Diana-2 and overall performance discussion

Thing is
though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.

The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
it fleet wide?

D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
found no problem with that.

In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

Originally Posted by tommytoyz[_2_]

I find it amazing that there are not more pilots flying the Diana-2 at
the worlds, since it seems to be head and shoulders above anything
else in the 15M. I guess too many pilots do not like the side stick or
lack of manufacturer reputation. Maybe the Australia fiasco stopped
many. Or are there other negative factors?

Other than that, I can not think of any other reason to pass it up for
a competition. If it were a new unproven design I could understand,
but it's not new and has already won a boatload of competitions,
despite flying in so few numbers. They always seem to clean up no
matter the competition.

Or is it that people buy what everyone else buys kind of thing?

I also think that the ever increasing wingspan in the open class has
reached a point where more does not mean necessarily better. Granted
the EB29 is leading, but look at the daily score sheets and the
performances seem so close, it's just very marginal from one to the
other. I think new materials and new structural designs to save weight
will give better results in the future, judging by the Diana-2
approach in the 15M class. Less weight = less required wing area,
higher aspect ration of wing, etc...

Feel free to discuss, as I don' see many discussions on sailplane
performance these days. It used to be a hot topic.

Yes I agree with you. It is really nice to discuss it with photos. I appreciate it if there is an image of that Diana-2.

The trend in European sailplane crashworthiness seems to have been to
supplement the primary cockpit structure with structural elements of
very limber fibers of aramid (such as Kevlar) or advanced
polyethylenes such as Spectra or Dyneema. After the carbon gives up
the ghost, these very stretchy fibers absorb a lot of energy as they
load up into their plastic range, stretch out, and tear free of the
resin matrix. The penalty for such a system seems to be unavoidable
extra weight.


Thanks Bob. Good points.

On Aug 6, 11:33*pm, wrote:
Thing is

though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.

The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
it fleet wide?

D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
found no problem with that.

In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.

Jacek
Pasco, WA


Diana 2 was tested by two test pilots, past PZL-SZD test pilots.
Testing was done in ideal conditions. Pilots who flown/own Diana 2
were few times in trouble during the flight when they lost control.
Kawa lost control on RP during final glide and Ghostner was in spiral
during the flight without chance to correct turning. At last he used
highest forces but was ready to jump from it away. At last Kawa has
trouble with blocked airbrakes in Chille and was lucky that it was
before start line near arifield.

About Diana 2 in desing and production faults know Polish Aviation
Institute, Europan EASA and Australian CASA. It is reason why Diana 2
is without Certificate, flying on Polish registration only (two are in
USA as Experimental Category). It is reason why the life time is
limited to 12000 hours.

So little correction not only for Jacek Kobiesa who is originaly
Polish and proud of Polish products


Cheers, Hana

On Aug 6, 11:33*pm, wrote:
Thing is

though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Not true. Janusz Centka crashed one in Finland and he walked away from
it without a scratch, he was just bruised up.

The control surface play is certainly an issue. Someone should ask the
factory about that. Is it correctable or not? Was it down to BB or is
it fleet wide?

D-2 was tested quite extensively in Poland by Aviation Institute and
found no problem with that.

In your discussions you forgetting that all gliders manufactured in
Europe are made to EASA standard, not just the German gliders. The
same regulations are applicable to D-2 as well as to V-2 or ASG-29.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

Diana 2 was tested by two test pilots, past PZL-SZD test pilots.
Testing was done in ideal conditions. Pilots who flown/own Diana 2
were few times in trouble during the flight when they lost control.
Kawa lost control on RP during final glide and Ghostner was in spiral
during the flight without chance to correct turning. At last he used
highest forces but was ready to jump from it away. At last Kawa has
trouble with blocked airbrakes in Chille and was lucky that it was
before start line near arifield.

About Diana 2 in desing and production faults know Polish Aviation
Institute, Europan EASA and Australian CASA. It is reason why Diana 2
is without Certificate, flying on Polish registration only (two are in
USA as Experimental Category). It is reason why Diana 2 life time is
limited to 1.200 hours.

So little correction not only for Jacek Kobiesa who is originaly
Polish and proud of Polish products

Cheers, Hana

Could I please get more details on this life limit? Who imposes it?
And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
it. It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!

Thanks

It is reason why Diana 2 life time is
limited to 1.200 hours.
Cheers, Hana

On Aug 10, 2:29*am, Martin wrote:
Could I please get more details on this life limit? *Who imposes it?
And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
it. *It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!

Thanks

Hi Martin

If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot. It was funny when I was handover
glider to Beres back for repair (which he didn't fulfill but found a
buyer instead of it) the Polish Aviation Authority ULC inspector
(young arrogant boy, who answered me to question why he didn't signed
protocol before first test flight that he signed an internal protocol
which have producer) he told me that all Diana’s are prototype and all
Diana’s are experimental so if anything happen it is on pilot and not
on producer's or his responsibility.

You can read it also in the document below but what is wrong that you
obtain glider and you are not informed about inspection. It means, If
it exist and the ULC inspector is agree it can do first flight if he
simply signed other document. But it was without signature. It looks
the test pilot flown it without signature of ULC official technical.

See here other document where is signature of CIAB Engineer Beres
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...49199072766050

It is official document which needs all test pilots before first
flight on a glider which was produced. You can read there the limit
1200 hours which means, after it it have to came back to producer who
can prolong the time life according EASA Certificate if it exist. If
not, you can't prolong life time..

You can read therethat the glider was build according JAR-22 rules but
in Australia CASA Engineer found a lot of differences of it.

Here is short report which prepared Australian engineer.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...46666089458690
The full version is with approx. 50 in design and in production
faults, which didn't correspond with EASA/JAR-22 rules.

The so called “valid technical documentation” was also funny. It
didn't correspond with this serial number at all. To this point
producer told me that it is a general documentation and if he wrote on
the top of it that it is for the serial number 003 it is not necessary
to put there every time different details for different serial
numbers, because it is serial production and all gliders are
identical.

To EASA Certificate. Producer promised that it will be before
handover, after it that it will be before it came to Australia, after
it... Only promises.

There was trouble that we were in rush to send glider for expedition
to Australia. Originally we ordered in October 2005 second production
number with delivery time 16. March 2006. When we came visit him from
Australia we were surprised. There was a glider ready to go but for
other customer. He told us that our one will be s/n 003 and it will be
ready at end of May. At last we were there some time in August and
glider was just ready so we offered container. It was at end of August
when it was again clear that the delivery time is unknown. Timing was
not fulfill again and we has to move container back on truck and wait
if he will fulfill another promise for next week. He told that he is
in trouble with test flight, at first test pilot has holiday and as
second the ULC inspector.... (funny should be opposite). Not sure if
he was not waiting also for serial number 000 prototype when it came
from contest flying – means “BB” or for photographer, because one week
before ended September he organized test flights with promotional
action. The serial number did 2 flights, one 15 minutes and second 47
during which was flying together with factory serial number 000 and
they took promotional pictures for Diana 2 calendar.. Payment of this
flights were on customer/our account.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...910057801 714

Container was offered again before the trip but when we came back in
our country with glider but we found message that they are sorry but
they have not capacity on ship in this moment. So was necessary wait
few days for this reason. Handover was done in thrust to producer, who
was my long therm friend. So just basic thinks with his words that it
is best piece which he produced till yet... (may be some differences
between pieces anywhere? ) But he didn't ask me to signed a
document as well

How it continue was written. Promises only and at last he was deaf or
mystifying or lying.

So don't be awaiting that producer's web site will promote something
which is about real situation.. It was this why I started to be not
happy with promotion of Jacek Kobiesa here. What he wrote looks as
that Diana 2 having EASA Certificate and is without troubles. We
“meet” each other in past on forums as well.

Greetings, Hana


PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
English is not best, Polish a bit better and I am understanding the
meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
registration? HZ

On Aug 10, 2:29*am, Martin wrote:
Could I please get more details on this life limit? *Who imposes it?
And how does one find out about it before buying a used glider?
Neither the manufacturers web site nor the report in Soaring mention
it. *It would be easy to make a colossal mistake when buying one!

Thanks

Hi Martin

If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot. It was funny when I was handover
glider to Beres back for repair (which he didn't fulfill but found a
buyer instead of it) the Polish Aviation Authority ULC inspector
(young arrogant boy, who answered me to question why he didn't signed
protocol before first test flight that he signed an internal protocol
which have producer) he told me that all Diana’s are prototype and all
Diana’s are experimental so if anything happen it is on pilot and not
on producer's or his responsibility.

You can read it also in the document below but what is wrong that you
obtain glider and you are not informed about inspection. It means, If
it exist and the ULC inspector is agree it can do first flight if he
simply signed other document. But it was without signature. It looks
the test pilot flown it without signature of ULC official technical.

See here other document where is signature of CIAB Engineer Beres
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...49199072766050

It is official document which needs all test pilots before first
flight on a glider which was produced. You can read there the limit
1200 hours which means, after it it have to came back to producer who
can prolong the time life according EASA Certificate if it exist. If
not, you can't prolong life time..

You can read therethat the glider was build according JAR-22 rules but
in Australia CASA Engineer found a lot of differences of it.

Here is short report which prepared Australian engineer.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...46666089458690
The full version is with approx. 50 in design and in production
faults, which didn't correspond with EASA/JAR-22 rules.

The so called “valid technical documentation” was also funny. It
didn't correspond with this serial number at all. To this point
producer told me that it is a general documentation and if he wrote on
the top of it that it is for the serial number 003 it is not necessary
to put there every time different details for different serial
numbers, because it is serial production and all gliders are
identical.

To EASA Certificate. Producer promised that it will be before
handover, after it that it will be before it came to Australia, after
it... Only promises.

There was trouble that we were in rush to send glider for expedition
to Australia. Originally we ordered in October 2005 second production
number with delivery time 16. March 2006. When we came visit him from
Australia we were surprised. There was a glider ready to go but for
other customer. He told us that our one will be s/n 003 and it will be
ready at end of May. At last we were there some time in August and
glider was just ready so we offered container. It was at end of August
when it was again clear that the delivery time is unknown. Timing was
not fulfill again and we has to move container back on truck and wait
if he will fulfill another promise for next week. He told that he is
in trouble with test flight, at first test pilot has holiday and as
second the ULC inspector.... (funny should be opposite). Not sure if
he was not waiting also for serial number 000 prototype when it came
from contest flying – means “BB” or for photographer, because one week
before ended September he organized test flights with promotional
action. The serial number did 2 flights, one 15 minutes and second 47
during which was flying together with factory serial number 000 and
they took promotional pictures for Diana 2 calendar.. Payment of this
flights were on customer/our account.
http://picasaweb.google.com/diana2.s...910057801 714

Container was offered again before the trip but when we came back in
our country with glider but we found message that they are sorry but
they have not capacity on ship in this moment. So was necessary wait
few days for this reason. Handover was done in thrust to producer, who
was my long therm friend. So just basic thinks with his words that it
is best piece which he produced till yet... (may be some differences
between pieces anywhere? ) But he didn't ask me to signed a
document as well

How it continue was written. Promises only and at last he was deaf or
mystifying or lying.

So don't be awaiting that producer's web site will promote something
which is about real situation.. It was this why I started to be not
happy with promotion of Jacek Kobiesa here. What he wrote looks as
that Diana 2 having EASA Certificate and is without troubles. We
“meet” each other in past on forums as well.

Greetings, Hana


PS. Jacek Kobiesa just wrote on Polish forum that my English is not
best and Polish as well, that I didn't understand his words here... My
English is not best, Polish a bit better and I am understanding the
meaning.... It was written as in main origin of Diana 2 technical
documentation which was in English and understand by English (If
Australian) engineer, that that Diana 2 is with certificate. So
question from Mike was: Why we have to do an experimental
registration? HZ

Just a small correction. The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." There is a difference.

To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)

The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"HZ" wrote in message ...
On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin wrote:
If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot.

On Aug 10, 3:53*pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:
Just a small correction. *The USA Experimental category of a Diana is "Racing/Exhibition" not "Homebuilt." *There is a difference. *

To be considered "Homebuilt" at least fifty percent of the construction must be completed by an amateur builder. *Normally this means the aircraft is delivered as a "kit" and assembled and flown by the builder. *However, many have been built directly from a set of plans. (Woodstock, Duster, Tern, BG series, etc.)

The most popular US "Homebuilt" series of sailplanes were designed by Dick Schreder.http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. *I fly one; however, I am its' third owner and wasn't involved in its' construction.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

"HZ" wrote in ...

On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Martin wrote:
If the glider is without EASA Certification it is general rule. But I
think in USA it should be different. What I know all Diana's are there
flying in Experimental category. It means as "home build" gliders and
the responsibility is on the pilot.

Thank you for correction. They informed me as this in factory..

Please, how it is with this "Racin/Exhibition" Category? Who is
responsible for glider? Also and "Operator" or only pilot, means
needn't a operator.

Thx, Hana