Recognition Lights (This is how it done)

[GeeBee]

I was looking at a brand new Vision Jet today. For our Ovations and Acclaims this is how it should look. Anyone at Whelen listening?

E1AF593F-77B6-47A5-83D9-CA195218F5BD.heic

[Frank]

That looks awesome. I need that on my O.

[larryb]

I got pretty close.

[carusoam]

Let me invite our Whelen guy to have a looksee…

-a-

@OSUAV8TER (when you get a chance to stop by and see…)

 

[Marc_B]

Last word was maybe 2022 Q2/Q3 on the thread above started in Jan 2020, but last update was Nov 2021

[Jetrn]

I used Larryb, cad file and installed new Whelen leds after 3d printing the assembly.

[Irmin]

I used Larryb, cad file and installed new Whelen leds after 3d printing the assembly.

Photo possible?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, larryb said:

I got pretty close.

What light is that? I assume it may fit in my J model wing tip (it has no recognition lights) but I’d like some to flash

[OSUAV8TER]

Yeah I hope to have a Whelen LED recognition light sometime this year - probably second half of the year.

[Marc_B]

@OSUAV8TER Is this a different process for Whelen from just using a TSO part exchanged for a TSO part?  I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between what would be considered a minor alteration and what would drive the need for use of an STC...i.e. if the lights above are already in use and have a TSO for recognition lights, what extra work would be needed on WAT's part to allow use on a Mooney?

I thought TSO applies to a part and STC applies to its use on a particular aircraft?  But WAT has STC for use of Orion wingtip and tail lights only on M20B, C, D, E, F, G...but you still see this in use with later models as they are minor alteration with TSO'd part...right?

Totally confused regarding why this is a long and drawn out process since WAT currently has several LED recog lights that could work...(at least it looks like they do?)  What am I misunderstanding?  Would a change of the recog lights REQUIRE an STC??

Marc.

[Marc_B]

...or is that the issue...none of the WAT recog lights have TSO or PMA approval?  So if they were on your aircraft when it was certified they're good to go by default but if you were selling aftermarket change you'd have to either go PMA or TSO approval, STC if a major alteration, or stock?

"In the most basic terms, a PMA holder is providing a part by demonstrating to the FAA that the part he is producing is equal to or better than the original (OEM) part it replaces. In contrast, a TSO produced part must only meet minimum prescribed F.A.A. mandated standards or requirements."

Is there a TSO for recog lights?  Looks like TSO-30c (aircraft position lights) and TSO-96a (anti-collision lights).  Would recog lights be considered part of either of these?

TSO_C30c.pdf TSO_C96a.pdf

[OSUAV8TER]

9 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@OSUAV8TER Is this a different process for Whelen from just using a TSO part exchanged for a TSO part?  I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between what would be considered a minor alteration and what would drive the need for use of an STC...i.e. if the lights above are already in use and have a TSO for recognition lights, what extra work would be needed on WAT's part to allow use on a Mooney?

I thought TSO applies to a part and STC applies to its use on a particular aircraft?  But WAT has STC for use of Orion wingtip and tail lights only on M20B, C, D, E, F, G...but you still see this in use with later models as they are minor alteration with TSO'd part...right?

Totally confused regarding why this is a long and drawn out process since WAT currently has several LED recog lights that could work...(at least it looks like they do?)  What am I misunderstanding?  Would a change of the recog lights REQUIRE an STC??

Marc.

Yeah it is certainly confusing. So when Whelen created these LED lights, they hooked them onto the existing STCs for aircraft with original Whelen equipment they replaced. If the aircraft came from the factory with Whelen equipment installed, it wasnt done on an STC basis, so Whelen didn't have an STC to piggy back on (like some later Mooney models). For example the Cirrus SR-22 has the Whelen A600 original equipment installed. The Orion 600 is the LED replacement. The Orion 600 doesn't have an STC to replace the A600 so installation has to be done as a minor alteration. The Orion 600 does have TSO certification though.

Now for a TSO, that is a performance standard. It does not have anything to do with installation basis/authority (such as an STC or PMA). There are two TSO's you have to worry about for aircraft lighting, which revolve around position lights and anti-collision light systems. With those TSOs they have to be so bright, have to have so much coverage (up and down so people can see the lights), meet a standard on color, etc. Explaining that to experimental owners is really challenging because they think they can install whatever they want on their airplanes. So if you want to fly at night, you need a TSO certified position light system. Remember back to your private pilot days? One of the pieces of equipment at night is an "approved" position light system. Approved = TSO. 

For landing lights there is no TSO to certify against because older airplanes used incandescent lights, which were based off an antique tractor standard (hence the tractor bulb jokes). So the FAA looks at that as a standard part or OEM equipment for the aircraft. Some aviation LED light manufacturers get an STC so that there is some installation basis to deviate from that incandescent bulb. Some guys buy $30 bulbs off Amazon and slap them in (they are not really good at all, in fact they suck compared to something like the new G3). I am empathetic to both sides of the argument here but since I sell stuff, I prefer to have an STC or PMA when I can. 

For recognition lights there also is no TSO. So I think Whelen's strategy is going to be they will make it and not certify it against anything (no STC or PMA). You install it as a minor alteration if you want it. I think that is smart because it will help keep cost lower too.

I paid for an STC for Bonanzas and Barons and half the freaking cost was certification with the feds.

[Marc_B]

4 minutes ago, OSUAV8TER said:

So I think Whelen's strategy is going to be they will make it and not certify it against anything (no STC or PMA).

@OSUAV8TER if that's the case, wouldn't this be the same as purchasing one of their current recog lights and having a mechanic install and sign off?  i.e. WAT 71898 series?

https://flywat.com/collections/led-aircraft-landing-taxi-lights/products/7189800

And if WAT isn't waiting for a TSO/PMA then what's taking so long to offer existing lights with mounting for Mooney that has a disclaimer non-TSO/non-PMA? i.e. what they've done for their model 7112510?  and if its that simple, what are so many Mooney pilots (me included) waiting for from WAT???

[EricJ]

Landing lights are an interesting area since the requirements are very easy to meet.    For part 23 aircraft, like Mooneys,

§ 23.1383 Taxi and landing lights. Each taxi and landing light must be designed and installed so that:

(a) No dangerous glare is visible to the pilots.

(b) The pilot is not seriously affected by halation.

(c) It provides enough light for night operations.

(d) It does not cause a fire hazard in any configuration.

 

Part 25 (transport category) includes the need for approval, part 23 does not.    There is no TSO (technical specification) required for landing lights since these specs are pretty easy to meet and are generally subjective.   There is no indication of any technology assumption, either incandescent or otherwise.   You can put glow sticks in there and meet the part 23 requirements if you have enough for (c), which is an unquantified, subjective requirement.    As mentioned above, recognition lights seem to fall under the same lack of restrictions.   This has led to some home-brew solutions that some IAs have installed as minor mods.

 

 

 

[OSUAV8TER]

44 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@OSUAV8TER if that's the case, wouldn't this be the same as purchasing one of their current recog lights and having a mechanic install and sign off?  i.e. WAT 71898 series?

https://flywat.com/collections/led-aircraft-landing-taxi-lights/products/7189800

And if WAT isn't waiting for a TSO/PMA then what's taking so long to offer existing lights with mounting for Mooney that has a disclaimer non-TSO/non-PMA? i.e. what they've done for their model 7112510?  and if its that simple, what are so many Mooney pilots (me included) waiting for from WAT???

None of those fit, they are much larger than what you need.

[OSUAV8TER]

44 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@OSUAV8TER if that's the case, wouldn't this be the same as purchasing one of their current recog lights and having a mechanic install and sign off?  i.e. WAT 71898 series?

https://flywat.com/collections/led-aircraft-landing-taxi-lights/products/7189800

And if WAT isn't waiting for a TSO/PMA then what's taking so long to offer existing lights with mounting for Mooney that has a disclaimer non-TSO/non-PMA? i.e. what they've done for their model 7112510?  and if its that simple, what are so many Mooney pilots (me included) waiting for from WAT???

I mean that light is Mooney specific and for a very small number of aircraft. WAT is a business and they will look to maximize profit so they are going to focus on more lucrative projects. I’m not trying to be a jerk but this is not a very profitable endeavor for them. We are keeping pressure on them so that is helping. Squeaky wheel theory.

[Marc_B]

14 minutes ago, OSUAV8TER said:

I mean that light is Mooney specific

Got it.  So WAT does not currently make a recog light that would fit in Mooney application...that's what the issue is.  So the wait is for WAT to make an LED recog light similar to what they produce now, but in a size to be installed in the current location.  Unfortunately this is a very limited application build that would not be applicable to any airframe outside of what they sell to Mooney pilots.  Hence the home construction of a similar reflective lens that holds a basic LED bulb as a work around. 

I think my light finally turned on! ha ha ha

I'm surprised there isn't more standardization between the big players to utilize the economy of scale.  i.e. you see PAR36 and PAR46...you don't see individual variations of Mooneys with PAR36.8 and Cessna with PAR43.2.  I incorrectly thought that there would be some degree of standarization with Recogs not from a sense of a standard but from a sense of economy of scale.  I guess this is in large part as the recog lights aren't a standardized part as mentioned above...

Thanks for the great info!

[GeeBee]

My guess is the Mooney recog light by Whelen will be LED when Whelen’s current halogen supply is exhausted. It sounds cynical but that is what I would do.

[philiplane]

The six light block shown above is not the best light Whelen has ever made. They used two of them side by side them starting in 2014, to replace the earlier LoPresti HID landing lights on Cirrus. It was quite a down grade in light output, and they are not very durable. I have replaced every one I ever came across, with HID kits. The individual LED's burn out one at a time. 

[GeeBee]

Well the pic is of a brand new Vision jet

[Marc_B]

28 minutes ago, philiplane said:

I have replaced every one I ever came across, with HID kits

What's the temperature difference between a halogen recog vs HID?  big enough difference to not melt a lens if powered on the ground?

[philiplane]

An HID light inside a wing mounted landing light lens will give five times the light of an incandescent, with much less heat. 

LED lights emit plenty of heat, they just send the heat through the lamp base (where the electronics are) rather than out through the lens.  

[A64Pilot]

There has never been a TSO for landing lights, back in the day the CAA and then the FAA never bothered.

So along came LED’s with no TSO to meet it was pretty difficult to Certify them, Whelen bought Floats Alaska’s STC in order to have approval for the installation of those then new Parmethius LED’s.

This gave birth to my joke of what does it take to change a light bulb in an aircraft, answer an STC, an IA to sign the STC and a several page ICW that pretty much stated that the only corrective action you had was to replace the light if it ceased to function.

I was installing them with Maule landing lights in the leading edge of Crop dusters and using the MaxPulse to flash them as recognition lights, never got them on the TC though because the FAA wanted me to dive to VD with the lens removed, which I refused to do and asked them which other aircraft have ever done that and never got an answer.

If I can find some LED’s that will fit under my lens, I will say thats a minor modification and sign it off myself. I don’t see how you could make it a major?

HID’s get pretty hot depending on their wattage, but to produce the same light as say a halogen, they use much less wattage, and therefore less heat.

For example an automobile headlight HID is 35W and is at least as bright as the 55W halogen they replace. 

However HID’s don’t like to be flashed they live longest if left on continuously, for this reason auto’s with HID headlights as far as I know have Halogen high beams, and the HID’s stay on when the high beams are on.

LED’s can be flashed much quicker than a regular bulb as they don’t hav to heat a filament, they come on pretty much instantly

At least one landing light flasher doesn’t remove all power it actually dims then brightens, that one can be used on HID’s, but the MaxPulse is on, off

LED’s can produce quite a bit of heat too, depending on hard they are driven.

Found this on the internet, thsi not me or my aircraft.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

8 hours ago, EricJ said:

Landing lights are an interesting area since the requirements are very easy to meet.    For part 23 aircraft, like Mooneys,

§ 23.1383 Taxi and landing lights. Each taxi and landing light must be designed and installed so that:

(a) No dangerous glare is visible to the pilots.

(b) The pilot is not seriously affected by halation.

(c) It provides enough light for night operations.

(d) It does not cause a fire hazard in any configuration.

 

Part 25 (transport category) includes the need for approval, part 23 does not.    There is no TSO (technical specification) required for landing lights since these specs are pretty easy to meet and are generally subjective.   There is no indication of any technology assumption, either incandescent or otherwise.   You can put glow sticks in there and meet the part 23 requirements if you have enough for (c), which is an unquantified, subjective requirement.    As mentioned above, recognition lights seem to fall under the same lack of restrictions.   This has led to some home-brew solutions that some IAs have installed as minor mods.

 

 

 

Are any Mooney’s FAR 23? I thought we were all CAR3 ?

[Marc_B]

Wig wag stock halogen recog lights sounding more and more appealing!