L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes/Interior Lights

How to keep the Cessna 170 flying and airworthy.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 21004
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes/Interior Lights

Post by GAHorn »

I was thinking about ways to reduce the demand on my 35 Amp generator at night. (I am right at the 80%-rule and wanted to be kinder to it and didn't want to spend the $$$ to change to an alternator AND put up with all the hoopla from you guys..... :lol: )

So, doing a little research came up with the following idea: Instead of spending $1K on an alternator I could spend it on Whelen L.E.D. Nav/Strobe system. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/e ... 105648.php Image(Hint-Hint for you guys about to put on wingtip strobes....the LED system is only a couple bucks more than the standard and you'll save the difference the first time you don't have to buy a replacement nav-lamp at $18 each.)
L.E.D.'s will last almost as long as the pyramids of Giza and use 1/10th the electricity of ordinary nav lamps.

As an EXPERIMENT ONLY (heh-heh...you guys who wonder if I'd ever do anything slightly illegal are gonna love this) I ordered some automotive 1156 L.E.D. replacement bulbs. They are advertised as direct replacements for 1156 incandescent lamps and have 39 LED's in them, 18 forward-firing and 21 side-firing. I made a comparison in the darkened hangar. The LED's are actually much brighter when viewed directly than incandescent bulbs. (I didn't have a LUX meter but I'll bet any photographer could measure it with his meter.) The savings is slightly more than 5-Amps when replacing all three std nav lamps, for a 15% reduction in generator-load using a 35 Amp gen. It's like converting my 35 Amp to a 40 Amp generator for the price of bulbs. (Poor analogy, actually it's my 35A gen having 5 Amps less work to do.)
The individual LED bulbs cost about the same as std Whelen nav lamps, but generate virtually NO HEAT, consume only 2.4 watts (.173 Amps @ 13.8 volts) for a savings of 23.6 watts per bulb. (5.5 Amps total)

I came back into the house from looking at the LEDs and it took almost 20 minutes before my eyes recovered from the burn-out spots sufficiently so I could read again in normal light. :lol:

Now, to be accurate, ... being automotive, they are not certified to meet FAA requirements for candlepower or color. But my eyes can't tell the difference in overall effect except that the LED's, when viewed straight-on, are somewhat brighter, in my opinion.* (And the white, tail-nav-lite is a brighter/crisper...(cooler?) white...as opposed to the "warm" white of an incandescent bulb.) <SUBSEQUENT EDIT> Advisory Circular AC 23-27 allows the use of automotive equivalent parts on aircraft mfr'd prior to January 1971. LED lamps seemingly identical to these I installed are also offered by Spruce as "Standard Parts", meaning they may be used on certificated airplanes as direct replacement parts. Since the source I mention in this article is half the price of the Spruce 1156/1157-type LEDs... I have retained the ones described in this thread on my airplane. It is now 2 yrs later and they still work just perfectly.)
* Addendum: (Later, when my eyes recovered, I realized that the "super"-white LED bulbs, when filtered thru the red and green lenses of the nav light fixtures actually had a slightly orange-ish and blue-ish color-shift to them. This is corrected by installing red and green LEDs which are color-corrected automatically, and have the added advantage of not losing as much brilliance by having so much of the white spectrum removed by the colored lens of the nav light fixture.) Possibly workable red/green substitutes are: http://www.ledlight.com/s25-36-super-br ... light.aspx and/or http://www.ledlight.com/s25-32-led-light.aspx

http://www.ledlight.com/s25-39-led-light.aspx

PS- One must grind one of the tabs off the bulb-base so it'll fit a standard nav-light base, due to the 1156 base, but otherwise it's a perfect fit. It fits the tail-nav light fixture without modification because an automotive 1156 bulb will fit back there just fine, also. :wink:

Image

Now,... don't go waste your time and money for bulbs and shipping if you think you're gonna replace your interior #67 lamps (the std C-170 instrument lamp) in those original Grimes "torpedo" fixtures because that won't work. The #67/89 LED replacements (shown below) are forward-firing only and the lamps in those Grimes torpedos utilize the side-illumination capability of standard incandescent bulbs. So the LED versions won't do "squat" in those applications, even tho' when viewed directly you'll think the sheriff has pulled you over and decided to spot-light your eyes and burn-out your retinas. (I was hoping different, but they just don't work well in that particular Grimes fixture.) :(

Image

Addendum #2: Keep reading, Dear Reader, where on pg 2 of this thread you will see how the interior lights were dealt with and how I was successful at replacing all the #67 lamps as well with LEDs.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

I wish I could have a 35 amp generator but am stuck at 25 because of my undampened crank.

Just drives you nuts when something so simple is not legal. Makes you think about putting your 170 in the restricted experimental category doesn't it W. :)

Wonder how difficult a 337 approval would be?
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
W.J.Langholz
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:56 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by W.J.Langholz »

This is got to be my ALL TIME Favorite thread.............2 very hard nosed curmudgeons writting down in print the above formentioned ideas!!!!!! Be still my heart!!!!!!!!!!

You guys just might make it......someday.....if I keep working on ya and I live that long.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


W.
ImageMay there always be and Angel flying with you.
Loyalty above all else except honor.
1942 Stearman 450
1946 Super Champ 7AC
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 21004
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by GAHorn »

Definition: Curmudgeon
–noun

a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.

Synonyms:
grouch, crank, bear, sourpuss, crosspatch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is a Curmudgeon anyway?

A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.
Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.
- JON WINOKUR
-------------------------------

So, there!, Dubya. Go *$^%$@@ yourself. :twisted:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
W.J.Langholz
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:56 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by W.J.Langholz »

curmudgeon=So, there!, Dubya. Go *$^%$@@ yourself.

:lol: :lol:
W.
ImageMay there always be and Angel flying with you.
Loyalty above all else except honor.
1942 Stearman 450
1946 Super Champ 7AC
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 21004
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by GAHorn »

Well... I procrastinated and didn't go back out and remove the LED lamps.... so now that it's dark-thirty here, I went out to a pitch-black hangar and turned on the nav lights, and made a comparison with the LED versus the incandescent "approved" lamps.

The LED's are every bit as bright and the wingtip lights are the similar color of course (slight shift as the addendum above indicates), since they are white units that shine thru the proper red/green lenses. The tail light is that "stark" white (as opposed to the "yellow" white of an incandescent) but there's no chance of it being confused as anything other than a white light. It's as bright or brighter than the approved lamp. I suppose a "warm" white LED could be used if someone wanted. The entire interior of the hangar and its walls is lit up just from one airplane's nav lights. The battery could run those things for days, weeks maybe, if that was all that was turned on....

Well, it's late, so I think I'll just make a mental note to remove them and put the correct ones back in tomorrow.......

5.1 watts (.37 amps) versus 78 watts (5.7 amps)... Wow.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by canav8 »

N9149A wrote:I wish I could have a 35 amp generator but am stuck at 25 because of my undampened crank.

Just drives you nuts when something so simple is not legal. Makes you think about putting your 170 in the restricted experimental category doesn't it W. :)

Wonder how difficult a 337 approval would be?
Hi Bruce. I have a question for you. I looked through the Continental engine IPC the other day because the topic of discussion with my IA was about dampened and undampened cranks. We talked about holes and no holes. Well after researching the Continental C-145 IPC, I found that there are only part numbers for dampened cranks in the C-145 and the O-300A,B,C,D. I also found that if you had the C-125 crank then it could be undampened. You could tell that you had a 125 crank installed because it would not make rated power on runup. So it begs the question. Did you physically see that you did not have a damper on the 5th and 6th journals of the crank? They will not be on any other journals. I was concerned about this to because when I bought the plane, a C-145 motor was put together from parts and it was not documented as to whether it had a dampened or undampened crank. I had a 35 amp generator from the previous motor installed on this one and I wasnt sure if I had to take it off because of the TCM bulletin. I pulled the number 6 cyl and saw that it did infact have the dampers. So I am keeping my 35amp generator. :D Respectfully, Doug
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
Azpilot
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:01 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by Azpilot »

1952/1996 C170B Turbo. Why? Because, thats why.
CFI/CFII at KDYL
User avatar
LBPilot82
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:56 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by LBPilot82 »

I think for those stuck with limited power supply, the most effective way to reduce current demand is by reducing power required by the one of the largest consumers of all...the landing/taxi lights. I was looking into the H.I.D. lights as a way to reduce the current draw but came to a screeching hault when I saw the price.. about $500 per. Wow!! Guess I'll stick with what I've got for now.
Richard Dach
49' A Model N9007A
SN 18762
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Yes Doug, I rebuilt my motor and saw for myself there was no dampers. If you look at the IPC you will note that it describes the C-125 crank as having dampers so that is not accurate. Don't know if the part number between the two cranks for the C-145 changed with the addition of the dampers.

Landing light sure draw a lot but unless you run them all the time it is an intermittent draw. I don't have the power to run them all the time and so I don't.

Another thing that draws a lot of power is instrument panel lighting. If you've added any post lights the amperage can add up quickly.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by canav8 »

canav8 wrote:Thanks Bruce. As I said the 125 shaft COULD BE undampened. I am curious about using a crank that is not shown in the IPC without dampers. I am not trying to stir the pot just trying to understand this engine business. Thanks for answering my question and sorry to thread hijack. V/R Doug
Your not stirring the pot at all Doug. The IPC actually shows a picture of an undampered shaft with cutouts of the damper flanges and the dampers. It's just not clear in the IPC what part number represents the undampered version. There is no doubt there was an undampered crank for the C-145.

And to tie this in to the subject the limitation on the undampered crank and generator size is a real limit that L.E.D. lighting could easily help if it were not for cost or the Feds lack of cooperation with what could be a simple modification.
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
User avatar
johneeb
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 2:44 am

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by johneeb »

The grandaddy of thread hijacking.

Bruce,
I have reread this thread and looked over and over at my C-145 O-300 parts manual and can make out that the C-125 was the only one with a non-dampered crank. Is the manual incorrect.
C-145 Crank part drawing.JPG
C-145 Crank part drawing list.JPG
C-145 Crank part manual code pg.JPG
John E. Barrett
aka. Johneb

Sent from my "Cray Super Computer"
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Yes the manual is incorrect. In fact my manual has a dampered crank listed for the C-125.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
johneeb
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 2:44 am

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by johneeb »

Bruce,
Is there a corrected manual or a revision notice? The date on my manual is November 1969.
John E. Barrett
aka. Johneb

Sent from my "Cray Super Computer"
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: L.E.D. Navigation/Strobes

Post by canav8 »

johneeb wrote:The grandaddy of thread hijacking.

Bruce,
I have reread this thread and looked over and over at my C-145 O-300 parts manual and can make out that the C-125 was the only one with a non-dampered crank. Is the manual incorrect.
C-145 Crank part drawing.JPG
C-145 Crank part drawing list.JPG
C-145 Crank part manual code pg.JPG
That is how I read it as well, and begged to ask the question. It seems that Bruce is also correct because there were undampered cranks at one time because the TCDS has the 35 amp generator note and so is the reference in the TCM bulletin. I believe that the IPC that you have John is correct as it is the revised version. Mine came from Essco and unfortunately, I am not sure what their quality control is. I just looked at the On-List and compared the crank part numbers. Thanks for discussing it. I do understand it better now. V/R Doug
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
Post Reply