Debacle: Flight test of Diana-2

[naresh]

Hi All,

Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be part of the
potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It was a humiliating
fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com Please feel free
to browse.

In a few days, it will also contain a technical part with photographs
and a video.

Best regards,
Naresh

[[email protected]]

Sad. But let's hear the other side of the story...

Bartek

[Shawn]

naresh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be part of the
> potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It was a humiliating
> fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com Please feel free
> to browse.
>
> In a few days, it will also contain a technical part with photographs
> and a video.

Perhaps you said or did something that you weren't aware of that really
****ed them off. Make a joke about the ugly color of the winch (the
color his wife picked out)? Say "Hi" to or chat with the guy at the
field he's been feuding with for 20 years? Have a glass of beer or wine
at lunch?

Shawn

[@ neshe dot com]

Shawn wrote:

> naresh wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be part of the
>> potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It was a humiliating
>> fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com Please feel
>> free to browse.
>>
>> In a few days, it will also contain a technical part with photographs
>> and a video.
>
>
> Perhaps you said or did something that you weren't aware of that really
> ****ed them off. Make a joke about the ugly color of the winch (the
> color his wife picked out)? Say "Hi" to or chat with the guy at the
> field he's been feuding with for 20 years? Have a glass of beer or wine
> at lunch?
>
> Shawn

Shawn,

Its quite unlikely, but possible. Never-the-less, if someone ****ed me
off, I'd try to "communicate" and reason out with the person. I've been
thinking, but nothing comes to mind. And, nope, I didn't have a drop of
alcohol.

Anyway, for those who are interested in a technical analysis of the
glider, I'll have it up during the weekend at the same site.

Naresh

[GK]

>
> Its quite unlikely, but possible. Never-the-less, if someone ****ed me
> off, I'd try to "communicate" and reason out with the person. I've been
> thinking, but nothing comes to mind. And, nope, I didn't have a drop of
> alcohol.
>
> Anyway, for those who are interested in a technical analysis of the
> glider, I'll have it up during the weekend at the same site.
>
> Naresh

- I'm afraid we can't get an unbiased technical analysis from you,
one you being ****ed of (in your own words), second they haven't let
you fly one. But thank you for bringing up details of "demo
flying".

[Stanford Korwin]

At 17:00 12 October 2005, Naresh wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be
>part of the
>potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It
>was a humiliating
>fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com
>Please feel free
>to browse.
>
>In a few days, it will also contain a technical part
>with photographs
>and a video.
>
>Best regards,
>Naresh
>

Mr. Beres has responded (in Polish) to questions on
the Polish gliding website regarding Mr. Naresh's complaint.

As I interpret his comments, he did not consider Mr.
Naresh to be sufficiently experienced on high performance
sailplanes to undertake a trial flight on the Diana
safely - particularly as Mr. Naresh was not familiar
with the site and in, apparently, not ideal meteorological
conditions.

A statement from the organiser of these trial flights
(in Germany and Switzerland) is promised today.
If it is in English, I will supply the website address.
If in Polish, I will summarise his comments.

Unless I am requested not to do so.

sta13.

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

GK wrote:
>>Its quite unlikely, but possible. Never-the-less, if someone ****ed me
>>off, I'd try to "communicate" and reason out with the person. I've been
>>thinking, but nothing comes to mind. And, nope, I didn't have a drop of
>>alcohol.
>>
>>Anyway, for those who are interested in a technical analysis of the
>>glider, I'll have it up during the weekend at the same site.
>>
>>Naresh
>
>
> - I'm afraid we can't get an unbiased technical analysis from you,
> one you being ****ed of (in your own words), second they haven't let
> you fly one. But thank you for bringing up details of "demo
> flying".
>

GK, I wonder what you mean by saying "(in your own words)". I'm writing
a part of the technical analysis, you are welcome to go through it or
ignore it. Whether my assessment is biased or not, depends on a lot of
factors. The so called "my bias" can only be estabilished once you read
it. Nobody's forcing you to look at anything, that wouldn't work would
it ;-) Please don't be a representative of the entire group.

[[email protected]]

Naresh,

Would you please share with us:
- What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
- Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
- Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.

You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
Mark

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Stanford Korwin wrote:

> At 17:00 12 October 2005, Naresh wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be
>>part of the
>>potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It
>>was a humiliating
>>fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com
>>Please feel free
>>to browse.
>>
>>In a few days, it will also contain a technical part
>>with photographs
>>and a video.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Naresh
>>
>
>
> Mr. Beres has responded (in Polish) to questions on
> the Polish gliding website regarding Mr. Naresh's complaint.
>
> As I interpret his comments, he did not consider Mr.
> Naresh to be sufficiently experienced on high performance
> sailplanes to undertake a trial flight on the Diana
> safely - particularly as Mr. Naresh was not familiar
> with the site and in, apparently, not ideal meteorological
> conditions.
>
> A statement from the organiser of these trial flights
> (in Germany and Switzerland) is promised today.
> If it is in English, I will supply the website address.
> If in Polish, I will summarise his comments.
>
> Unless I am requested not to do so.
>
> sta13.
>
>
>
>
Sta13,

1. As far as the experience goes, it is not accurate, I have the emails
(all the collection of them), and I have significantly more experience
than what was requested.
2. They did not even wait for the check ride instructor to brief them.
3. The meteorological conditions? Wow, thats one hilarious one: it was
22deg cent. and zero wind. We were towing not winching (diana prototype
cannot be winched).

I have video's to corraborate this, and will put the video on the site
as well as photographs that show that Mr. Beres's statements are untrue.

I believe that they decided to not let me fly, period, no explaination.
They can say anything, if it was the experience, they knew mine, they
could've told me no-can't-do, or could've said that you need more hours
than I have and I'd never have wasted my time and money.

Thanks
Naresh

[Udo Rumpf]

It is none of your business.
It is only between him and the group that put on the demo
by invitation only. He was invited.
Assessing some ones qualification is not done through
log books only. It is only a part. The problem it appears
lays with the organizers. They gave the pilot the run around.
The decision should have been made to let him fly or not
before he left his home. This group certainly should reimburse
his expenses. If only for public relations.
He has a right to be ****ed off about it.

Udo

> Naresh,
>
> Would you please share with us:
> - What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
> - Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
> - Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.
>
> You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
> Mark
>

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

wrote:

> Naresh,
>
> Would you please share with us:
> - What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
> - Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
> - Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.
>
> You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
> Mark
>
Mark

Among glass ships, I have flown Astir Jeans, Speed Astir (L/D ~40), LS4
(few flights), twin Astir, Janus (L/D >40 solo and carrying joyriding
pax, flapped), DG500 (L/D >40 solo and carrying joyriding pax), Fox,
ASK21 (over 20 hours this year carrying joyriding pax. DG300 (L/D >40
over 70 hours done this year alone and four flights on DG300 and one on
K21 in the last 4 weeks inspite of non-soaring weather here). All this
was known by the German/swiss/austrian distributor. He knew the hours
and the flights.

In addition, I've flown a host of lower performace gliders since
1982-1992 [Schweizer 2-22ek (my first solo), 2-33, 1-26 (over
200flights), K6, K7, Olmpia, T21b, Grurau baby]

The reason that I'm in the market for a new glider is that the DG300 of
the club will be sold, since I flew 95% of its time this year and the
others dont fly the DG300. I'd like to buy a high perf glider in a
syndicate. The gliders under consideration were (old ls8, old ventus,
new Lak17 and 19 and Diana-2).

Best,
Naresh

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Stanford Korwin wrote:

> Mr. Beres has responded (in Polish) to questions on
> the Polish gliding website regarding Mr. Naresh's complaint.
>
> As I interpret his comments, he did not consider Mr.
> Naresh to be sufficiently experienced on high performance
> sailplanes to undertake a trial flight on the Diana
> safely - particularly as Mr. Naresh was not familiar
> with the site and in, apparently, not ideal meteorological
> conditions.
>
> A statement from the organiser of these trial flights
> (in Germany and Switzerland) is promised today.
> If it is in English, I will supply the website address.
> If in Polish, I will summarise his comments.
>
> Unless I am requested not to do so.
>
> sta13.

Just a quick update, I've added a photograph of the NOT IDEAL
METEOROLOGICAL conditions on the site. I'll have another one with the
limp windsock shortly.

[[email protected]]

Thanks for nice words, but you are wrong.
I believe that group will hear the other side story soon.

Mark

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:45:17 UTC, "Udo Rumpf" >
wrote:

> It is none of your business.
> It is only between him and the group that put on the demo
> by invitation only.

Could that not be said about the whole sorry business? If one part of
one side is made public I think it is reasonable to ask for fuller
details from both sides, or simply to conclude that it sounds very
unfortunate but we are not in a position to judge anyine.

Ian

--

[Alexander]

The first ever presentation of brand new Diana 2 was of considerable
success and a thoroughly positive event, nevertheless there was fog in
the morning and few hours of sunshine only. Until now only the
competition pilots Janusz Centka and Sebastian Kawa and the two other
test pilots of BPB (Bogumil Beres' production company of Diana 2) had
been flying. Now for the first time ever customers had the unique
chance to fly the new Diana 2.

We started in Germany (the country with the strongest glider community)
in the Swabian Jura in Aalen-Elchingen where the rate of glider pilots
per square meter is the highest in the world. Pilots who flew Diana 2
- the dream glider to many - finished the flights with a smile of
satisfaction on the face.

The testing customers were positively thrilled about the way Diana 2 is
flying. Some feedback: the glider is easy to fly and also safe. None of
the pilots (among them also competition pilots and instructors) could
make the glider spin or stall completely. The view out of the cockpit
is unprecedented - so far no other glider can boast of such an
incredible - wide view from the cockpit (both forward and backward).
The Vice-World Champion Yvonne Schwarz could even see the rudder from
the cockpit. She said "It's like sitting in a swimming pool",
"I'm not flying, I'm just in the air". Also the glider shows
the pilot in a fine way where the thermal is standing. (On the first
day there where some week ones).

With such positive feedback from all those who had the chance to fly
Diana 2 it is understandable that those who couldn't feel unhappy
about. Despite being easy to fly and handle we should still remember
that Diana 2 is a high performance sailplane demanding a little bit
more than just basic knowledge of flying.

I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody to fly it then
face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident. Therefore
saying "no" at the last moment was not a matter of trying to
humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but protecting both,
the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning that our
decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor who shared our
doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
no experience on racing class gliders.

Our decision was not based on personal preferences but on extreme
caution and common sense. Safety is the most important issue in our
sport. There are some examples of crashes during presentations of
gliders. We are sorry that Mr Sharma mistook safety priorities for a
personal attack on his person. However I'm thankful to Mr. Sharma
that he is stirring a discussion about the BPB dedication to safety
matters. We pay a lot of attention not only to excellence in sailplane
production but also to maximum safety of our clients.

For those interested in more information about Diana 2 you can
subscribe to my English and German speaking Newsletter by sending an
email with "subscribe" to or just
call me (+49-178-358 83 08). The pictures and detailed report from the
first three days of test flying of customers will be on my webpage
(English version coming soon) within the next days.

I think that it is very easy to write something negative and by this
damage our gliding sport. Instead we should be thankful to visionary
people like Bogumil Beres who make the gliding sport go forward.

Cheers
Alexander Mueller
www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I agree with Udo. I respect that they may have been concerned about his
experience, but then why did they let him come out to fly the glider and let
him pay for a local checkout flight since they obviously had no intension of
letting him fly. They started to put the glider away before his checkout
flight. That was extremely rude. My guess is that they let him come out to
see the glider and let him believe he would get a chance to fly it because
they wanted him to see the glider so they could sell him one. It is much
better to see a product first hand. Very misleading and questionable
marketing practices. Just my opinion.

Paul Remde

"Udo Rumpf" > wrote in message
.. .
> It is none of your business.
> It is only between him and the group that put on the demo
> by invitation only. He was invited.
> Assessing some ones qualification is not done through log books only. It
> is only a part. The problem it appears lays with the organizers. They gave
> the pilot the run around. The decision should have been made to let him
> fly or not before he left his home. This group certainly should reimburse
> his expenses. If only for public relations.
> He has a right to be ****ed off about it.
>
> Udo
>> Naresh,
>>
>> Would you please share with us:
>> - What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
>> - Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
>> - Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.
>>
>> You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
>> Mark
>>

[[email protected]]

Hi there,

I must agree with Paul and Udo. That was indeed very unprofessional and
rude treatment of a potential customer. I think that Mr. Mueller is not
very convincing in his statement about the "safety" issue.

jk

[[email protected]]

Contrarywise, this is the perfect forum for airing this type of
dispute.

The prospect of being judged in public forces the other side to
respond, whereas otherwise they might simply shrug it off. How the
other side conducts themselves provides useful information for members
of the gliding public who may wish to deal with them in the future.

[[email protected]]

Lets be adult for a moment. What grounds other than actual safety of an
inexperienced pilot and the glider could there be behind the decision
not to let Naresh fly? the whole discussion seems a bit childish,
overly emotional frankly speaking

The heated and hostile reaction of Naresh and above all rather far
fetched assumptions about the glider itself in his blog suggest that
perhaps he is a little too emotional about his skills and clearly has a
problem with esteeming his abilities... Good pilots should be able to
take a second look at themselves instead of reacting the way Naresh
did.

Gentleman - let's be men, not whining children who didn't get their
candy.

Olivier

[[email protected]]

> I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody to fly it then
> face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident. Therefore
> saying "no" at the last moment was not a matter of trying to
> humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but protecting both,
> the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning that our
> decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor who shared our
> doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
> no experience on racing class gliders.

We need some facts...

1) Was this decision based on Mr Sharma's previous flying experience or
on the results of his checkride ?
2) Is it true that by the time he landed the glider was already being
disassembled ?

Bartek

[Glider Factfinder]

If you don't like the glider or the selling team/Agent..
buy something else!
use your time gliding..not moaning
I'm sure some other manufacturer will be happy to relive
of some Euro

At 19:48 13 October 2005, wrote:
>> I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody
>>to fly it then
>> face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident.
>>Therefore
>> saying 'no' at the last moment was not a matter of
>>trying to
>> humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but
>>protecting both,
>> the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning
>>that our
>> decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor
>>who shared our
>> doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had
>>only 200 hours and
>> no experience on racing class gliders.
>
>We need some facts...
>
>1) Was this decision based on Mr Sharma's previous
>flying experience or
>on the results of his checkride ?
>2) Is it true that by the time he landed the glider
>was already being
>disassembled ?
>
>Bartek
>
>

[Glider Factfinder]

If you don't like the glider or the selling team/Agent..
buy something else!
use your time gliding..not moaning
I'm sure some other manufacturer will be happy to relive
of some Euro

At 19:48 13 October 2005, wrote:
>> I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody
>>to fly it then
>> face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident.
>>Therefore
>> saying 'no' at the last moment was not a matter of
>>trying to
>> humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but
>>protecting both,
>> the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning
>>that our
>> decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor
>>who shared our
>> doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had
>>only 200 hours and
>> no experience on racing class gliders.
>
>We need some facts...
>
>1) Was this decision based on Mr Sharma's previous
>flying experience or
>on the results of his checkride ?
>2) Is it true that by the time he landed the glider
>was already being
>disassembled ?
>
>Bartek
>
>

[Udo Rumpf]

"Glider Factfinder" > wrote in
message ...
> If you don't like the glider or the selling team/Agent..
> buy something else!
> use your time gliding..not moaning
> I'm sure some other manufacturer will be happy to relive
> of some Euro

That is not the point. It is not even the fact he did not fly the machine,
the man has been humiliated.
A bit of empathy may be in order if nothing else.
Only now do people have some recourse.
Long live RAS.
Udo

[Jack]

wrote:

> The prospect of being judged in public forces the other side to
> respond, whereas otherwise they might simply shrug it off. How the
> other side conducts themselves provides useful information for members
> of the gliding public who may wish to deal with them in the future.

And it works both ways.

The disgruntled customer protests in too much detail and too defensively
-- in a manner that calls into question his maturity as much as his
antagonist's methods.

In short, he does not on first impression seem the sort to whom I would
eagerly lend a very special ship.


Jack

[[email protected]]

That's also a valid interpretation (although Mr. Meuller's failure to
address key factual points lends credence to Mr. Naresh's point of view
in my opinion). The good news is, regardless of who is correct, we who
are not party to the dispute get a tremendous amount of entertainment
from it. Let the mud keep flying!

[Ted Wagner]

Alexander,

Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
ignored, insulted and humiliated him.

I would never consider a Diana product based on what I've read here so far.

Ted Wagner
Chandler, AZ, USA
Ventus-2c "2NO"

[Ted Wagner]

Jack, just what disgruntled customer's protests have you been reading?

The disgruntled former Diana customer provided far more detail than the
vendor and if I'd had my time and money wasted like that I would have done
the same thing. In even greater detail. And with a lot more finger-wagging.

I'm very thankful for consumers like him who share their experiences. Thank
you, Naresh, and I hope you eventually get some of your money back, though
I'm sure it's not nearly as valuable as the time you lost.

-ted/2NO
Chandler, AZ USA

"Jack" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>
>> The prospect of being judged in public forces the other side to
>> relspond, whereas otherwise they might simply shrug it off. How the
>> other side conducts themselves provides useful information for members
>> of the gliding public who may wish to deal with them in the future.
>
> And it works both ways.
>
> The disgruntled customer protests in too much detail and too
> defensively -- in a manner that calls into question his maturity as much
> as his antagonist's methods.
>
> In short, he does not on first impression seem the sort to whom I would
> eagerly lend a very special ship.
>
>
> Jack

[HL Falbaum]

> I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody to fly it then
> face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident. Therefore
> saying "no" at the last moment was not a matter of trying to
> humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but protecting both,
> the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning that our
> decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor who shared our
> doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
> no experience on racing class gliders.
>
> Alexander Mueller
> www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com
>
Alexander:

You did not address Mr. Sharma's assertion that the Diana was being
de-rigged during his checkride.
You had his aeronautical experience before he arrived at the field.
If you were not going to let him fly, you should have told him as soon as it
was determined.

I am a USA Flight Instructor and a ASW27B owner. I have seen people with
inflated ideas of their ability and can usually determine this quickly
during a check ride. With the right training in the ASK21, the transition to
a '27 is easy.

In any event--if Mr Sharma failed his check ride, he should have been
infomed of that, and exactly what he did wrong. That could be lifesaving for
Mr. Sharma.

Either way, it is a pretty shabby way to treat a potential customer.

Hartley Falbaum
USA ASW27B "KF"

[GK]

All I'm stating is that your technical analysis of the glider itself
cannot be correct due to many factors you've all mentioned. You can
write whatever you like that's the beauty of Internet.

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

All the responses both, pro/con my point are appreciated. Thank you for
the follow-ups. This is in the hope that glider pilots are not misused
by manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,

I'm copying the email of Mr. Alexander Mueller since it was not cached
by my server, I don't know why maybe someone can explain.

His email has a very twisted version of the day. Including the comments
from the three pilots who flew the glider. The only one who was totally
pleased with the glider was Yvonne Schwarz. Yvonne is between 45-55kgs
and very short. You can look up the photos of the day and see for
yourself. She fit in the glider perfectly due to her size. The only
other person who made comments on the stall spin were the french pilot
who said: "very easy to fly, I tried to stall it straight and level and
in cirlces, and it wouldn't, I didn't try to spin it since I was not
comfortable." I would like to put on my Aerospace Engineer's cap here
and say a few words about control-power but I'd be digressing...

As far as experience goes, Mr. Mueller wrote to me BEFORE I went on the
wild-goose chase of getting the paper-work to fly the Diana that the
hour requirement was 200 with 3 flights in last 4 weeks. I don't know
where this racing-class point is being raised. Janus-c-22m, and DG500
should be in the racing class, they are flapped and all have >40 glide
ratio. Anyway, I have flown these types, Mr. Mueller never bothered to
mention. I'm sure that DG300 pilots would not be too happy with the
remarks of Mr. Mueller.

The last straw is Mr. Mueller saying that their check-ride was not ok.
In addition to their beginning the de-rigging before I even took-off,
according to my friend who was shockingly watching the events unfold,
the check-pilot clearly, as the German-swiss do, announced that,
"according to me you were fine". I left at the field at that time as the
humiliation of their behavior was too much to take.

Mr. Mueller, before making any personal comment on my flying ability,
should realize that I am also a Flight Instructor, and have been judged
a safe and good instructor by three separate 20,000 hour instructor
examiners who apparantly don't speak to each other, and live 1000's of
Kms away from each other. Unlike many other pilots I know: in the 1250
or so flights, I've never nicked a glider and hope to stay that way.

Lastly, I wouldn't have had ANY problem if they did not want me to fly
the diana, just that, if that was the case, they should have told me so
and not wasted my TIME and money. Mr. Beres mentioned the weather, and
that was not so, since the day was beautiful when the flying was started
as one can well see on the photograph at my blog. How may lies to hide
the truth?

They should have said, this glider is going to be sold only to the
world-champions and 10 levels down (world-vice-world-vice-vice-world
etc), there is no room for 215 hour guy like you, call us maybe in a few
years, and I would have been happier. What Mr. Mueller should realize is
that email, skype-chat and my faithful digital-camcorder is good in
recollecting the precise details and faithfully reproducing the FACTS.
If the group would be keen, I'll put up all the emails and skype
sessions that I've had with Mr. Mueller for public consumption.

Another strange thing is happening, there are a bunch of attacks on my
blog that are coming from top level domain .pl.

Best regards,

Naresh



----copied- Alexander-Mueller's-email-to-rec.aviation.soaring--------
----since it was uncached and mentioned personal comments about me---

The first ever presentation of brand new Diana 2 was of considerable
success and a thoroughly positive event, nevertheless there was fog in
the morning and few hours of sunshine only. Until now only the
competition pilots Janusz Centka and Sebastian Kawa and the two other
test pilots of BPB (Bogumil Beres' production company of Diana 2) had
been flying. Now for the first time ever customers had the unique
chance to fly the new Diana 2.

We started in Germany (the country with the strongest glider community)
in the Swabian Jura in Aalen-Elchingen where the rate of glider pilots
per square meter is the highest in the world. Pilots who flew Diana 2
- the dream glider to many - finished the flights with a smile of
satisfaction on the face.

The testing customers were positively thrilled about the way Diana 2 is
flying. Some feedback: the glider is easy to fly and also safe. None of
the pilots (among them also competition pilots and instructors) could
make the glider spin or stall completely. The view out of the cockpit
is unprecedented - so far no other glider can boast of such an
incredible - wide view from the cockpit (both forward and backward).
The Vice-World Champion Yvonne Schwarz could even see the rudder from
the cockpit. She said "It's like sitting in a swimming pool",
"I'm not flying, I'm just in the air". Also the glider shows
the pilot in a fine way where the thermal is standing. (On the first
day there where some week ones).

With such positive feedback from all those who had the chance to fly
Diana 2 it is understandable that those who couldn't feel unhappy
about. Despite being easy to fly and handle we should still remember
that Diana 2 is a high performance sailplane demanding a little bit
more than just basic knowledge of flying.

I believe it is more reasonable not to allow somebody to fly it then
face all the possible tragic consequences of an accident. Therefore
saying "no" at the last moment was not a matter of trying to
humiliate Mr. Sharma by any means as he claims - but protecting both,
the person and the glider. It's also worth mentioning that our
decision was confirmed by the local gliding instructor who shared our
doubts. Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
no experience on racing class gliders.

Our decision was not based on personal preferences but on extreme
caution and common sense. Safety is the most important issue in our
sport. There are some examples of crashes during presentations of
gliders. We are sorry that Mr Sharma mistook safety priorities for a
personal attack on his person. However I'm thankful to Mr. Sharma
that he is stirring a discussion about the BPB dedication to safety
matters. We pay a lot of attention not only to excellence in sailplane
production but also to maximum safety of our clients.

For those interested in more information about Diana 2 you can
subscribe to my English and German speaking Newsletter by sending an
email with "subscribe" to or just
call me (+49-178-358 83 08). The pictures and detailed report from the
first three days of test flying of customers will be on my webpage
(English version coming soon) within the next days.

I think that it is very easy to write something negative and by this
damage our gliding sport. Instead we should be thankful to visionary
people like Bogumil Beres who make the gliding sport go forward.

Cheers
Alexander Mueller
www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Hi All,

This is an open invitation to anyone in the vicinity of North Italy.

To put the personal accusations of being "unsafe-pilot" made by Mr.
Mueller about my flying ability to rest: If you are an instructor
visiting here, and would like to check me out, I'm willing to become the
scape-goat in our clubs glider and I'LL PAY FOR THE RIDE. You can name
the glider-type and we'll find one.

Anyone willing to take it up is welcome, this way we get a third party
opinion. I'd like to video the check-ride and put it up as well (Not
having a video will not be under discussion).

Best regards,
Naresh

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

A link to the photograph of the group. Yvonne and the French pilot, are
behind towards the right. Your's truly is on the left. Notice Yvonne,
she's quite small and fit into the Diana-2 very well.

http://www.neshe.com/?q=node/27

[Jancsika]

It says a lot also about the Diana's friendly handling;) Even a
beginner could fly a Discus2. Buy that one instead of something what
requires Chuck Yeager in the cockpit...

/Jancsika

[[email protected]]

Naresh has provided all the information they asked for, proving his
experience. He also got his licence recognized and was provided with a
polish licence to fly. If the intention was to show himthe glider
without allowing him to fly, they should have clearly told him before
his trip. The last-minute request for a checkflight is also an excuse,
since the glider was being put away while he was up in the air. This is
ridiculous communication. They have the right to decide who can fly the
prototype, and very likely only allow the people they personally know
to be very skilled, like you would normally do to allow someone to fly
your very precious glider...
however, it's only fair to explain the reason for not allowing him to
fly, and do it in a way that is not humiliating. I believe that in
business, the way you behave tells a lot on the reliability of a person
and of a company. They behaved in a way that doesn't allow trust
relationships to develop.

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:20:33 UTC, "Ted Wagner"
> wrote:

> Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
> potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
> ignored, insulted and humiliated him.
>
> I would never consider a Diana product based on what I've read here so far.

You select gliders based on the manufacturer's criteria for check
flights? Coo.

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:19:49 UTC,
"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"
<"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"@-neshe-dot-com>
wrote:

> Unlike many other pilots I know: in the 1250
> or so flights, I've never nicked a glider ...

How many hours, as a matter of interest?

Ian

[Mark Dickson]

At 15:24 13 October 2005, wrote:
>Naresh,
>
>Would you please share with us:
>- What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
>- Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
>- Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.
>
>You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
>Mark
>
>
This is irrelevant. The organisers were aware of Naresh's
experience prior to the event and had agreed he could
fly the aircraft. They had allowed him to go to considerable
trouble, travel and expense for no reason. They owe
him an apology.

Mark

[Ted Wagner]

I eliminate gliders based on the manufacturer's customer service. But you
knew that :)

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-R2ZdjiRpcyhW@localhost...
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:20:33 UTC, "Ted Wagner"
> > wrote:
>
>> Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
>> potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
>> ignored, insulted and humiliated him.
>>
>> I would never consider a Diana product based on what I've read here so
>> far.
>
> You select gliders based on the manufacturer's criteria for check
> flights? Coo.
>
> Ian

[Ray Hart]

At 13:24 14 October 2005, Mark Dickson wrote:
>At 15:24 13 October 2005, wrote:
>>Naresh,Would you please share with us:
>>- What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
>>- Total hours flown in gliders with L/D>40.
>>- Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D>40 this year.
>>
>>You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
>>Mark
>>
>>
>This is irrelevant. The organisers were aware of Naresh's
>experience prior to the event and had agreed he could
>fly the aircraft. They had allowed him to go to considerable
>trouble, travel and expense for no reason. They owe
>him an apology.
>
>Mark

No 15 metre glider should be tricky to fly these days.
It simply would
not get a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Glider manufacturers should be falling over backwards
to show us how
safe and 'flyable' their products are. This Diana
story makes me
suspicious. What are the manufacturers trying to hide?

Ray
>
>
>
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:18:22 UTC, Mark Dickson
> wrote:

> The organisers were aware of Naresh's
> experience prior to the event and had agreed he could
> fly the aircraft.

We don't actually know that, do we?

Ian

--

[Andreas Maurer]

On 14 Oct 2005 13:37:45 GMT, Ray Hart
> wrote:

>No 15 metre glider should be tricky to fly these days.
> It simply would
>not get a Certificate of Airworthiness.
>Glider manufacturers should be falling over backwards
>to show us how
>safe and 'flyable' their products are. This Diana
>story makes me
>suspicious. What are the manufacturers trying to hide?

You got the point.
I'd suggest to ask pilots who saw the Diana 2 at the European gliding
competions, especially about the aerotow launches.


I still remember when Tilo Holighaus came to my home airfield with the
brand-new Discus 2 which had had its maiden flight the week before and
whose flight testing had barely begun.

He didn't know me at all but immediately let me fly his brand new toy
when I asked him...!


Bye
Andreas

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Hi All,

Detailed photographs of Diana-2. I have limited the size of the photos
to 800 pixels, but if someone wants a specific photo, please ask.

The description of the photos is on top of the photo (once you open it).

http://www.neshe.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1620

These also contain your's truly going for his ASK-21 check-ride.

Best,
Naresh

[Steve Hill]

From my perspective...speaking as the owner of a manufacturing company that
sells a product to consumers here in the U.S., I believe the factory rep and
Mr. Beres owe more than an apology. They should write a check to cover
expenses suffered AT THEIR REQUEST...

The conjecture of this group sometimes amazes me. When a manufacturer
invites someone to review their product...whether to write about it...or to
buy one, they have ethical guidelines that all the rest of us consumers
deserve to hear about. In my estimation, the manufacturer has not handled
themselves in ANY format consistent with the term ETHICAL.

The facts of the situation have been well documented and while there's
argument as to specifics, the much larger issue of how a manufacturer
handles themself, with regard to its customers is perhaps the single most
impressive issue we get to witness and use as the determination of whether
to support their product.

For a new product to survive in the market, manufacturers need to be very
solidly behind their product from every facet of it's intended role. If the
Diana2 is REALLY as good and safe and better than anything out there, as
it's claimed, then surely a guy with 1200+ accident free flights and one who
demonstrated his proficiency to an unbiased instructor...deserves better
treatment than this...

If I...were Bogumil Beres...I'd simply reach into my own back pocket...and
I'd write the man a check....and a letter of apology...and level with
everyone here in RAS that they made a bad decision...and that they
understand better from the exchange, what WE as the consumer
expect...otherwise, he may find his product flushing it's way down the drain
and his investment simply....ruined. Personally, I don't think the "world
class" level racing pilots out there are enough to build a company on...at
some point Mr. Beres will need "normal pilots" to want to purchase his
glider, if he expects sales to continue and his company to flourish.


Respectfully,


Steve.

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:33:31 UTC, Steve Hill
> wrote:

> The facts of the situation have been well documented

They have? I have seen claims, but nothing I'd call facts.

Ian
--

[JC]

On 14 Oct 2005 17:33:31 GMT, Steve Hill
> wrote:

>From my perspective...speaking as the owner of a manufacturing company that
>sells a product to consumers here in the U.S., I believe the factory rep and
>Mr. Beres owe more than an apology. They should write a check to cover
>expenses suffered AT THEIR REQUEST...
>
>The conjecture of this group sometimes amazes me. When a manufacturer
>invites someone to review their product...whether to write about it...or to
>buy one, they have ethical guidelines that all the rest of us consumers
>deserve to hear about. In my estimation, the manufacturer has not handled
>themselves in ANY format consistent with the term ETHICAL.
>
>The facts of the situation have been well documented and while there's
>argument as to specifics, the much larger issue of how a manufacturer
>handles themself, with regard to its customers is perhaps the single most
>impressive issue we get to witness and use as the determination of whether
>to support their product.
>
>For a new product to survive in the market, manufacturers need to be very
>solidly behind their product from every facet of it's intended role. If the
>Diana2 is REALLY as good and safe and better than anything out there, as
>it's claimed, then surely a guy with 1200+ accident free flights and one who
>demonstrated his proficiency to an unbiased instructor...deserves better
>treatment than this...
>
>If I...were Bogumil Beres...I'd simply reach into my own back pocket...and
>I'd write the man a check....and a letter of apology...and level with
>everyone here in RAS that they made a bad decision...and that they
>understand better from the exchange, what WE as the consumer
>expect...otherwise, he may find his product flushing it's way down the drain
>and his investment simply....ruined. Personally, I don't think the "world
>class" level racing pilots out there are enough to build a company on...at
>some point Mr. Beres will need "normal pilots" to want to purchase his
>glider, if he expects sales to continue and his company to flourish.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>
>Steve.
>
>
Very well put!

[Steve Hill]

FACT: Anything Done. Anything actually true; That which happened.

Ian,
we could accept as fact. The factory admits it invited the individual to
fly. The factory admits that he met their requirements, prior to him showing
up to fly. The factory admitted it took the glider apart before the
completion of the individual taking a check ride.

The conjecture, is the weather and personal opinion on the factory's part as
to whether the individual was competent to fly, which seems basis-less
without an unbiased report from the instructor ( check-ride pilot).



FACT: The individual suffered financial loss, due to decisions made my the
factory for WHATEVER reason they chose, in denying him to fly the ship,
AFTER they pre-arranged that opportunity.

They should re-imburse the individual for his monetary loss and CLEARLY
develop a written procedure for minimum experience required to allow
individuals to test fly their glider...however stringent they'd like...but
it should be done FIRST!


This seems amazingly simple and for you to argue to the contrary seems like
you simply don't get the relationship of the manufacturer inviting the
individual PRIOR TO the actual event. They knew everything about his
background and he complied with all their requests...

I don't really care what you choose to lable the issue, for me...in my view
as a U.S. Manufacturer...This is absolutely lousy customer service and I
concur with previous posters on RAS that I would not even consider
purchasing a product from this company based on their customer service...The
Factory is being granted the opportunity to resolve the problem and level
with the purchasing community and instead they are trying to simply SPIN it
all their way...a very foolish and costly mistake in my humble opinion.



Respectfully,


Steve Hill

[GK]

I still remember when Tilo Holighaus came to my home airfield with the
> brand-new Discus 2 which had had its maiden flight the week before and
> whose flight testing had barely begun.
>
> He didn't know me at all but immediately let me fly his brand new toy
> when I asked him...!

Your omitting the fact that Tilo Holighaus runs a factory that sells
100+ gliders a year with an average price of 100,000+ Euros. If you'd
crash his Discus 2 at the same time you're describing, its merely an
expense for H&S - they could build another 10 in a matter of a month.
Where Diana 2 crash would probably put Beres out of building gliders
for much longer. I believe he did the right thing, it's just the way he
did it that is unacceptable.

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

GK > wrote:

"I believe he did the right thing, it's just the way he
did it that is unacceptable."

Nice contradiction. Is this like saying he did the right thing, but he
did the wrong thing? Bottom line is he did many wrong things, then
tried to double talk around it rather than dealing with it in the
proper manner.

[Ian]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:26:39 +0200, @ neshe dot com wrote:

>>> Recently, I was invited by the Diana-2 dealer to be part of the
>>> potential customer flight tests in Switzerland. It was a humiliating
>>> fiasco. I've written about it on my blog www.neshe.com Please feel
>>> free to browse.

I think when the sellers became aware of the facts:

- the complainant does not own a glider of his own
- he talks of a syndicate with 3 or 4 pilots
- he does not mention having ever flown in serious competition

Surely the typical profile of a Diana 2 customer

- already owns competitive racing sailplane
- competes, probably at national or international level
- has a significant amount of money at his disposal and the motivation to
spend it on a very specialized racing glider.

Rather the complainant talks about being an engineer, and wanting to write
a technical assessment of the glider. The the Diana sellers invited
potential customers to fly the glider, not journalists who wanted to do
test flights. If they wanted the latter I suspect the complainant would
not have been on their shortlist of invited journalists.

I can well believe they declined to let him fly - if it was my prototype
I would also have said 'No'. I doubt they would offer me a test flight.
(Not because I don't have the qualifications but simply because I cannot
afford a new Diana).

But maybe there was some lack of communications. Possibly due to the
multitude of languages and cultures involved.


Ian

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Hello All,

Late last night, as I was preparing to go to our club (we are trying to
save the gliding activity at our club and not let the club sell the
gliders) for a meeting, Mr. Alexander Mueller called me on the phone. He
said that, it was a mistake to not let me fly the glider.

I do not want to write the entire 45minute conversation since:
1. There will be comments from several on RAS: BUT WE DON'T KNOW DO WE,
WHO SAID WHAT AND WHAT WAS SAID etc.
2. It would be unfair of me to say what Mr. Mueller volunteered to say
to me. Therefore, I'm forced to leave the details.

To save the lamenting any further, here is what I believe is fair if,
Mr. Alexander Muller indeed concedes that it was a mistake to not let me
fly. I would forget the whole issue and consider a proper apology made
by them if either one of the two below is done before the end of October
2005:

1. Mr. Beres or Mr. Mueller, bring the Diana-2 to our Airfield in Parma,
Italy, to let me fly it. I'll pay for my tows, they pay their costs of
being here, boarding and lodging. The weather here is fine, so I believe
that this would be a better recourse. In addition, they will get first
hand impression of what Italian hospitality means.

2. Messrs Beres and Mueller, invite me to their factory, AT THEIR
expense, and let me fly the glider there.

In both the cases, they will allow me to take as many photos and videos
as I like.

Just to clarify, to a previous post by Ian, No, I'm not a journalist,
and they were aware of all the details you so kindly have assumed.

Thank you RAS!! Thank you for your support.
Best regards,
Naresh

[[email protected]]

I was at the meeting in Aalen. These people from Diana are very
friendly, they're normal glider fellows and they left a very good
impression.

Johannes

[Alexander]

Ted Wagner wrote:
> Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
> potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
> ignored, insulted and humiliated him.
>
> Ted Wagner
> Chandler, AZ, USA
> Ventus-2c "2NO"

It is not my personal policy nor is it a policy of the company to get
involved in emotional exchanges on a public forum. I believe I have
addressed all the questions concerning the issue that prevails the
choice whether an interested person can fly Diana 2 - which is safety
- and I believe that every experienced glider pilot should understand
this question more than well. But let me just say some additional words
as a lot of posts are based on incomplete facts and misunderstanding:

Mr. Sharma said to me during a phone call before the presentation that
he would come even if he couldn't fly our glider.

Numbers don't mean anything. Even a pilot with 4000 hours or a world
champion requires sometimes a check flight. And not only hours or types
flown are relevant to whether somebody can fly - also the momentary
personal constitution, the emotional state, the behavior on the
airfield or other factors are a decision point. All other pilots apart
from Mr. Sharma flew in Birrfeld before and knew the local
particularities. It is not possible to set a standard for prerequisites
for customers in test flying. Also the weather may change. There is no
guarantee of what will happen when we drive to the airfield. For us it
is normal that we have to expect not to be able to fly. This is
probably different in indoor-skiing or go-cart racing but not in
aviation.

De-rigging and rigging belongs to a presentation and it has nothing to
do with whether a client can fly a glider or not. Within few minutes
our glider can be assembled for the customer flight.

With regard to the check flight (agreed at 2.00 pm) to which Mr. Sharma
came with a delay, I personally agreed with the instructor to give me a
clear sign / a clear yes that would mean that Mr. Sharma could fly our
glider. The instructor did not give me such a sign. But at the same
time the instructor tried to be polite to Mr. Sharma. When I spoke with
the instructor later when Mr. Sharma was not any more present the
instructor clearly affirmed not to allow Mr. Sharma fly our glider.

We are sorry that it was not possible for Mr. Sharma to make a test
flight.

I am convinced that Mr. Sharma misunderstood the situation and his
reaction made it impossible for me to reason with him.

By the way Mr. Sharma was not the only pilot who didn't have the
chance to fly Diana 2 during the presentation days. There were other
(very experienced) pilots who didn't have the opportunity to fly due
to weather conditions and other reasons. They understood it, took it in
a friendly way, and will take their chance to test Diana 2 when the
next opportunity arrives. One of them came all the way from USA,
another one came from the Netherlands which is much further than Italy.
These glider fellows as well as all other participants thanked for the
friendly assistance and the time spent together on the airfield. The
fact that they couldn't make their flight didn't change their
opinion about the product, the service, instead they were happy to just
be present and enjoyed being with us.

Mr. Sharma came of his own will. The distance from Birrfeld to Italy is
short, 3-4 hours on the highway and it is not necessary to spend a
night in Zurich in order to arrive at Birrfeld. Mr. Sharma told me on
the phone on the day prior to the presentation in Birrfeld that he
takes the chance to make a private visit to Zurich with a friend.

Indeed I called Mr. Sharma last evening trying to talk about mutual
misunderstandings but due to his reaction a calm conversation was not
possible.

------------------------------------

For those interested in more information about Diana 2 and our team you
can subscribe to my English and German speaking Newsletter by sending
an email with "subscribe" and your name to
or just call me (+49-178-358 83 08).

Cheers
Alexander Mueller
www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com

[Stanford Korwin]

>It is not my personal policy nor is it a policy of
>the company to...............................


This subject has been extensively (possibly excessively)
aired, as is usual in this forum, with a range of opinions
ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.

However, it would be very material to the case to have
unprejudiced information about exactly who, how, when
and for what reason invited Mr. Sharma to participate
in the events of which he so persistently complains.

This whole affair seems, to me, to have gained much
more exposure than it merits and I am beginning to
suspect that the gentleman doth protest too much.

Why ?!!

sta13.

[Jancsika]

anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
>
> 1. Mr. Beres or Mr. Mueller, bring the Diana-2 to our Airfield in Parma,
> Italy, to let me fly it. I'll pay for my tows, they pay their costs of
> being here, boarding and lodging. The weather here is fine, so I believe
> that this would be a better recourse. In addition, they will get first
> hand impression of what Italian hospitality means.
>
> 2. Messrs Beres and Mueller, invite me to their factory, AT THEIR
> expense, and let me fly the glider there.

Maybe in your dreams...;)

/jancsika

[bumper]

I've only seen the original Diana in the flesh, and the Diana-2 in Sharma's
pictures. From a mechanical and esthetical perspective, the Diana-2 looks to
be inovative and nicely done. At first blush, it appears they have not cut
corners in their design, but rather have made those decisions based on, "how
can we do this best".

Alexander's recent response seemed reasonable, as did Sharma's initial
indignation. The whole incident smacks of misunderstanding, lack of
communication, emotional overreaction, not wanting to hurt another's
feelings, and maybe personality conflict. I'd suggest we call it mutual
combat and drop the whole thing.

If I were interested in the Diana-2, I'd not let any of these posts dissuade
me.

all the best,

bumper

[Udo Rumpf]

What is with Europe?
The last time I flew a factory glider in Germany around 1989. I did not had
to go through this spiel
of presenting papers and proof of this or that and medicals. In Canada I
have been flying on
a DoT self declared medical for the last little while. Will I be able to fly
still in Europe legally?
What are the requirements now?
Udo

[Shawn]

anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Late last night, as I was preparing to go to our club (we are trying to
> save the gliding activity at our club and not let the club sell the
> gliders) for a meeting, Mr. Alexander Mueller called me on the phone. He
> said that, it was a mistake to not let me fly the glider.
>
> I do not want to write the entire 45minute conversation since:
> 1. There will be comments from several on RAS: BUT WE DON'T KNOW DO WE,
> WHO SAID WHAT AND WHAT WAS SAID etc.
> 2. It would be unfair of me to say what Mr. Mueller volunteered to say
> to me. Therefore, I'm forced to leave the details.
>
> To save the lamenting any further, here is what I believe is fair if,
> Mr. Alexander Muller indeed concedes that it was a mistake to not let me
> fly. I would forget the whole issue and consider a proper apology made
> by them if either one of the two below is done before the end of October
> 2005:
>
> 1. Mr. Beres or Mr. Mueller, bring the Diana-2 to our Airfield in Parma,
> Italy, to let me fly it. I'll pay for my tows, they pay their costs of
> being here, boarding and lodging. The weather here is fine, so I believe
> that this would be a better recourse. In addition, they will get first
> hand impression of what Italian hospitality means.
>
> 2. Messrs Beres and Mueller, invite me to their factory, AT THEIR
> expense, and let me fly the glider there.
>
> In both the cases, they will allow me to take as many photos and videos
> as I like.
>
> Just to clarify, to a previous post by Ian, No, I'm not a journalist,
> and they were aware of all the details you so kindly have assumed.

I think you need to expect to accept remuneration for your expenses and
perhaps your time as a reasonable alternative.

Shawn

[Don Johnstone]

At 14:42 15 October 2005, Bumper wrote:
>I've only seen the original Diana in the flesh, and
>the Diana-2 in Sharma's
>pictures. From a mechanical and esthetical perspective,
>the Diana-2 looks to
>be inovative and nicely done. At first blush, it appears
>they have not cut
>corners in their design, but rather have made those
>decisions based on, 'how
>can we do this best'.
>
>Alexander's recent response seemed reasonable, as did
>Sharma's initial
>indignation. The whole incident smacks of misunderstanding,
>lack of
>communication, emotional overreaction, not wanting
>to hurt another's
>feelings, and maybe personality conflict. I'd suggest
>we call it mutual
>combat and drop the whole thing.
>
>If I were interested in the Diana-2, I'd not let any
>of these posts dissuade
>me.

You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the customer
is always right'. If these people want our money they
have to get real and realise that they have to earn
it. We are talking about the same people who made the
Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
think.
>
>all the best,
>
>bumper
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 14:42 15 October 2005, Bumper wrote:
> >I've only seen the original Diana in the flesh, and
> >the Diana-2 in Sharma's
> >pictures. From a mechanical and esthetical perspective,
> >the Diana-2 looks to
> >be inovative and nicely done. At first blush, it appears
> >they have not cut
> >corners in their design, but rather have made those
> >decisions based on, 'how
> >can we do this best'.
> >
> >Alexander's recent response seemed reasonable, as did
> >Sharma's initial
> >indignation. The whole incident smacks of misunderstanding,
> >lack of
> >communication, emotional overreaction, not wanting
> >to hurt another's
> >feelings, and maybe personality conflict. I'd suggest
> >we call it mutual
> >combat and drop the whole thing.
> >
> >If I were interested in the Diana-2, I'd not let any
> >of these posts dissuade
> >me.
>
> You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the customer
> is always right'. If these people want our money they
> have to get real and realise that they have to earn
> it. We are talking about the same people who made the
> Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
> think.
> >
> >all the best,
> >
> >bumper
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Stanford Korwin]

If >You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the
>customer
>is always right'. If these people want our money they
>have to get real and realise that they have to earn
>it. We are talking about the same people who made the
>Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
>think.


No Don, the customer is not always right - he is very
often very wrong - and, in any event, he has to qualify
as a genuine, twenty four carat, customer.

Equally, we are not talking about about the same people
who made the Puchacz - or any known credibility gap
- at least known to me.

I have to say that, having traded with Poland until
fairly recently, and knowing Mr. Beres, the designer
and manufacturer of the Diana, I am not prepared to
accept Mr. Sharma's version of events and I strongly
suspect that BB was absolutely correct.

I have never heard of Mr. Sharma before, I cannot understand
why he should have been invited to test fly this sailplane
- except at his own request - I find his whole attitude
questionable and I rather suspect that Bogumil Beres
sensed that all was not as it seemed and decided not
to take any chances.

Good for him - I would have done exactly the same.

sta13.

[Bruce]

Any company that truly acts as if the customer is always right is in for a
relatively short existence.

A company exists to make money - the products and services are vehicles.

In this case my standard comment to people who protest loudly about not getting
something for free is simple. Meet me half way and become a customer. Customers
are the very small subset of people who are profitable for me to make happy.
Very happy. We have customers who have stayed with us for over ten years. (in IT
that is pretty good) We also started making ends meet when we fired the
uneconomical customers. Customers actually pay me for stuff. Hell if all the
prospects and abusers were all right I would be begging on street corners...

It is the vendor's prerogative to decide who he or she will sell to. In this
case - given the limited market, and potential costs I would certainly be
cautious about "tyre kickers".

So - Yes the desirable customer is always right, and small businesses have a
duty to be careful about deciding who those desirable customers are.

Stanford Korwin wrote:
> If >You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the
>
>>customer
>>is always right'. If these people want our money they
>>have to get real and realise that they have to earn
>>it. We are talking about the same people who made the
>>Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
>>think.
>
>
>
> No Don, the customer is not always right - he is very
> often very wrong - and, in any event, he has to qualify
> as a genuine, twenty four carat, customer.
>
> Equally, we are not talking about about the same people
> who made the Puchacz - or any known credibility gap
> - at least known to me.
>
> I have to say that, having traded with Poland until
> fairly recently, and knowing Mr. Beres, the designer
> and manufacturer of the Diana, I am not prepared to
> accept Mr. Sharma's version of events and I strongly
> suspect that BB was absolutely correct.
>
> I have never heard of Mr. Sharma before, I cannot understand
> why he should have been invited to test fly this sailplane
> - except at his own request - I find his whole attitude
> questionable and I rather suspect that Bogumil Beres
> sensed that all was not as it seemed and decided not
> to take any chances.
>
> Good for him - I would have done exactly the same.
>
> sta13.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[GK]

- We are talking about the same people who made the
Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
think.

Not even close, besides you cant even spell Puchacz so what
possibly can you tell about credibility of this fine trainer? Other
than repeating what you heard...

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Since Mr. Mueller has taken the initiative to mention bits of my
conversation with him and his "opinions" here. I would like to clarify
my position:

The following is my side of the story:

1. For the purpose of the event at which Mr. Mueller invited me, I NEVER
said to him that I'd come to see the glider even if I couldn't fly it.

2. The rigging and de-rigging was not being shown for the purpose of
presentation. Since Mr. Beres told me that he was packing up to go back
to Poland. If what Mr. Mueller asserts is true, I should've seen the
rigging after they de-rigged the glider, which was not so.

3. It is an untrue assertion that I went to Zurich to meet a friend. The
fact is actually that I brought another aviation passionate friend with
me to see the Diana FROM Italy. A friend of mine from Zurich wanted to
come and have breakfast with me, to which I declined so he came to the
Birrfeld airfield for a few minutes to shake hands and say hello. His
photo is at the photogallery. Please get this right, the ONLY reason I
came 432kms from Italy was since Diana-2 people had sent me an
invitation to come to fly. The trip took 5hours each way and just to
make sure that I'd not be too tired to fly the Diana, and for the SAKE
OF SAFETY, it was imperative to stay the night in Zurich and not make
the 5+ hour trip directly. Maybe Mr. Mueller could make this trip in 3
hours, but I cannot. Check out www.viamichelen.com about the time and
distance, Mr. Mueller, before making unjustifiable statements.

4. Check-ride: The ONLY question that the check-pilot asked me while
flying, "so do you want to buy the Diana-2". I thought, why is he asking
me this question?, thats between the Diana-2 people and myself, and
primarily its for me to think about after I know that I like flying the
Diana-2!!!. I told the check-pilot, "maybe, but not before the end of
the year". I know what the pilot said in front of all the people who
where around there, that I flew well. How the versions, changed when I
left is left to imagination. The strange thing is that Mr. Mueller told
me on the phone two days back, that the check-pilot told him after the
flight that I had no intention of buying the Diana-2 in the near future.
Furthermore, I find that a very strange question for the check-pilot
to ask, and especially, even stranger since I'd told Mr. Mueller on our
skype chat a few days before making the unfortunate trip to Birrfeld, I
was not going to buy the glider immediately. I have a log of my skype
chats and will be happy to put it here.

5. The check-ride time: Of course the 2:00pm time was set, however, I'd
asked the check pilot that I wanted to go for lunch at 1:30 and that I'd
be back in 45mins. To which he was fine. I was back at the grid at 2:15
and we took off at around 2:30. Lastly, if the weather would've been
bad, I'd been ok with not flying the Diana-2. The weather was a
spotlessly bright sky at the time the third Diana-flight had landed.

6. THREATS TO ME: In the phone conversation two days back, Mr. Mueller
also "told" me to change the title of my blog during the conversation
and threatened me to not talk about the day any more. He threatened me
not to put the video up on the site, since THEY KNOW THAT the video will
corroborate my part well. I told him that BEFORE starting to take the
video, I had asked both Mr. Beres and Mr. Mueller, in the presence of
other people there, if it was ok to take the video. They were more than
happy and willing. That for me is a legal and binding permission.

I cannot understand why Mr. Mueller continues to make up stories to hide
the facts. I now firmly believe, that to give an opportunity to make-up
to the Diana-2 team (in my previous post), was my second mistake. I'm
publically retracting that offer. I'd like to put an end to this story,
and do not ever want to deal with Diana-2 team and Mr. Mueller in the
future.

Best regards
Naresh


Alexander wrote:

> Ted Wagner wrote:
>
>>Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
>>potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
>>ignored, insulted and humiliated him.
>>
>>Ted Wagner
>>Chandler, AZ, USA
>>Ventus-2c "2NO"
>
>
> It is not my personal policy nor is it a policy of the company to get
> involved in emotional exchanges on a public forum. I believe I have
> addressed all the questions concerning the issue that prevails the
> choice whether an interested person can fly Diana 2 - which is safety
> - and I believe that every experienced glider pilot should understand
> this question more than well. But let me just say some additional words
> as a lot of posts are based on incomplete facts and misunderstanding:
>
> Mr. Sharma said to me during a phone call before the presentation that
> he would come even if he couldn't fly our glider.
>
> Numbers don't mean anything. Even a pilot with 4000 hours or a world
> champion requires sometimes a check flight. And not only hours or types
> flown are relevant to whether somebody can fly - also the momentary
> personal constitution, the emotional state, the behavior on the
> airfield or other factors are a decision point. All other pilots apart
> from Mr. Sharma flew in Birrfeld before and knew the local
> particularities. It is not possible to set a standard for prerequisites
> for customers in test flying. Also the weather may change. There is no
> guarantee of what will happen when we drive to the airfield. For us it
> is normal that we have to expect not to be able to fly. This is
> probably different in indoor-skiing or go-cart racing but not in
> aviation.
>
> De-rigging and rigging belongs to a presentation and it has nothing to
> do with whether a client can fly a glider or not. Within few minutes
> our glider can be assembled for the customer flight.
>
> With regard to the check flight (agreed at 2.00 pm) to which Mr. Sharma
> came with a delay, I personally agreed with the instructor to give me a
> clear sign / a clear yes that would mean that Mr. Sharma could fly our
> glider. The instructor did not give me such a sign. But at the same
> time the instructor tried to be polite to Mr. Sharma. When I spoke with
> the instructor later when Mr. Sharma was not any more present the
> instructor clearly affirmed not to allow Mr. Sharma fly our glider.
>
> We are sorry that it was not possible for Mr. Sharma to make a test
> flight.
>
> I am convinced that Mr. Sharma misunderstood the situation and his
> reaction made it impossible for me to reason with him.
>
> By the way Mr. Sharma was not the only pilot who didn't have the
> chance to fly Diana 2 during the presentation days. There were other
> (very experienced) pilots who didn't have the opportunity to fly due
> to weather conditions and other reasons. They understood it, took it in
> a friendly way, and will take their chance to test Diana 2 when the
> next opportunity arrives. One of them came all the way from USA,
> another one came from the Netherlands which is much further than Italy.
> These glider fellows as well as all other participants thanked for the
> friendly assistance and the time spent together on the airfield. The
> fact that they couldn't make their flight didn't change their
> opinion about the product, the service, instead they were happy to just
> be present and enjoyed being with us.
>
> Mr. Sharma came of his own will. The distance from Birrfeld to Italy is
> short, 3-4 hours on the highway and it is not necessary to spend a
> night in Zurich in order to arrive at Birrfeld. Mr. Sharma told me on
> the phone on the day prior to the presentation in Birrfeld that he
> takes the chance to make a private visit to Zurich with a friend.
>
> Indeed I called Mr. Sharma last evening trying to talk about mutual
> misunderstandings but due to his reaction a calm conversation was not
> possible.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> For those interested in more information about Diana 2 and our team you
> can subscribe to my English and German speaking Newsletter by sending
> an email with "subscribe" and your name to
> or just call me (+49-178-358 83 08).
>
> Cheers
> Alexander Mueller
> www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:29:26 UTC, Steve Hill
> wrote:

> FACT: The individual suffered financial loss

No he didn't. Or perhaps you could explain what income he would have
received if he had taken the test flight after all.

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:04:49 UTC, Shawn
<sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet> wrote:

> I think you need to expect to accept remuneration for your expenses and
> perhaps your time as a reasonable alternative.

If he has the test flight and decides not to buy, should he pay
compensation?

Ian



--

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:38:08 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the customer
> is always right'.

It's a load of nonsense. No-one has a right to fly any aircraft.

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:35:37 UTC,
"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"
<"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"@-neshe-dot-com>
wrote:

> If what Mr. Mueller asserts is true, I should've seen the
> rigging after they de-rigged the glider, which was not so.

Not at all. If a test flight starts with a rigging demonstration, they
wouldn't rig it unless the had a test flight customer, would they?

Ian


--

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Hello,

For anyone who is interested in Diana-2, 18 technical points that you
need to investigate yourself:

http://www.neshe.com/?q=node/43

Best regards,
Naresh

[[email protected]]

Ok..as much as I've enjoyed the discussion this seems to be a case of
sour grapes now. Isn't the list of points something that should be done
for every plane that is going to be purchased...new or used? Now that
you've had your say...why keep pushing? And please do not post saying
it's all innocent. You might want to try to review other planes
then...in your blog...as fully as you seem to do the Diana-2, piont by
point. Thanks.

Larry
anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For anyone who is interested in Diana-2, 18 technical points that you
> need to investigate yourself:
>
> http://www.neshe.com/?q=node/43
>
> Best regards,
> Naresh

[pbc76049]

Personally I think you are burying the hatchet deeply
for personal reasons, and I really believe you had no
intention to buy this ship. That said, lets look at your list.
Many of your suggestions are just common sense
stuff, but many are tainted with your personal feelings.

Item 2 is subjective at best. You may FEEL that
all controls should be of the auto-hookup type,
but that is not a certification requirement.
Your opinion here is irrelevant........

Item 4 is subjective at best. The aircraft meets JAR 22.

Item 5 is conjecture on your part. You are
presupposng a failure mode not in evidence
by inferring that it is problematic.

Item 8 is patently incorrect. Carbon structures do
not "store energy". Your description of the
failure mode shows a lack of understanding of
composite structures.

Item 13 is again subjective. Properly assembled trailing
edges do not delaminate regardless of their construction
method. Your presupposition that fabric wrapped edges
are superior is not based in fact, just an opinion you hold.
Attempting to show one Trailing Edge construction method
as superior to another again shows the limitations of your
composite construction background.

Item 15 is pure conjecture. You are asking that a JAR 22
aircraft manufacturer test for a condition that occurs only
when a pilot makes an error and flys the aircraft incorrectly.
IF this test was required, the conservative folks adninistering
JAR 22 would see that it was added to the cert plan. YOU
appear to be afraid of the small crosssection of the tail boom and
seem to be inventing a reason to make it appear less than desirable.

Item 17 is a prudent thought, but horribly skewed your personal
perspective. You said the paint is too thin. Compared to what??
Is that viewpoint based on cosmetics or a by a MIL thickness
check against the manufacturers recommended film thicknesses?
I suspect you have no idea how much or little paint is needed for
UV protection and what the finish requirements are.. Absent the
specific resin used and the finish content, you are in no position to
comment on UV protection issues. Yes you may FEEL the finish
was "very thin", but in fact, that is your PERCEPTION, not a fact per se.

I would hope that you would try to post facts on your site instead of
opinions.
It would be a nice change.........

[Don Johnstone]

At 12:00 16 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:38:08 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the
>>customer
>> is always right'.
>
>It's a load of nonsense. No-one has a right to fly
>any aircraft.
>
>Ian

What you say is absolutely true but on the other hand
no-one is forced to buy it either. If the company do
not sell aircraft they have failed in their aim and
lets us be frank this company are not Schemp Hirth,
DG-Flugzeugbau / Glaser-Dirks or Schleicher and do
not have a track record of building excellent gliders.
I would have thought that a company trying to sell
a new glider would want to encourage sales but obviously
my idea of business is outdated. What ever the rights
and wrongs it does not seem to me that the manufacturers
of the Diana 2 are going out of their way to encourage
customers in fact I detect a certain arrogance in their
approach. Building gliders does not make money, you
actually have to sell them, and what does this debacle
say about their likely after sales service I wonder.
If someone who wanted to sell me a glider would not
let me fly it I would certainly take my money elsewhere.

>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

bumper wrote:
> I've only seen the original Diana in the flesh, and the Diana-2 in Sharma's
> pictures. From a mechanical and esthetical perspective, the Diana-2 looks to
> be inovative and nicely done. At first blush, it appears they have not cut
> corners in their design, but rather have made those decisions based on, "how
> can we do this best".
>
> Alexander's recent response seemed reasonable, as did Sharma's initial
> indignation. The whole incident smacks of misunderstanding, lack of
> communication, emotional overreaction, not wanting to hurt another's
> feelings, and maybe personality conflict. I'd suggest we call it mutual
> combat and drop the whole thing.
>
> If I were interested in the Diana-2, I'd not let any of these posts dissuade
> me.

If I were to avoid a manufacturer because I knew a very unhappy customer
of theirs (potential or otherwise), I would not be able to buy a glider
from any of the German manufacturers, and some of the other companies,
either. As bumper points out, it happens for various reasons, even when
both parties seem like reasonable people.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[DW]

As i commute around my living area these days, I smell the aroma of
fetilizer,
mostly swine type.

Advertisement????


"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"
<"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"@-neshe-dot-com> wrote in
message ...
> Hello All,
>
> Late last night, as I was preparing to go to our club (we are trying to
> save the gliding activity at our club and not let the club sell the
> gliders) for a meeting, Mr. Alexander Mueller called me on the phone. He
> said that, it was a mistake to not let me fly the glider.
>
> I do not want to write the entire 45minute conversation since:
> 1. There will be comments from several on RAS: BUT WE DON'T KNOW DO WE,
> WHO SAID WHAT AND WHAT WAS SAID etc.
> 2. It would be unfair of me to say what Mr. Mueller volunteered to say to
> me. Therefore, I'm forced to leave the details.
>
> To save the lamenting any further, here is what I believe is fair if, Mr.
> Alexander Muller indeed concedes that it was a mistake to not let me fly.
> I would forget the whole issue and consider a proper apology made by them
> if either one of the two below is done before the end of October 2005:
>
> 1. Mr. Beres or Mr. Mueller, bring the Diana-2 to our Airfield in Parma,
> Italy, to let me fly it. I'll pay for my tows, they pay their costs of
> being here, boarding and lodging. The weather here is fine, so I believe
> that this would be a better recourse. In addition, they will get first
> hand impression of what Italian hospitality means.
>
> 2. Messrs Beres and Mueller, invite me to their factory, AT THEIR expense,
> and let me fly the glider there.
>
> In both the cases, they will allow me to take as many photos and videos as
> I like.
>
> Just to clarify, to a previous post by Ian, No, I'm not a journalist, and
> they were aware of all the details you so kindly have assumed.
>
> Thank you RAS!! Thank you for your support.
> Best regards,
> Naresh

[Eric Greenwell]

pbc76049 wrote:


> Item 4 is subjective at best. The aircraft meets JAR 22.

I'm not aware of any standardized crash testing procedure for gliders,
and if the the manufacturer of my ASH 26 E has knowledge of such tests,
they haven't shared it with any of the customers I know. It would be
wonderful if such data was available, but if you must have this data for
any glider in production, I think you will have pay someone to do a
crash test on it.

Unless you are an engineer competent in composite design for crash
protection, I don't think you will learn anything about the design by
asking "where the Kevlar is".

>
> Item 5 is conjecture on your part. You are
> presupposng a failure mode not in evidence
> by inferring that it is problematic.

I don't think any of the manufacturers test their gliders until they
flutter, because it is very dangerous. The glider is likely to be so
damaged or uncontrollable, the test pilot will have to parachute out of
it. Certification requires testing to a certain speed beyond the Vne;
above that, and you are a test pilot. If you want to "know what margin
you will have when you are in an emergency" then you should fly so that
your emergencies do not exceed Vne. Even if the manufacturer the exact
flutter speed, he would be smart not to reveal that speed, for fear that
pilots would then use that speed as the "real" Vne.


> Item 13 is again subjective. Properly assembled trailing
> edges do not delaminate regardless of their construction
> method. Your presupposition that fabric wrapped edges
> are superior is not based in fact, just an opinion you hold.
> Attempting to show one Trailing Edge construction method
> as superior to another again shows the limitations of your
> composite construction background.

My ASH 26 E does not use fabric wrapped trailing edges, nor did my ASW
20, yet they both seem like fine machines. I would feel rather foolish
telling Gerhard Waibel or Martin Heide the proper way to build a glider!

It appears Neshe sets very high and very unusual standards for a glider.
If I were a glider manufacturer, I would pray he became interested in
some other manufacturer's glider.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jancsika]

anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:

> 1. For the purpose of the event at which Mr. Mueller invited me, I NEVER
> said to him that I'd come to see the glider even if I couldn't fly it.

Can we this invitation letter?

/jancsika

[Jancsika]

Jancsika wrote:
> anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
>
>> 1. For the purpose of the event at which Mr. Mueller invited me, I
>> NEVER said to him that I'd come to see the glider even if I couldn't
>> fly it.

Once more: can we see this invitation letter?

/jancsika;)

[anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-]

Jancsika,

Please read my response on www.neshe.com titled "Where are the Diana-2
debacle posts". I agree with some others here that there is no point in
beating this issue any more.

Thank you,
Naresh

Jancsika wrote:

> Jancsika wrote:
>
>> anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
>>
>>> 1. For the purpose of the event at which Mr. Mueller invited me, I
>>> NEVER said to him that I'd come to see the glider even if I couldn't
>>> fly it.
>
>
> Once more: can we see this invitation letter?
>
> /jancsika;)

[Stefan]

Alexander wrote:

> The testing customers were positively thrilled about the way Diana 2 is
> flying. Some feedback: the glider is easy to fly and also safe. None of
> the pilots (among them also competition pilots and instructors) could
> make the glider spin or stall completely.
....
> Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
> no experience on racing class gliders.

Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?

Stefan

[Chester D]

Stefan schreef:

> Alexander wrote:
>
> > The testing customers were positively thrilled about the way Diana 2 is
> > flying. Some feedback: the glider is easy to fly and also safe. None of
> > the pilots (among them also competition pilots and instructors) could
> > make the glider spin or stall completely.
> ...
> > Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only 200 hours and
> > no experience on racing class gliders.
>
> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
> fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
>
> Stefan

There are plenty of glider pilots, even with 500 hours or more who
can`t handle performance gliders. They can in common situations like a
local flight but when in trouble the plane is too fast, too nervous,
just too hard for them to handle.

Most of those pilots know that themselves, others buy a glider and get
scared in flight, few try to test-fly someone elses glider.

[Don Johnstone]

At 13:00 17 October 2005, Chester D wrote:
>Stefan schreef:
>
>> Alexander wrote:
>>
>> > The testing customers were positively thrilled about
>>>the way Diana 2 is
>> > flying. Some feedback: the glider is easy to fly
>>>and also safe. None of
>> > the pilots (among them also competition pilots and
>>>instructors) could
>> > make the glider spin or stall completely.
>> ...
>> > Mr Sharma said to me personally that he had only
>>>200 hours and
>> > no experience on racing class gliders.
>>
>> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!)
>>'easy and safe to
>> fly' or do you need more than 200 hours to be able
>>to handle it?
>>
>> Stefan
>
>There are plenty of glider pilots, even with 500 hours
>or more who
>can`t handle performance gliders. They can in common
>situations like a
>local flight but when in trouble the plane is too fast,
>too nervous,
>just too hard for them to handle.

We are not talking open class here, the Diana is a
15 metre glider, unflapped with a claimed LD of >50.
>
Nothing special about that except the performance so
what is so difficult. I don't hear people saying that
a Discus (1 or 2) LS8 or any of the Scheilcher gliders
are anything but straightforward providing the pilot
has received the proper training.
One wonders what makes this glider so different from
those marketed by the established manufacturers apart
from the seeming determination of the makers to only
sell to those they deem suitable. No wonder that gliding
is in decline if it is so difficult to find someone
who is prepared to treat customers as a valuable commodity.
However good the product an uncaring and arrogant supplier
will put me off every time.


>
>Most of those pilots know that themselves, others buy
>a glider and get
>scared in flight, few try to test-fly someone elses
>glider.

Not the case here is it.

[Stefan]

Chester D wrote:

> There are plenty of glider pilots, even with 500 hours or more who
> can`t handle performance gliders. They can in common situations like a
> local flight but when in trouble the plane is too fast, too nervous,
> just too hard for them to handle.

If a 500 hours pilot can't handle a certified (which means something,
handling wise) 15m glider, then he should quit gliding *immediately*.
Or, he oher way round: If a 15m glider is so nervous that a 200 hours
pilot (*any* 200 hours pilot!) can't handle it, then I wouldn't call it
"easy and safe to fly", which was my point.

Stefan

[pbc76049]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message

> We are not talking open class here, the Diana is a
> 15 metre glider, unflapped with a claimed LD of
>50.
> Nothing special about that except the performance so
> what is so difficult. I don't hear people saying that
> a Discus (1 or 2) LS8 or any of the Scheilcher gliders
> are anything but straightforward providing the pilot
> has received the proper training.

Heres the rub, you said proper training.
The owner didn't let him fly.
There are conflicting reports on flying ability.
The owners, if they made a mistake, erred on the side of caution.
TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE ACTIONS.

The pilot who didn't fly is ****ed off and making a lot of noise about it.
TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE ACTIONS.

What I have a hard time with is the "tire kicker" rooting around
and using his OPINIONS to slap around a sailplane. If he has
technical issues of merit, he is doing us a favor by posting them, but
as most here can see., he is acting childishly and with vindictiveness.

I'm done here and hope everyone else is also..........

[Andreas Maurer]

Hi Eric,

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:48:49 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:


>Unless you are an engineer competent in composite design for crash
>protection, I don't think you will learn anything about the design by
>asking "where the Kevlar is".

Well... extremely light weight of a fuselage definitely makes me
wonder about crash protection - something Germany glider manufacturers
have a lot of experience with. I think there's a good cause why their
gliders are so heavy compared to the Diana 2.


>I don't think any of the manufacturers test their gliders until they
>flutter, because it is very dangerous.

Wilhelm Dirks did that with the DG-600... ;)

Flutter testst are not performed inflight, but any aircraft needs to
perform static flutter tests before it's certified in Germany (a very
expensive thing to do - these tests are usually performed by Prfessor
Niedbal).

>Even if the manufacturer the exact
>flutter speed, he would be smart not to reveal that speed, for fear that
>pilots would then use that speed as the "real" Vne.

The design maximum speed is Vne + 15 percent - this is what the glider
is designed for (and being flight-tested). Obviously this is the
proven speed where no flutter occurs... at least in a perfectly
maintained (prototype) glider.
I certainly wouldn't risk to fly that fast... do you think that
someone is so stupid to exceed Vne? I think most flutter cases happen
at speeds between Va and Vne due to unexpected turbulence.



Bye
Andreas

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
> fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?

200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

Ian


--

[Don Johnstone]

At 20:06 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
>wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!)
>>'easy and safe to
>> fly' or do you need more than 200 hours to be able
>>to handle it?
>
>200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't
>you think?
>
>Ian

Sorry, I don't get it. Suggestive of what?

[Nick Olson]

At 14:12 17 October 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>We are not talking open class here, the Diana is a
>15 metre glider, unflapped with a claimed LD of >50.
>>
>Nothing special about that except the performance so
>what is so difficult. I don't hear people saying that
>a Discus (1 or 2) LS8 or any of the Scheilcher gliders
>are anything but straightforward providing the pilot
>has received the proper training.

Don get your basic facts right matey - Diana is a FLAPPED
15m glider!!

[Nick Olson]

At 14:12 17 October 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>We are not talking open class here, the Diana is a
>15 metre glider, unflapped with a claimed LD of >50.
>>
>Nothing special about that except the performance so
>what is so difficult. I don't hear people saying that
>a Discus (1 or 2) LS8 or any of the Scheilcher gliders
>are anything but straightforward providing the pilot
>has received the proper training.

Don get your basic facts right matey - Diana is a FLAPPED
15m glider!!

[Glider Factfinder]

At 21:18 17 October 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 20:06 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!)
>>>'easy and safe to
>>> fly' or do you need more than 200 hours to be able
>>>to handle it?
>>
>>200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't
>>you think?
>>
>>Ian
>
>Sorry, I don't get it. Suggestive of what?
>
How about a crap soaring pilot..9.6 mins per launch,
sums things up somewhat
>
>
>

[brtlmj]

On 17 Oct 2005 20:02:50 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote:
>> fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
> 200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

This _might_ mean that he is instructing a lot.

Bartek

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:15:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> At 20:06 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:

> >200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't
> >you think?

> Sorry, I don't get it. Suggestive of what?

Quite a lot, really. 9 minutes 36 seconds per flight, on average.

Ian

[John Wilton]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message ...
> At 20:06 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!)
>>>'easy and safe to
>>> fly' or do you need more than 200 hours to be able
>>>to handle it?
>>
>>200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't
>>you think?
>>
>>Ian
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. Suggestive of what?
>
>
>
An Air Cadet ?

[Scott Westfall]

It seems to me that this subject has been sufficiently beaten to death...and
beyond. Any chance we can drop it and move on to something more interesting?

SW

[Stefan]

Glider Factfinder wrote:

> How about a crap soaring pilot..9.6 mins per launch,
> sums things up somewhat

Or an instructor who does primarily winch launched circuit training. (A
winch launched circuit lasting about 3 to 4 minutes on average,
depending on the place.) Of course, I haven't found more facts than you.

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

At 21:36 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:15:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> At 20:06 17 October 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>> >200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't
>> >you think?
>
>> Sorry, I don't get it. Suggestive of what?
>
>Quite a lot, really. 9 minutes 36 seconds per flight,
>on average.
>
>Ian

Interesting, I have roughly the same average with 1540
hours and 8500 launches. I must be in-experienced as
well then.
A lot of instructors get stuck with that sort of average,
goes with the territory they don't have the opportunities
others do.
To my mind the launches (and landings) are an indication
of being able to get it right more than pure hours.

[Shawn]

Scott Westfall wrote:
> It seems to me that this subject has been sufficiently beaten to death...and
> beyond. Any chance we can drop it and move on to something more interesting?

Aw Scott, I was just getting out my *big* dead-horse-beatin' stick.
;-)

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:

>>Unless you are an engineer competent in composite design for crash
>>protection, I don't think you will learn anything about the design by
>>asking "where the Kevlar is".
>
>
> Well... extremely light weight of a fuselage definitely makes me
> wonder about crash protection - something Germany glider manufacturers
> have a lot of experience with. I think there's a good cause why their
> gliders are so heavy compared to the Diana 2.

Questions about the crash protection are very sensible, but they should
be good questions. I think "how can your glider be so much lighter than
the German gliders?" would be a much better question than "where is the
Kevlar?". Or maybe: "Is the Diana 2 crash protection as good as the ASW
27 (for example)?"

snip

> The design maximum speed is Vne + 15 percent - this is what the glider
> is designed for (and being flight-tested). Obviously this is the
> proven speed where no flutter occurs... at least in a perfectly
> maintained (prototype) glider.
> I certainly wouldn't risk to fly that fast... do you think that
> someone is so stupid to exceed Vne?

I can easily imagine a pilot thinking "This wave has such strong winds,
I must fly very fast to get to the upwind lenticular. The air is quite
smooth, and the actual flutter speed was determined by testing at 40
knots over Vne, so I can fly at 30 knots over Vne quite safely; of
course, I will be very gentle on the stick!"

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:02:16 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Questions about the crash protection are very sensible, but they should
>be good questions. I think "how can your glider be so much lighter than
>the German gliders?" would be a much better question than "where is the
>Kevlar?". Or maybe: "Is the Diana 2 crash protection as good as the ASW
>27 (for example)?"

Indeed.
The 27 is a good example because its dimensions are very similar to
the Diana 2.

I know how long it took for Schleicher to squeeze only 20 lbs out of
the forward fuselage from the ASW-27 (which then became the 27 SL with
an empty wight of 230 kg). Hard to see for me how someone is able to
save another 48 kg on a glider of similar dimensions without
sacrifying anything (the empty weight of the Diana 2 is 182 kg).

I heard that the wings of the Diana 2 are only slightly lighter than
the ones of the ASW-27, but unfortunately I didn't find more
ionformation yet.


>I can easily imagine a pilot thinking "This wave has such strong winds,
>I must fly very fast to get to the upwind lenticular. The air is quite
>smooth, and the actual flutter speed was determined by testing at 40
>knots over Vne, so I can fly at 30 knots over Vne quite safely; of
>course, I will be very gentle on the stick!"

Well... definitely a proof of the existence of natural selection
then... ;)
I could think about a different scenario with the same result:
Since the indicated Vne goes down with altitude (but the red line
doesn't move), it's easily possible to fly faster than Vne
unintentionally if one forgets to study the Vne over height (no idea
of the correct technical term in English... sorry...) limitation
table and flies at high altitude.





Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On 17 Oct 2005 21:16:49 GMT, Nick Olson
> wrote:

>>Nothing special about that except the performance so
>>what is so difficult. I don't hear people saying that
>>a Discus (1 or 2) LS8 or any of the Scheilcher gliders
>>are anything but straightforward providing the pilot
>>has received the proper training.
>
>Don get your basic facts right matey - Diana is a FLAPPED
>15m glider!!

.... and?
In my club the required total time to fly our ASW-20 was 100 hours.
Noone ever had a problem (and for all of them it was the first flapped
glider).
In my opinion the 20 is a lot harder to fly than the current 15m class
gliders (DG-800, ASW-27 and Ventus 2).

200 hours including experience on flapped gliders should be plenty to
fly any flapped glider.





Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> Or maybe: "Is the Diana 2 crash protection as good as the ASW
>>27 (for example)?"
>
>
> Indeed.
> The 27 is a good example because its dimensions are very similar to
> the Diana 2.
>
> I know how long it took for Schleicher to squeeze only 20 lbs out of
> the forward fuselage from the ASW-27 (which then became the 27 SL with
> an empty wight of 230 kg). Hard to see for me how someone is able to
> save another 48 kg on a glider of similar dimensions without
> sacrifying anything (the empty weight of the Diana 2 is 182 kg).

I can only speculate, because I am not familiar with the Diana 2. I know
from speaking to Gerhard Waibel that some structure on the Schleicher
gliders is much stronger than required by the flight loads. I learned
about that when I had a problem with an aileron push rod at the root of
my ASW 20. Gerhard told me I didn't have a problem, because those rods
were three times stronger than the flight loads required, due to ground
handling issues (pilots would grab the rods to keep the wing from
tipping in a wind). Similarly, the wings are much stronger in the
horizontal direction than needed in flight, because pilots and crew put
a lot of force on the wing tips when pushing the glider around on the
ground.

If a designer believed the owners of his glider would be very careful
when moving the glider on the ground, he could save weight in these
areas (and others). Of course, there are other ways to save weight: the
SparrowHawk is an extreme example of this, and one factor is the use of
pre-preg carbon fiber instead of wet lay-up. Or, perhaps, pultruded
carbon rods instead of a roving spar cap, as some gliders use.

I don't know how the Diana does it, but if I wanted a Diana 2, I would
ask questions like "How did you achieve this weight reduction without
sacrificing strength needed for ground handling or crashworthiness?".

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
brtlmj > wrote:

> On 17 Oct 2005 20:02:50 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote:
> >> fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
> > 200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?
>
> This _might_ mean that he is instructing a lot.

And on a winch, to boot.

It seems inconceivable that any pilot could have such a low average time
otherwise. I just looked at mine out of curiosity (gotta log electronic
logbooks...):

Crew Flights Time Avg
==== ======= ====== ===
P 88 115:21 79
P1 141 96:11 41
P2 102 36:28 21

I'm not an instructor. So what you can see is that my average flight
while under instruction (including subsequent two seater ratings, site
checks, and BFRs) is 21 minutes. Average flight time when taking
friends for rides is nearly double that, and average single-seater
flight times are nearly double again (I'm a bit embarassed by how low
that 79 minute number is, actually).

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Paul]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
>>fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
>
>
> 200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?
>
> Ian
>
>
...and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

Paul

[Paul]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
>>fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
>
>
> 200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?
>
> Ian
>
>
...and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

Paul

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:33 UTC, Paul >
wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
> >>fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
> >
> >
> > 200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

> ..and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

I have deliberately avoided giving any conclusions. I just think the
statistics are interesting, and that's not in a particularly negative
way.

Ian

[Graeme Cant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I don't know how the Diana does it, but if I wanted a Diana 2, I would
> ask questions like "How did you achieve this weight reduction without
> sacrificing strength needed for ground handling or crashworthiness?".

Yes, Eric, but English is your first language. I don't think it is for
Naresh so he simply said "Where is the Kevlar?"

12 words and about 97 polysyllables shorter - but exactly the same
question. :)

Graeme Cant

[Eric Greenwell]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> I don't know how the Diana does it, but if I wanted a Diana 2, I would
>> ask questions like "How did you achieve this weight reduction without
>> sacrificing strength needed for ground handling or crashworthiness?".
>
>
> Yes, Eric, but English is your first language. I don't think it is for
> Naresh so he simply said "Where is the Kevlar?"
>
> 12 words and about 97 polysyllables shorter - but exactly the same
> question. :)

OK, how about "How come yours is so light and theirs is so heavy?"?

Actually, his written English is excellent - look at his postings and
web site. I think he asked the Kevlar question because he thought the
details about it's use would tell him (and the audience he appears to be
reaching for) important information. My point is it won't, unless you
are very knowledgeable about the details of glider structural design for
crashworthiness.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[2cernauta2]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:


>Well... extremely light weight of a fuselage definitely makes me
>wonder about crash protection - something Germany glider manufacturers
>have a lot of experience with. I think there's a good cause why their
>gliders are so heavy compared to the Diana 2.

Whatever the kind of vehicle, crashworthiness is definitely not
described by the mass of the vehicle itself!

All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
protective.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Stefan]

2cernauta2 wrote:

> All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
> protective.

And, contrary to the belief of some SUV drivers, even the amount of mass
in front of the pilot doesn't tell much about crashworthyness.

Stefan

[2cernauta2]

"Udo Rumpf" > wrote:

>What is with Europe?
>The last time I flew a factory glider in Germany around 1989. I did not had
>to go through this spiel
>of presenting papers and proof of this or that and medicals.

The Diana2 demonstrator is registered in Poland, not in Germany. That
makes a big difference for mutual recognition of pilot licences.

Aldo Cernezzi

[For Example John Smith]

But in gliders as in SUV's, I feel better if my mass is above yours.
"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> 2cernauta2 wrote:
>
>> All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
>> protective.
>
> And, contrary to the belief of some SUV drivers, even the amount of mass
> in front of the pilot doesn't tell much about crashworthyness.
>
> Stefan

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:34:13 +0200, 2cernauta2
> wrote:


>Whatever the kind of vehicle, crashworthiness is definitely not
>described by the mass of the vehicle itself!

Well... saving weight by deleting crash protection doesn't help, does
it?
Crash protection needs material which always adds weight.

>All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
>protective.

And the mass right around him (read: cockpit) that's meant to absorp
the impact energy without crushing him?

Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:08:56 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Actually, his written English is excellent - look at his postings and
>web site. I think he asked the Kevlar question because he thought the
>details about it's use would tell him (and the audience he appears to be
>reaching for) important information. My point is it won't, unless you
>are very knowledgeable about the details of glider structural design for
>crashworthiness.

... which is actualy based on carbon fibre these days, not Kevlar.

Interesting topic, but unfortunately (but understandably) prejudiced
by his own personal experiences.


Bye
Andreas

[Paul]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:33 UTC, Paul >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ian Johnston wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
>>>>fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?
>>>
>>>
>>>200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?
>
>
>>..and so is your considered, insightful analysis.
>
>
> I have deliberately avoided giving any conclusions. I just think the
> statistics are interesting, and that's not in a particularly negative
> way.
>
> Ian


Well the conclusion is strongly implied. However if you did not mean to
suggest that the guy must be a poor pilot due to his low average flight
time, you have my unreserved apology.

That of course begs the question, what was the point of your post?

Kind regards

Paul