What Makes GA Planes So Loud?

Well, I did say I was Pre-Private.

I am very weary of the speed though (Vx). I'll take Vy any day. BTW, I had Vx nailed that day...and i was DESCENDING. I was going to be a small news story and a fiery end to a nice lake house if I didn't do what I did...speed up and miss my appointment with death.

Ya'll tell me. Whats you're VSI say at Vx an whats it say at Vy?

Can't be descending at actuala Vx unless 1. at/beyond the absolute altitude of that a/c in those conditions, in that configuration.

Vx and Vy change with altitude and merge at the absolute altitude, at which time, any variation from vx or vy (being the same, will result in a stall or a loss of altitude. Vx is faster the higher you go, Vy gets slower.
 
Where does your blue line fall WRT Vx/Vy?

Blue line is pretty darn close to Vy. Vx puts me about halfway between blue line and red line.
 
Vx is a scam. I departed big bear and flew Vx. Summer and high in a C-152 I was getting a descent into a house. As a pre-private I knew enough to nose it over and get speed...towards the house. With speed I pulled up and climbed in a circle to clear the hills.

other_BSflag.gif
 
Maybe. Like I said I was pre-Private and Vx was going to kill me. Learned my lesson there....speed is your friend and screw Vx.

Should have learned that you'd memorized sea-level Vx, and were flying slower than that, or known you had found a downdraft, instead of making up stuff with "new Physics" that would eventually become a future misguided self-mantra.

You probably memorized sea-level Vy too, and ended up somewhere in-between real Vx and Vy for the given Density Altitude that day.
 
Can't be descending at actuala Vx unless 1. at/beyond the absolute altitude of that a/c in those conditions, in that configuration.

Vx and Vy change with altitude and merge at the absolute altitude, at which time, any variation from vx or vy (being the same, will result in a stall or a loss of altitude. Vx is faster the higher you go, Vy gets slower.

I owe you an apology Captain. This one kept me up last night. My commercial ground instructor was also a Glider instructor and drilled into us many situations in which it is better to be above Best Glide, at Minimum Sink Rate, or even below it. It only stands to reason that Vx and Vy could entirely switch their respective roles in respect to terrain clearance and can think of many situations where this could arise. Glad you made it out ok and glad I can learn something from it.

This thread was the deciding factor. I'm scrapping my BFR and getting a Glider Rating in lieu thereof. Complacency kills. Time to shake the dust off and go back to improving my skills.

Thanks for the introspect.
 
Build a 4-passenger car that weighs 1,500lbs. Then drive it 150MPH. I'm guessing the interior noise level would approach that of our planes. I've driven a 3,500lb car 150mph, and it was anything but quiet. :D

In cruise in the Cardinal, I think wind, prop and exhaust noise are the biggest contributors to the sound level, in that order. To deal with the wind you need a lot more insulation, a lot more rigid skin, a thicker fuselage and heavier plexiglass with multiple layers. I.e., add probably 800 to 1,000lbs to the plane. Since wind and prop noise are probably the biggest contributors, a muffler will do little unless you solve the first two problems.

What is the interior dB level of an SR-20 compared to a Cardinal? I think the Cirrus is a fair amount less noisy.
 
Well, I did say I was Pre-Private.

I am very weary of the speed though (Vx). I'll take Vy any day. BTW, I had Vx nailed that day...and i was DESCENDING. I was going to be a small news story and a fiery end to a nice lake house if I didn't do what I did...speed up and miss my appointment with death.

Ya'll tell me. Whats you're VSI say at Vx an whats it say at Vy?

VSI reads feet per minute. Vy is the fastest to get there based on time. Vx is best ANGLE of climb.

Vx is a scam. I departed big bear and flew Vx. Summer and high in a C-152 I was getting a descent into a house. As a pre-private I knew enough to nose it over and get speed...towards the house. With speed I pulled up and climbed in a circle to clear the hills.

I'll never fly Vx again.

And you wonder why folks didn't follow you in droves to your new site

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Geez, I thought it was a good joke.

Here is a video I made... 32f, motor was turning 4400 RPM's, prop was 3076 rpm's.. tip speed was mach.92......... well under supersonic.. Motor back then had Moroso race mufflers.. they were HEAVY and ineffective.. Plane now has Stainless Steel straight pipes.. no noisier..:no:

You need good speakers and sound card to really hear the true noise/ music the plane makes...

I was well prepared with a smartass comment about a POS camera and microphone, making good speakers and sound card moot....but that really sounded nice:yes:
 
I was well prepared with a smartass comment about a POS camera and microphone, making good speakers and sound card moot....but that really sounded nice:yes:


Thanks for the feedback........... That was my first............ and probably my last attempt at producing a video...:redface::(
 

Not the least of which is an instructor that takes a STUDENT pilot to Big Bear needs to have his certificate yanked out of the orifice it's in and crammed into another. And in a Cessna 152 in summer, apparently with wind (the calm wind runway points directly over the lake and has no houses nor need for a Vx climb)? That's a challenge for a good pilot.

Big Bear is not an easy takeoff even when done correctly. And basic mistakes such as full rich takeoffs can be costly.

A 152 isn't likely to climb at all with an instructor (overweight) unless both pilot and instructor are very light. Is he really claiming that he got a solo endorsement to Big Bear? Which instructor did this, and how many dead students does he have?
 
Last edited:
Not the least of which is an instructor that takes a STUDENT pilot to Big Bear needs to have his certificate yanked out of the orifice it's in and crammed into another. And in a Cessna 152 in summer, apparently with wind (the calm wind runway points directly over the lake and has no houses nor need for a Vx climb)? That's a challenge for a good pilot.

Big Bear is not an easy takeoff even when done correctly. And basic mistakes such as full rich takeoffs can be costly.

A 152 isn't likely to climb at all with an instructor (overweight) unless both pilot and instructor are very light. Is he really claiming that he got a solo endorsement to Big Bear? Which instructor did this, and how many dead students does he have?

Yes. But at the statement that Vx is a SCAM, he lost me.
Either:
1 - He doesn't understand the very basics of aerodynamics and aircraft performance (in which case he probably would not have passed the checkride), and is likely to get himself and his pax killed at some point, or
2 - He's a troll.

Either way, it's time to throw the flag. Especially on behalf of the students that post and read here.
 
Build a 4-passenger car that weighs 1,500lbs. Then drive it 150MPH. I'm guessing the interior noise level would approach that of our planes. I've driven a 3,500lb car 150mph, and it was anything but quiet. :D

In cruise in the Cardinal, I think wind, prop and exhaust noise are the biggest contributors to the sound level, in that order. To deal with the wind you need a lot more insulation, a lot more rigid skin, a thicker fuselage and heavier plexiglass with multiple layers. I.e., add probably 800 to 1,000lbs to the plane. Since wind and prop noise are probably the biggest contributors, a muffler will do little unless you solve the first two problems.

What is the interior dB level of an SR-20 compared to a Cardinal? I think the Cirrus is a fair amount less noisy.

True on all counts, although I think engine noise is THE most significant factor.

Example: I have taken my Pathfinder to 6500', pulled the throttle back to idle, and removed my ANRs. I could talk to Mary in a normal voice. The sounds we heard seemed to be primarily wind noise coming from the uninsulated tail section, rather than anything coming over the (relatively) aerodynamic and insulated cabin.

Of course, prop noise is minimal at idle, so it's hard to separate the two -- but when I brought the power back in the racket that ensued was primarily the unmistakable roar of 6-cylinders exhausting through one oversized exhaust pipe.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just install a new muffler and see if it helped? Alas, Big Brother will have none of that. Even on something as simple as a muffler, we must go through a million dollars of certification tests.

Yet, strangely, I can send a corroded muffler flange back to Dawley Aviation, have them "rebuild" it (!) Into a "muffler", and that...thing...is perfectly legal to install.

We all know that muffler design sucks. We all know it does little to actually "muffle". We all know that 350 hours (or less) later, the insides will be rotted out, and we can do it all over again.

Sometimes the stupidity of certificated aviation makes me wince.
 
Should have learned that you'd memorized sea-level Vx, and were flying slower than that, or known you had found a downdraft, instead of making up stuff with "new Physics" that would eventually become a future misguided self-mantra.

You probably memorized sea-level Vy too, and ended up somewhere in-between real Vx and Vy for the given Density Altitude that day.
I just happen to be reading Bob Gardner's The Complete Advanced Pilot, and he said that "You will always use the same indiciated airspeeds, regardless of altitude." Wouldn't that imply that if Vx is 62 kts at sea level, it would be 62 at 9,000 ft? Your true airspeed would be higher at altitude, but your indicated airspeed would be the same.
 
All right,

Vx isn't a scam. It's the best angle climb speed and I'd fly it if I need best altitude over a specified distance.

But the story is true. I did my long cross country to Big Bear solo. I did lean it out prior to brake release and I did a static takeoff away from the lake as that was the runway in use. I don't remember the exact winds but I'd say around 10 kts or so. To this day I have no idea why I was descending while at Vx. But that flight made me a big fan of airspeed...

The flight took place on 11/30/96 in N212AF.



edit to add: Guess it wasn't summer. Looks like 17 years turned a sunny day into summer in my mind. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But at the statement that Vx is a SCAM, he lost me.
Either:
1 - He doesn't understand the very basics of aerodynamics and aircraft performance (in which case he probably would not have passed the checkride), and is likely to get himself and his pax killed at some point, or
2 - He's a troll.

Either way, it's time to throw the flag. Especially on behalf of the students that post and read here.

Instead of calling Vx a fraud, suppose Captain had posted instead:

  • Vx and Vy increase at higher density altitudes
  • if you are at high density altitude and you pitch up to attain the slow airspeed that corresponds to sea level Vx
    • you'll be slower than Vx at your density altitude
    • you'll probably be in slow flight
      • when well into slow flight, there's no assurance that you can generate enough power to climb
      • if you can't climb you might hit terrain or obstructions
      • in that case you should pitch down so that you can climb
Would that have been okay for you?
 
Last edited:
Instead of calling Vx a fraud, suppose Captain had posted instead:

  • Vx and Vy increase at higher density altitudes
  • if you are at high density altitude and you pitch up to attain the slow airspeed that corresponds to sea level Vx
    • you'll be slower than Vx at your density altitude
    • you'll probably be in slow flight
      • when well into slow flight, there's no assurance that you can generate enough power to climb
      • if you can't climb you might hit terrain or obstructions
      • in that case you should pitch down so that you can climb

        Would that have been okay for you?


      • Sure, because that's completely different.
 
True on all counts, although I think engine noise is THE most significant factor.

Example: I have taken my Pathfinder to 6500', pulled the throttle back to idle, and removed my ANRs. I could talk to Mary in a normal voice. The sounds we heard seemed to be primarily wind noise coming from the uninsulated tail section, rather than anything coming over the (relatively) aerodynamic and insulated cabin.

Of course, prop noise is minimal at idle, so it's hard to separate the two -- but when I brought the power back in the racket that ensued was primarily the unmistakable roar of 6-cylinders exhausting through one oversized exhaust pipe.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just install a new muffler and see if it helped? Alas, Big Brother will have none of that. Even on something as simple as a muffler, we must go through a million dollars of certification tests.

Yet, strangely, I can send a corroded muffler flange back to Dawley Aviation, have them "rebuild" it (!) Into a "muffler", and that...thing...is perfectly legal to install.

We all know that muffler design sucks. We all know it does little to actually "muffle". We all know that 350 hours (or less) later, the insides will be rotted out, and we can do it all over again.

Sometimes the stupidity of certificated aviation makes me wince.

An aircraft engine isn't mounted on really soft mounts as auto engines are, mostly because the thrust and gyroscopic forces would move the engine around too much if it was. So more of the mechanical noise of the engine comes into the cabin, which happens (usually) to have the engine mounting bulkhead, the firewall, as the front wall of the cabin. A car has its engine mounted some structural distance away.

That propeller makes a lot of noise, not just from the pulsating airflow but there's a constant roar coming off the tips, too. Bystanders off to the side hear a buzz, but anyone roughly centered behind the prop hears that constant racket. Similarly, helicopter occupants don't hear the whup-whup sound that those on the ground do.

Aircraft mufflers aren't well downstream from the engine. They're right there, getting all that flame, and being shaken to bits as well because they're mounted to that vibrating engine. A car's muffler has some pipe ahead of it to radiate and convect some of the heat away, and it's isolated from the engine's direct vibration. And yet a car's exhaust system would burn out pretty quick, too, if it was being run at 75% power for hours on end.

Some European homebuilders use what's called a "Swiss Muffler" that's mounted under the fuselage and has a long, flexible pipe to it. It exhausts aft of the cabin and that exhaust is often so quiet that at some fly-ins the airplane must be preceded by a pilot car because there's too little noise to alert pedestrians. They use this due to aircraft noise regulations in some of those countries.

20060714111058432_3_original.jpg


ff3_mn.gif


Certification costs, of course, are nonexistent. One reason why kitplanes and homebuilts are representing such a large percentage of new aircraft registrations now.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Listen to the sound the TGV train makes at 547 kph. Fast forward to about 3:45 in the video. It is an electric train powered by overhead catenary wires so there is no engine noise. The track and wheels are so closely matched
(for obvious safety reasons) that the wheel/rail interface noise is greatly reduced. The vast majority of the noise is the car body passing through the wind. Sounds something like a fighter going by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM
 
True on all counts, although I think engine noise is THE most significant factor.

Example: I have taken my Pathfinder to 6500', pulled the throttle back to idle, and removed my ANRs. I could talk to Mary in a normal voice. The sounds we heard seemed to be primarily wind noise coming from the uninsulated tail section, rather than anything coming over the (relatively) aerodynamic and insulated cabin.

Of course, prop noise is minimal at idle, so it's hard to separate the two -- but when I brought the power back in the racket that ensued was primarily the unmistakable roar of 6-cylinders exhausting through one oversized exhaust pipe.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just install a new muffler and see if it helped? Alas, Big Brother will have none of that. Even on something as simple as a muffler, we must go through a million dollars of certification tests.

Yet, strangely, I can send a corroded muffler flange back to Dawley Aviation, have them "rebuild" it (!) Into a "muffler", and that...thing...is perfectly legal to install.

We all know that muffler design sucks. We all know it does little to actually "muffle". We all know that 350 hours (or less) later, the insides will be rotted out, and we can do it all over again.

Sometimes the stupidity of certificated aviation makes me wince.

I'm glad you are trying to shift us back to the topic. I agree controlling EXH noise could make the cabin more pleasant. Just for caparison has anyone ever been in a turbine conversion like a Bonanza or something comparable. Is there any difference in cabin noise from a piston?

An aircraft engine isn't mounted on really soft mounts as auto engines are, mostly because the thrust and gyroscopic forces would move the engine around too much if it was. So more of the mechanical noise of the engine comes into the cabin, which happens (usually) to have the engine mounting bulkhead, the firewall, as the front wall of the cabin. A car has its engine mounted some structural distance away.

That propeller makes a lot of noise, not just from the pulsating airflow but there's a constant roar coming off the tips, too. Bystanders off to the side hear a buzz, but anyone roughly centered behind the prop hears that constant racket. Similarly, helicopter occupants don't hear the whup-whup sound that those on the ground do.

Aircraft mufflers aren't well downstream from the engine. They're right there, getting all that flame, and being shaken to bits as well because they're mounted to that vibrating engine. A car's muffler has some pipe ahead of it to radiate and convect some of the heat away, and it's isolated from the engine's direct vibration. And yet a car's exhaust system would burn out pretty quick, too, if it was being run at 75% power for hours on end.

Some European homebuilders use what's called a "Swiss Muffler" that's mounted under the fuselage and has a long, flexible pipe to it. It exhausts aft of the cabin and that exhaust is often so quiet that at some fly-ins the airplane must be preceded by a pilot car because there's too little noise to alert pedestrians. They use this due to aircraft noise regulations in some of those countries.

20060714111058432_3_original.jpg


ff3_mn.gif


Certification costs, of course, are nonexistent. One reason why kitplanes and homebuilts are representing such a large percentage of new aircraft registrations now.

Dan

This must be some level of improvement in the noise or it wouldn't be required? What would happen if you had this installed on a certified AC and just removed it before your annual then re-installed it for another year? Who would complain? FAA?

Listen to the sound the TGV train makes at 547 kph. Fast forward to about 3:45 in the video. It is an electric train powered by overhead catenary wires so there is no engine noise. The track and wheels are so closely matched
(for obvious safety reasons) that the wheel/rail interface noise is greatly reduced. The vast majority of the noise is the car body passing through the wind. Sounds something like a fighter going by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM
WOW that's moving!! Imagine flying alone in your new RV and having your doors blown off by a freight trne. LOL..
 
Build a 4-passenger car that weighs 1,500lbs. Then drive it 150MPH. I'm guessing the interior noise level would approach that of our planes. I've driven a 3,500lb car 150mph, and it was anything but quiet. :D

In cruise in the Cardinal, I think wind, prop and exhaust noise are the biggest contributors to the sound level, in that order. To deal with the wind you need a lot more insulation, a lot more rigid skin, a thicker fuselage and heavier plexiglass with multiple layers. I.e., add probably 800 to 1,000lbs to the plane. Since wind and prop noise are probably the biggest contributors, a muffler will do little unless you solve the first two problems.

What is the interior dB level of an SR-20 compared to a Cardinal? I think the Cirrus is a fair amount less noisy.

All side glass
in Cessnas is flat, and a flat surface is more easily energized by
sound waves. Also Cessna windshields have a flat area right in
their centers, unfortunately meaning more vibration and less
reduction with increased thickness. I had LP Aero make the
first Cessna 172 1/4” windshield for me back in 1979. I initially
flew the subject airplane with the original 3/16” windshield
and using a digital sound meter I recorded sound levels,
power settings, and outside air temperature. After installing
the new 1/4” windshield, I repeated the in-flight sound tests
with the same meter and identical flight conditions, and guess
what? No change. The best we’ve ever done at our shop with a
high wing Cessna is to remove 8 decibels. If most of you were
to ride in an 82db Cessna without wearing head phones, you
would be happy that it was the quietest single engine piston
airplane you had ever flown in. However, if you bought a new
car that had a cabin noise level of 82db at 60mph, you would​
Volume 23, No. 5 - May 2006 - Cessna Pilots Association​
3

quickly be back at the dealer asking for your money back. (It’s
worth noting here that a turbo-charged or pressurized airplane
will generally be a few decibels quieter.)​


http://www.airmod.com/articles/PDF/cpa1soundproofing.pdf
 
8db is significant. IIRC, each 3db represents a doubling (or this case, halving) the SPL.
 
The answer to this is resonant frequency. There are also 2nd and 3rd order harmonics at play. Airplanes resonate at exactly the correct frequencies to annoy people. Nuff said.
 
I'm glad you are trying to shift us back to the topic. I agree controlling EXH noise could make the cabin more pleasant. Just for caparison has anyone ever been in a turbine conversion like a Bonanza or something comparable. Is there any difference in cabin noise from a piston?



This must be some level of improvement in the noise or it wouldn't be required? What would happen if you had this installed on a certified AC and just removed it before your annual then re-installed it for another year? Who would complain? FAA?

As an IA I would complain. If (and if many people start doing this when) someone gets caught with one of these on a certificated aircraft guess who's door the FAA comes and knocks on? My PMI gave me a talking to when he issued me my IA about keeping records of installed equipment including the story of a bonanza gear up where it was discovered it had an unapproved prop installed. Lucky for the IA who did the last annual he had in his AD research records the propeller that was installed at the time of the annual recorded.

Even if I don't get knocked by the FAA for something like that it is a headache I don't need.
 
As an IA I would complain. If (and if many people start doing this when) someone gets caught with one of these on a certificated aircraft guess who's door the FAA comes and knocks on? My PMI gave me a talking to when he issued me my IA about keeping records of installed equipment including the story of a bonanza gear up where it was discovered it had an unapproved prop installed. Lucky for the IA who did the last annual he had in his AD research records the propeller that was installed at the time of the annual recorded.

Even if I don't get knocked by the FAA for something like that it is a headache I don't need.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm jumping to experimental planes. This sort of nonsensical paper pushing mentality has killed innovation in certificated aircraft.

Think about it. An owner can't even install a European muffler on his personal aircraft because some IA somewhere might get in trouble if he crashes? WTF?

It is to weep.
 
:D <crickets then returns to wrenching on his certificated spam can>
 
I just happen to be reading Bob Gardner's The Complete Advanced Pilot, and he said that "You will always use the same indiciated airspeeds, regardless of altitude." Wouldn't that imply that if Vx is 62 kts at sea level, it would be 62 at 9,000 ft? Your true airspeed would be higher at altitude, but your indicated airspeed would be the same.

Higher TAS, more drag. Higher DA less engine power. Vy has to go down.
 
Higher TAS, more drag. Higher DA less engine power. Vy has to go down.

Drag is realtive to CAS. 62 KCAS at sea level is going to produce the same drag as 62 KCAS at 9,000 ft but yet your KTAS will be much higher.
 
I just happen to be reading Bob Gardner's The Complete Advanced Pilot, and he said that "You will always use the same indiciated airspeeds, regardless of altitude." Wouldn't that imply that if Vx is 62 kts at sea level, it would be 62 at 9,000 ft? Your true airspeed would be higher at altitude, but your indicated airspeed would be the same.

That would be true, but it's not. If his book states that, then why do so many a/c have clear charts that dictate the change in indicated a.s. for both Vx and Vy, as DA increases? Probably b/c a lot of really smart people figured it out. I flew out of Co. Springs in a 1950's 172, whose charts reflected the proper a.s. for each in the very old POH. I think there is a bit of Indicated/calibrated/true a.s. confusion here.
 
BG was referring to indicated speed as they relate to stall. Landing and taking off are all speeds based on stall. Vx and Vy do not relate to stall.

Anyway...pitot tubes count air molecules and tell you if you have enough going over the wings to sustain flight.

So, on approach...you always fly indicated regardless of altitude. You don't add speed because you're high. I've seen guys try to do this.
 
Last edited:
........
Anyway...pitot tubes count air molecules and tell you if you have enough going over the wings to sustain flight.

.

:thumbsup:


All pilots need this concept to be beat into their heads during basic training...:yes:.....
 
I would love to chuck the Lycoming IO360 in the garbage dump where it belongs and replace it with a UL Power 520iS and have the same power, less weight, and lower specific fuel consumption.
That would be totally awesome if 520iS actually existed.
 
Then this article is hosed...

http://cospilot.com/documents/Why Vx and Vy Change with Altitude.pdf

Note his use of "TAS" repeatedly with no mention of CAS.

I don't think his intent was to imply Vx and Vy change because of increased drag with TAS. Those V speeds are indicated and they change because of a reduction in engine power and thrust. Yes, an increase in CAS, thereby increasing TAS will yield a higher overall drag. But a blanket statement that higher TAS means higher drag, no that's incorrect. From WIKI:

"Likewise, most efficient cruise speed, total drag, available lift, stall speed, and other aerodynamic information depend on calibrated, not true airspeed."

You can use a POH and find that the higher you go (to a certain limit) your TAS will go up. You can even use less power and burn less fuel at say 8,000 ft than sea level and still have a higher TAS. That's because there's less drag as you go up.
 
Back
Top