Does anyone have concerns with the sheer loudness of the sr22 with regard to children? my boys love to fly but I’m not sure that the headsets in the back seat are worn properly 100 percent of the time. Are there any plans to change the insulation of the plane as in the new pipers?
Having insulated four of my last planes with ensolite, EAR isodamp etc I would suggest that ensuring your boys wear one of the four sets of Bose headsets you could buy for the same money woud be a better solution.
One of the biggest sources of noise is the propellor beating on the windshield. The only way to improve that is to go to a 3/8" or 1/2" thick windshield. Beryl D’shannon makes them that thick for the Bonanza/Baron but not for the Cirrus. Knowing how they are installed I would sugges that fabricating and fitting another windsheild would be very difficult. Same goes for the side windows, although they would be somewhat easier to fit.
The composite airframe has a completely different sound spectrum to attentuate than an aluminium skinned aircraft. To do anything effectively one should have a sound analysis performed to determine which frequencies need to be attentuated and what materials would be most effective.
Even then I doubt that you could get the sound levels down to a point where kids hearing would not be damaged without headsets.
If you really want to do it, these are the folks that are the experts.
Having only flown 152s and 172s (20 years ago) I never considered headphones back then. I took a demo flight in a 22 and thought the headphones were a luxury, then we took off. For all the other civilized features to come along on the Cirrus, a quiet cabin is not one of them. Is the Cirrus louder than similarly powered planes?
For what it’s worth, I also thought the SR22 was a little on the loud side, comparing it to about 500 hours in our 30 year old Cessna 182. I put them both to the noise meter test and found them to be almost the same (95 db in the front seats and 92 db in the back). I have no other firm data to compare other aircraft. I did fly a Saratoga for about 100 hours or so and thought it was much more quiet. Passengers in the last row of seat could carry on a conversation at almost normal tones with no head sets. I always attributed this to the prop being so much further from the cabin and there being a baggage compartment between the engine and the cabin.
what effect if any do the g2 modifications have on noise level?
As far as I know, none of the G2 improvements would have any effect on the cabin noise level.
You referred to the new Piper sound insulation packages. I’d suggest you actually fly in one withe a sound meter. They are available at Radio Shack for under $100.
I think you will find that the Cirrus is as quiet as the Pipers.
Maybe the Saratoga might be a little quieter due to the fact that the engine/prop is further forward and has a front baggage compartment as added isolation.
I know that the Saratoga is not a “no headsets” airplane. Not even the Malibu/Mirage with a pressurized cabin and engine wayyyyout front is quiet enough for no headset flight IMO. In fact, I do not know of any single engine piston aircraft that would be even remotely considered a no-headset aircraft.
I rode in a 6xt piper which has a similar engine and was quite a bit more quiet. Headsets were still necessary though. (and the sr22 was a whole lot more fun to fly
In reply to:
As far as I know, none of the G2 improvements would have any effect on the cabin noise level.
I think they bill the new prop as being quieter, but that’s from an external (ground noise) standpoint I believe.
In reply to:
In fact, I do not know of any single engine piston aircraft that would be even remotely considered a no-headset aircraft.
Velocity RG: single pusher
In reply to:
I think they bill the new prop as being quieter, but that’s from an external (ground noise) standpoint I believe.
Gordon,
I don’t know about the new prop being quieter, but according to my 17 year old son it does have a very distinctive noise. Every time I have flown over the house he has been able to distinguish that it was me without even looking outside.
In reply to:
Velocity RG: single pusher
I’ll take your word for it!
A very good friend of mine killed himself trying to explore the well known deep stall possible with the Velocity. He didn’t believe that the condition could be entered.
He proved it can be done.
Sad.
In reply to:
I did fly a Saratoga for about 100 hours or so and thought it was much more quiet. Passengers in the last row of seat could carry on a conversation at almost normal tones with no head sets. I always attributed this to the prop being so much further from the cabin and there being a baggage compartment between the engine and the cabin.
The fact that it is about 40 knots slower certainly is a factor as well. (OK, 20 for the turbo.)
Gordon,
Another data point, TAS on the Saratoga was around 160 8-9,000 MSL vs. 170-175 TAS on the 22 at the same altitudes.
Jim,
You might want to look into the speeds you are getting with your -22, seems very low compared to other forum reports and my own experience with ours. I see 180 kts with no problem and frequently a few knots better. I always flight plan for 180 kts. Are you running LOP or ROP? We have avoided LOP due to the lack of engine management, but we won’t make that mistake on the next one. If you are running ROP, there is no reason you should accept 170 kts. from your -22.
In reply to:
Another data point, TAS on the Saratoga was around 160 8-9,000 MSL vs. 170-175 TAS on the 22 at the same altitudes.
Sounds about right for the 'toga. I have about 50 hours of rented Turbo Saratoga time, and I recall getting about 160 and maybe 165, but I think that was at about 19 GPH ROP. An SR22 G2 running WOT ROP is reported to be close to 190, on less fuel flow, so I think 20 knots is a conservative estimate of the delta.
My 22 is about like yours in terms of speed.
Greg,
We typically run 68-70% so 170 TAS is about as expected. Our bird has always been about 2-3 kts. slow. The best we have seen have seen 75%, ROP is 178 TAS.