"New" Whelen Parmetheus Landing and Taxi Lights

[Iceman07]

So, I was reading my new AOPA Pilot, and read the artical on the new Whelen parmetheus led landing and taxi lights. They claim it is a drop-in replacement for the normal PAR 36 size bulbs.

http://www.whelen.com/pb/Aviation/Produ ... Series.pdf

Does anyone know if these are approved for a Cessna 170A?

TIA

Rich

[Green Bean]

Go to the Whelen site and it shows all the Cessna 170's (A-799/170,170A,170B) in the STC is for the lights you order. (Parmetheus STC SA02212AK.pdf)

[GAHorn]

It's been my experience that pilots who have converted to LED landing lights have praised the reduced electrical-demand...but admit they do not "spotlight" a beam down the runway where they are focusing their attention. Instead, LED's tend to diffuse the light over a wider area...which may serve a taxi-purpose well (similar to a fog-lamp) but do not penetrate mist, fog, or haze as well. (In fact, in mist/rain/fog/haze/smoke they produce increased "back-scatter".)
The pilots which have converted their corporate jets to LED's have admitted that they wish they'd kept the incandescents, but do not mention their opinions to their employers (whose $10-grand they spent on the conversion.)
It leads me to conclude that they are expensive, but good taxi lamps and poorer landing lamps.

My personal experience with LEDs (in other use) is that they usually do have longer service lives...in vibration-free environments. But they do not deal with vibration well. (I have LED nav and interior lighting. The nav-lights have lost a few elements but still serve sufficiently-well to remain in service....as they drop more elements I plan to replace them with other LED units. The interior lighting has not had any failures, and I like it very much.) I've kept the incandescent landing lights and converted my taxi lights to PAR-36 incandescent "fog"-type lenses (GE-4461). The dual land/taxi set-up makes my setup far superior to the left-wing-only setup.)

[blueldr]

Many first person reports on led lighting as providing good daylight recognition but poor night runway illumination.

[Iceman07]

I had the whelens' installed (both the landing and taxi lights) last week.

I flew at night for the first time with the lights last night.

In a few words: I love em'! Seriously, one of the best "mods" I've done on my 170A. So much brighter, it's amazing. Taxi lights have a very wide beam. The difference is nothing short of spectacular.

On landing, the light easily illuminated 2/3 the length of the runway.

Well, well worth the price. I could not be happier.

[LBPilot82]

So, just curious... you said the taxi light has a wide beam which sounds great, what about the landing light? Have they focused the beam some how??? Is the distance it reaches as good as incandescent? How much were the lights?
I while back, I was very temped to upgrade to HID after flying behind several planes equipped with them. I was temped... until I saw the price!!! They are remarkably brighter than anything else but no way are they worth the price.

[Iceman07]

To answer your questions:

1) The landing light is wider than what you may be used to. It is not a typical "Spot" light, but it does not need to be a spot light. It is bright enough and wide enough to see the entire touch-down zone with no problem. As I said, it lit up a good two thirds the length of the runway.

2) They are about $230.00 each. No, not cheap at all, but I fully expect that I'll never have to replace them.

3) Are they worth the price? That's up to you, of course, but as for me, yes, they are worth every penny. One of the best "upgrades" I've done on my 170A. (And the easiest to install, BTW)

[Cessna_pilot]

We have put a few (4 or 5) into customers planes, all of which were cessna and aircraft with the landing and taxi light in the cowl. These are supposed to last way longer with the vibrations from the engine. They are much easier to see the a/c comming at you during the day, but i have not flown one with them at night, so i cant say how they do.

Tom