Landing lights

Theboys

Theboys

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
835
Location
Lincoln Nebraska- Plant city florida
Display Name
Display name:
Theboys
Wondering what the latest was for landing and taxi lights. Was thinking of upgrading the old cessna with generator. Wanted to lower power load. Which ones are the brightest, most trouble free. Thought I had heard of a few problems with one lately
 
LEDs are nice but a bit pricey. Good thing is that you will most likely never have to replace them.
 
That's kind of what I had in mind but thought we might be beyond led now even. Like the idea of using for position lighting. Plane is having annual done at moment so no better time to install.
 
We did Whelen Parametheus LEDs. Brighter, look nicer, and should last about forever. I'd recommend them. Price is cheap for aviation items.
 
tmyers said:
Aren't they in the high $200's like $285 or so?
Click to expand...

I paid $235 or so. Comes with the STC. Advantages - never having to replace the landing light again AND lower amperage requirement.
 
Aren't there basically two different brands of lights? Any differences or issues. Any specials now? I suppose there will be deals at sun n fun but hoping its back from annual by then.
 
Theboys said:
Aren't there basically two different brands of lights? Any differences or issues. Any specials now? I suppose there will be deals at sun n fun but hoping its back from annual by then.
Click to expand...

There's Whelen and AeroLed. And there's two versions - landing and taxi. The difference is the type of diffusion lens. The light source is the same.

http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/articles.php?id=11
 
So I have three lots one in the center and one at each wingtip. Taxi at center and landing at the tips?
 
tmyers said:
So I have three lots one in the center and one at each wingtip. Taxi at center and landing at the tips?
Click to expand...

That's what we did on the 310. The lights themselves are the same, the difference is the diffuser. Landing lights have a 10 degree diffuser, taxi has 40 degree. Makes a great combination.
 
tmyers said:
So I have three lots one in the center and one at each wingtip. Taxi at center and landing at the tips?
Click to expand...

Tim. It's just money,and money is replaceable ;)



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Ted DuPuis said:
We did Whelen Parametheus LEDs. Brighter, look nicer, and should last about forever. I'd recommend them. Price is cheap for aviation items.
Click to expand...

Same here. My Cherokee has the old 37amp electrical system, and I had restrictions on use of lights, avionics, and pitot heat at the same time.
Installing the LED light cut load from 10 amps (over 25% of my alternator output) to less than 2 amps (about 6% of my alternator output).

That's about at 20% increase in available draw, and removed my restrictions on simultaneous use of accessories.
$235 for a landing light was the cheapest alternator upgrade I've seen.
 
PilotAlan said:
Same here. My Cherokee has the old 37amp electrical system, and I had restrictions on use of lights, avionics, and pitot heat at the same time.
Installing the LED light cut load from 10 amps (over 25% of my alternator output) to less than 2 amps (about 6% of my alternator output).

That's about at 20% increase in available draw, and removed my restrictions on simultaneous use of accessories.
$235 for a landing light was the cheapest alternator upgrade I've seen.
Click to expand...

What did you use for the rotating beacon on the tail? And the pitot heat? I couldn't find numbers for those two.

But for the lights that I did have numbers for:

Strobe
Landing light
Wing tip lights (2)
Tail light

Draw went from 19.2 amps to 10.4 amps. I'd really like to convert all the position lights to LED, but that's close to $1000 ($650 or so just for the strobe) not counting labor. The landing light was very simple, just replacing the unit, no different than replacing the Q4509 bulb. Only difference is the need for an A&P signoff. Replacing the strobe & wing tips can become very expensive with additional wiring, possibly another power pack, etc.
 
murphey said:
What did you use for the rotating beacon on the tail? And the pitot heat? I couldn't find numbers for those two.
Click to expand...

I don't remember. The only component changed was the landing light. That freed up enough amps to remove all restrictions.

My bird had the coffee-can-sized beacon removed, and belly and tip strobes installed. Much lower amp draw, and you generally pick up about 4-5 knots getting rid of the gigantic beacon in the wind.
 
RMD Wingtips with HID lights, or just HID lights in the factory position. About the onky other option. Just be prepared for the sticker shock.
 
There are three choices when upgrading landing lights, halogen, HID, and LED. Each has it's own pros and cons.

Halogens are the cheapest by far but they also provide the least benefit, typically 10-20% more light at the same current or unchanged light output at 10-25% less current. Life may increase by a factor of two or more but lamp life in many aircraft applications is limited by vibration rather than darkening and halogens are just as susceptible to vibration as standard incandescents.

HIDs currently have the best combination of benefits vs cost IMO although the prices can vary widely (like 2 to 1) depending on the source and STC/PMA options. In addition they are more difficult to install because you need to add a "ballast" in addition to the lamp itself. Light output from HIDs is usually dramatically increased over OEM incandescent landing lights, commonly by a factor of two or more and at the same time current consumption typically drops by a factor of 3-4 at those increased output levels (that's once they've warmed up, HID's draw around twice as much during the first minute or so than they do after that). Average life expectancy goes up significantly, sometimes by a factor of 100 (e.g. 2000 vs 20hrs), and never less than 10X. Other advantages of HIDs include the ability to replace the lamp for a fraction of the cost of the initial installation and that light output typically does not fall off over time.

LEDs are the most recent option and prices are changing rapidly. Light output is typically slightly better than the OEM incandescents they replace although light dispersal patterns are often very different between LED lamps and the OEM ones making comparisons based on the ability to illuminate a runway and/or be visible to another airplane rather tricky.
LEDs are fairly immune to vibration but they are far more susceptible to heat than any other lamp.

Because LEDs (and HIDs for that matter) are more efficient than incandescents they generate less heat than the OEM lamps but because lamp life is radically affected by die temp (temperature of the semiconductor chip that emits the light), they must be operated a much cooler temps than incandescents or HIDs. IIRC, every 10°C increase in die temp results in about a 20-50% reduction in lamp life and for the most part you can assume that there's a one for one relationship between the temperature of the lamp housing and the die temp (raise the housing temp by 10° and the die temp goes up the same amount). Typically LED life represents the amount of time before the light output drops 30% (at one time the drop used for life measurement was 50%) and I'd expect that the "real" life number for a LED landing light would be in the 2000-5000 hr range as long as the temps don't get excessive. Available LED light output has been increasing and costs have been dropping rapidly over the last 10 years and will likely continue to do so for some time and that means it's possible that the future will bring us LED lamps that are bright as HID at a fraction of their cost. Fortunately for us, the green initiatives are pushing this in the huge residential and industrial indoor lighting markets so the aviation market can just ride coattails on this.

My own airplane has a pair of 50W HIDs in the wings for landing lights and an incandescent 100W lamp on the nosewheel for taxiing. I plan to replace the taxi light with an LED version in the near future but I doubt I'll be switching to LED landing lights anytime soon because I really appreciate the extra output of the HIDs given my old eye's loss of sensitivity in low light conditions.
 
tmyers said:
Very true. But it must be replaced faster than it is spent or you start to look like a government body.
Click to expand...
Why not go all the way in that direction and print your own?:D
 
Best performance is HID.

Cost bennifit? Most don't want to spend the money for HID.

Led is whelen or teledyne, or an automotive source

HID is lopresti boom beams or an automotive source

I personally want an HID taxi light for the 68 177. There are no RMD wingtips available so only factory wing mount is available, which is clear out near the wing tip, and the LED won't be much of an improvement.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Best performance is HID.

Cost bennifit? Most don't want to spend the money for HID.

Led is whelen or teledyne, or an automotive source

HID is lopresti boom beams or an automotive source

I personally want an HID taxi light for the 68 177. There are no RMD wingtips available so only factory wing mount is available, which is clear out near the wing tip, and the LED won't be much of an improvement.
Click to expand...

I'd love to go HID but for the money I'd rather have wigwag LEDs in the tips
 
So just to confirm here....a Whelen LED light that has a PMA does not need any kind of sign-off or paperwork like an STC would, correct?

If the airplane is listed under the approved airframe list under the PMA, than the original landing light could be replaced by an LED by the owner/operator under:

FAR Part 43, Appendix A, Paragraph C - Preventive Maintenance
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights
 
Still an alteration so you will need an A&P to do it depending on the actual PMA list.
 
lr60plt said:
So just to confirm here....a Whelen LED light that has a PMA does not need any kind of sign-off or paperwork like an STC would, correct?

If the airplane is listed under the approved airframe list under the PMA, than the original landing light could be replaced by an LED by the owner/operator under:

FAR Part 43, Appendix A, Paragraph C - Preventive Maintenance
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights
Click to expand...

As of Dec 2011, it's PMA'd but....did you read the fine print?

'Note: Brackets and mounting will vary from aircraft to aircraft; FAA Field Approval (Form 337) may be required to use this product.

Note: It is the responsibility of the installer to determine suitability & installation approval for the use (PLED461L / PLED462L) products in certified aircraft."

In the case of many of the spamcans, it really is a drop in - but remember there's a polarity issue. Unlike the incandescents, you've got to make sure the wiring (pos & neg) is correct or else you've just wasted $235.
 
Last edited:
Hmm...I just read through all of the pages from the place that I bought it from, along with all of the paperwork that it came with. (PAR36). None of it mentions anything at all other than approved airframes.

With mine I would need to do nothing other than simply remove the old one out of the lower cowl and use the same location/bolts/wiring to install the new one. Which would lead me to believe to believe it is ok for owner installation under the PMA.

The only additional notes in the Whelen paperwork were:

Additional Information
1) Installation is limited to previously approved landing/taxi light locations.
2) Only PAR36 Lamp installations are eligible for installation.
 
lr60plt said:
Hmm...I just read through all of the pages from the place that I bought it from, along with all of the paperwork that it came with. (PAR36). None of it mentions anything at all other than approved airframes.

With mine I would need to do nothing other than simply remove the old one out of the lower cowl and use the same location/bolts/wiring to install the new one. Which would lead me to believe to believe it is ok for owner installation under the PMA.

The only additional notes in the Whelen paperwork were:

Additional Information
1) Installation is limited to previously approved landing/taxi light locations.
2) Only PAR36 Lamp installations are eligible for installation.
Click to expand...
I think that if you have a replacement lamp that comes with FAA blessed documentation that indicates it's an approved replacement without an STC on your airframe it can be accomplished by a pilot/owner like any other lamp replacement. If an STC or 337 is needed an A&P signoff should be obtained.
 
lr60plt said:
So just to confirm here....a Whelen LED light that has a PMA does not need any kind of sign-off or paperwork like an STC would, correct?

If the airplane is listed under the approved airframe list under the PMA, than the original landing light could be replaced by an LED by the owner/operator under:

FAR Part 43, Appendix A, Paragraph C - Preventive Maintenance
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights
Click to expand...

IIRC, it just requires a logbook entry. Mine just swapped out like a regular bulb.
 
Part Manufacturing Authority (PMA) is not authorization to modify the aircraft.

IF … IF the FAA has declared the new light as a direct replacement for the old light….. Then YES the owner can replace the light under the preventive maintenance rules.

I just ordered/received a set of strobes for the 170 but have not studied the STC.

I stayed with the incandescent bulbs but piggy back strobes on the wing tips, and a combined tail light strobe assembly.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN3454.JPG
    DSCN3454.JPG
    219.4 KB · Views: 26
  • DSCN3467.jpg
    DSCN3467.jpg
    231.1 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Part Manufacturing Authority (PMA) is not authorization to modify the aircraft.

IF … IF the FAA has declared the new light as a direct replacement for the old light….. Then YES the owner can replace the light under the preventive maintenance rules.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what a PMA is? In not, then what's the difference between a PMA and an STC?
 
PilotAlan said:
Isn't that what a PMA is? In not, then what's the difference between a PMA and an STC?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, a PMA (Parts Manufacturing Authorization) simply indicates that a manufacturer has convinced the FAA that they can produce a part with sufficient consistency that each example will behave in an acceptable manner. This has little or nothing to do with the actual application on an aircraft beyond the concept that one example can safely replace another.

An STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) documents an approved modification to something with an existing Type Certificate (e.g. airplane). Some STCs include an AML (Approved Model List) allowing the STC to be applied to multiple aircraft designs and some are specific to a single aircraft type.

I'm not certain but I think a PMA can specify that the component the PMA applies to is acceptable as a replacement for another component wherever that component is already approved for use and in that case the PMA alone makes the replacement legal. But AFaIK a PMA can be issued for a part that doesn't replace something already in use (e.g. tip tanks for a Bonanza) and in that case the PMA just gives the manufacture the right to sell the component for an application approved by other means such as an STC.

In simplest terms a PMA applies to the production of a component, a STC applies to a modification of an aircraft.
 
Great explanation gismo! I always think of a PMA as an approved direct replacement for a component already on an airworthy airplane.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Marauder said:
Great explanation gismo! I always think of a PMA as an approved direct replacement for a component already on an airworthy airplane.
Click to expand...
Right, but that's what Tom says a PMA is NOT.
If a PMA still requires a 337, then why have a PMA instead of an STC?
And a STC holder can sell the components without a PMA, so a PMA is not necessarily required to make and sell components.
 
Because you still need a PMA to install the part unless other wise approved, example, our Navajo has Colemill tips with landing lights. Colemill PMAed the whole tip assembly. However a 337 is still required to install the tips.

Also, because the tip was PMAed as an assembly the individual parts are not approved. We had to seek a field approval to install new lenses.
 
It would be nice if an IA weighed in on this topic. I reviewed what was on the FAA site pertaining to PMA and it details the approval process of parts including those for ADs, STCs and direct replacements. It sounds like if the part is used as alteration to the original design it may require installation (i.e. 337) documentation. What it doesn't clearly define is what happens when the part is a direct replacement without alteration.

It would make sense that a 337 is required when you are performing an STC installation with a PMA part. The testing regiment defined in the FAA PMA document is pretty intensive and requires these manufacturers to do extensive testing to be considered a PMA part.

Hmmm... now I am wondering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
PilotAlan said:
Right, but that's what Tom says a PMA is NOT.
If a PMA still requires a 337, then why have a PMA instead of an STC?
And a STC holder can sell the components without a PMA, so a PMA is not necessarily required to make and sell components.
Click to expand...

Parts manufacturing authority will allow the manufacturer to prove the product they produce is the equivalent to the parts used in the Production certificate, The Type certificate or the production certificate in this case is not modified or altered.

Cessna for years built the 17- series aircraft with Bendix Brake systems, after a few years Cleveland came out with a brake system that was better and would replace the Bendix, so they proved to the FAA that their system would work on the 17-series, the FAA then gave Cleveland a STC to alter the 17- series to use the new brake system.

In the mean time Bendix went out of the brake business, and Cessna started using their own McCauley brakes, then Cleveland bought the McCauley line of products, so now any Cessna brake is replaceable by a Cleveland part with out a STC or PMA.

It's a complicated paper trail but it must be in place to use certain parts.

The use of LED lights and Strobes have become such a standard usage that the FAA has basically said go head and use them as direct replacement parts as long as the are a major brand of light.

If I were going to change the type of light I was installing, I'd give my A&P-IA a call and have them get guidance from their PMI at FSDO.

Some of these inspectors are still pretty up tight over these mods.

If I were buying any aircraft with Strobes and or LED lighting, I'd ask my A&P-IA if they will pass the annual with no paper, on the instal.
 
Tom, I have been getting mixed signals, at the last renewal we were told in no uncertain terms that installing LEDs is a major alteration, then I am annualing a plane with one that was installed as a minor so I asked my PMI, and he said too leave it in, sign it off...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top