LoneWolf is a new brand built be an enthusiast who is operating a CNC factory.
As most flashlights can only be set at max brightness for less than 1 minute, he designed MC9, MD50 series. Now LoneWolf is only sold in China and it seems that lots of customers speaked highly of LoneWolf lights.
Perhaps it’s not a very good-looking flashlight, but it is very practical.
Do you guys think it is acceptable with $49? or anyone has the contact info of professional reviewers? Mr Chen is glad to get MC9 tested by some flashlight holics and reviewers though there is not much budget for marketing. Now LoneWolf sold about 8000 units in China.
Consider the size, now MC9 is the only one can last 4 minutes when set at max brightness. If change to SFT42R, the light body is too small to exert maximum efficiency.
Light looks very interesting.
I hope it is available with the sft40 5000K LED. Or if available the sft42 5000K.
Sustained runtime is quite important for some applications so I like the design functionality of the light. I would love to test one for search and rescue.
Yes, 21700 battery.
One press the tail switch to enter the max brightness.
For side switch, press and hold to shift brightness modes.
Only SFT40 6500K available.
There is another choice called MD70, three chips available.
70.3/6500K
70.2/6500K
70.2/5000K
This is an excellent design for heat dissipation. This has two key benefits, but you only mention one.
Longer Turbo time.
Higher sustainable brightness level.
Increasing power and using an SFT42R instead of SFT40 may decrease (1), but will also increase (2) because of the larger emitter and higher efficacy at medium currents.
Personally I prefer a light with a medium 1-3min Turbo, and a very high sustainable brightness.
Please consider the MD70 with SFT90, as the emitter is ideal for this host. It needs good thermal dissipation, medium large reflector, and 2x21700 20A buck driver (to overcome its high Vf), which all are possible with this host.
I think that if the light came with an option to spec LH531 and LH73B due to their high efficiency and very low VF and came with a high CRI option, I’d consider it
An XHP70.3 Hi 4000K R70 produces about 5100lm at 7.2A 6.3V
The LHP531 4000K produces about 4500lm at 14.5A 3.2V
The LHP73B is much larger than an XHP70.3 Hi and produces about 5600lm at 15A 3.1V, in the 5000K variant. The 4000K variant may be within 5% of the XHP70.3 Hi 4000K.
In conclusion, the LHP531 and LHP73B are not particularly efficaous. They are particularly large. An XHP70.3 Hi is still more efficaous for a given LES. However, the LHPs are extremely good for their cost and very well suited for our lights due to their low Vf.
Edit: all numbers are eyeballed from @koef3 's charts.
Excellent exposition of a nuanced point–per mm^2 of emitting surface, the XHP.3’s still seem to lead the pack in efficacy. The LHP’s achieve very high efficacy by simply brute-force cramming as much LES as possible onto the footprint, which lowers the power density drastically at the same input power and increases the efficacy of the emitter as a whole. If both emitters were driven at the same power density, though, the LHP’s efficacy quickly falls behind.
If someone is after pure flood though, it is still justifiable to choose an LHP emitter over the equivalent XHP: the overall/systemic efficacy increase from the large LES outweighs the local/intrinsic lower per-area efficacy of the material.
