Cherokee 140 LED NAV lights?

weirdjim said:
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

However, you can google LZ4-00R108 from LEDENGIN. I couldn't find any LEDs with only 100 foot candles, so I chose the next power level up. The R means red, replace with G for green, and CW for cool white ("aviation white"). Price in hundreds is $8 for red and $9.50 for green and white respectively. Same light output from all three. Perhaps from your great knowledge of physiology and optics you can elucidate (that means "tell") us why green of a same light output may appear brighter than an equal output from red?

My crappy website has no antenna splitters at all. Antennas, yes. ADS-B in and out, yes. Lots of stuff I'm not ready to release just now. A lot of them from a pretty successful fifty years of engineering, writing, teaching, and consulting.

Bye.
Click to expand...

Yes, based on reviews your company receives, you concentrate on stealing money from people instead of engineering anything.

Bye.
 
unsafervguy said:
and since FAR 23.1397 and Far 23.1401 spell out the requirements, and there is no PMA, STC, or TSO on these parts, how do i answer when the FAA asks to see my A&P and IA and asks please show us the acceptable data that shows these meet the requirments of those mentioned far's?

oh, and by the way i will take jims years of experience in electronics and avionics over someone that is trying to sell me an un-approved part and with no paper work that shows it meets the FAR's.

bob
Click to expand...

Well, there are a bunch of planes flying with these LEDs with field approvals, I even have a couple of the 337's they have used. I guess FAA is wrong too when they approve them. This is a very common and popular mod in the Cessna 150/152 club.
 
mtuomi said:
Well, there are a bunch of planes flying with these LEDs with field approvals, I even have a couple of the 337's they have used. I guess FAA is wrong too when they approve them. This is a very common and popular mod in the Cessna 150/152 club.
Click to expand...

If you get a field approval great, and I'm sure some have, but I cannot find any data on their web site to show compliance with the specific outputs required by the fars. I really can't submit a 337 that states in block 8 that the guy I bought them from say it meets the requirements of the fars but I do not have any acceptable data to submit.

Just because it is popular does not mean it's legal. Without a field approval they are not legal, and without acceptable data my fsdo will never give a field approval.

If you have copies of acceptable data, please feel free to share it, or have Bob put it on his web site.


Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
If you get a field approval great, and I'm sure some have, but I cannot find any data on their web site to show compliance with the specific outputs required by the fars. I really can't submit a 337 that states in block 8 that the guy I bought them from say it meets the requirements of the fars but I do not have any acceptable data to submit.

Just because it is popular does not mean it's legal. Without a field approval they are not legal, and without acceptable data my fsdo will never give a field approval.

If you have copies of acceptable data, please feel free to share it, or have Bob put it on his web site.


Bob
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

"Per PSA Enterprises tests, the LED conversions made on this date comply with all requirements of CAR-3; SAE/AS 8037 REV B, RTCA DO 160REV C, for coordinates, brightness, color, EMC, EMI, thermal, and vibration tolerances for airborne equipment."

FAA is happy with that, you can do that either by just writing the above to your logs, or filing a 337. This for 150 which is CAR3, but I understand Part 23 aircraft are pretty much the same for the requirements.

As manufacturer says:

"Manufactured and tested to meet FAR section 23.183-23.191 and all applicable requirements of DO160G for EMC, EMI, vibration & thermals under normal operating conditions from - 55C0 through + 85C0 for position lights, from sea level to 50K feet, meets or exceeds AS8037 REV B, AC20-74, and FAR 23-1389 through 23-1399, and also exceeds FAR specifications for all color coordinates and minimum intensities in all fixtures using standard ANSI bulbs."
 
I started this discussion off by suggesting (and later demonstrating) that red LEDs were neither more, nor less expensive to produce than green and white (or for that matter, yellow, amber, blue, or IR or UV). It devolved into something that scarcely resembled that. OK, the fact of the matter is that my BS is in semiconductor physics and my MS in microwave circuit design. That (as Dizzy Dean once said) ain't braggin' if you can do it. Along the way I had a smattering of semiconductor manufacturing study (besides teaching at Intel, NEC, and Nat'l Semi) and learned that once you have the basic LED substrate, diffusing aluminum, boron, yttrium, arsenic, and other Group III and V materials is fairly trivial in cost.

To boot, I have had IA behind my name for a long number of years and don't take verbal claims to meet this or that specification without some sort of written proof. To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn (MGM), verbal specifications aren't worth the paper they are printed on. If somebody claims that their LEDs produce 50 lumens at 10° from boresight, I need to see the who, when, and how that measurement was made before I'll sign my name to ANY logbook or form.

It is very easy to make the claim that you are selling geese and that half a dozen of them in harness will replace the O-470 in my 182. It is quite a different matter to show me the data that show the dyno tests with those geese, under what conditions they were tested, and who did the testing (and their qualifications). Given all these, I'll take two dozen of those geese, please.

Otherwise, you are just giving me the goose.

Jim
 
back to the original question...

did we ever come to a conclusion if TSO-ed are REQUIRED for Certified aircrafts? the price differences are HUGE to say the least
 
WannFly said:
back to the original question...

did we ever come to a conclusion if TSO-ed are REQUIRED for Certified aircrafts? the price differences are HUGE to say the least
Click to expand...

TSO'd are NOT required for certificated aircraft. TSO is ONE of the ways that nav position lights can be approved, but there is a whole separate section of FAR 23 that specify what the lights must meet. You have your choice as a manufacturer to meet the TSO or the section of FAR23. Either one is an avenue for approval.

Here is the link to the TSO: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...7fce7626e61bbe86256da5006e1936/$FILE/C30c.pdf

Here is the link to the section of FAR23: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...e&mc=true&node=pt14.1.23#sg14.1.23_11367.sg43

If you choose the FAR23 path, I'd suggest that you get a set of the conformance documents (testing, how tested, and who signed the test document) from the manufacturer. Alternatively, a 337 form from another aircraft WITH the FAA stamp on it indicating FAA field approval MIGHT be enough if you can convince the FAA that your aircraft is sufficiently identical to the other aircraft. With blockage limits measured in steradians, I'd suggest that your FAA inspector be an optics engineer OR have a hell of a good engineering argument (written) to present to the inspector, preferably in monosyllabic English so as not to confuse the inspector.

Jim
 
Last edited:
mtuomi said:
Yes you can.

"Per PSA Enterprises tests, the LED conversions made on this date comply with all requirements of CAR-3; SAE/AS 8037 REV B, RTCA DO 160REV C, for coordinates, brightness, color, EMC, EMI, thermal, and vibration tolerances for airborne equipment."

FAA is happy with that, you can do that either by just writing the above to your logs, or filing a 337. This for 150 which is CAR3, but I understand Part 23 aircraft are pretty much the same for the requirements.

As manufacturer says:

"Manufactured and tested to meet FAR section 23.183-23.191 and all applicable requirements of DO160G for EMC, EMI, vibration & thermals under normal operating conditions from - 55C0 through + 85C0 for position lights, from sea level to 50K feet, meets or exceeds AS8037 REV B, AC20-74, and FAR 23-1389 through 23-1399, and also exceeds FAR specifications for all color coordinates and minimum intensities in all fixtures using standard ANSI bulbs."
Click to expand...
mtuomi said:
Yes you can.

"Per PSA Enterprises tests, the LED conversions made on this date comply with all requirements of CAR-3; SAE/AS 8037 REV B, RTCA DO 160REV C, for coordinates, brightness, color, EMC, EMI, thermal, and vibration tolerances for airborne equipment."

FAA is happy with that, you can do that either by just writing the above to your logs, or filing a 337. This for 150 which is CAR3, but I understand Part 23 aircraft are pretty much the same for the requirements.

As manufacturer says:

"Manufactured and tested to meet FAR section 23.183-23.191 and all applicable requirements of DO160G for EMC, EMI, vibration & thermals under normal operating conditions from - 55C0 through + 85C0 for position lights, from sea level to 50K feet, meets or exceeds AS8037 REV B, AC20-74, and FAR 23-1389 through 23-1399, and also exceeds FAR specifications for all color coordinates and minimum intensities in all fixtures using standard ANSI bulbs."
Click to expand...


Great does he send that paperwork with the bulbs when you buy them? Is so, then you have documentation to show for a field approval. If you don't have that on company letterhead you have no documentation. I did not see that info on his web site.
 
Amazing what is required for a set of lights on a 60 year old airplane lol.im not an expert but it seems absolutely ridiculous
 
CC268 said:
Amazing what is required for a set of lights on a 60 year old airplane lol.im not an expert but it seems absolutely ridiculous
Click to expand...
It isn't bad if you don't believe half of the bull$#it you get on this group from folks who don't have a clue.

Jim
 
Well as timbeck would say I am living on the edge! My lights come in today and I will install them tomorrow. I will post some pics of the new lights if I don't get crucified on here and reported to the FAA.
 
CC268 said:
Well as timbeck would say I am living on the edge! My lights come in today and I will install them tomorrow. I will post some pics of the new lights if I don't get crucified on here and reported to the FAA.
Click to expand...
What are the original or current wingtip lights on your 140? I've been considering the Whelen Orions, but the R&G pair plus installation are about half the price of the Garmin G5 w/out install.
 
murphey said:
What are the original or current wingtip lights on your 140? I've been considering the Whelen Orions, but the R&G pair plus installation are about half the price of the Garmin G5 w/out install.
Click to expand...

I have Grimes housings with the typical 7512 or 1512 paddle halogen bulbs. No way I was going to spend hundreds for a light bulb from Whelen. My landing light is Whelen LED though.
 
CC268 said:
I have Grimes housings with the typical 7512 or 1512 paddle halogen bulbs. No way I was going to spend hundreds for a light bulb from Whelen. My landing light is Whelen LED though.
Click to expand...
Yup, Grimes was the original equipment on my 180. Need to go,out to the hangar and get one of the spare bulbs and check the number.
 
unsafervguy said:
Great does he send that paperwork with the bulbs when you buy them? Is so, then you have documentation to show for a field approval. If you don't have that on company letterhead you have no documentation. I did not see that info on his web site.
Click to expand...

Happy now?
 
I think I have changed 3 nav lamps over 20 years on a plane averging 200 hours a year. Doesn't seem like it is worth the expense of changing lamps and lens on a 35 year old airplane to look modern.
 
Clip4 said:
I think I have changed 3 nav lamps over 20 years on a plane averging 200 hours a year. Doesn't seem like it is worth the expense of changing lamps and lens on a 35 year old airplane to look modern.
Click to expand...

That's cool bud thanks for your opinion :)
 
Clip4 said:
Your welcome, if you want me to comment on any other worthless mods to antique airplanes let me know.
Click to expand...

You know I've said it to you before and I will say it again - not surprised to see a jerk such as yourself make a worthless comment. Your a borderline troll in my book. Thanks for calling my Cherokee an antique.

Honest question - why do you reply to threads when you have nothing useful to say?
 
CC268 said:
Well as timbeck would say I am living on the edge! My lights come in today and I will install them tomorrow. I will post some pics of the new lights if I don't get crucified on here and reported to the FAA.
Click to expand...

So what's your verdict after install?
Or is that this afternoon's project?
 
weirdjim said:
It is mine. And who is Bob and what is PSA? I used to work for PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) but I doubt seriously that is where "Bob" is from.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's BS.
 
CC268 said:
Hmm alrighty but then it won't be symmetrical and look weird ;p
Click to expand...
Human eyes are very sensitive in the green part of the visible spectrum. Green LEDs will always look "brighter" than RED unless the luminosity is normalized.
 
paflyer said:
Human eyes are very sensitive in the green part of the visible spectrum. Green LEDs will always look "brighter" than RED unless the luminosity is normalized.
Click to expand...
And humankind developed that way because ... (and there are several theories, the one I like is...) green foliage implies a source of water and the humanoids that had better green optics had a better chance for survival that way. Same reasoning as to why men have better hearing in the lower ranges and women better in the high end of the audio spectrum (hunters vs. childbearers).
 
weirdjim said:
... why men have better hearing in the lower ranges and women better in the high end of the audio spectrum....
Click to expand...
I figured it's so we can tune them out when necessary!
 
Clip4 said:
I think I have changed 3 nav lamps over 20 years on a plane averging 200 hours a year. Doesn't seem like it is worth the expense of changing lamps and lens on a 35 year old airplane to look modern.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in making my 47 year old Cherokee look "modern." I'm interested in someone else not pranging into me because I can be seen a bit easier.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'm not really interested in making my 47 year old Cherokee look "modern." I'm interested in someone else not pranging into me because I can be seen a bit easier.
Click to expand...
even if you are... when its a hobby why the hell not?
 
Agreed. One one hand there's making something look modern, and then on the other, there's replacing things because they look like chit. ;)

I've done a lot of replacing on my airplane. :ihih:
 
Timbeck2 said:
Agreed. One one hand there's making something look modern, and then on the other, there's replacing things because they look like chit. ;)

I've done a lot of replacing on my airplane. :ihih:
Click to expand...
am with you ... though mine are all in planning stage and the the list is kinda ever growing .... i am getting bankrupt even in my fantasy world :d:d
 
paflyer said:
Human eyes are very sensitive in the green part of the visible spectrum. Green LEDs will always look "brighter" than RED unless the luminosity is normalized.
Click to expand...

So - making a red LED that looks as bright as a green LED costs more, because it has to be brighter.
 
unsafervguy said:
and since FAR 23.1397 and Far 23.1401 spell out the requirements, and there is no PMA, STC, or TSO on these parts, how do i answer when the FAA asks to see my A&P and IA and asks please show us the acceptable data that shows these meet the requirments of those mentioned far's?

oh, and by the way i will take jims years of experience in electronics and avionics over someone that is trying to sell me an un-approved part and with no paper work that shows it meets the FAR's.

bob
Click to expand...

If the FAA is looking that closely at your airplane, you've got bigger problems than a questionably legal nav light bulb. If you want to install LED bulbs, buy them and keep flying. If the FSDO is going to nail you over an LED bulb, you already had a target on your back (think Al Capone and taxes).
 
mtuomi said:
Happy now?
Click to expand...
no, because i have not seen anything that can be submitted to the FAA to show that they comply with the fars to get a field approval. until you have that documentation they are illegal to install on an aircraft. last time i checked, the FAA does not accept, "it said so on their web site" as acceptable data.
by the way, i sent an email to the manufacture asking if the test data was available to obtain a field approval, so far crickets from them.
bob
 
bradg33 said:
If the FAA is looking that closely at your airplane, you've got bigger problems than a questionably legal nav light bulb. If you want to install LED bulbs, buy them and keep flying. If the FSDO is going to nail you over an LED bulb, you already had a target on your back (think Al Capone and taxes).
Click to expand...


thats all good that you don't care if you are compliant with the FAA. but the IA that puts his signature in your log books every year had better. their certificates are on the line.

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
thats all good that you don't care if you are compliant with the FAA. but the IA that puts his signature in your log books every year had better. their certificates are on the line.

bob
Click to expand...

Christ man...give it a rest. :eek:o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top