Debacle: Flight test of Diana-2

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
wrote:


Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?


200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

Ian


...and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

Paul

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
wrote:


Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?


200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

Ian


...and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

Paul

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:33 UTC, Paul
wrote:

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:02 UTC, Stefan
wrote:


Hmmm... Now, you must decide: Is that glider (15m!) "easy and safe to
fly" or do you need more than 200 hours to be able to handle it?


200 hours in 1250 flights is quite suggestive, don't you think?

..and so is your considered, insightful analysis.

I have deliberately avoided giving any conclusions. I just think the
statistics are interesting, and that's not in a particularly negative
way.

Ian

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I don't know how the Diana does it, but if I wanted a Diana 2, I would
ask questions like "How did you achieve this weight reduction without
sacrificing strength needed for ground handling or crashworthiness?".

Yes, Eric, but English is your first language. I don't think it is for
Naresh so he simply said "Where is the Kevlar?"

12 words and about 97 polysyllables shorter - but exactly the same
question.

Graeme Cant

Graeme Cant wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

I don't know how the Diana does it, but if I wanted a Diana 2, I would
ask questions like "How did you achieve this weight reduction without
sacrificing strength needed for ground handling or crashworthiness?".


Yes, Eric, but English is your first language. I don't think it is for
Naresh so he simply said "Where is the Kevlar?"

12 words and about 97 polysyllables shorter - but exactly the same
question.

OK, how about "How come yours is so light and theirs is so heavy?"?

Actually, his written English is excellent - look at his postings and
web site. I think he asked the Kevlar question because he thought the
details about it's use would tell him (and the audience he appears to be
reaching for) important information. My point is it won't, unless you
are very knowledgeable about the details of glider structural design for
crashworthiness.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Andreas Maurer wrote:


Well... extremely light weight of a fuselage definitely makes me
wonder about crash protection - something Germany glider manufacturers
have a lot of experience with. I think there's a good cause why their
gliders are so heavy compared to the Diana 2.

Whatever the kind of vehicle, crashworthiness is definitely not
described by the mass of the vehicle itself!

All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
protective.

Aldo Cernezzi

2cernauta2 wrote:

All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
protective.

And, contrary to the belief of some SUV drivers, even the amount of mass
in front of the pilot doesn't tell much about crashworthyness.

Stefan

"Udo Rumpf" wrote:

What is with Europe?
The last time I flew a factory glider in Germany around 1989. I did not had
to go through this spiel
of presenting papers and proof of this or that and medicals.

The Diana2 demonstrator is registered in Poland, not in Germany. That
makes a big difference for mutual recognition of pilot licences.

Aldo Cernezzi

But in gliders as in SUV's, I feel better if my mass is above yours.
"Stefan" wrote in message
...
2cernauta2 wrote:

All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
protective.

And, contrary to the belief of some SUV drivers, even the amount of mass
in front of the pilot doesn't tell much about crashworthyness.

Stefan

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:34:13 +0200, 2cernauta2
wrote:


Whatever the kind of vehicle, crashworthiness is definitely not
described by the mass of the vehicle itself!

Well... saving weight by deleting crash protection doesn't help, does
it?
Crash protection needs material which always adds weight.

All of the mass situated behind the pilot's seat is dangerous, not
protective.

And the mass right around him (read: cockpit) that's meant to absorp
the impact energy without crushing him?

Bye
Andreas