Shock! Hana's Diana 2 in service

[Andrzej]

You can see pictures of Hana's glider Diana 2 and her "modifications":

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2817

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2818

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2819

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2820

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2821

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2822

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2823

http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2824

....and whole article from polish service in Bielsko-Biala:

http://www.gorpol.pl/?site=80&artykul=288

No comments needed.

Andy

[Jose Jimenez]

Could somebody provide a rough translation? My Polish is less than
perfect, and without the comments, I can't interpret the pictures. (And
Babeljoke can't Polish, either.)

[Andrzej]

> -----Wiadomo¶æ oryginalna-----
> Od: Andrzej ]
> Og³oszono: ¶roda 5 grudnia 2007 10:46
> Og³oszone w: rec.aviation.soaring
> Konwersacja: Shock! Hana's Diana 2 in service
> Temat: Shock! Hana's Diana 2 in service
>
> You can see pictures of Hana's glider Diana 2 and her "modifications":
>

> Diana 2 Hany Zejdovej przyp³ynê³a z Australii - SZOK !!! 4.12.2007 r
Hana's Zejdova Diana 2 just was delivered from Australia - shock!

> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2817


> Super orchidea o znakach VH-VHZ w firmie Bogumi³a Beresia w
> Bielsku-Bia³ej.
Super orchidee at signs VH-VHZ in gliders service BB in Bielsko-Biala


> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2818

> Na zewn±trz po³o¿one oryginalne sworznie mocuj±ce p³ytê hamulcow± do
> ramienia, wewn±trz ¶ruby które zamontowa³ w australijski mechanik !!!!
> Wodoczna tulejka "nie zmie¶ci³a" siê równie¿ mechanikowi na sworzniu
> napêdu hamulca, wiêc jej nie by³o - efekt pasowanie godne wozu
> drabiniastego.
There are original pivots fastened plate of air brakes to the arm. You
can see screw inside the arm wchich was mounted by australian
mechanician. There isn't muff on the pivot of air brake drive -
mechanician just removed it.


> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2819

> Oryginalny sworzeñ w ramieniu hamulca aerodynamicznego zast±piono
¶rub±
> z marketu, otwór siê "trochê rozlajerowa³", wiêc wci¶niêto tulejkê...
Original pivot of air brake's arm was replaced by screw from
supermarket. Hana's mechanisian just pressed muff inside because of gaps
was a liitle bit distroyed.

> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2820
> Stan koñcówki ramienia hamulca aerodynamicznego po technicznej
> ingerencji mechanika w Australii....
End of air brake arm after technical intervention.

> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2821\


Another picuture of Hana's and her mechanician work.

> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2822

> Os³ona napêdu klapolotki by³a wy³amywana, byæ mo¿e
> z my¶l± obejrzenia rozwi±zania.
Broken aileron cover.

> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2823

> Ta¶ma mylarowa zosta³a zast±piona inn±, szersz±,
> nie usuniêty klej zniekszta³ci³ zdecydowanie profil...
Mylar tape was removed and replaced by other, wider tape. Glue was not
removed so it deformed aerofoil.


> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2824

Insecurited hinge of rudder.


> ...and whole article from polish service in Bielsko-Biala:
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/?site=80&artykul=288
>
> No comments needed.
>
> Andy

[Ian]

On 5 Dec, 11:08, "Andrzej" > wrote:

> Original pivot of air brake's arm was replaced by screw from
> supermarket. Hana's mechanisian just pressed muff inside because of gaps
> was a liitle bit distroyed.

Thanks for the translations. Just one little thing - I think that's a
"bush" you're referring too. "Muff" can mean "bush", but in a rather,
erm, anatomical sense.

Ian

[Andrzej]

> Thanks for the translations. Just one little thing - I think that's a
> "bush" you're referring too. "Muff" can mean "bush", but in a rather,
> erm, anatomical sense.
I'm sorry but my english is worse than your polish :o)

Andy

[Maciek]

Perhaps one comment is needed: this is all about the Diana 2 #3 about which
there were many many posts sent by Blue Cumulus to this group, telling about
its unprecise manufacture,horrible flight characteristics, self-deployment
of the flaps and non-symetric deployment of the airbrakes. Off course the
manufacturer was the one to blame for that. Now we all can find what was
really wrong with the glider.

Maciek K.

BTW: The manufacturer obliged himself to fix the glider for free (the owner
only shipped the plane pack to Europe) just to protect his reputation after
all theese lies told about his gliders.

[Dan G]

On Dec 5, 12:16 pm, "Maciek" > wrote:
> Perhaps one comment is needed: this is all about the Diana 2 #3 about which
> there were many many posts sent by Blue Cumulus to this group, telling about
> its unprecise manufacture,horrible flight characteristics, self-deployment
> of the flaps and non-symetric deployment of the airbrakes.

Who is this Hana person, and why did she and her "mechanic" (perhaps a
better term would be "moron") feel the need to start fiddling around
with the glider?


Dan

PS I believe there's a Diana 2 entered into the upcoming Sailplane
Grand Prix - could be interesting...

[Udo]

On Dec 5, 6:42 am, "Andrzej" > wrote:
> > Thanks for the translations. Just one little thing - I think that's a
> > "bush" you're referring too. "Muff" can mean "bush", but in a rather,
> > erm, anatomical sense.
>
> I'm sorry but my english is worse than your polish :o)
>
> Andy

I would like to see the original parts before the so called
modification.
other the the bolts in your first picture.
Udo

[[email protected]]

All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
"modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
his face.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 14:32 05 December 2007, wrote:
>All this only shows again that a client of this Polish
>glider
>manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced
>to 'do it
>himself' because he does not get the necessary service,
>not the
>required instructions, nor papers when he needs this
>all urgently for
>flying. He did not even get the right documentation
>for the glider
>itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read
>here somewhere in
>the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did
>these
>'modifications' after the problems occured and after
>they did not
>receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else
>can a client (who
>is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from
>the manufactuer,
>then trying to help himself. By the way - what do
>these photos here
>show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer
>is doing
>something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of
>a rediculous screw
>is not a big problem. I have the impression that the
>fiercy reaction
>of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful
>attempt to save
>his face.

I have no opinion on the engineering but strong public
allegations were made against the manufacturer on this
forum and that gives him right of reply.

John Galloway

[Ian]

On 5 Dec, 11:42, "Andrzej" > wrote:
> > Thanks for the translations. Just one little thing - I think that's a
> > "bush" you're referring too. "Muff" can mean "bush", but in a rather,
> > erm, anatomical sense.
>
> I'm sorry but my english is worse than your polish :o)

Impossible!

Ian

[Andrzej]

This glider has only 60 hours in the air! 60 hours! Do you know what
guarantee is?!

I wonder that producer repairs it!

Andy

[Andrzej]

> I would like to see the original parts before the so called
> modification.
> other the the bolts in your first picture.

I think producer show more pictures soon. Presented pictures are hot.

Andy

[Maciek]

> All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
> manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
> himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
> required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
> flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
> itself (and not for the trailer?).

how can You know that? How is it posible that the producer doesn't give the
instructions?

> This was to read here somewhere in
> the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
> "modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
> receive help from the manufacturer, right?

Yes it was. But as I can remember nothing was told about modifications. The
only thing was told was that #3 glider's airbrakes and flaperons were
working bad, and that mr Beres didnt want to fix it. Nobody told the truth
that the owner contacted the producer AFTER he has made the modifications
and that mr Beres proposed to fix the glider for free even though it was
broken by the user. His only condition was to ship the plane to him.
It is imposible that a glider with incorrectly adjusted airbrakes or
flaperons leaves the factory for the client. That is what the test flighst
are for. So I claim that the glider was OK when it left the factory.
But You are right in one thing - he should have gone to Australia that time
and fix the glider there. And off course he should have taken lots of money
for his travel and the repair itself. Because that is what other producers
do when ones equipment is broken by inproper use.

>What else can a client (who
> is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
> then trying to help himself.

If the glider was damaged because of the manufacturer? The client should
demand reparation on producers cost.
When the glider was damaged by the user - the user should pay for the repair
( or write many messages on RAS saying that the glider is a piece of crap
and that way make the producer repair it on his cost )

> By the way - what do these photos here
> show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
> something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
> is not a big problem.

Oh, realy?! I hope You have nothing to do with gliders maintenance.
It is a big problem. You can exchange a screw with anything You want,
but only if it is a screw in a wheelbarrow, because I guess you wouldn't do
it in Your bicycle.

>I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
> of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
> his face.

Where can You see that fiercy reaction You are talking about? If You You
call fiercy the discussion we are having now or the pictures - they are only
a reaction of few pilots who care about the good reputation of Polish
gliders. The producer has nothing to do with it but letting one of us make
photos of the glider and explaining to us the history of it a few months
ago, when RAS was being flooded with a news about his botch-up.

Regards
Maciek K.

PS
Yes, I'm Polish

[Andrzej]

> If the glider was damaged because of the manufacturer? The client
should
> demand reparation on producers cost.
> When the glider was damaged by the user - the user should pay for the
> repair
> ( or write many messages on RAS saying that the glider is a piece of
crap
> and that way make the producer repair it on his cost )

That's a point!

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 6:25 am, wrote:
> All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
> manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
> himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
> required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
> flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
> itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
> the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
> "modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
> receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
> is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
> then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
> show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
> something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
> is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
> of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
> his face.

You are another example of "smear tactics campaign" Your impression is
wrong dude, the manufacturer doesn't have to save his face. The
manufacturer released from the factory properly designed, built and
flight tested glider. The end user did "something" to the glider -
something that he (in this case she) is not telling. The end user is
the one who is trying to save her face. And most of users at this
forum jumped into conclusion that it was manufacturing "problem" even
though it wasn't. And then this guy hiding under the Blue Cumulus name
(I am not going to mentioned his name, simply because he is not worth
it) spread the rumors and lies about "how badly polish manufacturer
treated the customer" and that the Poles don't know how to built a
glider. And this is nothing more than a case of very obvious prejudice
against Poland and polish products. Furthermore, here in the US, and
I know that this same is going on in Australia, Canada and some other
countries (because I've seen it), where a A&P's are working on gliders
without having any experience with them. They were trained with sheet
metal, rivets, 4130 steel, etc. There are very few mechanics with a
knowledge of modern sailplanes. Owners of "experimental category"
gliders are also working on their gliders without having proper
knowledge, skill and know-how. In many cases they go to Home Depot to
buy a stupid bolt for $0.50 instead of paying the manufacturer $5.00.
Another very important thing that you are missing, is the fact that in
Poland, country of which you have no knowledge whatsoever and probably
don't even know were it is, they do things in such a high level of
bureaucracy that they simply cannot obtain a signature from civil
aviation inspector without jumping through the hoops. Here we have
IA's who will signed almost anything, because they are the authority.
Right. The best thing is to blame the manufacturer. That seems to be
easy way out.
Right here in the US there is a few Diana's, I am the owner of one of
them. There is nothing wrong with the glider, everything is very
clearly marked, the manual in English language is very thorough, and
it is a good glider. If you want to know about the glider simply ask
someone who knows.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

P.S. Anyone wants to attack me, go right on ahead, all of you hiding
back there while previously making all kind of derogatory comments;
shame on you.

[tommytoyz]

It's a shame that the reputation of the Diana-2 and its makers have
been blackmailed to repair something for free that they are not
responsible for.

I wonder how many sales this has cost them. The sailplane is without a
doubt the highest performing 15 Meter ever built and the contest
placements at the very least seem to support this contention.

Just this summer the Diana-2 placed 1st and 2nd at the European
Championships, after winning the Grand Prix and the Worlds........At
the previous European Championships, the Diana-2 placed 2nd.

Too bad the reputation has been needlessly sullied. I wonder how
stupid some people can be to let a ham handed mechanic fiddle like
that with a brand new aircraft.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Dec 5, 4:14 pm, wrote:
> ...Owners of "experimental category" gliders are also working
> on their gliders without having proper knowledge, skill and
> know-how.

Please tell me what this "proper knowledge" is and where I may find
it.

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

[Udo]

Jacek,
I too think it is a very nice glider and I hope it will be successful
in the market place. Unfortunately the manufacture made a big public
relation error. As soon there was a hint of the customer not being
happy
they should have been more proactive, especially at this early in the
game. Pilot's with a new glider want to be happy and as group they are
very tolerant when it comes to there new toys. Look for example the
ASW 27 and it wing surface problem. It did not hurt the sale of the
glider or take DG and how it handled the 300 spar issue or Schempp
Hirth with the spar delaminating problem.

Anyone that is 12000 km away from the manufacture and just received
the glider wants it to work and nobody is looking for trouble,
consider how much other money and time has been invested aside from
the glider.

We will never hear the full story.
The pictures are not in context, hence useless to make a
determination. I hope it will work out for both parties.

Udo





On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:25 am, wrote:
>
> > All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
> > manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
> > himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
> > required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
> > flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
> > itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
> > the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
> > "modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
> > receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
> > is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
> > then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
> > show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
> > something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
> > is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
> > of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
> > his face.
>
> You are another example of "smear tactics campaign" Your impression is
> wrong dude, the manufacturer doesn't have to save his face. The
> manufacturer released from the factory properly designed, built and
> flight tested glider. The end user did "something" to the glider -
> something that he (in this case she) is not telling. The end user is
> the one who is trying to save her face. And most of users at this
> forum jumped into conclusion that it was manufacturing "problem" even
> though it wasn't. And then this guy hiding under the Blue Cumulus name
> (I am not going to mentioned his name, simply because he is not worth
> it) spread the rumors and lies about "how badly polish manufacturer
> treated the customer" and that the Poles don't know how to built a
> glider. And this is nothing more than a case of very obvious prejudice
> against Poland and polish products. Furthermore, here in the US, and
> I know that this same is going on in Australia, Canada and some other
> countries (because I've seen it), where a A&P's are working on gliders
> without having any experience with them. They were trained with sheet
> metal, rivets, 4130 steel, etc. There are very few mechanics with a
> knowledge of modern sailplanes. Owners of "experimental category"
> gliders are also working on their gliders without having proper
> knowledge, skill and know-how. In many cases they go to Home Depot to
> buy a stupid bolt for $0.50 instead of paying the manufacturer $5.00.
> Another very important thing that you are missing, is the fact that in
> Poland, country of which you have no knowledge whatsoever and probably
> don't even know were it is, they do things in such a high level of
> bureaucracy that they simply cannot obtain a signature from civil
> aviation inspector without jumping through the hoops. Here we have
> IA's who will signed almost anything, because they are the authority.
> Right. The best thing is to blame the manufacturer. That seems to be
> easy way out.
> Right here in the US there is a few Diana's, I am the owner of one of
> them. There is nothing wrong with the glider, everything is very
> clearly marked, the manual in English language is very thorough, and
> it is a good glider. If you want to know about the glider simply ask
> someone who knows.
>
> Jacek
> Pasco, WA
>
> P.S. Anyone wants to attack me, go right on ahead, all of you hiding
> back there while previously making all kind of derogatory comments;
> shame on you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ASM]

On Dec 5, 4:42 pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > ...Owners of "experimental category" gliders are also working
> > on their gliders without having proper knowledge, skill and
> > know-how.
>
> Please tell me what this "proper knowledge" is and where I may find
> it.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Hi Bob,

In the bag of cheerios at your local Safeway store...or let me
see...maybe I've made a mistake and I saw it at Albertsons....

There is a totally composite aircraft for sale up here in the Pacific
Northwest....the guy who was building it joined the halves of the
fuselage, wings and tail using epoxy resin that he purchased at local
paint supply store, mixing it by simply eyeballing it and call it good
because "it will be stronger" .....do you want me to go on? And from
all the people out there YOU are issuing comment like that? I would
expect more from you but I guess I was wrong.

Jacek

[ASM]

On Dec 5, 7:03 pm, Udo > wrote:
> Jacek,
> I too think it is a very nice glider and I hope it will be successful
> in the market place. Unfortunately the manufacture made a big public
> relation error. As soon there was a hint of the customer not being
> happy
> they should have been more proactive, especially at this early in the
> game. Pilot's with a new glider want to be happy and as group they are
> very tolerant when it comes to there new toys. Look for example the
> ASW 27 and it wing surface problem. It did not hurt the sale of the
> glider or take DG and how it handled the 300 spar issue or Schempp
> Hirth with the spar delaminating problem.
>
> Anyone that is 12000 km away from the manufacture and just received
> the glider wants it to work and nobody is looking for trouble,
> consider how much other money and time has been invested aside from
> the glider.
>
> We will never hear the full story.
> The pictures are not in context, hence useless to make a
> determination. I hope it will work out for both parties.
>
> Udo
>
> On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 6:25 am, wrote:
>
> > > All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
> > > manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
> > > himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
> > > required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
> > > flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
> > > itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
> > > the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
> > > "modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
> > > receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
> > > is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
> > > then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
> > > show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
> > > something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
> > > is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
> > > of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
> > > his face.
>
> > You are another example of "smear tactics campaign" Your impression is
> > wrong dude, the manufacturer doesn't have to save his face. The
> > manufacturer released from the factory properly designed, built and
> > flight tested glider. The end user did "something" to the glider -
> > something that he (in this case she) is not telling. The end user is
> > the one who is trying to save her face. And most of users at this
> > forum jumped into conclusion that it was manufacturing "problem" even
> > though it wasn't. And then this guy hiding under the Blue Cumulus name
> > (I am not going to mentioned his name, simply because he is not worth
> > it) spread the rumors and lies about "how badly polish manufacturer
> > treated the customer" and that the Poles don't know how to built a
> > glider. And this is nothing more than a case of very obvious prejudice
> > against Poland and polish products. Furthermore, here in the US, and
> > I know that this same is going on in Australia, Canada and some other
> > countries (because I've seen it), where a A&P's are working on gliders
> > without having any experience with them. They were trained with sheet
> > metal, rivets, 4130 steel, etc. There are very few mechanics with a
> > knowledge of modern sailplanes. Owners of "experimental category"
> > gliders are also working on their gliders without having proper
> > knowledge, skill and know-how. In many cases they go to Home Depot to
> > buy a stupid bolt for $0.50 instead of paying the manufacturer $5.00.
> > Another very important thing that you are missing, is the fact that in
> > Poland, country of which you have no knowledge whatsoever and probably
> > don't even know were it is, they do things in such a high level of
> > bureaucracy that they simply cannot obtain a signature from civil
> > aviation inspector without jumping through the hoops. Here we have
> > IA's who will signed almost anything, because they are the authority.
> > Right. The best thing is to blame the manufacturer. That seems to be
> > easy way out.
> > Right here in the US there is a few Diana's, I am the owner of one of
> > them. There is nothing wrong with the glider, everything is very
> > clearly marked, the manual in English language is very thorough, and
> > it is a good glider. If you want to know about the glider simply ask
> > someone who knows.
>
> > Jacek
> > Pasco, WA
>
> > P.S. Anyone wants to attack me, go right on ahead, all of you hiding
> > back there while previously making all kind of derogatory comments;
> > shame on you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Hi Udo,

I absolutely agree with you. The manufacturer should handle this very
unpleasant situation with a bit more finesse. But most of the people
on this forum sided with the end user and before the factory had any
chance to respond to the accusations, they were "found guilty". I also
believe that there are facts of which we will never know. Both parties
are responsible for the problem. Both parties did not handle the
problem in a professional manner. Your statement about the ASW-27 and
DG-300 is right on the money. But again, I also believe that the
Design Bureau B should use a marketing company.

Jacek

[Ian[_2_]]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:18:09 -0800, tommytoyz wrote:

> Too bad the reputation has been needlessly sullied. I wonder how
> stupid some people can be to let a ham handed mechanic fiddle like
> that with a brand new aircraft.

Nobody is going to start pulling off the Mylar seals on their brand new
glider unless they are desperate.

From what we read in the other reports on RAS, this desperation came about
from the lack of response from the factory on the purchaser's perceived
shortcomings with the product.

Reputations are built on perceptions. The facts, with respect to the
airworthiness of the aircraft, and the failure, or otherwise of the
factory to meet their contractual obligations are not known to us, and
probably never will be. So we make our decisions based on what we do know.

I know of other glider manufacturers who have found themselves with
un-happy customers and reacted by making qualified personal and spare
parts available. Their reputations are still intact...


Ian

[tommytoyz]

An example is the profile warping of the ASW-27. Didn't really deter
anyone nor the reputation of Schleicher. Nor the spar delamination
problems of Schemp-Hirth sailplanes.

Or the incorrectly manufactured spars of the DG aircraft, resulting in
reduced operating ranges.

If these problems had occurred on the Diana-2 - people would have
screamed bloody murder. Instead, we had ONE customer who let an
unqalified person wreck their plane and then demanded the
manufacturere fix it all.

In the other cases involving the German manufacturers, it was a series
of discoveries on various aircraft that occurred due to manufacturing
problems, not due to a monkey mechanic wrecking the aircraft.

It's a shame for all involved.

[Mike[_8_]]

Isn't is true also that the owner (warranty holder) was not the person
whom had possession of the sailplane. I recall reading that the owner
was very difficult to contact. This also added further complications.



adding to the On Dec 6, 1:15 pm, tommytoyz >
wrote:
> An example is the profile warping of the ASW-27. Didn't really deter
> anyone nor the reputation of Schleicher. Nor the spar delamination
> problems of Schemp-Hirth sailplanes.
>
> Or the incorrectly manufactured spars of the DG aircraft, resulting in
> reduced operating ranges.
>
> If these problems had occurred on the Diana-2 - people would have
> screamed bloody murder. Instead, we had ONE customer who let an
> unqalified person wreck their plane and then demanded the
> manufacturere fix it all.
>
> In the other cases involving the German manufacturers, it was a series
> of discoveries on various aircraft that occurred due to manufacturing
> problems, not due to a monkey mechanic wrecking the aircraft.
>
> It's a shame for all involved.

[Andy Smielkiewicz[_2_]]

Sorry, might be a bit off subject.

This all got started by "Andy". Andy "who"???
As I also use same first name, also on this forum.
I tried to send a message to "Andy"...Guess what? His email address is
bogus...Links and glider damage is NOT, but...
Not nice!

Smielek


"Andrzej" > wrote in message
...
> You can see pictures of Hana's glider Diana 2 and her "modifications":
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2817
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2818
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2819
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2820
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2821
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2822
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2823
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/powiekszenie.php?id=2824
>
> ...and whole article from polish service in Bielsko-Biala:
>
> http://www.gorpol.pl/?site=80&artykul=288
>
> No comments needed.
>
> Andy
>

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:15:21 -0800 (PST), tommytoyz
> wrote:

>It's a shame for all involved.

Question:
Would you rip-apart your brand-new glider that is working perfectly?



Bye
Andreas

[tommytoyz]

No, I would not rip apart a new glider working perfectly.

Nor would I under any circumstances let an unqualified mechanic make
the matter worse - one who apparently thinks banging a square peg into
a round hole is a good thing. Looking at how the stabilizer cover is
torn and the bolts that were inserted are wrong - makes clear that
somebody hammed up the thing for some reason and want the manufacturer
to take the blame.

I would also not claim on a public forum that there is little
technical information in the manual when other owners have clearly
stated that is not the case.

People do stupid things in life. The glider is pretty banged up just
from the manhandling by the Aussies. Why we don't know. Maybe she
wanted the control forced to be made lighter and someone promised her
they could "fix" that.

There are a million reasons. But just because someone fiddles with
their new glider does not prove there was anything wrong with it.
People fiddle with their new gliders all the time. Only this time they
screwed it up.

[Andrzej]

> As I also use same first name, also on this forum.
My parents name me Andy, ok?

> I tried to send a message to "Andy"...Guess what? His email address is
> bogus...Links and glider damage is NOT, but...
Check your news reader.

> Not nice!
Why not?

Andy

[Dan G]

I wouldn't worry about SZD's reputation in the light of few long and
convulated threads on this newsgroup. Only a small subset of glider
pilots read here, and even fewer will have bothered trawling though
all the ranting and raving and vacuum of facts in the Diana 2-related
threads.

If the Diana 2 is not a sales success it will have more to do with it
being entered in a dying class of glider than anything else. There's a
reason why all the newest gliders on sale recently are 18 m.


Dan

[bagmaker]

Has anyone actually said who performed the alterations?

The photo shows what seems to be fairly accurate turning on the pin, and a good quality bolt, from viewing just the photos available. The bolt has been sawn to facilitate tightening in a confined space, this should not be a problem to it either.

Why was the alteration needed in the first place? - just a question, not with blame.

As a fitter, if I needed to turn down a pin which had a bush on it, I am looking for more clearance. Next step, no bush.

As an observer, a lot is being said here in conjecture, with probably justified passion. The people involved are passionate about gliding too, Hana is a national champion, Diana a fantastic aircraft.

Please lets be careful about what we speculate apon, its a small industry and these things always take time.

bagger

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo > wrote:

> Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.

Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.

Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.

So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
problem and there were many very unhappy owners.

Do you know something different?

Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
parts at no cost.


Andy

[Udo]

My point was, a manufacture can weather a problem once,
simply because of its reputation. If it happens a second time the
customer will go with an other product.
In the case of the Diana it was critical to be proactive even if it
turns out that the manufacture was not at fault. The company has to
establish it self .

Maybe the analogy was not ideal as many pilots flew the 27 for years
and had the wings refinished if they were competitors. Many still
fly with the .005"plus shrinkage. I understand the gliders produced
after 2000 do not have that problem but this is just anecdotal.

Udo





On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo > wrote:
>
> > Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.
>
> Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
> this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.
>
> Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
> lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
> provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
> the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.
>
> So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
> problem and there were many very unhappy owners.
>
> Do you know something different?
>
> Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
> rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
> brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
> case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
> parts at no cost.
>
> Andy

[ASM]

On Dec 7, 2:03 am, Dan G > wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about SZD's reputation in the light of few long and
> convulated threads on this newsgroup. Only a small subset of glider
> pilots read here, and even fewer will have bothered trawling though
> all the ranting and raving and vacuum of facts in the Diana 2-related
> threads.
>
> If the Diana 2 is not a sales success it will have more to do with it
> being entered in a dying class of glider than anything else. There's a
> reason why all the newest gliders on sale recently are 18 m.
>
> Dan

Hi Dan,

Imagine what this designer could achieve if he decides to bring into
production 18m Diana. Far fetched? I don't think so. In addition, the
Diana 2 performance matches and in some cases exceeds 18m sailplane
performance. As you can see, he is not afraid of "un-orthodox"
designs, which is where the progress is being made. You forgot that
the Diana was designed in the late '80, and that would make it
technologically the most advanced glider of its time even when if
judged by today standard. Poland and SZD Bielsko had gliders designs
way ahead of its time. But don't take my word for it; take a look how
many gliders made in Poland won world contests, European contest and
how many world records were established in Polish gliders and flown by
Polish pilots such as Edward Makula, Jan Wroblewski, Franek Kepka. Do
you want me to tell you what happened in Junin, Argentina or Marfa, TX
and it continues today? That info is available at www.fai.org and also
look at the Alexander Schleicher web site and learn something, because
those guys are not afraid of telling the truth about who flies what.
Poland in soaring is the power to recon with!!!! Period. By showing
the prejudice, arrogance and lack of knowledge about Polish gliders
and pilots you are not helping anyone in the US. The gap is only
becoming wider.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

[Dan G]

On Dec 8, 6:35 am, ASM > wrote:
> By showing
> the prejudice, arrogance and lack of knowledge about Polish gliders
> and pilots you are not helping anyone in the US. The gap is only
> becoming wider.

Be calm, my friend.

1) I'm not in the US. This newsgroup is international.

2) I love Polish gliders. I think they're great. I have little time
for many German gliders - often over-priced and trading more on their
brand than their actual performance (not unlike BMW and Mercedes
cars).

No, I'm merely pointing out that the Diana is aimed at the smallest
and weakest market in soaring, so don't expect many to be sold.


Dan

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Dan G wrote:
> No, I'm merely pointing out that the Diana is aimed at the smallest
> and weakest market in soaring,

You mean World Class? 8^)

[GK[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 6:06 pm, Udo > wrote:
> My point was, a manufacture can weather a problem once,
> simply because of its reputation. If it happens a second time the
> customer will go with an other product.
> In the case of the Diana it was critical to be proactive even if it
> turns out that the manufacture was not at fault. The company has to
> establish it self .
>
> Maybe the analogy was not ideal as many pilots flew the 27 for years
> and had the wings refinished if they were competitors. Many still
> fly with the .005"plus shrinkage. I understand the gliders produced
> after 2000 do not have that problem but this is just anecdotal.
>
> Udo
>
> On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo > wrote:
>
> > > Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.
>
> > Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
> > this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.
>
> > Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
> > lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
> > provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
> > the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.
>
> > So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
> > problem and there were many very unhappy owners.
>
> > Do you know something different?
>
> > Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
> > rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
> > brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
> > case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
> > parts at no cost.
>
> > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Udo,
Problem is: that reputation, quality myths and so on varies from
case to case and I say that from the perspective of an first and
absolutelly last time Schleicher glider owner.
As my wife says:
"...this whole glider making industry is aimed at bunch of suckers
that will spend their last money just to get their hype..."

The Sucker