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

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, 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

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

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

On 30 Jul, 01:04, "BlueCumulus" wrote:

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 dayhttp://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50927531124770...

That shows three people standing round the tailplane.

but see these pics after the planes arrival in Australia
locked and unlocked airbrakes, Tocumwal

Had any adjustments at all been made to the airbrake mechanism before
these picture were taken?

Ian

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