[NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

Thu Jun 22 09:36:25 AKDT 2006

Wayne
I'm planning to come to Texas this weekend just to try to hear your flying 
machine.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wayne Galligan" <wgalligan at goodsonacura.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

> Hey Ed,
>
> At my field eveyone stops flying just so they can hear my pattern plane...
> actually they are listening for the wind whistling  through the chin cowl
> and fixed gear... or maybe the buzzing JR digital servo's.  I once heard 
> the
> clunk in the tank when I went inverted.  AND if you listened close enough
> you could hear the battery discharging.  I was even thinking about
> rednecking mine and putting dual AeroSlave c.f. pipes on it with chrome 
> tip
> exhaust extenders.....sweet!!
>
> Here hear....
>
> Wayne Galligan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>
>
>> FYI, our club slapped the IMAC noise rule into effect for all models and
>> it's basically a license to make about as much noise as you can.  One of
>> the
>> problems with how measurements are made is that the height above the
>> ground
>> of the exhaust and prop arc is not specified.  So you take a small, high
>> RPM
>> glow model with an industry standard noise vectoring nozzle.  You run it
>> up
>> on a grass surface, just a few inches above nature's muffler.  Man, what 
>> a
>> nice reading you get.  Doesn't even register on the meter at 25' if it's
>> close enough to the grass.  Pick that little buzz saw up a foot or so and
>> it's an entirely different story.  Effectively, what our club unwittingly
>> did was hand a permission slip to everyone to drown out anyone who makes 
>> a
>> serious attempt at quieting the airplane down.  No one pays much 
>> attention
>> to these things until a field is threatened.  When you can't here your
>> DA-150 in flight, you know you have a problem.
>>
>> The point is, the science doesn't seem to be easy to boil down into an
>> easy
>> to follow recipe.  IMAC did attempt that with their sound committee a few
>> years back, but the results weren't as good as hoped for.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Joe Lachowski" <jlachow at hotmail.com>
>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>>
>>
>>> >From what I measured a quite a while ago, I believe the equivalent at 
>>> >25
>>> >ft
>>> to that at 10ft is about a 7db difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
>>>>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: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:53:36 -0500
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure if there may be a perception that measuring at 25 feet is
>>>>somehow more palatable than at 10 ft.  If this is the feeling in your
>>>>club
>>>>then go for it.  However, I know from experience that all influences on
>>>>the
>>>>measured result (wind, hard/grass, fences, proximity to a covered pit
>>>>echo
>>>>chamber, cars, etc) are exponentially amplified with distance.  I
>>>>measured
>>>>the same Extra330 with a large gas engine in every way possible and 
>>>>found
>>>>the results varied from 101-105 db.  This is a huge variation.
>>>>Upwind/downwind in about 10 mph winds is worth 2-3 db.  At 10 ft the
>>>>variation was from 102-103 db.  If you have a guy with a plane near the
>>>>limit he may argue your measurement result.  If you say the lmit is the
>>>>highest value measured then you are really restricting some guys with
>>>>loud
>>>>planes to less than the nominal. If you provide leeway, then your limit
>>>>is
>>>>effectively raised.  It opens a can of worms.
>>>>
>>>>Lance
>>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>   From: Glen Watson
>>>>   To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>>>>   Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:52 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Links below are to a RC club in the Houston market who implemented a
>>>>noise standard..  My club has adopted the same standard.  In 2004 we had
>>>>complaints from a nearby neighbor regarding noise.  Since implementing
>>>>this
>>>>noise standard we've had zero complaints.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   http://fortbendrc.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   http://fortbendrc.com/Field/Field%20Noiselevel.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   ~Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>   From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
>>>>Ferrell
>>>>   Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:09 PM
>>>>   To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>   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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006
>
> 

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006