Why are small single engined airplanes so noisy?

Sorry if I’m butting in but:

Around here the C210 would be the most common single engine aircraft type. Back where I used to live T6s and C185s would be the 3rd and 2nd most common aircraft type respectively (behind the C177). Just making the point that 'most common" can be entirely different depending on your location.

Also, taking off with your pitch control full fine and throttle wide open is SOP for many aircraft types so I don’t see this is an indication of “incompetence”.

3rd point, the prop tips don’t need to go supersonic to be noisy. Just getting close to supersonic gives a similar effect.

Last, I have seen two aircraft that were fitted with mufflers, one was a De Havilland Gypsy Moth, the other was a De Havilland Dove. All other aircraft I’ve seen have not been fitted with mufflers. I’m thinking that either people are getting confused with a plain ol’ exhaust pipe or Americans are fitting mufflers and Aussies/Kiwis aren’t.

Do you think that maybe you are being a tiny bit nitpicky about this? We are agreeing on the causes of aircraft noise, but arguing over pointless crap. Let me clarify original post some:

**Some prop tips do go supersonic on takeoff. No, not all of them do. No, not even most of them. But some do, and some of these are popular airplanes, like the Bonanza and the Cessna 210s. The props on these airplanes generate a HUGE amount of noise. I have never flown one, so I don’t know of there is a POH limitation on takeoff RPM. I assume you have never flown one either, since you weren’t aware of the prop speed. Calling people who take off at full rpm “Incompetant” is a little harsh, if you don’t know that aircrafts limitations.

**I already said this is a mistake, and “most” was a very poor choice of words.

**I assume you have most of your problems with this. If you like, I will email Lycoming and see what their most popular displacement engine is. I assume you don’t have any hard numbers for engine production either, so we are both judging the popularity by what we see every day (I work at a GA airport). What’s the point in getting in a wad over 40 CIDs of displacement, especially when they are basically the same engine otherwise? The point I was trying to make is that they are BIG.

Undisputed, blah blah

**Like I said before, if you are unfamiliar enough with these airplanes to not know what kind of prop speeds they are capable of, then you have no business calling their pilots “incompetant”. For all you know, operation in those ranges is approved for periods of time.

**Okay, so you know they exist. Why even bring it up? The only reason I mentioned it was because I was paraphrasing the OP, and probably the only reason he said it was because he didn’t know how rare they are. What difference does it make?

All this because you believe the 0-320 is more popular than the 360, based on your local airport? Is it really worth all that, rather than saying, **“Hey Joey G, I have never heard of a GA airplane where the prop tips went supersonic, care to back that up? Oh, and by the way, I believe you are wrong, the 0-320 is more popular than the 0-360.” **

Anyways, to sum up this train wreck for Kip70, airplanes are noisy mainly because of their propellers, and to a lesser extent, their engines running at high power levels. I think we can all agree on that.

Amen.

Yes, trainwreck, or perhaps crash and burn.

Maybe we should have just stuck to generalities instead of talking about displacement and engine types.

(And yes, I do think the Lycoming 320 is far more common than the 360, and don’t forget the small Continentals. And just for the record, I wasn’t basing my opinion on “one small airport” but what I’ve seen in 4 different states :stuck_out_tongue: )

Look, do you guys want an answer here or what? Really, if someone wants to know anything about the Lycoming series of engines, I’m going to talk to the man who led the design team today (that would be my dad), so here’s your chance. One time only. No :rolleyes: allowed.

Actually, I would find that interesting. Or I’d just settle for being pointed towards some good, solid, factual information about them.

You’re right. I was basing what I stated according to what I see everyday, but that does vary widely. I posted what I said about mufflers since I tend towards turbocharged aircraft, but I realized later that most people (rightly so) wouldn’t consider those to be the norm.

Anyways, Broomstick, if I see you at a fly-in breakfast I will buy you a pancake. I got a little offended, and probably came off as a jerk when i didn’t intend to. Sorry if I did.

Of course everyone is missing the real reason.

They’re noisy to make all those annoying jets aware of the small planes. Loud props save lives!

:wink:

No, they’re noisy so that they attract the attention of the people who are stopped on the parking lots known as “freeways”. It’s just to make them feel bad.

(There’s a guy at work who used to commute 100 miles to the office in his mid-'60s Piper Cherokee. Much better than sitting in traffic!)

A few things:

First, nitpicking over O-320 vs O-360 is silly. The Cessna 172, the most popular aircraft ever built, uses an O-320. On the other hand, every larger Cessna, including the 172XP, uses an O-360 or bigger. A Piper Warrior/Cherokee 140 uses an O-320, but a Piper Archer uses an O-360. All of the Mooney aircraft use O-360 or bigger. The Grumman Tiger uses an O-360, but the Grumman Traveller and Cheetah uses an O-320. Almost all Beechcraft use at least an O-360.

Where does it all come out in the wash? I have no idea, but certainly if you took the AVERAGE engine size, it would be a lot bigger than 320 CI, considering all the light twins, bush planes, etc. that are out there.

Mufflers: I don’t know of a light aircraft certificated since the 1950’s that doesn’t have a muffler. For one thing, cabin heat is usually provided for by having a heat exchanger on the muffler.

However, aircraft mufflers aren’t as quiet as car mufflers, because of size, weight, and certification requirements. Often they’re something like a ‘glass-pack’ muffler, or even little more than an expansion chamber in a tuned exhaust.

Nevertheless, it’s correct that the prop is the major source of noise on most aircraft. But I would dispute that a lot of propellers go supersonic. I think that’s a bit of an aviation myth. The thing is, there is a huge amount of drag created by the shock wave, and I would guess that most engine/prop combinations don’t have the power required to push the tips into truly supersonic range.

Rather, I think the “BRAAP” sound you hear from a C-185 is the sound of the prop tips entering the transonic region (maybe .9-.95 Mach) . That added noise means a lot of power is being converted to noise, and that prevents the tips from going any faster. There is a huge drag rise once you get into the transonic region, but before you actually go supersonic. The props on a Russian TU-95 could apparently go supersonic, but only at high aircraft speeds and at high altitude, and those propellers were both huge and had supersonic airfoils at the tips.

Republic also tried to design an aircraft with a supersonic prop (The X-84?). They gave up because of the tremendous power loss from the supersonic tips.

A C-185 typically uses an 86-inch prop (2 blade). At a max 2700 RPM at takeoff, the tips would be going 690mph. The speed of sound at one standard atmosphere is 761 mph.

Now, the tip speed is also determined by the forward speed of the aircraft, and I have heard that a C-185 in full flat pitch MIGHT run the tips supersonic after takeoff if the pilot doesn’t back off the pitch properly. Sometimes when you hear a 185 take off you’ll hear a loud ‘whine’ right after takeoff. That may be the tips temporarily breaking through the transonic region. But certainly at the start of the takeoff roll and at any low speeds a C-185 can’t push its prop tips supersonic.

Even the T-6 Texans that race at Reno don’t run their prop tips supersonic. In fact, on really hot race days, when the speed of sound comes down enough to put the prop tips high in the transonic region where there is a lot of drag, the pilots swap in smaller diameter propellers to avoid the power loss.

**I agree. I think everyone realizes now engine size is beside the point.

**Are you excluding turbocharged aircraft? Just asking, I have never seen a turbo aircraft with a muffler. Turbo planes aren’t exactly rare, either. In that case, the turbo provides for noise suppression, so a muffler isn’t needed.

But it still doesn’t have one. :slight_smile:

Well, I don’t think that a lot of them do, either. But I do believe that some do, and your calculations for the C-185 seem to support this. I am willing to put the myth (if it is one) to death right now, if we can come up with some prop length/RPM specs for the airplanes this is often associated with.

Well, I just provided them for a C-185. At 2700 RPM (redline for that engine/prop), the tips are going 691 mph when the airplane isn’t moving. That’s 70 mph under Mach 1.

So I think what’s happening isn’t that the tip itself is going supersonic, but that there are localized regions on the surface of the tip where the airflow is supersonic due to curvature and lift. This creates all the racket, and creates a tremendous amount of drag which prevents the airplane from going faster and pushing the prop tips further into the transonic region.

At the end of WWII, Republic did dive tests with a P-47 to try and get the airplane to go supersonic. They couldn’t get it past about .83 Mach, because at those speeds the propeller tips would go supersonic and create so much drag that the airplane simply couldn’t accelerate any more.

BTW, at one standard atmosphere, the C-185 prop tip is going .907 mach. At 5000 ft (assuming standard lapse rate for temperature), a static C-185 prop at redline is at 0.923 mach.

A C-185 at redline and no forward motion would need a density altitude of 26,000 ft before its prop tips would be going supersonic. Seeing as how that’s WAY above the airplane’s service ceiling, one thing we can state categorically is that when you’re doing a run-up in a C-185, it is impossible to get the prop tips to go faster than the speed of sound.

Now, once you add in the forward velocity of the airplane you start getting closer, but given that a C-185 climbs out at something like 85MPH, and only a small portion of that speed is additive, it would seem that the prop tips won’t go through the speed of sound on takeoff, either. On the other hand, if you keep the prop in fine pitch, let the RPM to climb to 2800 while climbing at maybe 110 mph or something, I can believe the tips might go supersonic.

But at typical takeoff speeds, I can imagine that there might be some spots on the prop with supersonic flow near the tips, even if the tips themselves are well under 1.0 mach.

BTW, here’s a really cool web page for those with an interest in aerodynamics: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/short.html

This page also gets the lift explanation right, showing that the cause of lift is not suction on the top of the wing, or air pressure on the bottom due to lower pressure on the top (the Bernoulli explanation), but because the wing turns the air mass and gets lift through Newton’s 3rd law.

There are a lot of really cool Java applets on that page that let you play with airfoils and all kinds of cool things.

Well, since we are talking about the 185, here is a quote from an article on the McCauley Propeller website:

Taken from http://www.airplanepropeller.com/articles.htm

Note that it wasn’t written by them, so I don’t know if it’s:

A: inaccurate, but they tolerate it because it sells props
or
B: accurate, so the tips must go supersonic often enough for it to be termed the “infamous 185 whine”

Anyways, I agree with you. The tips may go supersonic sometimes, but not everytime someone hears the “BRAAAAAAAAAP” and assumes that they are.

I don’t see a contradiction anyway. I do believe the 185 tips could go supersonic at high power, flat pitch, and takeoff speed. And that’s where you hear the whine, if I recall. I don’t remember a 185 making that sound during a run-up. It’s more of the BRRAAAP sound you’re talking about.

I agree. I got a long way off from my original statement:

**I have learned my lesson about being too general. :wink:

Well I just can’t help myself sometimes. Since everyone else is nitpicking: the speed of sound goes up with an increase in temperature. To be specific it varies with the square root of absolute temperature.

Now wasn’t that fun?

Yeah, I know. I got that information from a Reno Air Race web page, and didn’t think about it too much.

From this site:

I suspect the writer got it backwards. They probably swap in the longer props as the day goes on.