Anyone flown a SHK-1?

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:24:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I emailed Schempp Hirth and was informed that they no longer support this model. For 100 euros you can get a disk that contains scanned images of the component and major assembly drawings. I'd have to purchase (which I plan to do) to validate what comes on the disk. That being said I'm kind of hoping to develop a more concrete resource. i love hearing from you guys that have flown or own...it's such a rare aircraft and I appreciate your input!

-Nick

Hi, Nick. I'm surprised that SH is asking 100 Euros for the SHK disk now. They sent me one for free last year. I shared these drawings with several others using Google Drive, I believe. I can do the same for you, if you'd like.

I'm currently refurbishing an Austria S.

Jeff

I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the technical
side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic value for money.
Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a root trestle at rigging
height and a tip trestle along with a wing dolly at the root end and I
could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting of the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k. Climbs
beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in the mornings.
Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found any discomfort in the
cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which goes
against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND conditions
and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the nose to take it to
the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly and rapidly. When back
to the correct angle lower the nose and complete approach as normal. It
works. I'll bet people will want to come on here who have never flown one
and say different but try it at altutude first. I could even do this whilst
playing with the rudder and it showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Lovely glider, sometimes I regret moving on.

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:00:07 PM UTC+3, Mike Oliver wrote:
I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the technical
side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic value for money.
Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a root trestle at rigging
height and a tip trestle along with a wing dolly at the root end and I
could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting of the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k. Climbs
beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in the mornings.
Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found any discomfort in the
cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which goes
against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND conditions
and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the nose to take it to
the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly and rapidly. When back
to the correct angle lower the nose and complete approach as normal. It
works. I'll bet people will want to come on here who have never flown one
and say different but try it at altutude first. I could even do this whilst
playing with the rudder and it showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Std Libelle brakes are similar. But a slip works better.

On Sun, 21 May 2017 03:39:09 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:00:07 PM UTC+3, Mike Oliver wrote:
I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the
technical side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic value
for money. Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a root trestle
at rigging height and a tip trestle along with a wing dolly at the root
end and I could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting of
the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k.
Climbs beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in the
mornings. Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found any
discomfort in the cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which
goes against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND
conditions and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the
nose to take it to the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly
and rapidly. When back to the correct angle lower the nose and complete
approach as normal. It works. I'll bet people will want to come on here
who have never flown one and say different but try it at altutude
first. I could even do this whilst playing with the rudder and it
showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Std Libelle brakes are similar. But a slip works better.

As Bruce says, its easy to do a full deflection, full-brake slip in a Std
Libelle. This turns it into quite a satisfactory brick and compensates
nicely for its rather weak brakes if you're a bit high on finals or at a
field, such as Borders, that needs a higher descent rate.

How vigorously can you slip an SHK?

I ask because I've seen a comment that applying full rudder in an SH
affected its pitch trim. I've heard that many V-tail control systems may
limit the available deflections if deflections on more than one axis are
used and am wondering if that limits slipping in an SHK. Disclaimer:
I've never flown anything with a V tail.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I did slip the SHK and can't remember anything too disconcerting but
ruddeer forces needed to be quite high. Of course there's always the tail
chute too.

As Bruce says, its easy to do a full deflection, full-brake slip in a Std

Libelle. This turns it into quite a satisfactory brick and compensates
nicely for its rather weak brakes if you're a bit high on finals or at a
field, such as Borders, that needs a higher descent rate.

How vigorously can you slip an SHK?

I ask because I've seen a comment that applying full rudder in an SH
affected its pitch trim. I've heard that many V-tail control systems may
limit the available deflections if deflections on more than one axis are
used and am wondering if that limits slipping in an SHK. Disclaimer:
I've never flown anything with a V tail.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

At 11:24 21 May 2017, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2017 03:39:09 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:00:07 PM UTC+3, Mike Oliver wrote:
I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the
technical side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic value
for money. Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a root trestle
at rigging height and a tip trestle along with a wing dolly at the
root
end and I could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting of
the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k.
Climbs beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in the
mornings. Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found any
discomfort in the cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which
goes against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND
conditions and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the
nose to take it to the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly
and rapidly. When back to the correct angle lower the nose and
complete
approach as normal. It works. I'll bet people will want to come on
here
who have never flown one and say different but try it at altutude
first. I could even do this whilst playing with the rudder and it
showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Std Libelle brakes are similar. But a slip works better.

As Bruce says, its easy to do a full deflection, full-brake slip in a Std

Libelle. This turns it into quite a satisfactory brick and compensates
nicely for its rather weak brakes if you're a bit high on finals or at a
field, such as Borders, that needs a higher descent rate.

How vigorously can you slip an SHK?

I ask because I've seen a comment that applying full rudder in an SH
affected its pitch trim. I've heard that many V-tail control systems may
limit the available deflections if deflections on more than one axis are
used and am wondering if that limits slipping in an SHK. Disclaimer:
I've never flown anything with a V tail.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |


It's interesting to note that many, possibly most, of the glider and light
aircraft types that started out with a V-tail, went over to a conventional
tail-plane and rudder if the went on to a mark 2 or other later development
In the current context, the first Cirrus was essentially a glass SHK,
the prototype inherited the V-tail, the production versions went over to
the conventional tail-plane and elevator.

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 4:00:05 PM UTC+3, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 11:24 21 May 2017, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2017 03:39:09 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:00:07 PM UTC+3, Mike Oliver wrote:
I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the
technical side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic value
for money. Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a root trestle
at rigging height and a tip trestle along with a wing dolly at the
root
end and I could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting of
the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k.
Climbs beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in the
mornings. Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found any
discomfort in the cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which
goes against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND
conditions and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the
nose to take it to the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly
and rapidly. When back to the correct angle lower the nose and
complete
approach as normal. It works. I'll bet people will want to come on
here
who have never flown one and say different but try it at altutude
first. I could even do this whilst playing with the rudder and it
showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Std Libelle brakes are similar. But a slip works better.

As Bruce says, its easy to do a full deflection, full-brake slip in a Std

Libelle. This turns it into quite a satisfactory brick and compensates
nicely for its rather weak brakes if you're a bit high on finals or at a
field, such as Borders, that needs a higher descent rate.

How vigorously can you slip an SHK?

I ask because I've seen a comment that applying full rudder in an SH
affected its pitch trim. I've heard that many V-tail control systems may
limit the available deflections if deflections on more than one axis are
used and am wondering if that limits slipping in an SHK. Disclaimer:
I've never flown anything with a V tail.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |


It's interesting to note that many, possibly most, of the glider and light
aircraft types that started out with a V-tail, went over to a conventional
tail-plane and rudder if the went on to a mark 2 or other later development
In the current context, the first Cirrus was essentially a glass SHK,
the prototype inherited the V-tail, the production versions went over to
the conventional tail-plane and elevator.

ITYM "all-flying tailplane"

On Sun, 21 May 2017 06:28:00 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 4:00:05 PM UTC+3, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 11:24 21 May 2017, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2017 03:39:09 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:00:07 PM UTC+3, Mike Oliver wrote:
I flew one for many years. 1000 hrs+ Can't add anything on the
technical side but what I would say is that it remains fantastic
value for money. Make sure you get or make good rigging aids, a
root trestle at rigging height and a tip trestle along with a wing
dolly at the
root
end and I could easily rig mine single handed without any lifting
of the wings.

Flew at least 8 flights over 500k here in the UK longest was 564k.
Climbs beautifully on the early thermals so could leave early in
the mornings. Longest flight time was over 8 hours and never found
any discomfort in the cockpit. I'm just under 6'0.

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given
(which goes against all training)! was that if seriously too high
IN NO WIND conditions and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes
and raise the nose to take it to the back of the drag curve. It
comes down smoothly and rapidly. When back to the correct angle
lower the nose and
complete
approach as normal. It works. I'll bet people will want to come on
here
who have never flown one and say different but try it at altutude
first. I could even do this whilst playing with the rudder and it
showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Std Libelle brakes are similar. But a slip works better.

As Bruce says, its easy to do a full deflection, full-brake slip in a
Std

Libelle. This turns it into quite a satisfactory brick and compensates
nicely for its rather weak brakes if you're a bit high on finals or at
a field, such as Borders, that needs a higher descent rate.

How vigorously can you slip an SHK?

I ask because I've seen a comment that applying full rudder in an SH
affected its pitch trim. I've heard that many V-tail control systems
may limit the available deflections if deflections on more than one
axis are used and am wondering if that limits slipping in an SHK.
Disclaimer: I've never flown anything with a V tail.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |


It's interesting to note that many, possibly most, of the glider and
light aircraft types that started out with a V-tail, went over to a
conventional tail-plane and rudder if the went on to a mark 2 or other
later development
In the current context, the first Cirrus was essentially a glass SHK,
the prototype inherited the V-tail, the production versions went over
to the conventional tail-plane and elevator.

ITYM "all-flying tailplane"

Early ones, yes. After that they first got rather more washout twisted
into the wing and final versions had a conventional tailplane plus
elevators.

I've never flown any of them, but I have crawled round and sat in a late
one with normal elevators (VTC built G/81). Biggest cockpit I've ever sat
in and even more limited rear view than an SZD Junior.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 3:00:07 AM UTC-7, Mike Oliver wrote:

Brakes are weak if you have no headwind but a tip I was given (which goes
against all training)! was that if seriously too high IN NO WIND conditions
and NO TURBULENCE you can open the brakes and raise the nose to take it to
the back of the drag curve. It comes down smoothly and rapidly. When back
to the correct angle lower the nose and complete approach as normal. It
works. I'll bet people will want to come on here who have never flown one
and say different but try it at altutude first. I could even do this whilst
playing with the rudder and it showed no tendency to drop a wing.

Lovely glider, sometimes I regret moving on.

To get my Austria S down, I go the opposite way. I add about 5 knots airspeed. It is my experience that the air brakes are significantly more effective at or above 60 knots. 55 knots, not much happening. 65 knots, she is coming down, for sure.

My particular airframe - and, note, mine is an early example with a NACA airfoil - seems to have a 'knee' in the lift/speed curve. It tends to pop up on aerotow round about the end of the runway. I have thought that and the airbrake behaviour may be related.

Bruce

Hi Jeff,
I have inherited a Standard Austria serial no. 6 for my friend Peter Reid Roberson.
The aircraft is in a poor state and needs a lot of work to restore her.Peter started repairing the one wing that was damaged in a landing incident but stopped for some reason.He unfortunately passed away last year. The glider was hanging in the rafters for many years.
I am thinking of restoring her and would really appreciate if you could share the drawings you have and possibly the flight manual with me.

Best Regards,
Manfred Springer,
Johannesburg.
South Africa.