Page 1 of 2

GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 7:26 am
by Beekeeper
I need to replace a landing light on my 1999 MX7-180. Its a GE bulb but I cant see the number because its worn. Does GE-4509 sound right? Thats 13v/100W. And anyone replacing with WHELEN PARMETHEUS™ PLUS LED REPLACEMENT 14V LANDING LIGHT - PAR 36 - P36P1L $250.00/Each. Seems like a good move, costly but seems worth it. Thanks!

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:54 am
by drak130
BeeKeeper,

I switched to the LED Parmetheus lights and have not looked back. Besides the lower current draw, I find they illuminate our grass strip much better than the incandescent bulbs. Additionally they are much more eye catching for collision avoidance. Not sure what your set-up is, but I have a light in each wing. I put a taxi light in the left wing and a landing light in the right. If I had it to do over I would put a landing light in both and just adjust the aim. The taxi light just seems to disperse too much. Just my opinion and preference.

FWIW both lights are still going strong after 4 years.

Cheers
Tim

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:17 am
by Old Piper
Howdy,

Don’t hesitate, go LED, it’s night vs day, some of the best $ spent, all about safety!

Easy swap out too.

Tom

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:17 am
by andy
I switched my GE Q4509 landing light to a Whelen Parmetheus LED light in 2014 and haven't regretted it for a minute. It's brighter, draws a lot less current, and is more reliable. I only have a landing light in the left wing. It's not the greatest for taxiing since it illuminates a narrower, brighter, circular spot intended for landing. The taxi version spreads the light out in a dimmer, rectangular pattern aimed down in front of the nose using a spreader lens. I don't think a landing light aimed lower would be good for taxiing since the spot would be too small at a close distance. The newest version of the Parmetheus G3 PAR36 taxi light is much brighter than the older versions. They make a DUO version that does both but the taxi light isn't as bright as the G3 PAR36. There's a Parmetheus G3 PAR64 landing light coming soon that has a 1,000,000 candela output. I assume that they will have a taxi light version. Those would be my choice for landing and taxi lights.

For the first 16 years that I owned my MX-7-180, I used the GE Q4509 landing light. It failed on me twice at night while landing. The Parmetheus has never failed on me.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:26 am
by Beekeeper
Excellent! Thanks very much for all your answers. Appreciate all the suggested options too. Going to switch out to the LEDs.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:15 pm
by asa
Screw the big names. Look at Aero-Lites. They are more affordable and just as bright as the big names such as Whelen, if not brighter. This is their brightest model but they have PAR36’s down to $89 each as well. Have spot (landing) and flood (taxi) models. I’ve installed 6 and never had any issues.

https://www.aero-lites.com/product-page/ultra-x-spot

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:59 pm
by yanknbank
+1 for aero lites. They are not pma, have no stc, but they are damn bright, and the signal seems clean. I had one go bad after under an hour of use. That was a little eyebrow raising, but they sent a new one pronto. No issues now for about 4 years. I have them both on whenever I'm moving.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:02 pm
by Dkuber
Well, since somebody else brought up non-pma.

https://flyleds.com/products/#!/Seven-S ... category=0

These suckers are bright 9,000 lumens each. They throw plenty of ground illumination for taxiing, extended/31s. Frequently spotted an extra minute or so before you see the oncoming LEDs. They also have a simple wigwag switch about the size of a book of matches that works with your factory switch. 450 hours running them anytime the prop spins, no problems, some assembly required.

They fit in the m4 wing, I would assume the other wings as well.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:05 pm
by Appbrookie
Another happy Aero-Lite customer, my Maule is the second airplane ive used them on since 2017. Perfect fit and exceptionally bright, with no radio interference. Great bang for the buck!

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:38 pm
by netconn
You can buy those LED landing lights on fleebay cheap.. They work great.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:43 pm
by Dkuber
I had tried the Aero-Lites par36-SSL (2,100 lumen). They worked better than the old incandescent, it seemed like they caught other pilots eyes a little better than the incandescent. I had spot on both wings which made night taxiing really difficult. My strip has no lighting at all. Night landed a couple times, they were ok. I see they now have ultra out at 5,100 lumens.

I still wouldn’t switch back from that seven star. It was like going from low beams to a big light bar, not comparable.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 1:59 pm
by Beekeeper
Good to know because the real cheap ones can cause radio problems. My Maule is full IFR and all garmin with G5s.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:12 am
by gbarrier
I have LEDs all around except for landing. Don't do that much night and the 4509 is just fine. It's a matter of where you want to put your money. And to answer your question, sounds like the right number.

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:51 am
by Kirk
I have dual GE Q4509s that have lasted 15 years at about 70 hours per year plus a spare on the shelf. So I had good luck with the Q4509 if someone wants to stay on a budget.

Problem with threads like these is I get all fired up to go LED but can’t stand the thought of 3 good bulbs sitting on the shelf! I’m like Andy, don’t fly much at night. I sure do like the visibility of the LED for traffic though!

Kirk

Re: GE Landing Light MX7

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:58 pm
by Old Piper
Hi Kirk,

I feel the pain knowing a good workable part shouldn’t be wasted. I’m that way too! But, after seeing the difference in illumination, both incoming and outgoing, my safety hat says to spend the money. I figure that’s one fuel tank less of flying, but higher chances of flying more in the future.

It also relieves a big draw on the alternator/battery.

Each his own justifications, for or not, but it is a good opportunity when the time comes.

Tom