LED Wingtip & Landing Light Output Comparisons

[Jeff Argersinger]

We spoke to many people this year at Oshkosh and one of the hot topics was regarding light output of the LED lighting choices that are now available. Several threads on VAF indicate the same interest as well.

Although there are many well built, attractive alternatives in the marketplace, Whelen's design objective is to provide products designed, and approved to FAA/TSO qualification standards. By doing this, it relieves the homebuilder or OEM from the time consuming task of proving FAR compliance of their lighting system to the FAA on their own, (if the aircraft is to fly at night).

The purpose of the first test was to show the differences in the anti-collision light output between the Whelen Model 90400 series FAA/TSO certified LED anti-collision light, and the Aeroleds Pulsar EXP non-certified LED anti-collision light. This is purely a light output comparison only, NOT a design critique.

http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/images/temp/graph-1.htm

The second test was conducted to provide light output data to answer the many LED landing light questions we also received at Oshkosh. This test compares the light output of the Whelen Model 71141 series LED landing/taxi light, 71125 series and the Aeroleds SunSpot, LED landing light. This is purely a light output comparison only, NOT a design critique.

http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/images/temp/graph-2.htm


The photometric tests were conducted in house at Whelen using a Hoffman Engineering goniophotometer system in a fully certified chamber, in an accredited lab. This is the same system used to certify our LED products currently in use by multiple OEM's.

Additional product testing is currently in progress.

[Dan Langhout]

Good information. I wish all the players would make detailed data like this readily available on all their lights (Whelen included )

[Jeff Argersinger]

Originally Posted by Dan Langhout

Good information. I wish all the players would make detailed data like this readily available on all their lights (Whelen included )

Thanks Dan. I saw from some earlier threads that you and others really wanted more detailed information as to how bright the new LEDs lights are with respect to the FAR's. I admire your pro active approach to try to get light output data by developing your own test set ups. This post is to provide accurate, easy to read data to the builders to help determine what lighting suits their particular needs. As time permits I will continue to offer more information.

[fl-mike]

Thanks, good stuff.
Please expand your 14V offerings.

[Dean_aeroleds]

The Whelen data for the Pulsar EXP strobe appears to match well with the data that I have taken on that unit. As is implied by the product name, the EXP is intended solely for the experimental market and is not the design that we are seeking TSO approvals with. Our other newer Pulsar and Suntail designs do meet the TSO light output levels, and we are going to obtain TSO approvals on those newer designs.

Regarding the Sunspot data, it does not match the data that I have collected. I am not sure if Whelen tested a narrow or a wide lens version of that product, since we offer both versions, but if they tested the narrow lens version then I suspect that they made an error in their testing methodology.

Our test data is here:
http://www.aeroleds.com/resources/theledadvantage.aspx (scroll down to see the graphs)

The narrow beam Sunspot hits about 30,000 candela in the beam center while the wide beam hits about 10,000. We will be offering an ultra narrow version as well in the near future, but for typical light singles (non-jets) we feel that the narrow beam is a good balance between range and short final field of view performance.

If Whelen tested the Sunspot in a still air environment with the light running for 30+ minutes before they started collected data, then the light output of the Sunspot will be diminished by the built-in thermal protection circuitry that turns the light down to avoid over-stressing the LEDs when the light is left on in a parked airplane. That could explain the results they obtained.

All of our lights are designed to take into account the actual operating environment in which they are to be used; i.e. an aircraft in flight. As such, they will have substantial airflow over them in normal operation that will keep them at full output, even when mounted behind leading edge windscreens. Wings leak a significant amount of air in flight, so there is reasonable airflow over the lights when they are used in flight.

If Whelen could provide the test conditions used to test the Sunspot (operating time and speed of the airflow over the light) that would help to qualify the data. I would also like to know if it was a narrow or wide lens version that was tested.

[rleffler]

Dean,

So if I am interpreting your response correctly, the Pulsar NS90 should have been the unit tested and not the Pulsar EXP, correct?

bob

[Dean_aeroleds]

Bob,

The Pulsar NS90, and the new Pulsar are the units that we will be doing TSO compliance testing on, including optical testing, for submittal to the FAA.

Dean

[Dean_aeroleds]

Jeff,

Out of curiosity, have you tested any of the Aveo units? I would like to see your data on their stuff as well...

Dean Wilkinson
CTO, AeroLEDs LLC

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Jeff Argersinger

We spoke to many people this year at Oshkosh and one of the hot topics was regarding light output of the LED lighting choices that are now available. Several threads on VAF indicate the same interest as well.

Although there are many well built, attractive alternatives in the marketplace, Whelen's design objective is to provide products designed, and approved to FAA/TSO qualification standards. By doing this, it relieves the homebuilder or OEM from the time consuming task of proving FAR compliance of their lighting system to the FAA on their own, (if the aircraft is to fly at night).

The purpose of the first test was to show the differences in the anti-collision light output between the Whelen Model 90400 series FAA/TSO certified LED anti-collision light, and the Aeroleds Pulsar EXP non-certified LED anti-collision light. This is purely a light output comparison only, NOT a design critique.

http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/images/temp/graph-1.htm

The second test was conducted to provide light output data to answer the many LED landing light questions we also received at Oshkosh. This test compares the light output of the Whelen Model 71141 series LED landing/taxi light, 71125 series and the Aeroleds SunSpot, LED landing light. This is purely a light output comparison only, NOT a design critique.

http://www.whelen.com/_AVIATION/images/temp/graph-2.htm


The photometric tests were conducted in house at Whelen using a Hoffman Engineering goniophotometer system in a fully certified chamber, in an accredited lab. This is the same system used to certify our LED products currently in use by multiple OEM's.

Additional product testing is currently in progress.

I was not at Oshkosh this year, however I have just purchased four of the ?MicroSun? units from the ?AeroLED? company.

While I am still a good while from actually using these units on my RV-8, however I have hooked them to power and they sure are nice and bright, and the built in Wig-Wag circuit sure does simplify the wiring.

Also, I am in the process of mounting them to a light bar which I will install on my truck just to get an idea of how they will work while driving. I figure if they work well enough for driving, then they should work well enough for flying.

This rig should be ready to go in another week or two, and if you are interested I can post the results.

[Jeff Argersinger]

Originally Posted by Dean_aeroleds

The Whelen data for the Pulsar EXP strobe appears to match well with the data that I have taken on that unit. As is implied by the product name, the EXP is intended solely for the experimental market and is not the design that we are seeking TSO approvals with. Our other newer Pulsar and Suntail designs do meet the TSO light output levels, and we are going to obtain TSO approvals on those newer designs.

Regarding the Sunspot data, it does not match the data that I have collected. I am not sure if Whelen tested a narrow or a wide lens version of that product, since we offer both versions, but if they tested the narrow lens version then I suspect that they made an error in their testing methodology.

Our test data is here:
http://www.aeroleds.com/resources/theledadvantage.aspx (scroll down to see the graphs)

The narrow beam Sunspot hits about 30,000 candela in the beam center while the wide beam hits about 10,000. We will be offering an ultra narrow version as well in the near future, but for typical light singles (non-jets) we feel that the narrow beam is a good balance between range and short final field of view performance.

If Whelen tested the Sunspot in a still air environment with the light running for 30+ minutes before they started collected data, then the light output of the Sunspot will be diminished by the built-in thermal protection circuitry that turns the light down to avoid over-stressing the LEDs when the light is left on in a parked airplane. That could explain the results they obtained.

All of our lights are designed to take into account the actual operating environment in which they are to be used; i.e. an aircraft in flight. As such, they will have substantial airflow over them in normal operation that will keep them at full output, even when mounted behind leading edge windscreens. Wings leak a significant amount of air in flight, so there is reasonable airflow over the lights when they are used in flight.

If Whelen could provide the test conditions used to test the Sunspot (operating time and speed of the airflow over the light) that would help to qualify the data. I would also like to know if it was a narrow or wide lens version that was tested.

Hi Dean,
I looked through the literature sent with the Sunspot and it appears there is no identification as to what the beam pattern is. The literature identifies a GE4509 mounting bracket mount. It very well could be the wide version. Spoke with our photometric technician and the light was simply fixtured and the light output readings taken. Therefore the Sunspot was tested at ambient temperature in our lab without external cooling. Operating time was no more than 15 minutes.

Regarding airflow.....during our prior OEM certification efforts with LED lighting, we were not permitted to rely on external airflow to substantiate performance of our product. Actually, in most cases depending on the operating environment, during testing our lights are subjected to higher than normal operating temperatures such as overflow of bleed air from deicing systems, as well as temperatures seen when mounted in engine cowlings. The Whelen landing taxi lights have thermal protection that starts to back off the current at around 120 degrees C (248 degrees F).

As time and resources allow, we will continue to provide light output data of both Whelen and others so builders and OEMs can evaluate.

Regards,
Jeff Argersinger
Whelen