On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:13:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
What was the cockpit like? Roomy or constrained compared to k6e? How does it handle turbulence? What are your general opinions? Thanks for your time and thoughts!

-Nick

I restored and flew #49 over a period from 2007-2015,
First there are two different cockpit sizes, earlier ones are almost three inches shorter than the later ones, which makes a big difference if you are tall. I'm 6'2" and was comfortable with a strong 303 and a ventus style seat back. My SHK had the longer cockpit. the original "sling" seat back was uncomfortable without a lumbar pillow. I was a low time pilot with less than 15 flights in a 1-26 as my only single seater time.
I have since been flying a std cirrus. for comparison, The SHK is able to climb in the weakest conditions and thermals very well, the controls I thought were responsive and the roll rate was good, but it is a 17 meter wingspan. control layout was good and I could reach the panel while belted in.
The airbrakes work well, but full airbrakes do not yield 2-33 sink rates.
The ship slips well and adds to sink rate. I never tried to use the drogue parachute.
In retrospect, had I not allowed my personal mass to exceed the allowable, I would have been happy to continue flying the SHK.
In turbulence I think the SHK seemed similar in 'ride quality' to a std Cirrus.
Control authority was always good.
Sorry, Never sat in a K6E.
Cheers,
Scott W.