Shock! Hana's Diana 2 in service

Jacek,
I too think it is a very nice glider and I hope it will be successful
in the market place. Unfortunately the manufacture made a big public
relation error. As soon there was a hint of the customer not being
happy
they should have been more proactive, especially at this early in the
game. Pilot's with a new glider want to be happy and as group they are
very tolerant when it comes to there new toys. Look for example the
ASW 27 and it wing surface problem. It did not hurt the sale of the
glider or take DG and how it handled the 300 spar issue or Schempp
Hirth with the spar delaminating problem.

Anyone that is 12000 km away from the manufacture and just received
the glider wants it to work and nobody is looking for trouble,
consider how much other money and time has been invested aside from
the glider.

We will never hear the full story.
The pictures are not in context, hence useless to make a
determination. I hope it will work out for both parties.

Udo





On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Dec 5, 6:25 am, wrote:

All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
"modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
his face.

You are another example of "smear tactics campaign" Your impression is
wrong dude, the manufacturer doesn't have to save his face. The
manufacturer released from the factory properly designed, built and
flight tested glider. The end user did "something" to the glider -
something that he (in this case she) is not telling. The end user is
the one who is trying to save her face. And most of users at this
forum jumped into conclusion that it was manufacturing "problem" even
though it wasn't. And then this guy hiding under the Blue Cumulus name
(I am not going to mentioned his name, simply because he is not worth
it) spread the rumors and lies about "how badly polish manufacturer
treated the customer" and that the Poles don't know how to built a
glider. And this is nothing more than a case of very obvious prejudice
against Poland and polish products. Furthermore, here in the US, and
I know that this same is going on in Australia, Canada and some other
countries (because I've seen it), where a A&P's are working on gliders
without having any experience with them. They were trained with sheet
metal, rivets, 4130 steel, etc. There are very few mechanics with a
knowledge of modern sailplanes. Owners of "experimental category"
gliders are also working on their gliders without having proper
knowledge, skill and know-how. In many cases they go to Home Depot to
buy a stupid bolt for $0.50 instead of paying the manufacturer $5.00.
Another very important thing that you are missing, is the fact that in
Poland, country of which you have no knowledge whatsoever and probably
don't even know were it is, they do things in such a high level of
bureaucracy that they simply cannot obtain a signature from civil
aviation inspector without jumping through the hoops. Here we have
IA's who will signed almost anything, because they are the authority.
Right. The best thing is to blame the manufacturer. That seems to be
easy way out.
Right here in the US there is a few Diana's, I am the owner of one of
them. There is nothing wrong with the glider, everything is very
clearly marked, the manual in English language is very thorough, and
it is a good glider. If you want to know about the glider simply ask
someone who knows.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

P.S. Anyone wants to attack me, go right on ahead, all of you hiding
back there while previously making all kind of derogatory comments;
shame on you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Dec 5, 7:03 pm, Udo wrote:
Jacek,
I too think it is a very nice glider and I hope it will be successful
in the market place. Unfortunately the manufacture made a big public
relation error. As soon there was a hint of the customer not being
happy
they should have been more proactive, especially at this early in the
game. Pilot's with a new glider want to be happy and as group they are
very tolerant when it comes to there new toys. Look for example the
ASW 27 and it wing surface problem. It did not hurt the sale of the
glider or take DG and how it handled the 300 spar issue or Schempp
Hirth with the spar delaminating problem.

Anyone that is 12000 km away from the manufacture and just received
the glider wants it to work and nobody is looking for trouble,
consider how much other money and time has been invested aside from
the glider.

We will never hear the full story.
The pictures are not in context, hence useless to make a
determination. I hope it will work out for both parties.

Udo

On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:

On Dec 5, 6:25 am, wrote:

All this only shows again that a client of this Polish glider
manufacturer has no other possibility than being forced to "do it
himself" because he does not get the necessary service, not the
required instructions, nor papers when he needs this all urgently for
flying. He did not even get the right documentation for the glider
itself (and not for the trailer?). This was to read here somewhere in
the forum. As far as I remember the Australians did these
"modifications" after the problems occured and after they did not
receive help from the manufacturer, right? What else can a client (who
is not a mechanic or specialist) do, far away from the manufactuer,
then trying to help himself. By the way - what do these photos here
show? Nothing particular, only that finally the manufacturer is doing
something - that's all. Just the wrong exchange of a rediculous screw
is not a big problem. I have the impression that the fiercy reaction
of the Polish manufacturer only is an quite shamful attempt to save
his face.

You are another example of "smear tactics campaign" Your impression is
wrong dude, the manufacturer doesn't have to save his face. The
manufacturer released from the factory properly designed, built and
flight tested glider. The end user did "something" to the glider -
something that he (in this case she) is not telling. The end user is
the one who is trying to save her face. And most of users at this
forum jumped into conclusion that it was manufacturing "problem" even
though it wasn't. And then this guy hiding under the Blue Cumulus name
(I am not going to mentioned his name, simply because he is not worth
it) spread the rumors and lies about "how badly polish manufacturer
treated the customer" and that the Poles don't know how to built a
glider. And this is nothing more than a case of very obvious prejudice
against Poland and polish products. Furthermore, here in the US, and
I know that this same is going on in Australia, Canada and some other
countries (because I've seen it), where a A&P's are working on gliders
without having any experience with them. They were trained with sheet
metal, rivets, 4130 steel, etc. There are very few mechanics with a
knowledge of modern sailplanes. Owners of "experimental category"
gliders are also working on their gliders without having proper
knowledge, skill and know-how. In many cases they go to Home Depot to
buy a stupid bolt for $0.50 instead of paying the manufacturer $5.00.
Another very important thing that you are missing, is the fact that in
Poland, country of which you have no knowledge whatsoever and probably
don't even know were it is, they do things in such a high level of
bureaucracy that they simply cannot obtain a signature from civil
aviation inspector without jumping through the hoops. Here we have
IA's who will signed almost anything, because they are the authority.
Right. The best thing is to blame the manufacturer. That seems to be
easy way out.
Right here in the US there is a few Diana's, I am the owner of one of
them. There is nothing wrong with the glider, everything is very
clearly marked, the manual in English language is very thorough, and
it is a good glider. If you want to know about the glider simply ask
someone who knows.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

P.S. Anyone wants to attack me, go right on ahead, all of you hiding
back there while previously making all kind of derogatory comments;
shame on you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Udo,

I absolutely agree with you. The manufacturer should handle this very
unpleasant situation with a bit more finesse. But most of the people
on this forum sided with the end user and before the factory had any
chance to respond to the accusations, they were "found guilty". I also
believe that there are facts of which we will never know. Both parties
are responsible for the problem. Both parties did not handle the
problem in a professional manner. Your statement about the ASW-27 and
DG-300 is right on the money. But again, I also believe that the
Design Bureau B should use a marketing company.

Jacek

On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo wrote:

Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.

Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.

Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.

So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
problem and there were many very unhappy owners.

Do you know something different?

Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
parts at no cost.


Andy

My point was, a manufacture can weather a problem once,
simply because of its reputation. If it happens a second time the
customer will go with an other product.
In the case of the Diana it was critical to be proactive even if it
turns out that the manufacture was not at fault. The company has to
establish it self .

Maybe the analogy was not ideal as many pilots flew the 27 for years
and had the wings refinished if they were competitors. Many still
fly with the .005"plus shrinkage. I understand the gliders produced
after 2000 do not have that problem but this is just anecdotal.

Udo





On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo wrote:

Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.

Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.

Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.

So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
problem and there were many very unhappy owners.

Do you know something different?

Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
parts at no cost.

Andy

On Dec 7, 6:06 pm, Udo wrote:
My point was, a manufacture can weather a problem once,
simply because of its reputation. If it happens a second time the
customer will go with an other product.
In the case of the Diana it was critical to be proactive even if it
turns out that the manufacture was not at fault. The company has to
establish it self .

Maybe the analogy was not ideal as many pilots flew the 27 for years
and had the wings refinished if they were competitors. Many still
fly with the .005"plus shrinkage. I understand the gliders produced
after 2000 do not have that problem but this is just anecdotal.

Udo

On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Andy wrote:



On Dec 5, 8:03 pm, Udo wrote:

Look for example the ASW 27 and it wing surface problem.

Udo, you are the second person that used the ASW-27 as an example in
this thread, but I'm not sure what it is intended to be an example of.

Schleicher had wing deformation problems with both the ASW-27 and to a
lesser extent with the ASW-28. I know of no corrective action
provided by Schleicher and I know for a fact that Schleicher claimed
the deformation on the ASW-28 was cosmetic only.

So my understanding is that Schleicher did nothing to correct the
problem and there were many very unhappy owners.

Do you know something different?

Schleicher also delivered several ASW-28 with incorrect airbrake
rigging. That problem was eventually resolved by changing the wheel
brake actuating rod to a part with different slot dimensions. In this
case Schleicher provided good support and also provided replacement
parts at no cost.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Udo,
Problem is: that reputation, quality myths and so on varies from
case to case and I say that from the perspective of an first and
absolutelly last time Schleicher glider owner.
As my wife says:
"...this whole glider making industry is aimed at bunch of suckers
that will spend their last money just to get their hype..."

The Sucker