Old RAF type leather helmet - adapting to ICOM type handheld?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

Ron, have you tried nose cancelling ear buds? I was wondering how the plugfones compare... I've been using Audio Technica NC earbuds which claim "up to 20dB" noise reduction under my leather helmet, but the plugfones claim 25db.

---

I have tried them, and the ANL works. Big problem is, I've apparently got tiny ear canals, and the hard rubber ear pieces are uncomfortable. But the ANL effect is noticeable.

One of our Fly Baby guys uses ANL ear buds, and is very happy with them.

I'm not sure if the Plugfones actually have more noise reduction than the ANL ear buds. It's hard to quantitize...especially when I haven't flown with the ANL buds for over a year. :-)

Wouldn't hurt to try out the Plugfones; they're just $25 or so. Free shipping if you buy two or more sets. They've also got the replacement plugs, $8 for five pair. I've got backup sets in the airplane just in case.

The one drawback I've found with the Plugfones is that they're more likely to get blocked by skin flakes or ear wax. They have a driver element the same size of a normal ear bud, but a tapering horn at the end to make them skinny enough to fit in the foam plug. Best to check, before you put them on. I actually plug my ear buds into my cell phone before mounting up in the airplane just to check that they're working. Try THAT with your David Clarks...

Ron Wanttaja

Yeah, I figured they're cheap enough to be worth trying. My ANL earbuds work great at low throttle settings, not so much at full throttle.

Plugfones look like the way to go!

I'll just have to include dealing with any excess earwax as part of the pre-flight routine!

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

In an open cockpit biplane at an uncontrolled field, I don't "depend" on my radio to work, it's a convenience... I flew four years without a radio at all.

---

Then the comment isn't relevant to you.

But it is relevant to anyone who depends upon the radio for safety. Of course, if you are looking for the radio to provide convenience, they you are staking that convenience on 70+ year old receivers.

I'm not saying that everyone always depends upon the radio for safety.

But *IF* you do, I'm not sure I'd trust 70+ year old receivers.

That's all I was trying to say. The point was about the age of the receivers not whether you personally depend on the radio for safety

The speakers in the headsets are dead simple and because of that very reliable - and one has two of them. If the wiring - which should be replaced - holds, well, then, the speakers should.

If pilot an open cockpit aircraft at an untowered airfield that is pretty much deserted 98% of the time. But I still wear a headset and have a radio (and make the calls into the ether) because radios are like pistols: one never needs a pistol until one really, really needs a pistol.

Pilots need to prioritize their Italians. Bernoulli is important, Marconi isn't. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

If pilot an open cockpit aircraft at an untowered airfield that is pretty much deserted 98% of the time. But I still wear a headset and have a radio (and make the calls into the ether) because radios are like pistols: one never needs a pistol until one really, really needs a pistol.

---

The biggest issue is Mr. Magoo...all the pilots out there who try to see with their ears, not their eyes. I've literally had guys tell me, "I won't know you're there if you're not transmitting."

Almost 30 years ago, I started flying the original Fly Baby (N500F) as part of an EAA chapter's flying club. N500F didn't have a radio, but DID have unshielded ignition. Which meant that wearing a headset with a handheld was like strapping a pair of popcorn poppers to your ears.

I flew that plane for seven years, the vast majority of the time from uncontrolled airports. I once flew in a pattern with ten other aircraft...who, I'm guessing, had radios. I didn't worry about it, but I'm guessing one or two of those guys were having conniptions. The only close calls I had was once when a Mooney passed BELOW me on final (did he NOT see me?) and a couple of planes that took to the runway when I was on short final. Oddly enough, I have and use a radio in my current Fly Baby, and STILL have had guys take the runway in front of me.

One case I recall: I was on right downwind, and a Cessna 172 approached on the 45. We were merging. I kept eyes on him, curious as to what he would do. He never did see me; I slipped clear as he got close. I swear I saw him holding a mike to his mouth, making his position report.

Oh, this field occasionally gets busy with instructors bringing their students from the local controlled fields to a place where they can pack more landings in. One of the flight schools have a policy that the instructors TURN OFF THE RADIOS in our pattern so all the radio calls don't distract the students. And they defended that policy, in writing, to our Airport Board (of which I was the president at the time).

Radio is a fine tool, and, used properly, can enhance safety. But it's not a crutch for the Mark I eyeball, and NOT having a radio does not make one unsafe.

We always must remember, of course, that some airspace *requires* radios, and their use.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saville

Then the comment isn't relevant to you.

But it is relevant to anyone who depends upon the radio for safety. Of course, if you are looking for the radio to provide convenience, they you are staking that convenience on 70+ year old receivers.

I'm not saying that everyone always depends upon the radio for safety.

But *IF* you do, I'm not sure I'd trust 70+ year old receivers.

That's all I was trying to say. The point was about the age of the receivers not whether you personally depend on the radio for safety

---

Right, I agree that 70 year old electronics probably shouldn't be use if you depend on the radio (and many people do, and must). My point was that most people who wear leather helmets to fly open cockpit airplanes don't "depend" on the radio.

My Plugfones arrived on Friday, and I flew with them yesterday. Seemed less effective than the ANL earbuds at low throttle settings, but much more effective at higher power settings. It was so different that I was checking my rpm and airspeed on takeoff because the engine didn't "sound right"! I like them, thanks for the tip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

My Plugfones arrived on Friday, and I flew with them yesterday. Seemed less effective than the ANL earbuds at low throttle settings, but much more effective at higher power settings. It was so different that I was checking my rpm and airspeed on takeoff because the engine didn't "sound right"! I like them, thanks for the tip.

---

Foam earplugs are more effective at low frequencies...this is why they're popular, because they attenuate engine sounds while letting voices through. This means you hear a lot more sounds that normal headphones would cover up.

At first, I wondered if they were working at ALL. Until I realized I could set the volume control when the engine was idling, and not have to touch it for the remainder of the flight. At that point, I realized the foam plugs were doing their jobs.

My set of ANL earbuds actually lets the user set the effective frequency range, with the buds being more effective when a tighter range was selected. Unfortunately, they're uncomfortable and I didn't spend a lot of time trying them out.

Ron Wanttaja