Diana-2 - master-piece or flop?

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

_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?

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 |

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 |

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...

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..........

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".

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

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.

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.