Landing Lights at NAPA

[Jay Honeck]

In discussing our relatively new Skycraft landing lights (the
cut-into-the-leading-edge-of-the-wings type) here the other day, I noted
that I had just burned out a GE 4509 after around 35 hours. This surprised
me, since, being out in the wing, I expected there to be less
filament-killing vibration, and had hoped for a longer life from the
conventional bulb.

So, after it burned out, I ordered a Q4509 -- the quartz-halogen equivalent,
with a proven much longer life -- from Spruce, which arrived today.

Imagine my surprise when I get to the hangar, turn the lights on (because,
of course, I can't remember which light is burned out) -- and NEITHER wing
landing light works. At first I suspected a blown circuit breaker, but, no,
the OTHER 4509 had also blown, within 30 minutes of its mate.

I'll say this about them: They may be junk bulbs, but at least they are
*consistent* junk bulbs.

:-)

So, not wanting to wait another week for Spruce, I headed over to my FBO,
who (of course) only had 4509s in stock, for some OUTRAGEOUS price. I
declined, figuring if I'm going to pay thirty bucks for a stupid light bulb,
I wanted it to be the long-life quartz one.

Then, I think, hey -- didn't I remember you guys talking about "tractor bulb
equivalents" and the like? So, I pointed the Grape toward my local NAPA
auto parts store, burnt-out bulb in hand, and simply handed it to the guy
behind the counter and asked for a direct replacement.

To my delight, he instantly produced a NAPA equivalent bulb, made by Wagner,
same number (4509) and everything. Best of all, it costs a whole $13.49.

Unfortunately, they don't make a quartz equivalent, so I suspect I'll be
replacing this bulb in another couple of months -- but it's just nice to
have a cheap, locally available alternative. Heck, the box even SAYS
"aircraft light" on it -- so it's probably even legal!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Chilcoat]

Jay,

Perhaps they're trying to tell you something. Have you checked that the
voltage regulator is not spiking significantly over 14V? Just a thought.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eiX5f.451061$_o.173822@attbi_s71...
> In discussing our relatively new Skycraft landing lights (the
> cut-into-the-leading-edge-of-the-wings type) here the other day, I noted
> that I had just burned out a GE 4509 after around 35 hours. This
> surprised me, since, being out in the wing, I expected there to be less
> filament-killing vibration, and had hoped for a longer life from the
> conventional bulb.
>
> So, after it burned out, I ordered a Q4509 -- the quartz-halogen
> equivalent, with a proven much longer life -- from Spruce, which arrived
> today.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I get to the hangar, turn the lights on (because,
> of course, I can't remember which light is burned out) -- and NEITHER wing
> landing light works. At first I suspected a blown circuit breaker, but,
> no, the OTHER 4509 had also blown, within 30 minutes of its mate.
>
> I'll say this about them: They may be junk bulbs, but at least they are
> *consistent* junk bulbs.
>
> :-)
>
> So, not wanting to wait another week for Spruce, I headed over to my FBO,
> who (of course) only had 4509s in stock, for some OUTRAGEOUS price. I
> declined, figuring if I'm going to pay thirty bucks for a stupid light
> bulb, I wanted it to be the long-life quartz one.
>
> Then, I think, hey -- didn't I remember you guys talking about "tractor
> bulb equivalents" and the like? So, I pointed the Grape toward my local
> NAPA auto parts store, burnt-out bulb in hand, and simply handed it to the
> guy behind the counter and asked for a direct replacement.
>
> To my delight, he instantly produced a NAPA equivalent bulb, made by
> Wagner, same number (4509) and everything. Best of all, it costs a whole
> $13.49.
>
> Unfortunately, they don't make a quartz equivalent, so I suspect I'll be
> replacing this bulb in another couple of months -- but it's just nice to
> have a cheap, locally available alternative. Heck, the box even SAYS
> "aircraft light" on it -- so it's probably even legal!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Don Tuite]

Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
a certain orientation.

When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)

Comments invited.

Don

[sfb]

Anybody old enough to fly a plane already knows tits are expensive.

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
> a certain orientation.
>
> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
> if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
> there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
> inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)
>
> Comments invited.
>
> Don

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DT" == Don Tuite > writes:

DT> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried
DT> aloud that if we had a crash and the crash investigators found
DT> the titless bulb, there'd be trouble.

Damn...only geeks could worry about a titless *bulb*.

[Dave Stadt]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
> a certain orientation.
>
> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
> if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
> there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
> inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)
>
> Comments invited.
>
> Don

The Wagner 4509 aircraft lamps from Farm and Fleet are anatomically correct
and the last time I bought some they were well under $10.00 each. .

[Jim Burns]

> So, not wanting to wait another week for Spruce, I headed over to my FBO,
> who (of course) only had 4509s in stock, for some OUTRAGEOUS price. I
> declined, figuring if I'm going to pay thirty bucks for a stupid light
bulb,
> I wanted it to be the long-life quartz one.


I'd buy a dozen, jack up the price, sell them to your FBO, and tell them
they are getting a hell of a deal! It would serve them right.
Jim

[N93332]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
> a certain orientation.
>
> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
> if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
> there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
> inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)

Just make sure that if you crash that you destroy the titless bulbs. ;-)

-Greg B.

[Jimmy]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eiX5f.451061$_o.173822@attbi_s71...
> In discussing our relatively new Skycraft landing lights (the
> cut-into-the-leading-edge-of-the-wings type) here the other day, I noted
> that I had just burned out a GE 4509 after around 35 hours. This
> surprised me, since, being out in the wing, I expected there to be less
> filament-killing vibration, and had hoped for a longer life from the
> conventional bulb.
>
> So, after it burned out, I ordered a Q4509 -- the quartz-halogen
> equivalent, with a proven much longer life -- from Spruce, which arrived
> today.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I get to the hangar, turn the lights on (because,
> of course, I can't remember which light is burned out) -- and NEITHER wing
> landing light works. At first I suspected a blown circuit breaker, but,
> no, the OTHER 4509 had also blown, within 30 minutes of its mate.
>
> I'll say this about them: They may be junk bulbs, but at least they are
> *consistent* junk bulbs.
>
> :-)
>
> So, not wanting to wait another week for Spruce, I headed over to my FBO,
> who (of course) only had 4509s in stock, for some OUTRAGEOUS price. I
> declined, figuring if I'm going to pay thirty bucks for a stupid light
> bulb, I wanted it to be the long-life quartz one.
>
> Then, I think, hey -- didn't I remember you guys talking about "tractor
> bulb equivalents" and the like? So, I pointed the Grape toward my local
> NAPA auto parts store, burnt-out bulb in hand, and simply handed it to the
> guy behind the counter and asked for a direct replacement.
>
> To my delight, he instantly produced a NAPA equivalent bulb, made by
> Wagner, same number (4509) and everything. Best of all, it costs a whole
> $13.49.
>
> Unfortunately, they don't make a quartz equivalent, so I suspect I'll be
> replacing this bulb in another couple of months -- but it's just nice to
> have a cheap, locally available alternative. Heck, the box even SAYS
> "aircraft light" on it -- so it's probably even legal!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Doug]

Yah, I like everything I own to have tits.

[Doug]

>Anybody old enough to fly a plane already knows tits are expensive.

Yeah, I'm STILL paying for mine.

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
> a certain orientation.

There is no notch in the Skycraft light "socket" -- so the lack of a tit or
two doesn't matter.

Er, so to speak...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd buy a dozen, jack up the price, sell them to your FBO, and tell them
> they are getting a hell of a deal! It would serve them right.

Yeah, I like to support my local FBO, but when they start jacking prices of
consumables 250% over retail, I tend to get ****ed.

It's just dumb business.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TripFarmer]

My A&P showed me that the $50 air filter she put in is the same
filter that NAPA sells for $10. Should I or shouldn't I?


Trip


In article >, says...
>
>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
>> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
>> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
>> a certain orientation.
>>
>> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
>> if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
>> there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
>> inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)
>
>Just make sure that if you crash that you destroy the titless bulbs. ;-)
>
>-Greg B.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

If its really the same...


Mike
MU-2


"TripFarmer" > wrote in message
...
> My A&P showed me that the $50 air filter she put in is the same
> filter that NAPA sells for $10. Should I or shouldn't I?
>
>
> Trip
>
>
> In article >, says...
>>
>>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>>> Did you notice that the NAPA bulb didn't have the tit on the back that
>>> the aviation bulb of the same number had? The tit fits into a notch
>>> in the sheet metal that the bulb goes into and aligns the filament in
>>> a certain orientation.
>>>
>>> When I put a NAPA bulb into our 235, our mechanic worried aloud that
>>> if we had a crash and the crash investigators found the titless bulb,
>>> there'd be trouble. (And of course, the landing-light assembly would
>>> inevitably survive the crash,thanks to Murphy.)
>>
>>Just make sure that if you crash that you destroy the titless bulbs. ;-)
>>
>>-Greg B.
>>
>>
>

[Aaron Coolidge]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: In discussing our relatively new Skycraft landing lights (the
: cut-into-the-leading-edge-of-the-wings type) here the other day, I noted
: that I had just burned out a GE 4509 after around 35 hours. This surprised

GE states the expected life of a 4509 is 25 hours. Sounds like you did
pretty good! PS, bulbs direct or some web site like that has them for $8 each
in quantity 1. (The GE brand, that is, not the Wagner).

--
Aaron C.

[Longworth]

Jay,
The 4509 and Q4509 have the same power requirement and should be
interchangeable. Did you check the Q4509 bulb to make sure that you
did not get a bad one? There is no reason that Q4509 can not be used
in place of 4509.

We have used both 4509 and Q4509 for landing/taxi lights as well the
Galaxy brands also ordered from Aircraft Srpuce which are much cheaper

11-02219 GALAXY 4509 LAND.LIGHT BULB $7.95
11-02220 GALAXY 4509Q HALOGEN LAND LGT $19.85

The 4509 is rated for 25 operating hours vs 100hrs for the Q4509.
Shortly after we bought the plane, both the taxi light and landing
light burned out. We contacted the previous owner for information on
what bulbs to get and he told us in all 9 years of owning the plane and
flying hundreds of hours, he had never changed any bulbs. He recalled
flying about 5hrs at night in all those years. It's most likely that
he did not turn the lights on except at night time. One of the
instructors introduced Rick to the idea of living the landing light on
ALL THE TIME for safety reason. This is the source of contention for us
for a while until we switched to the long lasting quartz light. Rick
reasons that $10 or so every 25hrs, the light bulbs are cheap insurance
against collision. My counter argument is that leaving them on all the
time will increase the chance that the darn bulbs are burned out when
you really need them. So our compromise is that we will use the Q4509
and Rick will only turn on one light (not both) during takeoffs,
landing and enroute in poor visibility or at night.

Yes, I have read seen reports that one can use NAPA's tractor bulb
equivalent but since the Galaxy 4509 is even cheaper than autopart
store price, why bother?

Hai Longworth

[Jay Honeck]

> The 4509 and Q4509 have the same power requirement and should be
> interchangeable. Did you check the Q4509 bulb to make sure that you
> did not get a bad one? There is no reason that Q4509 can not be used
> in place of 4509.

The lights that burned out on me were both regular GE 4509s that came
with the Skycraft kit. I've replaced one of them with the Q4509 (that
I ordered from Spruce, before I knew the second light was going to burn
out, too), and the other with a regular "NAPA" 4509 bulb, which I
bought when the second original 4509 burned out.

I've not burned out a Q4509 in a very long time. (The nose-light --
now rarely used -- is a Q4509, and it's been in there for, well, I
can't remember how long.)

> Yes, I have read seen reports that one can use NAPA's tractor bulb
> equivalent but since the Galaxy 4509 is even cheaper than autopart
> store price, why bother?

Well, the one I bought at NAPA is not a tractor light -- it says
"aircraft bulb" on the box -- but I sure do like your price better.

I wonder where the Galaxy bulb is made? (Both the GE and NAPA/Wagner
lights are made in the USA.) I'll bet it's Chinese, to be SO much
cheaper.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay, you haven't posted a recent photo of Atlas with the new landing
lights installed in the wings, have you? (front view)

[Jay Honeck]

john smith wrote:
> Jay, you haven't posted a recent photo of Atlas with the new landing
> lights installed in the wings, have you? (front view)

Here ya go:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/skycraft_landing_lights.htm

(I've since painted them, so they aren't bare aluminum anymore...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Spera]

I wonder if the markup was really at the retail end or just cumulative
along the line. Once the "airplane" pedigree is attached, everyone
appears to have a license to steal in the name of "liability". Then
again, the "lottery" mentality of many might lead me in the same direction.

Mike


>>I'd buy a dozen, jack up the price, sell them to your FBO, and tell them
>>they are getting a hell of a deal! It would serve them right.
>
>
> Yeah, I like to support my local FBO, but when they start jacking prices of
> consumables 250% over retail, I tend to get ****ed.
>
> It's just dumb business.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>I wonder if the markup was really at the retail end or just cumulative
>along the line. Once the "airplane" pedigree is attached, everyone appears
>to have a license to steal in the name of "liability". Then again, the
>"lottery" mentality of many might lead me in the same direction.
>
> Mike

The problem all aviation parts/supply sellers face is that the aviation
market doesn't support much sales volume. So, to stay in business, those
retailers charge larger markups than many other retailers. The less stuff
we buy from aviation sources, the worse this low volume/high price spiral
becomes. It's a Catch-22..

KB

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps they're trying to tell you something. Have you checked that the
> voltage regulator is not spiking significantly over 14V? Just a thought.

Thanks, Bob, but I think the only thing those bulbs were trying to tell
me was "We're junk!"

It's stunning (to me, anyway) that GE continues to successfully market
a landing light bulb with a 25 hour design-life. (The 4509)

I'll bet they laugh every time they sell one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike W.]

That is true for replacement interior parts, and specialty items like that.
Not as true for a lamp that has countless automotive and industrial uses.
Somebody had mentioned their FBO selling 4509 bulbs for $25. They are not
hoping to get your maintenace parts sales, they are wanting to sell to that
poor guy that is trying to get out of there at 10 at night and no where else
to buy a landing light. So, best advice, if you find a reasonable price,
stock up and keep a couple on hand.

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >I wonder if the markup was really at the retail end or just cumulative
> >along the line. Once the "airplane" pedigree is attached, everyone
appears
> >to have a license to steal in the name of "liability". Then again, the
> >"lottery" mentality of many might lead me in the same direction.
> >
> > Mike
>
> The problem all aviation parts/supply sellers face is that the aviation
> market doesn't support much sales volume. So, to stay in business, those
> retailers charge larger markups than many other retailers. The less stuff
> we buy from aviation sources, the worse this low volume/high price spiral
> becomes. It's a Catch-22..
>
> KB
>
>

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> It's stunning (to me, anyway) that GE continues to successfully market
> a landing light bulb with a 25 hour design-life. (The 4509)

Ok, smarty-pants -- *YOU* try to design a bulb that size that puts out that much
light.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jay Honeck]

> > It's stunning (to me, anyway) that GE continues to successfully market
> > a landing light bulb with a 25 hour design-life. (The 4509)
>
> Ok, smarty-pants -- *YOU* try to design a bulb that size that puts out that much
> light.

Why re-invent the wheel? GE already has it, with the Q4509.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Why re-invent the wheel? GE already has it, with the Q4509.

And has been discussed already, that's an inferior bulb for some applications.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[[email protected]]

Expensive landing light bulbs from the FBO are expensive because he
has to pay way more for that bulb. In Canada, and I imagine it's the
same in the U.S., all aircraft parts have to be traceable all the way
back to the manufacturer, and the standards the manufacturer has to
meet are a bit tougher than the auto manufacturer's standards. So while
it's the same bulb, the manufacturer has to test one in ten instead of
one in a hundred (or some similar difference), and has to provide
certification paperwork for every bulb destined for aviation use. All
that extra time adds up. Add to that the liability factor: a dead
landing light on a 4X4 isn't quite the inconvenience or safety risk
that it is on a Navajo.
The Canadian aviation regulators have been considering "Commercial
Equivalent" legislation for some time now. They recognize that the
prices we pay are exorbitant, for little good reason, and are trying to
see if safety could be maintained while letting us use bulbs or
alternator belts or wheel bearings from NAPA or whoever. Their biggest
concern is the cheap knock-off from China that sometimes finds its way
into packaging that looks just like GE's or Timken's.

Dan

[Don Hammer]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:33 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>If its really the same...
>
>
>Mike
>MU-2

The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
engineering data to determine if it is the same. Often you can't tell
by looking. In any case, because of traceability, it's illegal and
your insurance payment may go away after an accident, whether that
part caused it or not. If you have un-approved parts installed the
aircraft is classified as un-airworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the
insurance industry.

The next thing that will happen is the person who installed it gets
their ticket pulled etc. Probably not worth saving a few bucks.

[Javier Henderson]

Don Hammer wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:33 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If its really the same...
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>
>
> The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
> engineering data to determine if it is the same. Often you can't tell
> by looking. In any case, because of traceability, it's illegal and
> your insurance payment may go away after an accident, whether that
> part caused it or not. If you have un-approved parts installed the
> aircraft is classified as un-airworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the
> insurance industry.

Do you know this for a fact? IE, a first hand account of such an incident?

I've heard the above passed along many times, but I've always wondered
if it's stuff that gets passed along and repeated until it's believed,
or not.

-jav

[RST Engineering]

And the legend of the brass Home Depot fuel shutoff valve rages anew...

Jim




"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:33 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>If its really the same...
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>
> The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
> engineering data to determine if it is the same. Often you can't tell
> by looking. In any case, because of traceability, it's illegal and
> your insurance payment may go away after an accident, whether that
> part caused it or not. If you have un-approved parts installed the
> aircraft is classified as un-airworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the
> insurance industry.
>
> The next thing that will happen is the person who installed it gets
> their ticket pulled etc. Probably not worth saving a few bucks.

[George Patterson]

Don Hammer wrote:

> The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
> engineering data to determine if it is the same.

If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's the same
part no matter who sold it.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Roy Smith]

In article <Blh7f.8636$U2.5921@trndny04>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Don Hammer wrote:
>
> > The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
> > engineering data to determine if it is the same.
>
> If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's the
> same
> part no matter who sold it.

In theory, it is possible that parts go through a post-manufacturing QA
sorting process, and only those which meet some higher standard get sold to
the aviation market.

On the other hand, in practice, I strongly suspect a light bulb is a light
bulb is a light bulb.

[Dave Stadt]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Blh7f.8636$U2.5921@trndny04>,
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
> > Don Hammer wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
> > > engineering data to determine if it is the same.
> >
> > If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's
the
> > same
> > part no matter who sold it.
>
> In theory, it is possible that parts go through a post-manufacturing QA
> sorting process, and only those which meet some higher standard get sold
to
> the aviation market.

Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
manufacturing, inspection and approval process.

[RST Engineering]

Oh, I love it. I absolutely love it. As Bert Lahr said, "Ain't it the
truth, ain't it the truth."

Jim




"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...


>
> Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
> parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
> manufacturing, inspection and approval process.

[Don Hammer]

>
>Do you know this for a fact? IE, a first hand account of such an incident?
>
>I've heard the above passed along many times, but I've always wondered
>if it's stuff that gets passed along and repeated until it's believed,
>or not.
>
>-jav

That's a good question. There's a bunch of silly stuff that ends up
being turned into fact floating around the industry. This overly long
diatribe is not directed to you in particular, but the group in
general

I've been an expert witness a number of times, admittedly for
transport category aircraft. In one case I represented an insurance
carrier. The aircraft, a Hawker 800, crashed through no fault of the
aircraft systems. It was determined that several components on the
aircraft were not correct because the dash numbers of the parts were
not for that particular model, but an earlier one. These were PMA'd
parts, but not listed in the parts manual for that model Hawker. The
attorneys for the insurance company won their case based on the
aircraft being un-airworthy and showed a pattern of poor maintenance.
They didn't pay for the loss. There may have been appeals, but I am
not aware of any.

I wasn't party to it, but my guess is the life insurance on the
passenger and crew went the same way. It is my understanding the DOM
was fined and had certificate action taken against him, but again I
don't have first hand knowledge of that.

Just because a part number matches doesn't count. It has to have the
paper trail and/or PMA or TSO stamp to be legal. My guess is an
insurance company wouldn't waste much effort on a Cessna loss unless
the dead pilot or passenger has a large life insurance policy. I've
seen insurance company attorneys sifting through wreckage looking for
any reason they can to minimize their loss. Do they check part
numbers against the parts book? You bet! That's how they earn their
keep.

We all have to make our own judgment on these kinds of things and what
our tolerance for risk is. I've been a pilot, A&P, and IA for over 30
years. Am I a small plane expert? Nope. Have I been classified by a
Federal Court as an Aircraft Maintenance Expert Witness? Yes. Do I
have the background to know the part is exactly the same and built
with the same level of quality control? Nope. Would I continue to
use a maintainer that would willingly install bogus parts? Nope. Is
it worth risking my life to save $25. NOPE.

Check out http://aea.faa.gov/aea200/ea01/airworthiness/sups.htm and
http://www.faasafety.gov/hottopics.aspx?id=21 for some FAA guidance
material and links.

If you are happy with the risks for you and your family and want to
save a few bucks, have at it. It may help my business. I may be the
guy on the witness stand testifying for the insurance company. You
may be the guy that killed the next guy that bought your aircraft,
sitting behind the other table, getting ready to answer the tough
questions about your expertise in determining a part's airworthiness
you picked up at NAPA.

[No Spam]

On 10/25/05 11:55, "Don Hammer" > wrote:

> I've
> seen insurance company attorneys sifting through wreckage looking for
> any reason they can to minimize their loss. Do they check part
> numbers against the parts book? You bet! That's how they earn their
> keep.

So the idea should be to make sure the wreckage is burned to unrecognizable
debris - after waiting for as many attorneys as possible to show up and be
sifting through the crash, of course.

-> Don
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not so sure about the Universe.
- Albert Einstein

[Jay Honeck]

> If you are happy with the risks for you and your family and want to
> save a few bucks, have at it. It may help my business. I may be the
> guy on the witness stand testifying for the insurance company. You
> may be the guy that killed the next guy that bought your aircraft,
> sitting behind the other table, getting ready to answer the tough
> questions about your expertise in determining a part's airworthiness
> you picked up at NAPA.

It's important to note that there are NAPA auto parts, and there are
NAPA airplane parts. The landing light I purchased at NAPA *is* an
"aircraft landing light" -- it's not an automotive equivalent.

This is worlds away from (for example) buying a Chrysler alternator at
NAPA, and installing it in my plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike W.]

Let's all remember we are talking about landing lights here, not flap motors
or avionics components.

FAR §43.17, Appendix A, ¶ (c)(17) replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of
position and landing lights.

It does not mention 'approved parts' or similar, as compared to (c)(15)
Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the
aircraft,...

If the bulb I take out is a GE 4059, and I go to Pep Boys and buy a
Westinghouse X4059a, that says on the box 'Replaces GE 4059' I am going to
use it. It is an equivalent part, designed for the same purpose.

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, I love it. I absolutely love it. As Bert Lahr said, "Ain't it the
> truth, ain't it the truth."
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
> >
> > Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
> > parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
> > manufacturing, inspection and approval process.
>
>

[Mike Spera]

A couple of points made during the thread worth mentioning. First, even
if the part number is the same, technically the part has no traceable
history evidenced by paperwork. Hence, installing it in an airplane
without paperwork/pedigree may render the airplane unairworthy. One
person noted that the Part 43 regs did not specifically mention that the
landing light bulb needed to be an "airplane" part. I believe if an
action was brought against you for this, you would lose. Other sections
mention proper workmanship/methods and I believe the finding would be
that approved parts are sufficiently implied.

Others cite "cases" where the basis of the finding was that the
unapproved part caused the airplane to be unairworthy, and thus a claim
was denied. Read the whole sentence. The parts were not approved for
that particular model AND there was a history of unacceptable
maintenance. Perhaps alone the parts would not have been researched.
Perhaps the other shortcomings in maintenance caused the closer
scrutiny. It is dangerous to draw conclusions from summary evidence
snippets.

Finally, as a practical matter, go through the logbooks of a 30 year old
airplane and inspect the beast to find ALL the discrepancies. It takes
loads of time and you need more than just a basic knowledge of not only
airplanes, but that particular make/model to make heads or tails of
these records. Harder still, what if no logbook entry was made? How can
you tell if the installed xxxx light bulb was recently replaced from the
Napa shelf, or was the one in there from Chief aircraft purchased a year
ago (for which there is an invoice or work order produced)? I doubt that
insurance companies have the time and/or talent (or will fund outside
"experts") to pour through the average spamcan books looking for
anomalies like this to base an "unairworthy" claim on.

HOWEVER, if there is an obvious aspect of the plane or crash that
attracts scrutiny and may negate their liability, I don't doubt for a
minute they won't look into it. Also true, the bigger the number, the
greater the incentive to take a closer look.

I believe the "airplane part and pedigree" is like a weather report. You
look it over carefully (the part, the pedigree, the weather) and make
your call as to what YOU believe is the truth (and what is safe). In
both the weather and parts quality it may be dangerous to blindly accept
what your are told and equally dangerous to outright reject it.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Newps]

Mike Spera wrote:

> A couple of points made during the thread worth mentioning. First, even
> if the part number is the same, technically the part has no traceable
> history evidenced by paperwork. Hence, installing it in an airplane
> without paperwork/pedigree may render the airplane unairworthy.


I have bought the 4509 landing lights at my FBO as well as at the auto
parts store. There's no paper trail from the FBO for that light. It
comes in the same box sometimes. The only paper I get is the standard
purchase receipt printed on the FBO's standard receipt they give for any
sale. I never keep these for small purchases like bulbs or other small
hardware I may buy. The thought is laughable. There is absolutely no
difference between the bulbs. If I put one in your hand from the FBO
and one from NAPA you can't tell which is which. And the insurance
company does not go looking for a part, any part, that isn't legal to
deny a claim. An unapproved part has to have played a likely role in
the wreck, your state insurance regulations see to that.

[George Patterson]

Mike Spera wrote:
> A couple of points made during the thread worth mentioning. First, even
> if the part number is the same, technically the part has no traceable
> history evidenced by paperwork.

There's no paper trail on the vast majority of the parts I have installed in the
two aircraft I've owned, and (which is probably more important) there is
absolutely no requirement that I or anyone else maintain one.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Mike Spera]

>
> Mike Spera wrote:
>
>> A couple of points made during the thread worth mentioning. First,
>> even if the part number is the same, technically the part has no
>> traceable history evidenced by paperwork. Hence, installing it in an
>> airplane without paperwork/pedigree may render the airplane unairworthy.
>
>
>
> I have bought the 4509 landing lights at my FBO as well as at the auto
> parts store. There's no paper trail from the FBO for that light. It
> comes in the same box sometimes. The only paper I get is the standard
> purchase receipt printed on the FBO's standard receipt they give for any
> sale. I never keep these for small purchases like bulbs or other small
> hardware I may buy. The thought is laughable.
Do what you like. I keep ALL my receipts.

There is absolutely no
> difference between the bulbs. If I put one in your hand from the FBO
> and one from NAPA you can't tell which is which.
Which is precisely the point I made later in the posting


And the insurance
> company does not go looking for a part, any part, that isn't legal to
> deny a claim. An unapproved part has to have played a likely role in
> the wreck, your state insurance regulations see to that.
Which is precisely the point I made later in the posting. I have no idea
of what the individual state regulations are, so I cannot speculate
whether there is any protection there.

Happy Flying,
Mike

>

[[email protected]]

Just to stretch you all a little more....

GE (and others) also make a similar Halogen Bulb, an H7604.

H7604
Candle Power 100,000
Watts 50
Beam 7 x 5 deg
LIfe 100 hrs

4509
Candle Power 110,000
Watts 100
Beam 12 x 6 deg
LIfe 25 hrs

Q4509
Candle Power 140,000
Watts 100
Beam 7 x 7 deg
LIfe 100 hrs

I have used some of the H7604's. The have a support inside the bulb
that is obvious that its not a 4509... They lasted fine but have a
narrower beam. Better for landing light, poor for taxi.

Mitch