FastGlasair

Well up till now, that's not been the feedback we've gotten, regarding just the strobing mode appearance. Most have been relieved, that a cross-feeding sync wire, often difficult to implement (wing access and labor) was not required or needed at all. In fact everyone prior to this, has stated they "loved" the uniqueness and effectiveness of the dual light strobing pattern. Additionally, they all were in fact mostly concerned for collision avoidance benefits in high density traffic areas, low visibility (pollution or haze) and equally for the evident bird strike prevention. All of this on top of the superior output 1/3 mile+ effectiveness for landing, in the normal steady mode. Thanks, Dan

Niko, We did quite a bit of research regarding maximum effectiveness, wig-wag, steady, strobing, irregular strobing. The most effective attention getter (the ultimate goal for wig-wag etc.) is a "wild" pattern. See the light pattern video below for a pair of our LED landing lights in strobing mode out at the wing tips. Note this pattern is especially effective for avoiding bird strikes too. (garnered from data) USDA Research - National Wildlife Research Center - Effectiveness of Aircraft Mounted Lighting to Reduce Bird Strikes. Our net conclusion, syncing the lights had no performance benefit for this strobing pattern we offer, in fact the opposite is true. https://www.xevision.com/led_aircraft.html Note if the 2 lights are quite close together, such as the cowling, we recommend only strobing one of them at a time, the other being off. Thanks for asking, Dan Blumel www.XeVision.com 801-622-7000

1. Already told you we monitor fan rotation, ie tach. We also have thermistors for such. Don't need to dramatically reduce output performance to prevent thermal runaway as yours must. Only a backup for us. 2. Extruded aluminum can't be made into a similar optimized shaped heatsink. 99% pure is required for cold forged parts. The length of the pins was optimized by testing, including infrared cameras. A large ∆T in fact is desired for efficient thermal extraction performance. 3. The 180+ F number was found to approximate the temps found from 3 other competitors units with less wattage than yours within 10 minutes of on time in a 70 F ambient environment. What kind of beneficial airflow (none) is found in an engine cowling without a blast tube "focused" on the heatsink of the unit ?? 4. A well and suitably compressed o-ring is making a great seal and no, there is no passage of anything in spite of your insistence. We use the same o-ring technology on our HID waterproof handheld searchlights that are certified for scuba diving to 50 meters. Those have been in use for about 20 years now, without a single water pressured or otherwise water intrusion issue. High dollar Rifle scopes and Spotting scopes use the same to keep argon or nitrogen contained within for many 10's of years as previously stated. We also have a vacuum chamber for testing altitude internal pressure variable effects. 5. Yes time will tell, we offer a 5 year warranty, even with a lens breakage failure we can easily repair the unit for a relatively very low cost. I often fly through rain and our customers are in many humid and rainy places around the world, not a single warranty claim of any kind so far in 3 years. Once the salts, mentioned earlier, turn light blue or even pink, the only way to change them back to dark blue is high temps in an oven (225-300F for 2 hours plus for the moisture to cook out and escape not remain), not the relatively low temps. occurring in the optical section. Thus they do show evidence of historic humidity or lack there of. 6. Well at least we assemble in USA and no, not every part is made in USA. 7. Yes better efficiency and one hell of a lot more as I have and our website indicates. Obviously you love "your" product that's great. Equally lots love ours too. Obviously not everyone does or will want to pay a premium for what we offer in distance illumination and other capabilities, those that do will. 8. We will shortly have STC approvals making installation simple and friendly for everyone. Until you can provide additional metrics of performance ie, Candela (Candle Power) or Lux output values and a graph similar to what WAT shows for output degradation over time as the unit heats up, there is no apples to Apples comparison at any level. Good day sir, I rest my case. The sparing session has been challenging yet "fun". We've been in the aviation lighting industry since 2002, no neophytes here. You aren't the first and won't be the last for a joust. We here are all experienced pilots, experimental aircraft builders ( 4 aircraft between 2 of us, 2 Glasair RG's, 1 Lancair 4P & 1 Nemesis NXT Reno Racer) as well we're seasoned engineers, Optical, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Electronics. One of 4 now retired being a PE in 3 states, NJ, NY and Utah. We occasionally try to use lay terms to help the understandings for others.

Your manufacturer even indicates they MUST throttle back, the power, only one reason to do that, the dissipation of heat is inadequate to prevent LED thermal damage and eventual thermal runaway. Here is their website quote "SmarTemp - Temperature Dependedent Intensity Decrement" they cant even spell Dependent, also complex word games regarding thermally motivated & controlled power reduction. Irrespective, the heatsink surface area is too small and too shallow to efficiently move heat out of the unit (thermal wick effect) and transfer it away from the LED's. We use a deep "Pinfin" type "sand" blasted cold forged 99% pure Aluminum anodized heatsink to efficiently create the large ∆T needed to do so effectively and the fan to carry the heat away. Note our fan shroud is not black to reduce infrared absorbsion from exhausts and engines potentially behind it for cowling installs. Both AeroLEDS and WAT brand LEDs of lesser powers generate temps on their heatsinks of 180F + degrees within 10 minutes, even though they also throttle back to prevent or minimize unit electronics thermal damage. Our unit case due to the efficiency of our heatsinking and active cooling never goes beyond "warm in the hand" not by any definition hot. Only the front glass lens eventually gets hot enough to melt snow and ice, as is often needed and desired. Mounted In a location of a hot engine compartment with lots of infrared energy, a black colored absorbing heatsink becomes a negative not a positive. In that location without a blast tube feeding it cooler air, places it in an "oven", potentially hot before it's even turned on. I/we never claimed "hermetic" just an air tight seal and yes tested afterwards in my aircraft after a couple years of use. (Color changing special salts pouch still dark blue after 2+ years) proof of no moisture intrusion, an effective verification. Salts turn light blue to pink depending on amount of moisture contamination absorbed. Our product even passed the newest RTCA DO160 testing (lab certified and expensive) the strictest test levels for Both EMI and RFI. BTW without Candela ( or Lux numbers at some fixed distance ) it's impossible to verify or approximate any of your/their Lumens claims. Unless they used an Integrating sphere to measure the Lumens output of a finished unit, at a specific time (initial on etc). It's more likely they are multiplying the number of LED's X the LED manufacturers Lumens number, this doesn't take into account any optical efficiencies and losses. Likely about 10% the front plastic lens and hard to guess on the TIR optics. I suspect this unit is assembled in China, they only mention it is " designed / developed / distributed in USA not mentioning at all where it is made. Definitely not in Georgia, since they indicate no brick and mortar facility of any kind there. It appears they are using Four ( 4 ) Watt Cree LEDs X 27 = 108 Watts to the LEDs with 125 watts in that only 87% efficiency compare to ours at 92% including a fan that draws ~1.75 watts, without the fan draw, we are about 93.75% control circuitry efficient.

Thanks for asking. Its not really fair to call this a bulb, only the old Incandescents are a bulb and HID's also have a bulb within the reflector. For the quality and durability, $250 I would agree, That costs maybe $50 to actually make, not counting tooling and engineering costs spread over many thousands of units sold. Our LED is on quite another level, costing about 7X that just to make, not counting tooling or engineering costs. https://www.xevision.com/led_aircraft.html all the details are here. Our LED provides very useful illumination out past 1/3 mile and includes a strobing mode for collision avoidance. 320,000 Candela (Candle Power) sustained output, the others dim to about 1/2 output (about 1/3 of ours) within 5 to 10 minutes of being on. Most start at less than 1/2 our output when initially powered. 10,870 Lumens certified lab measured, coming out the front (not theoretical) The old incandescents Par36 (4.5" diam.) or Par 46 (5.75" diam.) provide a relatively small percentage of that output, making mostly heat energy not mostly light energy. Our units are sealed Nitrogen flooded, actively cooled, repairable (not throw away), upgradeable, and modular. Warranty 5 years or 2000 hours whichever occurs first. Dan Blumel - XeVision 801-622-7000

Thanks for that feedback, it's quite useful. Yes it can easily be installed in these Par 46 sized opening "tubes", as shown in the photos a few posts above.

It seems, with a new mayoral administration at Ogden, Utah KOGD, we the hangar owners are about to "win" our legal case (without the courts) with a new Mayoral adminstration, come January 2nd 2024. Our leases said we had "first right of refusal to renew this lease" the only prescribed legal contract increases are CPI rate adjustments. www.xevision.com LED and HID landing & taxi lighting technology. Our ONLY competitor is the SUN.

Hope people will watch this YouTube video. Candela (CP), Lux & Lumens "OH MY" !! - The established standards by which Landing lighting performance is measured. https://youtube.com/watch?v=3NL6wjAoTEg&feature=share8 6 The technical part about landing and taxi lighting ( Lumens, Lux Candela ) starts 25 seconds in, after a high quality video-graphic flying introduction. Hope you all find it interesting and informational. Dan www.xevision.com

Hope people will watch this YouTube video

All well and good when it's upfront, no one is forcing you, if you don't like it, you don't do it. But changing the contract later when the original contract gives you "first right of refusal on this lease". It's quite a different story.

If you are familiar with Mike Patey (of some aviation fame), his project of elite hangars at Spanish Fork, Utah airport that receives FAA grant assurance money. They are offering an initial 50 year lease term with the cities option for additional renewal(s) or alternatively purchase the hangars back at fair market value at the end of the first 50 years, or possibly even at a much later time.

No, this is about general situations happening all across the country, often Airports management blaming the FAA for "making/requiring" airports to add reversionary language (or even require enforcement if they have it) of this language to leases, both new leases and renewals. The ONLY FAA requirements are leases should not normally exceed 50 years per issuance or for any additional renewal(s). The airports can't blame the FAA for airport breaches of previous leases or renewals, only contract laws would apply. If building a new hangar and reversionary language is included, nothing illegal about that if you agreed too it. You have no recourse at that point. You accepted the terms of the contract.

That's what our lawsuit is about. Many airports have tried to blame the FAA for adding the reversionary language, saying they had no choice.

Plenty of lawyer types here, to give more detailed insight. Reversionary clauses or “reversion” here has to do with hangar ground leases, where the hangar is owned by someone other than the airport but the ground is leased to the hangar owner by the airport. In recent years many airports have added the reversionary language to the ground leases indicating that as an example after the first (only) 25 year lease is done. The hangar building ownership reverts to the airport. Many airports have tried to place the onus for these policies onto the FAA that they must do so under the FAA grant assurance programs (receiving FAA airport improvement funding). Bottom line, the only limits by the FAA are that each lease duration cannot exceed 50 years (without prior FAA permission) and that subsequent lease renewals can again not exceed 50 years. Nothing indicated by the FAA to deny or limit any subsequent renewals. Here in Ogden, Utah we have been in a legal battle with the city for about 4 years. They have inserted reversionary language into renewals that a majority of hangar owners have refused to sign. This has not been the precedence here for about 70 years and not what our leases stated until recently, in fact quite the opposite. From 10 to 60 years ago we were in writing & told quite the opposite. This is confirmed by the 2 prior airport managers before this debacle began buy the newer administration. Evidently similar things are happening throughout the US. Including Bend Oregon, Clarke County, Nevada. To name just a few. It’s like a virus spreading around the nation

More good news for the aviation community. On the heels of the California legislation that clarified the FAA’s language stating a hangar can be leased for longer than 50 years, (just no single lease term for greater than 50 years without FAA approval), please see the following ruling on public enemy number one, REVERSION ! Thanks to AOPA and Brad Schuster for the heads up. Subject: This just in from AOPA General Counsel RE: Part 16 Ruling expressly confirms that reversion is NOT a required means to terminate a lease and therefore, not reverting is NOT a violation of FAA compliance In this complaint from a former part time airport manager against the city he worked for (as I read it), he felt that because the City was not enforcing or requiring reversion, the City was in violation of grant assurances. The findings and conclusions of this Part 16 complaint make abundantly clear that the FAA does not require reversion. Period. 16-05-19 Clarke v. City of Alamogordo. The Complainant alleged that failure to invoke lease reverter clauses violated a variety of grant assurances. The Director’s Determination has some great language, including: Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers. FAA does not construe Respondent’s refusal to invoke its reverter provisions and claim improvements on airport property, as a donation. Nor are such acts necessarily a violation of Grant Assurance 5… Complainant may contend that failure to enforce the lease amounts to a donation, however refusal to invoke the ‘reverter clause’ provisions is not a violation of the FAA Grant Assurances. Therefore, with regard to Respondent’s refusal to invoke the reverter provisions in its aeronautical leases, FAA finds that such action was a decision within the right of the Airport and the parties to the contract, and not a violation of Grant Assurance 5. Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. Alamogordo appears to have treated the tenants the same because it has not exercised the reverter clauses… Therefore, based on the analysis above, Respondent is not in violation of its obligations under Grant Assurance 22. VIII. Findings and Conclusions. i. Respondent’s failure to invoke the reverter provisions in its aeronautical leases does not constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers. ii. Respondent’s failure to uniformly include and enforce ‘reverter’ provisions in its aeronautical leases does not constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, since Respondent never enforced the reverter provisions on any of its aeronautical leaseholders. iii. Respondent’s failure to invoke ‘reverter’ provisions and charge fair market value rent for reverted aeronautical leasehold improvements is not a violation of Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure. iv. Respondent’s failure to invoke ‘reverter’ provisions in its aeronautical leases does not constitute a prohibited use of airport revenue or revenue diversion, and does not violate Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenue. Hope this helps!, Brad Schuster Northwest Mountain Regional Manager Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) Tel: 202.851.7502

It's more a matter of aim, so that there isn't so much brightness on the ground right in front of you, where it's neither needed or wanted. If aimed higher and farther down the runway as it should be, it won't negatively affect your night vision, to a significant degree.

We expect to have an STC approved for our XeVision LED's in 2024, hopefully the early 1/2.

Candela (CP), Lux & Lumens "OH MY" !! - The established standards by which Landing lighting performance is measured. https://youtube.com/watch?v=3NL6wjAoTEg&feature=share8 6 The technical part about landing and taxi lighting ( Lumens, Lux Candela ) starts 25 seconds in, after a high quality video-graphic flying introduction. Hope you all find it interesting and informational. Dan www.xevision.com

We have determined our XeVision XeTREME power LED light would also be a great candidate for the M20J series, at least the 1977 version lower cowling for Par-46 (see photos below). plenty of room in this housing shown in the photos.

For the foreseeable future, at least 2030, our HID systems are still our "bread & butter" with Diamond Aircraft - Canada / Austria, Airbus/Eurocopter, Leonardo Aerospace - Italy, Kongsberg Aerospace - Norway, and others.

That is precisely the case, it slightly sacrifices distance illumination with greatly improved overall illumination out to 15 degrees of field beam width. It offers effective useful distance performance out to 1/3 - 1/2 mile depending on humidity, particulates etc. in the air. One of our customers in Florida (humid air) uses it on his 3000 ft grass strip, he claims it illuminates all the way to the end of it. Our still available HID's (NOT LED) you referenced have a 2-3 degree hot-spot, but outside of that narrow area the intensity drops off quickly as it extends to ~10 degrees. The illumination intensity of the new LED Landing version out to 9+ degrees is fairly uniform, it drops off gradually from there out to 15 degrees of field beam width. Note: We don't use >6,500 Kelvin LED's like the rest, it washes out the color and "greys" everything. We use 5700K for daylight color temps. The only reason they use the higher color Kelvin LED's, they produce slightly more lumens per watt. It's a numbers game between the others. We operate on an entirely different plane (pun intended) of performance.

I did know that much, a single Par 36 or Par 46 light in the engine cowling. We can cover both of those sizes using our adapter mounting plate to size up for Par46. A Par-46 size could not fit more of our optics than the 36 (large optics needed for distance performance). See below: A Performance graph comparing to all other competitors see. With our 320,000 Candela, we provide more light intensity at the 9 degree beam boundary than any of them initially at their peak output at the center beam point, where all peak measurement are taken. After 5-10 minutes there is even less to compare as they all dim down significantly..

I am not familiar with the available space for landing lights on the older aircraft, some photos or drawings (sketches) would be helpful.