If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
On 29 Jul, 15:22, Airjunkie wrote:
On Jul 28, 10:05?pm, "BlueCumulus" wrote: Bogumil Beres BB wrote 4. ................ in practice it is impossible to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another. But the pictures show Diana-2 with the serial numbers 2 and 3 and they do not look the same. It might as well be that the wing is not in the same position - who knows. Why do they look different while BB says they cannot? Bogumil Beres is the only person who can explain that. Lets wait and see. That's what I would like to find out. Chris __________________________________________________ ________ "Marc Ramsey" wrote in message et... Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is that the best evidence you have of changes? BlueCumulus wrote: I have nothing against Diana-2 But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and flying like serial number 2. http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...50924283141651... http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...50924269483655... while Boguminl Beres says that they have to be the same fly the same and look the same because they come out of the same mould.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The pictures I saw in the links show the prototype and #3. Before I paid for #002 I knew the wing would be re-located. I have pictures of my glider and the wing appears to be in the same place as #3. Jerry Zieba has #001 and it is exactly the same as mine. I have seen his glider in person. How many of you have actually seen a Diana 2 in person? I do not have a web site to post the pictures of my glider on, but would be happy to send them to someone who can. As I stated in my previous post, being an experienced Diana 2 pilot, and familiar with the glider and it's systems, in my opinoin, the problems with #003 are in the adjustment of linkages.... Bill Liscomb open a photobox account for free at www.photobox.co.uk and put a link to your shared album here |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
At 06:00 29 July 2007, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote: Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is that the best evidence you have of changes? It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from trivial thing to change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There are somewhere between three and six molds you'd have to change, and I can't imagine going to the trouble unless it was really important. I don't think the minor visibility improvement in that direction would justify it. Moving the wing forward that little bit requires almost as much tooling change as changing the canopy rail curve. However, the resulting CG shift might really come in handy. If the empty CG was coming out further forward than they originally expected (say, if they were originally too pessimistic about the shell weights of the aft fuselage and tail parts), moving the wing forward can mean less trim ballast, lower trim drag, greater cockpit payload, or some combination of all three. So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting the other way on this one. Thanks, and best regards to all Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24 See: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...to#50924269483 65588402 This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour looks to be cut more angularly. From comparison of the relative port and starboard rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint but not enough to make one grid box difference to the position of the wing leading edge which is what would be required to bring the prototype leading edge as close to the canopy as S/N 3. If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian one would be definitive would they not? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
John Galloway wrote:
See: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...to#50924269483 65588402 This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour looks to be cut more angularly. From comparison of the relative port and starboard rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint but not enough to make one grid box difference to the position of the wing leading edge which is what would be required to bring the prototype leading edge as close to the canopy as S/N 3. In any case, these photos can't provide a definitive comparison, as the the upper one is taken with a relatively wide angle lens, the lower with a telephoto. Note the geometric inconsistencies between openings at the rear of the canopy and the nose vents. If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian one would be definitive would they not? That wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun as arguing about the integrity of the design based on obsessively examining photos... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
On Jul 29, 1:07 pm, John Galloway wrote:
At 06:00 29 July 2007, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote: Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is that the best evidence you have of changes? It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from trivial thing to change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There are somewhere between three and six molds you'd have to change, and I can't imagine going to the trouble unless it was really important. I don't think the minor visibility improvement in that direction would justify it. Moving the wing forward that little bit requires almost as much tooling change as changing the canopy rail curve. However, the resulting CG shift might really come in handy. If the empty CG was coming out further forward than they originally expected (say, if they were originally too pessimistic about the shell weights of the aft fuselage and tail parts), moving the wing forward can mean less trim ballast, lower trim drag, greater cockpit payload, or some combination of all three. So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting the other way on this one. Thanks, and best regards to all Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24 See: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...to#50924269483 65588402 This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour looks to be cut more angularly. From comparison of the relative port and starboard rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint but not enough to make one grid box difference to the position of the wing leading edge which is what would be required to bring the prototype leading edge as close to the canopy as S/N 3. If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian one would be definitive would they not?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It appears to me that the images are not scaled identicly, easely seen on the lettering and the canopy frame. Udo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour looks to be cut more angularly. That's not serial #002, THIS is #002. Here are some shots of serial #002.... http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0013.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0010.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0007.jpg Bill |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
Does anyone really give a flying you-know-what?
Whoever the hell builds the Diana clearly has no clue about customer service, but we knew that already. The glider itself is a triumph of technology in a dying backwater of gliding nobody cares about (everybody is buying 18m gliders now). Blue's posts are doing a fantastic job of promoting the Diana because really I'd have long forgotten it existed without them... how many have they built now? Four? So, does anyone give a... Dan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
Thanks Bill Liscomb,
then you must have N562BL. I later found pictures of your plane and ZJ of Jerzy Zierba and they look the same as VH-VHZ. Then the in flight problems must be caused by something else. The manufacturer knew that Hana Zejdova weighs only 55kg with parachute and the plane was promised to be delivered with the CG adjusted to this condition. Here some pictures of the airbrake problems in Tocumwal Australia: locked airbrakes at the plane delivery. Manufacturer said to have solved the problem the same day http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53112477014018 but see these pics after the planes arrival in Australia locked and unlocked airbrakes, Tocumwal Australia http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53155426687010 http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53133951850514 asymmetric engagement of airbrakes, Tocumwal Australia http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53168311588914 http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53262800869474 in flight locked airbrakes after landing fortunately it happened in reach of the airfield http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53202671327314 http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...53181196490818 these problems would never have gone public if the manufacturer would have supported the pilot with information in Australia while they reported the problems. Many emails had been written to the manufacturer before Christmas 2006 and produced no answer. These emails were written before an actions were taken and before anything was changed on the plane but the Diana factory did not answer. We even sent the manufacturer a Russian translation of the problems - no answer. http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...03750970775522 Why did this manufacturer not give support for a multiple world record holder, who flew several world records with Diana-1? This is not understandable. What would you think would happen if Karl (KS) would get a new plane to fly a US national competition and he reports problems with the plane. But the manufacturer does not support him until the comp is over. Do you think that would be reasonable? Do you think that would never go public? I slowly begin to understand an earlier discussion, which still is reported under http://www.neshe.com. You cannot just ignore customer care. At least it is good news to hear that you obviously have no problems with your Diana-2. with kind regards Chris __________________________________________________ ______________ "Airjunkie" wrote in message ups.com... The pictures I saw in the links show the prototype and #3. Before I paid for #002 I knew the wing would be re-located. I have pictures of my glider and the wing appears to be in the same place as #3. Jerry Zieba has #001 and it is exactly the same as mine. I have seen his glider in person. How many of you have actually seen a Diana 2 in person? I do not have a web site to post the pictures of my glider on, but would be happy to send them to someone who can. As I stated in my previous post, being an experienced Diana 2 pilot, and familiar with the glider and it's systems, in my opinoin, the problems with #003 are in the adjustment of linkages.... Bill Liscomb |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
At 23:24 29 July 2007, Airjunkie wrote:
This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour looks to be cut more angularly. That's not serial #002, THIS is #002. Here are some shots of serial #002.... http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0013.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0010.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...r/DSCF0007.jpg Bill Bill, That is what I was trying to make clear - that the grid picture is mis-identified as S/N 2 whereas it is actually the prototype. No need for measurements now - your glider is clearly the same as the Australian one John |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
On Jul 29, 7:30 am, GK wrote:
As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency. Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied? ...and so are Mr. Johnson and Mr.Carswell that tested Diana 2 for Soaring Magazine, so is the currently FAI listed best soaring pilot S. Kawa, so J.Centka (I dont know how many times world champion these two are). Mr. Centka and Mr. Kawa flew with the prototype but not with VH-VHZ. I think their comments don't make sense here. Furthermore their comments could be biased. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Carswell did not fly or see VH-VHZ. Maybe of interest: Mr. Centka had at least one crash with the prototype of Diana 2. The fuselage in several pieces. I think it was in Leszno. Has anybody photos available? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
The people that might be in the market for a Diana 2 are probably the
only ones that really give a rats patoot, but there may be a few of those monitoring this board. The manufacturer may have an 18-meter LS-10 killer version planned. If so, knowing they're not being exactly stand-up guys might be of some GREAT interest. That's why people are reading this... I'd personally hate to invest that kind of money and have the manufacturer snub me. Jack Womack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diana-2 VH-VHZ, the test flight (pic links only) | BlueCumulus[_2_] | Soaring | 1 | July 27th 07 05:24 AM |
TV helicopter pilot saves stranded deer | Shiver | Rotorcraft | 0 | January 18th 07 10:44 PM |
SZD-56-2 Diana | Yurek | Soaring | 1 | January 29th 05 01:02 PM |
Stranded WWII vet gets presidential assistance | G Farris | Piloting | 0 | June 10th 04 06:15 PM |
Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica.... | John Ammeter | Home Built | 149 | December 24th 03 04:42 PM |