What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Wig-Wag worth the cost & complexity?

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
There has been a lot of talk about wig-wag flashers and I'm not sure they give the protection / visibility everyone thinks they do.

The reason being is the lights (Duckworth kits) are set so far back in the wing the only person who will see them flash is someone looking straight down the wing hole, which means they can probably see you anyway.

If you don't believe me, ask an RV friend with the Duckworth lights to turn on his landing lights (turn off the wig-wag, if they have it), ask him to shoot the approach and land while you and stand on the ground and watch.

It will look like the lights are going on and off as the pilot adjusts his glide path for the landing.

Just my $.02.

Comments?
 
Last edited:
Every time I've seen a plane with wig-wags on (with Duckworks lights) it has been very obvious to me, even a fair amount off axis, and during daylight. I don't think it is subtle either. I've never paid attention to how far off axis one needs to be to notice them during daylight, but I'd estimate that they can easily be seen 30? off the centerline.
 
I personally have avoided a mid-air because the other pilot had his landing light on. A wig-wag or a pulse light would have been even better.

You can see the light before you can see the airplane, even in daytime.

Even if it's only visible from the front quarters, this is region of maximum closing rate where you need the most warning.

Wig-wags or pulse lights are far more effective than strobes for daytime collision avoidance. A simple wig-wag flasher is very cheap life insurance. At least, fly with your lights on.

BTW a wig-wag extends lamp life, so it may also pay for itself in bulbs.

Vern Little
 
vlittle said:
<snip>...BTW a wig-wag extends lamp life, so it may also pay for itself in bulbs. Vern Little
Click to expand...
I'm 15 hours short of 2900 TT on our RV-6A and fly with the wig-wags flashing 100% of the time. I have changed each bulb (round 4509 / H7604 sealed beam) exactly one time each so I'm a big believer in what Vern says here.

I've been flying (and very happy with) this wig-wag flasher, and they also have one with multi-pattern, programmable patterns. Control towers have commented on numerous occassions how well they can be seen during the day.

When combined with the strobes, we look like a flashing Christmas Tree at night too! Whether you design your own or buy, I too feel it's cheap insurance :) Rosie
 
Last edited:
Just when you think you're close to done.

When I built my wings way back when, I built in the duckworks lights but have subsequently built the plane as a day only. For me, the margin of safety in a single engine plane over a dense city at night is just too narrow. Knowing this, I opted to save the money and added complexity of lighting. The only downside to this decision has been those darn holes in my wings. After reading this thread, I'm gonna make em into dedicated wig-waggers. Thanks for the info guys. Now, where to put that extra switch? :confused:
 
I bought a B&C wig wag relay only to learn on opening it that it must have 2 lights to work. Seems it needs a balanced load. I have 1 HID and 1 regular light. Can't use HID with the w/w. So I have a relay for sale I guess. If I was 'lectricly' inclined I maight be able to build something to simulate the load of a second light but, I'm not so inclined (by ability or temperment).

I talked with the folks at Perihelion and they said their flasher would work with 1 light but that it would likely be less visible because it would be a blink mixed with an equal pause. I may go that route though.

I paid $22 for the B&C relay but will mail it, postage paid, for the first Jackson I get. Contact me off line.

Jekyll
 
szicree said:
When I built my wings way back when, I built in the duckworks lights but have subsequently built the plane as a day only. For me, the margin of safety in a single engine plane over a dense city at night is just too narrow. Knowing this, I opted to save the money and added complexity of lighting. The only downside to this decision has been those darn holes in my wings. After reading this thread, I'm gonna make em into dedicated wig-waggers. Thanks for the info guys. Now, where to put that extra switch? :confused:
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info regarding wig-wag lights, this is helpful. Although I'm still not sure if I'm convinced.

Regarding cutting those holes in your wings, pick up a cheep Body Saw from Northern Tool. They work wonders and there are so many other places they can be used.
 
Jekyll said:
I bought a B&C wig wag relay only to learn on opening it that it must have 2 lights to work. Seems it needs a balanced load. I have 1 HID and 1 regular light. Can't use HID with the w/w...
Click to expand...

You might call CreativeAir. They claim that their wig-wag can be used with HID lights. I don't know if that's true.

The wiring for the wig-wag doesn't really add that much complexity. Add one switch (or switch position), the relay, and a couple of wires. It's nothing compared to electric trim.
 
Jekyll said:
Replace your landing light switch with a DTSP
Click to expand...

What landing light switch? I've got no lighting stuff at all except these darn holes in my wings. No big deal though, I'll find a spot for the one switch. Now if I can just figure out whose wig-wag system to use.
 
N941WR said:
Thanks for all the info regarding wig-wag lights, this is helpful. Although I'm still not sure if I'm convinced.

Regarding cutting those holes in your wings, pick up a cheep Body Saw from Northern Tool. They work wonders and there are so many other places they can be used.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

Landing lights, wig-wag or not, are a major user of amps. More amps means more stress on the alternator belt and bearings, and more heat generated internally by the alternator. Alternators are like Lycoming engines...they'll provide more reliability if they're run at a lower continuous power setting than a higher one.

The probability of lights of any sort saving your bacon in bright blue sunshine is statistically immeasurable. The probability of alternator failure is very high and in some circumstances it could be life threatening (IFR in IMC, fire in flight). Builders need to look at what the real risks are....rather than what gives them the warm and fuzzies.
 
Wig Wag

I can't comment on how easy the RV is to see when it's wig wagging but I can tell you the company I fly for started putting wig wags on our fleet of over 400 737's because it does save the life of the 1788 bulbs. We have two landing lights, two runway turn-off two per side. We run those lights from take-off to 18,000 ft. Then from 18,000' to landing. The only reason we don't have wig wags on all our planes today is because the flashing unit was causing feedback in a few of the airplanes. To the point that the radios were hard to hear. If that had not happened we would have wig wags on all of them. They do save bulb life.
 
Bob Barrow said:
The probability of lights of any sort saving your bacon in bright blue sunshine is statistically immeasurable
Click to expand...

I'm interested in data either supporting or refuting this claim. Anybody got numbers?
 
szicree said:
I'm interested in data either supporting or refuting this claim. Anybody got numbers?
Click to expand...

Saved my life once, does that count?

Come on guys, it's the same reason we have daytime running lights on cars in Canada... they improve visibility and save lives.

Until you personally experience a bright landing light shining in your eyes at a 250 knot closing speed, you won't appreciate their value. My Creative Air lamps draw about 6 amp (total in wig-wag). That won't stress an alternator too much. With strobes, wig-wag, radios and battery charging current, my alternator load is about 15 amps, about 40% of the rated capacity. That's not stressing the alternator.

More powerful lights will draw more current, of course.

Within three years, there will be high instensity LED landing lights available that will lower the current requirements even more. I've seen the MR16 form factor LED lamps, but I don't think they are quite bright enough yet.

I'm sure someone soon will mount a series of high intensity LED lamps visible 360 degrees around an airplane. That will lead to some clever sequential flashing patterns, I think!

Vern
 
Warm Fuzzy Lights

Bob Barrow said:
I'm with you.

Landing lights, wig-wag or not, are a major user of amps. More amps means more stress on the alternator belt and bearings, and more heat generated internally by the alternator. Alternators are like Lycoming engines...they'll provide more reliability if they're run at a lower continuous power setting than a higher one.

The probability of lights of any sort saving your bacon in bright blue sunshine is statistically immeasurable. The probability of alternator failure is very high and in some circumstances it could be life threatening (IFR in IMC, fire in flight). Builders need to look at what the real risks are....rather than what gives them the warm and fuzzies.
Click to expand...
All I know when I am sitting waiting for landing traffic to take the runway, of the handful of planes lined up, heading for the numbers, the one that sticks out has wigwags (South West Airlines). It probably is true there's no statistics, but mid-airs happen and its almost 100% likely to ruin a perfectly good day. Its not a substitute for the Mark II eyeballs but it helps the the SEE part of SEE and be seen, big sky theory the FAA has.

Most guys have two wing tip landing lights already. It is not much more to add wig-wag. You don't have to use it. However when flying in the LAX VFR corridors or any other high traffic area, hazy day, its a nice warm fuzzy wuzzy gooey soft on the inside feeling when you turn the Wig-Wag on. Hey guys put NAV and strobe lights on and rarely fly at night?

On a related note the cheap ($400-$800) passive Collision Avoidance systems now available are a real nice thing to have. If I could only have one, I think I'd go with collision avoidance avionics before wig-wags. I want both.

I have had planes take the runway in front of me on final more than once, even after making calls in the blind. Once a tower cleared me to land and than let a twin go in front of me in short order while on very short final. I called "Going around" and did so. Tower said "What are your intentions", my reply "Surviving your instructions", his reply "Clear for left down wind, clear to land." I think the twin would have not just pulled on the runway even though cleared, if I had wig-wags. No proof just a feeling.

I think the argument that wig wags will kill your alternator is hard to quantify. My wig-wag works two 12v 55watt halogen wing tip landing lights, drawing about 4 amps each. The wig-wag no surprise draws 8 amps. Day VFR my max draw is 8-9 amps with out the wig-wag. I don't think my 45 amp alternator cares a lot, 9 maps or 18 amps. At night I don't use wig-wags, with strobes, but I do have to be careful with NAV lights, strobes and both landing lights on, total electical load is about 32 amps. So I do only use landing lights when needed to keep load as low as possible. I agree load under 50% does help the alternator life.

George
 
Last edited:
A real funny thing happened today while driving home. I was riding in the passenger seat talking to my brother when something caught just the most peripheral part of my right-hand visual field. I turned to see what it was and it turned out to be a pair of alternating stobes in the window of a record store. It's a wierd coincidence that earlier today I was reading this thread about the merits of the wig-wag. I remember a perception demonstration back in high school where the teacher took a balloon and held it off to the side of a student. He had the student stare straight ahead while the balloon was moved further to the side until it was outside of the student's peripheral vision. The student was completely unaware of the balloon at this point. The teacher then wiggled the balloon and the student immediately reported seeing it. This was 30 years ago so I can't begin to remember why this happens, but I think it has something to do with moving stuff being easier to spot than stationary stuff.
 
Here in Anchorage we have the Chugach mountains on the North and East side of town. It is quite easy to loose a plane in that backround. However, many of the 135 operators and private pilots have installed the wig-wags; they always stand out against the mountain backround and are much easier to see from the ground looking up the final approach course.
With our airspace mix of airliners,floatplanes, other GA aircraft F-15's, 130's choppers and everything else that'll fly; those flashing lights really help me see and avoid. It's amazing how I can miss a single Otter on floats and how much he stands out when he turns his lights on!
H
 
szicree said:
I'm interested in data either supporting or refuting this claim. Anybody got numbers?
Click to expand...
Numbers might be pretty hard to come by, but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.

Aviation did not invent the wig-wag light. Public safety vehicles have had them for some time. I can tell you from vast expereince on both ends that when we started putting them in cars, they became much more visible from much longer distances.

As for flying, if I had a nickel for every time someone commented how my wig-wags made me stand out... I turn them on whenever I get near an airport (within 5 miles at minimum) and in busy airspace.
 
sprucemoose said:
Numbers might be pretty hard to come by, but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the anecdotal evidence is virtually non-existent, along with any statistical data. Plenty of people saying how they can see other people's lights....not many saying that seeing those lights resulted in them avoiding a midair collision. In fact Vern Little at post #18 on this thread is the first person I've ever heard say he avoided a collision by seeing lights on another aircraft during a bright day. Perhaps Vern can enlighten us (joke intended) as to how his event unfolded (not that I'm sceptical mind you).

Midair collisions are like shark attacks....the possibility of them happening is totally remote, but the fear is palpable and generally out of all proportion to the actual threat.

And let's not get confused here. I'm specifically suggesting that it is of dubious value to be flying around lit up like a Xmas tree in a bright blue sky. However it must be common sense that as the background lighting reduces (dusk, mountain background, overcast, etc) the benefit of lighting becomes more manifest.
 
Here are the details:

I was cruising eastbound at 3,500 feet over Hayward Lake BC (near Vancouver, BC). It was a clear Sunday afternoon after several days of crummy weather.

My son was in the right seat, and I had him employed watching for traffic, which was abundant.

I had my full visual scan going continously due to the busy traffic.

What I noticed first was a very bright light at my 12:00, same altitude, opposite direction. The light had wings.

I immediately performed a 45 degree right bank, and a couple of seconds later, the other aircraft flew by me without altering course. I could clearly see the other pilot, which meant that we were within 100 to 200 feet. I don't think he ever saw me.

Yes, he was cruising at the wrong altitude, but he had his landing light on. It wasn't a wig-wag, but it helped.

Several years ago, two aircraft collided near my home airport, killing three persons. This triggered a lot of airspace reviews, ultimately changing the airspace from class D to class C. Knowing this, I reported my incident to Transport Canada for statistical purposes. Even though I was in Class E at the time, they like to know what's happening.

So, somewhere, someone keeps track of this information, and I bet they would be willing to share it if you ask.

In conclusion, after this incident I purchased a Monroy ATD-300 and always flew with my landing light on. Now, with my 9A, I used my wig-wags. I still have my Monroy, and it's panel mounted now. You'd be surprised how much traffic is out there that you never see.

Thank goodness Monroy doesn't make a shark detector for swimmers in tropical waters, it would wreck tourism!

Vern Little
9A
 
Wig Wag benefits

First, I don't have wig wags in my 7, YET. I will be installing the wig wag switch when I break down for paint.

Second, there is no possible way to gain imperical evidence as to whether they are benefical and actually save lives. So, lets not argue that point. All we can do is learn from the experiences of others to make an informed decision.

I agree with Spruce Moose on this one. I spent 30 years in law enforcement and the addition of wig wags (late 70's) made the vehicles much more visible. Is there any evidence to quantify that, NO. Too many variables. Over the past 10 years and you'll find that virtually all public safety vehicles, DOT road vehicles, etc all have some nature of strobes or flashing lights. Why, increased visibility. Now many have LED type strobes for not only visibility but for cost and longevity.

Anything that increases safety, (whether we can measure it or not) should be considered. The addition of a wig wag switch, under $100, is not a big deal, especially if it makes you feel better.
 
old fashioned alternative?

Not down-playing wig-wag lights, but why not just turn on the strobes(a.k.a. anti-collision lights)? The three strobe lights should be visible from just about any angle. Granted the strobes aren't putting out the wattage of the landing lights, but all it takes is a little twinkle to catch one's eye. Surely there must be some stats on strobes and collision reduction.

Not trying to talk anyone out of wig-wig, just considering a cheaper alternative assuming you have rigged for day/night. A $100 wigwag is equivalent to 28 gallons of 100LL, heck that'll get you half way across the country.

For those who feel strongly positive about the wig-wag, do you think it improves safety enough that it should become required by regulation? Consider the scenario where one aircraft has wigwag and the other does not versus the scenario of both aircraft having wigwag. It only takes one pilot to spot the other in order to avoid a collision(hopefully).

(Please limit your answers to 25,000 words or less.) ;)
 
Limit 25,000 words or less. Hmmm. I can do that;
BOTH PULSE LIGHTS & STROBES!
Mel...DAR
 
HID - current draw and wig wag ?

OK, I will definitely have strobes and I'm leaning towards dual HID Duckworths. I don't plan on much night flying, but when I do, I want a lot of light.
Questions: 1. What is the current draw of the HID's if I use one or both as daytime running lights - without wigwag?
2. I checked the CreativAir website and they say the AVIFLASH can be used with HID's. Does anyone have experience with the AVIFLASH or comments on how it might impact the life of the Duckworth's?
 
None for me thanks

I do not believe they are worth the added complexity, etc. However, all you other pilots our there flash if you want to. I will try not to fixate on you and scan the environment for the rest of the threats.

Bob Axsom
 
Pucker factor

vlittle said:
I still have my Monroy, and it's panel mounted
now. You'd be surprised how much traffic is out there
that you never see. Thank goodness Monroy doesn't make a shark
detector for swimmers in tropical waters, it would wreck tourism!
Vern Little 9A
Click to expand...
I fly a TCAS equipped plane and that is true.

I would like to say I only see the ones that have wig-wags,
but honestly not may planes have it or at least use it. However
when I do look (and yes you would be surprised) how hard its to
see aircraft in the day, even when you know where to look.

Going into Newark many yeas ago early in the morning, a King
Air flew right by head on. TCAS showed it. ATC said nothing.
The guy was VFR no doubt. ATC is not required to call VFR
traffic out. I know if he would have had any lights on, it would
have helped, but from my experience Wig-Wags would have been
best, taking the pucker out of it. I just don't need the excitement of
counting the number of antennas on the belly of another plane at
+500kts closing speed. I want to see them, not just see them on the
TCAS display.

Mid airs are NOT that uncommon. I can't tell you how many
pilots are head down. With all the fancy stuff to play with in GA
planes now, pilots are not looking out the plexi. I guess the
counter point to having Wig-Wags is that they are no guarantee,
but they do help in my opinion. If you got landing lights $30-$80
bucks to add wig-wag seems like a good choice. George
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot...the one that sticks out has wigwags (South West Airlines). It probably is true there's no statistics said:
Getting back to the point (and not to pick on George), I was asking about Wig-Wag's as installed in RV's w/ the Duckworth lights that are recessed way back in the wings.

Other airplanes or RV's with the lights set out in the fiberglass wingtips don't have the same issue as the wing structure doesn't not block the view of the lights.

I enjoy the debate of this forum but a surface mount installation, as used in airliners, Pipers, etc. does not really apply here.

Here is a simulation, take a paper towel tube, cut it to 6", stick a small flashlight in the end and move your head around the open end until you can see the light. I believe you will only see the light when looking straight down the tube. Which is what I'm questioning about the effectiveness of installing wig-wag's in my -9 with recessed Duckworth lights.
Click to expand...
 
Wait a second, that is all you have

N941WR said:
Here is a simulation, take a paper towel tube, cut it to 6", stick a small flashlight in the end and move your head around the open end until you can see the light. I believe you will only see the light when looking straight down the tube. Which is what I'm questioning about the effectiveness of installing wig-wag's in my -9 with recessed Duckworth lights.
Click to expand...
What a second. First I don't totally disagree; in fact you have a valid point, but I think you are missing the threat.

First, you are underestimating the light beams width. It is not a flashlight thru a 6" TP tube. Number two, the biggest threat of a mid air is from 60 degrees either side of head on. (I should say your least time to do evasive maneuvers is from the front two quadrants, however a mid air from any direction hurts the same.)

I said before that a WIG-WAG is no guarantee. However in my two near misses (I fly a lot in high traffic areas) the planes where near head on. Head on is the hardest to see. WIG WAGS do there best there.

Also in the airport area where Wig-Wags help. They help someone see you on final and reduce the chance they'll take the runway or turn finial in front of you. Wig-wags would be very effective in these case. What about from behind or from the side collisions? It is like motor cycles and day time running lights. At least in helps reduce the frontal impact.

Sure there are cases where a fast plane over took and descended onto another plane or climbed up into a plane. However the overtake speeds are slow and give much more time to acquire the plane. Of course planes have blind spots, especially Cessna's and Pipers, so if a pilot does not look out than a WIG-WAG is of no use. I agree. You can do all the looking you want for the other guy, but if the other pilot is not looking than lights are of no use.

Side or abeam mid airs happen. The Wig-Wag would not help as much if you are not scanning to the side (as you should). However the peripheral vision may catch that wig wag just a few seconds earlier. Over all you will have more time from a side threat but but you have to look. That second could make a difference. However to repeat most of your treat is from the front two quadrants and not the side or back.

My first sentence of this post is, wait a second. You will not have a second to avoid an impact head on if you do not acquire the threat early. There is no doubt in my mind for that scenario the Wig-Wag could save the day.

Here is great refrence from our friends at the FAA:AC98-48C, Pilots role in collision avoidance

Look at page 9, it is interesting. It takes 12.5 seconds from the time you see, process see and maneuver and you may only have 10-20 seconds. Any thing that makes the plane show up faster (in your eye balls) is goodness.


George
 
Last edited:
I like the idea but...

George,

You make some very valid points (as you usually do) and I couldn't agree with you more. The idea of Wig-Wag's is a good one and on most planes they go along way towards making them more visible. No argument here.

What I was trying to point out is that most of the posts refer to Wig-Wag's on non-Duckworth installed RV lights. That is the heart of my question, on RV's with Duckworth lights, are Wig-Wag's worth the time, effort, and complexity, regardless of how small those may be?
 
N941WR said:
...on RV's with Duckworth lights, are Wig-Wag's worth the time, effort, and complexity, regardless of how small those may be?
Click to expand...
Is the possibility of avoiding a midair (regardless of how small the possibility may be) worth a couple hundred bucks of your money and a couple hours of your time?

For me, the answer is YES.
 
I turned right into a Cessna's path once...I was on a right turnout, he was entering the pattern on downwind (he was on a 45 to downwind...problem was, he was on a 45 about 1/2 a mile past the departure end of the airport!!). White Cessna, hazy/cloudy sky, and no lights, and a controller that's half asleep. I didn't see him until I heard his engine roaring @ 2 o'clock...fortunately, he saw me (with my landing light on, I might add) and was able to maneuver in time....just barely...we were heading right at each other and endied up missing by less than 100 feet. Might I have spotted him if he had lights on? I don't know...maybe, maybe not. Did he spot me BECAUSE I had my light on? Who's to say?

This isn't a pitch for or against..it's just my own limited experience. It did change my attitude towards this sort of thing, though. After that close call, my take on it is this: wig-wags aren't a silver bullet for mid-airs, they don't need to work well, and they don't even need to work in every situation. All they need to do is work ONE TIME, and their value becomes priceless...
 
jarhead said:
Is the possibility of avoiding a midair (regardless of how small the possibility may be) worth a couple hundred bucks of your money and a couple hours of your time?

For me, the answer is YES.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that this thread originally involved whether it was worth the time and energy to put wig-wags on a plane that already has the lights. This is exactly my situation and I figure the cost should come to about 30 bucks. How can I not do this?
 
I've had quite a few near misses

I've had quite a few close encounters with flying to work every day for 15 years squeezing into the available space over the Los Angeles that is not Class B. Most were not head on. The idea that flashing lights could have avoided any of them is laughable. To carry this motherhood and apple pie argument farther how about flashing lights in changing colors visible from every spherical angle and only allowing airplanes to be painted dayglow orange.

Bob Axsom
 
szicree said:
This argument is quickly heading towards the idiotic. Lets suppose you had a near miss and never even knew it. Would you have seen the same traffic if it had flashing lights?
Click to expand...

If an airplane falls into the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

You're right, this is getting way over the top. We now have nothing more than people trying to convince other people who's got the bigger one, er, I mean, the wig waggier one. :)

We have all heard enough to decide if we individually want to spend under $100 to wig-wag, or not to wig-wag.

What else we got to argue about? ;)
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Here is great refrence from our friends at the FAA:AC98-48C, Pilots role in collision avoidance

Look at page 9, it is interesting. It takes 12.5 seconds from the time you see, process see and maneuver and you may only have 10-20 seconds. Any thing that makes the plane show up faster (in your eye balls) is goodness.
George
Click to expand...

The above document deals with the facts of midair collisions and best ways to prevent them. I notice that it says absolutely nothing about flying around in broad daylight with lights on. Funny that the FAA (an organisation obsessed with safety regardless of cost) seems to be missing out on that piece of invaluable information.

Midair collisions are very rare on an hours flown basis. And head-on collisions are statistically insignificant. The vast majority of midair collisions occur between aircraft flying in the same direction; typically one plane descending onto another on short final, or one plane overtaking a slower plane on downwind. No lights are going to help there.

I don't think anyone has suggested that flashing lights would not improve visibility in some specific and rare circumstances. But from my point of view (and you are entitled to your own point of view) the benefits are so minor as to be not worth the disadvantages. Those disadvantages include increased system complexity, cost, time of construction, and additional alternator loads.

My recommendation....instal a new engine and construct the fuel supply system to the highest standards. Then go flying, enjoy the view (while you're scanning)...and relax.
 
Bob Barrow said:
Midair collisions are very rare on an hours flown basis. And head-on collisions are statistically insignificant.
Click to expand...

How do you define statistically insignificant? This term is usually used to discount events by arguing that their occurrence is due to random chance, rather than some recognizable cause. I don't think midairs can rightly be dismissed in this way. As far as being rare, it seems like I hear about a midair about once a month.

Bob Barrow said:
the benefits are so minor as to be not worth the disadvantages. Those disadvantages include increased system complexity, cost, time of construction, and additional alternator loads.
Click to expand...

The added complexity is one switch, one tiny little flasher, and 2 feet of wire, the cost is about 30 clams, and added time is maybe 2 hours. I'll leave the alternator thing alone cuz I don't really know, but isn't it about the same as the usual load at night?[/QUOTE]

Bob Barrow said:
construct the fuel supply system to the highest standards.
Click to expand...

Absolute 100% agreement on this!
 
Wig Wag...worth the cost?

I don't know whether it is worth the cost to put in a wigh wag but I do know that some GPS have a jog to stop aircraft on opposing courses from being on exact opposing headings. Comercial services (eg 747's over the pacific) put their lights on when they expect another aircraft. The bloke in the Left hand seat said "that it made him feel comfortable as all the planes are all on rails". No doubt there would still be the altitude separation even if they don't have the course jog option.

Now I too think that the cost of a commercial wig wag might be higher than I want to pay for such comfort but if you see my simple circuit for a wig wag under the 'Electrical' forum, for the $10 Australian ( a few bucks for your side of the world) it gives me a reasonable compromise.
Of course being home made and not commercial it might fail prematurely. Is this a worse situation than its not being there in the first place? In any case the design is such that it can be mounted behind the existing taxi and landing light switches (they are on together to invoke the wig wag). Even better if a light globe burns out the other light continues to flash.

Im not trying to promote the idea but I have been mulling over this for some time....which is why I put the circuit diagram in the electrical forum.

Part of the fun of building the kite is mulling over cost benefits and what suits ones needs best.
 
I put in a wig-wag system designed around a turn signal flasher. I got the wiring schematic from Bob Knuckoll's site. It was cheap to put togeter and easy to install. Anything that makes me more visible is worth it in my opinion.
 
It may be impossible to absolutely determine whether wig-wags significantly improve the visability of an approaching aircraft or not , but it seems to me that if even one person thinks they have saved them from a mid-air, then it is worth the 50 bucks or so to do it. After all, if you leave them out, it only takes 1 time when they might have helped to ruin your day (and life).
 
Any data on wig-wags? How bright does it need to be?

I found this thread while searching for an answer to the question: How bright does a wig-wag light need to be effective? One of the issues people cite for not using wigwags more is the current draw.

So, I started thinking, why not use one or more 3W LuxeonIII LEDs? These puppies put out ~80 lumen each at 1A, roughly equivalent to a 10 to 15W halogen. They're small and don't radiate much heat. Many people have reported good results with even 35W halogen wig-wags. So, you could use 6x LuxIII and some optics with a wig-wag flasher and constant-current supply and, voila, a wigwag that works on a constant current draw of 1A! Price would be about $100 in parts. But how visible would it be?

And thus the question is "how much light do you need to be reliably seen using a wig-wag"? Much to my dismay, I cannot find the answer. I figured with all the work NASA does on high-ticket things like synthetic vision (cool, but...), they would have tackled the issue of prevent midairs visually. No dice - can't find a thing.

The whole point of a wigwag is that it combines two things the eye-brain combination use to detect objects: contrast and motion. The question then becomes one of the amount of contrast and motion needed. Contrast would be ratio of the brightness of a background object - overcast sky, for example - to a light. Motion would be the frequency of the flashing and the distance between the lights.

In terms of motion, we are limited by wingspan. What's the ideal frequency? Dunno. All the systems I see - Pulselight, other aviation wigwags, ones on emergency vehicles - seem to have a period of around .75 and 1.5 sec.

In terms of contrast, well, I'm still working on that one. I'm setting up a spreadsheet to calculate the luminance of a light source depending on total flux (lumens), beam width and distance from the source (automatically calculating area of the beam in ft^2 and steradians). I also need luminance values of background objects (blue sky, overcast, haze, water, etc.)

In the interim, I just wanted to see if anyone else had attacked this problem from the same approach. Engineer's minds never sleep, at least mine doesn't.
 
Interesting Thoughts TODR....

I am amazed at what LED's can do these days...I am just waiting for a high-intensity LED landing light to show up! I guess my only thought on your quest is a question....aren't you really just, in the end, emulating strobes? I look at strobes as essential, and wig-wagging the landing lights as a bonus - you already have the landing lights, you can turn them on in traffic areas - and if you wig-wag them, that's bonus visibility. So if you already have strobes, and landing lights, why add yet another system? Or maybe you're trying to do it without one or the other, which is cool - just trying to understand the idea....

Paul
 
Out of all the other ways

szicree said:
The added complexity is one switch, one tiny little flasher, and 2 feet of wire, the cost is about 30 clams, and added time is maybe 2 hours.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Wow! I can't believe these comments about adding "system complexity" are coming from folks who put constant speed props, autopilots, fuel injection systems, strobes, electric trims, extra fuel tanks and enough IFR avionics to outdo a DC-10 in an airplane that was originally designed for VFR sport uses. Out of all the other ways we make these things more complicated I would venture that the wig-wags are probably one of the easier and lower weight things to do.

Working at an airport all day I can tell you that I notice the wing waggers more. My plane will have them.
 
Ironflight said:
I am amazed at what LED's can do these days...I am just waiting for a high-intensity LED landing light to show up! I guess my only thought on your quest is a question....aren't you really just, in the end, emulating strobes? I look at strobes as essential, and wig-wagging the landing lights as a bonus - you already have the landing lights, you can turn them on in traffic areas - and if you wig-wag them, that's bonus visibility. So if you already have strobes, and landing lights, why add yet another system? Or maybe you're trying to do it without one or the other, which is cool - just trying to understand the idea....

Paul
Click to expand...
I think that the eye and brain interpret strobes differently from a wig-wag. One of the problems with strobes is that they are too short to localize and, in some cases, to attract the brain/eye's focus when not close to the fovea. Some strobe makers (e.g., Whelen) actually use multiple strobes a few ms apart to make it look like a longer a pulse than a single strobe. I've seen plenty of aircraft and noticed the wigwags first, not the strobes - dunno.

I guess in my mind, the landing light should be really bright - maybe too much current draw to keep on (I've found the Rotax alternator has problems with the 100W landing light when at low power settings for long periods). This means you don't want to run it all that much. Also, to wigwag, you need two lights on opposite sides of the aircraft.

So, do you need another light to help be seen? I'd like to find some research that helps tell me the answer. Another way to look at it is "how much brightness do I need for a wigwag to be effective? Can I afford that much current draw?"
 
Bob Axsom said:
I do not believe they are worth the added complexity, etc. However, all you other pilots our there flash if you want to. I will try not to fixate on you and scan the environment for the rest of the threats.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

I just installed the B&C wig wag. Complexity, etc. Sorry Bob, I don't get that one:) All it constitutes is the flasher unit and one switch. On an existing system it's an hour job and less than $30.

On my previous Bonanza I had approach tell me several times they appreciated the wig wag. Proof enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top