime the Dianna does appear to be the highest performing 15m
ship, although not the most popular -at first.

-Paul

[T8]

On Aug 5, 7:12*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:
> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
> else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
> lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
> many. Or are there other negative factors?
>
> Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
> a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
> but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
> despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
> matter the competition.
>
> Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?
>
> I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
> reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
> the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
> performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
> other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
> will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
> approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
> higher aspect ration of wing, etc...
>
> Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
> performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

Ask any manufacturer how many 15m gliders they've sold since 2005...
and there's your answer.

No one with any sense believed the charges made against BB from down
under. They were simply not credible. I've seen the Di-2. It's an
intriguing, beautiful, well finished machine, it goes well, I'd love
to fly one. I might even fit.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[GK[_2_]]

> the meantime the Dianna does appear to be the highest performing 15m
> ship, although not the most popular -at first.

- Diana 2 is the highest performing 15m period. No other 15meter
glider won so much in such a short period of time. It also contributes
to the world greatest pilots flying it...You could contemplate why
commercially the project was such a disaster, but the facts speak for
themselves. It is worth reading how SH tired benefit outdated Ventus 2
platform in GP series by forcing wing loading limits benefiting
Ventuses... It sadly is dirty world we live in. To refresh the memory:

(Copy/paste from Diana website)

1st place -Sebastian Kawa 3rd FAI World Grand Prix, 2010
Santiago,Chile

3rd place - Sebastian Kawa Chilean National 2009 Santiago, Chile

2nd place-Lukasz Wojcik 15th European Gliding Championship, 2009
Nitra, Slovakia

1st place - Sebastian Kawa Pribina Cup, 2009 Nitra, Slovakia

2nd place - Lukasz Wojcik Pribina Cup, 2009 Nitra, Slovakia

1st place - Thomas Gostner 2009 15m Italian Nationals

2nd place - Stefano Ghiorzo 2009 15m Italian Nationals

1st place - Sebastian Kawa World Air Games 2009 Turin, Italy

1st place -Thomas Gostner Chilean National 2009 Santiago, Chile

2nd place- Janusz Centka 30th World Gliding Championship 2008
Lusse, Germany

1st place - Sebastian Kawa 2nd FAI World Grand Prix 2007 Omarama,
New Zealand

2nd place- Tomasz Krok 1st Polish 15m Class Championship 2007
Leszno, Poland

1stplace - Sebastian Kawa 1st Polish 15m Class Championship

1stplace - Janusz Centka 14th European Gliding Championship 2007
Issoudun, France

2ndplace- Karol Staryszak 14th European Gliding Championship 2007
Issoudun, France

1st place - Janusz Centka 29th World Gliding Championship 2006
Eskilstuna, Sweden

1st place - Janusz Centka 31st Open Class Polish Nationals 2006
Leszno, Poland

1st place - Sebastian Kawa 1st FAI World Grand Prix 2005
Saint-Aubain, France

2nd place - Janusz Centka 13th European Gliding Championship 2005
Rayskala, Finland

1st place - Janusz Centka 30th Open Class Polish Nationals.
2005 Leszno, Poland

[tommytoyz[_2_]]

I also sat in the Diana-1 and it fit me fine, I'm 5"10. I actually
like the side stick, though I haven't flown one. As to the structural
integrity of lighter frames - if it's lighter, it'll take less energy
to push/pull it and otherwise less force will be applied to it. Look
how robust model a/c are. They seem more crash worthy than the real
ones. So I don't readily accept that argument off hand. Lighter might
actually be stronger as it would also have less kinetic energy to move/
absorb and thus need less energy (and incur less structural stress) to
stop/move it. Of course I could be wrong on that, but I think there is
something to it.

I think there is an exponential factor here - the heavier the plane's
structure is, the stronger the wing has to be, making it heavier
still, etc...and true in reverse.

Imagine if a structure like Diana-2 were also made of prepegs? Would
it be lighter still by a significant amount? It already weighs less
than 200Kgs. I think there is a lot of improvement coming, mostly by
making the sailplanes lighter and increasing their aspect ratio for
the same wing span.

I would love to see an 18M Diana-3. Any news on something like that?

[Tim[_2_]]

Having flown agasint the Diana2 in the more than capable hands of
Sebastian Kawa at the first two World GP Finals, I would say it is a
function of all the comments previously made - re-sale, comfort,
handling compromises, etc.

Is it a ship that has the best raw performance in 15m? Absolutely.

It really comes into its own in a 15m Grand Prix race where so long as
the pilot stays in contact with the lead pack, its lights out for
everyone else at the end. Put it in the hands of a superior pilot and
the ship is close to unbeatable. Yet, it is beatable due to the fact
that even the best pilot's decision making can never be 100% perfect
over the course of a long contest. Mistakes will be made, but they
don't hurt you as much :-)

However, many/all of the pilots flying these ships at this years
worlds are either A) on the Polish Team, or B) have a long history of
not being constrained by resale value to get their next super ship.
Take that for what it is worth.

And maybe more importantly in a topic not discussed anywhere else, the
durability of this ship is VERY suspect. Now I do not know how a very
"easy" racer would be long-term on this ship, but the ship I flew
against in the December 2007 GP Final in NZ ("BB") after, I think 2 GP
Finals, 2 Worlds, various other comps since 2005, had significant play
in all the flying surfaces.

What do I mean by "play" Well, I can recall standing with Oscar
Goudriann and Uli Schwenk and watching as the horizontal stab tips
moved fore-aft 1+ inch in our hands. Yikes.

If you can afford to buy this terrific ship, fly the snot out of it to
win, and then either find a willin buyer or junk it, then this is the
15m racer for you. Unfortunately, I've not gotten to that state of
finances yet.

Tim EY

[John Smith]

tommytoyz wrote:
> I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything

If you just look at the overall results, yes. But if you look at the
dayly results, then the Dianas have outflown the other models only on
the one fast day. On the weak days they performed well, but not
unbeatable. Bottom line: Consistency wins, or in other words, don't
underestimate the pilot factor! If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized. So this isn't the killer factor.
The small cockpit will prevent clubs to buy it, but then, the Diana
isn't a club ship anyway.

However, for most pilots I know, money is a major factor. So they
consider the estimated resale value. For a ship from one of the major
German manufactorer, this is more or less a known factor. For the Diana,
it's not. Many pilots just don't want to take that risk.

[tommytoyz[_2_]]

If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
> contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
2.3% against the Diana-2.

> Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
> most people are still reasonably sized.

I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
true.

Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
success in competition soaring.

[Mike[_28_]]

Hey! Are you implying that most American pilots are grossly
overweight? Oversized? Supersized? I have seen few such specimens. The
population as a whole, O.K. but glider pilots? You simply can't be fat
and fit into most gliders. I agree that fitness is an important
element but not just for competition flying. I exercise on a regular
basis and am wiped out after a hot day of rigging, flying, helping
others. etc. I couldn't imagine being out of shape and doing it.
Granted, I am 53 years of age. Now, back to my bacon double
cheeseburger and excellent American beer. "Honey, can you hand me the
remote? This damn LazyBoy is stuck again"

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 5:19*am, tommytoyz > wrote:
> *If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
>
> > contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.
>
> I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
> in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
> been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
> convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
> 2.3% against the Diana-2.
>
> > Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
> > most people are still reasonably sized.
>
> I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
> more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
> to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
> physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
> remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
> there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
> true.
>
> Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
> success in competition soaring.

I suggest you buy one and come out and kick our butts with the
overwhelming performance advantage.
But- don't crash it.
Perspective- I had a long exchange with Gerhard Waibel when he was
doing the ASW-28. I wanted a smaller wing with higher aspect ratio. He
went slightly the other way. His practical explanation was that he
wasn't designing the product only for me as a racer, but that it had
to work for many users and be usable in a club environment in order to
be a viable product.
It could also not compromise the level of safety established.
I have 2 gliders in my shop now where the pilots likely would have
been seriuosly injured if the gliders they flew did not have this
important attribute. This is not possible without some additional
structural weight.
It also must be repairable using techniques available in existing
repair shops. The JS1 guys paid a lot of attention to this important
point.
Owner needs to be confident he will be able to get parts and support.
Buying my next racing glider depends on being able to sell the one I
have now. I doubt there are more than a handful of folks that compete
that aren't in the same situation.
The Dianna 2 is a remarkable machine, but my personal evaluation was,
and is, that it does not measure up to other options in the areas
other than performance.
FWIW
UH

[Darryl Ramm]

On Aug 6, 8:26*am, wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:19*am, tommytoyz > wrote:
>
>
>
> > *If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
>
> > > contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.
>
> > I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
> > in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
> > been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
> > convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
> > 2.3% against the Diana-2.
>
> > > Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
> > > most people are still reasonably sized.
>
> > I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
> > more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
> > to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
> > physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
> > remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
> > there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
> > true.
>
> > Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
> > success in competition soaring.
>
> I suggest you buy one and come out and kick our butts with the
> overwhelming performance advantage.
> But- don't crash it.
> Perspective- I had a long exchange with Gerhard Waibel when he was
> doing the ASW-28. I wanted a smaller wing with higher aspect ratio. He
> went slightly the other way. His practical explanation was that he
> wasn't designing the product only for me as a racer, but that it had
> to work for many users and be usable in a club environment in order to
> be a viable product.
> It could also not compromise the level of safety established.
> I have 2 gliders in my shop now where the pilots likely would have
> been seriuosly injured if the gliders they flew did not have this
> important attribute. This is not possible without some additional
> structural weight.
> It also must be repairable using techniques available in existing
> repair shops. The JS1 guys paid a lot of attention to this important
> point.
> Owner needs to be confident he will be able to get parts and support.
> Buying my next racing glider depends on being able to sell the one I
> have now. I doubt there are more than a handful of folks that compete
> that aren't in the same situation.
> The Dianna 2 is a remarkable machine, but my personal evaluation was,
> and is, that it does not measure up to other options in the areas
> other than performance.
> FWIW
> UH


Everything people have said, but I kind of suspect a large factor is
just very few people are interested in buying a new 15m glider. I
suspect other things are secondary behind that.

The action for new gliders is is in 18m. The incremental cost of say
an ASG-29 over an ASW-27 is likely to be payed back in resale value
even if the purchaser is not a die-hard contest pilot. And the ASG-29
and similar gliders lets people compete in 15m class if they want to.
So the only market for the Diana 2 are people wanting to spend $$$ for
a 15m only glider, willing to put up with the small cockpit with side
stick (I'm 5'9" and average build and spoiled by my ASH-26E, I just
have no interest of squeezing into a tight cockpit for long flights),
take ownership risks with a riskier resale value, much less experience
in the field with maintenance and support etc. I'm surprised they sell
as many as they have.


Darryl

[John Smith]

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> The action for new gliders is is in 18m.

I'm not so sure. Our club has a couple of 15/18m ships. You'd be
surprized how many leisure pilots fly them with the 15m wingtips as soon
as the weather is halfways reasonable.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Aug 6, 10:59*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > The action for new gliders is is in 18m.
>
> I'm not so sure. Our club has a couple of 15/18m ships. You'd be
> surprized how many leisure pilots fly them with the 15m wingtips as soon
> as the weather is halfways reasonable.

By "new action" I meant sales of new gliders. What configuration
people will fly in a 18m/15m configurable ship and whether they would
buy a 15m only ship, a 18m/15m configurable ship or even an 18m only
ship is a different question.

A 18m/15m ship has a configuration advantage over a 15m ship and
therefore likely another reason to purchase (e.g. an ASG-29 or
similar).

Darryl

[kirk.stant]

On Aug 6, 12:28*am, John Smith > wrote:
> tommytoyz wrote:
> > I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
> > the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
>
> If you just look at the overall results, yes. But if you look at the
> dayly results, then the Dianas have outflown the other models only on
> the one fast day. On the weak days they performed well, but not
> unbeatable. Bottom line: Consistency wins, or in other words, don't
> underestimate the pilot factor! If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
> contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.
>
> Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
> most people are still reasonably sized. So this isn't the killer factor.
> The small cockpit will prevent clubs to buy it, but then, the Diana
> isn't a club ship anyway.
>
> However, for most pilots I know, money is a major factor. So they
> consider the estimated resale value. For a ship from one of the major
> German manufactorer, this is more or less a known factor. For the Diana,
> it's not. Many pilots just don't want to take that risk

So, John, how many "oversized" US glider pilots do you know, compared
to, let's say, "well-fed" British or German glider pilots? Since the
US is by far not the biggest market for gliders, and most current
production gliders have ample size cockpits, it would seem logical
that it isn't the size of US pilots that is driving cockpit size, but
that of rich and well fed Euros.

To get back to the subject, Moffat in his original "Winning"
suggested that if one was serious about winning glider races (in span
limited classes), one would build gliders scaled around the obvious
smaller pilot population - women. Seems he was right, as usual.

Kirk
Well fed but comfortable in his LS6

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 5, 6:07*pm, tommytoyz > wrote:

Interesting points, here's a few observations:

> ...if it's lighter, it'll take less energy to push/pull it and
> otherwise less force will be applied to it.

This here is one of the big issues encountered when designing
crashworthiness into airplanes and small, lightweight cars. Since it
takes less energy to deccelerate the lightweight vehicle, it
decelerates more quickly in an impact. The trouble with that is that
the vehicle occupants also get decelerated more quickly, and so
experience greater forces in the impact.

Of course, what has worked well for small cars are active crash
protection systems such as airbags that help distribute the
deceleration forces more evenly over the more vulnerable parts of the
body. There has been some work done to develop similar systems for
small aircraft, but I think we're a long ways away from seeing them in
gliders.

> Look how robust model a/c are. They seem more crash worthy than
> the real ones.

That is certainly my observation as well, but unfortunately I don't
think that it tells us much about the problem of crashworthiness of
person-carrying vehicles. At issue is that many parts of the model are
perfectly happy to resist a hundred G of deceleration or more without
breaking, and those that aren't absorb a huge amount of energy while
they break. The result is a relatively simple repair job and resumed
flight.

With person-carrying vehicles, I think you are limited to about 40g if
you don't want to hurt the occupants badly, and about 60g if you don't
want to kill them outright. What's important to keep in mind (and is
too easy to forget) is that you do not care whether the aircraft gets
broken. Really. Crunch all you want, we'll make more. In fact, you do
want the airplane to break, and break in such a way as to absorb
energy in the crushing and tearing of structure. Absorbing energy
reduces the peak and overall deceleration applied to the occupants,
and it is the occupants you really want to save, not the aircraft.

That is one of the huge issues with crashworthiness and carbon
structures. Carbon has great strength and stiffness by almost any
metric. What it doesn't do very well is absorb energy. As you load it
up towards its breaking point, it stores some energy in elastic
deformation. But then when it reaches its ultimate stress, it breaks
quickly and is is subsequently not available to absorb any more
energy.

Steel structures, on the other hand, load up and then start to
crumple, all the while absorbing huge amounts of energy in the
propagation of plastic deformation. That's why I likes me my Volvos so
much.

Obviously, the lessons of Formula and Indy car chassis design show us
that it is possible and practical to design and build crashworthiness
into carbon structures. However, the lessons seem to be to use lots
and lots of carbon, and include as much crumple volume as practical
and also to add many frangible bits such as suspension mountings to
absorb energy as they tear away. Both of those are somewhat
impractical in sailplanes.

Also of note, many auto racing classes impose a minimum weight that
allows generous margins for crashworthiness structure. We don't have
that sort of thing in soaring contests, and there hasn't been much
call for it, but there may come a day when that changes.

The trend in European sailplane crashworthiness seems to have been to
supplement the primary cockpit structure with structural elements of
very limber fibers of aramid (such as Kevlar) or advanced
polyethylenes such as Spectra or Dyneema. After the carbon gives up
the ghost, these very stretchy fibers absorb a lot of energy as they
load up into their plastic range, stretch out, and tear free of the
resin matrix. The penalty for such a system seems to be unavoidable
extra weight.

> I think there is an exponential factor here - the heavier the plane's
> structure is, the stronger the wing has to be, making it heavier
> still, etc...and true in reverse.

Yes, that is certainly the case, no argument there.

> Imagine if a structure like Diana-2 were also made of prepegs? Would
> it be lighter still by a significant amount?

It could be so, but I rather doubt it is worth the effort. It could
certainly make for a stronger structure. However, much of a
sailplane's structure is bounded by stiffness considerations, not
strength. And I think that prepregs offer only a relatively modest
improvement in stiffness and I think no particular improvement in
energy absorption.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[tommytoyz[_2_]]

I agree US soaring pilots are above average in fitness. However,
having soared in Germany and US though, there is a difference in
average size according to my untrained eye. Nobody who has flown the
bird has said it is uncomfortable, even over long flights. However, I
think the points raised here about the Diana-2 are good ones. Thing is
though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Though I do hear the wings can only be repaired in Poland as nobody is
trained to repair their special structure. For European buyers perhaps
not such a big deal. For US buyers a big pause. Then again, who
wouldn't properly insure their glider?

I hear a lot about the Diana-2 offering little protection to the pilot
in a crash. Maybe it's true, but maybe not. From what I read, the
cockpits of some existing German types can jackknife and then
straighten out in a flash in a crash, injuring or killing the pilot in
the process. But the cockpit still looks in good shape later. The mass
of the glider behind the cockpit is a major factor in this. The
lighter the better. Until we can examine a Diana-2 crash, or have
empirical data on the crashworthiness, it all seems speculation to me
and I don't think many take the inherent lightness into account, which
adds to safety due to lower mass behind your head.

The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
it fleet wide? Good discussion. I hope the Duckhawk is a similar
breakthrough in performance. That would be something!

[[email protected]]

Thing is
> though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
> evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.

> The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
> factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
> it fleet wide?

D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
found no problem with that.

In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

[cerealjoe]

;736766']I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
many. Or are there other negative factors?

Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
matter the competition.

Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?

I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
higher aspect ration of wing, etc...

Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

Yes I agree with you. It is really nice to discuss it with photos. I appreciate it if there is an image of that Diana-2. :D

[tommytoyz[_2_]]

> The trend in European sailplane crashworthiness seems to have been to
> supplement the primary cockpit structure with structural elements of
> very limber fibers of aramid (such as Kevlar) or advanced
> polyethylenes such as Spectra or Dyneema. After the carbon gives up
> the ghost, these very stretchy fibers absorb a lot of energy as they
> load up into their plastic range, stretch out, and tear free of the
> resin matrix. The penalty for such a system seems to be unavoidable
> extra weight.


Thanks Bob. Good points.

[HZ]

On Aug 6, 11:33*pm, wrote:
> Thing is
>
> > though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
> > evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.
>
> Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
> it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.
>
> > The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
> > factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
> > it fleet wide?
>
> D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
> found no problem with that.
>
> In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
> Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
> same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.
>
> Jacek
> Pasco, WA


Diana 2 was tested by two test pilots, past PZL-SZD test pilots.
Testing was done in ideal conditions. Pilots who flown/own Diana 2
were few times in trouble during the flight when they lost control.
Kawa lost control on RP during final glide and Ghostner was in spiral
during the flight without chance to correct turning. At last he used
highest forces but was ready to jump from it away. At last Kawa has
trouble with blocked airbrakes in Chille and was lucky that it was
before start line near arifield.

About Diana 2 in desing and production faults know Polish Aviation
Institute, Europan EASA and Australian CASA. It is reason why Diana 2
is without Certificate, flying on Polish registration only (two are in
USA as Experimental Category). It is reason why the life time is
limited to 12000 hours.

So little correction not only for Jacek Kobiesa who is originaly
Polish and proud of Polish products ;)


Cheers, Hana

[HZ]

On Aug 6, 11:33*pm, wrote:
> Thing is
>
> > though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
> > evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.
>
> Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
> it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.
>
> > The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
> > factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
> > it fleet wide?
>
> D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
> found no problem with that.
>
> In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
> Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
> same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.
>
> Jacek
> Pasco, WA

Diana 2 was tested by two test pilots, past PZL-SZD test pilots.
Testing was done in ideal conditions. Pilots who flown/own Diana 2
were few times in trouble during the flight when they lost control.
Kawa lost control on RP during final glide and Ghostner was in spiral
during the flight without chance to correct turning. At last he used
highest forces but was ready to jump from it away. At last Kawa has
trouble with blocked airbrakes in Chille and was lucky that it was
before start line near arifield.

About Diana 2 in desing and production faults know Polish Aviation
Institute, Europan EASA and Australian CASA. It is reason why Diana 2
is without Certificate, flying on Polish registration only (two are in
USA as Experimental Category). It is reason why Diana 2 life time is
limited to 1.200 hours.

So little correction not only for Jacek Kobiesa who is originaly
Polish and proud of Polish products ;)

Cheers, Hana

[Martin[_5_]]

Could I please get more details on this life limit? Who imposes it?
And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
it. It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!

Thanks

> It is reason why Diana 2 life time is
> limited to 1.200 hours.
> Cheers, Hana

[HZ]

On Aug 10, 2:29*am, Martin > wrote:
> Could I please get more details on this life limit? *Who imposes it?
> And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
> Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
> it. *It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!
>
> Thanks

Hi Martin

If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot. It was funny when I was handover
glider to Beres back for repair (which he didn't fulfill but found a
buyer instead of it) the Polish Aviation Authority ULC inspector
(young arrogant boy, who answered me to question why he didn't signed
protocol before first test flight that he signed an internal protocol
which have producer) he told me that all Diana’s are prototype and all
Diana’s are experimental so if anything happen it is on pilot and not
on producer's or his responsibility.

You can read it also in the document below but what is wrong that you
obtain glider and you are not informed about inspection. It means, If
it exist and the ULC inspector is agree it can do first flight if he
simply signed other document. But it was without signature. It looks
the test pilot flown it without signature of ULC official technical.

See here other document where is signature of CIAB Engineer Beres
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/Diana2Documentation#5399549199072766050

It is official document which needs all test pilots before first
flight on a glider which was produced. You can read there the limit
1200 hours which means, after it it have to came back to producer who
can prolong the time life according EASA Certificate if it exist. If
not, you can't prolong life time..

You can read therethat the glider was build according JAR-22 rules but
in Australia CASA Engineer found a lot of differences of it.

Here is short report which prepared Australian engineer.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/Diana2Documentation#5399546666089458690
The full version is with approx. 50 in design and in production
faults, which didn't correspond with EASA/JAR-22 rules.

The so called “valid technical documentation” was also funny. It
didn't correspond with this serial number at all. To this point
producer told me that it is a general documentation and if he wrote on
the top of it that it is for the serial number 003 it is not necessary
to put there every time different details for different serial
numbers, because it is serial production and all gliders are
identical.

To EASA Certificate. Producer promised that it will be before
handover, after it that it will be before it came to Australia, after
it... Only promises.

There was trouble that we were in rush to send glider for expedition
to Australia. Originally we ordered in October 2005 second production
number with delivery time 16. March 2006. When we came visit him from
Australia we were surprised. There was a glider ready to go but for
other customer. He told us that our one will be s/n 003 and it will be
ready at end of May. At last we were there some time in August and
glider was just ready so we offered container. It was at end of August
when it was again clear that the delivery time is unknown. Timing was
not fulfill again and we has to move container back on truck and wait
if he will fulfill another promise for next week. He told that he is
in trouble with test flight, at first test pilot has holiday and as
second the ULC inspector.... (funny should be opposite). Not sure if
he was not waiting also for serial number 000 prototype when it came
from contest flying – means “BB” or for photographer, because one week
before ended September he organized test flights with promotional
action. The serial number did 2 flights, one 15 minutes and second 47
during which was flying together with factory serial number 000 and
they took promotional pictures for Diana 2 calendar.. Payment of this
flights were on customer/our account.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/IngoRennerAndDiana2SZD562VHVHZSN3#5237737910057801 714

Container was offered again before the trip but when we came back in
our country with glider but we found message that they are sorry but
they have not capacity on ship in this moment. So was necessary wait
few days for this reason. Handover was done in thrust to producer, who
was my long therm friend. So just basic thinks with his words that it
is best piece which he produced till yet... (may be some differences
between pieces anywhere? ;) ) But he didn't ask me to signed a
document as well ;)

How it continue was written. Promises only and at last he was deaf or
mystifying or lying.

So don't be awaiting that producer's web site will promote something
which is about real situation.. It was this why I started to be not
happy with promotion of Jacek Kobiesa here. What he wrote looks as
that Diana 2 having EASA Certificate and is without troubles. We
“meet” each other in past on forums as well.

Greetings, Hana


PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
English is not best, Polish a bit better ;) and I am understanding the
meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
registration? ;) HZ

[HZ]

On Aug 10, 2:29*am, Martin > wrote:
> Could I please get more details on this life limit? *Who imposes it?
> And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
> Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
> it. *It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!
>
> Thanks
>
Hi Martin

If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot. It was funny when I was handover
glider to Beres back for repair (which he didn't fulfill but found a
buyer instead of it) the Polish Aviation Authority ULC inspector
(young arrogant boy, who answered me to question why he didn't signed
protocol before first test flight that he signed an internal protocol
which have producer) he told me that all Diana’s are prototype and all
Diana’s are experimental so if anything happen it is on pilot and not
on producer's or his responsibility.

You can read it also in the document below but what is wrong that you
obtain glider and you are not informed about inspection. It means, If
it exist and the ULC inspector is agree it can do first flight if he
simply signed other document. But it was without signature. It looks
the test pilot flown it without signature of ULC official technical.

See here other document where is signature of CIAB Engineer Beres
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/Diana2Documentation#5399549199072766050

It is official document which needs all test pilots before first
flight on a glider which was produced. You can read there the limit
1200 hours which means, after it it have to came back to producer who
can prolong the time life according EASA Certificate if it exist. If
not, you can't prolong life time..

You can read therethat the glider was build according JAR-22 rules but
in Australia CASA Engineer found a lot of differences of it.

Here is short report which prepared Australian engineer.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/Diana2Documentation#5399546666089458690
The full version is with approx. 50 in design and in production
faults, which didn't correspond with EASA/JAR-22 rules.

The so called “valid technical documentation” was also funny. It
didn't correspond with this serial number at all. To this point
producer told me that it is a general documentation and if he wrote on
the top of it that it is for the serial number 003 it is not necessary
to put there every time different details for different serial
numbers, because it is serial production and all gliders are
identical.

To EASA Certificate. Producer promised that it will be before
handover, after it that it will be before it came to Australia, after
it... Only promises.

There was trouble that we were in rush to send glider for expedition
to Australia. Originally we ordered in October 2005 second production
number with delivery time 16. March 2006. When we came visit him from
Australia we were surprised. There was a glider ready to go but for
other customer. He told us that our one will be s/n 003 and it will be
ready at end of May. At last we were there some time in August and
glider was just ready so we offered container. It was at end of August
when it was again clear that the delivery time is unknown. Timing was
not fulfill again and we has to move container back on truck and wait
if he will fulfill another promise for next week. He told that he is
in trouble with test flight, at first test pilot has holiday and as
second the ULC inspector.... (funny should be opposite). Not sure if
he was not waiting also for serial number 000 prototype when it came
from contest flying – means “BB” or for photographer, because one week
before ended September he organized test flights with promotional
action. The serial number did 2 flights, one 15 minutes and second 47
during which was flying together with factory serial number 000 and
they took promotional pictures for Diana 2 calendar.. Payment of this
flights were on customer/our account.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.szd56.2.vh.vhz/IngoRennerAndDiana2SZD562VHVHZSN3#5237737910057801 714

Container was offered again before the trip but when we came back in
our country with glider but we found message that they are sorry but
they have not capacity on ship in this moment. So was necessary wait
few days for this reason. Handover was done in thrust to producer, who
was my long therm friend. So just basic thinks with his words that it
is best piece which he produced till yet... (may be some differences
between pieces anywhere? ;) ) But he didn't ask me to signed a
document as well ;)

How it continue was written. Promises only and at last he was deaf or
mystifying or lying.

So don't be awaiting that producer's web site will promote something
which is about real situation.. It was this why I started to be not
happy with promotion of Jacek Kobiesa here. What he wrote looks as
that Diana 2 having EASA Certificate and is without troubles. We
“meet” each other in past on forums as well.

Greetings, Hana


PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
English is not best, Polish a bit better ;) and I am understanding the
meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
registration? ;) HZ

[Wayne Paul]

Just a small correction. The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." There is a difference.

To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)

The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"HZ" > wrote in message ...
On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin > wrote:
If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot.

[HZ]

On Aug 10, 3:53*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> Just a small correction. *The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." *There is a difference. *
>
> To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. *Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. *However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)
>
> The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. *I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
>
> "HZ" > wrote in ...
>
> On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin > wrote:
> If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
> think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
> flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
> the responsibility is on the pilot.

Thank you for correction. They informed me as this in factory..

Please, how it is with this "Racin/Exhibition" Category? Who is
responsible for glider? Also and "Operator" or only pilot, means
needn't a operator.

Thx, Hana

[Wayne Paul]

HZ,

Being an owner of an "Experimental - Homebuilt" I'm not totally competent with the exact differences; however, here are a few things I do know.

In the "Homebuilt" category, if you built it, you are granted the authority to perform the annual inspections. If you are a subsequent owner the yearly condition inspection must be performed by a FAA licensed airframe mechanic.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" are similar in the requirement to have an airframe mechanic perform the yearly condition inspection. A airframe mechanic must also verify that the aircraft in compliance with all factory safety bulletins.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" classification is quite common in the USA. Our field has two ASW-27A, a PIK-20 (Serial number 2) with this type of airworthiness certificate. In the past our field has been home to several other "Racing/Exhibition" sailplanes including a ASW-20A and Diana.




"HZ" > wrote in message ...
On Aug 10, 3:53 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> Just a small correction. The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." There is a difference.
>
> To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)
>
> The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
>
> "HZ" > wrote in ...
>
> On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin > wrote:
> If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
> think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
> flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
> the responsibility is on the pilot.

Thank you for correction. They informed me as this in factory..

Please, how it is with this "Racin/Exhibition" Category? Who is
responsible for glider? Also and "Operator" or only pilot, means
needn't a operator.

Thx, Hana

[Martin[_5_]]

Well, your English is much, much better than my Polish, so I'm not
complaining! Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.

Martin

On Aug 10, 9:10*am, HZ > wrote:

<snip>


>
> PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
> best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
> English is not best, Polish a bit better ;) and I am understanding the
> meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
> documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
> Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
> question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
> registration? ;) *HZ

[HZ]

On Aug 13, 1:11*am, Martin > wrote:
> Well, your English is much, much better than my Polish, so I'm not
> complaining! *Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.
>
> Martin
>
> On Aug 10, 9:10*am, HZ > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
> > best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
> > English is not best, Polish a bit better ;) and I am understanding the
> > meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
> > documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
> > Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
> > question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
> > registration? ;) *HZ

Be welcome Martin. Have here nearly ready some views for Paul.

I think Jacek Kobiesa likes only to say that his English is better
thaty my one. I am originaly Czech ;) and they don't like when I am
writing in English because not only Polish can read it ;)

Still have messages in my mail box from Polish, who are "normal" means
healty ;) so when somebody is giving me offence I am not worry because
of it :)

Hana

[HZ]

Hello Paul.

I found some documentation and details on web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_aircraft
page 9

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/eu_prod.pdf
page 22

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Org_Appro/easa_apo.pdf
page 72

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/GA_Sailplanes_and_Powered_Sailplanes_EUR.pdf
page 1


Here is the Diana 1 EASA Certificate.
http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircrafts/EASA-TCDS-A.451_SZD--56_Diana-01-28032007.pdf


Talk about this Diana 2 VH-VHZ s/n 3 case in 2008 year...
http://www.szybowce.com/news/article.php?id=28357&group=ava.szybowce

In Polish on the top is written answer to somebody on Gorpol's forum
via Gorpol, who is friend of Beres.. He explained the Diana 2 case by
way, that faults did Australian engineer. Here what they found at
Bielsko aftere handover. Hope you are a bit experienced technical and
everyone can imagine what about it was...

http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/soaring/8519/Shock-Hana-s-Diana-2-in-service

Any question to this welcome ;)

I found this as well http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.soaring/2007-06/msg00313.html

The talk was originally about Diana 2 and difference between position
of wings was in case Diana 2 s/n 000 factory prototype “BB” (which
gave me to fly Beres with 15 kg of ballast under seat) in 2005 and
others production numbers as my s/n 003.

It means not confirmation between wing position of Diana 1 and Diana 2
wings. Of course, they are different... but the some fuselage.

Thanks to all of you for your interest and internal posting.

Cheers, Hana

Wayne Paul wrote:
> HZ,
>
> Being an owner of an "Experimental - Homebuilt" I'm not totally competent with the exact differences; however, here are a few things I do know.
>
> In the "Homebuilt" category, if you built it, you are granted the authority to perform the annual inspections. If you are a subsequent owner the yearly condition inspection must be performed by a FAA licensed airframe mechanic.
>
> The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" are similar in the requirement to have an airframe mechanic perform the yearly condition inspection. A airframe mechanic must also verify that the aircraft in compliance with all factory safety bulletins.
>
> The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" classification is quite common in the USA. Our field has two ASW-27A, a PIK-20 (Serial number 2) with this type of airworthiness certificate. In the past our field has been home to several other "Racing/Exhibition" sailplanes including a ASW-20A and Diana.
>
>
>
>
> "HZ" > wrote in message ...
> On Aug 10, 3:53 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> > Just a small correction. The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." There is a difference.
> >
> > To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)
> >
> > The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.
> >
> > Wayne
> > HP-14 "6F"http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
> >
> > "HZ" > wrote in ...
> >
> > On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin > wrote:
> > If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
> > think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
> > flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
> > the responsibility is on the pilot.
>
> Thank you for correction. They informed me as this in factory..
>
> Please, how it is with this "Racin/Exhibition" Category? Who is
> responsible for glider? Also and "Operator" or only pilot, means
> needn't a operator.
>
> Thx, Hana