Landing Lights at NAPA

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.

"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

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"

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

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

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