Landing Lamp - Message Thread The GE Q4509 lamp is an approved replacement for the GE 4509 lamp. The Q4509 lamp has a quartz lamp and a very long life & is very bright. The wattage of both lamps is 100W. Cost is usually about $20. I have contacted General Electric and they state that it is a direct replacement for the 4509. I contacted my local FSDO, and they agreed that it would be an acceptable replacement even though the "Q" is not listed in the parts manual. This lamp is designed as an aircraft landing lamp. I do not recommend using a lamp that is not specifically designed for aircraft use. Dana Karlin A&P Lynx 39058 -------- I got a 337 for the Q4509 because the MPLS FSDO said it was not an approved replacement. I then submitted paperwork to get a multiple STC with the Chicago office and they said that I would need additional data, such as thermal effects. This is because halogen bulbs, in general, are hotter than incandescent bulbs. GE's Lighting products office in Ohio has not responded since February. I've decided not to pursue this. Two Q4509's I bought last fall have both suffered mechanical failure after just a couple of hours of use. I contacted GE and they sent mailers for me to return them. I hope to get replacements. I plan to still use the Q4509, I just put another in Saturday, but quality control seems to be occasionally lax. Roy -------- The myth of Halogen bulbs being hotter then others is based on a seed of truth. The small inner quartz bulb in the Q4509 has a very high surface temp since it has a small surface area to dissipate the heat. The outside of the Q4509 has a lower temperature then a standard bulb since more of the energy is put into light energy and less into heat. Mark Kettering -------- Mine has been working fine for about a year and a half. By the way, can you make your 337 available for the rest of us to site. I understand that it makes it easier for the rest of us to get it approved if someone has already done it. Also, do you have the specs for the two light bulbs (it would be great if you could fax these things to me). I would send you a few bucks for the phone bill. Let me know if you could do this and I will give you my fax number. Rebecca -------- The first one I used lasted about 6 months so I was quite happy with it. Then I've had three fail, two rather quickly, the other lasted longer than a 4509 so I can't complain too much. I've wondered about the foam mounting apparatus. Maybe mine transmits too much vibration to the bulb. I thought I had a copy of the 337 here in the office, but I don't. I'll have to bring it in. It doesn't say much, but I suppose it would be some evidence in getting one for your plane. It does have a MPLS FSDO rubber stamp and signature on it. What specs to you want for the two bulbs? Roy -------- BTW, my last Q4509 also mechanically failed after a few hours - the inner bulb fell out. Here's my repost: People periodically inquire about alternatives to the 4509 landing light that is standard for our Grumman aircraft. The problem is that these lights have abysmal life- 25 rated hours at 13 volts. If you fly with your light on all the time, you won't get even that much. Ways to extend life: The problem is that the tungsten is consumed as the bulb burns. The biggest killer is the inrush current when the light is turned on. In addition, the bulbs are rated at 13 volts, but they run nearer to 13.7 volts, thus further reducing their life. One way to extend the life is with the Pulselight system that flashes the bulb on and off gradually. Because the inrush current is limited and on average the bulb sees less voltage, it will last a lot longer. Rotating the bulb so the filament is in the vertical position has been claimed to increase the life, probably because the filament may be stronger in tension than in torque as it ages and loses strength. This will probably only give a marginally increased life. The foam behind the mounting plate may also reduce vibration and provide marginally increased life- it should be checked for condition. Alternative bulbs: There are two alternative bulbs that people use in place of the regular 4509 bulb. Neither is approved for use in our aircraft, but I've yet to hear of someone being gigged for the wrong bulb. The information below is from the GE catalog, or from the GE design engineer. Bulb Watt. Max C.P.* Total Spread** Life (hrs) Price Horiz. Vert. 4509 100 110,000 12 6 25 $10.75 4595 100 60,000 14 6 300 $16.95 Q4509 100 140,000 7 7 100 $24.75 * Approx. Initial Maximum Beam (Candlepower) ** To 10% Max Candlepower (degrees) Prices 5/3/96 San-Val (800)-423-3281 +shipping The Q4509 is a Halogen bulb unit. The 4595 gives the longest life, and widest beam, however you sacrifice brightness. The Q4509 is much brighter, but at the sacrifice of beam width. The New England FSDO engineering branch has officially told me that it is not legal to use the Q4509 our aircraft because of the difference in beam spread. I have contacted GE and requested the specifications for the Q4509 in writing, but have not received anything to date (the beam spread is missing from their catalog). The engineer I spoke to at the FSDO said an STC or 337 with field approval was required to use the Q4509 because of the different beam width. If GE didn't produce a manufacturing standard that the FAA recognized, then each installation would also require a field approval (i.e. every bulb change would require a new approval!) I think the engineer at GE thought I was on drugs when I requested the standard. GE is selling a lot of these despite the fact they can't be legally used. I'll post more when I get more information. Walt Porter -------- Saw discussion about QC4509 GE versus Q4509. Globe life bothering us but Q4509 not imported to Aust. I am told. Suggestions as to source for direct purchase from States please? Geoff C-C VH-JSK -------- Subj: Re: Notes on the GE Q4509 Date: 98-01-05 13:00:22 EST From: Rebecca Harvey To: Ron B. Levy CC: grumman-gang I have also had a bulb fail because the filament "fell out". This happened after about 50 hours. The previous bulb lasted about 150 hours (and I use it a lot too). I tried to mount it vertically as someone suggested but it does not seat correctly in my plane if I do that. Rebecca -------- Subj: Re: GE Q4509 (again) Date: 98-01-05 18:17:43 EST From: WALT_PORTER To: grumman-gang Dana Karlin wrote: >The GE Q4509 quartz bulb is the same wattage and designed for the >same purpose as the GE 4509 bulb. The method of producing the light >is the only difference. General Electric considers the Q4509 as a >direct replacement for the 4509 bulb. As such, you can replace the >4509 with the Q4509 bulb with a log book entry. This was approved in >my case by the Van Nuys California FSDO. Sorry to bring this up again, but while the wattage and purpose of the two bulbs may be the same, their output is different. GE may consider the bulbs a direct replacement, but the beam spread of the two bulbs is different. The Van Nuys FSDO might not have known this information, because the New England FSDO claimed you had to do a field approval. 4509 110,000 candlepower 12 deg. horiz, 6 deg. vertical Q4509 140,000 candlepower 7 deg. horiz, 7 deg. vertical The lab life of the Q4509 is 100 hrs. vs. the 25 hrs. of the 4509, however, I have had two Q4509s fail prematurely- one the inner bulb fell out, and the second had the filament bend and fail during takeoff from my grass strip. (I mean it happened to a friend of mine ). My aircraft always comes out of annual with a 4509.... It really depends on your conscience and if the FSDO really knows if the bulbs are different- the New England FSDO wants each installation field tested, etc., but as Dana mentions, other FSDOs accept the claim that a 4509 and a Q4509 are meant for the same purpose, so they're interchangeable. If someone were nuts enough to hassle me about it, I would ask, would you rather have me land four times more often with a burned out landing light? The brighter halogen bulb is also a benefit. The reduced beam width only affects taxiing, since I added wingtip strobes to improve the visibility of my aircraft by others. Dana, did you get your approval in writing? (no need to answer) Walt Tiger N4519B (Lawrence, MA) J-3C N1573N (Brentwood, NH) "Don't need no stinkin' landing light!" -------- Subj: RE: Landing Lights Date: 98-03-05 13:02:39 EST From: Roy Forsstrom To: Ron B. Levy Ron, I have a 337 for the Q4509 for my AA1A. I could send a copy if you'd like. Roy -------- Subj: Landing Light Tips Date: 98-03-06 09:56:33 EST From: WALT_PORTER To: grumman-gang Gang, Here are some tips regarding landing lights on the 4-place. 1) As was previously said, when removing the outer plastic cover, don't push too hard when removing the screws. The neoprene bushing holding the nut deteriorates with age, and the nut will fall off into the inaccesible area of the front baffle. (Just remember to remove the claw hammer you had set in the cowl air exit after you were tapping the cowling to 'listen' for the dropped nut before you fly to Vermont and back so you don't get a call from you mechanic asking if you are missing any tools). I have seen people slot three of the four lens mounting holes so the lens can be removed without completely removing the screws. (Slide the lens out of the three slots, then spin it on the 4th to get access.) By the way, the bushings are a neoprene 'well-nut' and should be available from a good hardware supply. In desperation, I have seen RTV gobbed on the nuts . 2) Once you remove the outer lens, there are a couple of rings, one with a notch to align the bulb. On my Tiger, there is also a foam piece behind the bulb, which was overcompressed and ruined by a previous owner. This will help reduce some of the vibration if it is replaced, and don't overtighten the screws. 3) Depending on your engine baffling, sometimes the screws holding on the ring are too long, and actually wear a hole in the baffle behind the landing light. I have seen them shortened to prevent this- keep track of which hole they came from. 4) I heard mention of fuses blowing due to chaffed wire. (Replacement of landing light wiring is one of the few things you can legally do as an owner.) Another source is the actual shorting of the engine baffle against the bulb terminal. Although this shouldn't happen, a short can be prevented by connecting the ground wire to the bulb terminal that is closest to the baffle. Also some electrical tape in key areas helps. 5) Watch out for Tucci and the light bulb police. Walt Tiger N4519B Lawrence, MA (Gotta replace that 50W halogen tractor bulb with the Q4509 one of these days...) J-3C N1573N Brentwood, NH (Don't need no stinkin' landing light) -------- Subj: Re: Landing Lights Date: 98-03-07 09:58:02 EST From: Paul Starkey To: Ron B. Levy I installed a two-wire plug that mechanically holds itself together and when doing so, the wires were also extended. Not only can the light be easily changed, but the lower nosebowl section can be removed by simply unplugging the light (after removing NB screws, ha! :-) This is a nice project for annual time... . Fly safe, Paul Starkey, N28778 AA5B -------- Subj: grumman-gang-digest Digest V98 #113 Date: 98-05-08 10:50:03 EDT From: Thomas E. Hannah To: grumman-gang Here is more than you ever wanted to know on Tiger landing light bulbs: 1. The standard is GE4509, 13 volts, 100 watts, 110,000 candlepower, 12-degree horizontal spread, average life of 25 hours. 2. The non-certified replacement is GE4595, 13 volts,100 watts, 60,000 candlepower, 14-degree horizontal spread, rated for 300 hours. 3. The GEH7604 halogen (which we have not tried) is rated 12.8 volts, 50 watts, 100,000 candlepower, 7-degree horizontal spread, and 100 hours. >From the GE spec-sheet. Hope this helps. Tom Hannah Tiger N81357 Gang, On the landing light GE #450- 13v 100 w, can it be replaced with the GE# 4522 13v 250w? thanks WD Smith Not without upsizing the breaker, wiring and possibly the switch to handle the extra loads. Further, the 250w lamp radiates 2.5 times the heat as the 100w lamp, there may be installation issues as well. And last, big brother has an interest in this major modification to your type certificated aircraft. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection -------- I'm pretty sure that a 250 watt bulb would not work in the Grumman installation where it is basically enclosed and cannot get rid of the heat like it can in a Bonanza for instance. The plstic cover would probably shortly melt or warp. Cliff A&P/IA -------- > I attended a FAA safety seminar on ramp checks at LVK, Livermore, a few months > ago. The OAK FSDO rep said that replacing the landing light with a halogen > bulb, of 1/2 the watts of the original, was a major modification. His > reasoning was the light output and speard of the beam. He didn't even > consider the heat output of the halogen. Needless to say, I removed my > halogen bulb. Don't know why anyone would want to put in a smaller bulb . . . I would think that if the system were designed to supply power to a 100w bulb, you'd want to stay with a 100w bulb. The idea is that halogen puts out more light for same watts and therefore less heat. If you have put in the halogen equivalent for a standard bulb, I think you're just fine. For example, a 4509 lamp is 100w and so is an H4509. The "h" version is SAME watts, MORE light and LESS heat and LONGER life. Now, as to the issue of major versus minor, I've see FAA folk go ballistic over some pretty simple modifications. Heaven only knows how many of us would come spiraling out of the sky trailing smoke if we didn't have all these folk looking out for us. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection -------- Subj: RE: landing light- Q4509 again Date: 8/28/98 12:16:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Roy Forsstrom To: grumman-gang The idea is that halogen puts out more light for same watts and therefore less heat. If you have put in the halogen equivalent for a standard bulb, I think you're just fine. For example, a 4509 lamp is 100w and so is an H4509. The "h" version is SAME watts, MORE light and LESS heat and LONGER life. Now, as to the issue of major versus minor, I've see FAA folk go ballistic over some pretty simple modifications. Heaven only knows how many of us would come spiraling out of the sky trailing smoke if we didn't have all these folk looking out for us. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection In 1996 I got a 337 to install a Q4509 in my AA1A. With that success in hand I thought I could get an STC so everyone else could install the halogen bulb with little or no hassle. After 8 months of hassle in 1997 with the FAA I gave up. Here's some of the items that tripped me up: 1. According to the FAA, for an STC the bulb would have to be PMA'd. The Q4509 product manager at GE in Cleveland wasn't interested though the engineer would designed the bulb was. Eventually he was unable to find the time to do the testing the FAA wanted. 2. The Q4509 halogen bulb burns hotter than the 4509 and has a whiter light. The bulb is inside the 4509 envelope which offers some thermal protection. I don't know the difference in envelope skin temperature between the two bulbs. When the envelope on the 4509 cracks, the filament burns out. When the envelope cracks on the Q4509 the halogen bulb stays lit for a time. The FAA wanted to know what problems might this cause, . 3. The Q4509 life is listed as 100 hours and the 4509 as 25 hours. The GE engineer's own yearly tests showed an average of 16 hours for the 4509 and 250 for the Q4509. The halogen gas causes the burned off tungsten to recombine with the filament, extending life. 4. A major problem with Q4509 life is the weld for the contacts between the halogen bulb and the envelope. Mounting the Q4509 so the contacts are vertical or near vertical reduces stress on the welds and extends the life. GE will replace bulbs that fail due to the weld breaking. 5. The FAA wanted vibration and heat tests. I'm not equipped for that. The GE engineer was willing if he could get the time. 6 My position that longer bulb life promotes night flying and collision avoidance safety didn't carry much weight with the FAA. I don't have my records with me, but the FAA in this case is the Chicago FSDO. Maybe things have changed. At Oshkosh last year I spoke with Marv Nuss, Manager of Regulations and Policy who seemed interested but he never followed up. A couple of months ago Garner Rice posted a description of the process he goes through to sell a fuel pump as a PMA pump. This is what the FAA would want me, or someone else selling the bulb for the STC to do-- Buy the bulb, check the dimensions, check the current draw and voltage requirements and so on. In other words, ensure that it is in everyway the same as the standard 4509, and then sell it a price that pilots would pay. As I mentioned, I have a 337 for the Q4509 in my plane. If anyone's interested, send me a Stamped-Self-Addressed-Envelope and I will send you a copy. I know the Q4509 is a controversial topic that raises the ire of folks. Maybe if it were all directed at the FAA, we could get them to see the light. Roy Forsstrom N6384L San Antonio -------- > May I have the details on the "Q" bulb. Sounds like a good > investment regardless of the answer to my wiring problems. The "original" 4509 bulb costs about $9.95 at Aircraft Spruce and Specialty. It's a 100-watt incandescent sealed beam bulb. The newer GE Q 4509 bulb costs about $24.95, same place. It is a "direct replacement" for the 4509, same wattage, etc. but uses a sealed quartz bulb within the same glass envelope. The lower wattage GE H 7604 is also a good choice, especially for the "Current Challenged" among us. At 50-watts, this unit uses half the current and delivers almost as much light as the incandescent 4509. BTW, there _are_ significant differences in construction between different manufacturers of the "same-numbered bulb". IMHO, the GE bulbs are the best and Wagner-brand are the least. Art Cacella CFI-A/I American Yankee AA1 N6155L -------- Subj: Landing light Date: 1/24/99 3:16:25 PM Eastern Standard Time From: GOLDPILOT To: grumman-gang Hi gang: FWIW, I have had the H7604 in my acft for almost six years. I probably can look up the date it was installed to verify this but I left San Diego 8/95 and it was in the plane for a couple years before my move. The H7604 is rated at 50 watts which means that the current consumption is approx. 1/2 that of a 100 watt bulb. (at 13 volts nominal 100W=7.7A versus 3.8A for the 50W). The light output of the 4509 is 110,000 candlepower versus 100,000 for the 50 watt. The horizontal dispersion of light is slightly narrower with the 50W than the 100W but not enough to notice. It would be wise for many reasons to have the prop dynamically balanced. This would add many hours of life to everything in/on the airplane. Ps. I frequently use the light both daytime around busy airports and most of the time landing at night. I have also considered getting a "pulse-lite" type gadget. PPS. Considering the small gauge wire going to the landing light, it's possible that the 50W bulb is operating closer to it's rated output than the 100W bulb due to voltage drop across the wire and would therefor be as bright as the 100W. -------- Subj: Landing Light Update Date: 1/30/99 11:03:35 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Greg Amy To: grumman-gang I think I have pretty choice news on the landing lights for our airplanes. As you may recall, I've had a lot of problems with burning out lights on the Tiger. I think I may have resolved the situation by reducing the vibration (see previous notes, or watch for the upcoming Star issue for details.) However, during that time I was looking for alternate sources for the lamp. I was under the impression that GE was the only supplier for the bulb; in fact our parts book only shows GE and Westinghouse listed. I was returning from a site in Atlanta a couple of months ago, and the customer was flying back to CT with me. The customer was Philips Medical Systems. When we were on arrival I flipped on the landing light and then went to the next checklist item: cussing about how the landing light was burned out. Short conversation later, the customer asked me if I had tried Philips lighting products. I told him only GE made the bulb. He said to give him the old one and he'd give it a try to see what Philips offered. He came up with a six-pack of bulbs for me at, get this, $18.85!!! Three dollars a piece! These bulbs are physically exactly the same as the GE bulbs, without the GE logo on the glass, of course. They are even imprinted with the number "Philips 4509" on the back. They are direct replacements. Philips part number is 21622-6. On the invoice he gave me, they showed a retail price of $48 for the six-pack. Since I bought these through him, I got them at the employee price. I asked them if there was any limit to the amount they'd sell me, even if it was in the dozens of bulbs, and they said "no problem". So, technically, I'm not really offering a group buy, I just wanted to let everyone know there is a choice out there. If you happen to know someone that is a Philips employee, be nice to them and ask them to get you some of these bulbs. If there is a real big interest in this, I can talk to my buddy and see if we can work this out, but remember that this is as a favor to me, and I can't guarantee anything. If I did do it, it would be in six-pack quantities only, and since I have a real job there can't be any rush for it. I've bcc copied Fletcher Parts on this, so maybe they can make some phone calls and get some killer deals on these parts to stock on their shelves and pass the savings along to AYA members. I can see the next question coming (and you know who you are ): what is the legality? Well, consider this: the Grumman parts book requires a 4509 bulb. These Philips bulbs are marked 4509. The catalog listing says "Lamp Trade No. 4509". It shows "service" as "aviation." It has a design voltage of 13, design watts as 100, candela as 110,000, and "approx spread to 10% max C.P." as11 horiz and 6 vert. Rated life is 25 hours. You decide. Me, I'm using them at $3 a piece. Greg Amy Milford, CT -------- Subj: RE: Landing lights Date: 6/4/99 12:09:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Greg Amy To: Grumman Gang > I remember from a previous thread that someone either knew of > a medical > bulb that would do the same thing as the landing bulb, or had bought a > batch of them. If so, and if you want to sell a few of them, > reply to me Brian, that was me. One of my network engineering customers is Philips Medical Systems. Philips also has a corporate division that makes bulbs. Through my customer contacts (and his company store) I managed to buy 6-bulb cases of Philips 4509 bulbs at $19/case...that's just over $3 per bulb. We've already done our "group buy." With tax and shipping I was able to group buy 20 cases of bulbs and each person got their cases at $25. At just over $4/bulb, I think it's worth spending the extra 10 minutes occasionally to change them, since they're going to burn out anyway. These bulbs are fully legal. They carry the industry label of 4509, are marked for "aviation and marine use" and are physically the same as the GE 4509 bulbs. They are NOT a "medical bulb," just obtained through an employee of Philips that happens to work for the medical systems division. Unfortunately, the group buy is done for now. I'd be glad to take names for those that would be interested in the future, but I don't see another group buy until the end of the summer. I'm working 90-hour weeks right now, and I really can't take the time to order, pay, and ship another 25 cases. If others are interested then feel free to email me as follows: send an email with "Philips Landing Lights" in the title, no quotes and note that there is only one "L" in "Philips." This will divert the mail appropriately in my email program. I will not respond to you individually, but when I have enough for a group buy and the time to do it, I will contact you to send me a check for $25 and organize the buy. Note that I will only sell them in case quantities of 6 bulbs (so that I don't' have to re-box them) at $25 per case as long as the price doesn't change. As for you Brian, today's your lucky day. I have one additional case of bulbs that someone chose not to buy. If you email me with your shipping address and send me a check for $25 I will forward to you a case of Philips 4509 bulbs. Salutations from, uh, um, well, hmm....I think I'm in California this week, ironically with Philips Medical Systems... Greg Amy