F-35 at Luke AFB. Noise Levels? (Glendale, Prescott: high schools, live, moving)

[Ponderosa]

The EIS was released today. Luke is still the top choice.

Study: Glendale Luke Air Force Base still preferred site for F-35

[DellNec]

Originally Posted by keninaz

No, but jets can do things a lot quicker than props could. And with that comes more noise.
The bottom line is don't live in the take off or approach areas of an airport.
Seems like common sense to me but so many don't have that today.

Common sense? The problem is Luke's AFB has changed its flight patterns and on many occasions DOES NOT abide by the no-fly areas. In other words, they are doing what they see fit, even if it means going back on policies that were implemented to protect private property owners. That is the US Govt. They make and break their own rules as they see fit.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by SluggoF16

...
One intangible: the quality of the sound. Sort of like comparing pounding surf, a Guns and Roses concert, and a screaming colicky baby. All are noisy, but the former is usually considered relaxing, you probably know the words to "Sweet Child of Mine", while most people would consider the latter to have the most profound and adverse effect. Since I've never heard an F-35 I can't comment on its noise quality.

Good point.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by keninaz

No, but jets can do things a lot quicker than props could. And with that comes more noise.
The bottom line is don't live in the take off or approach areas of an airport.
Seems like common sense to me but so many don't have that today.

I don't live in the take-off and approach areas. I live more than 5 miles away from the northern part of the base. The F-16 sorties don't bother me a bit.

Moderator cut: snip

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The EIS was released today. Luke is still the top choice.

Study: Glendale Luke Air Force Base still preferred site for F-35

Luke spokesman Rusty Mitchell said he would describe the noise levels studied as "slightly elevated."

"It may be somewhat louder than the F-16, but I would not characterize it as appreciably louder especially to the naked ear," Mitchell said.





Rusty. It would be helpful to put an objective SPL number out there in DB's versus subjectively describing it as "slightly elevated". For the record, even 50% higher SPL level (+3DB) is a bit louder.

To use an analogy with electronics, it takes twice the power to produce 50% more volume (+3DB) in volume. That's because our hearing is logarithmic. So the overall power of the F-35 has to be a lot more resulting in more rattling and shaking if any planes fly low; I'm glad I am miles away. I have no idea what Rusty Mitchell means by "to the naked ear".

[DellNec]

I remember as a kid living in an area where 727's would fly over. These planes were SO LOUD and rumbly that the homes windows would literally vibrate in their frames and you could feel the vibrations within the home.

They no longer make that plane and it was noted as one of the most loudest commercial planes ever made. Nowadays laws govern the noise levels of commercial planes going over residential areas. With the F-35, it appears that they don't care about the noise levels because it is a military jet.

In the end, it is always the private property homeowner who gets the raw deal. The government must respect our property rights. That is why I hate eminent domain. A government that takes private property as it sees fit is a tyrant government.

[LocoAZnative]

Originally Posted by DellNec

I remember as a kid living in an area where 727's would fly over. These planes were SO LOUD and rumbly that the homes windows would literally vibrate in their frames and you could feel the vibrations within the home.

They no longer make that plane and it was noted as one of the most loudest commercial planes ever made. Nowadays laws govern the noise levels of commercial planes going over residential areas. With the F-35, it appears that they don't care about the noise levels because it is a military jet.

In the end, it is always the private property homeowner who gets the raw deal. The government must respect our property rights. That is why I hate eminent domain. A government that takes private property as it sees fit is a tyrant government.

Your property rights that based was there long before all the development so you knew what you were getting into. Looks like you are not that sharp if you moved there knowing and AFB was right next door.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by LocoAZnative

Your property rights that based was there long before all the development so you knew what you were getting into. Looks like you are not that sharp if you moved there knowing and AFB was right next door.

To use some analogies:
1. Arizona and water: Somewhere down the road, don't expect people to be logical or understanding when you attempt to explain that you did your homework ahead of time with AZ water rights. I'll just keep on chiming in "well you bought in a desert!"

2. Arizona and Illegal Immigration: Don't complain if you think illegal immigration is a problem. Hey, we don't have the problem in MN or Iowa or South Dakota etc. It's a problem because it is based off of the proximity to the border. Therefore I'll default with poor logic and simply say: "of course there is going to be a lot of illegal immigration in AZ. You bought on a border state, what were you expecting?"

I can go on and on with another 20 Arizona examples if you like like. I can even summarize any personal issue that people may have and give them quick default answer like: "Hey, you smoked" or "but you didn't study hard enough so why should i care if you are unemployed" etc.

Shame on me for thinking some people could understand that a possible 250% increase in airport noise over what was claimed might be a legitimate point of view.

[LocoAZnative]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

To use some analogies:
1. Arizona and water: Somewhere down the road, don't expect people to be logical or understanding when you attempt to explain that you did your homework ahead of time with AZ water rights. I'll just keep on chiming in "well you bought in a desert!"

2. Arizona and Illegal Immigration: Don't complain if you think illegal immigration is a problem. Hey, we don't have the problem in MN or Iowa or South Dakota etc. It's a problem because it is based off of the proximity to the border. Therefore I'll default with poor logic and simply say: "of course there is going to be a lot of illegal immigration in AZ. You bought on a border state, what were you expecting?"

I can go on and on with another 20 Arizona examples if you like like. I can even summarize any personal issue that people may have and give them quick default answer like: "Hey, you smoked" or "but you didn't study hard enough so why should i care if you are unemployed" etc.

Shame on me for thinking some people could understand that a possible 250% increase in airport noise over what was claimed might be a legitimate point of view.

1 you are a transplant so you have nothing to complain about. Don't move here next to an AFB and cry about the noise the jets make when you take off. Get a clue people

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by LocoAZnative

1 you are a transplant so you have nothing to complain about. Don't move here next to an AFB and cry about the noise the jets make when you take off. Get a clue people

You just supported my last post. Some people are unable to dig deeper to grasp someones point. You default to AFB==any amount of noise no matter the DoD claims.