Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43C69FA8.5020101@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:27:52 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Cool Tube Muffler Sound Readings
References: <list-924014@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-924014@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bob White wrote:

>I guess after that it's just a matter of whether I'm happy with
>the noise level in the cockpit.
>
>Bob W.
>
And do we really care what the people we leave on the ground think!?

8*)  Well, I guess that would depend on if we want to come back, but 
your point is insightful.  Taking readings at the wing tips and such is 
interesting, the cockpit is the crucial area.  There's some correlation 
between the sound at the wing and the sound in the cockpit, but I'm sure 
that various configurations will direct the sound in different 
directions.  If I can direct that sound energy at the wing instead of 
the cockpit...well, the guys in the hangar will just have to stop 
talking for a second while I leave. Right?

Once in the air (so the ground isn't reflecting), are straight pipes 
pointed down better for the pilot than ones that are angled back?

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |