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

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 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

If Hana wants a good aircraft, I can sell her a Ventus 2cx and she can set
records in that.
:-)

Chris

and I can sell her 2-33A

"ventus2" wrote in message
...
If Hana wants a good aircraft, I can sell her a Ventus 2cx and she can set
records in that.
:-)

Chris

(snip)


10. Neither Zejdova nor other persons flying S/N 003 have no competency to
judge the piloting characteristics of the sailplane, to my opinion this is
within the competency of suitably trained & experienced test pilot
(snip)

As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency. Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?

There is obviosly a requirement here for some mediation.

Manufacturers in the world today (I am one, different products) not only need to do the right thing by their customers, they need to be SEEN to do the right thing.

Trading in the small world of competition gliders, to a customer base so versed in communication with the internet you must, as a supplier, meet this obligation to succeed.
Simply making a good product will not be enough.

Take a look at how damaged DG 's reputation got after the 300 spar incident, its a hard and maybe unfair life! But its what we have in gliding world, deal with it.

And deal with it better than you have!

Silence is absolutely the wrong way to go about mediation or any customer relations. Its a small world, all your potential customers are looking now, make something positive of it all.


just my 2c

bagger

As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency.
Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated
and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?

...and so are Mr. Johnson and Mr.Carswell that tested Diana 2 for
Soaring Magazine, so is the currently FAI listed best soaring pilot S.
Kawa, so J.Centka (I dont know how many times world champion these two
are). There are Dianas 2 produced after serial number 3, I think Mr.
Johnson tested one...
There is something fishy about the whole situation, drawing
conlusions from black mailing would be foolish....

On Jul 29, 7:30 am, GK wrote:
As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency.
Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated
and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?

...and so are Mr. Johnson and Mr.Carswell that tested Diana 2 for
Soaring Magazine, so is the currently FAI listed best soaring pilot S.
Kawa, so J.Centka (I dont know how many times world champion these two
are).

Mr. Centka and Mr. Kawa flew with the prototype but not with VH-VHZ. I
think their comments don't make sense here. Furthermore their comments
could be biased.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Carswell did not fly or see VH-VHZ.

Maybe of interest: Mr. Centka had at least one crash with the
prototype of Diana 2. The fuselage in several pieces. I think it was
in Leszno. Has anybody photos available?