Diana-2 and overall performance discussion

On Aug 5, 7:12*pm, tommytoyz wrote:
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.

Ask any manufacturer how many 15m gliders they've sold since 2005...
and there's your answer.

No one with any sense believed the charges made against BB from down
under. They were simply not credible. I've seen the Di-2. It's an
intriguing, beautiful, well finished machine, it goes well, I'd love
to fly one. I might even fit.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Having flown agasint the Diana2 in the more than capable hands of
Sebastian Kawa at the first two World GP Finals, I would say it is a
function of all the comments previously made - re-sale, comfort,
handling compromises, etc.

Is it a ship that has the best raw performance in 15m? Absolutely.

It really comes into its own in a 15m Grand Prix race where so long as
the pilot stays in contact with the lead pack, its lights out for
everyone else at the end. Put it in the hands of a superior pilot and
the ship is close to unbeatable. Yet, it is beatable due to the fact
that even the best pilot's decision making can never be 100% perfect
over the course of a long contest. Mistakes will be made, but they
don't hurt you as much :-)

However, many/all of the pilots flying these ships at this years
worlds are either A) on the Polish Team, or B) have a long history of
not being constrained by resale value to get their next super ship.
Take that for what it is worth.

And maybe more importantly in a topic not discussed anywhere else, the
durability of this ship is VERY suspect. Now I do not know how a very
"easy" racer would be long-term on this ship, but the ship I flew
against in the December 2007 GP Final in NZ ("BB") after, I think 2 GP
Finals, 2 Worlds, various other comps since 2005, had significant play
in all the flying surfaces.

What do I mean by "play" Well, I can recall standing with Oscar
Goudriann and Uli Schwenk and watching as the horizontal stab tips
moved fore-aft 1+ inch in our hands. Yikes.

If you can afford to buy this terrific ship, fly the snot out of it to
win, and then either find a willin buyer or junk it, then this is the
15m racer for you. Unfortunately, I've not gotten to that state of
finances yet.

Tim EY

tommytoyz wrote:
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

If you just look at the overall results, yes. But if you look at the
dayly results, then the Dianas have outflown the other models only on
the one fast day. On the weak days they performed well, but not
unbeatable. Bottom line: Consistency wins, or in other words, don't
underestimate the pilot factor! If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized. So this isn't the killer factor.
The small cockpit will prevent clubs to buy it, but then, the Diana
isn't a club ship anyway.

However, for most pilots I know, money is a major factor. So they
consider the estimated resale value. For a ship from one of the major
German manufactorer, this is more or less a known factor. For the Diana,
it's not. Many pilots just don't want to take that risk.

If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
2.3% against the Diana-2.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized.

I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
true.

Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
success in competition soaring.

Hey! Are you implying that most American pilots are grossly
overweight? Oversized? Supersized? I have seen few such specimens. The
population as a whole, O.K. but glider pilots? You simply can't be fat
and fit into most gliders. I agree that fitness is an important
element but not just for competition flying. I exercise on a regular
basis and am wiped out after a hot day of rigging, flying, helping
others. etc. I couldn't imagine being out of shape and doing it.
Granted, I am 53 years of age. Now, back to my bacon double
cheeseburger and excellent American beer. "Honey, can you hand me the
remote? This damn LazyBoy is stuck again"

On Aug 6, 5:19*am, tommytoyz wrote:
*If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week

contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
2.3% against the Diana-2.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized.

I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
true.

Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
success in competition soaring.

I suggest you buy one and come out and kick our butts with the
overwhelming performance advantage.
But- don't crash it.
Perspective- I had a long exchange with Gerhard Waibel when he was
doing the ASW-28. I wanted a smaller wing with higher aspect ratio. He
went slightly the other way. His practical explanation was that he
wasn't designing the product only for me as a racer, but that it had
to work for many users and be usable in a club environment in order to
be a viable product.
It could also not compromise the level of safety established.
I have 2 gliders in my shop now where the pilots likely would have
been seriuosly injured if the gliders they flew did not have this
important attribute. This is not possible without some additional
structural weight.
It also must be repairable using techniques available in existing
repair shops. The JS1 guys paid a lot of attention to this important
point.
Owner needs to be confident he will be able to get parts and support.
Buying my next racing glider depends on being able to sell the one I
have now. I doubt there are more than a handful of folks that compete
that aren't in the same situation.
The Dianna 2 is a remarkable machine, but my personal evaluation was,
and is, that it does not measure up to other options in the areas
other than performance.
FWIW
UH

On Aug 6, 8:26*am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:19*am, tommytoyz wrote:



*If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week

contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

I do not agree. Stefano is leading by just 2.3% over # 2 Leigh Wells
in an ASG29. I'm sure that the Diana-2 advantage over the contest has
been much more than just 2.3%. If he had been flying an ASG29, I am
convinced he would not be leading as the ASG29 suffers much more than
2.3% against the Diana-2.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized.

I agree on that. Americans are over sized and need to consider that
more than anyone else. However, the American market is small compared
to the rest of the world anyway. It would be interesting to study
physical fitness Vs. placing at a World soaring contest. I can not
remember grossly overweight pilots ever placing in the top 3. I think
there is a correlation and cause and effect there. Sorry but I think
true.

Reichman wrote is his book that fitness is a very important element of
success in competition soaring.

I suggest you buy one and come out and kick our butts with the
overwhelming performance advantage.
But- don't crash it.
Perspective- I had a long exchange with Gerhard Waibel when he was
doing the ASW-28. I wanted a smaller wing with higher aspect ratio. He
went slightly the other way. His practical explanation was that he
wasn't designing the product only for me as a racer, but that it had
to work for many users and be usable in a club environment in order to
be a viable product.
It could also not compromise the level of safety established.
I have 2 gliders in my shop now where the pilots likely would have
been seriuosly injured if the gliders they flew did not have this
important attribute. This is not possible without some additional
structural weight.
It also must be repairable using techniques available in existing
repair shops. The JS1 guys paid a lot of attention to this important
point.
Owner needs to be confident he will be able to get parts and support.
Buying my next racing glider depends on being able to sell the one I
have now. I doubt there are more than a handful of folks that compete
that aren't in the same situation.
The Dianna 2 is a remarkable machine, but my personal evaluation was,
and is, that it does not measure up to other options in the areas
other than performance.
FWIW
UH


Everything people have said, but I kind of suspect a large factor is
just very few people are interested in buying a new 15m glider. I
suspect other things are secondary behind that.

The action for new gliders is is in 18m. The incremental cost of say
an ASG-29 over an ASW-27 is likely to be payed back in resale value
even if the purchaser is not a die-hard contest pilot. And the ASG-29
and similar gliders lets people compete in 15m class if they want to.
So the only market for the Diana 2 are people wanting to spend $$$ for
a 15m only glider, willing to put up with the small cockpit with side
stick (I'm 5'9" and average build and spoiled by my ASH-26E, I just
have no interest of squeezing into a tight cockpit for long flights),
take ownership risks with a riskier resale value, much less experience
in the field with maintenance and support etc. I'm surprised they sell
as many as they have.


Darryl

Darryl Ramm wrote:
The action for new gliders is is in 18m.

I'm not so sure. Our club has a couple of 15/18m ships. You'd be
surprized how many leisure pilots fly them with the 15m wingtips as soon
as the weather is halfways reasonable.

On Aug 6, 12:28*am, John Smith wrote:
tommytoyz wrote:
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

If you just look at the overall results, yes. But if you look at the
dayly results, then the Dianas have outflown the other models only on
the one fast day. On the weak days they performed well, but not
unbeatable. Bottom line: Consistency wins, or in other words, don't
underestimate the pilot factor! If Stefano Ghiorzo wins a two week
contest in the Diana, then he probably had won in an ASG-29, too.

Cockpit size may be a factor in the USA, but in the rest of the world,
most people are still reasonably sized. So this isn't the killer factor.
The small cockpit will prevent clubs to buy it, but then, the Diana
isn't a club ship anyway.

However, for most pilots I know, money is a major factor. So they
consider the estimated resale value. For a ship from one of the major
German manufactorer, this is more or less a known factor. For the Diana,
it's not. Many pilots just don't want to take that risk

So, John, how many "oversized" US glider pilots do you know, compared
to, let's say, "well-fed" British or German glider pilots? Since the
US is by far not the biggest market for gliders, and most current
production gliders have ample size cockpits, it would seem logical
that it isn't the size of US pilots that is driving cockpit size, but
that of rich and well fed Euros.

To get back to the subject, Moffat in his original "Winning"
suggested that if one was serious about winning glider races (in span
limited classes), one would build gliders scaled around the obvious
smaller pilot population - women. Seems he was right, as usual.

Kirk
Well fed but comfortable in his LS6

I agree US soaring pilots are above average in fitness. However,
having soared in Germany and US though, there is a difference in
average size according to my untrained eye. Nobody who has flown the
bird has said it is uncomfortable, even over long flights. However, I
think the points raised here about the Diana-2 are good ones. Thing is
though, as far as I know, none have crashed or been repaired to
evaluate for their crashworthiness or repairability VS. other models.

Though I do hear the wings can only be repaired in Poland as nobody is
trained to repair their special structure. For European buyers perhaps
not such a big deal. For US buyers a big pause. Then again, who
wouldn't properly insure their glider?

I hear a lot about the Diana-2 offering little protection to the pilot
in a crash. Maybe it's true, but maybe not. From what I read, the
cockpits of some existing German types can jackknife and then
straighten out in a flash in a crash, injuring or killing the pilot in
the process. But the cockpit still looks in good shape later. The mass
of the glider behind the cockpit is a major factor in this. The
lighter the better. Until we can examine a Diana-2 crash, or have
empirical data on the crashworthiness, it all seems speculation to me
and I don't think many take the inherent lightness into account, which
adds to safety due to lower mass behind your head.

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? Good discussion. I hope the Duckhawk is a similar
breakthrough in performance. That would be something!