Federal CT-1 lightbar

[dmathieu]

Good points!
11-0, I'd love to see it!

 

[stansdds]

@stansdds, my main question is: Does (did) the CA code REQUIRE par46? If so, what about the later Cal-spec AeroDynic steady red to the front (was it a par36)? Did the codes change in the 80s (thus rendering the CT-2-P incapable of satisfying earlier codes)? And one can naturally assume the -P stands for prototype (I’m about to resurrect my Model 11-O Twin Super Beacon Ray proto type). I know very little about the CA codes regarding steady red to the front, thus my questions.

Thanks to @894 for bringing this bar to our attention (again)! It’s fascinating!

Looking forward to seeing your Super Twin Beacon Ray project resurrected. I don't know if the PAR-46 size was a requirement or manufacturers used it because it would meet visibility requirements. When Federal introduced the Aerodynic and created a version for California, the Model 24C (24CA when alley lights were ordered), they used a pair of PAR-36's on each side of the 24C. I'm guessing that at the time a single PAR-36 did not meet some standard, hence the pairs of PAR-36's in the Model 24C.

 

[TDC]

The 24RMC, the Aero CTS, has single PAR36 front and back

 

[stansdds]

The 24RMC, the Aero CTS, has single PAR36 front and back

True, but the first version of the Aerodynic approved in California, the 25C and 25CA, had paired PAR-36's.

 

[CFD125]

I have some pics of thatView attachment 250321View attachment 250322View attachment 250323View attachment 250324View attachment 250325View attachment 250326View attachment 250327View attachment 250328 ...

First 7 pics are of my CT1, and the last pic is of Eric's

 

[dmathieu]

Beautiful bar Bob!

 

[drb]

Downey, California PD. Not my photo.