Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)

First I like to say, that Hana Zejdova is not writing under the BlueCumulus
name.

Second - if this statement below from Bogumil Beres is true
4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another.

I wonder why not both sailplanes, the SP-3697 and the VH-VHZ look the same?

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...28314165188562

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...26948365588402

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2

Isn't it strange, how both planes should come out of the same negative
mould?

It seems to be a cheap excuse to cancel the warranty.
The factory could have answered email requests for help and not forcing the
maintenance shop in Australia to try to fix problems on their own.

It seems that Diana pilots are only allowed to make positive statements
about the planes flight handling, because they are all incompetent with
exception of the official test pilot.

Chris

_______________________

"BB" wrote in message
...
Hello,

However I am regular reader of group discussion, I take part to these
rather
rarely. Called to the black-board with comment on my "rude and negative
manners in relation with customer" I feel obliged to offer some
explanations. Please arm yourselves with patience, this will not be a
short
info.

My judgement based on aggressive mode of opinions presented here, as well
as
precise details contained therein indicates the parson under "BluCumulus"
nick is Hana Zejdova or her close familiar. I do not understand why she
does
not use her own name (but it is not my problem), any way in such case I
would respond to her, like I did to all former e-mail messages.

To explain the situation, I can say what follows:

1. The SZD-56-2 DIANA-2 model sailplane has successfully passed
complete flight test program, in accordance with JAR-22 requirements, and
I
am in a final stage of process to gain the Type Certificate

2. "DIANA-2" is a single sailplane in its class, breaking the
monopoly
of German sailplanes, while the sportive results achieved already on the
first built plane of this model confirm its quality beyond any doubts

3. I have at my disposal numerous press publications and opinions
from
wide group of pilots (with various flying experience) who flown DIANA-2,
and
confirmed afterwards the correct flying characteristics of this model

4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another.
Zejda
family visited Bielsko many times and could personally inspect the process
of construction, to verify if everything is done in exact and repeatable
manner. Announcing now that the S/N 003 is different from other - they
lie.
There is no chance for this from technical point of view.

5. After completion of the sailplane construction, this one for
Zejdova
as it was a case with all other, has been subjected to acceptance
inspection
of Polish CAA engineer and the test pilot (with I-st class rating) has
accomplished the factory test flight. Both verifications gave positive
result, which is confirmed also in the sailplane documents.

6. From the hitherto correspondence I know, in Australia an
unauthorised by my company adjustment to sailplane control systems have
been
undertaken, which results in loss of warranty. DIANA is a sailplane with
unique design solutions, different from these popular on many other
models.
Adjustment without previous introduction to these, even undertaken by an
experienced serviceman can result in improper operation of control
systems.
Specially sensitive to adjustment is air-brake control system.

7. Striking is fact that all sailplanes both build before and after
S/N
003 have good opinion among their owners/operators and only Zejdova has
reservations announced worldwide. I will not enclose here the links to
websites or magazines confirming high performance and very good piloting
characteristics. There is really large number of pilots who flown this
sailplane, with no negative opinions from whole this group.

8. Further: the sailplane has been sold to Czech Republic

9. Zejdova is not the owner, she was operator of this plane over
certain period of time/

10. Neither Zejdova nor other persons flying S/N 003 have no competency
to
judge the piloting characteristics of the sailplane, to my opinion this is
within the competency of suitably trained & experienced test pilot

11. Owner of the concerned sailplane is a person financing Zejdova
flying,
not from the aviation branch and I guess he is not conscious of the
situation aroused. The correspondence sent to him remains unanswered,
while
he is a single partner for agreement on procedure to bring the sailplane
to
the "factory" condition

12. In correspondence with Zejdova, I declared readiness to bring the
sailplane to the "factory" condition, free of charge (regardless from
warranty loss), provided the plane will be delivered to my company, or to
Czech Republic at minimum

13. Some time ago I undertook also an attempt to solve the problem in
direct discussion, inviting Hana with her father to Bielsko.
Unfortunately,
the ribald row was all they were ready to offer - without chance for any
agreement. Artless term but these who had contact with these persons might
know what I am writing about.

To sum up, in my opinion the problem is not in technical condition of the
sailplane, at expedition from my company, but the later adjustment made
without my consent and also without necessary knowledge on the sailplane.

I estimate, the main problem is somewhere in the non-technical
circumstances.

I am pretty sure, the high performance and production quality of this
sailplane say for itself.

Bogumil Beres

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...28314165188562
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...26948365588402
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.
Chris


"W" wrote in message
news
WTF is your obsession with Diana????

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...28314165188562
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...26948365588402
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.

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?

On Jul 28, 9:20?pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
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.

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?

Looks just like my Diana 2, #002....
Bill

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
t...
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...28314165188562
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...26948365588402
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.

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

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.

Well, I'm sensitive to that sort of change. My LAK-17A could have used
it, as my head was far enough back in the fuselage that I could barely
see the wing tips without leaning forward. They did apparently change
the canopy on later production ships.

So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting the other way on
this one.

Does anyone other than BlueCumulus care? Clearly, if they broke the
design somehow, we should be hearing more noise from the other owners,
assuming there are at least 3...

Marc

"BlueCumulus" wrote in message
...
Hello Bogumil Beres,

First I like to say, that Hana Zejdova is not writing under the BlueCumulus
name.

Well whoever you are, you are the second person from this newsgroup to ever
make my killfile. I hope to never fly with you.

Bye
Vaughn

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

t...



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

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). There are Dianas 2 produced after serial number 3, I think Mr.
Johnson tested one...
There is something fishy about the whole situation, drawing
conlusions from black mailing would be foolish....