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

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

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

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

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?

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