Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:20 AM - Re: Strobe Lights (Catz631@aol.com)
2. 05:32 AM - Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights to dimmer (Dale Ensing)
3. 06:50 AM - Re: Strobe Lights (Glaeser, Dennis A)
4. 07:49 AM - Re: Strobe Lights (MICHAEL LARKIN)
5. 08:21 AM - e-bus question (Tom Barter)
6. 08:47 AM - Re: Strobe Lights (mikef)
7. 11:40 AM - Re: e-bus question (Ron Shannon)
8. 01:36 PM - Re: e-bus question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:46 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (Matt Prather)
10. 02:10 PM - Re: D-Sub contact ratings. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 03:20 PM - Re: e-bus question (Ron Shannon)
12. 04:37 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 05:32 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (raymondj)
14. 07:27 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (Kelly McMullen)
15. 08:33 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 09:34 PM - Re: Strobe Lights (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
Mike ,
I totally agree with you in regard to the Aveo strobes. They are very
light,compact,no power pack,and very low amp draw which I needed for my Rotax.
Max
continuous is supposed to be around 14 amps so I am trying to keep the strobe
draw low as I have other equipment (all low draw). I just wish the Aveos were a
little brighter. I ask the guys on the ground if they see them and they
pretty much say no. I am going to keep them though.
I am looking into the new Kentzleman (sp) landing,taxi, recognition light.
It is supposed to be 2 1/2 times brighter than a 55 watt halogen headlight and
draws less than 1 1/2 amps ! Put a flasher on it (auto store) and you would
look like Southwest with their flashing landing lights! The thing is only 3" x
1" It too uses high power LED's. Anybody have one? It's an expensive item
(about $230 @ Spruce)
I installed a Monroy 300 in the panel of my Kitfox for traffic alert. Now
that little jewel works great and in this high traffic area it is handy to
have! We have a large number of T-34C's and helo traffic from the Navy.
Dick Maddux
Kitfox 4-1200
Rotax 912UL
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch |
lights to dimmer
sooo nice of you to share that.......do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch
lights to dimmer
i am on the couch watching tv and playing with.......my laptop
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Quillin <recent" <rjquillin@gmail.com>
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:55:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Joining many wires to one - rocker sw
itch lights to dimmer
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
My strobe power pack (from strobesnmore.com) has numerous flashing
patterns: which ones (by plug location) flash in unison or
alternatively, as well as single, double or quad flashes.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
>Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have
>the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag
>pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an
>end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics
>arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me,
>that's what I'm here for.
> >Raymond Julian >Kettle River, MN
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
Raymond,
Both the Aveo and Whelen system offer alternate synced strobe flashing.
Mike
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:23 PM, raymondj wrote:
> >
>
> Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have
> the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag
> pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an
> end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics
> arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me,
> that's what I'm here for.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> "Hope for the best,
> but prepare for the worst."
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA
analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support
everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights,
strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the
endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable
termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the
panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be
supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why?
Thanks,
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
I have a single AeroSun mounted as a nose light on my trike.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aeroSunXtreme.php
Very bright, built in wig-wag, low amp draw.
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227342#227342
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: e-bus question |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter
<kesleyelectric@chooseblue.coop>wrote:
> I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA
> analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support
> everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights,
> strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the
> endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable
> termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the
> panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be
> supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why?
>
One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary. The
main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads with one
switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches, at most, then
building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce loads with one switch
probably isn't worth doing.
If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most you'd be
switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on approach with
landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes south... you probably
won't want or need to switch them off immediately, especially if they're
LED's.) If you have low draw LED position lights, you might just keep them
ON too if conditions warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so
small that there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of
the other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom, etc.)
might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other hand, it may
be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you may add additional
gear in the future, or for future resale to a buyer who may want to add more
gear, etc.
My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't really
need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of weight it
might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger battery instead.
Ron
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: e-bus question |
At 01:12 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter
><<mailto:kesleyelectric@chooseblue.coop>kesleyelectric@chooseblue.coop> wrote:
>
>I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A,
>UMA analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will
>easily support everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the
>position lights, strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that
>the intent of the endurance bus is to power the items necessary for
>the comfortable termination of the flight. Is there a downside to
>putting most of the panel, minus the external lighting, on the
>e-bus, as long as it can be supported? If so, what would be kept on
>the main bus, and why?
>
>
>One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary.
>The main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads
>with one switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches,
>at most, then building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce
>loads with one switch probably isn't worth doing.
>
>If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most
>you'd be switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on
>approach with landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes
>south... you probably won't want or need to switch them off
>immediately, especially if they're LED's.) If you have low draw LED
>position lights, you might just keep them ON too if conditions
>warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so small that
>there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of the
>other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom,
>etc.) might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other
>hand, it may be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you
>may add additional gear in the future, or for future resale to a
>buyer who may want to add more gear, etc.
>
>My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't
>really need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of
>weight it might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger
>battery instead.
The "E" stands for "endurance." The goal is not necessarily
to accomplish "rapid" load reduction. If one waited to finish
a cup of coffee before switching to the endurance mode, the
likely outcome of the flight would probably not be altered.
I'll refer the reader to chapter 17 of the 'Connection
were simple-ideas behind the e-bus are discussed in
detail. In a nutshell, the e-bus . . .
(1) provides TWO pathways to ALL equipment useful for
en-route phase of flight . . . one of which does
not depend on a functioning battery contactor.
(2) a gathering place for en-route mode electrics
operating BATTERY only in a configuration most likely
to offer battery-only endurance equal to or greater
than fuel endurance.
(3) isolation of the battery contactor load in the
en-route phase of flight . . . 0.8A of battery
contator draw would run two to four solid state
radios in the receive mode!
(4) adding the SD-8 raises en-route loads to 8.0A
without taxing the battery. This allows one to
reserve 100% of battery capacity for approach to landing.
Obviously, if you can reduce main-bus + contactor
loads to some value less than 8 amps, then one
might decide that the separate e-bus was not necessary.
However, the dual pathway for power described in
(1) would be given up . . . meaning that loss of
a battery contactor walls off the battery as a source of
energy and runs the risk of loosing a main alternator
if you "stall" it with something like a landing light
inrush load. Now, if you've included the self-excitation
mode for the SD-8, you can probably fiddle with the
switches and get things back up and running.
The problem is that NOT configuring an e-bus as
shown tosses out a simple manipulation of switches
after loss main alternator. A simple procedure
that eliminates in flight troubleshooting and
switch-flipping and offers a predicable outcome
of flight under plan-b.
The E-bus is not a nifty, stand-alone feature of
the OBAM aircraft electrical system. It is but
one component of a SYSTEM that has evolved over
the past 15 years and represents one of several
recipes for success in meeting design goals.
If your goals are to design, own and operate
your airplane as if it were a C-150 with an SD-8
added, that's fine too. I'll suggest that the
well considered decision requires an understanding
of the respective design goals.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
I'd guess that the strobe visibility problem is due to the relatively
short "on" time compared to the "off" time. Does anyone know if this is
true? The rest of this message assumes it is.. :)
I also suspect that strobes aren't terribly efficient at turning watts to
lumens in terms of total power consumed... Doing a little research seems
to support that:
http://www.birket.com/strobes/Library/Photometry%20of%20Strobes.htm
Strobes may seem efficient because they provide very bright light for not
too many continuous watts, but since they're "on" time is so short, they
aren't very good.
It's interesting that the FAA approves of the change from the old rotating
or flashing incandescent light to strobes. I suspect a study of relative
conspicuity might find that strobes (as installed) are in many ways
inferior to the old style of lights. At best, I find that strobes make me
aware of the presence of another airplane (or cell phone tower), but it
often takes me a moment of searching around to actually figure out where
the flash was coming from. I also think strobes often distract me from
identifying what the object they're mounted to actually is. I don't know
if this is a common experience...
I have found (and I think there are studies that show) that lighting
systems designed to attract attention should never be completely dark
while the system is operating. This is true for traffic signals. A
single flashing light is much harder to see than two flashing lights
wig-wagging, even if they are spaced relatively close to each other. In
normal vision, our eyes are constantly moving, using our fovea (the hi-res
portion of the retina) to paint a picture in our visual cortex (part of
our mind) of our surroundings. It's hard to see strobes because the "on"
time is so short that while the eye may become aware of the strobe's flash
because of the image showing up away from the fovea, the short "on" time
makes it difficult for the eye/head to get the fovea on target very soon.
I believe it's true that good alert lighting employs our vision system's
motion sensing capability (away from the fovea), but such a system is
easier to see also because there's essentially no "off" time.
Where I'm going with is that when I go shopping for anti-collision
lighting, I won't be looking at strobes. Instead I'll want some system
that might look to the eye more like the old incandescent lights, except
brighter, cooler running, and more reliable. LED's are the obvious source
of illumination, especially today with their remarkable efficiency.
I like the wig-wags on the front of the airplane - even incandescent, but
wonder if there's anything in the FAR's about additional lighting that
might be used. I know that they have a very specific description of the
required output of the navigation lights, and I'm not proposing to replace
those.. I'd like to add flashing wingtip and tail lights, mounted where
strobes often are, but setup to run such that while one light is off,
another one is always on. Viewed from ahead of the wingtip, the
wigwagging lights are visible, plus the flashing light on the near
wingtip. From aft of the wingtip, the wingtip light is still visible,
plus the tail light. In no case does the airplane present a view of just
one light flashing on and off.
I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early
182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I installed LED
anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo)
are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but using
quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest
performance way of operating them.
Back to work.
Regards,
Matt-
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:39 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>> I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input.
>> In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp
>> load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my
>> Whelens and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The
>> Aveo's work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens.
>
> I wouldn't loose much sleep over it. Strobes as an
> aid to collision avoidance is problematic. For EVERY
> close encounter with another airplane I was aware of,
> by the time I saw the airplane the event was nearly over.
> Had I KNOWN that an airplane was approaching from a certain
> quadrant and was watching for it . . . the strobes might have
> helped me pick up the machine. However,(1) conditions
> were so hazy at the time that even if I had seen the
> airplane, I'm not sure I could have studied it long
> enough to decide whether it was at the same altitude
> or holding position on the windshield - i.e. collision
> course or (2) didn't see the airplane until right overhead
> or even passed my location and moving away. In the
> later cases, the airplane's approach was out of line of
> sight.
>
> The notion that "lives will be saved" by having
> n-times stronger strobe lights is a figment of
> a bureaucrat's imagination and fondest wishes.
> In the cases where the other airplane is looking
> right at you, a strobe of about ANY light output
> will be of some assistance. Without a doubt, wig-wagged
> landing lights are several orders of magnitude more
> attention getting but of course ONLY in the cone of
> visibility forward of your aircraft.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub contact ratings. |
>Looking at your mini-bus creation using d-sub, can you give me an idea how
>many amps can I put thru those d-sub pins ( I guess is a better question is
>what are each of the pins rated for)??...obviously, I looking at using18-22
>awg wire..probably no higher than 5 amps, but maybe as high as 7.5 amps if
>possible.
Any single pin is limited to no larger than 20AWG wire and 7.5A at
25C ambient. I've run as much as 25A on any single set of wires
by paralleling pins and leaving at least 12" of 22AWG wire in series
with each pin to add "ballasting" resistance . . . to force sharing
of the load across an array of paralleled pins.
So if you wanted to run say 10A on an 18AWG wire through the
d-sub, splice into two to three 22AWG pigtails and then drop
the pigtails into the pins. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/Paralleled_D-Sub_Pins.jpg
I did a solid state power distribution controller . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_Power_Dist.jpg
for a super-sonic target
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_1st_Ops_Flight.jpg
that used this paralleling technique. It was tested to
the full suite of environmental conditions unique to
this target. In this case, one connector was an ECB
board version so the whole 12" length of ballasting
wire was on one side.
For a 25-pin connector I'd recommend de-rating
current loading by 50% or say 3.7 amps per
pin. You probably won't have many situations where
you need to run 18 or 16 awg wires through the
connector so 2 or at the most 3 paralleled pins
should cover you nicely on these circuits.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: e-bus question |
My mistake, Bob. I forgot about the main contactor.
Ron
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:12 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter <kesleyelectric@chooseblue.coop>
> wrote:
>
> I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA
> analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support
> everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights,
> strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the
> endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable
> termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the
> panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be
> supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why?
>
>
> One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary. The
> main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads with one
> switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches, at most, then
> building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce loads with one switch
> probably isn't worth doing.
>
> If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most you'd be
> switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on approach with
> landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes south... you probably
> won't want or need to switch them off immediately, especially if they're
> LED's.) If you have low draw LED position lights, you might just keep them
> ON too if conditions warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so
> small that there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of
> the other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom, etc.)
> might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other hand, it may
> be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you may add additional
> gear in the future, or for future resale to a buyer who may want to add more
> gear, etc.
>
> My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't really
> need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of weight it
> might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger battery instead.
>
>
> The "E" stands for "endurance." The goal is not necessarily
> to accomplish "rapid" load reduction. If one waited to finish
> a cup of coffee before switching to the endurance mode, the
> likely outcome of the flight would probably not be altered.
>
> I'll refer the reader to chapter 17 of the 'Connection
> were simple-ideas behind the e-bus are discussed in
> detail. In a nutshell, the e-bus . . .
>
> (1) provides TWO pathways to ALL equipment useful for
> en-route phase of flight . . . one of which does
> not depend on a functioning battery contactor.
>
> (2) a gathering place for en-route mode electrics
> operating BATTERY only in a configuration most likely
> to offer battery-only endurance equal to or greater
> than fuel endurance.
>
> (3) isolation of the battery contactor load in the
> en-route phase of flight . . . 0.8A of battery
> contator draw would run two to four solid state
> radios in the receive mode!
>
> (4) adding the SD-8 raises en-route loads to 8.0A
> without taxing the battery. This allows one to
> reserve 100% of battery capacity for approach to landing.
>
> Obviously, if you can reduce main-bus + contactor
> loads to some value less than 8 amps, then one
> might decide that the separate e-bus was not necessary.
> However, the dual pathway for power described in
> (1) would be given up . . . meaning that loss of
> a battery contactor walls off the battery as a source of
> energy and runs the risk of loosing a main alternator
> if you "stall" it with something like a landing light
> inrush load. Now, if you've included the self-excitation
> mode for the SD-8, you can probably fiddle with the
> switches and get things back up and running.
>
> The problem is that NOT configuring an e-bus as
> shown tosses out a simple manipulation of switches
> after loss main alternator. A simple procedure
> that eliminates in flight troubleshooting and
> switch-flipping and offers a predicable outcome
> of flight under plan-b.
>
> The E-bus is not a nifty, stand-alone feature of
> the OBAM aircraft electrical system. It is but
> one component of a SYSTEM that has evolved over
> the past 15 years and represents one of several
> recipes for success in meeting design goals.
>
> If your goals are to design, own and operate
> your airplane as if it were a C-150 with an SD-8
> added, that's fine too. I'll suggest that the
> well considered decision requires an understanding
> of the respective design goals.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
Good Evening Matt,
I totally agree with your analysis of the strobe light conspicuity.
I think a white rotating beacon would probably be better than a red one
I do NOT care for strobes for just the reasons you note!
Another comment if I may?.
I have not checked the regulations, but my memory thinks that the approval
to use flashing running lights has been rescinded.
As I am sure you are aware, airliners and many corporate aircraft of the
late forties and early fifties were equipped with an alternating system whereby
the running lights were not flashing, but they did alternate between on and
off. If my memory serves me correctly, the on portion was fairly long and the
off portion was relatively short. I think a sailor may have called it an
occulting light. There were also white lights mounted on top and bottom of the
airplane. When the running lights were off, the white lights were on and vice
versa.
That system was dropped when rotating beacons came into use.
Many light planes adopted a flasher that just flashed the position lights
without having any white light on while the running lights were off. My
recollection is that the FARs now require steady running lights.
Since the primary use of running lights is so we may discern the direction
of flight, I think they should always be steady lights.
Whadda Ya Think?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/28/2009 3:57:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early
182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I installed LED
anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo)
are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but using
quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest
performance way of operating them.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
Matt,
You've anticipated my nest question. I am considering the wig-wag
strobes to increase the likelihood that I will be seen from behind. My
aircraft will be low and slow and feel especially vulnerable to being run
down from behind because I must depend on the other pilot to see and avoid
me. I would consider any reasonable system which would increase my
visibility from the rear.
Thanks to all who wrote in this topic. I'll be keeping my eye out as
new systems as LED technology evolves. How about LED "strobes" wigwagged at
the appropriate frequency?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Lights
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> I'd guess that the strobe visibility problem is due to the relatively
> short "on" time compared to the "off" time. Does anyone know if this is
> true? The rest of this message assumes it is.. :)
>
> I also suspect that strobes aren't terribly efficient at turning watts to
> lumens in terms of total power consumed... Doing a little research seems
> to support that:
>
> http://www.birket.com/strobes/Library/Photometry%20of%20Strobes.htm
>
> Strobes may seem efficient because they provide very bright light for not
> too many continuous watts, but since they're "on" time is so short, they
> aren't very good.
>
> It's interesting that the FAA approves of the change from the old rotating
> or flashing incandescent light to strobes. I suspect a study of relative
> conspicuity might find that strobes (as installed) are in many ways
> inferior to the old style of lights. At best, I find that strobes make me
> aware of the presence of another airplane (or cell phone tower), but it
> often takes me a moment of searching around to actually figure out where
> the flash was coming from. I also think strobes often distract me from
> identifying what the object they're mounted to actually is. I don't know
> if this is a common experience...
>
> I have found (and I think there are studies that show) that lighting
> systems designed to attract attention should never be completely dark
> while the system is operating. This is true for traffic signals. A
> single flashing light is much harder to see than two flashing lights
> wig-wagging, even if they are spaced relatively close to each other. In
> normal vision, our eyes are constantly moving, using our fovea (the hi-res
> portion of the retina) to paint a picture in our visual cortex (part of
> our mind) of our surroundings. It's hard to see strobes because the "on"
> time is so short that while the eye may become aware of the strobe's flash
> because of the image showing up away from the fovea, the short "on" time
> makes it difficult for the eye/head to get the fovea on target very soon.
>
> I believe it's true that good alert lighting employs our vision system's
> motion sensing capability (away from the fovea), but such a system is
> easier to see also because there's essentially no "off" time.
>
> Where I'm going with is that when I go shopping for anti-collision
> lighting, I won't be looking at strobes. Instead I'll want some system
> that might look to the eye more like the old incandescent lights, except
> brighter, cooler running, and more reliable. LED's are the obvious source
> of illumination, especially today with their remarkable efficiency.
>
> I like the wig-wags on the front of the airplane - even incandescent, but
> wonder if there's anything in the FAR's about additional lighting that
> might be used. I know that they have a very specific description of the
> required output of the navigation lights, and I'm not proposing to replace
> those.. I'd like to add flashing wingtip and tail lights, mounted where
> strobes often are, but setup to run such that while one light is off,
> another one is always on. Viewed from ahead of the wingtip, the
> wigwagging lights are visible, plus the flashing light on the near
> wingtip. From aft of the wingtip, the wingtip light is still visible,
> plus the tail light. In no case does the airplane present a view of just
> one light flashing on and off.
>
> I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early
> 182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I installed LED
> anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo)
> are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but using
> quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest
> performance way of operating them.
>
> Back to work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>
>> At 08:39 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>> I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input.
>>> In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp
>>> load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my
>>> Whelens and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The
>>> Aveo's work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens.
>>
>> I wouldn't loose much sleep over it. Strobes as an
>> aid to collision avoidance is problematic. For EVERY
>> close encounter with another airplane I was aware of,
>> by the time I saw the airplane the event was nearly over.
>> Had I KNOWN that an airplane was approaching from a certain
>> quadrant and was watching for it . . . the strobes might have
>> helped me pick up the machine. However,(1) conditions
>> were so hazy at the time that even if I had seen the
>> airplane, I'm not sure I could have studied it long
>> enough to decide whether it was at the same altitude
>> or holding position on the windshield - i.e. collision
>> course or (2) didn't see the airplane until right overhead
>> or even passed my location and moving away. In the
>> later cases, the airplane's approach was out of line of
>> sight.
>>
>> The notion that "lives will be saved" by having
>> n-times stronger strobe lights is a figment of
>> a bureaucrat's imagination and fondest wishes.
>> In the cases where the other airplane is looking
>> right at you, a strobe of about ANY light output
>> will be of some assistance. Without a doubt, wig-wagged
>> landing lights are several orders of magnitude more
>> attention getting but of course ONLY in the cone of
>> visibility forward of your aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
6:13 PM
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav
light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove
the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or
flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed.
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Matt,
>
> I totally agree with your analysis of the strobe light conspicuity.
>
> I think a white rotating beacon would probably be better than a red one
>
> I do NOT care for strobes for just the reasons you note!
>
> Another comment if I may?.
>
> I have not checked the regulations, but my memory thinks that the
> approval to use flashing running lights has been rescinded.
>
> As I am sure you are aware, airliners and many corporate aircraft of the
> late forties and early fifties were equipped with an alternating system
> whereby the running lights were not flashing, but they did alternate
> between on and off. If my memory serves me correctly, the on portion was
> fairly long and the off portion was relatively short. I think a sailor
> may have called it an occulting light. There were also white lights
> mounted on top and bottom of the airplane. When the running lights were
> off, the white lights were on and vice versa.
>
> That system was dropped when rotating beacons came into use.
>
> Many light planes adopted a flasher that just flashed the position
> lights without having any white light on while the running lights were
> off. My recollection is that the FARs now require steady running lights.
>
> Since the primary use of running lights is so we may discern the
> direction of flight, I think they should always be steady lights.
>
> Whadda Ya Think?
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2009 3:57:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> mprather@spro.net writes:
>
> I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early
> 182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I
> installed LED
> anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo)
> are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but
> using
> quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest
> performance way of operating them.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
Good Evening Kelly,
You made me look in the FARs! <G>
If I am correct and the change required that the lights be operated
continuously, there would be no need to change or modify the AD.
All it says in Part 91.209 is that we must have lighted position lights and
a lighted anti-collision light. The anti-collision light may be switched off
if the PIC feels it is best to do so.
My recollection is that there was a communication of some sort telling us to
not use the flashing nav lights anymore, but I do NOT recall what form that
notice took. I also believe that there was language in the CARs that did allow
the flashing lights. I do not recall which CAR it was, but it was certainly
in part 20, 43, or 60.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not believe so.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/28/2009 9:42:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav
light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove
the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or
flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Lights |
And I was hoping your memory was better than mine. :-)
Unfortunately, I didn't get involved with aviation until the early 70s,
so have no info prior to that. Of course that was prior to having any
night flying requirement for a private license, prior to tailwheel and
HP endorsements being required, back when your airline FO might only
have a commercial multi ticket, without instrument, ATP or type rating.
Those were the days.
Do remember a number of on airport FSS that I visited that were closed
as soon as AWOS came along. Haven't seen a machine yet that can figure
cloud cover and visibility as well as a trained human with appropriate
instruments.
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Kelly,
>
> You made me look in the FARs! <G>
>
> If I am correct and the change required that the lights be operated
> continuously, there would be no need to change or modify the AD.
>
> All it says in Part 91.209 is that we must have lighted position
> lights and a lighted anti-collision light. The anti-collision light
> may be switched off if the PIC feels it is best to do so.
>
> My recollection is that there was a communication of some sort telling
> us to not use the flashing nav lights anymore, but I do NOT recall
> what form that notice took. I also believe that there was language in
> the CARs that did allow the flashing lights. I do not recall which CAR
> it was, but it was certainly in part 20, 43, or 60.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not believe so.
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2009 9:42:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> kellym@aviating.com writes:
>
> I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav
> light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove
> the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or
> flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
>
> *
>
>
> *
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|