[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - andDifferentAerobaticModelTypes

[Dean Pappas]

Agreed, point by point.
Dean
 

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:55 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - andDifferentAerobaticModelTypes


Dean,
 
Sometimes all you need to change the path of the herd is to change the path of the dominant bull. (Is that a pun???)
 
It was my impression that the reason pattern got quieter was due to the FAI requiring quiet planes, and even then it took the inflight noise bonus/penalty. Once the top dogs started using really quiet setups (enclosed pipes, soft mounts, better props) then the "me too" took over and the people flying AMA pattern started to adopt it. Of course, that took a few years to happen.
 
IMHO, we need to way to convince "quiet is cool". But, tell that to a kid that just put cardboard flappers on their bicycle spokes. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but I sometimes think that is the mentality we face.
 
Bob R.
 

Dean Pappas <d.pappas at kodeos.com> wrote:

Fortunately, competitors are somewhat easier to "herd" into a new culture, as a result of a strong group identity. Clubs often generate this strong sense of identity, after the noise complaints start.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060303/522efe9d/attachment.html