Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:13:55 +0100 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Subject: COZY: Re: Landing Light Hi Ian and All, >I was wondering if anyone had considered mounting the landing lights in the wing LE or speed brake. I have seen pictures of canards with the lights in the outboard LE of the wing but was also considering placing one in the speed brake door. This would have the advantage of the light shining down the runway during a nose high attitude prior to touch down, instead of up in the air (don't know how many of you have had the enjoyment of landing at dusk when the ARCAL system doesn't work).< Some canards already do have the landing and taxi lights mounted in both the belly board side by side, and mounted on either side of the nose strut. You'll need to talk to those guys with the lights in the belly board about how the nose strut obstruction affects the lights field of view (unless the lights are spread out as far as possible on the belly board), and those with the lights on the nose strut concerning how long their bulbs last. If you do put the landing and taxi lights in the belly board or on the landing gear, you'll need to slow down to lower the belly board or landing gear to turn (flash) your landing and taxi lights ON to show someone in the air coming at you where you are (such as flying through the LAX VFR corridor). Also, since I don't have the military paying for my bulbs, I don't mount the lights to the gear since this will jar the bulb filament more and the bulb will not last as long. If it's in the wing, cant the landing light down about 9 degrees for landing and slow flight (make it adjustable so you can gimbal it to tweak it like a car head light), and point the taxi light straight ahead (but gimbaled for tweaking). Some have mounted their landing and taxi lights at the end leading edge of the strakes. You'll need to talk to those people to see if their lights really do reflect off the canard into the cockpit as some speculate. If the landing light is canted down, and both lights are well recessed and canted outboard so their field of view crosses well out in front of the plane, the lights may not reflect at all into the cockpit. Home Depot has some really nice and small 50 to 75 watt, 12 volt DC Halogen narrow beam and wide field of view lights with lens (many canards around here already use them). Wall Mart has some nice lights with housing and lens too (Lou L. can tell you). Many Lancair IV's use these. HTH. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:14:39 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light Hi All, I was wondering if anyone had considered mounting the landing lights in the wing LE or speed brake. I have seen pictures of canards with the lights in the outboard LE of the wing but was also considering placing one in the speed brake door. This would have the advantage of the light shining down the runway during a nose high attitude prior to touch down, instead of up in the air (don't know how many of you have had the enjoyment of landing at dusk when the ARCAL system doesn't work). -- Best regards, Ian D.S. Douglas MK0069 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 08:17:37 +0200 From: Rego Burger Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light I'm thinking of mounting two on the outboard part of the stakes. I will set them to shine under the canard to avoid glare at night off the white canard. I don't intend to fly much at night but may get home late one day. From the night flying I've done I prefer landing without the landing light on anyway. I switch them on for taxi only. I find when the light is on my tendancy is to target fixate...on it instead of attending to other matters. Naturally this is more work than following plans but I think it will look nice when done. Rego Burger, web site: http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm (home e-mail) mailto:rnb@intekom.co.za Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light From: mbeduhn@juno.com (Mark W Beduhn) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:31:36 EST On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:14:39 -0500 Ian Douglas writes: >Hi All, > >I was wondering if anyone had considered mounting the landing lights >in the wing LE or speed brake. I have seen pictures of canards with the >lights in the outboard LE of the wing but was also considering placing >one in the speed brake door. This would have the advantage of the >light shining down the runway during a nose high attitude prior to touch >down, instead of up in the air (don't know how many of you have had the >enjoyment of landing at dusk when the ARCAL system doesn't work). >-- >Best regards, >Ian D.S. Douglas >MK0069 > Ian, I mounted two lights in the nose at different angles - one aiming down for landing and the other nearly straight ahead for taxiing. This has worked great, and is virtually trouble free. I never liked the idea of having to fiddle with a light when landing. Also, I like the reliability of no moving parts. Marc Z has good photos of his installation on his web page (guess where I got the idea). Mark Beduhn Cozy IV N494CZ _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:20:24 -0500 From: atlasyts@idt.net Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light I have seen a Velocity with the LL in the Landing brake and did not like the set up. If you need to use the lights as recognition lights you must lower your speed brake all the way down. I carved out a space under the pitot tube and molded a plexiglass cover for it. Inside will have a 55W halogen fog light. It looks good and provides some heat for the pitot tube if I need it. No moving parts and simple. Bulent From: Jim Hocut Subject: RE: COZY: Landing Light Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:59:57 -0800 I carved out a space under the > pitot tube and molded a plexiglass cover for it. Inside will have a > 55W > halogen fog light. It looks good and provides some heat for the pitot > tube if I need it. No moving parts and simple. > Bulent > I might not want to count on the landing light for pitot heat. I've been in circumstances where I definitely wanted pitot heat but found the landing light to be very distracting (shooting an approach at night in a snow shower for instance). (Yeah, I know - nit picking but I gotta get my 2 cents in). BTW, who was it that said they had a source for pitot heaters a while ago? I've got my per plans pitot tube installed but not plumbed yet and I need to start thinking about a heater for it. Thanks, Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:42:12 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light Hi All, Thanks for all of the replies. After looking at the Glassic picture (where the initial idea came from) I still like the idea of having them outboard on the wing (looks to be in the outboard 1/4 span). I think that they would be far enough outboard to not cause problems reflecting on the canard and an obstruction could be placed in the light pocket to limit the light's ability to hit the canard while at the same time illuminating the area infront of the aircraft. -- Best regards, Ian D.S. Douglas Cozy MK0069 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:18:43 -0500 From: atlasyts@idt.net Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light You are right about the heat part, but that was not my main consideration. It would no hurt at least? Bulent Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:41:11 -0600 From: Robert and Carla Kittler Subject: COZY: landing lights My two cents worth; Thought long about the landing light location on my cozy project. Didn't care for the belly location for a variety of reasons. Drafts, lack of recognition lights at high speed, etc. I have friends with their lights in the strake L.E of their Long eze's. I opted not to do that because of back scatter from the canard. The cozy canard is quite a bit larger in span. It would be rather distracting at night. Had several people who should know recommend against wing, winglet or canard L.E. for structural reasons. The merits of this position would be for you to evaluate. I decided to locate my lights in the nose. As have others whose installations are clean and effective. Rob Kittler sn589; ch16 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:32:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light On 02/03/98 13:18:43 you wrote: > >You are right about the heat part, but that was not my main >consideration. It would no hurt at least? >Bulent > > My nose landing lights are ventilated by 3/4" aero duct off the NACA frash air scoops located behind the landing lights, going to the light shield housings behind and above the lights. The air exits through a 3/4" dia. hole each side into the nose gear well. originally I had a pair of small muffin fans for ventilation, but they weren't necessary. I had a thermocouple off my Ultimate Scanner mounted in the housing, and temeratures never got high enough to be a concern. I have about 9 *.TIF files of photos of the area for those really intrested. ONLY if you are building and seriously considering this option, send me an E-Mail request, and I'll attachment them back, but it is considerable work since their size is not accepted by most E-mail systems they have to be sent one at a time. I'll try to gather several requests and send them together. Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:11:47 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light > Dear Ian, > Before copying the Glassic, you might wish to check their track record. > Regards, Nat Glad to see you are monitoring the Cozy List (aught to keep us in "reality" mode). Is there something structuraly wrong with the Glassic placement of landing lights? I just thought it looked asthetically pleasing and simple. They appear to be so far out on the wing that I thought they would not reflect off of the canard. If this could cause a structural problem, I do not want to do it. I was planning on making two mini ribs and a good web across the back for support (my AME and two Aeronautical Engineers thought it would be OK, _IF_ pocket size was kept to a minimum). Could I just use a small Halogen bulb ~1.25" diameter @ 50W in the wings or winglet (for taxi only)? I do love mechanical gizmo's and therefore like the arrangement you have come up with (I just wanted it to be idiot proof as I don't want to be messing around aiming the light when I should be landing). I did something similar on my Jodel F-11, a wood/cloth tail dragger. I had a "taxi mode" and a "landing mode" lever (light had to move ~20 degrees!). It landed at 40MPH. I have had to land the Seneca at dusk in rain at an unlit grass runway (passenger medical emergency). With the lights aiming at the stars during flair... I can tell you that, if I was sitting on a lump of coal, it would have become a diamond! -- Best regards, Ian D.S. Douglas MKIV Plans 0069 & 0626 From: "astrong" Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Light Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:17:37 -0800 Ian, I just read your exchange with Nat re; Landing light. I have an installation in my three place you could consider. Go to my homepage "http://www.canard.com/trim", then click on INNOVATIONS at the bottom of the page ignore the under construction note and click on LANDING AND TAXI LIGHT. The only other links active so far is REAR SEAT ACCESS and TANK IN USE INDICATOR. When I have this page done I will announce it to the group. Hope I was of some help. Alex From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Mon, 27 Apr 98 14:49:21 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Some compact landing light options Bob (Mr. Electric) Nuckolls wrote: >snip >Saw another interesting lamp. I think it's used in accent lighting in stores. >They have a variety of tracklites that run on low voltage a.c. The EXH lamp >can be seen at > >This tiny spot light is also 50 watt. It's a halogen lamp and features a >built in reflector. It may be useful on smaller airplanes with PM >alternators. >snip If I remember correctly, there was an article in one of last years Kit Planes, or Experimenter; can't remember which one. Had a description of a circuit to make use of the above lamp (or similar 12Volt, 50 Watt Halogen) to replace our expensive strobes. Are there FAA specs on the minimum lumens required for collision avoidance? I'd be inclined to use the 'flood' version rather than 'spot' version for collision avoidance. Also, since Bob mentioned auto headlights... I have been strongly considering some for my nose-mounted units (2). AKA Marc Z's method. I noticed that the lenses on "ALL" auto units are anything but clear glass. The lamps 'typically' used for AC are totally clear with no added prisms or beam shapers in the lens. Why? What do all those lens patterns in the auto units do exactly? Would we be better off without them? Here's another related question: My mother had a sky light installed recently and they used some extreemely pollished (mirror) aluminum tubing between the roof and the ceiling. The tube was made from a riveted sheet. I have some that was left over (Mom's cool; she keeps everything just like me). Anyway, would such stuff between the lamp and the nose skin be better than a tube painted black? Anyone done both or understand the difference? Larry Schuler Plans #500 ch-13 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:48:30 -0500 From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: Some compact landing light options >Are there FAA specs on the minimum lumens required for collision >avoidance? I don't think there are, just visibility patterns. (red green front, white rear, rotating beacon all around). I think distance isn't typically a problem, especially moonless nights, you can see other aircraft lights a loooong way off. >Also, since Bob mentioned auto headlights... I have been strongly >considering some for my nose-mounted units (2). AKA Marc Z's method. I >noticed that the lenses on "ALL" auto units are anything but clear glass. >The lamps 'typically' used for AC are totally clear with no added prisms or >beam shapers in the lens. Why? What do all those lens patterns in the >auto units do exactly? Would we be better off without them? In the US, most of the beam shapers are for keeping the light in your lane of the road. Until recently ('90?), all the headlamps used really crummy molded glass. Newer headlamps have some pretty fancy lenses. I swapped out for european ground glass headlights in my rally car in 1987. This allowed me to change from the 50 watt halogen headlamps to 100watt lights. It also allowed the high beams to spread out into both lanes. (I was kind of a fanatic, never really did well, and they were only silly TSD rally's). Going to higher wattage lamps, will require better charging equipment. 100watts @ 12V is 8+ amps, and if you try a pair of 'em, will be almost 17 amps. (P = EI). Look in Autoweek and some of the other racing magazines for parts suppliers for really good "off road" lamps. From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: Re: COZY: Some compact landing light options Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:54:40 On Mon, 27 Apr 98 14:49:21 -0600, lschuler@cellular.uscc.com wrote... > >Here's another related question: My mother had a sky light installed >recently and they used some extreemely pollished (mirror) aluminum tubing >between the roof and the ceiling. The tube was made from a riveted sheet. >I have some that was left over (Mom's cool; she keeps everything just like >me). Anyway, would such stuff between the lamp and the nose skin be >better than a tube painted black? Anyone done both or understand the >difference? The reflecting tube will increase the amount of light out relative to a black tube. Light travels in straight lines in a single media. If you start with a point source, the reflection will create a virtual source (mirror image) that acts like the original source, but at a different location. In the case of a tube reflector, it creates a virtual ring with a radius twicw as large as the tube. If you have a filament instead of a point source, it creates a virtual disk. The question, however, is how useful is this light? It exits the tube at large angles, is very difficult to focus, and is quite diffuse. In something like a landing light application, where you want a beam, it will make little difference, perhaps improving the side lighting a bit. OTOH, don't discount the coolness factor of how it would look. Steve ************************************************ Stephen A. Campbell, Professor, ECE University of Minnesota 200 Union Street Minneapolis 55455 (612) 625-5876 phone / (612) 625-4583 fax Campbell@ece.umn.edu ************************************************* Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:26:10 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: COZY: Some compact landing light options At 10:48 AM 4/28/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>Are there FAA specs on the minimum lumens required for collision >>avoidance? Actually, there are very detailed specifications for not only visability angles but color and intenisty for both navigation lights and strobes or rotating beacons . . . >I don't think there are, just visibility patterns. (red green front, >white rear, rotating beacon all around). I think distance isn't >typically a problem, especially moonless nights, you can see other >aircraft lights a loooong way off. Agreed . . . this is why some of the specs for intensity and color border on silly. Pilots with their heads up looking don't run into things . . . Pilots with their heads down wont see you no matter how BRIGHT or what COLOR your lights are. >>Also, since Bob mentioned auto headlights... I have been strongly >>considering some for my nose-mounted units (2). AKA Marc Z's method. I >>noticed that the lenses on "ALL" auto units are anything but clear glass. >>The lamps 'typically' used for AC are totally clear with no added prisms or >>beam shapers in the lens. Why? What do all those lens patterns in the >>auto units do exactly? Would we be better off without them? > >In the US, most of the beam shapers are for keeping the light in your >lane of the road. Until recently ('90?), all the headlamps used really >crummy molded glass. Newer headlamps have some pretty fancy lenses. Which is why I think they're worth looking at for airplanes. The only difference I see between cars and airplanes in landing attitude is the fact that there's air under the wheels. Visibility issues are identical with respect to where you look and what you preceive both in center of view and peripheral vision. >Going to higher wattage lamps, will require better charging >equipment. 100watts @ 12V is 8+ amps, and if you try a pair of 'em, >will be almost 17 amps. (P = EI). Consider too that lamps are only a few percent efficient. That is to say that MOST of the watts comes off as HEAT. While lots of light may be emotionally satisfying, getting along with smaller lamps has a LOT of benefits. >Look in Autoweek and some of the other racing magazines for parts >suppliers for really good "off road" lamps. > The biggest variable of all the fixtures available to us is how they spread the light. When considering off-the-wall lighting products, park your airplane on a dark taxiway, have someone stand outside holding the light fixture hooked to a 12 volt battery and point the critter around while you sit in the seat and compare with your existing lights. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < If you continue to do > < What you've always done > < You will continue to be > < What you've always been. > ================================= From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Landing lights Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:44:28 -0500 Dear Cozy builders, It is very interesting to read about all the concerns about landing lights. I learned to fly in the Navy where we never used landing lights (they teach you to land on carriers). After flying canard airplanes since 1978, I have yet to use one for landing. I was taught (correctly, I think) that runway lights are not only adequate but much better for judging altitude and depth perception. I can only remember once or twice using a landing light for taxiing. I consider strobes (and position lights) are much better for collision avoidance. When the tower tells me to turn on my landing light in the daytime, I just ignore them. Last of all, I don't do a lot of night flying. Burt Rutan (I am his licensee, remember) used to say that good pilots flew in the daytime and made love at night. I try to follow his advice. Regards, Nat From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: More on landing lights Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:45:03 -0500 Dear Cozy builders, One of the problems with landing lights, and the reason I don't use them, is that they light up the area immediately in front of you, but in so doing, destroy your night vision so the area beyond is one black hole, and you can't see anything. I remember in primary, where we were flying Stearmans at night with no landing lights, and the runways didn't have lights either. They parked a couple for fire trucks at the end of the runway with their headlights on. It was a terrifying experience to fly over the light area, which destroyed our night vision, into a pitch black area where we couldn't see anything. This caused more than one ground loop (none by me, thankfully). Then they would send these people right back up again at night in another airplane. With our airplanes, mounting landing lights in the strakes or wings compounds the problem because now light reflects off the canard and the inside of the canopy to destroy night vision. Even with the landing light underneath the fuselage, it can shine through the windows in the wheel well. I would encourage you to install a landing light in a location of your preference, but then to try landing both ways and see if you don't make better landings relying only on the runway lights. Shirley says my landings at night (not very often) are better than my landings in the daytime. Best regards, Nat Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:50:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Some compact landing light options At 02:49 PM 4/27/98 -0600, Larry Schuler wrote: > > >>This tiny spot light is also 50 watt. It's a halogen lamp and features a >>built in reflector. It may be useful on smaller airplanes with PM >>alternators. >>snip > > >If I remember correctly, there was an article in one of last years Kit >Planes, or Experimenter; can't remember which one. Had a description of a >circuit to make use of the above lamp (or similar 12Volt, 50 Watt Halogen) >to replace our expensive strobes. > > My friend Ted Givins has a pair of these small 50 Watt lights installed in his Dragonfly in the canard LE out near the tips. We can see him for about 2 miles head on in the day. Strobes tend to be very short on visible range in daylight. A halogen light in the nose cone is probably the best day time anti-collision insurance you can get short of an AI radar. Nigel Field Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 08:12:26 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Landing lights Nat, re "Burt Rutan used to say that good pilots flew in the daytime and made love at night. I try to follow his advice." A timeless statement.....should be a part of the MKIV plan. In reading the FAR's, I find that a landing light is not required for night certification of an Experimental airplane - only required if for hire operation is planned, which we can't do anyhow. My DAR concurs. Beyond all that, I am going to install a landing light later but not for landing. It will be for taxi illumination only since some airports, even big ones, do not mark taxi ways very well. My prime concern with the night certification is to be legal for the dusk landing. I followed your advice and painted my airplane outside in the elements. It picked up some dirt as the wind was blowing but have found it easy to remove with 1200 grit wet paper and buff with 3M compound to finish. I gave the top surfaces 3 coats of clear so there is plenty of material to work with. Third EAA inspection today....final assembly, 4th inspection and taxi tests should begin within 2 weeks....hope to see you at OSH....no more airshows until this machine is flying! Best to you and Shirley. dd