Diana-2 and overall performance discussion

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

HZ,

Being an owner of an "Experimental - Homebuilt" I'm not totally competent with the exact differences; however, here are a few things I do know.

In the "Homebuilt" category, if you built it, you are granted the authority to perform the annual inspections. If you are a subsequent owner the yearly condition inspection must be performed by a FAA licensed airframe mechanic.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" are similar in the requirement to have an airframe mechanic perform the yearly condition inspection. A airframe mechanic must also verify that the aircraft in compliance with all factory safety bulletins.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" classification is quite common in the USA. Our field has two ASW-27A, a PIK-20 (Serial number 2) with this type of airworthiness certificate. In the past our field has been home to several other "Racing/Exhibition" sailplanes including a ASW-20A and Diana.




"HZ" wrote in message ...
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

Hello Paul.

I found some documentation and details on web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_aircraft
page 9

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...ro/eu_prod.pdf
page 22

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...o/easa_apo.pdf
page 72

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...planes_EUR.pdf
page 1


Here is the Diana 1 EASA Certificate.
http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...1-28032007.pdf


Talk about this Diana 2 VH-VHZ s/n 3 case in 2008 year...
http://www.szybowce.com/news/article...p=ava.szybowce

In Polish on the top is written answer to somebody on Gorpol's forum
via Gorpol, who is friend of Beres.. He explained the Diana 2 case by
way, that faults did Australian engineer. Here what they found at
Bielsko aftere handover. Hope you are a bit experienced technical and
everyone can imagine what about it was...

http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forum....a-2-in-service

Any question to this welcome

I found this as well http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00313.html

The talk was originally about Diana 2 and difference between position
of wings was in case Diana 2 s/n 000 factory prototype “BB” (which
gave me to fly Beres with 15 kg of ballast under seat) in 2005 and
others production numbers as my s/n 003.

It means not confirmation between wing position of Diana 1 and Diana 2
wings. Of course, they are different... but the some fuselage.

Thanks to all of you for your interest and internal posting.

Cheers, Hana

Wayne Paul wrote:
HZ,

Being an owner of an "Experimental - Homebuilt" I'm not totally competent with the exact differences; however, here are a few things I do know.

In the "Homebuilt" category, if you built it, you are granted the authority to perform the annual inspections. If you are a subsequent owner the yearly condition inspection must be performed by a FAA licensed airframe mechanic.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" are similar in the requirement to have an airframe mechanic perform the yearly condition inspection. A airframe mechanic must also verify that the aircraft in compliance with all factory safety bulletins.

The "Experimental - Racing/Exhibition" classification is quite common in the USA. Our field has two ASW-27A, a PIK-20 (Serial number 2) with this type of airworthiness certificate. In the past our field has been home to several other "Racing/Exhibition" sailplanes including a ASW-20A and Diana.




"HZ" wrote in message ...
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