Landing light options

[Ronnie]

My 1976 Cessna 172M uses a PAR 46 size GE4537 lamp for
the landing light (12V, 100W). It is mounted in the lower cowling
under the prop and does not last very long. I suppose the vibration
of the engine kills the life of the bulb. I sure wished Cessna had designed
this landing light installation to allow for replacing the lamp without
having
to remove the cowling. What a pain to replace a light.

I've tried the "rotate it 90 degrees in the holder" trick, but could not
tell that this helped any.

Many people recommend the Quartz Q4509 as a longer life replacement
for the GE 4509 PAR36 size lamp. A best as I can determine, there is no
Quartz version of the 4537. If you have seen these, please let me know
where.

Any other suggestions for a replacement lamp for a GE4537 lamp that
might prove to have a longer life?

Ronnie

[nrp]

If you hold a 4509 light against your ear and hit it with your finger
tip, you can hear the high frequency lightly damped resonance of the
filiament supports. Thinking this resonance was somehow being excited
by the engine vibration and fatiguing the bulb filament, some years ago
I tried two fixes to get around the short life problem of cowl mounted
landing lights. Unfortunately I did both at the same time so I don't
know which one worked.

1) I sprayed silicon on the baffling seals whereever they touch the
cowl to minimize stick-slip engine vibration inputs to the cowl. I
also put some teflon faced tape on the cowl surface whereever the
baffles touched.

2) I removed the 8-32 mounting screws and added some 8-32 male ended
shockmounts and nuts to the landing light frame. This spaced it back
about 1/2 inch from its original position, but it still fit for my
cowling. I found the mounts in a surplus store although they look very
much like the $$ mounts that are used in the gyro instrument panel.
The purpose of the mounts was to add further vibration isolation from
the cowl and engine. Obviously this is not an approved fix, but I
suspect it is more effective than 1) above.

I'm still using the 4509 lites (2), but have not put in a new one for
at least 6 or more years.

[Ronnie]

Thanks for the input. I think I'll take a look
at the mounting space a little closer and see if
it can accomodate some isolation hardware.

Ronnie

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you hold a 4509 light against your ear and hit it with your finger
> tip, you can hear the high frequency lightly damped resonance of the
> filiament supports. Thinking this resonance was somehow being excited
> by the engine vibration and fatiguing the bulb filament, some years ago
> I tried two fixes to get around the short life problem of cowl mounted
> landing lights. Unfortunately I did both at the same time so I don't
> know which one worked.
>
> 1) I sprayed silicon on the baffling seals whereever they touch the
> cowl to minimize stick-slip engine vibration inputs to the cowl. I
> also put some teflon faced tape on the cowl surface whereever the
> baffles touched.
>
> 2) I removed the 8-32 mounting screws and added some 8-32 male ended
> shockmounts and nuts to the landing light frame. This spaced it back
> about 1/2 inch from its original position, but it still fit for my
> cowling. I found the mounts in a surplus store although they look very
> much like the $$ mounts that are used in the gyro instrument panel.
> The purpose of the mounts was to add further vibration isolation from
> the cowl and engine. Obviously this is not an approved fix, but I
> suspect it is more effective than 1) above.
>
> I'm still using the 4509 lites (2), but have not put in a new one for
> at least 6 or more years.
>

[Ronnie]

Just FYI, found several sources for these type of vibration mounts:

http://www.richco-inc.com/browseframes.asp

http://www.richco-inc.com/browseframes.asp

http://www.smallparts.com/products/descriptions/pm.cfm

http://literature.lord.com/root/other/flexbolt.pdf

http://www.gelmec.co.uk/GelmecElastomerSandwichMountPage.htm


"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you hold a 4509 light against your ear and hit it with your finger
> tip, you can hear the high frequency lightly damped resonance of the
> filiament supports. Thinking this resonance was somehow being excited
> by the engine vibration and fatiguing the bulb filament, some years ago
> I tried two fixes to get around the short life problem of cowl mounted
> landing lights. Unfortunately I did both at the same time so I don't
> know which one worked.
>
> 1) I sprayed silicon on the baffling seals whereever they touch the
> cowl to minimize stick-slip engine vibration inputs to the cowl. I
> also put some teflon faced tape on the cowl surface whereever the
> baffles touched.
>
> 2) I removed the 8-32 mounting screws and added some 8-32 male ended
> shockmounts and nuts to the landing light frame. This spaced it back
> about 1/2 inch from its original position, but it still fit for my
> cowling. I found the mounts in a surplus store although they look very
> much like the $$ mounts that are used in the gyro instrument panel.
> The purpose of the mounts was to add further vibration isolation from
> the cowl and engine. Obviously this is not an approved fix, but I
> suspect it is more effective than 1) above.
>
> I'm still using the 4509 lites (2), but have not put in a new one for
> at least 6 or more years.
>

[The Visitor]

It's rated life is 25 hrs (200,000 cp). And it's probably shorter with
more on and off cycles. Plus vibration.

A 4522 at 250w and 290,000 cp would really suck the current, still only
25 hrs.

Have you thought of new wingtips and put in a quartz on on each side?

http://www.rmdaircraft.com/cessna.htm

Great guy to deal with, no connection, just a satisfied customer.

This was discussed before, see my other posts.

John



Ronnie wrote:

> My 1976 Cessna 172M uses a PAR 46 size GE4537 lamp for
> the landing light (12V, 100W). It is mounted in the lower cowling
> under the prop and does not last very long. I suppose the vibration
> of the engine kills the life of the bulb. I sure wished Cessna had designed
> this landing light installation to allow for replacing the lamp without
> having
> to remove the cowling. What a pain to replace a light.
>
> I've tried the "rotate it 90 degrees in the holder" trick, but could not
> tell that this helped any.
>
> Many people recommend the Quartz Q4509 as a longer life replacement
> for the GE 4509 PAR36 size lamp. A best as I can determine, there is no
> Quartz version of the 4537. If you have seen these, please let me know
> where.
>
> Any other suggestions for a replacement lamp for a GE4537 lamp that
> might prove to have a longer life?
>
> Ronnie
>
>
>

[nrp]

FWIW - My a/c is a 172M also (1975).

[The Visitor]

The condition of your engine mounts are okay, I mean the rubber parts.



Ronnie wrote:

> Just FYI, found several sources for these type of vibration mounts:
>
> http://www.richco-inc.com/browseframes.asp
>
> http://www.richco-inc.com/browseframes.asp
>
> http://www.smallparts.com/products/descriptions/pm.cfm
>
> http://literature.lord.com/root/other/flexbolt.pdf
>
> http://www.gelmec.co.uk/GelmecElastomerSandwichMountPage.htm
>
>

[John_F]

My 1976 C172M had the same problem. Cessna has or at least had a kit
that stiffened the lower nose bowl and changed the resonant frequency
of the assembly to move it away from the resonance freq of the lamp.
It takes a couple of hours to install the honeycomb and glass cloth
but it has worked for more than 20 years on my plane. Before
installing the kit my landing light would not last more than 3 hours
on or off. Now it lasts for years.
John

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:00:58 GMT, "Ronnie"
> wrote:

>My 1976 Cessna 172M uses a PAR 46 size GE4537 lamp for
>the landing light (12V, 100W). It is mounted in the lower cowling
>under the prop and does not last very long. I suppose the vibration
>of the engine kills the life of the bulb. I sure wished Cessna had designed
>this landing light installation to allow for replacing the lamp without
>having
>to remove the cowling. What a pain to replace a light.
>
>I've tried the "rotate it 90 degrees in the holder" trick, but could not
>tell that this helped any.
>
>Many people recommend the Quartz Q4509 as a longer life replacement
>for the GE 4509 PAR36 size lamp. A best as I can determine, there is no
>Quartz version of the 4537. If you have seen these, please let me know
>where.
>
>Any other suggestions for a replacement lamp for a GE4537 lamp that
>might prove to have a longer life?
>
>Ronnie
>
>

[Ronnie]

Hi John,

Well, that certainly is good information. I've never heard
that before. If you have any idea of the kit number or service
bulletin number for this mod, I'd appreciate hearding about it.
So far, searching on Google has not turned up any information on
this.

Ronnie

"John_F" > wrote in message
...
> My 1976 C172M had the same problem. Cessna has or at least had a kit
> that stiffened the lower nose bowl and changed the resonant frequency
> of the assembly to move it away from the resonance freq of the lamp.
> It takes a couple of hours to install the honeycomb and glass cloth
> but it has worked for more than 20 years on my plane. Before
> installing the kit my landing light would not last more than 3 hours
> on or off. Now it lasts for years.
> John
>
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:00:58 GMT, "Ronnie"
> > wrote:
>
>>My 1976 Cessna 172M uses a PAR 46 size GE4537 lamp for
>>the landing light (12V, 100W). It is mounted in the lower cowling
>>under the prop and does not last very long. I suppose the vibration
>>of the engine kills the life of the bulb. I sure wished Cessna had
>>designed
>>this landing light installation to allow for replacing the lamp without
>>having
>>to remove the cowling. What a pain to replace a light.
>>
>>I've tried the "rotate it 90 degrees in the holder" trick, but could not
>>tell that this helped any.
>>
>>Many people recommend the Quartz Q4509 as a longer life replacement
>>for the GE 4509 PAR36 size lamp. A best as I can determine, there is no
>>Quartz version of the 4537. If you have seen these, please let me know
>>where.
>>
>>Any other suggestions for a replacement lamp for a GE4537 lamp that
>>might prove to have a longer life?
>>
>>Ronnie
>>
>>
>

[Ronnie]

The rmd wingtip lights look nice. I didn't see any pricing
info on their web site. I wonder how expensive these are.

In searching and reading you prior posts, I see that the
GE H7635 is a halogen 12V, 50W PAR 46 lamp that should
fits into the GE 4537 mount. Looks like bulbs.com has them
for $14.95. I think I'll try one of these.



"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> It's rated life is 25 hrs (200,000 cp). And it's probably shorter with
> more on and off cycles. Plus vibration.
>
> A 4522 at 250w and 290,000 cp would really suck the current, still only 25
> hrs.
>
> Have you thought of new wingtips and put in a quartz on on each side?
>
> http://www.rmdaircraft.com/cessna.htm
>
> Great guy to deal with, no connection, just a satisfied customer.
>
> This was discussed before, see my other posts.
>
> John
>
>
>
> Ronnie wrote:
>
>> My 1976 Cessna 172M uses a PAR 46 size GE4537 lamp for
>> the landing light (12V, 100W). It is mounted in the lower cowling
>> under the prop and does not last very long. I suppose the vibration
>> of the engine kills the life of the bulb. I sure wished Cessna had
>> designed
>> this landing light installation to allow for replacing the lamp without
>> having
>> to remove the cowling. What a pain to replace a light.
>>
>> I've tried the "rotate it 90 degrees in the holder" trick, but could not
>> tell that this helped any.
>>
>> Many people recommend the Quartz Q4509 as a longer life replacement
>> for the GE 4509 PAR36 size lamp. A best as I can determine, there is no
>> Quartz version of the 4537. If you have seen these, please let me know
>> where.
>>
>> Any other suggestions for a replacement lamp for a GE4537 lamp that
>> might prove to have a longer life?
>>
>> Ronnie
>>
>>
>>
>

[[email protected]]

IMHO, the LoPresti Boom Beams are much better. They are warranted for 5
years or 5000 hours and deliver 5-7x the light of a standard aircraft
bulb. These lights are standard on every Cirrus Design and Lancair
aircraft so LoPresti must be doing something right...

[The Visitor]

Ronnie wrote:

> The rmd wingtip lights look nice. I didn't see any pricing
> info on their web site. I wonder how expensive these are.
>
Yes, you will need to phone him. He is a real good guy to deal with. He
makes tips for knots 2 you people so doesn't advertise much. I bought
tips for my seneca with hid lights in the tips. I leave them on for
inflight recognition lights. i didn't really need new tips but I wanted
the light. The lights in my older tips really wern't much good in daylight.

> In searching and reading you prior posts, I see that the
> GE H7635 is a halogen 12V, 50W PAR 46 lamp that should
> fits into the GE 4537 mount. Looks like bulbs.com has them
> for $14.95. I think I'll try one of these.
>

[The Visitor]

That is the standard warranty of all hid lights, including RMD and knots
2 you. The Lopresti tips, for my seneca at least place the strope in
front of the light, as well as my aft faceing white nav light. Strobe,
nav and aft white are all one unit on my plane.

PAR 46 hid lights are comming down the pipe and are twice the brightness
of the 36. That would be the thing to get if your going to go hid. with
hid you get very little current drain. Three amps on the par 36 size.
Guessing about 6 amps for the 46?

I am putting two quarts lights on my nose strut. They are used very
little and probably better.

John

wrote:

> IMHO, the LoPresti Boom Beams are much better. They are warranted for 5
> years or 5000 hours and deliver 5-7x the light of a standard aircraft
> bulb. These lights are standard on every Cirrus Design and Lancair
> aircraft so LoPresti must be doing something right...
>

[Dave Butler]

There is a a piece in the Aviation Consumer that arrived yesterday about HID
lighting. I can't regurgitate it in detail, but I remember they said the
Lopresti was far and away the most expensive, but the Lopresti kit was very
complete and made the install easier. The other brands made some kind of
shortcuts on the certification that allows them to sell cheaper. I think they
liked the 50 watt versions, I'm not sure which brand.

Dave

The Visitor wrote:
> That is the standard warranty of all hid lights, including RMD and knots
> 2 you. The Lopresti tips, for my seneca at least place the strope in
> front of the light, as well as my aft faceing white nav light. Strobe,
> nav and aft white are all one unit on my plane.
>
> PAR 46 hid lights are comming down the pipe and are twice the brightness
> of the 36. That would be the thing to get if your going to go hid. with
> hid you get very little current drain. Three amps on the par 36 size.
> Guessing about 6 amps for the 46?
>
> I am putting two quarts lights on my nose strut. They are used very
> little and probably better.
>
> John
>
> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, the LoPresti Boom Beams are much better. They are warranted for 5
>> years or 5000 hours and deliver 5-7x the light of a standard aircraft
>> bulb. These lights are standard on every Cirrus Design and Lancair
>> aircraft so LoPresti must be doing something right...

[The Visitor]

Dave Butler wrote:

> There is a a piece in the Aviation Consumer that arrived yesterday about
> HID lighting. I can't regurgitate it in detail, but I remember they said
> the


Lopresti was far and away the most expensive,

yep

but the Lopresti kit
> was very complete and made the install easier. The other brands made
> some kind of shortcuts on the certification that allows them to sell
> cheaper. I think they liked the 50 watt versions, I'm not sure which brand.
>
> Dave
>

I saw no evidence of any shortcuts on what I bought. Did they give any
examples?
My install was very easy with all stuff supplied. Beautiful product. But
it has to be for an stc'd kit. I was already wired up so I have
leftover. I think the lopresti bulbs are nicer in that you can choose
your beam pattern, but not brighter. I just couldn't stand the nav
light/strobe stuck in there with the landing light. I also had to have
mounted a white aft light in the wingtip to be legal for night, in
Canada. Really I would need engineering approval/field mod to do it
unless it was part of the stc.?

[Javier]

wrote:
> IMHO, the LoPresti Boom Beams are much better. They are warranted for 5
> years or 5000 hours and deliver 5-7x the light of a standard aircraft
> bulb. These lights are standard on every Cirrus Design and Lancair
> aircraft so LoPresti must be doing something right...
>

I installed the RMD HID lights, with a field approval (they're STC'd
only for the RMD wingtips, I mounted them on the nose bowl of my
Skylane). Installation was a cinch.

I went with the RMD lights because they're the same product, but half
the price, compared to the Boom Beam.

Those suckers are BRIGHT.

And, no filament to break. They're warrantied for thousands of hours,
just like the Boom Beam.

-jav

[Jay Honeck]

> I went with the RMD lights because they're the same product, but half the
> price, compared to the Boom Beam.
>
> Those suckers are BRIGHT.
>
> And, no filament to break. They're warrantied for thousands of hours, just
> like the Boom Beam.

Just curious: Do you fly with them on all the time?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Butler]

>> was very complete and made the install easier. The other brands made
>> some kind of shortcuts on the certification that allows them to sell
>> cheaper. I think they liked the 50 watt versions, I'm not sure which
>> brand.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> I saw no evidence of any shortcuts on what I bought. Did they give any
> examples?

I'm not sure what you'd look for to find certification shortcuts. I just know
what the article said (paraphrasing, and from memory): Lopresti complained that
its competitors were not put through the same certification requirements that
they were. The FAA acknowledged that certification mistakes were made, but
declined to correct the mistakes.

[The Visitor]

Dave Butler wrote:


> I'm not sure what you'd look for to find certification shortcuts. I just
> know what the article said (paraphrasing, and from memory): Lopresti
> complained that its competitors were not put through the same
> certification requirements that they were. The FAA acknowledged that
> certification mistakes were made, but declined to correct the mistakes.



"They" are no longer anybodies competitor.

I would also imagine that lopresti being the first to stc hid
installations had some hurdles to get by convincing the powers that be,
hid is safe and stable for aircraft. But I don't know about that for
sure. Heck look at the 4509 vs Q4509 issue.

[Javier]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I went with the RMD lights because they're the same product, but half the
>> price, compared to the Boom Beam.
>>
>> Those suckers are BRIGHT.
>>
>> And, no filament to break. They're warrantied for thousands of hours, just
>> like the Boom Beam.
>
> Just curious: Do you fly with them on all the time?

Absolutely.

-jav

[Jay Honeck]

>>> And, no filament to break. They're warrantied for thousands of hours,
>>> just like the Boom Beam.
>>
>> Just curious: Do you fly with them on all the time?
>
> Absolutely.

That would be invaluable in high-traffic areas.

I know we are MUCH more easily spotted by ATC with our wing-mounted landing
lights than we were back with the single nose-mounted Piper model. It must
be orders of magnitude better with the HID lighting.

I wonder if I could get field approval to mount them in the wings, using my
Skycraft "nacelles" (or whatever you call where the light bulbs are
mounted...)?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[The Visitor]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I wonder if I could get field approval to mount them in the wings, using my
> Skycraft "nacelles" (or whatever you call where the light bulbs are
> mounted...)?

They come in par 36 size bulbs. They have a ballast supply mounted on
the end rib of the wing. Apparantly now also you can get them to blink
alternately on and off. I heard it may shorted the life of the bulb,
also that it doesn't. ??? I didn't bother with that though. $$

The cheapest I have seen them is 380 for bulb and ballast.

If you got lights there now, should be little problem for you.

John

[Javier]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> And, no filament to break. They're warrantied for thousands of hours,
>>>> just like the Boom Beam.
>>> Just curious: Do you fly with them on all the time?
>> Absolutely.
>
> That would be invaluable in high-traffic areas.

Yes, this is one reason I had to install them. I don't fly at night all
that much.

> I know we are MUCH more easily spotted by ATC with our wing-mounted landing
> lights than we were back with the single nose-mounted Piper model. It must
> be orders of magnitude better with the HID lighting.
>
> I wonder if I could get field approval to mount them in the wings, using my
> Skycraft "nacelles" (or whatever you call where the light bulbs are
> mounted...)?

I'm sure the process will be just as smooth as mine was with the light
mounted on the nose bowl. The bulbs are PAR36 form factor, same as the
4509/4522's you probably have in place now.

To boot, you could use the same wiring in place now, since the HID
lights use less power than the incandescent bulbs.

-jav

[The Visitor]

Jay Honeck wrote:
It must
> be orders of magnitude better with the HID lighting.
>

No. I have done tests with my hid and normal 4509 bulbs on my nose strut.

Somewhat better though.

[Jay Honeck]

> It must be orders of magnitude better with the HID lighting.
>
> No. I have done tests with my hid and normal 4509 bulbs on my nose strut.
>
> Somewhat better though.

???

Aviation Consumer just did a side-by-side test, comparing all the HID lights
to each other, and to regular lights, and there was absolutely no
comparison. HID lasted hundreds of times longer, drew less power, and were
a zillion times brighter.

They are the "GPS of landing lights", according to everyone who has them.
Why do you say they are only "somewhat better"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[The Visitor]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:48:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>They are the "GPS of landing lights", according to everyone who has them.
>>Why do you say they are only "somewhat better"?


Sorry I meant compared to Q4509s
They are waaay better than my 4509 on my nose strut. I have yet to
compare them to Q4509 I am going to put on. However see this from my
post of 2/20/06....

================
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.
================

I can post when I try it with Q4509s. If you are going to have thm on
all the time, hid is for sure the way to go. If the Q4509s are not close
to hid's I will order hids for my nose strutt also.

These Avtek guys sell both and say the Q4509 is perhaps better. But it
is still only a 100 hr bulb.

If the Qs work okay for me as a landing light, by that I mean at least
as bright as my hids, I will stop there. If they don't, I will go hid on
the nose strut. And have two Q4509s for sale cheap. My plane is a Seneca
I had the piper inflight recogntion lights already. They were small
halogen bulbs, no good in daylight. My airport is very dark at night.

If you like I will keep you posted....As the Light Burns....

John