If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Well, ONE of you is wrong. Either the original poster made a typo or you
made an incorrect interpretation. Tell me, though, just for grins, what year and/or model 172 had this "engineering screwup" so that I can go back through the TCDS Ok here are the facts. The plane is a 1973 Cessna 172 M. The landing light is a 4522. 250 watt at 14 volts. By ohms law is draws 17.86 amps. The Circuit Breaker Part number is S-1360-20---20 amp This is from the equipment table on page 20-35 Either the Cessna book is wrong or the light should be of lower wattage or the circuit breaker should be of a higher amperage. Hank |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Dan Thomas" wrote in message om... The 4522 bulb is a 250 watt bulb at 13 volts. He wrote 4552, not 4522. The 4552 is a 28v 250W part, putting the current at below 10A. A 20A breaker ought to be entirely sufficient. If his post has a typo, and he actually means a 4522 bulb, then of course your post offers very useful information. Pete Here's what the original poster said in a subsequent post in rec.aviation.owning: Nobody looks it up. The 4522 lamp is usually used in a swing-down lamp. The landing lamp is a GE 4522. If I posted different, then it is my error and I appologize. Hank I assumed a typo right off, since I knew of no 4552 in any 172s. And after Jim Weir razzed me, I doublechecked the Cessna parts manual again, and for a whole serial number range they call for a 4522 bulb on a 20 amp breaker. They DO make mistakes sometimes. Dan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
That's all funny. I'm sure the bulbs for our two cowl mounted lights
in our 172M are a 4509s. Maybe our two bulb system is different? But, we were going thru bulbs at an incredible rate when I happened to try two fixes to the problem - unfortunately at the same time so I don't know which one worked. The problem - I think the filaments vibrate due to cowl vibration. Hold a good bulb to your ear and rap it sharply with a finger tip. Hear the lightly damped ringing iside. We thought maybe we needed some vibration isolation even though the cowl is floating. Fixes? 1) I sprayed silicon on the cowl baffling strips to minimize the friction between the engine vibration and the cowl surfaces. We later added teflon tape to the interface surfaces on the cowl interior. 2) I added four 8-32 rubber shock mounts between the landing lite brackets and the cowl as a secondary vibration isolator. This spaced the lites back maybe 3/8 inch, but there seemed to be room for everything. We have not replaced a cowl light in about 10 years. I don't know which scheme worked but it sure did. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
There's a cowl shock mount used as a bumber in the cowling, and it rides against a small plate bolted to the alternator mounting bracket on the engine. It's supposed to keep the cowl roughly in line with the prop hub, but as the engine mount rubbers sag, the engine contacts the bumber rather firmly and shakes the daylights out of the cowl and anything attached to it, like landing lights. That bumber rubber gets hot enough from being pounded and rubbed that it can melt. Some folks turn the landing lights 90 degrees in their mounts to get the filaments vertical rather than horizontal, and they claim better bulb life. Others use the Q4509 or H7604, which are the same as 4509s but with a separate quartz/halogen bulb within the main envelope. These have a life expectancy of 100 hours rather than 25. I wish Cessna had left the lights in the wing leading edges, or had not gone to the rubber-mounted cowlings. We have a couple of Citabrias with 4509s in the cowls, and they get good life because the cowls are rigidly mounted to the firewall and the engine has no contact other than through baffle seals. The cowl doesn't get shaken up. Dan The resonant frequency of the filament system of a 4509 bulb has to be in the several KHz range, and the damping is incredibly low, since it takes place in a vacuum. Exciting that combination with an 80 Hz complex waveshape thru a rubber bumper would normally seem hard to me (based on my experience with vibration) in that we'd be dealing with maybe a 40th harmonic. The front cowl mount is still soft after all these years in our 172M. At any rate that's why I tried to isolate the bulb mounts from the cowl, and also minimize the stick-slip of the baffling-cowl interface. From experience in unrelated applications, stick-slip effects can create a lot of very high freq harmonic content. I had heard of rotating the lites, but didn't try that. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skycraft Landing Light Question | Jay Honeck | Owning | 15 | February 3rd 05 06:49 PM |
C-172 landing light switch | JFLEISC | Piloting | 16 | May 6th 04 01:15 AM |
C-172 landing light switch | JFLEISC | Owning | 10 | May 5th 04 11:05 PM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |