Landing lights

[Robert Barker]

We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only a
$40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...

Thanks

[Robert M. Gary]

Isn't that a sign of unusual vibration? I know some in the Mooney
community have had the same problem and its always indicated something
else (vibration wise).

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> Isn't that a sign of unusual vibration? I know some in the Mooney
> community have had the same problem and its always indicated something
> else (vibration wise).

> -Robert

Unusual vibration in a 172?

How do you detect that without instrumentation or the prop falling apart
before your eyes?

On my first take off in a 172R my first thought was the engine had failed
because everything wasn't shaking like hell like all the other carbureted
172s I had flown.

I'm amazed that the lights in the pre fuel injected models last more than
once or twice around the pattern in spite of all the vibration, especially
the ones with the lights in the cowl.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
> our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
> Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only
> a $40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...
>

http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm

I have these and they are awesome. A bit more to install, but have a 5 year
warranty. It eliminates the most common part that breaks in regular landing
lights. What's more, they're about five times brighter than "normal" lights.

http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_AML.htm Pick the one that fits.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Robert Barker]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Isn't that a sign of unusual vibration? I know some in the Mooney
> community have had the same problem and its always indicated something
> else (vibration wise).
>
> -Robert

Actually, I think it might be more that the planes are being used for a lot
of training at this point. We're probably replacing one every 6 to 9
months...

[nrp]

Assuming you have the isolated cowls and cowl mounted lites, next time
you have the cowl off spray silicon on the baffle sealing surfaces to
minimize the stick-slip excitation from the engine torsional vibration.

I also added a shock mount system to the landing lite housing when I
first tried the above, but that is not an approved mod. Something
worked though as I have not had a landing lite go in years on my 172M.

[Ronnie]

Robert,

First, which size lamp does your 172 use, PAR 36 or PAR 46?

As others have already pointed out, you can use a Q4509 in place
of the PAR 36 GE 4509 and get more light and logner life.

My 1976 M model uses a PAR 46 lamp and I found a Halogen
lamp that would replace it, the GE H7635. This is a halogen 12V,
50W PAR 46 lamp that fits into the GE 4537 mount. I found them
at http://www.bulbs.com for $14.95 in you buy a case. I order a couple
of lamps from http:wwww/RockAuto.com for about $18.00 each.

The other idea is to stop the vibration that is causing the shorten lamp
life. The following is from a post back in March that discusses a kit
Cessna made to change the resonant frequency of the cowl with some
fiberglass stiffeners and an idea about mounting the lamp holder on
rubber isolation mounts.

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:
>


"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
> our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
> Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only
> a $40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...
>
> Thanks
>

[Nathan Young]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 20:56:54 -0600, "Robert Barker"
> wrote:

>We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
>our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
>Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only a
>$40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...

A few suggestions.

1. Make sure that pilots are not turning the lights on/off/on in a
short timespan. I have accidentally toggled the light switch on my
Cherokee, and it blew the light very quickly.

2. I orientate my bulbs so that the filament is vertical. This is
supposed to help with the vibration issue, but who knows.

3. If you have wingtip lights and nose bowl lights, use only the
wingtip lights when possible. There is less vibration in the wingtips
than in the nose bowl.

-Nathan

[The Visitor]

What kind of plane are they on. And what beam dispersion did you get?

John




Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
>>our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
>>Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only
>>a $40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...
>>
>
>
> http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm
>
> I have these and they are awesome. A bit more to install, but have a 5 year
> warranty. It eliminates the most common part that breaks in regular landing
> lights. What's more, they're about five times brighter than "normal" lights.
>
> http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_AML.htm Pick the one that fits.
>

[Mike H.]

Some owners have reported that a bead of RTV around the lamp housing
helps reduce the effects of vibration, as well as the vertical
orientation trick reported previously.

I have the Precise Flight Pulselite STC installed on my 172. Besides
the enhanced daylight visibility advantage that it is designed for, a
side benefit of the pulselite is that it significantly extends bulb
life by decreasing lamp heat. Others have reported this and I have
found it to be true as well. It is not an expensive add-on, as things
go.

Mike H

[Matt Barrow]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> What kind of plane are they on. And what beam dispersion did you get?
>
> John
>

A Beech B36 - I have both the cowl and taxi (nose wheel) lights.


>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
>>>our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
>>>Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only
>>>a $40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm
>>
>> I have these and they are awesome. A bit more to install, but have a 5
>> year warranty. It eliminates the most common part that breaks in regular
>> landing lights. What's more, they're about five times brighter than
>> "normal" lights.
>>
>> http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_AML.htm Pick the one that fits.
>>
>

[.Blueskies.]

> wrote in message ...
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>> Isn't that a sign of unusual vibration? I know some in the Mooney
>> community have had the same problem and its always indicated something
>> else (vibration wise).
>
>> -Robert
>
> Unusual vibration in a 172?
>
> How do you detect that without instrumentation or the prop falling apart
> before your eyes?
>
> On my first take off in a 172R my first thought was the engine had failed
> because everything wasn't shaking like hell like all the other carbureted
> 172s I had flown.
>
snip>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Lycoming powered, I assume - the O-300 runs smooth as silk...

[Robert Barker]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
t...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>> Isn't that a sign of unusual vibration? I know some in the Mooney
>>> community have had the same problem and its always indicated something
>>> else (vibration wise).
>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> Unusual vibration in a 172?
>>
>> How do you detect that without instrumentation or the prop falling apart
>> before your eyes?
>>
>> On my first take off in a 172R my first thought was the engine had failed
>> because everything wasn't shaking like hell like all the other carbureted
>> 172s I had flown.
>>
> snip>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Lycoming powered, I assume - the O-300 runs smooth as silk...
>

Thanks to everyone for the info... I'll do some shopping this week.

[The Visitor]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> A Beech B36 - I have both the cowl and taxi (nose wheel) lights.
>

Available in:

Intermediate - 17° width
Landing - 9° width



What beam widths did you wind up with? would think the 9 degrees is
too small of a spot?

What was the real install time compared to estimates?

John

[Matt Barrow]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> A Beech B36 - I have both the cowl and taxi (nose wheel) lights.
>>
>
> Available in:
>
> Intermediate - 17° width
> Landing - 9° width
>
>
>
> What beam widths did you wind up with? would think the 9 degrees is too
> small of a spot?

Landing light in thecowl, Intermediate on the nose wheel. They didn't have
the wider one (22 degrees IIRC) when I bought, or at least I didn't know
about it.

>
> What was the real install time compared to estimates?

I didn't get an estimate from Lopresti, but I dropped the bird off in the
afternoon at the maintenance barn and it was done the next morning. Six
hours on the invoice as I recall.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[The Visitor]

Okay, thanks.

I am still considering gettng them on the nose strut of my seneca. Can't
decide two narrow beam or two intermediate lights. One of each won't
work because of how they are positioned so tightly in the gear doors. I
don't want the light comming out, to be skewed looking.

I take it the new lights were waaay brighter?

John




Matt Barrow wrote:
> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A Beech B36 - I have both the cowl and taxi (nose wheel) lights.
>>>
>>
>>Available in:
>>
>>Intermediate - 17° width
>>Landing - 9° width
>>
>>
>>
>>What beam widths did you wind up with? would think the 9 degrees is too
>>small of a spot?
>
>
> Landing light in thecowl, Intermediate on the nose wheel. They didn't have
> the wider one (22 degrees IIRC) when I bought, or at least I didn't know
> about it.
>
>
>>What was the real install time compared to estimates?
>
>
> I didn't get an estimate from Lopresti, but I dropped the bird off in the
> afternoon at the maintenance barn and it was done the next morning. Six
> hours on the invoice as I recall.

[Matt Barrow]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, thanks.
>
> I am still considering gettng them on the nose strut of my seneca. Can't
> decide two narrow beam or two intermediate lights. One of each won't work
> because of how they are positioned so tightly in the gear doors. I don't
> want the light comming out, to be skewed looking.
>
> I take it the new lights were waaay brighter?
>

By orders of magnitude; rather like using a big flashlight versus a match.



>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A Beech B36 - I have both the cowl and taxi (nose wheel) lights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Available in:
>>>
>>>Intermediate - 17° width
>>>Landing - 9° width
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What beam widths did you wind up with? would think the 9 degrees is too
>>>small of a spot?
>>
>>
>> Landing light in thecowl, Intermediate on the nose wheel. They didn't
>> have the wider one (22 degrees IIRC) when I bought, or at least I didn't
>> know about it.
>>
>>
>>>What was the real install time compared to estimates?
>>
>>
>> I didn't get an estimate from Lopresti, but I dropped the bird off in the
>> afternoon at the maintenance barn and it was done the next morning. Six
>> hours on the invoice as I recall.
>
>

[xyzzy]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2006 20:56:54 -0600, "Robert Barker"
> > wrote:
>
> >We seem to be going thru landing lights more frequently than we should in
> >our 172's. Are there any STCd alternatives to the standard Cessna part?
> >Maybe a LED lamp or at least something more durable? I realize it's only a
> >$40 part, but we're a new club and every little bit helps...
>
> A few suggestions.
>
> 1. Make sure that pilots are not turning the lights on/off/on in a
> short timespan. I have accidentally toggled the light switch on my
> Cherokee, and it blew the light very quickly.
>
> 2. I orientate my bulbs so that the filament is vertical. This is
> supposed to help with the vibration issue, but who knows.
>
> 3. If you have wingtip lights and nose bowl lights, use only the
> wingtip lights when possible. There is less vibration in the wingtips
> than in the nose bowl.
>

A maint. volunteer in my club told me that landing lights have limited
life, like 400 hours or so. So if people are flying around with them
on all the time to improve their visibility (not necessarily a bad idea
in the pattern) you would expect them to be burning out frequently.

He also suggested not checking them during preflight because it's not
required and every time you turn one on and off, you're shortening its
lifetime. He came to this conclusion after he checked a landing light
in preflight, then it burned out when he turned it on during the
subsquent flight. So the preflight check was useless anyway and it
probably helped hasten the bulb's demise.

Just grist for the mill...

[[email protected]]

The Visitor wrote:
> landing lights have limited
> > life, like 400 hours or so.
> From the GE website....
> The 4509's I suspect you are using have a rated live of 25 hours. A
> Q4509, more money is 100 hours. If you don't turn them on and off.
>
> One person I know claims for longer life you should not turn the landing
> light of until the engine stops. As the vibrations present when the
> filament cools, stresses it and it will break sooner.

Sagging engine mounts will let the engine's bumper plate come
up against the cowl bumper. You can see it just above the landing light
assembly. If this thing is constantly in contact, it will shake the
daylights out of the cowl and anything attached to it.
Sometimes getting a dynamic prop balance will help; it saves
radios and gyros, too.

Dan

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:59:59 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote:

>
>
>landing lights have limited
>> life, like 400 hours or so.

How many hours of flying does it take to get 400 hours on a landing
light? I've put well over a 1000 hours on the Deb but the landing
light hasn't been replaced yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

> From the GE website....
>The 4509's I suspect you are using have a rated live of 25 hours. A
>Q4509, more money is 100 hours. If you don't turn them on and off.
>
>One person I know claims for longer life you should not turn the landing
>light of until the engine stops. As the vibrations present when the
>filament cools, stresses it and it will break sooner.

[Matt Barrow]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> landing lights have limited
>> life, like 400 hours or so.
> From the GE website....
> The 4509's I suspect you are using have a rated live of 25 hours. A Q4509,
> more money is 100 hours. If you don't turn them on and off.
>
> One person I know claims for longer life you should not turn the landing
> light of until the engine stops. As the vibrations present when the
> filament cools, stresses it and it will break sooner.
>
Which is part of the reason the Boom Beam is so great: NO FILAMENT.

Run it anytime, guaranteed five years. Install it and don't worry about it.