What's new
Van's Air Force

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

LED position/strobe light kits

J

jpmfgman

Member
Recently I found a young company making LED position/strobe light kits but I lost the link and cant seem to find them now.

please reply with any known suppliers .

Thanks
 
LED position Lights

Most auto parts stores, and even some Super Walmart's, have 1156 LED bulb replacements that meet the intensity requirements for aircraft. The problem with them is that you also need to put in an RFI filter in the power leads or your radios will be inop! The filter is a simple "PI" network of 100 uF caps with a .1 uF across them, and a Toroid with at least 10 turns through it.

jpmfgman said:
Recently I found a young company making LED position/strobe light kits but I lost the link and cant seem to find them now.

please reply with any known suppliers .

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
Maybe it was this one

I purchased LEDS off an organisation in Oz

Flyleds.com

Paul is a good guy and always willing to help.

Regards,
Andrew,
 
flightlogic said:
I know you said small company, but consider Whelen. They have been engineering lights for a long time. The products are robust. Their Microburst line of LED lights is not advertised much, but they impressed me. I purchased a set for the wingtips of my 9A at Oshkosh. They went right on in the same spot my strobes had been. Easy wiring and away I flew. The Microburst line comes in experimental only versions, with appropriate reduction in prices over certified.
I appreciate this approach, as it addresses the RV builder group well as well as others.
Click to expand...

Per Whelen's documentation, the microburst line doesn't meet the requirements for night operation.
 
thread reprint

I know... I know... The debate goes back over five years. People are quite passionate about their lights. For the original poster, the topic search will give you links to comments like those below and lots of research... do your homework and then decide. It's your wallet.

>>>>>>Thanks to Jeff from WHELEN I have a set of their LED nav/strobe/position lights to test. I have seen all of the other manufacturer's products before at SNF and OSH but have not had an opportunity to examine them first hand outside the display booths at those shows.

I now have the WHELEN set to evaluate first hand on my plane. In the past two weeks I have wired them up on my RV9A project. Although they are not permanently mounted in the wingtips or the tail I do have them functional. Here are my thoughts.

I have a 1966 Cessna 172 sitting side by side with my RV project in the hangar. After wiring the lights up and placing them on the wings in relative proximity to where they will be when permanently installed, I then turned them on.

Here is the initial thoughts on first power up:

Thought #1
They are bright!

Thought #2
I really don't care if they are not TSO'd. You see, once I turned them on, I then walked 10 feet over to my GA 172 and turned on the nav lights and strobe lights and turned off the lights in my hangar. There is absolutely no comparison between the TSO spec meeting lights on my 172 and those on the RV. The LED's blow them out of the water in brightness! Especially the tail nav/strobe light.

Thought #3
I am sure there are other issues in addition to brightness that "those in the know" are concerned about, but the truth is, the way our wingtips are designed, and because of the general construction of these lights, there is little doubt in my mind they will outperform any existing incandescent lights currently used on GA aircraft.
 
Ok, this is a stupid question...

If the whelen microburst nav/strobes (and others) are not certified for night flight, then why would anyone purchase them? Given that nav lights are only required to be on at night, they are of no practical use in the daytime. Strobes, yes...

What am I missing here?
 
Kyle Boatright said:
Per Whelen's documentation, the microburst line doesn't meet the requirements for night operation.
Click to expand...

Only because they don't meet the definition of an "approved" lighting system. Meaning, they are not PMA. Same with the FlyLED products.

Aren't there lots of experimental homebuilts flying with homemade nav/position lights and strobe lights? I think Whelen is just trying to prevent any liability issues with someone trying to install them on a certified aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Requirements

N804RV said:
Only because they don't meet the definition of an "approved" lighting system. Meaning, they are not PMA. Same with the FlyLED products.

Aren't there lots of experimental homebuilts flying with homemade nav/position lights and strobe lights? I think Whelen is just trying to prevent any liability issues with someone trying to install them on a certified aircraft.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I believe that there is no requirement for "approved" lighting. The only requirement is that you have them.

My understanding is that FLYLEDS satisfies all of the technical requirements for lighting, in all conditions, in both angle and luminescence, and by a fair margin.

Isn't that what is required? Achieved legal requirements, achievement of being seen and with a product that satisfies at least the minimum technical requirements necessary to conduct flight.

What is really good is that they are also so much cheaper than the alternate "approved", last longer with better support and are designed for RV's.

I like em..... :)
 
Aiki_Aviator said:
FWIW, I believe that there is no requirement for "approved" lighting. The only requirement is that you have them.
Isn't that what is required? Achieved legal requirements, achievement of being seen and with a product that satisfies at least the minimum technical requirements necessary to conduct flight.
Click to expand...

"§91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(2) Approved position lights."
 
Last edited:
Team AeroDynamix

You might look at Team AeroDynamix website (Teamaerodyamix.com). They have Whelen LED wingtip kits.
 
Good discussion :)

Mel said:
"?91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(2) Approved position lights."
Click to expand...

Ok, Got me there :) I did say "approved" not necessary. And it does say "approved"...

However, Approved means under the definitions as approved by the Administrator. Given that the flight type restrictions are approved by the Administrator (i.e. VFR, NVFR or IFR), the following should be applicable:

Under the issuance of an Experimental certificate by the Administrator for NVFR, Part 21: 21.191 (ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard; And the Manufacturer is the builder.

And from what I can see, the consensus standard is that lighting must satisfy certain requirements as listed under FAR Parts 23.1287,8 & 9.

So working from build to satisfaction, basically, the consensus standards are FAR Parts 23.1287,8 & 9 for lighting, which in turn are covered on issuance of the Experimental certificate by the Administrator for NVFR, satisfying the approval for the lighting.

However, it is interesting discussion, as I am in Australia and it is a little different. Eager to see what you have to say on this as I may have missed something.
 
This is one of those areas that common sense usually rules. i.e. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

In other words, if you lighting system appears to function IAW the regs, then most likely no one will ever contest it.

But technically ?91.205 is referenced in the op lims as a requirement for night operations. And ?91.205 does not differentiate between TC'd and Experimental aircraft.
 
MercFE said:
And, this would be a fair defense... If your OpLimits didn't state that you must comply with it.

So, experimental as a group isn't required to comply... But, YOUR experimental is.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain this as that is a little ambiguous. Experimental is, but your not?

So Does that mean my logic regarding signed off and approved for NVFR by the Administrator, means that the lights are also Approved as they are under experimental and then OK? From my reading that is how it reads.

If the Administrator does NOT sign the aircraft off then it is not approved. Correct?
 
Aiki_Aviator said:
Can you please explain this as that is a little ambiguous. Experimental is, but your not?
So Does that mean my logic regarding signed off and approved for NVFR by the Administrator, means that the lights are also Approved as they are under experimental and then OK? From my reading that is how it reads.
If the Administrator does NOT sign the aircraft off then it is not approved. Correct?
Click to expand...

Part 91.205 does not normally apply to Experimental aircraft, however the operating limitations state that for night and/or IFR operations the aircraft must meet 91.205. Daytime VFR, No!

Similarly Part 43 doesn't apply to Experimental aircraft, but your operating limitations states that the required condition inspection must be done IAW part 43, Appendix D.
 
Mel said:
This is one of those areas that common sense usually rules. i.e. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

In other words, if you lighting system appears to function IAW the regs, then most likely no one will ever contest it.

But technically ?91.205 is referenced in the op lims as a requirement for night operations. And ?91.205 does not differentiate between TC'd and Experimental aircraft.
Click to expand...

What Mel said, in picture form:

rep
 
The Pulsar NS and Suntail lights sold by Van's meet the FARs, as they are just experimental equivalents of our TSO approved lights.

Dean Wilkinson
CTO, AeroLEDs LLC
 
Mel said:
Part 91.205 does not normally apply to Experimental aircraft, however the operating limitations state that for night and/or IFR operations the aircraft must meet 91.205. Daytime VFR, No!

Similarly Part 43 doesn't apply to Experimental aircraft, but your operating limitations states that the required condition inspection must be done IAW part 43, Appendix D.
Click to expand...

Understand what you are saying here Mel. It does make sense.

However, does it not also make sense that given it is experimental category, that if you demonstrate compliance with the FAR's (which is the baseline), prior to CofA, and have tested the technology under the experimental process, then with issuance of the CofA, it has gained airworthiness "approval" from the Administrator? As such has satisfied Part 91.205.

To me this is the whole reason for the way in which this section is written. It does not say that they must hold any particular PMA, or other certification level, only "approved".

For example, the only legal way you can conduct an IFR GPS approach is with a TSO'd GPS. At least the regs on Australia say this. They call out the specific certification necessary.

Given the CofA is the issuance of the airworthiness "approval", and if done so for NVFR then this is satisfaction of the "approval" listed in this section.

Can you explain why this "process" does not satisfy the "approval". Especially given other examples state specifically the certification process required for compliance?
 
A shout out for Paul at FlyLED for his great service and great product. His kit arrived very quickly and looks very professional. Looking forward to putting it into good use.
 
Fly LED's

Just finished the install on my Fly LED's for the RV-9A I am building, awesome!
Even the nav lights are way to bright to look at, if I loose power in the hangar the nav lights will provide more than enough to continue to work:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top