LED Landing Lights

[kamikaze]

Col. :

Did you use this PMA document ? http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/pmasupp ... asup37.pdf

If so, that one lists the new part as a replcaement to the old Float Alaska model it seems ... The Wheelen part number is approved to replace ... the Whelen part number (which is the FLoats Alaska part number).

I never found anything that stated that the Wheelen part number was approved to replace my piper part number, for instance. Which is what caused me grief, and prompted me to go the STC route.

Maybe you got a different PMA document mind you, maybe the one online isn't up to date. I know the one I got with my light was the same as is is online.

Or maybe there's some interpretation of that document that eluded me (and my AME, whom I think looked intot his also).

[old_man]

I have to ask the colonel if he's going to go all the way and trade out the nav lights and beacon for LEDs as well. Its all the rage.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/c ... 02-695.htm

Interesting thing to ponder if you are going to replace your nav and anti-collision lights.

[lostaviator]

Now. Let us talk runway edge lighting at Northern airports

[Colonel Sanders]

Did you use this PMA document ?

Got a different doc. At least, it looked completely different.

[PilotDAR]

I have installed and test flown my new "Rigid R+" LED landing light. The weather is clear the other night when I tried it, with better than 30 miles vis, and no moon whatever. Temp -3, dewpoint -5, so perhaps some moisture might be nearly visible.

I find it to be an improvement to the incandescent bulb I removed (my 150 only has provision for one cowl mounted bulb). The new LED is much more a bluish light (which I could take of leave), and seems to have a greater illumination range. The area illuminated seems a bit more "flood" than "spot". I can make out objects on the ground in the otherwise pitch dark, from 250 feet AGL down to the surface. I can illuminate the reflectors down my runway from 1 mile back, and the runway grass surface itself from a quarter mile back. Certainly crossing the threshold, there is ample illumination for the entire landing area.

In flight there is a definite bluish haze visible in front. On departure (which is a total black hole departure for me) I did not like it, so I turned it off once positive rate was confirmed at 50 feet up. I might add some washers to the mounting screws (as directed by the service manual) to aim it a bit more down.

What I liked best was the current draw - 2.3 amps (14V system)!

It cost $360, and I'm happy I purchased it. It's a much higher cost than the regular bulb, but landing at my home runway, the landing light makes the difference of land or don't land, so a failed incandescent bulb in final here has a much greater overall cost to me than just the bulb itself.

[Colonel Sanders]

What I liked best was the current draw

With a generator, this is a serious concern, esp at low RPM.

Going from 15 amps to 2.4 amps alone is a good enough
reason for me to make the swap. The improved vis - at least
from the taxi light - is a bonus.

Also, another bonus is that the reduction of current through
the landing/taxi light switch - at least on my airplane, it does
NOT control a relay or solenoid - should extend the life of the
switch. Less arcing of the contacts.

[PilotDAR]

With a generator, this is a serious concern

Yes, but so for the poor alternator too. I used to land the 310 with everything on, and taxi off the runway at YYZ with the engines stumbling. What I did not realize what "everything on" was demanding of the alternators at idle. The alternators were dragging the idling engines. When you demand electricity, it is Watts you are demanding. The alternator, or generator is supplying. It's fine when the alt/gen is operating at its rated speed (cruise power), but at idle, the Watts demand is the same, but the RPM is not.

Watts equals power, power equals RPM times torque. RPM is reduced, torque has to go way up to balance the equation. Lycomings are great, just a V belt to slip and squeal. Many continentals though have internally driven alternators, with slip or shock absorbing couplings. In the later 310's, these are very expensive compressed silicone rubber drive couplings for the front mount alternators. Once you over torque them, and they start to slip, the need for replacement is imminent. I worked for a year trying to develop a PDA replacement for these, and never succeeded to my satisfaction.

So I encourage Continental pilots to go easy on the electricity demand at low engine power. For my own 150, with the original landing light bulb, I would turn the alternator off on final when I put the landing light on. Zero alternator draw then, so no coupling stress. A few minutes on the apron with the alternator back on, running high idle to top off the battery, and all was good.

With the new LED, I'm not concerned at all......

[Colonel Sanders]

I would turn the alternator off on final

Wow. Makes sense when you think about it ...

Reducing the current draw is a really big advantage of the LED's.

[westcoastwonder]

LED lights are not invisible to FLIR. the FLIR sees heat. Nothing else.
The LED's puts out much less heat than conventional bulbs, so they would be less visible because of the lower heat output but they are not invisible

[Unit 969]

The artical is about night vision goggles not FLIR. With FLIR you dont need any ilumination at all and can also be used in full daylight.

[kamikaze]

"Got a different doc. At least, it looked completely different."

Hmmm, good to know. I'll go digg out my paperwork when I'm bored, see what happened.

[costermonger]

Have LED lights in a few planes that I fly, and one of the first ones installed recently began to fail. I say 'began' because that's exactly how it went - noticed during a walk around that about 50% of the LEDs were still coming on (don't think I'd have noticed this if it had been outside in the dark when I checked the lights).

Now, I don't know which exact model of light it was or if this is typical behaviour of an LED array landing light at it's end of life, but if it is, that's a huge plus.

[Colonel Sanders]

Are they installed in a cowling (vibration) or wingtip?

[costermonger]

Seminole. Old style with the single light right at the tip of the nose.

[Liquid Charlie]

Got them on the Basler -- so far I'm impressed --- the DAK had good head lights and these work just as well or better and with the pulse function are very highly visible in the terminal area and can run continuously.

[Colonel Sanders]

Did Bernie check you out?

I hand-bombed him in a Maule recently.

[Liquid Charlie]

Sorry no one by that name involved -------

[PilotDAR]

Well I sure am happy with the Rigid landing light I put in the Teal! I'm still fiddling the aiming a little.

I did some sunset circuits to ease into it, and was very impressed. It draws 1.8 amps. Interestingly, the alternator stopped working after the first circuit. (I suspect a slipping belt, 'cause it did pop back on for a bit). I was about to quit, but as I was at home, I decided to see how long it would illuminate for night flying on the battery only. The voltage dropped to 11.8, and stayed pretty well there while I did eight circuits or so. By the time I was done, the voltage was 11.7, and I had flown 40 minutes with no alternator. It would not be possible to do this with incandescent landing lights, as you would surely loose battery power long before that!

The landing light was enough to illuminate the end of the runway from 200 feet up on short final, but that was at a voltage of 11.8. I can't wait to see how much it will illuminate when it is actually getting 14 volts!

They're expensive, but I can easily rationalize it; on a dark approach into my home runway, would I spend $400 when I was 500 feet back to assure that I had light? Or save the money and fly to a better lit runway, and do a dark landing anyway. Hands down, I would rather have the light when and where I want it - its worth the money for security.

I've bought four (three landing and one taxi) for the 182, so we'll see how they work, but I have high expectations!

[ahramin]

The landing light was enough to illuminate the end of the runway from 200 feet up on short final, but that was at a voltage of 11.8. I can't wait to see how much it will illuminate when it is actually getting 14 volts!

I thought LEDs were on/off. Does a lower voltage affect the brightness of the light?

[ahramin]

As for the Whelen lights, anyone think maybe they meant Prometheus but with an American accent?

[Colonel Sanders]

LED lights are like GPS, or ANR headset. Once
you try them, you won't want to go back to
the Bad Old Days.

It's not just the extra light, which is awfully
nice when you are taxiing around at night.

It's that they don't draw hardly any current.
You can run them all, all the time, even when
your engine is at idle, and your generator/alternator
would be struggling with the load.

They don't make any heat. You don't have to
worry about a short lifetime of the filament in
a vibrating environment.

You can leave them on all the time, if you want.
It reduces your workload.

N.B. I have a heavy bias, in that I couldn't care
in the least about how much light they illuminate
on the runway, before landing. I have done thousands
of blind landings, where if I could see the runway in
the landing attitude, I certainly wasn't going to land
on it.

[Heliian]

A lot of our aircraft are going to LED lights all around and they do draw less power but are way more expensive. The other downside I have noticed is that they aren't very visible during the daylight hours vs. an incandescent. Right now, the LED's we've installed meet the bare minimum for lighting output but I hope as the tech advances they get brighter.

[Colonel Sanders]

Heh. If a normal $220 LED landing/taxi light
isn't bright enough for you, try this:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/el/ ... veoher.php

Also, when you say "more expensive" you need
to take into account how long they last - cost
per hour - and also the downtime and labour
cost to change it, when it does wear out.

I have the same discussion with people about tires,
all the time. They want to buy the cheapest ones
they can, which don't last as long, so you end up
buying more of them, AND having to pay extra
for all the labour to change them, AND the aircraft
is down more, so lost revenue.

This is so simple to understand, yet so many people
struggle with the grade-school arithmetic required
to understand it.

Penny wise, pound foolish as the saying goes.

[CpnCrunch]

Some of the landing lights say "Operating voltage: 10-17 volts". There is probably a voltage regulator inside it that will limit the voltage.

Given that 60W LED bulbs now cost $10, I'm sure the LED landing lights will come down in price soon. $200 is kind of ridiculous when you can get an incandescant landing light for under $10.

[PilotDAR]

$200 is kind of ridiculous when you can get an incandescant landing light for under $10

Oh I see it differently.... Letting alone the possible inconvenience of the single landing light quitting just when I need it most landing into my home runway, The time it takes to change the bulb, the need to maintain a spare in stock and the cost of alternator drive couplings worn by high alternator loads easily exceeds $200. I'd rather spend the money on the LED, and save the risk, inconvenience and work!