Question on headsets

[bbtuna]

I just bought a Lightspeed Sierra headset expecting to find a large difference with the noise level when compared to my old headset. I was disappointed in the passive noise reduction of the headset. I am in training flying Cessna 172s mainly and with the Sierra I could hear the strobe lights and most other things rattling around in the cockpit. With my cheap ASA headset i heard none of this. Does anyone have an suggestions to what headsets have the best passive noise reduction with or without ANR, it doesn't matter. Im just looking for something comfortable like the Sierra, but better passive.

[MickYoumans]

I have a set of FlightCom Denali headsets that I like. At $275 passive or $517 for ANR, I think they are a good bang-for-the-buck headset that will not break the bank. They are very comfortable, the mike stays right where you put it and the sound quality is good. They also come in a nice padded case that really protects them. I like mine so much that I am planning on ordering another set for my wife.

It is available as either passive or ANR. Here is a link:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/denali.php

Keep in mind that YMMV.

[danielfindling]

I purchased two used David Clark headsets (around $40.00) and purchased the ANR kit from http://www.anr-headsets.com/Html_folder/HeadsetKitOrder.shtml with great results. The kit replaces all of the internals (speaker, insulation, etc.) so you end up with a new ANR for around $200.00!

[rwanttaja]

I have a set of FlightCom Denali headsets that I like. At $275 passive or $517 for ANR, I think they are a good bang-for-the-buck headset that will not break the bank. They are very comfortable, the mike stays right where you put it and the sound quality is good. They also come in a nice padded case that really protects them. I like mine so much that I am planning on ordering another set for my wife.

I've got a set of Flightcom Denali ANRs, and have been quite satisfied with them. My airplane (Bowers Fly Baby) is extremely noisy...about 105 dB at chest level. The Flightcom works well in the Fly Baby, and nicely during BFRs when I drive an FBO Warrior.

One thing I will point out is that the iPod-like "Ear Buds" seem to have a big advantage as far as passive attenuation. I've got a set where I've kluged up an adaptor to use them in the airplane, and actually fly with the radio volume set lower than I do when I use the ANR set (although the buds are delivering the radio sound much closer to my eardrums).

For those with a bit of mechanical ability, Carl Peters wrote a great article about building your own iPod-earbud-based headset and posted it to the RV mailing list:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=20917

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

I was given an ancient set of AVCOMM headsets by a friend and transformed them with the purchase of some thick gel pads to go over my ears (throwing the crappy foam ones away).

I've tried a couple other higher end passive headsets and they don't seem to be much better than mine.

Best twenty five buck investment one can make.

[Hank]

I bought a set of Halos from Quiet Technologies, and love them!! They are in-the-ear, but not like earbuds--the actual speaker doesn't go in your ear, just your choice of several foam & silicone plugs, with a tube to carry the sound. No more clamping pressure, no more adjusting my hat to not kill me with the top button, no more headaches while flying.

Got them for Christmas last year as a gift to myself. So far I haven't flown much over 3 hours at a time with them, 6 hours one day in two legs. Very, very comfortable, good sound, nice and quiet, and it's not hard to change into and out of my sunglasses. But my old headset was noticeably louder when not wearing any glasses at all, that's just not an option for my flying unless I'm under the hood with a safety pilot.

Pricewise, they cost about 10% more than the David Clark H-13S I bought my wife a couple of years before.

[BCAIRPORT]

I learned to fly with NO headsets. Graduated to a set of Telex. Much better than NOTHING. Then to Sigtronics, vast improvement. Bought a Marquart Charger open cockpit, very wind noisey. Decided to go David Clark ANR. Didn't work in open air enviroment. (David Clark know's that and would have told me if I had asked.) Went back to the Sigtronics upgraded with Oregon Areo upgrades, hush kit i believe. Good decision! Comfort and noise control. Kept the David Clarks for my 172. Like them so much I removed the battery packs and opted for the hard wired modual, great upgrade if you are the owner and expect to own the bird for a while. I went to EBAY and bought 3 more sets at reasonable price and added the hard wire moduals all around. Now all aboard can enjoy normal conversation and stereo tunes in confort. The hat top button issue can easily be fixed by removing the button! I realize COST is a big issue today BUT consider.....How long do you plan to be a pilot? I expect to fly until no longer physically able, hopefully many years. With good headsets I will still have reasonable hearing when I am done. Think about being able to fly in comfort and still be able to hear the voices of your grand children. Priceless!

[steveinindy]

My airplane (Bowers Fly Baby) is extremely noisy...about 105 dB at chest level.

Why is it so noisy? I mean it doesn't have that powerful of an engine.....

[BCAIRPORT]

Open Cockpit aircraft don't have windows and roofs to keep the wind out!
My Charger has headers and 160+hp. I can't hear the engine!
I've been told it sounds great but have never heard it in flight.
Wind noise is something you must experiance to understand.
Jump on a motorcycle without fairings or windshield and ride at 120 mph, you will get the idea.
Windshield configurations can help but open air is OPEN AIR.

BD

[rwanttaja]

Why is it so noisy? I mean it doesn't have that powerful of an engine.....
What BD said. It's not just the engine, it's the wind.

At our Chapter 26 meeting this week, our speaker was a specialist in aircraft noise reduction. I asked if there was anything that could be done in my case, and he said "no." A key factor in noise reduction is isolation, and by definition, an open cockpit isn't isolated.

Ron Wanttaja

[steveinindy]

Ah....I can't recall ever having seen a Fly Baby so I guess that's why it didn't dawn on me. The noise level (not to mention the not being able to fly for 4-5 months a year) is one of the big reasons I've never been attracted to open cockpit aircraft. Also the idea of taking a bird or even a locust directly to the face doesn't seem all that appealing. I'd like a half-inch of polycarbonate (which is the approximate thickness of the windscreen in my design at this point) between myself and avian or arthropod interlopers.


Jump on a motorcycle without fairings or windshield and ride at 120 mph, you will get the idea.
Windshield configurations can help but open air is OPEN AIR.

No thanks. I may have signed my organ donor card but I'm in no hurry for my altruism in that regard to be acted upon.

[rwanttaja]

Ah....I can't recall ever having seen a Fly Baby so I guess that's why it didn't dawn on me. The noise level (not to mention the not being able to fly for 4-5 months a year) is one of the big reasons I've never been attracted to open cockpit aircraft. Also the idea of taking a bird or even a locust directly to the face doesn't seem all that appealing. I'd like a half-inch of polycarbonate (which is the approximate thickness of the windscreen in my design at this point) between myself and avian or arthropod interlopers.

Got a 1/4" windshield on my Fly Baby. Keeps the bugs off, at least the ones that're slower than me. :-)

The typical GA windshield won't keep out most of the moderate-to-large size avian interlopers, even pureed first. Don't think I'm that much worse off. Besides, if you DO want a half-inch of lexan in front of you, it'll be cheaper and easier to do in a Fly Baby than most other homebuilts. Stock windshield design is a PT-19 style with three flat panes. Mine is a curved wrap, which I'd like to replace with the flat-pane model.

I'm fortunate enough to live in Seattle, and can fly year-round. Here's a shot of my airplane at another airport on a balmy winter day.
1409

Ron Wanttaja

[rosiejerryrosie]

Nice looking airplane, Ron, nice!

[steveinindy]

That's a pretty plane Ron.


I'm fortunate enough to live in Seattle, and can fly year-round. Here's a shot of my airplane at another airport on a balmy winter day

LOL Nice. I may wind up out that way for grad school. When the time comes, I may have to pick your brain about airport choices out there.


The typical GA windshield won't keep out most of the moderate-to-large size avian interlopers, even pureed first.

Which is exactly the reason I chose the design (fairly sharply slanted) and material (polycarbonate for higher impact resistance) for my windshield that I did. The plan is to build a couple of "spares" and test them first with a couple of store-bought ducks. If I can talk the Department of Natural Resources into it, I'd like to get me a couple of geese or maybe a roadkill turkey vulture and test that. Not the cheapest idea but I'd rather spend some extra money instead of finding out the hard way. I enjoy eating poultry but not a force feeding at a couple hundred knots.

[rwanttaja]

The typical GA windshield won't keep out most of the moderate-to-large size avian interlopers, even pureed first.
Which is exactly the reason I chose the design (fairly sharply slanted) and material (polycarbonate for higher impact resistance) for my windshield that I did. The plan is to build a couple of "spares" and test them first with a couple of store-bought ducks.

Interesting idea. What are you thinking of as a test rig? Something like what the Mythbusters rigged up a few years ago is probably what you need, but I wonder if there's a simpler way? A freefall rig would give better repeatability and wouldn't require an actual gun, but you'd need hundreds of feet to get the projectile up to flight-equivalent speeds.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hiperbiper]

That's a pretty plane Ron.



LOL Nice. I may wind up out that way for grad school. When the time comes, I may have to pick your brain about airport choices out there.



Which is exactly the reason I chose the design (fairly sharply slanted) and material (polycarbonate for higher impact resistance) for my windshield that I did. The plan is to build a couple of "spares" and test them first with a couple of store-bought ducks. If I can talk the Department of Natural Resources into it, I'd like to get me a couple of geese or maybe a roadkill turkey vulture and test that. Not the cheapest idea but I'd rather spend some extra money instead of finding out the hard way. I enjoy eating poultry but not a force feeding at a couple hundred knots.

The story of British Rail destroying the test cab on their Bullet Train with BOAC's "Chicken Gun" come to mind...

Chris

[steveinindy]

Interesting idea. What are you thinking of as a test rig? Something like what the Mythbusters rigged up a few years ago is probably what you need, but I wonder if there's a simpler way? A freefall rig would give better repeatability and wouldn't require an actual gun, but you'd need hundreds of feet to get the projectile up to flight-equivalent speeds

For anything other than simulating a strike on an ultralight on short final, you'd need an air cannon. I mean, freefall is an option but the problem becomes hitting the "target" reliably. Probably the most practical way of doing it is an an air cannon firing gelatin blocks to simulate the various bird species since you could easily modify the frontal area, weight and density of the projectile that way. Also the gelatin mix would be cheaper and easier to procure than trying to find a legal way to procure game birds out of season and the gelatin blocks would be more aerodynamic which would allow much easier speed calibration and higher speeds to be achieved (imagine a test at the 250 knot limit). The only drawback is video of the tests would not be nearly as popular when posted on Youtube when not using real birds.

One of my other projects is an improved fuel tank for my design and some of the local fire departments have been kind enough to offer use of their ladder truck for drop tests of it once I get it built. After all, they're firefighters and like to break stuff and I'm a former brother volunteer firefighter. I don't think a drop test would work very effectively to get a bird or gelatin proxy of one up to terminal velocity (and even then, that would likely not be near the impact velocity of a bird strike). The air cannon idea would not be too bad, especially seeing as we're also going to have to test the leading edges of the wings as well as the horizontal and vertical stabilizers.

[steveinindy]

The story of British Rail destroying the test cab on their Bullet Train with BOAC's "Chicken Gun" come to mind...


I thought that was an urban legend because I've heard it variously said that it was the French rail authorities and the British rail authorities.

[Frank Giger]

The technique is real, the joke simply stemmed from it.

[steveinindy]

The technique is real, the joke simply stemmed from it.

Oh, I know the technique is quite real (I've seen one of the tests first hand on a small plane empennage design) but I was just saying that the story about them failing to thaw out the chickens first was an urban legend.

[Jim Hann]

Which is exactly the reason I chose the design (fairly sharply slanted) and material (polycarbonate for higher impact resistance) for my windshield that I did.

Good luck Steve, we had a P-Baron take a bird in the top 25% of the windscreen while landing at Lambert, KSTL recently. Took out part of the plastic (just the top not the whole thing) along with the sheet metal on top of the cabin and a good dent in the horizontal stab. Yes, it looks like the bird fragmented on initial impact. Antennas, vertical fin, and horizontal all had remains on it!

Jim

[Joe Delene]

I guess I'm not one to ask. I'm still content with my David Clark headsets. I even did 8 hours a day in them a month ago.