Re: Anti-collison lights

From:         kchan@jplsp2.jpl.nasa.gov (Khee Chan)
Organization: What? Me Organised?
Date:         16 Feb 94 01:10:17 PST
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.925@orchard.Chicago.COM>, "Jackson D. Busenbark" <11JBUSENBARK@gallua.gallaudet.edu> writes:
>
>Excuse me for being so technical, but a couple weeks ago when I was at DCA, I
>noticed that on, for example, the 727 the red anti-collison lights were the
>strobe type.  Simple, right?  But wait.  On some other 727's, were the
>rotating-beacon types of anti-collison lights.  This prompted me to come to a
>theory that customers opt for a certain type (strobe or rotating beacon) of
>anti-collison lights when they buy their planes.
>
>Now, why would they do this?  What are the pros and cons of each?

For the bits that are required to generate the flashes, the following applies:
Rotating beacon == mechanical == moving parts == more maintenance
Strobe == electronic == no moving parts == less maintenance

The difference between the type of anti-collision lights on the above mentioned
727's is probably more likely to be correlated to the vintage of the aircraft.
Maybe customer preference has something to do with it - perhaps someone from
Boeing can answer this.
-----
Khee Chan
kchan@jplsp.jpl.nasa.gov, kchan@esoc.bitnet, jplsp::kchan             
 <<I speak for nobody and nobody speaks for me, sometimes not even myself!>>