>Any thoughts on how many watts it takes on average for a small plane to be
>able to light up the runway on approach and landing? I like Bob's idea of
>the 50w 4352s for the wings, a total of 100w. (Got to keep the math simple)
>What about a third light (100w?) in the nose for a total of 200w? Where are
>the best places to mount lights in the wing - out towards the tips or in
>closer? In my old C-130 days, we had a light that rotated down from the
>bottom of the wing to point forward. After landing, you flip the switch and
>to rotated back up into the wing. Could this be done on a Kitfox? Anyone
>with experience on what is the minimum amount of light needed to make it
>worthwhile in the first place please step forward.
>
I tried this experiment a few years back while we owned an
airport complete with J-3 Cub: I took an ordinary sportsman's
lantern (6v, 0.8a bulb for a grand total of 4.8 watts!) and
duct-taped it to the strut so that it pointed in the right
place for looking ahead in a wheel landing attitude. I can
tell you that this light was entirely adequate for performing
a series of touch-n-go's in the Cub long after the sun went
down. If I needed to build a minimum energy system (perhaps
wind generator powered?) for night landings in the Cub,
a pair of 5w fixtures on each wing would be quite useful
and doable.
Adequate lighting has very little to do with watts, it has
to do with what you can see. If you fly off of runways in the
bush and expect to crow-hop over an occasional deer or
possum on the runway, then a few kilowatts of police-
hellicopter klieg-lights may not be enough. If you need to
accomplish reliably controlled landings on a runway that
is already outlined in the little row of bulbs down each
side, then it can be a whole different story (the runway
lamps on our airport were 8 watt sewing machine bulbs!).
Piling on the watts and lumens may be satisfying in some
respects. I'll suggest that we're building the best airplanes
that have ever flown. Part of being "best" means optomizing
hardware to the task while considering temperature
rise, power consumption, installation ease, utility,
cost/performace ratio, etc. We who have roots deep in
the certified aircraft world bring a lot of baggage with
us when it comes to sorting out what's useful versus
what's found on the heavy-iron birds we learned in.
Right here in these forums is where we sort through the
pieces and parts to see what's really useful while
hopefully eliminating all things from the hard-to-do pile.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
|