EastTexasPilot wrote:

Cary wrote:Actually, mine don't wigwag--they pulse together, because wigwagging when they're as close together as when paired in the leading edge of a Cessna wing would make them appear to be on all the time, negating the benefit of the wigwagging. If I had them on the tips or 2 pairs, one in each wing, then wigwagging would work well.
Cary

I have a wig-wag and my lights are both on the same wing right beside each other and they do look like they're wig-wagging to me. Hopefully I can get some videos from the air once I start flying it next month. I have 2 spot beams, one pointed slightly lower than the other, one for taxi, both for landing.

I'd sure like to see that. I had my IA do them together, because that was what PreciseFlight recommends, but I've never seen whether the paired ones wigwagging are not as visible--I guess because I've never seen paired lights wigwagging at all! I look forward to your video.

Cary

Cary wrote:

EastTexasPilot wrote:

Cary wrote:Actually, mine don't wigwag--they pulse together, because wigwagging when they're as close together as when paired in the leading edge of a Cessna wing would make them appear to be on all the time, negating the benefit of the wigwagging. If I had them on the tips or 2 pairs, one in each wing, then wigwagging would work well.
Cary

I have a wig-wag and my lights are both on the same wing right beside each other and they do look like they're wig-wagging to me. Hopefully I can get some videos from the air once I start flying it next month. I have 2 spot beams, one pointed slightly lower than the other, one for taxi, both for landing.

I'd sure like to see that. I had my IA do them together, because that was what PreciseFlight recommends, but I've never seen whether the paired ones wigwagging are not as visible--I guess because I've never seen paired lights wigwagging at all! I look forward to your video.

Cary

We have one in the hangar that is set up to flash seperatly in the same wing. I'll try to remember to take a video and post it.

Hi guys, I do apologize for my late reply.

Honestly, I'm not trying to start a discussion or give anyone hard time, this is just my personal opinion.

Let's get the real fact.

First, as someone say on the forum in a previous post, the original light bulb was the GE 4509 or whatever was the original part number that has being superseded whatever amount of times directly from Cessna.

Now you can have replacement bulb made by a different manufacturer not only General Electric and none of them will have STC or PMA documentation, just the 4509 part number.

The following is an example:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/landlights3.php?clickkey=5663

Or

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/martek4509.php

and finally and it says FAA approved but is not a General Electric

http://www.univair.com/electrical-lighting/view-all/4509-sealed-beam-landing-light-bulb/

It's just a light bulb replaced with either same technology or a better one like in the Whelen Quartz 4509. Still a incandescent light but the filament is quartz.

On the LED light, I guess the FAA will argue or use as a reference or on their defense that is different technology LED (Light Emitting Diode) compare to the original (incandescent).

You'll find FAA inspectors that will do a field approval for this kind of variations, some other will say nothing and others won't even tell you their personal opinion because they rather won't even deal with this kind of discrepancies.

For more information visit my website: http://goodiesforpilots.com/picture-par-36 to read the words from a renowned aviation editor.

Any way, the way I see this is the same with the current incandescent light bulb and the multiples manufacturers of a single item the Par-36 light bulb. It's all matter of time. I'm sure that at some point there is going to be many options out there that The FAA will have to finally make a final interpretation about this topic.

Remember those times of "No electronic devices allowed onboard aircraft" ? Now you can find them even inside the cockpit...

What about the tire tube brand inside your tire, what about an old Piper Cherokees, some of them do call for a Chrysler 50 amp Alternator are they approved, STC? PMA? and so on in many other consumable.

On a brief description about the lights on goodiesforpilots.com I, personally just got tired and frustrated of replacing incandescent lights on my Cessna 182 in a 3 year period. That's when I decide to do something. The result is the only 18LED Par36 on the market capable of over 2100 lumens (at least that I know) yes that is right. Over 2100 lumens and there is a video on my website to prove that. No tricks.

Also I want to clarify to someone that say the load is directly related to how bright the light is. Excuse me if I say something wrong and please correct me if anyone find me using the wrong term on the following statement. Unfortunately, the consumption in amps is not related to the intensity of the projected visible light. The reason is that there is always a LED Driver or at least that's how they called. Because all LED are low power consumption. The 12-14v or 24-28v on our electric system has to step down in order to make the LED work. If you connect directly those 12 or 24v to any LED it will burn them right away.

Because of that, the consumption (load) is equal to the components quality of the LED driver and is not related to the intensity or brightness from the light.

Example,; that LED Christmas light. Have you notice how bright they are? But they consume 1/5 or less than the old type of Christmas lights.

At least you don't need an STC to use Christmas Light on your Christmas decoration around your house.


And last

I do have to disclose the Non-Certify Version because liability reason. I want to be clear and not fall under a false advertising charge by consumers or omitting/ unproven information also part of false advertising.

Have you ever try to buy something for your aircraft and as soon as you disclose it is intended to be used on an aircraft they just won't sell it to you?

What about carburetors that are used on many experimental aircraft engines (Example Rotax) but they have to disclose "Not for aircraft used"

Yes, I'm currently waiting for the Flashing Landing lights. They incorporate a circuitry that allows you to cycle the power and make them steady or flashing. They are running late on the production so I'm expecting them by April.

Anyway the current lights still available. Take a close look to one customer Wing Tip incandescent lights and the cowling lights on a Cessna 182RG and let's compared apple to apple. http://goodiesforpilots.com/picture-par-36


Let me know if you have any question

Thanks

Have you considered comparing them side by side with other commercially available lights? What brand is the "6 LED" light in your video that you're showing is less bright than yours?

-Asa

I'm not intending this as any criticism, but lumens/brightness/candelas, or any other measure of how much light a bulb puts out, while important, is not the sole criteria to consider with aircraft landing/taxi lights. Whether the source of the light is LED, HID, halogen, quartz, or old fashioned tungsten incandescent filaments, they aren't worth much if they aren't focused properly. That involves 2 things, beam shape and spread (essentially how the bulb itself focuses), and aiming.

That's why, for instance, a taxi light that has a broad horizontal beam, isn't as good as a landing light for the long distance lighting that is necessary for landing and departing. Similarly a landing light with a piercing narrow spot beam isn't as useful as a taxi light for taxiing on a ramp, because it's not showing what is to either side of the route. Consequently, one of the bigger lighting mistakes an owner can make is to install only a pair of landing lights or only a pair of taxi lights. If the aircraft only has one light, it's a bit of a Sophie's choice, because either one has its downsides--most owners seem to go with a narrow beam landing light.

Beam shape and spread is also compromised by some very bright lights on the market which have significant light scatter above the beam. This is especially noticeable in high humidity situations, just before fog forms, because the upper scatter will reflect back and reduce visibility. Ideally, both landing and taxi lights should have a beam that is clipped at the top, which some of the higher end lights do.

For recognition lights only, a very bright bulb without much regard to its beam shape or spread, is probably OK, although I would think one with a wide spread would be more noticeable.

But even the very best bulbs will be inadequate if they aren't aimed properly. Just from years of observation, I'd have to say that the majority of aircraft lights are installed with almost no regard for aiming. I've overheard pilots complain about how hard it is to see in the dark compared to how their cars' lights light up the highway, but when I've been in the conversation and have asked, "did you have them aimed?", the answer is usually something like, "I didn't know they could be aimed." While I suspect that there are some installations in which aiming isn't much of an option, many can be and should be aimed--it's really worth the effort. When I had HID lights installed in my airplane years ago, my first night use of them was really disappointing. I had just spent a thousand bucks plus paying my IA to install them, and they didn't seem much better than the incandescent bulbs that were in there before.

Aiming taxi lights is easy--just point the airplane at a far hangar, turn on only the taxi light (or block the landing light if the taxi light can't be operated by itself), and adjust it horizontally to shine directly along the extended centerline of the airplane, and vertically so that its beam is no higher than the pilot's line of sight when looking ahead. If it's aimed too high, it won't light the ramp as effectively.

Aiming landing lights is more time consuming. The only way to know if they're aimed properly is to land! I think it took me something like 6 landings before I was satisfied with the way my HID landing light was aimed. Because each adjustment required taking off the leading edge light cover, which has an amazing number of screws holding it on, it took a long time, maybe 2 hours, to get it done.

Once it's done, though, it's not likely that the lights will have to be re-aimed. Mine were installed and aimed about 12 1/2 years ago, and I haven't re-aimed them since.

So if an owner is going to spring for newer technology landing/taxi lights, or even if they're satisfied with replacing their incandescent landing/taxi lights every 25 hours of operation, it's worth taking the time to aim them properly. Once done, the aiming adjustment won't need to be redone very often if at all, even when changing the bulbs.

Sorry for being so long-winded.

Cary

EastTexasPilot wrote: I have a wig-wag and my lights are both on the same wing right beside each other and they do look like they're wig-wagging to me.....

Turn on the wig-wag feature, then back off about a mile and take a look.

hotrod180 wrote:

EastTexasPilot wrote: I have a wig-wag and my lights are both on the same wing right beside each other and they do look like they're wig-wagging to me.....

Turn on the wig-wag feature, then back off about a mile and take a look.

I'll need a parachute to do that, lol. Kidding aside once I get my plane out of annual/refurb hopefully next month I'll have someone take a video of me flying by or landing and see how it looks.

asa wrote:Have you considered comparing them side by side with other commercially available lights? What brand is the "6 LED" light in your video that you're showing is less bright than yours?

-Asa

If I get my hands on those kind of light, yes I will do a comparison, but can't spend $300-$400 per light, times 7 or 10 variant just to do a comparison.

I'm not trying to drown any business out there or company. The brand of the light I compared on my video can easily be guessed. After all they are the only one on the market like that.

For those that had the bless of the FAA, It had take some of this companies over 3 year and over $50k to attempt getting a paper with authorization for something I believe as I say before it's all matter of time and it shouldn't be required. That's why they sell the lights for $300-$400

In 2010, before tablets was accepted as EFB by the FAA, it had to go to a special laboratory and get certify that the tablet can be used on board aircraft as EFB and received a certification. They pressurize the tablet thru different altitude to make it fail. Today's days you just buy it and as far as the device pass it normal start up test you are good to go. Did the FAA or the laboratories that did the testing in some of those first tablets ever refund the money they charge to those first customers?

It is not hard to understand how this work.

First have you look in the FAR if Landing Lights are required for Night Flying or Days?

I'm sure you and other are now rolling your eye saying what he is going to say now... Well as you probably guess, I'm going to say that Landing Lights are not Require for Night operation under Part 91 operation.

Let me help you find that. FAR 91.205

Unless the aircraft is operated for hire, it requires one electric Landing Light. That's right an ELECTRIC one, I guess we can't take a candle and light up before take off.... I still trying to find a mechanical Landing Light or Hydraulic Landing Light, or Pneumatic Landing Light

Yes the famous L from FLAMES from TOMATOES FLAMES acronyms is because the flight school is renting the plane to you.

But, does it really required if you are flying NOT for hire?

So that means that there is a definitely requirement/standard that need to be meet if the aircraft is used for hire and that's where the Certify version may come into play the game, the problem is.......!!!!!!!

Is it clear what the requirement are?

NO, it still ambiguous and not clear yet to the LED technology because it's a way superior technology that can not be compared to the incandescent light industry.

As I read from someplace else. Try to change the entire Idea, and pretend the standard is LED and we are seeking approval for an incandescent light installation?

Would you imagine what the FAA have to to say...??? That you what. Are you crazy? You want to put a device, into your wing, next to the fuel tank, that generate heat and emit light by heating an element by short circuit. Are you out of your mind?

Its silly but its the truth

Thanks

Q

Hi everybody

I'm proud to announce The Goodie-Flasher is available.

For more information please visit Goodiesforpilots.com

Thanks

I had the luxury of having many LED's available to test. Customers where in a frenzy to have theirs replaced at annual while at the repair station. There where very strong opinions, bordering on religious, much like oil type and brand. Unlike oil, the LED's are easy to evaluate.I always like the decision to mount the landing and taxi lights of the 185 in the cowl. This ensured you always had fresh bulbs, since they never lasted very long. I really narrowed it down to the Alphabeam and the Prometheus. When I tried each one at night I found the main difference was not brightness, but rather color. The Aphabeam being "warmer" or a more reddish cast than the Prometheus, which is bluer. Now I think this is where some of the personal preference comes from, personally I favor warmer lights and feel I can see better with them. So I selected the Alphabeam, mainly for this reason. I do have RMD wingtips with regular incandescents still installed. It is really easy to see the difference when you land with this setup. So now 4 years have passed and no bulbs have died on either system. I am content.

As for flashing your lights with the various systems, also kind of a matter of choice. Midair collisions happen for a lot of different reasons. We spent a lot of time at the Naval Post Graduate School studying this. Flashing your lights will not get somebody to look up from their cellphone or stop diddling with their G1000. It may influence birds, but personally I remain unconvinced. I slaughtered scads of seagulls with helicopters with all kinds of lights, steady, flashing, made no difference. Student pilots still tried to run into us, in spite of being really big and brightly colored and lit up like a Best Buy at Christmas. However, if you want to shorted the life of any electronics, cycle them on and off, repeatedly. If you feel safer then do it, the value of it will be debated endlessly. The value of the bulbs is not going down, they will remain expensive. Interestingly, the new 206H model comes from the factory with all LED bulbs, landing/taxi along with position and others.

EastTexasPilot wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

EastTexasPilot wrote: I have a wig-wag and my lights are both on the same wing right beside each other and they do look like they're wig-wagging to me.....

Turn on the wig-wag feature, then back off about a mile and take a look.

I'll need a parachute to do that, lol. Kidding aside once I get my plane out of annual/refurb hopefully next month I'll have someone take a video of me flying by or landing and see how it looks.

Have you done your video yet? I'm curious to see what you've found. If it makes a big difference, I'd have my IA rewire my Pulselight module. Otherwise, I'll stick with having both landing and taxi lights pulse simultaneously, as Preciseflight recommends.

Cary

dogpilot wrote:I had the luxury of having many LED's available to test. Customers where in a frenzy to have theirs replaced at annual while at the repair station. There where very strong opinions, bordering on religious, much like oil type and brand. Unlike oil, the LED's are easy to evaluate.I always like the decision to mount the landing and taxi lights of the 185 in the cowl. This ensured you always had fresh bulbs, since they never lasted very long. I really narrowed it down to the Alphabeam and the Prometheus. When I tried each one at night I found the main difference was not brightness, but rather color. The Aphabeam being "warmer" or a more reddish cast than the Prometheus, which is bluer. Now I think this is where some of the personal preference comes from, personally I favor warmer lights and feel I can see better with them. So I selected the Alphabeam, mainly for this reason. I do have RMD wingtips with regular incandescents still installed. It is really easy to see the difference when you land with this setup. So now 4 years have passed and no bulbs have died on either system. I am content.

As for flashing your lights with the various systems, also kind of a matter of choice. Midair collisions happen for a lot of different reasons. We spent a lot of time at the Naval Post Graduate School studying this. Flashing your lights will not get somebody to look up from their cellphone or stop diddling with their G1000. It may influence birds, but personally I remain unconvinced. I slaughtered scads of seagulls with helicopters with all kinds of lights, steady, flashing, made no difference. Student pilots still tried to run into us, in spite of being really big and brightly colored and lit up like a Best Buy at Christmas. However, if you want to shorted the life of any electronics, cycle them on and off, repeatedly. If you feel safer then do it, the value of it will be debated endlessly. The value of the bulbs is not going down, they will remain expensive. Interestingly, the new 206H model comes from the factory with all LED bulbs, landing/taxi along with position and others.

Which LEDs did you test? Cool to hear someone who's actually tested multiple lights.

-asa

It was 4 years ago, the two I used the most was the Alphabeam and the Prometheus, I really do not recall what the others where, as I didn't like the build quality of the others, or I could only run them on the customer's aircraft. Since I kind of had a pile of the other two, I could run them side by side on my aircraft(our big Twin Otter client was replacing all of theirs with LED's, so we had a bunch awaiting install).

Here is a demonstration video of how it work.

Looks like a cool, cost-effective option.

Cary wrote:Have you done your video yet? I'm curious to see what you've found. If it makes a big difference, I'd have my IA rewire my Pulselight module. Otherwise, I'll stick with having both landing and taxi lights pulse simultaneously, as Preciseflight recommends.

Cary

Sorry for the delay. Yes I did the test and found that you and HotDog180 were correct. From a distance it made more effect to have them both flash at the same time so I did that. The electronic LED flasher I used cost me about $1 on eBay and my IA entered it as a logbook entry because it didn't amount to a major alteration, it was like installing an extra cigarette lighter. I also wired it to where it operates independently although using the factory push/pull switch. This way if the flasher goes bad it doesn't affect turning them both on for landing. Currently I have them wired as 1st pull makes them both FLASH TOGETHER and the 2nd pull makes them BOTH ON for landing. You have to be careful with the wiring because there's one connector where it gives you power on the 2nd pull also sending 12V+ to the other side of the flasher. all it did was burn the flasher so it was a $1 fix, lol.

I also ended up with the 2140 lumen bulbs (spot) from eBay with free shipping. It was the cheapest place I could find them. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tractor-Light-P ... 2819758051

EastTexasPilot wrote:

Cary wrote:Have you done your video yet? I'm curious to see what you've found. If it makes a big difference, I'd have my IA rewire my Pulselight module. Otherwise, I'll stick with having both landing and taxi lights pulse simultaneously, as Preciseflight recommends.

Cary

Sorry for the delay. Yes I did the test and found that you and HotDog180 were correct. From a distance it made more effect to have them both flash at the same time so I did that. <snip>

Thanks! Good to know that the vendor actually was right.

Cary

It's refreshing to know that, right? LOL. Usually they're just trying to up-sell us, which seems to be the norm by the way, but in this case they were correct.

FWIW a guy at my airport bought an LED light and flasher from Pilot Goodies,
they had a special discount if you bought both.

http://www.goodiesforpilots.com/products

He hasn't had a chance to install them yet so no pirep, but they look promising.
LED bulbs are good for both 14 & 28 volt systems BTW

I see he lowered his prices after the big blowout he had on another forum. That's very good. I just bought a $1 electronic flasher that's very small and it not only flashes but also has other functions like ON/OFF sloowly (like an old style rotating beacon) and you can adjust the ON/OFF pulsating frequency to be quicker or slower to your liking. All done with the push of a couple of buttons. You also don't need to flip an additional switch, I wired it where I use the original push/pull Cessna light switch to turn the flasher on or off and to have both landing lights on or off.