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?

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...

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

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

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

As I know Chris, he is one of the nicest very professional persons in
gliding scene. I truly believe him, if he is making a point. They who
say, he is against polish manufacturer, are redicilous. He would of
done the same, if the plane was what ever. He is just after some
answers. And no, I AM NOT CHRIS. (I am sure some of you already
thought that) So let's cut the crab...

PS










On 30 heinä, 02:20, 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/DSCF0007.jpg

Bill

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

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

http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?op...26&Itemi d=13
one distributor has vanished from the "Foreign Representatives" list..
Chris

On Jul 31, 4:38 pm, "BlueCumulus" wrote:
http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?op...sk=view&id=26&...
one distributor has vanished from the "Foreign Representatives" list..
Chris

Hey you, Blue Cumulus....you are a freak of nature, I can't believe I
share the sky with a piece of !%#$$ like you...just drop it...we are
getting tired of you...what the hell??? do I hear the fifth column
marching????!!!!!

ASM