Alternate Battery Brands

[FlyWalt]

Good Morning Mooniacs,

I find myself needing to replace our Concorde RG35. I am curious as to if any of you have tried any of the newer battery brands with better technology. I have always bought Concorde over the years and love their reliability but I am wondering about advancements in battery technology.

Thanks,

Walt

[Ragsf15e]

17 minutes ago, FlyWalt said:

Good Morning Mooniacs,

I find myself needing to replace our Concorde RG35. I am curious as to if any of you have tried any of the newer battery brands with better technology. I have always bought Concorde over the years and love their reliability but I am wondering about advancements in battery technology.

Thanks,

Walt

Gill has a newer battery but it’s similar to Concords.  There’s also an earthx lithium approved but there’s been a strong debate on MS about whether it’s better because it hold half the amp hours.  It is much lighter and more expensive.

Personally, I find it hard to change off the Concord that lasts reliably 4-5 years and is relatively inexpensive.

 

[PT20J]

I bought a Gill 7243-16 because it was on sale and had slightly higher capacity than the Concorde and I figured by now Gill had figured out how to make good AGM batteries. I kept it on a BatteryMINDer in the hangar. It failed the first capacity check at about 18 months. I went back to Concorde.

Skip

[Guest]

I’m interested but concerned with the failure mode of the lithium batteries as well. They tend to fail all at once and without much warning, at least on phones and other such stuff. It’s great weight wise, but it also draws a ton of current after initial discharge, which may trip the alternator. I’m waiting for more data on it and don’t care to be the guinea pig. 

[Ragsf15e]

12 minutes ago, Kerrville said:

I’m interested but concerned with the failure mode of the lithium batteries as well. They tend to fail all at once and without much warning, at least on phones and other such stuff. It’s great weight wise, but it also draws a ton of current after initial discharge, which may trip the alternator. I’m waiting for more data on it and don’t care to be the guinea pig. 

They do have some kind of internal regulator for charging, so hopefully that isn’t a problem, but yeah, im gonna watch and wait before sticking one of those in my airplane.  It feels like a solution in search of a problem.  I have my concorde capacity checked each annual and replace it ~5 years.  Pretty simple.

[Shadrach]

19 minutes ago, Kerrville said:

I’m interested but concerned with the failure mode of the lithium batteries as well. They tend to fail all at once and without much warning, at least on phones and other such stuff. It’s great weight wise, but it also draws a ton of current after initial discharge, which may trip the alternator. I’m waiting for more data on it and don’t care to be the guinea pig. 

I’m in the same situation. My Concord RG-35 finally failed a load test this year (76%) after 10 years in service. I was close to pulling the trigger on the earthX but after a back and forth with my A&P we elected to stick with Concord. The EarthX is 24lbs lighter which would take our UL to over 1080lbs.However, the lower capacity and lack of pireps inspired us to leave well enough alone. I look forward to some early adopters testing it in the field and reporting back.

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, PT20J said:

I bought a Gill 7243-16 because it was on sale and had slightly higher capacity than the Concorde and I figured by now Gill had figured out how to make good AGM batteries. I kept it on a BatteryMINDer in the hangar. It failed the first capacity check at about 18 months. I went back to Concorde.

Skip

Exactly the same experience here. Never again.

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

The EarthX is 24lbs lighter

Wonder how this would work for the g1000 models. 
With two batteries, and eliminating 50 lbs at that station has to have an effect on cg?

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Wonder how this would work for the g1000 models. 
With two batteries, and eliminating 50 lbs at that station has to have an effect on cg?

I looked at their stc list and it’s only E-k model Mooney and only 12v.  No other Mooneys on their planned STC list for the next 2 years either.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Wonder how this would work for the g1000 models. 
With two batteries, and eliminating 50 lbs at that station has to have an effect on cg?

The long bodies need two heavy batteries (and some add lead plates behind them) way way back in the tail, so that CG works with the big Continental engine and two people up front without heavy baggage.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Wonder how this would work for the g1000 models. 
With two batteries, and eliminating 50 lbs at that station has to have an effect on cg?

What does the type certificate say?  I know some of the older models can't exactly follow the type cert, but something that affects weight and balance could potentially be dangerous.

[McMooney]

hmmm, 24lbs, is a lot, might actually be able to take luggage for myself when the wife and i fly.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Schllc said:

Wonder how this would work for the g1000 models. 
With two batteries, and eliminating 50 lbs at that station has to have an effect on cg?

Even if they were to get approval, I don’t think the long body airframe will tolerate 50lb loss at the battery station. Given that weight loss the only real advantage, I don’t see an STC for long bodies in the future. It would put me far enough forward CG that I can envision many scenarios where I would want more nose up trim. 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I know some of the older models can't exactly follow the type cert, but something that affects weight and balance could potentially be dangerous.

I’m confused by this statement. Which older models don’t conform to the TC?

[philiplane]

If you've got a 28 volt Mooney, you can replace the RG24-11 or RG24-15 batteries now with the True Blue Power TB17 lithium batteries. Similar in size, only 16 pounds, much more reserve power than the Earth-X battery too. 

$6400, each.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/mcitb17-11-15375.php?clickkey=1284457

[amillet]

[Mark89114]

17 minutes ago, amillet said:

I will take 2 at that bargain price.

[mhrivnak]

10 hours ago, Kerrville said:

I’m interested but concerned with the failure mode of the lithium batteries as well. They tend to fail all at once and without much warning, at least on phones and other such stuff. It’s great weight wise, but it also draws a ton of current after initial discharge, which may trip the alternator. I’m waiting for more data on it and don’t care to be the guinea pig. 

Keep in mind that lithium-ion batteries you find in phones and similar devices are entirely different from lithium-iron-phosphate batteries (LiFePo4 aka LFP) sold by EarthX and used in many other applications in recent years, including electric cars and home power banks.

LFP batteries are in many ways an amazing innovation. They can be discharged to near-zero without risk of damage (lead acid needs to stay above ~50%), weigh less than half of an equivalent lead-acid battery, and can easily last through 4000 complete cycles (you might get 1000 out of a lead acid battery).

There are other pros and cons when used in an airplane, but just be sure to note the difference between lithium-ion that's been around for a while in devices, vs LFP which is fundamentally very different and has become popular more recently.

[Fly Boomer]

9 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I’m confused by this statement. Which older models don’t conform to the TC?

Using the M20C as an example, TCDS lists several batteries, but I think most of those companies are defunct, or don't produce the specified part number any longer.  Gill is still in business, but I'm not aware of a source for Gill 6-GCAB-11 or PS6-11, and I have never seen an Auto-Lite R-35, Prestolite R-35, or Rebat R-37.  This seems to be an area where, even though something is specified in the type cert, if it's unavailable, the authorities allow substitutes.  My point is simply that when substituting a modern make and model battery, it probably needs to be substantially equivalent to the ones specified in the type cert and, for some airplanes, the batteries are important to maintaining the certified weight and balance envelope.

On the other hand, just because I have not seen some of those batteries, doesn't mean they aren't available somewhere.  I may be blinded by my loyalty to Concorde.
 

[A64Pilot]

Now I’m a huge fan of Lithium batteries and in particular LifePo4, AKA LFP, and Lithium Iron, different names, same battery

However a few things should be noted about starter batteries, first they aren’t really cycled, starting current is large but it’s such a short time that very few AH are used so we only really cycle a battery once a year at the cap check.

Secondly the 50% discharge is an arbitrary point that was chosen as a point for lead deep cycle batteries that are cycled daily like the bank I had on my sailboat, the lower you pull a lead acid battery down the fewer cycles you will get out of it, if you graph cycle life it’s not a cliff at 50% , 50% was just chosen as a balance between cycle life, bank cost and weight. 

As we don’t cycle batteries cycle life is sort of irrelevant, if we care for our batteries they don’t cycle out, they die of old age and in nearly perfect conditions that can be a long time. In truth no body knows how long Lithium chemistries will last, every time you try to find out for instance how long an EV battery will last you see cycle life quoted, then an estimated yearly number of cycles divided by cycle life and often 20 years is thrown around, but all batteries will die of age eventually and will a Lithium chemistry battery last 20 years? We don’t know yet. Lithium chemistries change often, different things are added to increase capacity, that’s called doping and ever time it’s done the how long will it last in years becomes an unknown, again.

If I flew IFR there is no way I’d consider a battery with less AH available, I can’t imagine being in the clouds without a functioning electrical system, that’s often a death sentence, and I can’t imagine the FAA let that slide, it has to be a mistake, surely the battery has at least as much reserve capacity of the lead acid it replaces?

I just replaced four 85 lbs each Trojan 150 AH batteries in my golf cart with four 25 lb 100 AH LifePo4 batteries and so far couldn’t be happier, even though I lost 50 AH in theory I didn’t lose any based on you can cycle a LFP battery deeper with less detrimental effect than lead. I lost 240 lbs though and you can really tell the weight in performance, the LFP charges to much higher voltage and less voltage sag under load really makes a huge difference in the cart.

The Trojan’s if you shop around can be had for about $1,200, the LifePo4 are coming down a lot, now only $959. I don’t know why exactly but LifePo4 batteries are decreasing in price hugely. I paid $1200 in Sept, that’s how much they are coming down in price, last year they were probably $2,000.

LFP batteries were invented in Tx years ago in Austin I think, but somehow the Chineses ended up with the patent or something and only they could manufacture them, but I think recently that has changed. So I assume they are dumping batteries to prevent competition? But anyway LifePo4 batteries have dropped in price hugely to being less than a quality lead battery now.

This I cut n pasted from a Solar forum and jives with my memory

“I loved Wills Rant video but if I remember correctly he made a statement that LiFePO4 batteries were created in China and that they are now making their own Technology. I am not calling out Will, I was just surprised when he said that because in 36 years of doing EE design work I have seen almost ZERO items that have been created in China. Their technological system does not even seem to rely on invention but almost completely on acquisition of inventions then reverse engineering and adaptation into new products. https://diysolarforum.com/threads/the-chinese-did-not-invent-lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries.26000/

“LiFePO4 was of course an offshoot of John Goodenough's Lithium Ion design but the Iron Phosphate branch was created by University Of Texas-Austin plus MIT seems to also have some involvement along with the University of Montreal and CNRS.”

 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

Using the M20C as an example, TCDS lists several batteries, but I think most of those companies are defunct, or don't produce the specified part number any longer.  Gill is still in business, but I'm not aware of a source for Gill 6-GCAB-11 or PS6-11, and I have never seen an Auto-Lite R-35, Prestolite R-35, or Rebat R-37.  This seems to be an area where, even though something is specified in the type cert, if it's unavailable, the authorities allow substitutes.  My point is simply that when substituting a modern make and model battery, it probably needs to be substantially equivalent to the ones specified in the type cert and, for some airplanes, the batteries are important to maintaining the certified weight and balance envelope.

On the other hand, just because I have not seen some of those batteries, doesn't mean they aren't available somewhere.  I may be blinded by my loyalty to Concorde.
 

If the battery called out by the TCDS like for my C-140 for instance no longer exists, using the AC for “antique” aircraft which all small aircraft that aren’t FAR 23 are, your allowed to pick an FAA PMA battery that meets the specs as in reserve time and starting amps, if more than 1 lb different you have to recompute W&B of course. But Concorde is good at obtaining STC’s, I think they cover my 46 C-140 via an STC.

I think my TCDS didn’t call out a brand name or group size, just an AH rating I think, but a battery that meets those specs doesn’t exist, I believe the Concorde blows those specs out of the water though.

In other words Concorde has most covered but if you have a rare antique the AC covers you.

However many counties don’t accept US STC’s anymore and probably not FAA AC’s so I don’t know what they do.

[Fly Boomer]

8 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

But Concorde is good at obtaining STC’s, I think they cover my 46 C-140 via an STC.

Interesting.  I have a pair of Concorde RG35AXC.  Not in the TCDS, and I have no battery STC that I can find.

[A64Pilot]

20 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Interesting.  I have a pair of Concorde RG35AXC.  Not in the TCDS, and I have no battery STC that I can find.

I’d call Concorde, also I believe AC Spruce has a Concorde STC listing on their website.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/concordeappchart.php?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-P-rBhBEEiwAQEXhH_3Qp_V740GqN-CnrbZ18IrWwTAzywMla0A2rhDAxYyAHDSChSXAsBoCqD4QAvD_BwE

 

https://www.concordebattery.com/knowledge-base/application-replacement-guides/aircraft-application-guide.html

Mooney seems to be covered under identicality, which is easier than an STC, just quote that in the replacement entry

[Shadrach]

45 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Interesting.  I have a pair of Concorde RG35AXC.  Not in the TCDS, and I have no battery STC that I can find.

It’s an interesting question. After researching the subject a bit, it appears that any company can apply for PMA under 21.303 and receive installation eligibility provided the component is identical to (or better than) the component it replaces. Most of our aircraft are flying with parts (by STC or PMA eligibility) that not specifically listed in the TCDS.

[Fly Boomer]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It’s an interesting question. After researching the subject a bit, it appears that any company can apply for PMA under 21.303 and receive installation eligibility provided the component is identical to (or better than) the component it replaces. Most of our aircraft are flying with parts (by STC or PMA eligibility) that not specifically listed in the TCDS.

Concorde has PMA, so that's the legal end.  I guess eligibility hinges on the word "identical".  We tend to focus on amp-hours and such, but weight should be part of that determination too.