XeVision® XeTREME™ LED LANDING LIGHT (par-36/46)

[Fly Boomer]

29 minutes ago, FastGlasair said:

As you can see, the connector is on the side.

I'm sure @Niko182 can speak for himself, but I think the question is regarding the fact that our airplanes usually have the connector at the back of the lamp, while your lamps seem to have the connector on the side.  It might be possible to modify our airplanes to accommodate the lamps, but a drop-in replacement would be easier to justify in the absence of an STC.

[FastGlasair]

32 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I'm sure @Niko182 can speak for himself, but I think the question is regarding the fact that our airplanes usually have the connector at the back of the lamp, while your lamps seem to have the connector on the side.  It might be possible to modify our airplanes to accommodate the lamps, but a drop-in replacement would be easier to justify in the absence of an STC.

I guess it could have been more clear.  here below is a pdf of the Mooney wing mounted lights, seems no problem to us based on this.

The below Mooney drawing for leading edge wing lights, 2 side by side, looks to me plenty of room for the connectors pointed to either side etc.

Mooney210417_D.pdf

This cable ~18 inches, shown below is included with the kit.

 

Only the Taxi version requires specific orientations for the cables with 6 positions, this because the beam is about 35 degrees wide and 11+ degrees tall., see taxi lamp cable output position choices below.

We are working on STC's as we speak, hopefully by the end of this year. We already passed certified lab testing the strictest level testing for EMI and RFI more than a year ago. With that the STC's will be relatively a "slam dunk".

• EMI: RTCA DO-160G:2010 Section 21.4 cat L,M.H: certified
• RFI: RTCA DO-160G:2010 Section 21.5 cat M: certified

Edited April 5, 2023 by FastGlasair

[Fly Boomer]

37 minutes ago, FastGlasair said:

I guess it could have been more clear.  here below is a pdf of the Mooney wing mounted lights, seems no problem to us based on this.

So, nothing for airplanes older than about 1990?

[FastGlasair]

4 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

So, nothing for airplanes older than about 1990?

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

Edited April 5, 2023 by FastGlasair

[Hank]

59 minutes ago, FastGlasair said:

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

They are in the nose on the majority of Mooneys.

[FastGlasair]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

They are in the nose on the majority of Mooneys.

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..

 

 

 

[Shadrach]

On 2/23/2022 at 4:21 PM, EricJ said:

Shouldn't need it for a landing light, but that doesn't stop anybody from doing it that wants to.

 

A PMI flagged my plane in a shop when he saw the ballast on the firewall. I had already submitted a 337 (using a copy of an an already approved installation) but it was returned with requests for additional info.  I argued that it was technically a minor alteration. He said “it’s major because you drilled the firewall to mount the ballast” (as if that would be a major alteration). I cordially pointed out that the clickbond fasteners used to mount the ballast did no damage to the firewall. And also that the current draw of the new light was less than the old incandescent. He told my mechanic that no 337 = not airworthy. One of a few FAA interactions that have helped to shape my long term opinion of the organization.

[Fly Boomer]

I don't have any good drawings for the cowling mounted landing and taxi lights (before they moved them to the wing).  If anyone has a decent drawing, please post.  It would be nice to have the XeVision lights available for more than just the late-model airplanes.

[Shadrach]

On 4/5/2023 at 2:33 PM, mcarterak said:

@FastGlasair Do you have any pics or video showing the beam at distance? Any thought given to aircraft (like an M20J) that only have a single source for landing and taxi light? I'd take a tradeoff in slightly shorter throw if it meant I could have a wider beam width in near range. 

I have the XEVISION HID light that I installed in 2007. It literally lights up the inside of the cabs of the semis on l81 when I’m on final. It also illuminates the water tower more than a half mile away when I taxi. It has been a solid modification that has never disappointed. I leave it on all the time as a defacto recog light. The only thing I would change is the beam width which could be wider for taxi ops. If their new LED sacrifices some distance for a wider beam, it’s likely a great set up. 

[FastGlasair]

17 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I have the XEVISION HID light I installed in 2007. It literally lights up the inside of the cabs of the semis on l81 when I’m on final. It also illuminates the water tower more than a half mile away when I taxi. It has been a solid modification that has never disappointed. I leave it on all the time as a defacto recog light. Only thing I would change is the beam could be wider for taxi ops. If their new LED sacrifices some distance for a wider beam, it’s likely a great set up. 

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.

Edited April 6, 2023 by FastGlasair
Spelling

[Shadrach]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:55 PM, FastGlasair said:

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 HID's you referenced have a 2-3 degree hotspot, but outside of that narrow area the intensity drops off quicky as it extends to 10 degrees. The illumination intensity of the LED out to 9 degrees is fairly uniform, it drops off gradually from there out to 15 degrees of field beam width. 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 reason they use the higher color LED's the 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.

Thanks for the detailed response. Does XeVision plan to carry replacement HIDs into the future?

[FastGlasair]

18 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Thanks for the detailed response. Doe’s XeVision plan to carry replacement HIDs into the future?

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.

Edited April 6, 2023 by FastGlasair
Fun question added.

[FastGlasair]

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.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by FastGlasair
clarification

[FastGlasair]

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

Edited July 13, 2023 by FastGlasair

[FastGlasair]

On 7/13/2023 at 1:10 PM, FastGlasair said:

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

[Shadrach]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:29 PM, FastGlasair said:

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.

 

FYI. If it will fit the early J cowing, it will likely fit the vintage A, B, C, D, E, F and G models. These models all utilize PAR 46 bulbs mounted in roughly the same location.

[FastGlasair]

27 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

FYI. If it will fit the early J cowing, it will likely fit the vintage A, B, C, D, E, F and G models. These models all utilize PAR 46 bulbs mounted in roughly the same location.

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.

[McMooney]

how much is this bulb, note i thought the whelen was stupid at 250$

 

[FastGlasair]

2 minutes ago, McMooney said:

how much is this bulb, note i thought the Whelen was stupid at 250$

 

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

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, FastGlasair said:

Our units are sealed Nitrogen flooded, actively cooled, repairable (not throw away), upgradeable, and modular.

 

A few questions come to mind:

1) Why is it necessary to seal with nitrogen?  My experience is that is only necessary in cavity packages where oxidation and/or moisture ingress are a concern to the internal components.  Is the sealing glass-to-metal, seam/roller welded, solder seal, or?  My concern is long-term integrity of whatever seal system is employed...what testing have you done to prove long term seal integrity in a high vibration environment?

2) If I read your 'data sheet' correctly, power input is 100 Watts @ 24V input; what about at 12V? IOW, Efficiency is shown as 92%, what about at 12V?

3) 92% isn't too awful, so why the need for active cooling for 8 Watts?  That seems like added complexity and less reliability over time.

4) Why in the world do you need a microprocessor to control this thing?

 

I wish you luck, but this just seems like a complicated $1000 solution to a $150 problem???

[FastGlasair]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

A few questions come to mind:

1) Why is it necessary to seal with nitrogen?  My experience is that is only necessary in cavity packages where oxidation and/or moisture ingress are a concern to the internal components.  Is the sealing glass-to-metal, seam/roller welded, solder seal, or?  My concern is long-term integrity of whatever seal system is employed...what testing have you done to prove long term seal integrity in a high vibration environment? This is the only way (or a vacuum) to insure there is no available moisture or air in the Optical section, that would condense and even freeze. There is an o-ring trapped in a proper CNC'd groove that seals against the hardened AR very high optical efficiency glass. There can be no movement between the glass and the 0-ring, the glass is precision HEX shaped cut (can't rotate) and fits in a recess underside of the bezel.. The only way for leakage to occur is if the glass lens were compromised. This is a highly well engineered product. Have you noticed how many other brands have visible and damaging moisture inside ?

2) If I read your 'data sheet' correctly, power input is 100 Watts @ 24V input; what about at 12V? IOW, Efficiency is shown as 92%, what about at 12V? Still basically 100 watts input also at 12 V, obviously the current is higher (approximately doubled) for 12V than 24V operation. at 12VDC it's slightly less efficient using about 1.5 watts more for the same 92 watts LED's total input, about 13 watts for each LED. We have a very efficient wide input voltage range.

3) 92% isn't too awful, so why the need for active cooling for 8 Watts?  Far from awful, That seems like added complexity and less reliability over time. Just the opposite is true at these power levels. The active cooling fan is some of that 8% The active (waterproof fan) cooling is really for the 92 Watts to the LED's and keeping heat away from the control PCB. Patented heatsink technology to very efficiently pull the heat away from the LED's and remove it from the unit.

We have a unit that has run about 2 years constantly without being turned off except weekends and holidays.

4) Why in the world do you need a microprocessor to control this thing? Micro controller for  3 standard modes (full, dimmed and strobing). Also we can do custom programming for almost any desired customer required function, effects or additional number of functions. We also monitor fan rotation and thermistors for LED Junction temps. the unit has the LED's split up into 3 independent Channels as well.

I wish you luck, but this just seems like a complicated $1000 solution to a $150 problem??? Not if you want high output, almost 11,000 Lumens and 1/3+ mile useful downrange (down runway etc.) illumination. All of the other competitors units dim to about 1/2 output within 5-10 minutes, by their own admissions. We have double the initial output of the nearest competitor and we maintain the sustained output. This only at all possible with active cooling. Once the others warm up we have 3-4X the output of the others best performers. See graph below.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by FastGlasair

[MikeOH]

@FastGlasair

Thanks for your response and PM which I've quoted here:

 

"Any additional thoughts or comments after my detailed response.. ?

This light is for people who want to to see anything and everything on the runway from far out, those that fly into "black holes" and those concerned about collision avoidance of birds and other aircraft (especially daytime) the strobing mode. Anything in LED that's less than about $300 is junk. All of my competitors make units that are to be thrown away even when only one or 2 LED's quit. They competitors units go bad far more often than they'd like to admit, mostly due to thermal issues, but also water incursion."

 

My comments:

1) Certainly, if that much illumination is worth $1000 to some pilots, by all means they should buy your product.

2) I've had an Aerolites Fusion (9,750 lumens) for the last 5 years (75 hours a year; I run it all the time) with zero issues. So, I take issue with your comment that it's 'junk'.  It cost me $150 plus $50 to my A&P to install with a 337.

3) As far as moisture/humidity incursion, I'm not convinced your rubber O-ring 'seal' is all that effective over time; it is most definitely NOT hermetic.  I can cite controlled studies with even hermetically sealed cavity packages which show environmental equalization with their surroundings over a period of just a few years.  In fact, about 10 years ago the MIL testing standard was increased approximately 10 fold for the highest (most hermetic) sealing requirements because of those studies.  IOW, I'm highly skeptical that your dry nitrogen environment will remain after exposure to altitude/time/temperature exposures in the real world with merely a rubber O-ring.  Two years in a lab is just not the same thing.

[FastGlasair]

On 12/26/2023 at 6:58 PM, MikeOH said:

1) Certainly, if that much illumination is worth $1000 to some pilots, by all means they should buy your product. A few of our customers even use our products to land at unlit areas in the back country. 320,000 Candela (Candle Power) 1 Lux at 1/3 mile. A full moon in perfect conditions, provides about 1/4 Lux.

2) I've had an Aerolites Fusion (9,750 lumens) for the last 5 years (75 hours a year; I run it all the time) with zero issues. So, I take issue with your comment that it's 'junk'. Well, there is no way that heatsink of your unit (seen on their website) can efficiently dissipate the temps of at least 180F that will occur in the fins area within 10 minutes with 125 watts going in. It must throttle back the power and output dramatically to prevent thermal runaway and self destruction. The manufacturer states the heatsink fins are powder coated, that's an insulator, destructive of efficient heatsink energy dissipation, needing all the "help" it can get in that.

3) As far as moisture/humidity incursion, I'm not convinced your rubber O-ring 'seal' is all that effective over time; it is most definitely NOT hermetic. Units been on my Glasair for a few years, the seal is still intact. Viton is a very durable long lasting O-ring material. The o-ring is well hidden from the elements. Hunting rifle and spotting scopes use this material for their seals to contain Argon or Nitrogen charges.

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by FastGlasair

[MikeOH]

@FastGlasair

To continue:

2) First, you call competitors' products 'junk', then you make the bold claim "there is no way that heatsink of your unit can efficiently dissipate the temps of at least 180F" without any backup to your opinion.  For one thing, you don't dissipate temperature, but power.  Further, you cannot possibly know the heatsink temperature any more than I do: there is active airflow over those fins, nor know any of the thermal resistances involved, nor, ultimately, the operating junction temps of the LEDs.  Finally, your comment that paint is 'destructive to efficient heatsink energy dissipation' shows lack of understanding the complexity of heat sink design. Painting a heat sink flat black increases its emissivity and improves its ability to dissipate via radiation.  The paint can increase thermal resistance but that depends on both the type of paint and, therefore, its thermal conductivity as well as the applied thickness and, if done well, has a very small effect on convective heat transfer to the surrounding air.  Stating that paint is "destructive" absent some specific knowledge of the instant application is a misleading over statement, IMHO.

3) What criteria are you applying to your statement that, "the seal is still intact". Have you sampled the 'sealed' atmosphere 'after a few years' to determine its moisture and oxygen content versus the initial composition?  Again, a Viton seal is NOT hermetic.

[FastGlasair]

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.

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by FastGlasair