sunglasses

[[email protected]]

Hi,
I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for many years in a
sailplane with a clear
canopy. I bought a LS6 with a light blue tinted canopy which make my
cockpit to dark
when in the shade of cloud. Suggestion are welcome to solve this
problem.
Regards,
S6

[J. N.]

Put you`re glasses off?

[Doug Hoffman]

wrote:

> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for many years in a
> sailplane with a clear canopy. I bought a LS6 with a light blue tinted
> canopy which make my cockpit to dark when in the shade of cloud.
> Suggestion are welcome to solve this problem.

Suntigers use a yellow-ish tint that *may* solve your problem.

See http://www.suntiger.com/ Tell them you are a glider pilot so you
get the right tint.

Regards,

-Doug

[[email protected]]

I cant see without my glasses

[Robert William]

There's not much you can do (except some sort of reactolite maybe) about
the additive affect of canopy and sunglasses so your options seem to be:
less tint in the sunglasses?
same colour sunglasses as canopy to minimise the range of colours filtered?
R

wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for many years in a
> sailplane with a clear
> canopy. I bought a LS6 with a light blue tinted canopy which make my
> cockpit to dark
> when in the shade of cloud. Suggestion are welcome to solve this
> problem.
> Regards,
> S6

[Nyal Williams]

I swear by Suntigers. I have worn them twenty years.
They won't correct this problem. Blue and orange
are on opposite sides of the color wheel and they will
make everything darker under a blue canopy.

Suntigers were developed from NASA technology to protedt
welders from UV from the welding torch. Blue canopies
cut down light, but they transmit all the UV. I've
never understood why they exist.


At 12:48 16 January 2006, Doug Hoffman wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for
>>many years in a
>> sailplane with a clear canopy. I bought a LS6 with
>>a light blue tinted
>> canopy which make my cockpit to dark when in the shade
>>of cloud.
>> Suggestion are welcome to solve this problem.
>
>Suntigers use a yellow-ish tint that *may* solve your
>problem.
>
>See http://www.suntiger.com/ Tell them you are a
>glider pilot so you
>get the right tint.
>
>Regards,
>
>-Doug
>
>

[John Galloway]

Get Scheyden flip up dual Rx specs and your problem
will be solved:

http://www.oxaero.com/Scheyden-DualRX.asp


At 15:30 16 January 2006, Nyal Williams wrote:
>I swear by Suntigers. I have worn them twenty years.
> They won't correct this problem. Blue and orange
>are on opposite sides of the color wheel and they will
>make everything darker under a blue canopy.
>
>Suntigers were developed from NASA technology to protedt
>welders from UV from the welding torch. Blue canopies
>cut down light, but they transmit all the UV. I've
>never understood why they exist.
>
>
>At 12:48 16 January 2006, Doug Hoffman wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for
>>>many years in a
>>> sailplane with a clear canopy. I bought a LS6 with
>>>a light blue tinted
>>> canopy which make my cockpit to dark when in the shade
>>>of cloud.
>>> Suggestion are welcome to solve this problem.
>>
>>Suntigers use a yellow-ish tint that *may* solve your
>>problem.
>>
>>See http://www.suntiger.com/ Tell them you are a
>>glider pilot so you
>>get the right tint.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>-Doug
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

change the canopy?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for many years in a
> sailplane with a clear
> canopy. I bought a LS6 with a light blue tinted canopy which make my
> cockpit to dark
> when in the shade of cloud. Suggestion are welcome to solve this
> problem.
> Regards,
> S6
>

[pbc76049]

This is something I am always fighting with my Porsche Windshield customers.
They all want the cool look of a tinted windshield, but complain about
visibility
on murky days. I suggest multiple helmet visors of varying densities and
the same
fix will work here. Get clear perscription lenses if you can't see without
glasses and
go to a good sporting goods store that has "flip down outfielder glassses".
The baseball
guys have this almopst figured out and I like their solution.

[Doug Hoffman]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> I swear by Suntigers. I have worn them twenty years.

I swear by mine as well.


> They won't correct this problem. Blue and orange
> are on opposite sides of the color wheel and they will
> make everything darker under a blue canopy.

OK, I wasn't sure. I have been surprised at how well I can see with my
ST's in overcast conditions. Better with than without. According to
the maker, "By removing the blue light the eye can more sharply focus
on the remaining wavelengths of light.".

But then I have a clear canopy.

Regards,

-Doug

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

My last glider had a blue canopy. I always flew with two pairs of
glasses, a pair of Serengetti's for most flying and a pair of Sun
Tigers for the days with lots of overcast or haze. I like the way Sun
Tigers cut through haze and give definition to the bottom of dark
clouds. The other option would be to get a pair of Serengetti's with
photochromic adjustment. These should lighten in the darker condtions.

Tim

[Andy]

I use photosensitive prescription glasses but not for glider flying.
Both the glass and plastic versions get very dark when cold but are
useless when they are hot. I have flown with sun tigers for over 15
years. My only caution is that you must be aware of the effects of
color shift particularly when assessing crop prior to outlanding.

Andy

[James D'Andrea]

I prefer Raybans. Get the B-15 gradient brown lenses with mirror
tinting. You get the benefits of enhanced contrast, decreased glare
from the mirror tint, and are able to easily see your instrument panel
because of the top-down color density gradient. Be aware that the
majority of Raybans come with color neutral (slightly green) G-15
lenses from the factory and that you need to specify B-15.

According to Rayban:B-15 Brown Lens - contrast enhancing lens that
sharpens details by blocking glare and a larger percentage of blue
light. Ideal for low light conditions. Excellent for enhanced vision
while driving and other fast-action activities.


wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been flying with Serengetti sunglasses for many years in a
> sailplane with a clear
> canopy. I bought a LS6 with a light blue tinted canopy which make my
> cockpit to dark
> when in the shade of cloud. Suggestion are welcome to solve this
> problem.
> Regards,
> S6

[[email protected]]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> OK, I wasn't sure. I have been surprised at how well I can see with my
> ST's in overcast conditions. Better with than without. According to
> the maker, "By removing the blue light the eye can more sharply focus
> on the remaining wavelengths of light.".

Atmospheric haze scatters mainly blue light. By eliminating shorter
wavelengths you effectively remove/reduce haze and improve visibility.

The above observation is based on my experience with filters in B&W
photography, but I guess the laws of physics are the same for lenses
and canopies ;-)

Bartek

[[email protected]]

I flew with contact lenses and Serengetti sunglasses for years -- until
I could no longer read the sectional charts without some serious
squinting. Finally caved in, through away the contact lenses, and
spent a lot of money on progressive-lens sunglasses. Initially talked
to the Sun-Tiger guy and was told he would not recommend his product at
the time because of a manufacturing defect in the product he received.
He suggested "Melanin" sunglasses. Purchased these through my Eyecare
Proffessional and have driven with them a "LOT" and flown with them
about a dozen times. Just love them. Yes, they are polarized, but
have not had a problem to date (don't want to start a thread on
polarized lenses!!). Just something other that Serengetti or RayBan or
whatever to look in to.

[01-- Zero One]

There are some very good reasons not to use progressive bifocals for
flying. Use lined bifocals instead. This will optimize the visual
acuity for what we need. distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds,
etc.) and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).



Larry

"01" USA



" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> I flew with contact lenses and Serengetti sunglasses for years -- until
> I could no longer read the sectional charts without some serious
> squinting. Finally caved in, through away the contact lenses, and
> spent a lot of money on progressive-lens sunglasses. Initially talked
> to the Sun-Tiger guy and was told he would not recommend his product at
> the time because of a manufacturing defect in the product he received.
> He suggested "Melanin" sunglasses. Purchased these through my Eyecare
> Proffessional and have driven with them a "LOT" and flown with them
> about a dozen times. Just love them. Yes, they are polarized, but
> have not had a problem to date (don't want to start a thread on
> polarized lenses!!). Just something other that Serengetti or RayBan or
> whatever to look in to.

[bumper]

Progressive lenses are not "progressive bifocals". I've been wearing and flying with progressive lenses for years. Vision is corrected to 20-12. Progressives do take some getting used to, however they allow distance vision, close-up reading and everything in between - like the panel.

Some people cannot adapt to progressives, too bad, they sure are great if you can!

bumper
Minden NV
"01-- Zero One" > wrote in message ...
There are some very good reasons not to use progressive bifocals for flying. Use lined bifocals instead. This will optimize the visual acuity for what we need. distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds, etc.) and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).



Larry

"01" USA

[[email protected]]

Hi all,
Thank you for your comment. I will talk with my optician about
Suntiger, Rayban and Melanin.
Will see what he recommend.
Regards
S6


bumper wrote:
> Progressive lenses are not "progressive bifocals". I've been wearing and flying with progressive lenses for years. Vision is corrected to 20-12. Progressives do take some getting used to, however they allow distance vision, close-up reading and everything in between - like the panel.
>
> Some people cannot adapt to progressives, too bad, they sure are great if you can!
>
> bumper
> Minden NV
> "01-- Zero One" > wrote in message ...
> There are some very good reasons not to use progressive bifocals for flying. Use lined bifocals instead. This will optimize the visual acuity for what we need. distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds, etc.) and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).
>
>
>
> Larry
>
> "01" USA

[[email protected]]

Hi again ,
I forgot one question. No one mention flying with a tinted coanopy and
the recommended glasses.
Any comment.
S6


wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thank you for your comment. I will talk with my optician about
> Suntiger, Rayban and Melanin.
> Will see what he recommend.
> Regards
> S6
>
>
> bumper wrote:
> > Progressive lenses are not "progressive bifocals". I've been wearing and flying with progressive lenses for years. Vision is corrected to 20-12. Progressives do take some getting used to, however they allow distance vision, close-up reading and everything in between - like the panel.
> >
> > Some people cannot adapt to progressives, too bad, they sure are great if you can!
> >
> > bumper
> > Minden NV
> > "01-- Zero One" > wrote in message ...
> > There are some very good reasons not to use progressive bifocals for flying. Use lined bifocals instead. This will optimize the visual acuity for what we need. distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds, etc.) and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > "01" USA

[Nyal Williams]

Report what he says; its a rare one who knows anything
at all about this subject.

At 16:24 21 January 2006, wrote:
>Hi all,
>Thank you for your comment. I will talk with my optician
>about
>Suntiger, Rayban and Melanin.
>Will see what he recommend.
>Regards
>S6
>
>
>bumper wrote:
>> Progressive lenses are not 'progressive bifocals'.
>>I've been wearing and flying with progressive lenses
for years. Vision is corrected to 20-12. Progressives
do take some getting used to, however they allow distance
vision, close-up reading and everything in between
- like the panel.
>>
>> Some people cannot adapt to progressives, too bad,
>>they sure are great if you can!
>>
>> bumper
>> Minden NV
>> '01-- Zero One' wrote in message news:gq2dnWTWkJZ370zeRVn-pw@c
>>>omcast.com...
>> There are some very good reasons not to use progressive
>>bifocals for flying. Use lined bifocals instead.
This will optimize the visual acuity for what we need.
distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds, etc.)
and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> '01' USA
>
>

[John Galloway]

My syndicate partner I tested several different sunglasses
under a blue Duo canopy a couple of years ago and reported
here on RAS.
We used a variety of different lenses including darker
and lighter tint varieties of Suntigers. We also compared
visibility through haze looking through the clear
view panel and the canopy.

Basically, during flight, the brain adapts and the
blue canopy made no difference to the subjective perception
of colour, which was overwhelmingly that of the sunglass
lens rather than the canopy. Subjectively all of the
different sunglasses seemed to retain their own characteristics
through the blue canopy - the lenses are far stronger
colour filters than the canopy. I never noticed any
perceptible loss of light under a blue canopy and,
counterintuitively, my partner and I both found that
visibility through haze was marginally better looking
through the blue canopy compared with looking through
the open clear view panel.

So I would say choose the colour of lens that you prefer
for other reasons than the colour of the canopy.

Colour photographs through the blue canopy were surprisingly
blue - which shows the difference between a brain and
a camera.

Now that I have a glider with a clear canopy I notice
how much hotter direct sunlight is on me. I never
thought the blue canopy reduced heat build up inside
the cockpit (from the greenhouse effect) but it certainly
reduces direct IR transmission by absorption - which
is why they are blue not amber - and also why the blue
canopies expand more in hot weather.

I hate bifocals in the air and find the transition
line intrusive but progressive lenses are fine for
me.

I can't see that any of the other suggestions in this
thread are going to answer S6's problem as directly
as Scheyden prescripition lense flip ups like I use.
The inner clear prescription lense is fixed and the
outer amber tinted lens flips up when I need to see
in darker areas - both in low light conditions and
also in very bright into-sun conditions when the light
contrast makes LCD screens on the lower part my panel
unreadable to me with dark lenses.

John Galloway



At 16:24 21 January 2006, wrote:
> Hi again ,
>I forgot one question. No one mention flying with a
>tinted coanopy and
>the recommended glasses.
>Any comment.
>S6
>
>
wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Thank you for your comment. I will talk with my optician
>>about
>> Suntiger, Rayban and Melanin.
>> Will see what he recommend.
>> Regards
>> S6
>>
>>
>> bumper wrote:
>> > Progressive lenses are not 'progressive bifocals'.
>>>I've been wearing and flying with progressive lenses
for years. Vision is corrected to 20-12. Progressives
do take some getting used to, however they allow distance
vision, close-up reading and everything in between
- like the panel.
>> >
>> > Some people cannot adapt to progressives, too bad,
>>>they sure are great if you can!
>> >
>> > bumper
>> > Minden NV
>> > '01-- Zero One' wrote in message news:gq2dnWTWkJZ370zeRVn-pw@
>>>>comcast.com...
>> > There are some very good reasons not to use progressive
>>>bifocals for flying. Use lined bifocals instead.
This will optimize the visual acuity for what we need.
distance vision (to spot other aircraft, birds, etc.)
and arms length vision (charts, instruments, etc.).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > '01' USA
>
>

[Andy]

I use progressive lenses for normal day wear and for flying airplanes.
I usually use suntigers with stick on reading lenses in the sailplane
but sometimes fly with the progressives. The only problem is that they
do not darken enough. My next set of suntigers will be progressive. My
first reaction to progressives was that it would be impossible to fly
with them. I may have had a bad prescription because after suffering
with line bifocals for a few years I went to progressives and will not
go back.

What good reasons do you gave against using them?

Andy

[Graeme Cant]

I tried progressives in 1997 for several months and found them
unsuitable for me for flying.

1. The distortion at the edge of the lenses produced a swimming effect
as I moved my head which I found unhelpful. I found it distorted my
distant vision so that runway slope was hard to judge, especially where
the slope varied significantly (eg Manchester). It also made 'black
hole' night visual approaches difficult to judge. This only affected
earning a living but the first problem applied to gliding also.

2. The reading (near vision) band was so narrow that I could only see a
newspaper column width of print clearly without moving my head. This
made rapid reference to a Jepp chart a major operation. I didn't like
it for daily living either since newspapers are only a small part of my
reading. It's also an inconvenience reading a map gliding (Yes, I don't
totally trust GPS).

I reverted to my previous trifocals with relief and continue to use them
with no problems - except they're rather stronger now than they were
then - but I guess that would happened with progressives too.

Graeme Cant

Andy wrote:
> I use progressive lenses for normal day wear and for flying airplanes.
> I usually use suntigers with stick on reading lenses in the sailplane
> but sometimes fly with the progressives. The only problem is that they
> do not darken enough. My next set of suntigers will be progressive. My
> first reaction to progressives was that it would be impossible to fly
> with them. I may have had a bad prescription because after suffering
> with line bifocals for a few years I went to progressives and will not
> go back.
>
> What good reasons do you gave against using them?
>
> Andy
>

[Raphael Warshaw]

I've been using progressive lenses for the last 4 years and find that they
work well. There's a short period with a new prescription when straight
lines appear curved, but this has always disappeared within the first day of
wearing them. Although the adjustment from near to far and side to side
has been automatic for me, I'm told that this is not always the case. Some
users adjust more slowly and some never do.

For the last two years, I've been using self-darkening progressives; they
don't darken nearly as much as a good pair of regular sunglasses, but, at
least for me, provide more than adequate visual contrast and eye-strain
protection. I have them made big enough to provide good eye coverage since
the glare seems worse with smaller lenses.

Raphael Warshaw
1LK

"Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
...
>I tried progressives in 1997 for several months and found them unsuitable
>for me for flying.
>
> 1. The distortion at the edge of the lenses produced a swimming effect as
> I moved my head which I found unhelpful. I found it distorted my distant
> vision so that runway slope was hard to judge, especially where the slope
> varied significantly (eg Manchester). It also made 'black hole' night
> visual approaches difficult to judge. This only affected earning a living
> but the first problem applied to gliding also.
>
> 2. The reading (near vision) band was so narrow that I could only see a
> newspaper column width of print clearly without moving my head. This made
> rapid reference to a Jepp chart a major operation. I didn't like it for
> daily living either since newspapers are only a small part of my reading.
> It's also an inconvenience reading a map gliding (Yes, I don't totally
> trust GPS).
>
> I reverted to my previous trifocals with relief and continue to use them
> with no problems - except they're rather stronger now than they were
> then - but I guess that would happened with progressives too.
>
> Graeme Cant
>
> Andy wrote:
>> I use progressive lenses for normal day wear and for flying airplanes.
>> I usually use suntigers with stick on reading lenses in the sailplane
>> but sometimes fly with the progressives. The only problem is that they
>> do not darken enough. My next set of suntigers will be progressive. My
>> first reaction to progressives was that it would be impossible to fly
>> with them. I may have had a bad prescription because after suffering
>> with line bifocals for a few years I went to progressives and will not
>> go back.
>>
>> What good reasons do you gave against using them?
>>
>> Andy
>>

[bumper]

Like Raphael, I wear progressives that self-darken. I also have a pair or
progressive sunglasses, but usually forget to change to 'em, as the newer
self-darkening lenses are much better than the ones made a few years ago.

It's important to have the progressives aligned and made properly. In the
US, I've had good results at Costco's optical department, but even they can
screw up. I had them do-it-again on one pair and they got it right.

bumper
"Raphael Warshaw" > wrote in message
...
> I've been using progressive lenses for the last 4 years and find that they
> work well. There's a short period with a new prescription when straight
> lines appear curved, but this has always disappeared within the first day
> of wearing them. Although the adjustment from near to far and side to
> side has been automatic for me, I'm told that this is not always the case.
> Some users adjust more slowly and some never do.
>
> For the last two years, I've been using self-darkening progressives; they
> don't darken nearly as much as a good pair of regular sunglasses, but, at
> least for me, provide more than adequate visual contrast and eye-strain
> protection. I have them made big enough to provide good eye coverage
> since the glare seems worse with smaller lenses.
>
> Raphael Warshaw
> 1LK
>
> "Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I tried progressives in 1997 for several months and found them unsuitable
>>for me for flying.
>>
>> 1. The distortion at the edge of the lenses produced a swimming effect
>> as I moved my head which I found unhelpful. I found it distorted my
>> distant vision so that runway slope was hard to judge, especially where
>> the slope varied significantly (eg Manchester). It also made 'black
>> hole' night visual approaches difficult to judge. This only affected
>> earning a living but the first problem applied to gliding also.
>>
>> 2. The reading (near vision) band was so narrow that I could only see a
>> newspaper column width of print clearly without moving my head. This
>> made rapid reference to a Jepp chart a major operation. I didn't like it
>> for daily living either since newspapers are only a small part of my
>> reading. It's also an inconvenience reading a map gliding (Yes, I don't
>> totally trust GPS).
>>
>> I reverted to my previous trifocals with relief and continue to use them
>> with no problems - except they're rather stronger now than they were
>> then - but I guess that would happened with progressives too.
>>
>> Graeme Cant
>>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> I use progressive lenses for normal day wear and for flying airplanes.
>>> I usually use suntigers with stick on reading lenses in the sailplane
>>> but sometimes fly with the progressives. The only problem is that they
>>> do not darken enough. My next set of suntigers will be progressive. My
>>> first reaction to progressives was that it would be impossible to fly
>>> with them. I may have had a bad prescription because after suffering
>>> with line bifocals for a few years I went to progressives and will not
>>> go back.
>>>
>>> What good reasons do you gave against using them?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>
>