[NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

Thu Jun 22 10:32:58 AKDT 2006

Sounds sweet Baby!!!
Nat,  you may have to turn up your hearing aid.

See yah there,

Wayno

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise rules

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>