X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3864359 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:49:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.227; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so1249320bwz.19 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=rfQaqfFZvK+xN4LWIlTy6D0nZUhyJmE02HH0hpvq+5U=; b=iaMPoFPxe3gTT2gvvzCi3Jy3QrIXspPj8ei0UO5AX9RcUaWKe/tpdWYPkjq8pmwrUs stRs1YVwRZhKzm8khTCYyzz5Nrs5QGRPpTyzQWpmT5TMxy/RdGr/41Gu603TIzt69oyk ozb8MAbWIN9atuSRBUhZzr9pAwMMXS45h/A3c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=hu0Ooe6dWga+y5CRnAegAknfZsvGGFlcC4cEuDCB39/qhHH7qKb4W6nqXE68XppcZW nvQPPE6d/ZG0PRxrux8NjomvkoKv8G+RIUQ63j6HBYGbXn1gLUA1dm0To9m1XHdhSB3h x85xPXFkhDJQSglcvRlzgcLRwir87LfwYgyVE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.7.92 with SMTP id c28mr2965983bkc.170.1253796505870; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:48:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:48:25 -0500 Message-ID: <5cf132c0909240548o4e4caf87ve3e98abc36b068b7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: SPAM-LOW: [FlyRotary] Re: Headsets From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151758858c5a62560474523f72 --00151758858c5a62560474523f72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My experience with the ear buds is they work their way out of the ear canal over time. Also, I find that they become more and more uncomfortable the longer you wear them. Maybe I didn't have the correct size foam? YMMV Mark S. On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Mike Wills wrote: > In doing a little research it appears that the dominant opinion is that > conventional ANR headsets are more effective at killing the noise while the > in-ear systems are more comfortable. Of course this is subjective so I guess > the only way to know for sure is to try them. > > One thing I did note. While the Clarity Aloft and Quiet technologies > headsets are designed to be used in place of a conventional headset, the CEP > earpieces that the DAR mentioned to me are intended to be used in addition > to a conventional headset. Hmmm.... > > Mike Wills > RV-4 N144MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Christopher Owens > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:24 AM > *Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] [FlyRotary] Re: SPAM-LOW: [FlyRotary] Re: > Headsets > > Not sure about some of the other in-ear headsets, but I fly with the > Clarity Aloft headset and have for a couple of years. It's got an expanding > foam tip that's attached to the ear tube, similar to foam expanding > earplugs, only softer. I can't say that I've had any problems with pressure > equalization, perhaps because of the porous nature of the foam. But then > again, I don't usually fly above 4000 ft anyway :-) > > But I will say that they are fabulously comfortable, especially on a hot > day. > > Best regards, > Chris > > > On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: > > But, these ear-plug type of headsets need to have some facility for > equalizing air pressure in the ear. I believe with the Clarity headsets, > you need to pull them out every-so-often to let the air pressure equalize > (though don't quote me on that.) For most helicopter operations, this is a > non-issue. > > Best Regards, > > Steve Thomas > _______________________________________________________ > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2009, at 11:23 PM, George Lendich wrote: > > > Mike, > Their similar to the Clarity Aloft headsets which use hearing aid ear plugs > - bloody good idea. > George ( down under) > > OK Al, sorry about that. I read everything from Fly Rotary so rarely pay > attention to the subject line - even when I'm the subject originator. > > George, the Bose is $1000 and the Zulu is $850. Until I flew with the Zulu > I wouldnt have believed it was worth it. > > One more possibility. Anyone familiar with these: > > http://www.anr-headsets.com:80/Html_folder/CEP.html > > I had a DAR inspect my glider a few months ago. He flew down in an open > cockpit Pitts. He said he had a terrible time hearing comms and these solved > those problems. He reported that it worked better than any ANR headset he'd > ever tried. > > Mike Wills > RV-4 N144MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* George Lendich > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2009 9:12 PM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: nothing to report... > > Mike, > As you might be aware, we pay significantly more here in Aus for such > equipment, can you tell me what the Bose -X and the Zulu go for in the > states. > George (down under) > > My headset is the original Lightspeed 20K - about 12 years old and still > fine. I've tried a Lightspeed 33K swapping back and forth between it and the > 20K in my buddy's Mooney. The 33K is slightly better than my old 20K, but > not enough to justify upgrading. > > > I borrowed another friend's Lightspeed Zulu a few weeks ago and flew with > it in the RV for about an hour. Significantly better than my 20K and I plan > on making that upgrade once I can scare up the cash. > > Another friend has the Bose which he just bought. Havent been able to talk > him out of it yet for a test flight but I hope to. > > Mike Wills > RV-4 N144MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steve Thomas > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2009 8:40 AM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: nothing to report... > > Is there anyone out there with a Lightspeed Zulu that can report on its > effectiveness? > > Best Regards, > > Steve Thomas > _______________________________________________________ > > > > > > On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: > > Lightspeed 33G. > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: > >> Mark, >> Which ANR do you use? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Steve Thomas >> _______________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 21, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: >> >> Good report Mike. I know what you mean about a quieter muffler. My ANR >> headset does a good job of killing the low frequencies, but a poor job on >> the higher frequencies. The rotary has both. So take your pick, turn the >> ANR on and listen to the high frequencies, or turn it off and listen to the >> low rumble. If I could only find an ANR that can do both I would be a happy >> camper. >> >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Mike Wills wrote: >> >>> I added another 1.3 hours to my total flight time today. And for the >>> first time I landed and was completely satisfied with the flight. I'd still >>> like to quiet it down a little, but this was the first flight where I didnt >>> feel like there was anything that had to be fixed before the next flight. >>> Even the landing was pretty decent. >>> >>> I've got just over 9 hours of flight time and about 40 hours of engine >>> run time now. So far all of my flight time has been directly over the >>> airport because to venture away requires flying over about 50 miles of >>> mostly unlandable mountainous terrain. But I'm starting to think seriously >>> about stretching the legs a little... >>> >>> Mike Wills >>> RV-4 N144MW >>> >> >> >> > > > > > --00151758858c5a62560474523f72 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My=A0experience with the ear buds is they work their way out of the ea= r canal over time.=A0 Also, I find that they become more and more=A0uncomfo= rtable the longer you wear them.=A0 Maybe I didn't have the correct siz= e foam?=A0 YMMV
=A0
Mark S.=A0

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net= > wrote:
In doing a little research it appears = that the dominant opinion is that conventional ANR headsets are more effect= ive at killing the noise while the in-ear systems are more comfortable. Of = course this is subjective so I guess the only way to know for sure is to tr= y them.
=A0
One thing I did note. While the Clarit= y Aloft and Quiet technologies headsets are designed to be used in place of= a conventional headset, the CEP earpieces that the DAR mentioned to me are= intended to be used in addition to a conventional headset. Hmmm....=
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 = 11:24 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [FlyRotar= y] Re: SPAM-LOW: [FlyRotary] Re: Headsets

Not sure about some of the other in-ear headsets, but I fly with the C= larity Aloft headset and have for a couple of years. =A0It's got an exp= anding foam tip that's attached to the ear tube, similar to foam expand= ing earplugs, only softer. =A0I can't say that I've had any problem= s with pressure equalization, perhaps because of the porous nature of the f= oam. =A0But then again, I don't usually fly above 4000 ft anyway :-)

But I will say that they are fabulously comfortable, especially on a h= ot day.

Best regards,
Chris


On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:

But, these ear-plug type of headsets need to have= some facility for equalizing air pressure in the ear. =A0I believe with th= e Clarity headsets, you need to pull them out every-so-often to let the air= pressure equalize (though don't quote me on that.) =A0For most helicop= ter operations, this is a non-issue.
<= span style=3D"WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none= ; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING:= normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">

Best Regards,

Steve Thomas
_____________= __________________________________________





On Sep 22, 2009, at 11:23 PM, George Lendich wrote:

=A0
=A0Mike,
Their similar to the Clarity Aloft hea= dsets which use hearing aid ear plugs - bloody good idea.
George ( down under)
OK Al, sorry about that. I read everyt= hing from Fly Rotary so rarely pay attention to the subject line - even whe= n I'm the subject originator.
=A0
George, the Bose is $1000 and the Zulu= is $850. Until I flew with the Zulu I wouldnt have believed it was worth i= t.
=A0
One more possibility. Anyone familiar = with these:
=A0
=A0
I had a DAR inspect my glider a few mo= nths ago. He flew down in an open cockpit Pitts. He said he had a terrible = time hearing comms and these solved those problems. He reported that it wor= ked better than any ANR headset he'd ever tried.
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
----- Original Message -----
From= :=A0George Lendich
Sent:=A0Monday, Septemb= er 21, 2009 9:12 PM
Subject:=A0[FlyRotary] = Re: nothing to report...

Mike,
As you might be aware, we pay signific= antly more here in Aus for such equipment, can you tell me what the Bose -X= and the Zulu go for in the states.
George (down under)
=A0
My headset is the original Lightspeed = 20K - about 12 years old and still fine. I've tried a Lightspeed 33K sw= apping back and forth between it and the 20K in my buddy's Mooney. The = 33K is slightly better than my old 20K, but not enough to justify upgrading= .
=A0
I borrowed another friend's Lights= peed Zulu a few weeks ago and flew with it in the RV for about an hour. Sig= nificantly better than my 20K and I plan on making that upgrade once I can = scare up the cash.
=A0
Another friend has the Bose which he j= ust bought. Havent been able to talk him out of it yet for a test flight bu= t I hope to.
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
----- Original Message -----
From= :=A0Steve Thomas
Sent:=A0Monday, Septemb= er 21, 2009 8:40 AM
Subject:=A0[FlyRotary] = Re: nothing to report...

Is there anyone out there with a Lightspeed Zulu that can re= port on its effectiveness?

Best Regards,

Steve Thomas
______________= _________________________________________





On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

Lightspeed 33G.


=A0
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steve Thomas=A0<glasair2@me.com>=A0wrote:
Mark,=20

Which ANR do you use?
<= span style=3D"WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none= ; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING:= normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">

Best Regards,

Steve Thomas
_____________= __________________________________________





On Sep 21, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

Good report Mike.=A0 I know what you mean about a quieter muffler.=A0 = My ANR headset does a good job of killing the low frequencies, but a poor j= ob on the higher frequencies.=A0 The rotary has both.=A0=A0So take your pic= k, turn the ANR on and=A0listen to=A0the high frequencies, or turn it off a= nd listen to the low rumble.=A0 If I could only find an ANR that can do bot= h I would be a happy camper.=A0
=A0
Mark

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Mike Wills=A0<rv-4mike@cox.net>=A0wrote:
I added another 1.3 hours to my total = flight time today. And for the first time I landed and was completely satis= fied with the flight. I'd still like to quiet it down a little, but thi= s was the first flight where I didnt feel like there was anything that had = to be fixed before the next flight. Even the landing was pretty decent.
=A0
I've got=A0just over 9 hours of fl= ight time and about 40 hours of engine run time=A0now. So far all of my fli= ght time has been directly over the airport because to venture away require= s flying over about 50 miles of mostly unlandable mountainous terrain. But = I'm starting to think seriously about stretching the legs a little...
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
<= /blockquote>








--00151758858c5a62560474523f72--