Wing Tip and Landing Lights

[lakespookie]

Getting started on my wing kit this week and i plan to go with the aero led 3 in one wingtip lights as well as duckworth LED landing/taxi lights for those with experience installing/configuring some or all of these components if you can share any lessons learned/ best practices that would be appreciated.

My current plan is to use the Wing Tip mounts that are commonly sold on Aircraft spruce for the wingtip lights, i think the duckworths are probably a pretty straight forward install but given that i am not retrofitting it I am thinking there may be some opportunities to optimize install prior to wing skin install but maybe not.

On a not totally unrelated note would it be crazy to add a third light kit with no light to internally mount a go pro and run power to it i am thinking a large memory card and i can basically capture a full flight since power would no be a concern all i would need to do is add a quick access panel to swap memory cards.

[GordonTurner]

I would suggest the duck worth’s go far out in the wing. It’s a big hole in the leading edge which looks like it must be a structural piece. My thoughts on the go-pro idea:

The lenses don’t come in and off super easy, though possible, so if you have to access the camera not super easy. I wouldn’t be keen on multiple holes in the leading edge, but maybe ask Kerry for his opinion. Could you put bith the go-pro and the landing light inside of the same lens? Just leave the light off when filming? Finally, just another thought but usually it seems more interesting to have some of the plane in the picture and this idea won’t. Would be cool for dogfighting though :)

[mike.smith]

If you only have one landing light, make sure it goes on the pilot's side wing! I put it on the passenger side wing and I can't see sh*t flying from the left seat. I would also put it as close to the cockpit as you can, without being in the prop arc. You can ask Sonex if there are any limitations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbgek8-X14o

If you have a tail dragger, like me, the angle of the light is a compromise between what you can see on approach, and what you can see in the flare and the taxi. For that reason I might suggest 2 lights at different angles. However, even with LED lights you will be at low engine RPM during taxi and landing, and so producing less power from the alternator. That means you'll be running a lot of your electronics and lights off the battery since the alternator can't keep up. So use lights that draw as little power as possible.

For wingtip lights, if you want to be legal for night flying they need to be TSO'd, and they need to be visible in precise arcs from the lights. The angled surface of the Sonex wingtips make that difficult, so plan accordingly.

There is little to nothing to see from a forward-facing wing mounted camera. Talk about boring! That is, unless you're taking gun camera shots while shooting down another aircraft! Better locations are on the top of the vertical stab, on the bulkhead behind the pilot, or on a wing mount facing back at the fuselage. It gives some perspective to have the aircraft or cockpit in the scene. It's a simple thing to run power to the camera if you put it inside the cockpit. And you can add your comm directly to the camera to boot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctzIi77rxok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh6Ys6MwTiY&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLmZJE2alOQ

[lakespookie]

I am planning on multiple cameras perhaps mounting it in the same location as one of the lights makes more sense, Vertical stab is not an option since this is a waiex build, Power should not be a concern based on my power plant/power system plans I will have a 65 amp alt.

As far as camera access I was thinking of placing an access panel near the camera mount but I guess the cockpit is not a terrible compromise given the structural concerns. My thoughts on the internal mounting was that it would be easier to keep things powered and out of the elements in the wing.

As far as light aiming I am building a trike so it should be a bit less of a compromise.

[DCASonex]

One other option to consider for that Go-Pro I made a mount for mine that fit partially into the aileron bell crank inspection hole.

David A.

[GraemeSmith]

For wingtip lights, if you want to be legal for night flying they need to be TSO'd

I am not sure that is correct - for an EXPERIMENTAL

and they need to be visible in precise arcs from the lights.

^^^^THIS^^^^^ is absolutely correct.

--

There is a school of thought that even in certificated aircraft - a TSO'd light fixture can have incandescent bulbs replaced with non-PMA LED bulbs without a need to file a 337. The ruling factor simply being that the light has to meet the arc and color temperature requirements. I've had at least two inspectors at the Boston FSDO tell me (verbally) they were fine with that concept if is made the aircraft brighter and easier to see - while still meeting the arc and color requirements.

[lakespookie]

Graeme I am in the same school of thought as you regarding the legality on no TSO lights in experimental aircraft, The reason i plan on using the wingtips from aircraft spruce is for the arc/visibility requirements.

Link for wingtip light mount here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/ ... apters.php

[daleandee]

Here's what I did for wig-wag and landing lights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaca3NB5SLs

Here's what they look like in action (take-off and landing):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYJm2H3pqXY

Dale
N319WF

[mike.smith]

For wingtip lights, if you want to be legal for night flying they need to be TSO'd

I am not sure that is correct - for an EXPERIMENTAL

and they need to be visible in precise arcs from the lights.

^^^^THIS^^^^^ is absolutely correct.

Lights for NIGHT flight are about the only thing on an experimental that need to be TSO'd to be legal. This has been corroborated many times by the FAA and a host of articles you can find online from FAA inspectors and DARs.

Excerpts that I have kept since I was building:
- In the end it has to be stated in the operating limitations of the particular aircraft in question. In these limitations it will be stated that the aircraft is to be equipped IAW the FAR's (91.205) like everyone else. The exceptions are there is no TSO requirement for the instruments (since none are stated in the FAR's).

- The anti-collision lighting system is required under FAR PART 91.205(c). There are different requirements affecting different aircraft. These
aircraft are categorized by the date of application for type certificate. Home built aircraft are determined by the date of issuance of the
Experimental Operating Limitations. If issued after 1977 then: These anti-collision systems must produce a minimum of 400 effective candela in Aviation Red or White (REF. FAR 23.1397), 360º around the aircraft’s vertical axis, 75º above and below the horizontal plane (REF. FAR 23.1401).

- In order for the aircraft to be approved for IFR and/or night operations, the Operating Limitations must contain the following or a similarly worded statement: “After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.” So an experimental MUST comply with the same 91.205 section that certified aircraft have to comply with, for night flight.

- Normally, section 91.205 would not apply to a homebuilt because it specifically refers to “powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates". However, the above operating limitation makes it applicable to homebuilts IF you want to use it for IFR and/or night flight.

- Paragraph (d) of 91.205 speaks directly to IFR & Night operations:
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

- Paragraph (c) says (note the key word is APPROVED, which means they need to be TSO'd):
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.

[GraemeSmith]

Thanks Mike.

I'm certainly not going to split hairs on this where there is a specific use of the word "approved".

--

I was mis-guided by:

FAA Order 8300.16A APPENDIX A. Definitions (10) Meet Minimum Technical Standard Order (TSO) Established Standards.

Means that the equipment need not have TSO approval, but that it meets requirements set by the TSO.​

--

Which is often used to fit NON-TSO'd Avionics in certificated aircraft. (In shops that will do it). The point being that if something meets a standard then it can be used. TSO'd or not. Also routinely used for headsets - most of which don't come with a piece of paper to say they are TSO'd.

Learn something every day.