Anyone flown a SHK-1?

[[email protected]]

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

[Scott Williams]

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.

[[email protected]]

I'm currently looking to purchase and restore a 1966 model. What kind of technical documentation did you use for your restoration/airworthiness validation? The current owner doesn't own much for technical pubs or manuals. He was fluent on the original Austria and just transferred said proficiency over to SHK regarding rigging, limitations, maintenance and inspections. Do you know of any good resources for this particular aircraft?

[[email protected]]

I now own the SHK that Scott Williams restored. I have also owned and flown an SH -1 and a K 6E. The longer cockpits of the Later serial number SH-1 and SHK are very comfortable for tall pilots. The K6E is cramped by comparison. The SHK will climb very well and handles well. The K6E is one of the nicest handling gliders ever built and performs well for its vintage. Compare sports class handicap numbers for the SHK and K6E. Scott Williams built a custom trailer for the SHK and his restoration is probably the nicest SHK in the U.S. He made a Utube video"Winch Launching thw SHK" worth viewing. I do have his documentation, factory drawings, spare parts, etc

What specifically are you wanting?

[[email protected]]

Do you have a flight and maintenance manual? Do you have anything detailing the proper rigging? I'm trying to get some concrete data to better assure that it is airworthy per the designers intentions all the way back when they designed it. I'm trying to avoid rigging and maintaining it by the process of best guess. Do you fly yours often? I've seen that YouTube video...amazing looking aircraft! It's a shame more aren't around. I'm 5, 10" by the way. Do you think I'd fit comfortably?

[Bruce Friesen]

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:00:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Do you have a flight and maintenance manual? Do you have anything detailing the proper rigging?

I own a Standard Austria S, was relieved of my documents by a break and enter thief. Schempp-Hirth provided a replacement Flight and Service Manual for a fee of 50 euros. That manual does have some key rigging data; a good start at least.

I'm 5, 10" by the way. Do you think I'd fit comfortably?

I am 5' 11", with long legs and short back. I gather I have the 'short' cockpit, and fit fine. I am glad my back is not longer, but legroom is not an issue. Numerous 8 hour flights, comfortably.

My Scarlet Lady has flown a lot - and will again this year if the field dries out! Yes, let's keep the Austrias in the air where they belong. I can't count the number of times other pilots have announced their adjacency by saying "looking pretty up there".

Bruce

[[email protected]]

Send a private email to for more info

[[email protected]]

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

[LongJourney]

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

[Mike Oliver]

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.

[Bruce Hoult]

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.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

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 |

[Mike Oliver]

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 |
>

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

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.

[Bruce Hoult]

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"

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

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 |

[Bruce Friesen]

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

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 8:30:16 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> 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.

When someone says "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" I tend to the assumption they're talking about "early" ones -- which are the vast majority of examples in NZ.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 13:39:31 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> When someone says "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" I tend to the assumption they're
> talking about "early" ones -- which are the vast majority of examples in
> NZ.

Understood: apparently only the first prototype had a V-tail, so I'd
expect the "early" Cirruses in NZ to be T-tailed with all flying tails.

I also know that the first production Std Cirrii had 1.5 degrees washout
on the wing and were a bit prone to tip stalling and spinning. Later Std
Cirrii had 3 degrees of washout which, apparently cost them some
performance but killed the tip stalling tendency, but I have no idea what
Wrk.Nr this change applied to. It would be interesting to know which
group most NZ-registered Std Cirri fall in.

I've heard it said that Std Cirri dominated Club Class until the ones
with 1.5 degrees of washout had all been broken and that after that Std
Libelles took over. Make what you will of that!



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

[Michael Opitz]

At 22:36 21 May 2017, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sun, 21 May 2017 13:39:31 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>> When someone says "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" I tend to the assumption
they're
>> talking about "early" ones -- which are the vast majority of
examples in
>> NZ.
>
>Understood: apparently only the first prototype had a V-tail, so I'd
>expect the "early" Cirruses in NZ to be T-tailed with all flying
tails.
>
>I also know that the first production Std Cirrii had 1.5 degrees
washout
>on the wing and were a bit prone to tip stalling and spinning.
Later Std
>Cirrii had 3 degrees of washout which, apparently cost them some
>performance but killed the tip stalling tendency, but I have no idea
what
>Wrk.Nr this change applied to. It would be interesting to know
which
>group most NZ-registered Std Cirri fall in.
>
>I've heard it said that Std Cirri dominated Club Class until the ones
>with 1.5 degrees of washout had all been broken and that after
that Std
>Libelles took over. Make what you will of that!
>
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>
The change over came in the spring/summer of 1972 as I was
working at S-H as a summer student. I helped lay up the first sets
of increased twist wings. Sorry, I don't recall the serial numbers.
If you want to buy a pre-1972 Std Cirrus, make sure you determine
the turning stall/spin characteristics and speeds (at altitude) before
you buy it. If it behaves differently (one direction compared to the
other) don't buy it.

RO

[Scott Williams]

The Cirrus that was 'basically an fiberglas SHK' was the open cirrus. Not the standard. Same name Whole 'nother Bird.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2017 13:39:31 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > When someone says "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" I tend to the assumption they're
> > talking about "early" ones -- which are the vast majority of examples in
> > NZ.
>
> Understood: apparently only the first prototype had a V-tail, so I'd
> expect the "early" Cirruses in NZ to be T-tailed with all flying tails.
>
> I also know that the first production Std Cirrii had 1.5 degrees washout
> on the wing and were a bit prone to tip stalling and spinning. Later Std
> Cirrii had 3 degrees of washout which, apparently cost them some
> performance but killed the tip stalling tendency, but I have no idea what
> Wrk.Nr this change applied to. It would be interesting to know which
> group most NZ-registered Std Cirri fall in.
>
> I've heard it said that Std Cirri dominated Club Class until the ones
> with 1.5 degrees of washout had all been broken and that after that Std
> Libelles took over. Make what you will of that!
>
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

What Scott said, and then some. Martin, I think you have confused the Cirrus (17.74 meter) with the Std Cirrus (15 meter).

Also,to imply the Cirrus is "basically a fiberglass SHK" is comparable to saying "the Corvette is just a fiberglass body on a Monte Carlo." Two ENTIRELY different sailplanes. The ONLY similarity is that the prototype Cirrus had an SHK tail on it. Different wing span, airfoil sections and aspect ratios. different cockpit layout and geometry. They came from the same manufacturer, but other than that...

Just my 2 cents worth,
Steve Leonard

[Michael Opitz]

At 03:05 22 May 2017, Steve Leonard wrote:
>On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2017 13:39:31 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>=20
>> > When someone says "the first Cirrus was essentially a glass
SHK, the
>> > prototype inherited the V-tail, the production versions went
over to
>th=
>e
>> > conventional tail-plane and elevator" I tend to the assumption
they're
>> > talking about "early" ones -- which are the vast majority of
examples
>i=
>n
>> > NZ.
>>=20
>> Understood: apparently only the first prototype had a V-tail, so
I'd=20
>> expect the "early" Cirruses in NZ to be T-tailed with all flying
tails.=
>=20
>>=20
>> I also know that the first production Std Cirrii had 1.5 degrees
washout=
>=20
>> on the wing and were a bit prone to tip stalling and spinning.
Later Std=
>=20
>> Cirrii had 3 degrees of washout which, apparently cost them
some=20
>> performance but killed the tip stalling tendency, but I have no
idea
>what=
>=20
>> Wrk.Nr this change applied to. It would be interesting to know
which=20
>> group most NZ-registered Std Cirri fall in.
>>=20
>> I've heard it said that Std Cirri dominated Club Class until the
ones=20
>> with 1.5 degrees of washout had all been broken and that after
that Std=
>=20
>> Libelles took over. Make what you will of that!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org |
>
>What Scott said, and then some. Martin, I think you have
confused the
>Cirr=
>us (17.74 meter) with the Std Cirrus (15 meter).
>
>Also,to imply the Cirrus is "basically a fiberglass SHK" is
comparable to
>s=
>aying "the Corvette is just a fiberglass body on a Monte Carlo."
Two
>ENTIR=
>ELY different sailplanes. The ONLY similarity is that the prototype
>Cirrus=
> had an SHK tail on it. Different wing span, airfoil sections and
aspect
>r=
>atios. different cockpit layout and geometry. They came from the
same
>man=
>ufacturer, but other than that...
>
>Just my 2 cents worth,
>Steve Leonard

Steve is entirely correct. The SHK was derived from the HKS-3
which was designed by Haase, Kensche, and Schemmp. E.G. Haase
flew and won the WGC in 1958 (Poland) with it. It used wing
warping as opposed to ailerons for increased performance. The
HKS design was modified for series production as the SHK.

Later, when Klaus Holighaus came to S-H straight out of Akaflieg
Darmstadt, he brought along design/constuction ideas and concepts
that he had learned and used (along with Waibel and Lemke) when
they built the D-36 at the university. The Open Cirrus was Klaus'
first venture as the new owner and glider designer of S-H. It is a
totally different glider than the SHK.

RO

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mike C]

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 7:43:05 PM UTC-6, Scott Williams wrote:
> The Cirrus that was 'basically an fiberglas SHK' was the open cirrus. Not the standard. Same name Whole 'nother Bird.

Not really though. The(Open)Cirrus was a very different sailplane, with only the V tail on the prototype being similar. The Open Cirrus had a Wortman airfoil, not an Eppler that was used on the SHK. Also, different wing, very different fus shape, along with the more modern composite construction using glass and foam.

Mike

[Dave Walsh[_2_]]

Yes, was in a syndicated SHK for a couple of years eons ago in the
UK. Nice glider with no especial vices despite what everyone said
about the V tail.
Good performance for a wooden ship, climbed well too, reasonably
comfortable (the "seat" is a pretty minimalist design; check you
are comfortable in it), good brakes.
Followed a 15m ASW19 round a couple of 300K's and had no
difficulty staying with the leader..
Heavy to rig, but not in Kestrel 19 league, it has a very non-
standard main pin mechanism (captive main pin moves vertically).
The large tailplanes can make for a tricky one man rig if it's windy.
Pretty robust construction, coped with one of our less switched on
syndicate members ground looping it a few times. No one in our 8
man syndicate did it any lasting harm.
Usual wood/glue/age issues; it's an old A/C now!
What did you actually want to know?
Dave Walsh
>

[Buzz!!!]

I’m getting ready to start the restoration process on mine here shortly. What is everyone doing about trailers? How do you have yours configured? Do you like it or not, suggestions or room for improvements? Please let me know. Thanks! Nathan

[Scott Williams]

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:49:37 PM UTC-5, Buzz!!! wrote:
> I’m getting ready to start the restoration process on mine here shortly. What is everyone doing about trailers? How do you have yours configured? Do you like it or not, suggestions or room for improvements? Please let me know. Thanks! Nathan

A few years ago I restored and flew #49, very nice glider, I'd still be flying it if I had not gotten so Mentally invested in it to preclude risking it XC. built a trailer and pretty much lived out the Romantic vision of living my version of the 1960's Glider experience. IE (owning a 1960's super ship and building your own trailer).
Good Luck,
Scott