Advice on landing lights?

[Rob Turk]

We're looking at installing landing lights on our Rans S6S. The ones offered
by Aircraft Spruce are a bit big, about 5" diameter. I'm trying to find
something a bit smaller but equally effective. Does anyone here know what
(if any) requirements a landing light has, such as beam angle, width,
brightness etc??

The Hella Micro DE Xenon looks like a really interesting option. Less than
3" diameter, low power (35W) but very high light output and resilient to
vibration. See:
http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/Internet_usa/ProductsServices/Performance_Lighting/Micro_DE/Micro_DE_Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon.jsp

Anyone used this? Good or bad? Any alternatives that are equally small and
effective?

Thanks!
Rob

[Harvey Spencer]

I know that the XV-36 light offered by XeVision at
http://www.aerovisions.com/pic/XV-36-SL-new.jpg will meet the FAA
requirements for brightness and light pattern. It uses the D1S bulb xenon
arc bulb which is better than the D2S commonly used in automobiles since it
has the starting ballast integrated into the base of the bulb. This means
that you don't have to run the 20kV starting pulses through cables from the
power supply to the lamb. It uses the PAR36 (parabolic reflector) design
form which is a 4 5/16" diameter bulb. Thhis is the same as the common
GE4509 type incandescent bulb used in many, many aircraft. There is a
35watt and a 50watt version available. The 35watt is plenty, and will put
out many times the useful light of a PAR36 incandescent bulb. The bulb will
run much cooler than an incandescent, to boot! Actually, the 35watt and the
50watt both use the same bulb. They just drive it with more power for the
50watt version. This will obviously shorten bulb life. They advertise 2000
hours of bulb life with the 35watt version. This should last for years and
years in the typical aircraft in which the landing light is not used
continously. But with this long lift I would use it all the time for
enhanced collision avoidance. They also offer the XV-23 which is only 2.3
inches high and is rectangular, also 35 or 50 watt. All of there light come
in both landing light pattern or taxi light pattern. The landing light
pattern is a more narrow beam and the taxi light is spread out for a wider
illumination area. These lights are not cheap, about $550 through places
like Aircraft Spruce, but you get what you pay for. I think I saw a xenon
arc light offered by Chief Aircraft for about $350 but found out that the
lens and reflector is plastic. The Xevision light has a "real" glass lens
and a metal reflector. I spoke with the guy that makes the lights and
distributes them through XeVision, Aircraft Spruce, etc. He knows his
stuff. He also is a Glasair pilot. The usual disclaimer: I have nothing
to do with the sale of this light. I am just offering information about
what I found to be the best non-incandescent lamp available for aircraft.
"Rob Turk" > wrote in message
news:AmQxf.3664$zc1.3603@amstwist00...
> We're looking at installing landing lights on our Rans S6S. The ones
> offered by Aircraft Spruce are a bit big, about 5" diameter. I'm trying to
> find something a bit smaller but equally effective. Does anyone here know
> what (if any) requirements a landing light has, such as beam angle, width,
> brightness etc??
>
> The Hella Micro DE Xenon looks like a really interesting option. Less than
> 3" diameter, low power (35W) but very high light output and resilient to
> vibration. See:
> http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/Internet_usa/ProductsServices/Performance_Lighting/Micro_DE/Micro_DE_Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon.jsp
>
> Anyone used this? Good or bad? Any alternatives that are equally small and
> effective?
>
> Thanks!
> Rob
>
>

[RST Engineering]

"Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...


>I know that the XV-36 light

Who is the actual manufacturer of the bulb itself? The person or company
that actually fabricates them from raw materials and sells them in box lots?

Jim

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> "Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
> news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...
>
>
> >I know that the XV-36 light
>
> Who is the actual manufacturer of the bulb itself? The person or company
> that actually fabricates them from raw materials and sells them in box lots?

A potentially new vendor adds his voice! "-))

[RST Engineering]

Why not? $500 a bulb sounds a bit like a rip-off to me.

Jim



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> "Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
>> news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...
>>
>>
>> >I know that the XV-36 light
>>
>> Who is the actual manufacturer of the bulb itself? The person or company
>> that actually fabricates them from raw materials and sells them in box
>> lots?
>
> A potentially new vendor adds his voice! "-))

[Rob Turk]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
> news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...
>
>
>>I know that the XV-36 light
>
> Who is the actual manufacturer of the bulb itself? The person or company
> that actually fabricates them from raw materials and sells them in box
> lots?
>
> Jim
>

One of the vendors for this is Philips. See:
http://www.eur.lighting.philips.com/automotive/eur/html/products_xenon.html

Rob

[Rob Turk]

"Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...
>I know that the XV-36 light offered by XeVision at
>http://www.aerovisions.com/pic/XV-36-SL-new.jpg will meet the FAA
>requirements for brightness and light pattern. It uses the D1S bulb xenon
>arc bulb which is better than the D2S commonly used in automobiles since it
>has the starting ballast integrated into the base of the bulb.
[SNIP]
>These lights are not cheap, about $550 through places like Aircraft Spruce,
>but you get what you pay for. I think I saw a xenon arc light offered by
>Chief Aircraft for about $350 but found out that the lens and reflector is
>plastic.

Thanks for all the details, Harvey. I had looked at XeVision but found the
price kinda steep. The Hella ones sell for about $350 each and are a bit
smaller. Unfortunately they are usually offered in pairs ($699) for car
owners.

Rob

[Rob Turk]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> Who is the actual manufacturer of the bulb itself? The person or company
> that actually fabricates them from raw materials and sells them in box
> lots?
>
> Jim

Another one is General Electric (www.gelighting.com). A search on Google
also turns up many manufacturers in the Pacific Rim area...

Rob

[Morgans]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Why not? $500 a bulb sounds a bit like a rip-off to me.
>
This is for a HID with the starting ballast and power supply built into the
bulb, so you don't have any expensive power supply to buy, right? If you
can hook a 12 volt line to the bulb, and take off, then that sounds like a
bargain. (if that is all you need)
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
> This is for a HID with the starting ballast and power supply built into the
> bulb, so you don't have any expensive power supply to buy, right? If you can
> hook a 12 volt line to the bulb, and take off, then that sounds like a
> bargain. (if that is all you need)

Since you must effectively buy a brand new ballast and power supply every
time you need a new bulb, it somehow seems (to me at least) to fail the
"bargain" test.

Vaughn

[Morgans]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> This is for a HID with the starting ballast and power supply built into
>> the bulb, so you don't have any expensive power supply to buy, right? If
>> you can hook a 12 volt line to the bulb, and take off, then that sounds
>> like a bargain. (if that is all you need)
>
> Since you must effectively buy a brand new ballast and power supply
> every time you need a new bulb, it somehow seems (to me at least) to fail
> the "bargain" test.
>
For a bulb with no filament to break, with a expected "in use" burnout time
of 2,000 hours, it is unlikely you will ever need to replace the bulk, and
possibly the next dozen owners of the plane, as well.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
> For a bulb with no filament to break, with a expected "in use" burnout time of
> 2,000 hours, it is unlikely you will ever need to replace the bulk, and
> possibly the next dozen owners of the plane, as well.

Good point, but my first thought is that "stuff" happens. Bulbs get
broken, aircraft electrics sometimes produce damaging transients, and then there
are stresses, vibrations, temperature changes etc. in aircraft use that may not
exist in automotive use and may well reduce that 2000 hours. I use high-tech
bulbs right here in my house that are supposed to last thousands of hours. Yet
somehow, I end up replacing a few every year. Glad they don't cost $500.00
each.

Regards
Vaughn




>

[Morgans]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>> For a bulb with no filament to break, with a expected "in use" burnout
>> time of 2,000 hours, it is unlikely you will ever need to replace the
>> bulk, and possibly the next dozen owners of the plane, as well.
>
> Good point, but my first thought is that "stuff" happens. Bulbs get
> broken, aircraft electrics sometimes produce damaging transients,

Well, in that case, stuff can hapen to the 1500 buck ballast with a wire.
Those same transients could take out the ballast on the wire, and perhaps
the bulbs, too.

> and then there are stresses, vibrations, temperature changes etc. in
> aircraft use that may not exist in automotive use and may well reduce that
> 2000 hours.

Evidence of users of HID bulbs in aircrafts suggests otherwise.

> I use high-tech bulbs right here in my house that are supposed to last
> thousands of hours. Yet somehow, I end up replacing a few every year.
> Glad they don't cost $500.00 each.


Apples and oranges, when it comes to your long life bulbs. They have
filaments. These 500 dollar bulbs do not, therefore the only way vibration
can break them, is if it vibrates so bad that the bulb smashes into the side
of the reflector.

I don't know about yOu, but I would take care that I didn't drop, or let a
$500 bulb smash into the housing. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie]

Rob Turk wrote:
> "Harvey Spencer" > wrote in message
> news:%0%xf.6967$CV.2345@dukeread03...
>
>>I know that the XV-36 light offered by XeVision at
>>http://www.aerovisions.com/pic/XV-36-SL-new.jpg will meet the FAA
>>requirements for brightness and light pattern. It uses the D1S bulb xenon
>>arc bulb which is better than the D2S commonly used in automobiles since it
>>has the starting ballast integrated into the base of the bulb.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>>These lights are not cheap, about $550 through places like Aircraft Spruce,
>>but you get what you pay for. I think I saw a xenon arc light offered by
>>Chief Aircraft for about $350 but found out that the lens and reflector is
>>plastic.
>
>
> Thanks for all the details, Harvey. I had looked at XeVision but found the
> price kinda steep. The Hella ones sell for about $350 each and are a bit
> smaller. Unfortunately they are usually offered in pairs ($699) for car
> owners.
>
> Rob
>
>
How about something like

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=391

There are landing light kits for homebuilts already available using this
style bulb. Various angles of coverage available, if you do a little
looking.

It doesn't run cold like the xenon bulbs & it does have a filament, but
the .01X cost factor would have a strong influence on my decision.....

Charlie

[Morgans]

"Charlie" > wrote> How about something like
>
> http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=391
>
> There are landing light kits for homebuilts already available using this
> style bulb. Various angles of coverage available, if you do a little
> looking.

I wouldn't want to use something like that, for a landing light.
Recognition light, perhaps the 75 watt would be OK.

The bulbs you cite are used in low voltage landscaping applications. Real
landing lights are 250 watts, up to 600 watts, and some, more.

The beauty about the HID lights are multi-fold. No vibration breakage, so a
very long life. Low heat output. Low current draw, for the amount of light
produced. The output light frequency is such that objects appear much
brighter, and whiter; more like real daylight.

Unfortunately, they cost more. Your investment pays off in peace of mind,
that the light will work when you turn it on, and that you can better see
what you are trying to look at. :Less (or almost no) maintenance is always
a "good thing" in my book.
--
Jim in NC

[Feldspar]

Harvey Spencer wrote:

> It uses the D1S bulb xenon arc bulb which is better than the D2S
> commonly used in automobiles since it has the starting ballast
> integrated into the base of the bulb.

RST Engineering wrote:

> $500 a bulb sounds a bit like a rip-off to me.

Something's not right here.
http://www.rallylights.com/hella/HIDCapsules.asp lists the "better" D1S
bulb significantly cheaper than the D2S, and neither one approaches $500.

[Morgans]

"Feldspar" > wrote

> Something's not right here.
> http://www.rallylights.com/hella/HIDCapsules.asp lists the "better" D1S
> bulb significantly cheaper than the D2S, and neither one approaches $500.

If they are the same bulb, then I would have to agree, big time. These are
way less expensive than any others I have seen.

Perhaps for car use, they are not shielded against Radio frequency
interference?

I also noticed that they are all 35 watts, while it seems like most all of
the aircraft landing lights are 50 watts.
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Charlie" > wrote> How about something like
>
>>
>> http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=391
>>
>> There are landing light kits for homebuilts already available using
>> this style bulb. Various angles of coverage available, if you do a
>> little looking.
>
>
> I wouldn't want to use something like that, for a landing light.
> Recognition light, perhaps the 75 watt would be OK.
>
> The bulbs you cite are used in low voltage landscaping applications.
> Real landing lights are 250 watts, up to 600 watts, and some, more.
>
> The beauty about the HID lights are multi-fold. No vibration breakage,
> so a very long life. Low heat output. Low current draw, for the amount
> of light produced. The output light frequency is such that objects
> appear much brighter, and whiter; more like real daylight.
>
> Unfortunately, they cost more. Your investment pays off in peace of
> mind, that the light will work when you turn it on, and that you can
> better see what you are trying to look at. :Less (or almost no)
> maintenance is always a "good thing" in my book.

I'm sure that airliners use 600W+ lamps, but we aren't building
airliners. Real normal *traditional incandescant* landing lights are 250
watts. Sometimes. Halogens are typically twice as efficient as
traditional incandescents. If the only criteria is wattage, why suggest
using 35W HID lamps?

The bulbs cited are used in uncountable applications, including landing
lights.

'You pay your money, & you make your choice.'

[Morgans]

"Charlie" > wrote
>
> The bulbs cited are used in uncountable applications, including landing
> lights.

So, leme get this right. The bulbs you have shown are 35 watts, and are
halogen lights? And people use them for landing lights?
--
Jim in NC

[Cy Galley]

The wattage listed in only an indicator of the current used. HID doesn't
use much current but the light output is awesome.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Charlie" > wrote> How about something like
>>
>> http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=391
>>
>> There are landing light kits for homebuilts already available using this
>> style bulb. Various angles of coverage available, if you do a little
>> looking.
>
> I wouldn't want to use something like that, for a landing light.
> Recognition light, perhaps the 75 watt would be OK.
>
> The bulbs you cite are used in low voltage landscaping applications. Real
> landing lights are 250 watts, up to 600 watts, and some, more.
>
> The beauty about the HID lights are multi-fold. No vibration breakage, so
> a very long life. Low heat output. Low current draw, for the amount of
> light produced. The output light frequency is such that objects appear
> much brighter, and whiter; more like real daylight.
>
> Unfortunately, they cost more. Your investment pays off in peace of mind,
> that the light will work when you turn it on, and that you can better see
> what you are trying to look at. :Less (or almost no) maintenance is
> always a "good thing" in my book.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Cy Galley" > wrote

> The wattage listed in only an indicator of the current used. HID doesn't
> use much current but the light output is awesome.

Yeah, Cy, I know that, but the link the guy gay a few posts back had a
website that had 12 volt sealed bulbs. I read them to be quartz halogen
(filament) lights, commonly used in landscaping, fountains, pools, ect. I
doubt that they have enough output to be used as taxi lights, let alone
landing lights.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Driving lights are great for lighting up the road in front
of you, but it's a landing light.

What ever light source used, shouldn't the light be focused
about a mile from here?

I suspect a deeper reflector may be involved, and that may
require a larger diameter reflector. Just a guess tho.

We are trying to light up the runway - mile? half-mile??
1/4 mile???
in front of the plane?

Advice?

Before installing a lot of hardware on your plane...
Test It

Take whatever lights you want to use for landing lights -
outside some dark scary night, and turn them on.

Look down the block and see how far you can see.
(you see?)

Suggestion?

Get one of those 1,000,000 CP 12v cigarette lighter plug-in
"emergency/boat" light at WallyWorld?

Turn that puppy on...

THEN choose.

[Roger]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:15:29 +0100, "Rob Turk"
> wrote:

>We're looking at installing landing lights on our Rans S6S. The ones offered
>by Aircraft Spruce are a bit big, about 5" diameter. I'm trying to find
>something a bit smaller but equally effective. Does anyone here know what
>(if any) requirements a landing light has, such as beam angle, width,
>brightness etc??

What are those White, or blue white lights that are showing up in cars
now. Although they claim no glare, for older eyes the things are
worse than meeting regular lights on bright. I'd think they'd make an
excellent landing light in the proper housing.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>The Hella Micro DE Xenon looks like a really interesting option. Less than
>3" diameter, low power (35W) but very high light output and resilient to
>vibration. See:
>http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/Internet_usa/ProductsServices/Performance_Lighting/Micro_DE/Micro_DE_Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon.jsp
>
>Anyone used this? Good or bad? Any alternatives that are equally small and
>effective?
>
>Thanks!
>Rob
>

[John]

wrote:

> The LoPresti Boom Beams for experimentals are less than $400. I suggest
> you give them a call or visit www.boombeam.com...
Just for your instant gratification ;-)
Next time you put an URL in your e-mail put a space between it and anything
following (in this case the '...'). If you don't and someone clicks on it
it includes whatever you had following in this case the '...' .
Thanks
John
PS I still couldn't access the site it timed out!

[[email protected]]

The LoPresti Boom Beams for experimentals are less than $400. I suggest
you give them a call or visit www.boombeam.com...

[Montblack]

("John" wrote)
>> The LoPresti Boom Beams for experimentals are less than $400. I suggest
>> you give them a call or visit www.boombeam.com...

> Just for your instant gratification ;-)
> Next time you put an URL in your e-mail put a space between it and
> anything following (in this case the '...'). If you don't and someone
> clicks on it it includes whatever you had following in this case the '...'
> .


Worked for me ...it linked up only through the underlined .com. Site opened
fine. M$ OE 6.0.


Montblack

[Charlie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Cy Galley" > wrote
>
>> The wattage listed in only an indicator of the current used. HID
>> doesn't use much current but the light output is awesome.
>
>
> Yeah, Cy, I know that, but the link the guy gay a few posts back had a
> website that had 12 volt sealed bulbs. I read them to be quartz halogen
> (filament) lights, commonly used in landscaping, fountains, pools, ect.
> I doubt that they have enough output to be used as taxi lights, let
> alone landing lights.
Cy,

My comment about wattage was in response to the prior post that ignored
exactly the data point you make. He maintained (and apparently does it
again above) that 75 watts isn't enough, based solely on wattage. He
hinted that 600 watts is needed, then advocated a lamp at 35 watts.
Obviously, what counts is adequate light output & proper light pattern,
at reasonable power consumption & for most of us, a tolerable
cost/benefit ratio. This applies to the tractor lights (can you say
'landscaping?') used on most factory planes, just like any other lamp.

The single page of info I sent showed 4 bulbs, from 20 watt to 75 watt.
Again:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=391

If you do a little digging you will find that there are literally dozens
of models available in this form factor. This type lamp is currently
being used in some aftermarket automotive driving lights. Note that 55 &
75 watts are the typical power levels for aftermarket halogen driving
lights.

Here's a link to a landing light kit available for homebuilts at a very
reasonable price. (Complete with LED position lights, it's about 1/2 the
cost of the HID light advocated in earlier posts.)

http://www.creativair.com/cva/

Follow the links on the left side of the page to see the landing light
kits he has available.

I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for using HID's; the company above
even sells a kit of 35W HID landing lights. I was just trying to offer a
much more reasonably priced 'good enough' alternative for those of us
who recognize that the most expensive isn't always the best compromise.
Everything is a compromise in aviation, right?

Charlie
(no financial or personal connection to Creativair)

[Morgans]

"Charlie" > wrote

> I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for using HID's; the company above even
> sells a kit of 35W HID landing lights. I was just trying to offer a much
> more reasonably priced 'good enough' alternative for those of us who
> recognize that the most expensive isn't always the best compromise.
> Everything is a compromise in aviation, right?

Charlie, I guess people can use anything they want for a landing light.
Shoot, they can strap a Maglight to the wing, and land, if they want to.
Not only are they weak in candle power, but they have a round lighting
pattern. Not ideal, since half of the already questionable light is not
going where you can see it.

My take on using a light like those, is that the runway they are using had
better be well lit, in known good condition to the pilot, or had better be a
fairly well moonlit night, with no reduced visibility.

These 75 watt halogen lights make a better recognition light, for use in
having others see you, than you seeing the runway. Having the runway
rushing up at you with those peashooters is not my idea of a good time.
YMMV.

End comments, by me. I know I'll use brighter. It may not be a HID, but it
will have more candles than that, and be better focused.
--
Jim in NC

[Otis Winslow]

Rob Turk wrote:
> We're looking at installing landing lights on our Rans S6S. The ones offered
> by Aircraft Spruce are a bit big, about 5" diameter. I'm trying to find
> something a bit smaller but equally effective. Does anyone here know what
> (if any) requirements a landing light has, such as beam angle, width,
> brightness etc??
>
> The Hella Micro DE Xenon looks like a really interesting option. Less than
> 3" diameter, low power (35W) but very high light output and resilient to
> vibration. See:
> http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/Internet_usa/ProductsServices/Performance_Lighting/Micro_DE/Micro_DE_Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon.jsp
>
> Anyone used this? Good or bad? Any alternatives that are equally small and
> effective?
>
> Thanks!
> Rob
>
>

I got some Halogen driving lights from NAPA. They should work fine. I
used a 50W Halogen light on my Piper and it was quite sufficient for
landing. It provided about the same light as the 100w 4506 legal one.
(notice I said sufficient .. not "legal". ;-) )

[Rob Turk]

"Rob Turk" > wrote in message
news:AmQxf.3664$zc1.3603@amstwist00...
> We're looking at installing landing lights on our Rans S6S. The ones
> offered by Aircraft Spruce are a bit big, about 5" diameter. I'm trying to
> find something a bit smaller but equally effective. Does anyone here know
> what (if any) requirements a landing light has, such as beam angle, width,
> brightness etc??
>

Thanks everyone for the hints, tips and advice. We went ahead and ordered
the Hella Micro DE Xenon, will let the group know how it works out.

Rob