Landing lights, incandescent, halogen and Xenon HID

[The Visitor]

I have finally got my wing tips painted and on my Seneca, they have the
hid lights in them. I had the Piper wingtip recognition lights before,
35 watters, not good enough to show a light in daylight.

My attention is now turning towards my actual landing lights. These are
located on the nosegear strut. I am thinking of getting halogens to
replace the incandescents. Has anybody done this and did you see much of
a difference, if so, how much?

I don't want to get hid's for the nose gear, there is only one
manufacturer that has an stc for this. I don't like the installation set
up. Specifically the ballast being glued up inside the wheelwell. Also
in cold weather it will take awhile to warm them up, I will probably
have landed by then. For those who don't know, the lights go out when
the gear goes up (a good thing really) even if the switches are still on.

4509 110,111 cp 100 watts used incandescent

Q4509 140,000 cp 100 watts used halogen

So has anybody anything to offer by way of comparison?

John

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> 4509 110,111 cp 100 watts used incandescent
>
> Q4509 140,000 cp 100 watts used halogen
>
> So has anybody anything to offer by way of comparison?
>

Go with the halogen by all means! In our Tobago, the light is much
brighter than what we had with incandescent (same bulb types you
quote). The beam is a little more narrowly focussed, though. Major
benefit is the vastly improved life-time of the halogen bulbs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[The Visitor]

Thanks Thomas. That is the sort of stuff I was looking for. I read the
halogens are 7x7 degrees and the incandescents were 12x7 or 8 degrees. I
can live with that. And I think that is with the filliament horizontal,
but it did not say. Most people mount the filament vertical and I guess
that would be better for a landing light. I can have two on my nosewheel
strut. I guess I will have some fooling around to do, aiming them.

I just really wanted someone to tell me yea or nay.

Again thanks.

John



Thomas Borchert wrote:

> The,
>
>
>>4509 110,111 cp 100 watts used incandescent
>>
>>Q4509 140,000 cp 100 watts used halogen
>>
>>So has anybody anything to offer by way of comparison?
>>
>
>
> Go with the halogen by all means! In our Tobago, the light is much
> brighter than what we had with incandescent (same bulb types you
> quote). The beam is a little more narrowly focussed, though. Major
> benefit is the vastly improved life-time of the halogen bulbs.
>

[Rip]

The Visitor wrote:
> I have finally got my wing tips painted and on my Seneca, they have the
> hid lights in them. I had the Piper wingtip recognition lights before,
> 35 watters, not good enough to show a light in daylight.
>
> My attention is now turning towards my actual landing lights. These are
> located on the nosegear strut. I am thinking of getting halogens to
> replace the incandescents. Has anybody done this and did you see much of
> a difference, if so, how much?
>
> I don't want to get hid's for the nose gear, there is only one
> manufacturer that has an stc for this. I don't like the installation set
> up. Specifically the ballast being glued up inside the wheelwell. Also
> in cold weather it will take awhile to warm them up, I will probably
> have landed by then. For those who don't know, the lights go out when
> the gear goes up (a good thing really) even if the switches are still on.
>
> 4509 110,111 cp 100 watts used incandescent
>
> Q4509 140,000 cp 100 watts used halogen
>
> So has anybody anything to offer by way of comparison?
>
> John
>
As long as you're considering lamps that may not be approved for your
aircraft, you may want to look at H7604 or H7614 bulbs. Comparable
light, less current.

Rip

[Michael Ware]

"Rip" > wrote in message
. net...
> As long as you're considering lamps that may not be approved for your
> aircraft, you may want to look at H7604 or H7614 bulbs. Comparable
> light, less current.
>
> Rip

I knew this was coming.

[Rip]

Michael Ware wrote:

> "Rip" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>As long as you're considering lamps that may not be approved for your
>>aircraft, you may want to look at H7604 or H7614 bulbs. Comparable
>>light, less current.
>>
>>Rip
>
>
> I knew this was coming.
>
>
Excellent! Unfortunately, many owner/operators are not aware that a
"will fit" part is not necessarily acceptable. Kudos to you, and others
who are so aware.

Rip

[[email protected]]

Rip > wrote:
: > I knew this was coming.
: >
: >
: Excellent! Unfortunately, many owner/operators are not aware that a
: "will fit" part is not necessarily acceptable. Kudos to you, and others
: who are so aware.

... wake me up when this is over.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Rip" > wrote in message
. ..
> Michael Ware wrote:
>
>> "Rip" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>
>>>As long as you're considering lamps that may not be approved for your
>>>aircraft, you may want to look at H7604 or H7614 bulbs. Comparable
>>>light, less current.
>>>
>>>Rip
>>
>>
>> I knew this was coming.
>>
>>
> Excellent! Unfortunately, many owner/operators are not aware that a "will
> fit" part is not necessarily acceptable. Kudos to you, and others who are
> so aware.
>
> Rip

But, on the other hand, feel free to add Marvel Mystery Oil, or whatever you
want to your engine oil / fuel - after all, the engine is not nearly as
improtant to safe operation as a light bulb...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[The Visitor]

Rip wrote:
look at H7604 or H7614 bulbs.



I want cp!

H7601 100 kcp

H7614 2 kcp

In Canada it seems they (Q4509) are treated as a direct replacement. Is
there something hazardous I should know about?

[The Visitor]

From Avtek======== http://www.avtek2.com/halogen_lights.htm

Test environment was a dark country road, power supply holding a consent
13.8 volts and a grove of trees 1/3 mile away. Judges were six
NON-Pilots with no bias at all as to the test results.

1) 4509 barely hit the trees and no details could be observed, due to
the "Yellowish light"

2) Halogen hit the trees, and details such as green leaves and branches
were seen. However the pattern was tight.

3) H-I-D hit the trees unlike Halogen, the H-I-D light-up the all the
Trees and nests could be seen. The light was Pure White

4) Q-4509 Hit all the Trees as with H-I-D but the light went further and
beyond to houses 3/4 mile away, in a wider pattern, and a deer was seen
in the field, not seen by the other lights.

Wow, interesting. However, with two quarts bulbs going, I get the
feeling I may have them dim down in the flare as the throttles are
closed. I am again leaning toward the hid option for the nosewheel. At
the cost not being too significant I may put in the Q's just for an
experiment.

John

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>4509 110,111 cp 100 watts used incandescent
>>
>>Q4509 140,000 cp 100 watts used halogen
>>
>>So has anybody anything to offer by way of comparison?
>>
>
>
> Go with the halogen by all means! In our Tobago, the light is much
> brighter than what we had with incandescent (same bulb types you
> quote). The beam is a little more narrowly focussed, though. Major
> benefit is the vastly improved life-time of the halogen bulbs.
>

[[email protected]]

We just investigation the options for our Cessna T210, and decided on
the halogen relplacements. We were going through the old incadescents
at about 1 per every 10 landings, and at $23 per light, it was getting
to be a pain in the butt. Not to mention the disappointment of needing
the light and finding out it burned out on the last landing.

For $550 apiece, the HID lamps were just not worth it, so we went with
the middle ground; about $40 apiece for the halogens, and so far so
good on both the ligh intensity and durablilty (although they've only
been in about 3 weeks).

WW