Concorde batteries: No longer recommended?

[V1VRV2]

I agree... battery minder. They have a plug that you can install that connects directly to the charger/minder. Desulfates and charges.

https://www.batteryminders.com/batteryminder-model-244cec1-aa-s5-24v-4-amp-concorde-aviation-battery-charger-maintainer-desulfator/

[RobertGary1]

1 minute ago, V1VRV2 said:

I agree... battery minder. They have a plug that you can install that connects directly to the charger/minder. Desulfates and charges.

https://www.batteryminders.com/batteryminder-model-244cec1-aa-s5-24v-4-amp-concorde-aviation-battery-charger-maintainer-desulfator/

I’m going to be the contrarian. To me these mask battery issues as much as they prevent them. If your battery cannot hold a charge you won’t know until away from home with family. 

[Immelman]

Sooo...

Is testing the battery capacity a required part of an annual inspection?

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, Immelman said:

Sooo...

Is testing the battery capacity a required part of an annual inspection?

Nope.   And doing it properly requires a very expensive tester which very few shops have.   I suspect a lot of people are getting sold batteries that they don't need.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by EricJ

[carusoam]

6 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’m going to be the contrarian. To me these mask battery issues as much as they prevent them. If your battery cannot hold a charge you won’t know until away from home with family. 

Be as contrarian as you want... 

In some cases there are battery chargers that can mask issues... and even create issues...

 

In this case, the specific BatteryMinder matching the battery has a great track record with actual capacity tests done annually.

This horse has already left the barn...

If we get it back...

If we get the right charger...

If we follow the right procedure to charge and de-sulfate...

There is an interesting chance the battery can get revived to pass the capacity test...

Chances of a failed battery to pass a capacity test are very low...

Chances of multiple batteries failing for one user are also very low...

Chances of Toto tossing another battery out are still kind of elevated....

Something is killing his good batteries pre-maturely...

He probably would like to know what is doing the Batricide...   (new MS word of the day...)

Too much coincidence... so it seems to an ordinary PP... 

Best regards,

-a-

[corn_flake]

27 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Nope.   And doing it properly requires a very expensive tester which very few shops have.   I suspect a lot of people are getting sold batteries that they don't need.

 

I know we pilots may think little of drone and RC pilots, but this is an area where they have vast expertise.  They know where to buy a battery charger/tester that can test battery health that cost less than 0.3 AMU.  

[corn_flake]

46 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’m going to be the contrarian. To me these mask battery issues as much as they prevent them. If your battery cannot hold a charge you won’t know until away from home with family. 

Actually, keeping the battery on a float charger is indeed the recommended storage method for Pb batteries.  

Pb battery doesn't like to be in a discharged state.  Keep them at the recommended float charge voltage will significantly prolong its life.  The float charge voltage will differ depending on battery construction, Wet, Gel, vs AGM.  

[ArtVandelay]

Aircraft just came out of annual, Concorde battery failed stress test.  So I now have my third Concorde battery in two years.  Shop said that they are no longer recommending Concorde batteries due to persistent recent reliability problems.
Anyone else have similar experience?
From this board and elsewhere, I have understood Concorde to be preferred over Gill, but this is getting old.  The Concorde batteries are quite a bit more expensive than Gill, and I've always had good luck with Gill - so this is disappointing.

Yes, and there’s a difference between rapid discharge of a start and capacity testing. I think it’s a characteristic of the Concord, my first lasted on 2 years before it struggle on startup, my 1 year old is showing same symptoms. It does work, but for a second or two it struggles to turn over. My next will be a Gill. I still have the old Concorde so I will carry it on cross country trips just in case.

[DonMuncy]

9 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’m going to be the contrarian. To me these mask battery issues as much as they prevent them. If your battery cannot hold a charge you won’t know until away from home with family. 

I agree and disagree at the same time. I believe the Battery Minders will prolong the life of a battery. But if left on all the time, the battery can ultimately fail and you won't know it until you are out of town (It happened to me). One answer is to leave it connected, but periodically, disconnect it for a week and see if it starts the engine well. The better answer is to capacity check it yearly.

[PTK]

28 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

But if left on all the time, the battery can ultimately fail

And do you have documentation on this?

[StevenL757]

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

10 hours ago, Immelman said:

Sooo...

Is testing the battery capacity a required part of an annual inspection?

Nope.   And doing it properly requires a very expensive tester which very few shops have.   I suspect a lot of people are getting sold batteries that they don't need.

For Concorde, it is required by ICA after 2 years of the battery(ies) being in service.

Gill may or may not have similar standards.

[RobertGary1]

10 hours ago, corn_flake said:

Actually, keeping the battery on a float charger is indeed the recommended storage method for Pb batteries.  

Pb battery doesn't like to be in a discharged state.  Keep them at the recommended float charge voltage will significantly prolong its life.  The float charge voltage will differ depending on battery construction, Wet, Gel, vs AGM.  

Didn’t disagree with that. Point is very true that using this method you won’t know if it doesn’t hold charge until at some remote overnight field with your family. Personally it’s not worth it to me. Unless you carry a generator and keep it hooked up on the road. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by RobertGary1

[Immelman]

1 hour ago, StevenL757 said:

For Concorde, it is required by ICA after 2 years of the battery(ies) being in service.

Gill may or may not have similar standards.

I don't see it that way, but perhaps I'm misinformed. Here is what I see: https://concordebattery.com/main_air_tech.php

- Our Mooney batteries are not subject to TSO-C173 (https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0417.pdf)

- Current maintenance manual: https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf

- In airworthiness limitations: "B. For batteries not covered by TSO-C173/C173A, there are no airworthiness limitations associated with the installation of a Concorde valve-regulated lead-acid battery in an aircraft."

- I am a fan of Mr. Busch's writing on the subject: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/september/pilot/savvy-by-the-book

Now who wants to be stranded with a dead battery? I don't, but..... I feel with a good environment, frequent flying, taking a look at voltage, seeing how the engine cranks, I am OK with that.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Immelman

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, StevenL757 said:

For Concorde, it is required by ICA after 2 years of the battery(ies) being in service.

Gill may or may not have similar standards.

Can you cite a source for that?   I'm with Immelman that the current CMM has no ICA requirement.   There is an Airworthiness Limitations section, but it has no inspection requirement.

https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf

 

[StevenL757]

1 hour ago, Immelman said:

I don't see it that way, but perhaps I'm misinformed. Here is what I see: https://concordebattery.com/main_air_tech.php

- Our Mooney batteries are not subject to TSO-C173 (https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0417.pdf)

- Current maintenance manual: https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf

- In airworthiness limitations: "B. For batteries not covered by TSO-C173/C173A, there are no airworthiness limitations associated with the installation of a Concorde valve-regulated lead-acid battery in an aircraft."

- I am a fan of Mr. Busch's writing on the subject: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/september/pilot/savvy-by-the-book

Now who wants to be stranded with a dead battery? I don't, but..... I feel with a good environment, frequent flying, taking a look at voltage, seeing how the engine cranks, I am OK with that.

 

51 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Can you cite a source for that?   I'm with Immelman that the current CMM has no ICA requirement.   There is an Airworthiness Limitations section, but it has no inspection requirement.

https://concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf

See below...from the Concorde MX manual you both cited above.

So, what's the "by the book" answer?  Our Mooney batteries ARE covered by the TSO below, because it's a type-certified airplane.  The batteries are required to have either TSO and/or FAA-PMA approval to be installed.  Section 5B applies to experimental airplanes.  So...will the FAA come after you with guns drawn because you haven't complied with the ICA?  No - your odds of winning the lottery are better; however, simply-put, our airplanes don't care about FAA rules.  They break when they want to break.

With respect to Mike Busch and his work and MX philosophy, he can believe what he wants to believe...as can any of us; whether those beliefs align with "by the book", an interpretation of the book, or a mix of the two.  In the AOPA article above, his statement "most (mechanics) truly believe that the various scheduled maintenance tasks in the manufacturer’s maintenance program are both mandatory and prudent." is a bit misleading.  "Mandatory" and "Prudent" could be two different things in many cases.  @Immelman's statement, "Now who wants to be stranded with a dead battery? I don't, but..... I feel with a good environment, frequent flying, taking a look at voltage, seeing how the engine cranks, I am OK with that." leads me to believe you're ok cutting corners by not capacity checking per the ICA.  Is it required per Mike's writing - No.  By the book - Yes.  Is it prudent?  Yes.

As the first line in his profile at the bottom of the above AOPA article states, being the "best-known A&P/IA in general aviation" doesn't make him the "best A&P / IA in general aviation".

We all know there are good and bad mechanics out there.  However, if more people paid attention to their airplane's best MX interests, "listen" to what the plane really needs, as opposed to what someone else feels it needs, and don't let cost be the single determining factor, we'd likely see fewer maintenance-related failures or mishaps...generally speaking.

Steve

[Immelman]

1 minute ago, StevenL757 said:

 

We all know there are good and bad mechanics out there.  However, if more people paid attention to their airplane's best MX interests, "listen" to what the plane really needs, as opposed to what someone else feels it needs, and don't let cost be the single determining factor, we'd likely see fewer maintenance-related failures or mishaps...generally speaking.

100% agreement with you there!

But I stand by findings, at least for the RG-35 concorde in my plane. Its not on their list of TSO batteries. Maybe there is some other list I did not see?

As for me, I am on year 6 of concorde RG-35 #2. Going strong. I feel 7 years is a good life for a lead acid battery, so will preemptively replace next year.

[StevenL757]

10 minutes ago, Immelman said:

100% agreement with you there!

But I stand by findings, at least for the RG-35 concorde in my plane. Its not on their list of TSO batteries. Maybe there is some other list I did not see?

As for me, I am on year 6 of concorde RG-35 #2. Going strong. I feel 7 years is a good life for a lead acid battery, so will preemptively replace next year.

That's excellent.  I just replaced #2 (Rt) at annual in June this year, and #1 (Lt) about 3 weeks ago.  #2 didn't pass capacity by a large margin (but passed the year before).  #1 was tested and failed by only a few points, so was replaced.  #2 and #1 had 8 and 8.5 years in service respectively.  Not bad, and it's no secret others here have seen longer intervals than that.  No battery minders in use ever...just flying the airplane at least every week.

[EricJ]

11 minutes ago, StevenL757 said:

See below...from the Concorde MX manual you both cited above.

So, what's the "by the book" answer?  Our Mooney batteries ARE covered by the TSO below, because it's a type-certified airplane.  The batteries are required to have either TSO and/or FAA-PMA approval to be installed.  Section 5B applies to experimental airplanes.  So...will the FAA come after you with guns drawn because you haven't complied with the ICA?  No - your odds of winning the lottery are better; however, simply-put, our airplanes don't care about FAA rules.  They break when they want to break.

I think you're not correct here.   A TSO is just a standard, and if a standard (TSO) is specified such that compliant articles are a fit, then any article compliant to that standard (TSO) is a qualified substitute part.   If the factory says that certain items must meet a particular standard (e.g., TSO), then only articles meeting the specified standard (or TSO) may be used.   Do you have a citation, e.g., from the factory, that states TSO-C173/C173A batteries are required for any of our aircraft?   If not, then it isn't a requirement.   

Concorde provides the basis for installation in various Mooney models on their site here:

https://concordebattery.com/faa2.php?id=300

specifically either the Design Approvals via the FAA-PMA supplements or STCs indicated.   No TSO is cited or required.

So the part of the CMM that applies to us is the Airworthiness Limitations section that Immelman and I cited, but it's the Part B, saying their are no airworthiness limitations for our aircraft.

 

[Immelman]

Forgot to say earlier, I brought this up because this year I had a new IA (same shop) sign my annual.

There were a couple of things he wanted to do that.... I  did not think were required. One of them was testing the battery....now a relationship with an IA an owner needs to be a good one, so, time to tread carefully.

Now I am all for a professional advising / recommending "you ought to consider x, because of y, or else z will wear out..." and often.... no most of the time I will go along with that. But There is a difference between that and mandating an inspection or procedure that isn't required.  It just rubs me the wrong way.

I will say that as far as the battery is concerned... there is one area where I will consider being a deviant: If I get stranded I would consider a jump start. 12V system. Battery in aft fuselage, safely accessible away from the prop. Get home day VFR only. One possible risk assessment of many to choose from.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Immelman

[StevenL757]

4 hours ago, EricJ said:

I think you're not correct here.   A TSO is just a standard, and if a standard (TSO) is specified such that compliant articles are a fit, then any article compliant to that standard (TSO) is a qualified substitute part.   If the factory says that certain items must meet a particular standard (e.g., TSO), then only articles meeting the specified standard (or TSO) may be used.   Do you have a citation, e.g., from the factory, that states TSO-C173/C173A batteries are required for any of our aircraft?   If not, then it isn't a requirement.   

Concorde provides the basis for installation in various Mooney models on their site here:

https://concordebattery.com/faa2.php?id=300

specifically either the Design Approvals via the FAA-PMA supplements or STCs indicated.   No TSO is cited or required.

So the part of the CMM that applies to us is the Airworthiness Limitations section that Immelman and I cited, but it's the Part B, saying their are no airworthiness limitations for our aircraft.

If that’s the case, then I could do with the reasoning behind...

• Why the two TSOs exist
• Why you think the second paragraph applies to our aircraft and not the first
• What the purpose of the ICA is in the first place

Unfortunately, I don’t have any other documentation aside from what I’ve provided, but am looking forward to learning something new.

[DonMuncy]

9 hours ago, PTK said:

And do you have documentation on this?

Don't misunderstand. I don't mean the Battery Minder will contribute to the failure; merely that eventually, all batteries fail sometime.

[Sabremech]

Concorde batteries are the only certified battery I will ever purchase. I just replaced the Concorde in the Mooney I just sold and it was over 12 years old. I didn’t use a battery tender but instead did the annual maint. We have eliminated every Gill battery we can from the 14 warbirds we maintain. 
 Chose the battery you like and are willing to pay for. 
David

[PT20J]

Many that claim extraordinary life from their battery may have never had it capacity tested. It is perfectly possible for a battery to easily start the engine and fail a capacity test because these are two entirely different tests. If you fly VFR only, perhaps it is fine to run the battery until it won't start the engine any longer. But for IFR, it is prudent to make sure it passes the capacity test because that battery capacity is all you've got (and it's not that much) if the charging system fails in the soup.

Many shops don't test the battery during annual inspection because they lack the tester. It's not a required part of the inspection. I had to have my avionics shop test mine.

Assuming paragraph A of the Airworthiness Limitations cited above applies, it does not state that a periodic capacity test is required.

Skip

 

 

[Sabremech]

14 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Many that claim extraordinary life from their battery may have never had it capacity tested. It is perfectly possible for a battery to easily start the engine and fail a capacity test because these are two entirely different tests. If you fly VFR only, perhaps it is fine to run the battery until it won't start the engine any longer. But for IFR, it is prudent to make sure it passes the capacity test because that battery capacity is all you've got (and it's not that much) if the charging system fails in the soup.

Many shops don't test the battery during annual inspection because they lack the tester. It's not a required part of the inspection. I had to have my avionics shop test mine.

Assuming paragraph A of the Airworthiness Limitations cited above applies, it does not state that a periodic capacity test is required.

Skip

 

 

I happen to have access to a Concorde tester along with a Christie for NiCad batteries that we have in the Falcon aircraft we maintain. I had a legit 12 year old Concorde battery in my Mooney that I finally replaced due to a failed cap check. 
David

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, Sabremech said:

I happen to have access to a Concorde tester along with a Christie for NiCad batteries that we have in the Falcon aircraft we maintain. I had a legit 12 year old Concorde battery in my Mooney that I finally replaced due to a failed cap check. 
David

How long does it take to do the cap check on the Concorde?