What GA needs

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:49:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred pounds it
will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit.

Now that the jet airliners are quieter than the light singles, isn't
it time for some noise reduction? What significant disadvantage would
there be to a muffler re-design to reduce noise? I realize there
isn't much room available for a larger muffler, and the increased heat
it might radiate would be a factor to consider. But I can recall when
police helos would awaken the neighborhood; now that's a thing of the
past. Surely there is some technologic expertise that could be
applied to aircraft noise reduction, isn't there? Aren't Q-tip props
quieter?

In article , "Maxwell"
wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets.

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
community over helmets.

Is anyone requiring pilots to wear headsets? No. Your comparison
to nanny-state requirements for helmets is invalid.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Maxwell"

wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

Nonsense. You cut the noise level on GA 50%, and pilots would be lining up.


And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets.

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

Yes. I have know a couple of pilots that gave it up because their wives had
problems with noise, and I would certainly enjoy it more myself.


And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
community over helmets.

Is anyone requiring pilots to wear headsets? No. Your comparison
to nanny-state requirements for helmets is invalid.

I think you missed the point on that one, Bob. I think as many pilots would
like to loose their headset, as bikers would their helmets. But they don't
want to suffer the loss of hearing or safety.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Maxwell"

wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

Nonsense. You cut the noise level on GA 50%, and pilots would be lining
up.


snip

I'm VERY sensitive to noise. I don't find cabin noise to be a problem at
all. I suppose if I had an issue with wearing headsets, I might not feel
this way. I do have a problem with some of the planes being as noisy as
they are on the outside, but I believe there really are just a few bad
apples in this regard.

Bob Noel wrote:
Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these
airplanes are just too noisy"?

I know someone who is a pilot and thought small airplanes were noisy enough
(among other reasons of course) to design, build, and fly an experimental
hot-air airship. There is an interesting video made for the Boston Globe
newspaper of the airship in action and an interview with the designers
where one of them cites noise of small aircraft as one motivation. Click on
the image with the words "Going Up" on this website to see the video:

http://www.personalblimp.com/

(That kind of leisurely flying appeals to me - being able to stop and smell
the roses, or pick the apples off the top of tree by reaching _downward_.
;-). I'm definitely out of step with the go-fast crowd.)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Maxwell"

wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some weather.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
weather.

Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
weather.

Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

I fly over the Rockies in an RV-6A (non-pressurized) at altitudes as
high as 17,500'. No problem.

Ron Lee

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , "Maxwell"
wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets.

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

Well, to be fair, that's the primary reason my fiancee doesn't fly with me more. It's
loud and there's lots of vibration, and wearing headsets (or any kind of headphones, for
that matter) makes her nauseous after a little while.

Whatever I wind up building in the future, it'll take some very careful work to keep it
quiet enough...