SZD 56-2 DIANA

[[email protected]]

There you find some nice shots of new polish glider .

http://www.gorpol.pl/lotnictwo/diana/3/diana2-2.html
http://www.gorpol.pl/lotnictwo/diana/2/diana2.html
and some info about her http://www.dianasailplanes.com/szd55.html

[Tom]

I see your ass is not so fat as to fit into this POS.

[\\\\\\\\_Jack_//\\\\]

IT WILL BE THE BEST GLIDER !! Good, because from Poland ;) SHE IS DEVINE and
always will be! ;)

Jacek

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 11:30 21 January 2005, \\\\\\\\_Jack_//\\\\ wrote:
>IT WILL BE THE BEST GLIDER !! Good, because from Poland
>;) SHE IS DEVINE and
>always will be! ;)
>
>Jacek
>
>
>

With superbly reasoned arguments like this how can
it possibly fail? Factor in abuse as a sales tactic
and you're onto a winner. Maybe you'll even beat the
absolutely stunning sales figures of the Diana 1, and
sell seven.

PS. It is spelled DIVINE.

[GK]

> With superbly reasoned arguments like this how can
> it possibly fail? Factor in abuse as a sales tactic
> and you're onto a winner. Maybe you'll even beat the
> absolutely stunning sales figures of the Diana 1, and
> sell seven.
>
> PS. It is spelled DIVINE.

- Andrew, as we say in Poland: "One winter day does not make a
Winter". Do not pay any attention to a 15 year old intellect with a
keyboard after all we more of them around here.

Cheers

Gregg

[[email protected]]

For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.

[Pete Reinhart]

Well,
Dang! They've sold five or six Eta's, haven't they?
Just goes to prove, _somebody_ will buy one based on performance alone.
It seems that even the mainstream builders are having a sales slump due to
cost and a general climate of economic decline. Of course, some folks dont't
have to think at all about what their toys cost. Only sometimes wish it were
me.
Cheers!
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
> you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
> that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
> sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
> sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
> anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
> the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
> analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
> order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.
>

[Paul M. Cordell]

Pete Reinhart wrote:
> Well,
> Dang! They've sold five or six Eta's, haven't they?
> Just goes to prove, _somebody_ will buy one based on performance alone.
> It seems that even the mainstream builders are having a sales slump due to
> cost and a general climate of economic decline. Of course, some folks dont't
> have to think at all about what their toys cost. Only sometimes wish it were
> me.
> Cheers!
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
>>you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
>>that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
>>sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
>>sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
>>anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
>>the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
>>analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
>>order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.
>>
>
>
>
As SIZE is a critical issue here, What are the "exact" dimensions of
the cockpit. Seat pan at it's narrowest and Widest? Seat back to
Rudder pedals at furthest extension. Cockpit Shoulder width? Is the
Diana 2 cockpit different from the original SZD-56?

[Charles Yeates]

>> It seems that even the mainstream builders are having a sales slump
>> due to cost and a general climate of economic decline.

You mean the slumping US $, eh?

[Udo Rumpf]

> As SIZE is a critical issue here, What are the "exact" dimensions of the
> cockpit. Seat pan at it's narrowest and Widest? Seat back to Rudder
> pedals at furthest extension. Cockpit Shoulder width? Is the Diana 2
> cockpit different from the original SZD-56?



The height is 31" when measured at an angle of 25 degree.
The ASW 24 is around 34"
HP 18 is 27"
my modified HP18's are 33"

If you are a person with no neck or back problem and if all the other
things are ergonomically sensible you should be able to fly for 5 plus
hours.
I do not know what the cumulative effect would be, to be relatively steeply
reclined and the neck slightly extended, after 12 days in a world contest.

There is one other consideration. In both, the ASW24&27
fuselage nose is drooped relative to the centre line for aerodynamic reasons
but will aid in achieving a better view and a more upright position.
The Diana does not have that feature or if it does, it is hardly noticeable.
I noticed in the comments that the pilot alluded to the fact he has no
obstruction of the view any more. That would indicate the angle at which
the wing is set may have changed to make this possible.

Regards
Udo

[BTIZ]

only 1200 hours??
and I was thinking about getting one... not at that price..
$55K used, 1000 hours (already has 200), that's $55 an hour being used up
plus costs

BT

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
> you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
> that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
> sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
> sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
> anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
> the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
> analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
> order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.
>

[Waduino]

Different plane of course, but just for comparison the ASK-21 is now
approved for 18,000 hours. That's right. 15 times longer. Big difference.
Wad.


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:pihId.4917$ry.3026@fed1read05...
> only 1200 hours??
> and I was thinking about getting one... not at that price..
> $55K used, 1000 hours (already has 200), that's $55 an hour being used up
> plus costs
>
> BT
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
>> you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
>> that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
>> sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
>> sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
>> anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
>> the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
>> analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
>> order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.
>>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

But it didn't start with this life limit, it's an extension.

When composite construction methods were first introduced, the design
standards were made to an ultimate life of 18000 hours, given so many
unknown about how composite gliders would hold together or degrade due to UV
exposure. Service life was calculated to be 1/6 of this, or 3000 hours,
though there were variations on this. Service life extensions were then
granted following inspection schedules. Same applies to some metal gliders
as well. Most, if not all gliders, have had life extensions. Anyone know
of a composite airframe design that has been grounded permanently due to
reaching ultimate life limits in the absence of balsa rot or something else?
Metal fittings may need periodic replacement.

When a glider has new innovations in construction, lay-up, and design,
having a conservative initial service life may just be reflection of policy.
Several Polish designs have more conservative initial service lives than the
German gliders, but I don't know if that's driven by a design philosophy, a
national policy, or something else. They also seem to continue in service
following reaching the initial service limits.

Frank Whiteley

"Waduino" > wrote in message
...
> Different plane of course, but just for comparison the ASK-21 is now
> approved for 18,000 hours. That's right. 15 times longer. Big difference.
> Wad.
>
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:pihId.4917$ry.3026@fed1read05...
> > only 1200 hours??
> > and I was thinking about getting one... not at that price..
> > $55K used, 1000 hours (already has 200), that's $55 an hour being used
up
> > plus costs
> >
> > BT
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> For crying out loud, it is hard to argue with a Brit. But in this case
> >> you have a valid point and I applaud your comments. I don't understand
> >> that the manufacturers of Diana don't see the facts. Only few gliders
> >> sold, limited lifespan of 1200 hours, limited support, etc. The
> >> sailplane obviously has excellent performance. I don't think that
> >> anybody is questioning that. I wish the manufacturer and designer of
> >> the sailplane best of luck, but I also think they need to hire a market
> >> analyst and good marketing company, familiar with global market in
> >> order to succeed. The performance numbers will not do the sales alone.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom]

They will have to sell it cheap enough so you can throw it away after
1200 hours. They will also have to find somebody in the US qualified to
repair it. Of course, us fat ass Americans can't fit into it anyhow, so
why bother?.

[GK]

They will have to sell it cheap enough so you can throw it away after
> 1200 hours.

- First of all, the very first prototype had over 1400 hours of flight
time,the one that Hana Zejdova flown in Australia had over 2000 hours
of flight time. Second, who is THEY? Use names if you even have a
slightest idea who stands behind that plane and what kind of experience
in glider designing THEY have. And lastly dont comment something you
have VERY limited knowledge about.

They will also have to find somebody in the US qualified to
repair it. Of course, us fat ass Americans can't fit into it anyhow, so
why bother?.

Dont bother, big deal!

[Bob K.]

Earlier, GK wrote:

> ...And lastly dont comment something you
> have VERY limited knowledge about.
But isn't that what usenet was made for?

[Tom]

I'll comment about anything I damn well want to comment about. If you
don't like that I know of a VERY DARK place that you can shove it!

Ask Dick Johnson about Diana I's airfoil integrity. In a word, it
SUCKS!

If anyone wants to buy a glider with those problems and no U.S.
certified repair station, then let the BUYER BEWARE!!!

[GK]

Tom wrote:
> I'll comment about anything I damn well want to comment about. If you
> don't like that I know of a VERY DARK place that you can shove it!
>
> Ask Dick Johnson about Diana I's airfoil integrity. In a word, it
> SUCKS!
>
> If anyone wants to buy a glider with those problems and no U.S.
> certified repair station, then let the BUYER BEWARE!!!

- Let's listen what have you heard about airfoil integrity, it's
getting fascinating! I know words like VERY DARK place, sucks, ****
etc. are very effective in certain circles, but please be more
descriptive.