Strobe Packs

[captain_john]

PTrotter just hit me with this link.

http://www.strobesnmore.com/

...thought it needed archiving here so everyone could have a copy of it. The packs look just like the ones they sell on www.creativair.com and are less.

I am concerned about noise. I see the Whelen ones are in metal cases, these are not. Is the lower cost worth the experiment?

What do you think?

CJ

[David Lynch]

Thank you for this URL. I was not aware of ths company.

I looked over their offerings and did not see any thing that directly replaces the CreativeAir product. This complany really seems focused on the emergency vehicle (auto, trauck, etc.) market rather than the airplane market.

While I think that we in the aircraft business sometimes go overboard in making stuff overbuilt (and over priced.) In this case I don't think so. I have seen a number of automotive stuff that they put a aircraft part number and charge twice the price. But in this case I think it should be aircraft specific.

Vibration and temperature is a real issue for strobes in aircraft. Much more than autos. Also RF noise generated by the strobe power supply is a real problem for aircraft. Aircraft use old style AM modulation in their CAM and NAV radiois. And AM is very sensitive to noise. Strobes put out a lot of AM pulses which interfere with your radio (they cause that annoying pluse noise you hear every secod or so in your rental aircraft. Having a good shielded strobe power supply and cables will really help on this. I wouldn't save a few bucks for this problem.

David

[captain_john]

Well, let us take a closer look.

I am by no means a professional, but I can do some research.

Here is the Creativair one:



It is $285.00

Enter this one from strobesnmore:



It is $168.99

The both look the same. There is $100 difference in price. They both have quad flash and supply 4 strobe heads. Of course, we need only 3. One on the belly would be a good idea, though!

Thoughts?

CJ

[Thermos]

CJ,

I just stumbled on this thread...hope someone is still following it.

Let me second what David Lynch wrote, and add a caution that FAR 91 requires an "approved" red or white anticollision lighting system that meets FAR 23 design criteria. In this case, "approved" implies an STC on a certified aircraft, or via a PMA or TSO.

Dave

[svanarts]

You just have to meet the standards of the FARs. Being experimental it
doesn't have to be an STC'd or approved system, it just has to perform
equal to an STC'd or approved system. This gives us SO much
flexibility.


On Aug 4, 2005, at 9:30 AM, RB Lists: Electrical wrote:

> CJ,
>
> I just stumbled on this thread...hope someone is still following it.
>
> Let me second what David Lynch wrote, and add a caution that FAR 91
> requires an "approved" red or white anticollision lighting system that
> meets FAR 23 design criteria. In this case, "approved" implies an STC
> on a certified aircraft, or via a PMA or TSO.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> RV-7 wings...putting the "slow" in slow-build!
> http://www.mightyarcher.com/rv7
>
>
> rivetbangers.com - Discussion topic
> http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/for ... =4982#4982
>


Submitted via email

[Thermos]

Scott,

I'd like to agree with you, because I would really rather have LEDs in my wingtips rather than tungsten filaments.

But I can't find a reference to any FAA statement that confirms what you're saying. FAR 91 applies to all N-registered aircraft, not just the certified ones, so the requirement for "approved" position and anticollision lights applies to us as best I can determine.

Of course, I could take a chance that my DAR or FAA inspector wouldn't catch the LEDs, but then again, they might...

Cheers,

Dave

[Thermos]

My question to Scott made me think...which is a dangerous thing!

As near as I can tell, Scott, you're absolutely right...which you probably already knew. FAR 91.205 covers minimum equipment requirements, including lighting. The first paragraph in .205 says "...civil aircraft with a standard category US airworthiness certificate." So there...

Thanks!

Dave

[svanarts]

Yeah, weird huh?

Just going by what my real-live federal airworthiness representative
(not a DAR) told me two years ago.

I'll try not to make you think anymore.

On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:48 AM, RB Lists: Electrical wrote:

> My question to Scott made me think...which is a dangerous thing!
>
> As near as I can tell, Scott, you're absolutely right...which you
> probably already knew. FAR 91.205 covers minimum equipment
> requirements, including lighting. The first paragraph in .205 says
> "...civil aircraft with a standard category US airworthiness
> certificate." So there...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> RV-7 wings...putting the "slow" in slow-build!
> http://www.mightyarcher.com/rv7
>
>
> rivetbangers.com - Discussion topic
> http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/for ... =4988#4988
>


Submitted via email

[jimrobinette]

Dave,

A very slight in wording, but huge in applicability, distinction that has caused me to pull out my AIM/FAR (which hasn't seen the light of day in a couple of years due to overseas ICAO flying) and re-read various parts very carefully. I think you may have stumbled upon a gold mine!!

So, in the absence of any other documentation, do you think this gives us the green (LED) light for LED's? Haven't done any other digging around.

Take care,

Jim

My question to Scott made me think...which is a dangerous thing!

As near as I can tell, Scott, you're absolutely right...which you probably already knew. FAR 91.205 covers minimum equipment requirements, including lighting. The first paragraph in .205 says "...civil aircraft with a standard category US airworthiness certificate." So there...

Thanks!

Dave