Flood-light test at Fairfield Air Depot--1927 (Equipment Branch report)

              •
Auburn Univer sity Libraries
mm1~m1~1m111m~1ITT~
' 3 170602585154 9
File D00.12/122
. ,..~ -
>J, ,/
AIR CORPS INFORMATION CIRCULAR
PUBLISHED BY THE CHIEF OF THE AIR CORPS, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Vol. VII August 15, 1928 No. 623
FLOOD-LIGHT TEST
AT FAIRFIELD AIR DEPOT-1927
(EQUIPMENT BRANCH REPORT)
Prepared by Wilbur T. Harding
Materiel Division, Air Corps
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
March 14, 1928
UNITED ST A TES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
1928
Ralph Brown Dr• ;g:- ·1
LIBRARY
JUN 11 2013
Non·Oepoitor'y
Auburn University
CERTIFICATE: By direction of the Secretary of War the matter contained
herein is published as administrative information and is required for the proper
transaction of the public business.
(n )
-
FLOOD~LIGHT TEST AT FAIRFIELD AIR DEPOT-1927
OBJECT OF TEST
By authority of the Office, Chief of the Air Corps, a
board of officers was convened at Wright Field on
October 17, 1927. This board was composed of one
member from a pursuit group, one member from a
bombing group, one member from a training school,
and two members from the Airplane Test Branch of the
Materiel Division. This board was to carry out tests
to determine the best type of installation for illumina­tion
of landing fi elds. Various types of flood -lighting
equipment were to be given te ts and recommendations
were to be made for the t ype of equipment to be used
at permanent Army Air Corps airdromes.
Previous work by the United States Army Air
C?rps, described by " Comparative flood -light t est,"
Air Corps Information Circular No. 571, had con­sidered
installations s uitable for one airplane to land
at a time. In the new investigation it was desired
to learn if it were feasible to Land in formation at night,
and if so, what type of installation was best adapted
for such tacti cs. The investigation was confined
primarily to p ermanent airdromes, as it was considered
to be a separate problem from that of t emporary
airdrome, set up in the field with portable equipment.
CONCLUSIONS
In arriving at the facts on which the foll011ing
findings are based the board kept in view what it
believed to be the major consideration, namely, to
determine the proper illumination for flying fields for
tactical operations and not for itinerant or single-hip
activities. The natw·e of the surface of the
landing fi eld has an effect upon the illumination
obtained in any flood-lighting system. Green or dried
grass, wet or dry ground, cinders, sand, ice, or snow,
each absorb and reflect light in different degrees.
In conducting the test s, consideration was given to
this fact. Although the tests took place in October
in a field covered with dried grass, it was found possible
to compare the different lights on an equal basis;
and as the brown grass represents the average condi­tion
at the majority of airdromes throughout the year
it is not believed that the difference resulting fro~
another kind of surface will affect the findings of the
board in respect to any of the lights tested.
As a result of the experience gained during the cour e
of these test s, the board was satisfied of the existence
of certain definite principles upon which any satis­factory
fi eld-lighting installation must be based. The
board was of the opinion that each flying field, by reason
of its physical characteristics, presents an individual
problem of lighting, and that a satisfactory installation
can only be secured after a careful study of the terrain
followed by an intelligent application of the prin -
ciples quoted. The board was of the opinion that the
general requirements for any satisfactory fi eld-lighting
system should include the following major points:
PART !.-FINDINGS RE GENERAL REQUIRE­MENTS
OF AIRDROME FLOOD LIGHTING
1. The .flood-lighting system employed should provide
an even distribution of illumination over the entire
usable portion of the landing area.-It is necessary that
full advantage be taken of the area available to secure
a maximum of safety of operation under all conditions.
2. The light should provide a sufficient intensity of
illumination to reveal the details of the surface and make
depth perception readily possible from a minimum
altitude of thirty f eet (30 .feet) in the center of the li ghted
area.-This altitude, determined as a result of the e
tests, is considered the minimum which will permit the
securing of a proper perspective in 1tpproaching tile
ground in a modern high-speed plane.
3. 'l'he source of light and power must be of a high
degree of reliability requiring a minimum of skilled·
attention. A duplicate or supplementary installation
with an independent source of power is essential in the
case of both major airdromes and secondary airdromes.­It
is obvious that from the standpoint of safety,
the continuous operation of the lights is essential.
Where the lighting system is subject to an unintentional
interruption, no matter how t emporary, an alternate­lighting
system should be available. In case the light
fails, another light should be ready to be switched on,
unless there are so many units that the failure of one or
two will still leave enough units to permit a safe landing.
I n case the power fails, an independent, auxiliary
source of power should be provided which could be
promptly switched on, in the event of failure of the
principal power supply. For secondary fields ·where
but little activity occurs, the expense involved in
providing an emergency power supply may not be
justified, but active airdromes should be so equipped.
4. 'l'he light should be immediately available through
the operation of one or more remote controls capable
of operation by unskilled personnel.-It will at tip;i.es--be -­necessary
to provide prompt illumination-mthe emer-gency
of the unexpected arrival-;;f visiting aircraft.
Generally the hangar guard or watchman will be the
only p erson i=ediately available to operate the
lights. This should not require special qualificati on
or training.
5. The installation adopted should be sufficiently
elaborate or fl exible to 71ennit landing under all conditions
of wind direction without the necessity of looking into or
landing toward the beam.-It was found, in landing
toward or in the general direction of a light, that it
was impossible to judge horizontal and ver tical dis­tances
with the same degree of accuracy as when
1383- 28 (1)
landing over or parallel to the light. It was very much
more difficult to judge the height of the plane just
before making contact, and also difficult to see a plane
or other obstruction on the ground ahead and to
judge the distance to it when seen. These difficulties
exist in clear weather and are increased when haze,
dust, or smoke is present. They are further increased
when the light is mounted on a tower or otherwise
raised high above the ground. This effect exists
regardless of the color or intensity of the light. As a
result, the pilot has a distinct tendency to land well
back so as to avoid "overshooting," and therefore in
the area of less illumination. There is a tendency
even to fly into the ground before reaching the illumi­nated
area, as the dark ground appears to be further
below than it actually is. It was concluded that it is
possible with care and practice to land a single plane
toward a light, but it would not be practicable to land
a formation in the same manner. Because of this
difficulty of landing toward the light, for major air­dromes
it is essential that there be in addition to the
primary source of light an alternate light at some point
on the opposite side of the field, to be used when wind
conditions necessitate landing from that direction.
With such an arrangement, by using either or both
lights, every condition of wind direction can be satis­factorily
met. Either light would likewise be avail­able
in emergency in case the other should fail, per­mitting
planes to land singly no matter what the wind
direction might be. Each light should be so i;11stalled
that an emergency power supply can be used in case of
failure of the main source.
6. The installation should be adaptable, with simple
modifications, to airdromes of various shapes, sizes, and
contour.-Such an installation will permit a degree of
standardization, among the principal advantages of
which are the facts that pilots would find at all fields a
light having an intensity and quality to which they
are accustomed, while installation, maintenance, and
operation would be appreciably simplified.
7. Glare must be reduced to a minimum to permit
landing and maneuvering on the ground while looking into
the general direction of the light source, though not directly
at it, and to obviate undesirable reflections from portions
of the plane or other objects within the pilot's line of
vision.-Glare is distracting and confusing, as perspec­tive
and details are lost and the pilot becomes uncer­tain
of his altitude. Bright reflections from the cowling
or other parts of the plane tend to attract the pilot's
------~ ttegtion from the more dimly lighted surface of the
groullii.- Sucl!_!eflections can not always be avoided
but are greatly increased when glare is present.
8. The light must give an even intensity of illumina­tion
devoid of shadow bands or shadows caused by por­tions
of the lens structure or framework.-The presence
of shadow bands on the field produces the effect of
undulations on the surface of the landing area which
is confusing and adds to the difficulty of landing.
Shadows caused by obstructions at the light source
may conceal objects on the field. It is especially con­fusing
when one or more of such shadows are moved
just as the plane is about to land. It is believed that
shadows may be systematically utilized to signal air-
2
planes in the air or for dividing a field into sectors•
but the device by which the shadows are produced
must be intelligently operated. A movable panel
offers possible advantages for tactical use but is not at
present considered a requirement.
9. The light should be sufficiently power/ ul to illumi­nate
objects and obstacles in the immediate vicinity of
the airdrome, in the direction of the beam, by means of
stray or reflected light.-While any complete airdrome
lighting system will include necessary obstacle lights,
such lights viewed from above do not readily indicate
the height at which they are placed except when seen
at close quarters. The tests with certain of the more
powerful projectors demonstrated the advantage of
being able to perceive the nature of the terrain in
the vicinity of the airdrome. The illumination of
high ground, tall trees, etc., is particul.arly valuable
as an aid to acquiring perspective when maneuvering
to land and also when taking off from the lighted area.
10. The light must be steady and free from tendency to
flicker or change in intensity or color.-Changes in the
intensity or color of the light tend to change the appear­ance
of the ground and its apparent elevation. Depth
perception is rendered more difficult and the problem
of landing is correspondingly increased.
11. The color of the light should approximate day­light
in order to give the ground a natural appearance
at all seasons of the year.-Since daylight is the light to
which pilots are generally accustomed, and as it gives
the most natural appearance to familiar objects, it
should be used as the ideal toward which development
should be directed. A bright white light is undesira­ble
as it tends to produce violent contrasts of light and
shadow, while a distinctly yellowish light gives an
unnatural appearance to the surface, the effect varying
with the season. The tests indicated that a light of
slightly amber tint, such as was obtained from the
incandescent lamp, is the most generally desirable.
12. The light should be soft in quality, devoid of any
tendency to produce harsh or contrasting shadows.­Hard,
contrasting shadows tend to "jump at" the
pilot when landing and are a serious objection. They
may be avoided by careful attention to the length of
the grass on the airdrome, which is an item that is
generally neglected.
13. Illumination from a single-light source is essen­tial
in the case of major airdromes where several planes
are operating at a time, and is decidedly preferable in
most other instances.1-The board arrived at this opinion
after exhaustive tests with both single and multiple
unit installations. The single-light source is con­.
sidered the most desirable for a variety of reasons,
including the following:
(a) It provides the most advantageous arrange­ment
for landing under all conditions of wind direction,
in that not more than 40° of a circle through which it
is possible to land is denied because of dangerous glare.
(b) It provides a more uniform degree of illumina­tion.
(c) Such glare as exists is confined to one source.
1 The board considers a single-light source any arrangement in which
the light emanates from a semicircle or small radius.
'
(d) It makes the most convenient permanent instai­lation,
requiring less maintenance than a number of
units, and is easily controlled.
I 4. In the case of the single-source installation the
light should be mounted as low as possible with illumina­tion
of the depressions in the landing area.-When a
light is mounted high above the ground the depth of
beam resulting will, in the case of haze or ground fog,
create the dangerous illusion that the ground is close
to the top of the beam. This is true both when land­ing
from or toward the light. Therefore, the closer
to the ground the light can be mounted and still
illuminate the field the better. Its elevation must
be such as to illuminate depressions, although where
the contour of the field is such as to require its location
at a height of 20 feet or rr.ore an additional light or
battery system should be used. The effect of large or
shallow depressions in a landing field, if in shadow, is
such that pilots unfamiliar with the field will avoid
them due to the absence of light; and if a pilot is
compelled to land in such a place, he must feel his way
down, as it is as difficult to judge his height over a
depression as it is over an unlighted field. In con­nection
with a low setting, it is desirable to locate the ·
light with respect to the line of hangars so that planes
may be taxied or handled in the area of shadow to
avoid unnecessary and undesirable shadows in the
lighted area.
I5. A sharp "Cul-off" musl be provided across lhe lop
of lhe beam lo avoid lhe exislence of slray lighl above lhe
beam and lo retain lhe deplh of lhe beam al a minimum.­Stray
light above the beam tends to increase its
apparent depth and produce the undesirable effect
referred to in the preceding item.
I6. A grealer "Fade oul" al the sides of lhe beam is
highly desirable.-A gradual increase in illumination as
the pilot approaches the landing area is of great as­sistance
in judging horizontal distances.
I7. A lens of 180° (or more) spread is far superior lo
one of reduced angles in lhe case of lhe single-source
inslallalion.-The I80° lens provides an even distribu­tion
of illumination over the lighted area with a satis­factory
"fade out" around the edges of the lighted
zone. The beam is not restricted near the source, but
permits the maximum landing area to be used, inaking
possible the simultaneous operaton of several aircraft.
I8. The ballery system of flood lighting is of advanlage
for sniall airdromes of irregular contour.-A battery in­stallation
permits, by suitable distribution of its units,
the proper lighting of rolling and uneven ground.
With this system of flood lighting two rows of batteries
at approximately 90° should be installed (in all except
narrow two-way fields, when one is sufficient) to
provide for all conditions of wind direction. The
individual lights should not be of less than I,500-watt
power and should not be spaced at a greater interval
than 250 feet. When variations of lens or light source
are employed, the arrangement should be such as to
give the equivalent illumination. A sufficient number
of units should be provided to illuminate the entire
length of runway available, but in no case should there
I' be less than six units.
3
PART 11.-FINDINGS, LIGHTS TESTED
1. The "A" company's flood light and the type A- I
flood light, when equipped with either the IO-kilowatt
incandescent lamp of with the I50-ampere arc, were the
only lights tested which are suitable for use at a major
aridrome.
2. The IO-kilowatt lamp used in either of these two
lights gives a softer light which is easier on the eyes
than the I50-ampere arc. The light from the arc is
slightly more intense, has a bluish white color, pro­duces
very harsh shadows, and is not always so steady as
the incandescent. Furthermore, the IO-kilowatt lamp
can be used with lamp-changer equipment, whereas
the arc can not be so used. The IO-kilowatt lamp,
while giving slightly less illumination than the arc,
gives sufficient light for a major airdrome. Because
of these facts, the IO-kilowatt incandescent lamp is
preferred to the I50-ampere arc.
3. The type A-! lighthouse lens gave practically the
same amount of illumination as the "A" company's
flood light, except for the radiating bands of shadow
caused by the frames; and these shadows, while un­desirable,
do not constitute a serious objection. So
far as :possible these shadow bands should be eliminated
from ·this light. Because a number of the type A- I
lights, equipped with lamp changer, can be made
available, each one costing less than half the cost of the
"A" company's flood light, the type A-I is preferred
to the other.
4. The 5-kilowatt lamp used in the type A-I, or in
the "A" company's flood light, gave insufficient light
and the only use for this lamp in any of the lights
tested is for temporary replacement in emergencies
when the supply of IO-kilowatt lamps is inadequate.
5. The carbide flares tested gave no illumination on
the landing field and could only be useful as boundary
markers.
6. Because a maximum degree of reliability is es­sential,
the lights for a major airdrome should use in­candescent
lamps with lamp changers; and for the
same reason an alternate supply of power must be
available for either light, completely independent
from the power and lighting circuit ordinarily used on
the field.
7. For lighting a secondary airdrome where illumi­nation
is required to provide for only one airplane
landing at a time, any of the lights tested might be
used, except the carbide flares. However, some of the
lights tested have advantages which make them more
suitable than others.
8. For secondary airdromes the battery system of
lights, consisting of two rows arranged approximately
at right angles to each other and each row consisting
. of six or more I,500-watt projectors spaced from 200
to 250 feet apart, is the best among the lights tested,
because it is adaptable to every type of field regardless
of the shape or contour of the runways, and because
it provides greater reliability without unnecessary
duplication. Also, it is the least expensive system and
at the same time gives adequate illumination regard­less
of wind direction.
9. Of the battery-type l ights tested, the Air Corps
type A-3, 1,500-watt projector (with 40° spread lens)
was superior. However, the difference between the
best and the poorest was not sufficient to give one
type a decided advantage over another. If another
manufacturer can offer a projector which gives a light
equivalent to that of the type A-3, then considerations
of cost, tlurability, ease of operation and maintenance,
etc., should govern the selection. It is believed t hat a
further development of these small-unit lights should
be undertaken to provide a sharp cut-off on top of the
beam.
10. The 3,000-watt projector did not give enough
more light when compared to the 1,500-watt type to
offset the additional cost involved; and dming the
tests, at least, it appeared to be less reliable than the
1,500-watt lights and less easily adj usted. Therefore
the 1,500-watt type is preferred to the 3,000-watt type
at present.
PART Ill.- GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. Any sati factory lighting ystem must be judged
iu accordance with the "General requirements" set
forth in the "Findings" above.
2. A single source of illumination is superior to any
system embodying a mult iple source. (N OTE.-A
" ingle source" is defined in the "Findings.")
3. A permanent or fixed position for permanent air­drome
flood lights is preferable to a mobile unit.
4. Less than 180° spread of illumination from a
single source is not satisfactory.
5. Of the lights tested, the type A-1 lighthouse lens
flood light and the "A" company flood light, or their
equivalents, are sufficient for major airdrome illumina­tion.
6. In all major airdromes where tactical operations
of any considerable extent are contemplated two of
these lights must be installed to allow landing in all
conditions of wind \-vithout the necessity of encounter­ing
glare.
7. The battery system of flood lighting should only
be installed on fields where not more than one plane
at a t ime will be landing or taking off; and even then
if the field is flat and square the single-un it system
is preferred, but the less expensi,·e battery system
will suffice.
. The 10-kilowatt lamp has reached the stage of
development which makes it superior to the arc from
the standpoint of rel iability, ease of operation and
maintenance, and adaptability, in a system providing
an alternate or reserve source of light in all permanent
and fixed installations. Further, the incandescent
lamp ha. greater possibilities of development in the
di rections of more power and greater reliability.
9. The 10-kilowatt lamp, when used with lamp
changer, meets the requirements of airdrome illumi­nation.
10. The 5-kilowatt lamp gives insufficient light for
use except as an emergency replacement.
11. The 150-ampere arc provides the greatest
amount of illumination but is less desirable than the
10-kilowatt incandescent lamp, for reasons stated
elsewhere.
4
12. Carbide flares are of no value fo r landing-field
illumination but can be used effectively for boundary
illumination.
13. The Air Corps type A-3, 1,500-watt lamp give
the greatest degree of illumination of any of the battery
type of flood lights tested; and this light or it equiva­lent
is suitable for the illumination of any field where
t he installation of t he battery system is contemplated.
14. The drum-projector type of flood light, such as
the Air Corp type A- 2 or the "C" company's flood
light, is undesirable, due to depth of stray light of
beam, fullness of beam, and too high a concentration
of light in a re tricted area, and these features are not
totally obviated by mounting these lights in a group
in the manner employed in the e tests.
15. A maximum degree of reliabi lity, both of the
light and of the power source, is essential.
16. For any installation of airdrome flood lighting
an alternate or auxiliary source of power mu t be pro­vided
to secure continuous operation of t he flood
lights in t he event of failure of the regular power
source.
17. Development should continue along the line·
indicated to produce a greater degree of illumination
and of reliability in airdrome flood lights.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For immediate installation at each of the major
airdromes to be lighted by the Air Corps, the board
recommended:
(a) That not less than two single-unit, 180° light­house
lens :Good lights be provided.
(b) That the 10-kilowatt incandescent lamp be used
for the light source in these flood lights.
(c) T hat lamp-changer and starting mechanism be
perfected as soon as po sible and installed in each of
these lights.
(d) T hat when the supply of lighthouse lens flood
lights has been exhausted, the "A" company flood
light be pro,·ided, each unit similarly equipped with
the 10-kilowatt lamp, lamp-changer, and starting
mechanism.
(e) That in the event of a new flood light becoming
available, having characteristics equal or superior to
the "A" company flood light, it be considered for
installation instead of the latter.
(f) That at each field, one of the lights be installed
i n a fixed position at an advantageous point on the
flying line and the second light be mounted at a location
on the edge of the landing fie ld, which will permit
landin g. under all ·wind conditions by using either or
both of these light .
2. For immediate installation at each of the smaller
airdromes or emergency landing fields to be lighted by
the Air Corps, the board recommended:
(a) That two rows of not less than six units, each of
the 1,500-watt, Air Corps type A-3, battery-type pro­jectors
be provided.
(b) That in each row the lights be spaced at inter­vals
not greater than 250 feet.
(c) That the two rows be located at a right angle to
each other where possible, or otherwise so disposed
as to provide for landings from a maximum number
of directions with the least amount of glare.
3. For all airdromes to be lighted, the board recom­mended:
(a) That an alternate, independent system for
supplying power to all the airdrome night-flying equip­ment
be provided at each airdrome, and maintained
for prompt use in the event of failure of the main
system.
Considering an average airdrome with beacon, bound­ary
lights, obstacle lights, hangar flood lights, wind­direction
indicator, operations office lights and two
systems of landing field flood lights (only one used at
a time) the lighting should be fed from the commer­cial
alternating source of supply. In case of failure
of this source of supply a gas-driven alternator should
be available to supply alternating electrical energy into
the regular syst em and operate all the above lights. A
general arrangement accomplishing the above is shown
by Figure 1.
DATE AND PLACE OF TESTS
The t ests were started Monday evening, October 17,
1927, and were completed Friday evening, October 28,
1927. Appendix III, Program of Flood Light Tests
gives in detail the schedule followed .
All tests were conducted by Materiel Di vision repre­sentatives
at the Fairfield Air Depot, which is adjacent
to the Materiel Division. This site was selected due to
the convenience to the division.
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
Previous to the convening of the board, representa­tives
of the Materiel Division made the necessary ar­rangements
relative to supplying power to the various
5
lights and secured.as complete a representation of
1
a vail­able
flood lights as possible. The flood lights t est ed are
listed and described in Appendix I.
The first three nights of the t est (see Appendix III)
were used in showing the various combinations possible
with the flood lights. With each flood light the various
light sources were tried with the pw·pose of arriving by
elimination, at the arrangements best suited for each
particular flood light.
After the preliminary showing the board arranged
their own program and by a process of comparison and
study of all arrangements, a rr ived at the conclusions
stated elsewhere. As a guide in stud ying each arrange­ment
the " List of considerations" given in Appendix V,
was drafted and each flood light analyzed by t bc same.
This " List of considerations" did not include the cost
of installation, nor was such a cost considered in arriv­ing
at the final results, although as a mat t er of interest
the estimated costs of the various installations were
available prior to the t ests. Appendix II gives a com­parison
of these costs as applied to an average field.
Each member of the board makes a large number of
landings with the various lights under various condi­t
ions. The consolidated report of the flying time of the
members of the board given in Appendix IV shows t he
extent of the flying involved in this test.
During the entire test extreme care was taken in
seeing that each flood light was operating under t he
proper conditions. Arc lights were adjust ed to the
proper current rating and incandescent lamps operated
at their rated voltage. Particular attention was taken
in securing the proper focus of each light source and in
adjusting the various lights to their best adva ntage.
6
Remote coolrol JWJ!ch
#2,llOVl'loodlig/JI !Okw,or
# z ,Bol/eryof /'/(J()d/ighls, z.wV. dls!rl.bulio11.
-- -- - - --- -- - -1
~ or J Conduct; ·
Opera/ions o/J ice control c ·
# 2, !Okw. l'loodlighl - J
#l,/Okw.llorx/li91lt - ---------1
Series circwl. - - - - - - - - - - - -1
I
I -A.C. I
..iupp'y• I
I _. __._ - _J
01/ breakers inlerlocked
sol/Jal pnly one con be
closed al a lime.
220 Voll a/; ernolor,
single pllo.te,(;Ocycle,
asolme drJVen
.zzo
b.6 amp. series circ1.J1I for
.bouahry. o/Jslacle and
hangar /"loodlighls.
#f -llOvo/I
Floodlighf. 10 kw.
....._.........__ or
'------'-''- 1..0. #I. Ballen; of flood­I
I
lighls, .ulJ volf dislr1~
bu/ion.
L_ --- - _______ _J
Remoleconlro/ sw1lcl7.
FIG. 1.-Connections of night fl ying equipment with emergency set
..
F IG. 2.-Largo units of flood-light test
7
FIG. 3.-Flood-light test installation
1383-28--2 FIG. 4.-36-inch drum on meteorological tower
8
FIG. 5.-Lighthouse lens flood light on tower
FIG. 6.-Air Corps type A-2 flood light with
test transformer
FIG. 7.-Air Corps type A-3, flood light
wi th test transformer
9
FIG . 8.-Air Corps type A-4 flood light
with test transformer
FIG . 9.-Flood light battery of "C" Company
10
FIG. 10.-36-inch drum on ground
FIG. 11.-Airport light of "B" Company
11
FIG. 12.-Lighthouse lens flood light on ground
FIG. 13.-Flood light of "A" Company
APPENDIX I
LIST AND DESCRIPTION OF FLOOD LIGHTS TESTED
LARGE, SINGLE SOURCE UNITS
No. Description
1 Lighthouse lens flood light of same size as
Air Corps type A-1, except 180° of lens.
Provision made for reducing lens angle to
90° . See F igures 2, 3, 5 and 12.
NoTE.-The type A- 1 flood light is de-scribed
in detail by Air Corps Information
Circular No. 583.
2 "A" company's 180° Fresnel lens flood light,
similar to No. 1 and supplied with screens
for blanketing off lens and providing dark
sector. See Figures 2, 3, and 13.
3 " B " company's airport light. Two para­bolic
reflectors set at a slight angle to pro­duce
with spread lens an 80° horizontal
spread beam. Louvers to reduce stray
light. See Figures 2, 3, and 11.
4 Engineer Corps' 36-inch drum parabolic re­flector
equipped with 40° spread lens.
See Figures 2, 3, and 4.
5 36-inch drum, same as No. 4. See Figures 2,
3, and 10.
Mounted
On meteorological tower, 34
feet high. Later mounted
on ground, 3 feet high.
On trailer placed at foot Cff
tower. Trailer 3 feet high.
Light sources
10-kilowatt lamp, spher­ical
reflector; 5-kilowatt
lamp, spherical reflec­tor;
150-ampere arc.
Same a No. 1.
Same as No. 2 ___ __ ___ __ ____ Two 10-kilowatt lamps.
Two 5-kilowatt lamps.
On meteorological tower, 34 10-kilowatt lamp. 5-kilo-feet
high. watt lamp. 150-ampere
arc.
On ground, on own chassis ____ Same as No. 4.
SMALL BOUNDARY TYPE FLOOD LIGHTS
6 Air Corps type A-2, 24-inch drum, parabolic On 10-foot standards movable 1,500 watt, 32 volt. 3,000
reflector, 40° spread lens, louvers. Six along dead line, spacings watt, 32 volt.
units available. See Figures 2, 3, and 6. 300-200 feet or less if nec-
I OTE.-The type A- 2 flood light is de- essary.
scribed in detail by Air Corps Information
Circular No. 601.
7 Air Corps type A-3 23-inch parabolic reflec- Same as No. 6 _____ _________ 1,500 watt, 32 volt.
tor, 40° spread lens, louvers, six units avail-able.
See Figures 2, 3, and 7.
NoTE.-The type A- 3 flood light is de­scribed
in detail by Air Corps Information
Circular o. 601.
8 Air Corps type A- 4, 120° Fresnel units. See _____ do_ __ __________________ D o.
Figures 2, 3, and 8.
N OTE.-The type A-4 flood light is de­scribed
in detail by Air Corps I nformation
Circular No. 606.
9 Arc flood lights, (" C" company's) 18-inch Mounted 6 feet high, all 55-ampere arc.
parabolic equipped with 80° spread lens, 3 three grouped together.
units available. See Figures 2, 3, and 9.
(12)
APPENDIX II
COMPARISON OF COSTS OF FLOOD-LIGHT INSTALLATIONS
The following estimates give the cost of installation
of various types of landing field flood lights as appl ied
to an average field. In some instances it is expected
that the installation can be made under the estimated
amount. In general the installation can be made upon
any Air Corps airdrome for the given estimate. A
brief description follows for each arrangement:
1. The lighthouse lens in tallation with the 150-
ampere arc mechanism would require a motor generator
set. Remote control is provided in the estimate.
The lenses are being held in resen·e for the Air Corps.
2. The installation of the 10-kilowatt lamp in the
lighthouse lens would require a lamp changer for con­tin
uity of service. This lamp changer has remote
control for starting.
3. The "N." company's flood light supplied with
150-ampere arc mechanism would require a motor gener­ator
installation for the required direct current. Re­mote
control is supplied for starting the unit.
4. "A" company's flood light with 10-kilowatt lamp
and spherical reflector. Remote controlled lamp starter
is supplied. No lamp changer is considered.
5. "B" company's airport light equipped with re­mote
control.
6. Thirty-six-inch drum equipped with 40° spread
lens and 150-ampere arc.
7. Thirty-six-inch drum equipped with 40° spread
lens and 10-kilowatt lamp. No lamp changer is con­sidered.
8. One row of boundary type landing field flood lights
(Air Corps type A- 2, A- 3, A- 4) using five flood lights
and five 1,500-watt lamps is considered.
9. Two rows of boundary type units giYe ample
fl exibility with respect to wind direction and are also
included.
10. "C" company's bank of three 55-ampere arc
flood lights, each with an 0° spread lens. Remote
control is provided in the estimate.
Comparison of costs of flood-light installations
Summary Total Ma- terial Labor
------
1. Lighthouse lens flood light with arc ______ $3, 100 $2, 312 $788
2. Lighthouse lens, with incandescent lamp
changer and starter (five 10-kilowatt
lamps)---------------------------- ------ 3, 190 2, 560 630
3. "A" company's flood light with arc
mechanism _______ ________ __ _____________ 9,032 8. 613 419
4. "A" company's tloodligbt with 10-kilowatt
"l~P---- ----, -- ,- - --- -,-- ------- -------- 7,905 7, 574 331
5. B company s airport light. _____ ________ 3, 583 3, 146 437
6. 36-inch drum and arc .-------------------- 3, 847 3, 484 363
7. 36-inch drum and 10-kilowatt. lamp ________ 2, 610 2, 329 281
8. One row of typeA-2, A-3, or A-4 boundary
llaamndpisn _g_ _f_ie_l_d_ _f_lo_o__d_ _li_g_h__ts_,_ _fi_v_e_ _1_,5__0_0_-_w__a_tt_ 2,000 1, 683 317
9. Twdiore rcotiwosn .o _f_ _a_b_o_v_e__ _to__ _ta_k__e_ _c_a_r_e_ _o_f_ _w__in__d_ 4,000 3, 366 634
10. "C,, company's bank or three 55 ampere
arcs. -------------- -- ---- ------- --------- 5, 208 4,830 378
Lighthouse lens with arc
3 5-KV A transformers (primary to 220 volt.s, 3-phase) .
2 ligb tning arresters ______ ----------------- ------·---
11 mmoetteorr ignesntaelrlaattoiro nse _t_,_ _15 - -K-V--A-- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
1 remote control for motor generator ____ __ __ ________ _
1 flood light, reworked ----------- -·-- -- -------------
11 acracb lme,e ccohnatnrioslm, 8 _0_0 - -fe--e-t.- _-_-_-_-_-_-_·-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-__-_-_--_-_
1 cable, flood light, 300 feet. _______ ____ _____________ _
Miscellaneous. ______ ___ . _________ ____ ______ ._. __ .. __
Material Labor
$180
24
30
300
100
200
800
100
100
100
$30
5
10
50
50
300
20
20
30
100
1, 934. 615
Contingencies ___ ·-----_____________________________ 193 62
---·---
6~~it~~~------= = = ===: == = = = == == = = = = = = = = = =: = = = == = = = = = = -- -- ~~~~~.I--. --~~~
2, l 7 71i
Overhead costs:
Office and local management, 1 per cent. ._________________ 29
Construction engineering, 6 per cent. __ _________
1
__ 1_25 , __ 4_2
'l'otal of estimate, $3,100 _____ __ _______________ 1 2, 312 1 788
IAghthouse lens with incandescent lam7J
110-KVA transformer (primary to 115 volts) ....... .
2 lightning arresters . .. ------- __ - - - -- -- -- --- ________ _
1 meter installation . __ __ -- - - ---- .... __ -- · -- -· --- - - ..
l lamp changer, starter..-- --- -- --------- ------- ---· -
11 fclaobolde ,l i3g0h0 tf,e reetw, toor ktleodo.d _ _l i-g-h-·t- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_·_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
1cable,800 feet, control. __ _____________ ____________ _
Miscellaneous .. ___ ___ _____________ __ __ •• ___ _______ ._
Contingencies ... ____ __ . ___ . . _______________________ _
Material Labor
$100 $10
24 5
20 10
1, 500
200 300
100 30
100 20
100 100
------ 2, 144 475
214 48
2, 358 523
Freight ... ------ ------------ __ _________ _____ ________ 60 _______ _
Cartage.-------- -- ______________________ ----·----- __ __ · ----- _ _ 40 ------
Overhead costs:
2,4 18 563
Office and local management, 1 per cent ________ -- -------· 30
Construction engineering, 6 per cent..____ ______ 142 3i ------ 'l'otal cost, $3,190___________ ____________ _______ 2, 560 630
"A" company's flood -light installation with arc
Material Labor
3 5-KVA transformers________ _______________________ $180 $30
2 lightning arresters_ __ ___________ ___________________ 24 5
1 meter installation____ _____________________________ 30 10
1 motor generator set, 15 KVA __ - -------- - ---------· 300 50
1 remote control___ ____ ______ __________ ___ ___________ 100 50
1 cable control, 800 feet ______________________________ 100 20
1 cable to flood ligh t, 300 feet. __________ ___________ __ 100 30
Miscellaneous ___________________ -------- ___ ·----... . 100 100
Flood light with arc. ·------ --- ----------- --- ------··~ _ _
Total. _____ _ .. ·---- --- - ------ -------------- -- - 7, 334 245
Contingencies, 10 per cent---- --- --- -- -· -------- --- - - 733 25
8, 067 270
Freight. __ -- - ---____________________________________ 60 _ ----- --
Cartage.-------- ----- --- --_____________ _____________ ___ __ __ __ 40
Overhead costs:
8, 127 310
Office and local management. 1 per cent ________ ----- ----- 84
Construction engineering, 6 per cent______ ______ 486 25
Total or estimate, $9,032 ______________________ ----s.613-----:u9
(13)
14
"A" company's flood light with JO-kilowatt lamp Thirty-six-inch drum installation with JO-kilowatt lamp
Material Labor Ma terial Labor
110-KVA t ransformer (primary to 115 volts) ___ ____ _ $100
24
20
$10 1 10-KVA transformer (primary to 115 volts) _______ _
5 2 lightn ing arresters __ ___________________________ ___ _ $100
24
20
$10
5
JO
100
30
20
2 ligbtning arresters ________ ___ __ ------ ---- -- - - _____ _
1 meter installation __ ___ _____ ____ ____ --- ------_-- -- -- 10100 1I mfloeotde rl iignhstta allnadti ostna-r-te-r- _--__-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_--_-__-_-_-_- -__-_- _-_-_-_--_-_-_ I, 500
100
100
100
1 flood light and star ter__ ____ __________ __________ ___ _
1 cable,300 feet to flood light_ _____ ______ ___________ _
6,000
100
100
100
30 1 cable, 300 feet to fiood light_ __ __ __ ____ _____ __ __ ___ _
1 cable, 800 feet control_ _____ _________ ______ ________ _ 20 I cable. 800 feet control_ ___ _____ ____ ___ _______ __ ____ _
M iscellaneous ___________________ __ _______ ____ ______ _ 100 Miscellaneous ____ ---------- _____ ______ -------- - . __ _ 100
Contingencies __ ____ ______ _______ _________ _______ __ _ 6, 444
644
2~ Contingencies ___ - ---- -- _____ ___ ____ __ ___ ____ ---- --- -
1, 944
19·1
2i5
28
7, 088 203
F reight_ __ --- --- ----- ___________ ___ ___ __ ---- ---- -- -- 60 - -------
Cartage ____________ ---- - ---- __ ----- -- - --- ----------- __ - -- ----- 40
7, 148
Overhead costs:
Office and local ma nagement, 1 per cent_ ________ ----------
243
74
Construction engineering, 6 per cent____ ___ ______ 426 14
Total cost, $7,905 __ --- - - - - - --- _____ -- - -- - -- ___ _ 7, 574 331
"B " company's airport .flood light with two 10-kilowatt
lamps
____________________ ,_ M_ate_r ia_l _La_bo_r
1 25-kilowatt transformer (primary to 115 volts) ___ $200 $15
2 lightning arresters _______ - - -- -- --- _____ ------------
1 meter installation---- ----- - ---- - -- - ---- -- ------- -- -
24 5
20 10
1 flood light and star ter _-- ------·------- --- - - ___ ____ _ 2, 000 100
1 cable, 300 feet to flood light _________ ____ __________ _
1 cable. 800 feet cont rol_ ____________________________ _
200 60
100 20
Miscellaneous _____ ____ __ ____________________ ___ ___ _ _ 100 100
Conti ngencies ___ ____ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __________ _ 2, 644 310 264 31
2, 908 341
Freight_ _____ --- -- ------------- ------ ----- ------ ---- 60 --------
Cartage _______ _____________ - ----- ---- ____ ---- -- -- - -- --- - - ----- 40
2,968
Overhead costs:
Office and local management, 1 per cent_ ________ -- -- ------
381
33
Construction engineer ing, 6 per cent________ _____ 178 23
Total, $3,583_ --- - -- - ---- -- - - ------- -- - - - ------ 3, 146 437
Thirty-six-inch drum installation with arc
____________________,_ M _at_eri_al _La_bo_r
3 :;-KVA t ransformers------------------------------- $180 $30
2 lightning arresters ___ __________ -- ------------ _____ _ 24 5
1 meter installation __ __ _________ ___ ___ ___ --- -- - _____ _ 30 10
1 motor generator set, 15-KVA __ _____ ______________ _ 300 50
1 remote controL--- - - -------------- - ----- - -------- - 100 50
1 cable control, 800 feet____________ __________ _ ___ _ 100 20
1 cable to flood light, 300 reet ________ ________ _______ _ 100 30 Miscellaneons _____ _____________________ ___________ _ 100 100
Floodlight with arc _____ _____ ____ __ , __ _____ ________ _ 2,000
2, 934 245
Contingencies, 10 per cent_ ____ _______ _____ __ _______ _ 293 25
3, 227 270
Freight_---------- ------------------------ - - - -____ __ 60 --- --- __
Cartage _------- __ -------- - -------------- ---- --- - - - ___ ---- --- - - 40
3, 287
Overhead costs:
Office and local management, l per cent_ ________ ----------
Construction engineer ing, 6 per cent_______ ______ 197
Total of estimate, $3,847 __ ___ ____ ______ _____ __ _ 3,484
310
35
18
363
2, 138 203
F reight __ __ ------ __ ____ ________ -- -- - - --- -- ---- -- --__ 60 - - - -- -- -
Cartage_--------- - ---- ---- - _______ _____ _________ ____ -- ------ -- 40
Overhead costs:
2, 198
Office and local management, 1 per cent __ ___ ____ ---- -- ----
243
24
Construction engineering, 6 per cent____ ________ 131 14
Total, $2,610 ____ ------ - -- ________ - - - -- - __ - ---- 2, 329 28l
Two rows of boundary type landing fie ld flood lights,
Air Corps type A-2, A-3, or A- 4
Material Labor
------------------·-- -------
2 7. .5 -KVA t ransformers (primary to 440-220 single
phase) __ ___ --------- - - _________ ______ _ --- ------ __ _
4 Jightning arresters ______ ____ __ _____ ___ -- ---- ---- - __ 2 meter inst allations _______ --------- - ----- ----- __ ___ _
Cable to transformers (3-conductor) __ ___ ___________ 10 transformers, 220/32V _______ ----- ---- ---- __ ___ ___ '.
2C sowntirtcohl ecsa,b rleem (2o-tceo cnodnutcrtooLr) _ ________ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-__--_-__--__--__- -_
2 potheads __ ---------------------- ___ _____ -- ---- -- - -
10 t ransformer installations __ __ - -- - -----_---- - --- ----
1M0 ifslcoeoldla lni~ebotuss, _t_y_p__e_ _A_-_2_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_--__--_-_-__-_-_-_-_--__--_-__-_- _-_- -_-_
$160
48
40
400
300
100
50
30
100
I, 500
100
$20
10
20
75
40
20
IO
20
100
60
100
2, 828 175
Contingencies __ ______ ___ ------__ ___ ______ _______ ___ _ 282 48
---a;IiO --m Freight ______________ ________ __ ---------- __ -- --- ____ 60 __ --- ---
Cartage ________ ----- - -- __ ______ ____ _______ _____ ___ ___ __ --- - - -- 40
----a,:uo~
Overhead costs:
Office and !oral management, I per cent_ ____ ____ - -- - -- - - -- 38
Construction engineering, 6 per cent_ _____ __ ____ 196 33
Total cost, $4,000 _________ __ ____ ____ ______ _____ ~ ~
One row, $2,000. ----- --- --- - - - ----- - - --- -- --- - - - -- -- 1, 1383 317
T hree 55-ampere arcs-" C" company
I
3 5-KVA transformers _______ ____ ______ _____ __ ______ _
2 lightni.ug arresters _____ ----- _____ ___ __________ ___ _ _
l meter installation _______ ____ ___ ____ ______ ___ ___ __ _
I motor ge.nerator set, li;-KVA __ ___ ________________ _
l remote cont roL ___ - - ----- ___ ____ _____ ________ __ __ l cable control, 800 feet_ ______ __ _____ ___ ______ ____ __ _
I cable to flood ligh t, 300 reet _____ _____ ____ _________ _
Mi8cellaneous . . __ ____ ______ __ ________ ____ : __ _____ __ _
3 fiood lights, complete ______ ___ ___________________ _
Contingencies, 10 per cent_ ___ ___ __ ___________ ______ _
Material Labor
$180 $30
24 5
30 10
300 50
100 50
100 20
100 30
100 100
3, 150
4, 089
408
24.5
25
~----mi
CFraeritgahgte ___-_- ---------_-_-_-_-__-_-_- -_-_-__-_-_- -_-_-_-_-_-__-_- -__--__-_-_- -__--_-- -------_-__- - - - - - --6-0- - ----- -4-0-
4, 557 310
Overhead costs:
Office an<l local management, 1 per cent __ ___ ___ ---- - ---- - 48
Construction engineering, 6 per cent_ ________ ___ 273 20
Total or estimate, $5,208 ________ _______ __ ___ ___ ~ ---:i7s
APPENDIX III
PROGRAM OF FLOOD-LIGHT TESTS
October 17, 1927 (Monday):
Weather: Clear, high clouds, fresh north winds.
Lights shown:
1. Lighthouse lens, I50-ampere arc, on 34-foot
tower, I80° spread.
2. Lighthouse lens, I50-ampere arc, on 34-foot
tower, 90° spread.
3. "A" company's flood light, I50-ampere arc, on
, 4-foot trailer, I80° spread.
4. "A" company's flood light, I50-ampere arc, on
4-foot trailer, 90° spread.
5. Lighthouse lens, IO-kilowatt incandescent, on
34-foot tower, I80° .
6. Lighthouse lens, IO-kilowatt incandescent, on
34-foot tower, 90°.
7. "A" company's flood light, IO-kilowatt incan­descent,
on 4-foot trailer, I80°.
8. Lighthouse lens, 5-kilowatt.", incandescent, on
34-foot tower, I80°.
9. "A" company's flood light, 5-kilowatt incan­descent,
on 4-foot trailer, I80°.
The landings were all made into the wind and in
practically the same direction, over or alongside the
lights.
October 18, 1927 (Tuesday):
Weather: Clear, fresh northwest wind.
Lights shown:
1. 36-inch drum, tower mount, I50-ampere arc,
40° spread.
2. 36-inch drum, trailer mount, I50-ampere arc,
40° spread.
3. 36-inch drum, tower mount, IO-kilowatt lamp,
4.0° spread.
4. 36-inch drum, trailer mount, IO-kilowatt lamp,
40° spread.
5. 36-inch drum, tower mount, 5-kilowatt lamp,
40° spread.
6. 36-inch drum, trailer mount, 5-kilowatt lamp,
40° spread.
7. "C" company's arc flood lights, 3 units grouped,
I80° spread.
8. "C" company's arc flood lights, 2 units grouped,
I50° spread.
9. "B" company's airport light, trailer mount,
two IO-kilowatt lamps, 80° spread.
IO. "B" company's airport light, trailer mount,
two 5-kilowatt lamps, 80° spread.
The wind was quite strong and blowing straight at
the hangars. All landings were made over the lights
or past them, so the light was in back of the plane
when landing.
October 19, 1927 (Wednesday):
Weather: Clear, west wind.
Lights shown:
1. Six Air Corps type A-4, I,500-watt, I20° lens
units, spaced 200 feet apart.
2. Six Air Corps type A-3, I,500-watt, 40°, spaced
250 feet apart.
3. Four carbide flares spaced about 200 feet
apart.
4. Six Air Corps type A-3, I,500-watt, 40°, spac.ed
300 feet apart.
5. Six Air Corps type A- 2, 3,000-watt, 40°, spaced
300 feet apart.
All landings made over or across lights, into wind.
Perfectly clear weather- most favorable conditions for
night landings.
October 20, 1927 (Thursday):
Weather: Clear, moderate west wind.
Lights shown:
1. Six Air Corps type A-2, 3,000-watt, spaced
250 feet apart.
2. Six Air Corps type A-3, I,500-watt, spaced 250
feet apart.
3. Lighthouse arc on tower.
4. "A" company's flood light arc on trailer.
5. "C" company's flood light, triple arc.
Landings were made toward the lights as well as
away from them. Weather continued clear, giving
ideal conditions.
October 21, 1927 (Friday) :
Weather: Clear, moderate west wind.
.Li ghts shown:
I. Lighthouse arc.
2. "A" company's flood light, arc.
3. "C" company's flood light, triple arc.
4. Lighthouse, 10-kilowatt.
5. "A" company's flood light, IO-kilowatt.
6. "B" company's airport light, 2-5 kilowatts.
Landings were made with, across, and into the lights.
October 24, 1927 (Monday) :
Weather: Clear, mild west wind.
Lights shown:
1. Six Air Corps type A-4, I,500-watt, at 200-foot
spacing.
2. Three Air Corps type A-3, 1,500-watt, and
three Air Corps type A-2, I,500-watt, at
250 feet apart.
3. Three Air Corps type A- 3, 1,500-watt, grouped
to cover 120° spread.
4. Three Air Corps type A-2, 1,500-watt, grouped
to cover 120° spread.
5. Three Air Corps type A-3 and three Air Corps
type A- 2, all six grouped to cover 180°
spread.
(I5)
16
Landings were made in all directions except !\traight
toward the hangars.
October 25, 1927 (Tuesday):
Weather: Mild, southwest wind- clear, with very
slight haze toward last.
Li ghts shown:
1. Three Air Corps type A- 2, I ,500-watt, and
three Air Corps type A- 3, I ,500-watt, in a
row, 250 feet apart.
2. Three Air Corps type A- 2, I ,500-watt, 32-volt,
in row, 250 feet apart.
3. Three Air Corps type A- 2, 3-kilowatt, 35-volt,
in row, 250 feet apart.
4. I 80° "A" company's flood light, I50-ampere
arc, on west side of field.
5. 90° "A " company's flood light, I50-ampere
arc, on west side of field.
Landings were made down, up, and across beam.
October 26, 1927 (Wednesday):
vVeather: Almost no wind- no clouds-a little
hazy close to ground. Thin haze layer also
about IOO feet up.
Lights shown:
1. " A" company's flood light, trailer mount, I50-
ampere arc, I80°.
.2. Lighthouse, tower mount, IO-kilowatt, I80°.
3. " B " company's flood light, two 5-kilowatt,
80°.
4. Six in a row, Air Corps type A- 4, 1,500-watt
200 feet.
1. Repeated.
2. Repeated.
Li ghts shown-Continued.
3. Repeated.
4. Repeated.
1. Rep eated, with smoke.
2. Repeated, with smoke.
3. Repeated, with smoke.
4. Repeated, with smoke.
1. Repeated.
2. Repeated.
Landings were nearl y all across the beam, keeping
light source on the left.
October 28, 1927 (Friday):
Weather: Clear, very slight west wind.
Lights shown:
1. Lighthouse lens, I80°, I50-ampere arc, on 3-foot
trailer.
2. "A" company's flood light, I 0°, I50-ampere
arc, on 3-foot trailer.
3. Row of six projectors : Three Air Corps type
A- 2, and three Air Corps type A- 3, I ,500-
watt each, 250-foot spacing.
4. Lighthouse lens, I 0°, IO-kilowatt lamp, on
3-foot t railer.
5. "A" company's flood light, I80°, IO-kilowatt
lamp, on 3-foot trailer.
About three landings each were made for each of
t hese lights or row of lights by each of four pilots.
Planes used were P- 1, AT- 5, 0- 2, XB- 2. Besides
landings, " I " and " 2 " were observed alternately
from 2,000- 3,000 feet altitude, to compare t he whole
area of illumination supplied by each, and likewise " 4 "
and "5." No. 3 was observed from t he a ir as well as
in landings.
APPENDIX IV
REPORT OF FL YING TIME OF MEMBERS OF FLOOD-LIGHT BOARD
CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF FLYING TIME
DURING FLOOD-LIGHT TESTS, BY MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD
[Non:.-Only the !lights which were made at night, during tests]
Date Plane Minutes Landings
Oct. 17, 1927 P -1 125 26
Oct. 18, 1927 P-1 110 30
Oct. 19, 1927 0-2 90 13
Oct. 20, 1927 P-1 90 24
Pilot 1 o. !_ __________ __ Oct. 21, 1927 P -1 75 24
Oct. 24, 1927 P -1 120 15
Oct. 25, 1927 P-1 75 16
Oct. 26, 1927 P-1 75 14
Oct. 28, 1927 P - 1 90 JO
850 172
Oct. 17, 1927 02-C 30 5 __ __ d9 _______ _ P-1 120 29
Oct. 18, 1927 P-1 80 16
O___ct_.d o1 _9_,_ _19_2__7 _ DH 40 9 P -1 90 17
Pilot No. 2 _ __ _________ Oct. 20, 1927 P - 1 90 24
Oct. 21, 1927 P -1 155 26
Oct. 25, 1027 P- 1 90 18
O__c__t .d o2 _6_, _1_9__27__ DH 50 10 AT-5 50 10
Oct. 28, 1927 P-1 95 16
. ... do ______ _ XB-2 25 2
915 1 183
{°ct. 17, 1927 DH
120 I 14
Pilot No. 3 •- ---------- Oct. 18, 1927 DH 120 18
Oct. 19, 1927 DH 90 7
330 J 39
1 Pilot No. 3 was sick in the hospital from Oct. 20 to 28, inclusive.
CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF FLYING TIME
DURING FLOOD-LIGHT TESTS, BY MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD-Continued
Date Plane Minutes
---
Oct. 17, 1927 0 -2 120
Oct. 18, 1927 0 -2 90
Oct. 19, 1927 0 -2 90
Oct. 20, 1927 0 -2 100
Oct. 21, 1927 0-2 130
Pilot No. 4 _____________ Oct. 24, 1927 0 - 2 30 ____ do ________ XB-2 30
Oct. 25, 1927 0 -2 105
Oct. 26, 1927 0-2 110
O__c__t. d o2 8_,_ _19_2_7__ 0 - 2 105 XB-2 30
940
_O_ c._t.d o1 _7_, _1__92_7__ DH JO 0-2 120
Oct. 18, 1927 AT-5 100
Oct. 19, 1927 0 -2 90
Oct. 20, 1927 AT-5 75
Pilot No. 5 __ __________ Oct. 21, 1927 AT-5 150
Oct. 24, 1927 P - 1 75
Oct. 25, 1927 0 -2 60
Oct. 26, 1927 0 -2 135
Oct. 28, 1927 .A.T-5 90
____ do ...•.•... XB-2 25
930
Totals: Minutes
Pilot To. 1------------------ ------------------ - 850
Pilot To. 2- ---------------------- ------------ -- 915
Pilot No. 3--- ------ ------ ---- ·-- --------- --- - - - 330
Pilot No. 4-----------·------- ---- ------·------- 940
Pilot No. 5.------------------- -------------- --- 930
3,965
Landings
20
24
9
13
14
5
4
13
11
11
4
128
2
20
30
13
24
24
15
12
21
JO
2
173
Lan dings
172
183
39
128
173
695
For the board: 66 hours, 0.05 minutes flying time-695 flights.
(17)
APPENDIX V
LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS USED IN COMPARING THE VARIOUS
ARRANGEMENTS
LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS
1. Extent of lighted a rea.
2. Angle of light.
3. Length of beam horizontal.
4. Depth of beam vertical.
5. Uniformity of light.
6. The intensity of light.
7. Illumination of objects beyond lighted area.
8. Glare landing down beam over light.
9. Glare landing cross beam.
10. Glare landing into beam.
11. Glare landing on angle into beam.
12. Effect of shadows.
(a) Effect of moving shadows; airplane in
landing.
(b) Effect of stationary shadows caused by
depressions in the field.
(c) Effect of stationary shadows caused by
obstructions.
13. Fade out on edges of beam.
14. Fade out on top of beam.
15. Desired altitude of light source.
16. Desirability of multiple or single source of light.
17. Desirability of arc or incandescent light.
18. Desirability of 5 or 10 kilowatt lamps.
19. Advantage or disadvantage of diffused light
outside of beam.
20. Sufficiency of light from the standpoint of
tactical operations.
21. Sufficiency of light from the standpoint of single
ship landings.
22. Color of light and its effect during hazy weather
or fog.
23. Steadiness of light.
24. Effect upon lighted a rea of haze or fog assimu-lated
by smoke.
25. Reliability.
26. Ease of adjustment.
27. Ease of operation.
28. Maintenance.
29. Cost of maintenance.
(18)
0