Diana-2 - master-piece or flop?

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

I have read very good critics about Diana-2
but as well very bad news about it.

The good news are from the people who seem to have flown the first two
Prototypes. The bad rumors I heard about number-3 of Diana-2.
Obviously the main difference is, that the wing position was shifted some
centimeters to the front. The glider appeared in Australia last November,
flew with experimental permit, but never got the airworthiness approval from
the Australian Airworthiness Authorities.

The gossip mentions problems like:
- airbrake movements being asynchronous
- flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive
- too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)
- weak aileron control at take off until tail wheel is off the ground
- glider is stalling while thermaling over inner wing at speeds >CLmax with
- aileron control not good enough to keep bank when circling >30deg
- glider was in general instable to fly in yaw and pitch

Did anyone fly serial planes of Diana-2 with manufacturing numbers >3?

[[email protected]]

- flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive

I'm curious. How can flaps self-deploy to full positive given in-
flight airflow? Are they somehow balanced?


- too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)

This one seems to contradict the first one. If it takes a lot of force
to deploy the flaps, how can they self-deploy to full positive?

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

it is not contradictory

- it needs much force to push the flaps to negative position
- when you fly fast through a thermal or turbulence the handle unhooked
and comes fully back into positive position, unless you hold it
permanently
in your hand.
- a former world champion who flew the glider said: The plane unfortunately
can not be flown to its full performance, because as long as it behaves so
badly.

many modern gliders even accept the flaps to be in intermediate positions
without being in a locked position and the flaps will not move.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
>- flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive
>
> I'm curious. How can flaps self-deploy to full positive given in-
> flight airflow? Are they somehow balanced?
>
>
> - too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)
>
> This one seems to contradict the first one. If it takes a lot of force
> to deploy the flaps, how can they self-deploy to full positive?
>
>
>

[GK[_1_]]

On Jun 16, 3:44 pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> it is not contradictory
>
> - it needs much force to push the flaps to negative position
> - when you fly fast through a thermal or turbulence the handle unhooked
> and comes fully back into positive position, unless you hold it
> permanently
> in your hand.
> - a former world champion who flew the glider said: The plane unfortunately
> can not be flown to its full performance, because as long as it behaves so
> badly.
>
> many modern gliders even accept the flaps to be in intermediate positions
> without being in a locked position and the flaps will not move.
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >- flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive
>
> > I'm curious. How can flaps self-deploy to full positive given in-
> > flight airflow? Are they somehow balanced?
>
> > - too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)
>
> > This one seems to contradict the first one. If it takes a lot of force
> > to deploy the flaps, how can they self-deploy to full positive?


- Strangely enough Mr.Johnosn did not publish these "revelations".

[Paul Hanson]

> - Strangely enough Mr.Johnosn did not publish these
>'revelations'.

I am not taking any sides in the Dianna 2 debate, as
it seems like a hot ship, with a not too shabby track
record to back that up and I do not have rounded enough
info to pass judgment on it. I do want to point out
however, that this thread is about s/n 3 or higher;
Johnson tested s/n 2, the personal Dianna 2 of the
US dealer. I am curious to hear more, both good or
bad (hopefully good though). One can never be too cautious
about believing hype on any product, especially sailplanes,
but I do want to point out that the Poles have a very
good track record when it comes to their ship's performances
and their claims about them. In general they tend to
be very objective, scientific, and accurately stated,
as confirmed by many other Johnson (and other's) tests,
including s/n 2 Dianna II. But lets not stifle further
discussion on the subject.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 5:24 am, wrote:
> - flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive
>
> I'm curious. How can flaps self-deploy to full positive given in-
> flight airflow? Are they somehow balanced?
>
> - too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)
>
> This one seems to contradict the first one. If it takes a lot of force
> to deploy the flaps, how can they self-deploy to full positive?

Yeah, I'm curious too. I have an old Speed Astir, and had some trouble
with the flap lock becoming disengaged. It usually happened turning
base to final, and went from full positive to full negative in blink
of an eye. There is considerable force at all airspeeds and conditions
(except a negative "G" push) exerted on the flap control toward the
negative flap setting.

[Maciek]

wrote:

> Yeah, I'm curious too. I have an old Speed Astir, and had some trouble
> with the flap lock becoming disengaged. It usually happened turning
> base to final, and went from full positive to full negative in blink
> of an eye. There is considerable force at all airspeeds and conditions
> (except a negative "G" push) exerted on the flap control toward the
> negative flap setting.

finally someone imaginative... There is a pressure difference betweene the
upper and the bottom surface of the wing, thanks to whitch our gliders can
fly (if there is enyone who doesn't know that...). If one of your ailerons
pins out, or your flaps aren't locked at their position - they will all
deploy up. It is impossible that the flaps are balanced that much, to
overcome the pressure difference and deploy to positive - especially in a
glider weighting 185 kg.

Mat

[tommytoyz]

" this thread is about s/n 3 or higher;"

There is a very good report on another ship in the US, which I assume
is SN3 or higher and reports nothing of rumors that you are passing
on.

>From Bill Liscomb's report on his ship:

Off tow the fun really begins! It
is easy to fly and the roll rate is downright
snappy. As with most flapped ships,
as the flaps go farther down, the adverse
yaw goes up. But at normal climb/cruise
settings it is not noticeable and control
harmony is good. I haven't flown with
other ships very much, so I can't claim
any kind of remarkable thermalling performance.
I do know this thing has
climbed out of situations where my previous
glider, a 304CZ, would have had
problems. The flying weight of the Diana 2
(without water ballast) is about 25 pounds
heavier than the empty weight of the 304CZ! Empty weight of my Diana 2
with instruments, battery, oxygen, etc., is 433 lbs.
Then, there is the glide. Unreal! I'm still having trust issues with
the glide computer. It seems impossible that a 15m ship
has legs like this! The factory provides a nice sheet of linear graphs
showing flap settings for speeds at different wing loading. The
idea with the flap charts is you cut them out and stack them together
with a glue stick. As you dump water, simply peel off charts
until you get to your current wing loading. The correct flap setting
is mandatory to get the best performance from this ship. In
March of 2007, I did get to see what a load of bugs does. I checked
out my black, fuzzy leading edges, then set the glide computer to
20% bugs and did a 30 mile final glide. I got back to Warner very
high, dialed the bugs back to zero, and it showed my actual arrival
altitude.
I've done one flight with water
ballast. I put in 43gallons (344 lbs)
plus another 12lbs in the tail, which put
me at just under 1,000lbs (1102 lbs is
the maximum). This gave a wing loading
of 10.6 lbs sq ft. (the dry wingloading
is about 6.7 lbs sq ft). Once off
tow, the water transforms the glider
into a rocket. I felt like I was strapped
inside a runaway locomotive. I flew on
August 29th, 2006, a great day in So-
Cal, and SeeYou showed two segments
over 170 miles with no turns and average
speeds 113 and 116mph.
Landings are easy. I use the
+21 flap setting rather than the +28
because of the wind we usually have at
Warner Springs. This setting also increases
aileron effectiveness while
dealing with the normal crosswind
shear, thermals and turbulence on final.
Wheel landings are the norm - touch
down, add full spoilers, put flaps full
negative, hold the tail off, roll to a stop.
The Diana 2 is small and light, both in the air and on the ground. It
is a total blast to fly. Soaring in Southern California is
unique in that a pilot can encounter several different air masses in
one flight. Without water ballast, the Diana 2 is very capable of
handling these conditions. It does very well in small, weak thermals
as well as the big rowdy stuff, and has an amazing glide over a
wide speed range. When it gets good, simply add water. Lots and lots
of water...

[Udo]

Thanks for the report.
I do not know were people pick up those ideas.
I did fly a few times with and against the Diana and I was very much
impressed. I also did sit in the cockpit and I was not able to get
comfortable.Other then that I was very much tempted. Instead I got an
other glider.
Udo

On Jun 17, 4:00 pm, tommytoyz > wrote:
> " this thread is about s/n 3 or higher;"
>
> There is a very good report on another ship in the US, which I assume
> is SN3 or higher and reports nothing of rumors that you are passing
> on.
>
> >From Bill Liscomb's report on his ship:
>
> Off tow the fun really begins! It
> is easy to fly and the roll rate is downright
> snappy. As with most flapped ships,
> as the flaps go farther down, the adverse
> yaw goes up. But at normal climb/cruise
> settings it is not noticeable and control
> harmony is good. I haven't flown with
> other ships very much, so I can't claim
> any kind of remarkable thermalling performance.
> I do know this thing has
> climbed out of situations where my previous
> glider, a 304CZ, would have had
> problems. The flying weight of the Diana 2
> (without water ballast) is about 25 pounds
> heavier than the empty weight of the 304CZ! Empty weight of my Diana 2
> with instruments, battery, oxygen, etc., is 433 lbs.
> Then, there is the glide. Unreal! I'm still having trust issues with
> the glide computer. It seems impossible that a 15m ship
> has legs like this! The factory provides a nice sheet of linear graphs
> showing flap settings for speeds at different wing loading. The
> idea with the flap charts is you cut them out and stack them together
> with a glue stick. As you dump water, simply peel off charts
> until you get to your current wing loading. The correct flap setting
> is mandatory to get the best performance from this ship. In
> March of 2007, I did get to see what a load of bugs does. I checked
> out my black, fuzzy leading edges, then set the glide computer to
> 20% bugs and did a 30 mile final glide. I got back to Warner very
> high, dialed the bugs back to zero, and it showed my actual arrival
> altitude.
> I've done one flight with water
> ballast. I put in 43gallons (344 lbs)
> plus another 12lbs in the tail, which put
> me at just under 1,000lbs (1102 lbs is
> the maximum). This gave a wing loading
> of 10.6 lbs sq ft. (the dry wingloading
> is about 6.7 lbs sq ft). Once off
> tow, the water transforms the glider
> into a rocket. I felt like I was strapped
> inside a runaway locomotive. I flew on
> August 29th, 2006, a great day in So-
> Cal, and SeeYou showed two segments
> over 170 miles with no turns and average
> speeds 113 and 116mph.
> Landings are easy. I use the
> +21 flap setting rather than the +28
> because of the wind we usually have at
> Warner Springs. This setting also increases
> aileron effectiveness while
> dealing with the normal crosswind
> shear, thermals and turbulence on final.
> Wheel landings are the norm - touch
> down, add full spoilers, put flaps full
> negative, hold the tail off, roll to a stop.
> The Diana 2 is small and light, both in the air and on the ground. It
> is a total blast to fly. Soaring in Southern California is
> unique in that a pilot can encounter several different air masses in
> one flight. Without water ballast, the Diana 2 is very capable of
> handling these conditions. It does very well in small, weak thermals
> as well as the big rowdy stuff, and has an amazing glide over a
> wide speed range. When it gets good, simply add water. Lots and lots
> of water...

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

> Maciek wrote: If one of your ailerons pins out, or your flaps aren't
> locked at their position - they will all deploy up. It is impossible that
> the flaps are balanced that much ....

I do not agree with that.
It depends on the aerodynamic and kinematics design of the flap system.

The ASW27 does not show any tendency to change flap settings between
+2 and -1 which covers a speed range of 80-180km/h. The same I was
told to be the case for the ASW26. You can have the flaps in any inter-
mediate position and it will stay there. you can move the flaps to any
setting with two fingers (except -2 and Landing position).

As said before the prototypes of the Diana-2 have the wing position about
5cm (2") more tailward than this first "Serial Machine". Why the wing-
position was moved forward is not clear but confirmed. After such a
significant change I would rather call it a prototype as well. The handbook
as well did not show the new drawings and figures for the CG calculations.
The glider was month too late in production and delivered in a hurry after
just one test flight. This Diana-2 with production number 3 seems to be a
different plane in regards of flying behavior than the prototypes.
That's why I was wondering if anyone might have flown number 4.
__________________________________________________ ______

"Maciek" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'm curious too. I have an old Speed Astir, and had some trouble
>> with the flap lock becoming disengaged. It usually happened turning
>> base to final, and went from full positive to full negative in blink
>> of an eye. There is considerable force at all airspeeds and conditions
>> (except a negative "G" push) exerted on the flap control toward the
>> negative flap setting.
>
> finally someone imaginative... There is a pressure difference betweene the
> upper and the bottom surface of the wing, thanks to whitch our gliders can
> fly (if there is enyone who doesn't know that...). If one of your ailerons
> pins out, or your flaps aren't locked at their position - they will all
> deploy up. It is impossible that the flaps are balanced that much, to
> overcome the pressure difference and deploy to positive - especially in a
> glider weighting 185 kg.
>
> Mat
>

[Tuno]

<snip> they will all deploy up </snip>

My Ventus 2C won't do that. The flap system is integrated with the
horizontal stab trim; when weight and balance are correct and trim is
set, the flap handle, when not locked, will gently try to go to the
position most appropriate for the current speed.

2NO

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

_Maciek wrote: If one of your ailerons pins out, or your flaps aren't
_locked at their position - they will all deploy up. It is impossible that
_the flaps are balanced that much ....

I do not agree with that.
It depends on the aerodynamic and kinematics design of the flap system.

The ASW27 does not show any tendency to change flap settings between
+2 and -1 which covers a speed range of 80-180km/h. The same I was
told to be the case for the ASW26. You can have the flaps in any inter-
mediate position and it will stay there. you can move the flaps to any
setting with two fingers (except -2 and Landing position).

As said before the prototypes of the Diana-2 have the wing position about
5cm (2") more tailward than this first "Serial Machine". Why the wing-
position was moved forward is not clear but confirmed. After such a
significant change I would rather call it a prototype as well. The handbook
as well did not show the new drawings and figures for the CG calculations.
The glider was month too late in production and delivered in a hurry after
just one test flight. This Diana-2 with production number 3 seems to be a
different plane in regards of flying behavior than the prototypes.

That's why I was wondering if anyone might have flown number 4.??
__________________________________________________ ______

"BlueCumulus" > wrote in message
...
>I have read very good critics about Diana-2
> but as well very bad news about it.
>
> The good news are from the people who seem to have flown the first two
> Prototypes. The bad rumors I heard about number-3 of Diana-2.
> Obviously the main difference is, that the wing position was shifted some
> centimeters to the front. The glider appeared in Australia last November,
> flew with experimental permit, but never got the airworthiness approval
> from
> the Australian Airworthiness Authorities.
>
> The gossip mentions problems like:
> - airbrake movements being asynchronous
> - flap handle unlocking in flight and shifting to full positive
> - too high flap handling forces (more than JAR22 limits)
> - weak aileron control at take off until tail wheel is off the ground
> - glider is stalling while thermaling over inner wing at speeds >CLmax
> with
> - aileron control not good enough to keep bank when circling >30deg
> - glider was in general instable to fly in yaw and pitch
>
> Did anyone fly serial planes of Diana-2 with manufacturing numbers >3?
>
>

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Tuno wrote:
> <snip> they will all deploy up </snip>
>
> My Ventus 2C won't do that. The flap system is integrated with the
> horizontal stab trim; when weight and balance are correct and trim is
> set, the flap handle, when not locked, will gently try to go to the
> position most appropriate for the current speed.
>
Same for the ASW-20.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[SAM 303a]

Same for the Mosquito
"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Tuno wrote:
>> <snip> they will all deploy up </snip>
>>
>> My Ventus 2C won't do that. The flap system is integrated with the
>> horizontal stab trim; when weight and balance are correct and trim is
>> set, the flap handle, when not locked, will gently try to go to the
>> position most appropriate for the current speed.
>>
> Same for the ASW-20.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

What you say sounds more reasonable
but the described problems are not only rumors.
What happened with serial number 3 in Australia is confirmed.

Question is: which production number is your plane?? and when was
it delivered? I agree that if the glider flies as nicely as it looks, it
would
be a good package to buy.

But I heard that number-3 still is in Australia and that the owner (a
company who sponsored the glider) is having differences with the
manufacturer who has to pay for transport......

The pilot also contacted the factory in December I was told, but the
manufacturers service reaction was silence until the message went
through, that the glider is considered as not airworthy. All requests
for information's how to solve the problems got no results and when
the Australian season was over, the pilot was really upset not having
been able to do anything but test-fly the ship, try modifications and
try again.

On paper the performance looks very good. But it looks as if not
all gliders of the same type fly the same.
__________________________________________________ ___

"tommytoyz" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>" this thread is about s/n 3 or higher;"
>
> There is a very good report on another ship in the US, which I assume
> is SN3 or higher and reports nothing of rumors that you are passing
> on.
>
>>From Bill Liscomb's report on his ship:
>
> Off tow the fun really begins! It
> is easy to fly and the roll rate is downright
> snappy. As with most flapped ships,
> as the flaps go farther down, the adverse
> yaw goes up. But at normal climb/cruise
> settings it is not noticeable and control
> harmony is good. I haven't flown with
> other ships very much, so I can't claim
> any kind of remarkable thermalling performance.
> I do know this thing has
> climbed out of situations where my previous
> glider, a 304CZ, would have had
> problems. The flying weight of the Diana 2
> (without water ballast) is about 25 pounds
> heavier than the empty weight of the 304CZ! Empty weight of my Diana 2
> with instruments, battery, oxygen, etc., is 433 lbs.
> Then, there is the glide. Unreal! I'm still having trust issues with
> the glide computer. It seems impossible that a 15m ship
> has legs like this! The factory provides a nice sheet of linear graphs
> showing flap settings for speeds at different wing loading. The
> idea with the flap charts is you cut them out and stack them together
> with a glue stick. As you dump water, simply peel off charts
> until you get to your current wing loading. The correct flap setting
> is mandatory to get the best performance from this ship. In
> March of 2007, I did get to see what a load of bugs does. I checked
> out my black, fuzzy leading edges, then set the glide computer to
> 20% bugs and did a 30 mile final glide. I got back to Warner very
> high, dialed the bugs back to zero, and it showed my actual arrival
> altitude.
> I've done one flight with water
> ballast. I put in 43gallons (344 lbs)
> plus another 12lbs in the tail, which put
> me at just under 1,000lbs (1102 lbs is
> the maximum). This gave a wing loading
> of 10.6 lbs sq ft. (the dry wingloading
> is about 6.7 lbs sq ft). Once off
> tow, the water transforms the glider
> into a rocket. I felt like I was strapped
> inside a runaway locomotive. I flew on
> August 29th, 2006, a great day in So-
> Cal, and SeeYou showed two segments
> over 170 miles with no turns and average
> speeds 113 and 116mph.
> Landings are easy. I use the
> +21 flap setting rather than the +28
> because of the wind we usually have at
> Warner Springs. This setting also increases
> aileron effectiveness while
> dealing with the normal crosswind
> shear, thermals and turbulence on final.
> Wheel landings are the norm - touch
> down, add full spoilers, put flaps full
> negative, hold the tail off, roll to a stop.
> The Diana 2 is small and light, both in the air and on the ground. It
> is a total blast to fly. Soaring in Southern California is
> unique in that a pilot can encounter several different air masses in
> one flight. Without water ballast, the Diana 2 is very capable of
> handling these conditions. It does very well in small, weak thermals
> as well as the big rowdy stuff, and has an amazing glide over a
> wide speed range. When it gets good, simply add water. Lots and lots
> of water...
>

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 2:17 pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> What you say sounds more reasonable
> but the described problems are not only rumors.
> What happened with serial number 3 in Australia is confirmed.
>
> Question is: which production number is your plane?? and when was
> it delivered? I agree that if the glider flies as nicely as it looks, it
> would
> be a good package to buy.
>
> But I heard that number-3 still is in Australia and that the owner (a
> company who sponsored the glider) is having differences with the
> manufacturer who has to pay for transport......
>
> The pilot also contacted the factory in December I was told, but the
> manufacturers service reaction was silence until the message went
> through, that the glider is considered as not airworthy. All requests
> for information's how to solve the problems got no results and when
> the Australian season was over, the pilot was really upset not having
> been able to do anything but test-fly the ship, try modifications and
> try again.
>
> On paper the performance looks very good. But it looks as if not
> all gliders of the same type fly the same.
> __________________________________________________ ___
>
> "tommytoyz" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >" this thread is about s/n 3 or higher;"
>
> > There is a very good report on another ship in the US, which I assume
> > is SN3 or higher and reports nothing of rumors that you are passing
> > on.
>
> >>From Bill Liscomb's report on his ship:
>
> > Off tow the fun really begins! It
> > is easy to fly and the roll rate is downright
> > snappy. As with most flapped ships,
> > as the flaps go farther down, the adverse
> > yaw goes up. But at normal climb/cruise
> > settings it is not noticeable and control
> > harmony is good. I haven't flown with
> > other ships very much, so I can't claim
> > any kind of remarkable thermalling performance.
> > I do know this thing has
> > climbed out of situations where my previous
> > glider, a 304CZ, would have had
> > problems. The flying weight of the Diana 2
> > (without water ballast) is about 25 pounds
> > heavier than the empty weight of the 304CZ! Empty weight of my Diana 2
> > with instruments, battery, oxygen, etc., is 433 lbs.
> > Then, there is the glide. Unreal! I'm still having trust issues with
> > the glide computer. It seems impossible that a 15m ship
> > has legs like this! The factory provides a nice sheet of linear graphs
> > showing flap settings for speeds at different wing loading. The
> > idea with the flap charts is you cut them out and stack them together
> > with a glue stick. As you dump water, simply peel off charts
> > until you get to your current wing loading. The correct flap setting
> > is mandatory to get the best performance from this ship. In
> > March of 2007, I did get to see what a load of bugs does. I checked
> > out my black, fuzzy leading edges, then set the glide computer to
> > 20% bugs and did a 30 mile final glide. I got back to Warner very
> > high, dialed the bugs back to zero, and it showed my actual arrival
> > altitude.
> > I've done one flight with water
> > ballast. I put in 43gallons (344 lbs)
> > plus another 12lbs in the tail, which put
> > me at just under 1,000lbs (1102 lbs is
> > the maximum). This gave a wing loading
> > of 10.6 lbs sq ft. (the dry wingloading
> > is about 6.7 lbs sq ft). Once off
> > tow, the water transforms the glider
> > into a rocket. I felt like I was strapped
> > inside a runaway locomotive. I flew on
> > August 29th, 2006, a great day in So-
> > Cal, and SeeYou showed two segments
> > over 170 miles with no turns and average
> > speeds 113 and 116mph.
> > Landings are easy. I use the
> > +21 flap setting rather than the +28
> > because of the wind we usually have at
> > Warner Springs. This setting also increases
> > aileron effectiveness while
> > dealing with the normal crosswind
> > shear, thermals and turbulence on final.
> > Wheel landings are the norm - touch
> > down, add full spoilers, put flaps full
> > negative, hold the tail off, roll to a stop.
> > The Diana 2 is small and light, both in the air and on the ground. It
> > is a total blast to fly. Soaring in Southern California is
> > unique in that a pilot can encounter several different air masses in
> > one flight. Without water ballast, the Diana 2 is very capable of
> > handling these conditions. It does very well in small, weak thermals
> > as well as the big rowdy stuff, and has an amazing glide over a
> > wide speed range. When it gets good, simply add water. Lots and lots
> > of water...

It looks to me that the manufacturer decided to built different glider
for use in Australia, different for the U.S. and different for
Europe????
Meeesathinkingthatyou'respreadingnaaaaastyrumooooo r..........

[tommytoyz]

You keep saying " is confirmed". That's not good enough. Who says this
exactly? How do you come by this information from the identified
source? This also does not jive with what you yourself say in your
opening post that it is a rumor, now you say it isn't.

Your quote:
"The bad rumors I heard about number-3 of Diana-2. "

Double speak here and this does not go to credibility. To regain such,
you would really need to explicitly identify the origin of the rumor
that you are passing on.

Bill Liscomb's ship is certainly > SN3 - but you should confirm that
with him. Gossip (your word), like, "glider is stalling while
thermaling over inner wing at speeds >CLmax with aileron control not
good enough to keep bank when circling >30deg" is just not credible in
light of flight reports to the contrary, even if the wing was moved
5cm, which I have not heard.

Perhaps you should reveal your sources and more details to fill us all
in here, otherwise nothing is "confirmed".

[Dan G]

On Jun 18, 3:32 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> As said before the prototypes of the Diana-2 have the wing position about
> 5cm (2") more tailward than this first "Serial Machine". Why the wing-
> position was moved forward is not clear but confirmed.

Confirmed by whom? Where?


Dan

[Airjunkie]

On Jun 18, 4:17?pm, Dan G > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:32 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
>
> > As said before the prototypes of the Diana-2 have the wing position about
> > 5cm (2") more tailward than this first "Serial Machine". Why the wing-
> > position was moved forward is not clear but confirmed.
>
> Confirmed by whom? Where?
>
> Dan

I have been in contact with the owner of the machine that these
rumors are centered. To the best of my understanding, most of the
problems with this particular glider are in the adjustment of
linkages. My Diana 2, serial number 002, has the re-located forward
wing position. My spoilers come up symetrically, my flap handle stays
in the correct indent, even in rough air-face prints on the inside of
the canopy to prove it, it is difficult to get -2 flap position above
100kts, so I do pre-select -2 before speeding up, the ailerons are
weak on takeoff before the tail comes up, but they do work and will
keep the wings level-even in a cross wind with the front water tanks
full (46 gallons). Inner wing stalling/stalled while thermalling???
Don't think so.... Chip Garner told me about watching the Diana 2 at
the Grand Prix and was impressed with how well it climbed in weak
thermals, and also how it ran solidly past everything else in glide -
not by just a bit, either. I don't circle steeply in strong themals
out here mostly because the bumpy ones will throw you over the top -
not comfy with the flaps in themalling setting-learned that in my
304CZ. The Diana 2 will circle >45 while thermalling. Yaw and pitch
instabilities? Nope - tracks like an arrow- plenty stable to eat,
navigate and manage hydraulic overpressure situations. The pitch trim
is sometimes noisy - springs/cog wheel/ratchet - sometimes a "kerbang"
if it is pre-loaded when you release the trim. Works great. What
about the Dean Carswell and Richard Johnson report in Soaring? Are
they on the take from the manufacturer? Egad-what is this world
coming to.....
The Diana 2 is a very different glider. Most glider pilots are
very conservative by nature, brand loyal and resist to radical
change. A lot of people see this glider as a threat, because it is so
different. I've been told to my face at Warner Springs that this
glider is a piece of crap. The person telling me this owns a newer,
non-competitive 18m ship. This is not the first time the Diana 2 has
taken a salvo on this group. I'll bet if it said ASG-35 on the side
of the fuselage, you'd all be waiting 2-3 years to get one, and the
whining/wimpering would be internalized....
Bill Liscomb
Diana 2 N562BL Serial Number 5621002 130hrs t.t.

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

Ingo Renner flew it and his statement was:
The plane unfortunately can not be flown to its full performance,
because it behaves so badly.
Do you need a better reference?


"tommytoyz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Double speak here and this does not go to credibility. To regain such,
> you would really need to explicitly identify the origin of the rumor
> that you are passing on.

[Maciek]

"Airjunkie" > wrote

> I'll bet if it said ASG-35 on the side
> of the fuselage, you'd all be waiting 2-3 years to get one, and the
> whining/wimpering would be internalized....
> Bill Liscomb
> Diana 2 N562BL Serial Number 5621002 130hrs t.t.
>

Nothing to add. Now everything is "confirmed"

Mat

[Dan G]

On Jun 19, 4:31 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> Do you need a better reference?

Look up reference in a dictionary, then come back and give us one.

Quite apart from that though Bill is absolutely right. The older
German manufacturers are being left behind by other companies across
the board. It's not suprising nor unusual that people try and rubbish
threats to their favourite brands.


Dan

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 08:00 19 June 2007, Dan G wrote:

>Quite apart from that though Bill is absolutely right.
>The older
>German manufacturers are being left behind by other
>companies across
>the board. It's not suprising nor unusual that people
>try and rubbish
>threats to their favourite brands.
>
>
>Dan

Eh?? It is great to see excellent new designs and
manufacturers such as the Diana, Antares, HpH Shark
and Jonkers but to say that 'the older German manufacturers
are being left behind by other companies across the
board' is a bit OTT.

Open Class: Who is beating the ASW22 and Nimbus 4?
!8m class: The ASG 29 is being left behind?
Standard Class: Anything better than the Discus 2A?
15m Class: The Diana-2 is a fascinating project and
elements of it may have a big effect on the future
of glider construction. The light weight allows a
very high aspect ratio and high performance. However
(if you want to buy into a fading class) is it yet
a safe place to put your own money rather than in an
ASW 27/Ventus 2?

John Galloway

[Dan G]

On Jun 19, 2:25 pm, John Galloway > wrote:

> Eh?? It is great to see excellent new designs and
> manufacturers such as the Diana, Antares, HpH Shark
> and Jonkers but to say that 'the older German manufacturers
> are being left behind by other companies across the
> board' is a bit OTT.
>
> Open Class: Who is beating the ASW22 and Nimbus 4?

Eta and EB28

> 18m class: The ASG 29 is being left behind?

304S, Antares 18 and JS1

> Standard Class: Anything better than the Discus 2A?

Nope, but there's so many LS8s knocking around now - which are 99% as
good unless you live in an area where very strong conditions are the
norm - I'd be suprised if many D2s are still being sold

> 15m Class: The Diana-2 is a fascinating project and
> elements of it may have a big effect on the future
> of glider construction. The light weight allows a
> very high aspect ratio and high performance. However
> (if you want to buy into a fading class) is it yet
> a safe place to put your own money rather than in an
> ASW 27/Ventus 2?

Add in 15m version of 304S too. Yes, I expect these newer designs
which draw upon the great advances in computing power in the last few
years to outperform old designs.


Dan

[Tuno]

> Add in 15m version of 304S too. Yes, I expect these newer designs
> which draw upon the great advances in computing power in the last few
> years to outperform old designs.

The HpH factory is not making the 304S in 15m. And no one has been
able to explain to me why the 18m version is flying with a more
favorable handicap than older designs.

2NO (who had high hopes for the 304S)

[Ian]

On 19 Jun, 14:25, John Galloway > wrote:

> Open Class: Who is beating the ASW22 and Nimbus 4?

It's intriguing that such old designs have survived so long. The
Nimbus 4 came out in 1990 and the ASW-22 in 1981. I wonder if it's
because the Open Class market is too small to justify much investment?
It would be interesting to speculate on what the big stuff would be
doing now if it had benefitted from the R&D which has gone into 15m
and 18m machines.

Ian

[Bert Willing]

Maybe the answer will be the ASH30 Mi...

"Ian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 19 Jun, 14:25, John Galloway > wrote:
>
>> Open Class: Who is beating the ASW22 and Nimbus 4?
>
> It's intriguing that such old designs have survived so long. The
> Nimbus 4 came out in 1990 and the ASW-22 in 1981. I wonder if it's
> because the Open Class market is too small to justify much investment?
> It would be interesting to speculate on what the big stuff would be
> doing now if it had benefitted from the R&D which has gone into 15m
> and 18m machines.
>
> Ian
>

[GK[_1_]]

On Jun 18, 11:31 pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> Ingo Renner flew it and his statement was:
> The plane unfortunately can not be flown to its full performance,
> because it behaves so badly.
> Do you need a better reference?

If the plane cannot be flown to its fullest potential and it WON the
15 meter WORLDS and then again it WON the Grand Prix in France, and
bunch of other things in between then it you can only imagine what its
fullest potential is.
And no I dont need to hear a "reference" from blind and dishonest
competition.

[Tim Mara]

not completely true......The 18m is most in demand from all manufacturers
HpH has simply had no orders for 15M 304S.....the plan today is to offer the
304s as 18 and offer 20m optional wingtips
The proposed 304SE (15m version only) is still planned, but it will not be a
convertible glider...blood and guts 15M only
New brochure is on my website http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/Specs_E.pdf
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Tuno" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Add in 15m version of 304S too. Yes, I expect these newer designs
>> which draw upon the great advances in computing power in the last few
>> years to outperform old designs.
>
> The HpH factory is not making the 304S in 15m. And no one has been
> able to explain to me why the 18m version is flying with a more
> favorable handicap than older designs.
>
> 2NO (who had high hopes for the 304S)
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:23:54 +0200, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

>Maybe the answer will be the ASH30 Mi...

... or the Concordia with the official design L/D of 80.


Bye
Andreas

[Tuno]

Tim: I have correspondence from HpH stating that they are not making
the 304S in 15m, and have no plans to, and that that the 304SE is a
"drawing only". Ergo, my original statement is completely
true(assuming of course that the factory have not changed their mind).

2NO (Gollywomper II on order)

[Tim Mara]

Having spoken directly to HpH the comment there was that of the gliders sold
to day (something near 20 at this point) none had been sold with 15M
wingtips but if there was interest enough they would still be able to offer
them as an option, though none had been made or tested at this time. The
304s is designed optimally as an 18M glider and shortening the span and
reducing performance isn't what most are looking for...the 304SE would be
the glider for those who still want a 15M glider, but it will not be
convertible to 18M..this glider is still planned but will be offered
sometime at a later date ....
So if there are enough orders for 304s with optional 15m wingtips (all will
still be sold as 18M gliders) I'm sure HpH will make the option
available....but for a serious 15M racer the 304SE is the glider.
tim

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Tuno" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tim: I have correspondence from HpH stating that they are not making
> the 304S in 15m, and have no plans to, and that that the 304SE is a
> "drawing only". Ergo, my original statement is completely
> true(assuming of course that the factory have not changed their mind).
>
> 2NO (Gollywomper II on order)
>

[tommytoyz]

Schleicher are developing the ASH 30 Mi which will have 26.5 M
wingspan and has better high speed creuise, though the wing loading is
still not as high as say 15 or 18 m ships.

The EB28 is already flying and has better performance than the ASH
25.

I find it intriguing that the Diana-2 has such high performance at low
speeds, that it matches the 18m ships in slow max LD glide and
probably kills them heavily ballasted at high speeds. It's probably
better than any open ship loaded at high speed as well.

One of the reasons is because it can load it's wings to 58KG per SQ M
- which is higher than any ship I am aware of.

Until other manufacturers go to sparless wings, the Diana-2 will
retain this advantage, IMHO.

I found it interesting to read recently that the very first glass ship
- the Phoenix - was also a sparless design and was light as a feather
as well. In those days, it was thought that the better the ship
climbed the faster it went cross country. The Phoenix never had any
structural issues and was a sound design.

So really, the Diana-2 is just back to the beginning and nothing new.
Wish I could afford one..............in my dreams I can..........

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>tommytoyz wrote:

>
>So really, the Diana-2 is just back to the beginning and nothing new.
>Wish I could afford one..............in my dreams I can..........
I think they're just beautiful in their sorta-weird way. With that tiny boom
and the kinda clunky looking empennage and the ellipse wing.
It really is a sexy machine.
My problem is two-fold. Not enough dough to spend right now... and at 6'3"
and 230#, they say I would need some olive oil and a shoehorn to get in and
outtta one. O_o

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200706/1

[tommytoyz]

"at 6'3" and 230#, they say I would need some olive oil and a shoehorn
to get in and
outtta one."

I don't think that is necessarily true. It is wider at the shoulders
than even the Ventus 2b. It does have a more prone position than most
gliders though. If I read correctly, the stick position can be made to
accommodate the new owner's body and arm length.

I think Bill put it that the most important factor is the length of
your body, relative from your tailbone to your head. So should someone
be as tall as you, but have relatively short legs, that's where the
fitting problems are in the Diana-2.

If you have broad shoulders, it shouldn't be more of a problem than in
any other ship, as the Diana-2 is wider than several. I sat - or
rather laid - in it, and I like it. I love the side stick and can only
imagine it being very relaxing to fly. Also love the very large DG
style canopy.

Maybe some day...........

[Wayne Paul]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:73f4603c98205@uwe...
> >tommytoyz wrote:
>
>>
>>So really, the Diana-2 is just back to the beginning and nothing new.
>>Wish I could afford one..............in my dreams I can..........
> I think they're just beautiful in their sorta-weird way. With that tiny
> boom
> and the kinda clunky looking empennage and the ellipse wing.

I think it looks a lot like a T-tail version of Dick Schreder's RS-15.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/C-GPUB.html

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

tommytoyz wrote:
>"at 6'3" and 230#, they say I would need some olive oil and a shoehorn
>to get in and
>outtta one."
>
>I don't think that is necessarily true. It is wider at the shoulders
>than even the Ventus 2b. It does have a more prone position than most
>gliders though. If I read correctly, the stick position can be made to
>accommodate the new owner's body and arm length.



Thanks for that. I have yet to even see one at the field. Would love a chance
to take one out for a ride... oil/shoehorn or not. ; )

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200706/1

[Dan G]

On Jun 19, 9:00 am, Dan G > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:31 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
>
> > Do you need a better reference?
>
> Look up reference in a dictionary, then come back and give us one.

Quite by chance I've found one myself:

"DISTURBING NEWS ABOUT THE DIANA 2 Czech Republic pilot, Hana Zejdova
who has set some 26 world records has just upgraded to a new Diana 2.
I have been informed that her sailplane has been grounded at Tocumwal,
Australia. At certain speeds, it pulls in one direction, and has to
be slowed down to straighten it up. The sailplane has other in-flight
problems requiring attention. Australians that have flown the
sailplane have been less than impressed with its handling qualities."

http://www.glidingmagazine.com/NewsArticle.asp?id=1605 , posted July 4
2007.

That's sufficiently different from what's been posted here for me to
be sure that it isn't simply based on this thread. So yes, it does
indeed look like that at least one Diana 2 has big problems.


Dan