Mission Hills: Low End Trends

[blahblahblah]

[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.

CE[/quote]

CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??

My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.

You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.

You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=][/quote]

Change the subject and ignore the hard evidence… So very… you.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.

CE[/quote]

CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??

My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.

You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.

You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=][/quote]

Change the subject and ignore the hard evidence… So very… you.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.

CE[/quote]

CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??

My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.

You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.

You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=][/quote]

Change the subject and ignore the hard evidence… So very… you.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.

CE[/quote]

CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??

My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.

You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.

You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=][/quote]

Change the subject and ignore the hard evidence… So very… you.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.

CE[/quote]

CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??

My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.

You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.

You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=][/quote]

Change the subject and ignore the hard evidence… So very… you.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Noise is noise. Look at the studys they dont lie.

I have lived in PL. On Mentone street. I know all the facts and have looked at the data sheets. Hell I lived down the street from one of the stationed microphones. Again Noise is Noise and the studies are very thorough.

Also if you could see my office and the thirteen pieces of avaition art… Well… I think it is reasonable to assume I am far beyond flight 101 and simple flight dynamics.

So what it your point besides stating the obivious in the above?

Read the link. Its actaully kind of a fun read to see how many times airlines are fined for this but being directly under and moving to the stated area is of little difference to the human ear. I made my point far more clearly than your argument.

CE

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Noise is noise. Look at the studys they dont lie.

I have lived in PL. On Mentone street. I know all the facts and have looked at the data sheets. Hell I lived down the street from one of the stationed microphones. Again Noise is Noise and the studies are very thorough.

Also if you could see my office and the thirteen pieces of avaition art… Well… I think it is reasonable to assume I am far beyond flight 101 and simple flight dynamics.

So what it your point besides stating the obivious in the above?

Read the link. Its actaully kind of a fun read to see how many times airlines are fined for this but being directly under and moving to the stated area is of little difference to the human ear. I made my point far more clearly than your argument.

CE

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Noise is noise. Look at the studys they dont lie.

I have lived in PL. On Mentone street. I know all the facts and have looked at the data sheets. Hell I lived down the street from one of the stationed microphones. Again Noise is Noise and the studies are very thorough.

Also if you could see my office and the thirteen pieces of avaition art… Well… I think it is reasonable to assume I am far beyond flight 101 and simple flight dynamics.

So what it your point besides stating the obivious in the above?

Read the link. Its actaully kind of a fun read to see how many times airlines are fined for this but being directly under and moving to the stated area is of little difference to the human ear. I made my point far more clearly than your argument.

CE

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Noise is noise. Look at the studys they dont lie.

I have lived in PL. On Mentone street. I know all the facts and have looked at the data sheets. Hell I lived down the street from one of the stationed microphones. Again Noise is Noise and the studies are very thorough.

Also if you could see my office and the thirteen pieces of avaition art… Well… I think it is reasonable to assume I am far beyond flight 101 and simple flight dynamics.

So what it your point besides stating the obivious in the above?

Read the link. Its actaully kind of a fun read to see how many times airlines are fined for this but being directly under and moving to the stated area is of little difference to the human ear. I made my point far more clearly than your argument.

CE

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]

Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.

On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.

Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Noise is noise. Look at the studys they dont lie.

I have lived in PL. On Mentone street. I know all the facts and have looked at the data sheets. Hell I lived down the street from one of the stationed microphones. Again Noise is Noise and the studies are very thorough.

Also if you could see my office and the thirteen pieces of avaition art… Well… I think it is reasonable to assume I am far beyond flight 101 and simple flight dynamics.

So what it your point besides stating the obivious in the above?

Read the link. Its actaully kind of a fun read to see how many times airlines are fined for this but being directly under and moving to the stated area is of little difference to the human ear. I made my point far more clearly than your argument.

CE

CE

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO]. . . On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Lol, CONCHO, for almost 3 years, I lived on the corner of Front and Ivy. Standing on the roof deck of our building, we could read the lettering on the just-lowered tires of the commercial jets (that’s when I was young and my eyesight was good ;=}.) Our building was too old to have access to “Mission Cable” (Cox later bought them out). We had antennas on the roof deck. Every 20 mins or so, when a jet came over, we got “snow” on our TV screen for 20 seconds minimum …

Rent was $225 mo for an 800 sf unit on the 3rd flr, with a panoramic view of the bay and beyond (foreground: entire runway in infintesimal detail). We had a telescope and camera tripod with zoom lens set up in the LR and caught several “close-calls.” We also rented an oversized 2-car garage on Albatross St to store our (land and sea-going) “toys” for $100 mo.

Note: This was 35 years ago but nothing has changed in this regard (except the rent) :=]

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that the rent in ALL THREE of my dtn apts INCLUDED ALL UTILS!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO]. . . On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Lol, CONCHO, for almost 3 years, I lived on the corner of Front and Ivy. Standing on the roof deck of our building, we could read the lettering on the just-lowered tires of the commercial jets (that’s when I was young and my eyesight was good ;=}.) Our building was too old to have access to “Mission Cable” (Cox later bought them out). We had antennas on the roof deck. Every 20 mins or so, when a jet came over, we got “snow” on our TV screen for 20 seconds minimum …

Rent was $225 mo for an 800 sf unit on the 3rd flr, with a panoramic view of the bay and beyond (foreground: entire runway in infintesimal detail). We had a telescope and camera tripod with zoom lens set up in the LR and caught several “close-calls.” We also rented an oversized 2-car garage on Albatross St to store our (land and sea-going) “toys” for $100 mo.

Note: This was 35 years ago but nothing has changed in this regard (except the rent) :=]

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that the rent in ALL THREE of my dtn apts INCLUDED ALL UTILS!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO]. . . On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Lol, CONCHO, for almost 3 years, I lived on the corner of Front and Ivy. Standing on the roof deck of our building, we could read the lettering on the just-lowered tires of the commercial jets (that’s when I was young and my eyesight was good ;=}.) Our building was too old to have access to “Mission Cable” (Cox later bought them out). We had antennas on the roof deck. Every 20 mins or so, when a jet came over, we got “snow” on our TV screen for 20 seconds minimum …

Rent was $225 mo for an 800 sf unit on the 3rd flr, with a panoramic view of the bay and beyond (foreground: entire runway in infintesimal detail). We had a telescope and camera tripod with zoom lens set up in the LR and caught several “close-calls.” We also rented an oversized 2-car garage on Albatross St to store our (land and sea-going) “toys” for $100 mo.

Note: This was 35 years ago but nothing has changed in this regard (except the rent) :=]

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that the rent in ALL THREE of my dtn apts INCLUDED ALL UTILS!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO]. . . On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency.

So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.[/quote]

Lol, CONCHO, for almost 3 years, I lived on the corner of Front and Ivy. Standing on the roof deck of our building, we could read the lettering on the just-lowered tires of the commercial jets (that’s when I was young and my eyesight was good ;=}.) Our building was too old to have access to “Mission Cable” (Cox later bought them out). We had antennas on the roof deck. Every 20 mins or so, when a jet came over, we got “snow” on our TV screen for 20 seconds minimum …

Rent was $225 mo for an 800 sf unit on the 3rd flr, with a panoramic view of the bay and beyond (foreground: entire runway in infintesimal detail). We had a telescope and camera tripod with zoom lens set up in the LR and caught several “close-calls.” We also rented an oversized 2-car garage on Albatross St to store our (land and sea-going) “toys” for $100 mo.

Note: This was 35 years ago but nothing has changed in this regard (except the rent) :=]

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that the rent in ALL THREE of my dtn apts INCLUDED ALL UTILS!!

[Author]

Posts