[NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

Tue Jun 20 07:53:14 AKDT 2006

Depending on length of grass..  I recall 2 to 3 db less.

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Wickizer" <mwickizer at msn.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

> Lance / Gray:
>
> How does the 103 db at 10 feet over hard surface translate to a grass 
> field
> / strip?
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
>>From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:20:26 -0500
>>
>>John
>>
>>To add to Lance's experience (he and I authored that specific noise rule)
>>most of the loud boys start out having no idea how loud they really are.
>>103dB is real easy to obtain , almost all of our planes are under 100. 3dB
>>= 2X loud. The "A" weighting discards any sound below 500mhz. This is
>>important as "bass" does not irritate but can easily place you over the
>>limit. 1000 to 4000 is the most irritating to Mr Bob Complainer. This
>>brings up problem #2 which is large supersonic prop tips. Guess what
>>frequency they pop at??? right at 1000-2000 and now matter how quiet on
>>the ground the plane is, a supersonic prop in a dive will not only piss
>>off the neighbors but club members too. We dealt with this by limiting
>>prop size...that is making the IMAC type planes go to 3 blades. You cannot
>>believe the grief I got by putting this in place....a guy spends over
>>$5000 on his plane and then bitches about having to buy a $150 prop. He
>>ended up selling his whole rig...plane, 5th wheel to haul it and all. The
>>prop issue is much more contrversial, and harder to regulate. Our rules
>>state "no supersonic props" so if at the field and you hear it any club
>>member can ask that person to stop flying. How to enforce that I do not
>>know but luckily the rules alone got rid of all the problems...that is,
>>nearly all those people quit, which was not the intention, but hey......we
>>still have our field and only one psychotic lady to deal with-and the
>>County/Judges on our side.
>>
>>We never have to check now. Like Lance mentioned if someone brings out a
>>plane above 103dB you will know it immediately. By the way the IMAC planes
>>4 years ago were 107-108 dB at 10 feet WITH supersonic props while flying.
>>  That is about 3.4 times louder than a pattern plane plus prop noise.
>>
>>A wise Vulcan once told me "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of
>>the few", or something like that.....
>>
>>
>>
>>Gray Fowler
>>Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
>>Radome and Composites Engineering
>>Raytheon
>>
>>
>>
>>"Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
>>Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>06/19/2006 10:30 PM
>>Please respond to
>>NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>>
>>To
>>"NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>cc
>>
>>Subject
>>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>John,
>>I've been part of setting noise limit in 2 clubs.  One because I was an
>>officer and we put them in place just in time because when the complaint
>>came in the town saw that we were being proactive.  In the second, I got
>>roped in because I had "experience".  I've got the same sound meter that
>>they use at nats.  First rule is to get a great meter and spend the money.
>>  You don't want to make a rule that limits a persons flying if, when you
>>go to enforce it, the defensive pilot points out the uncertainty of your
>>equipment.  McMaster Carr has a +- 1Db meter, which is as good as you can
>>get.  Its self calibrating too, which is important since it will probably
>>be stored at your field in the cold and hot.
>>
>>Second: I 've measured tons of planes from close and far, upwind and down
>>and talked to observers.  You must not succumb to claims that you can
>>measure from 25 feet (or more) and get reliable results.  Way too many
>>variables.  Measer from 10 feet at a consistent location.  use A
>>weighting, slow response to average the results.
>>
>>Third: after doing this twice with different observers 103dB limit (10
>>feet over hard surface) is reasonable.  Thisis where both clubs ended up.
>>It is a lenient threshold that few planes will exceed, but when they do
>>you and everyone will know it.  If the law still complains you can lower
>>it, but no one will say you are being too restrictive with this.  Even the
>>loud boys will agree, but they'll probably violently oppose the concept of
>>a noise rule.
>>
>>--Lance
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: John Ferrell
>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:08 PM
>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>>
>>If someone out there has a set of noise rules for a general purpose RC
>>club? Especially a set that works.
>>
>>I cannot expect the masses to conform to pattern numbers, but I need
>>something to start with. "Reasonable" does not seem to mean the same thing
>>to every one.
>>
>>
>>John Ferrell    W8CCW
>>"My Competition is not my enemy"
>>http://DixieNC.US
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 