EarthX Battery

[Z W]

I'm not sure right now if I want to trade the useful load for the extra capacity, but it's great to have a choice in the market and some innovation in aviation.

[Pinecone]

The other issue with light weight is we seldom have issues with aft CG.  More problems with the forward CG, so, while the UL gain is nice, the CG shift is not so nice.

And remember, the plane flies faster with an aft CG.

[EarthX Inc]

13 hours ago, hammdo said:

@EarthX Inc, no C models? (Battery in the engine bay)…

Thanks!

-Don

Hi Don,

The FAA requires separating STC's by where the battery is located. This is one of the areas that a lead acid would never pass the tests imposed on a lithium battery, which is a 2,000 degree Fahrenheit blow torch fire, no air flow, and 15 minutes of duration to illustrate nothing happens.  We have finished all of the testing requirements for engine installation applications back in October of 2023, and it takes this long (and counting) for the final approvals of adding new models to the AML STC. Once this happens, we will have many more aircraft added. 

We do have a destructive video that might be of interest here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcKIIiHi6U

 

 

[EarthX Inc]

On 1/28/2024 at 10:29 AM, philiplane said:

one of the problems with lithium batteries is that they require a BMS system.

One more thing to fail.

In a system where simplicity and reliability are the first two needs.

It should be noted that all of your electronics have circuit boards to protect them and make sure they operate correctly, from your TV, cell phone, Laptop, to your glass panel of instruments. This is not a new or novel concept. Part of the features of the BMS in the battery is it can alert you to an issue that is outside of normal so you can investigate and mitigate a potential issue before it even happens.  A lead acid battery can not do that.  The more knowledge you have about your aircraft, the more reliable your systems and you increase your safety. We are all for that. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, EarthX Inc said:

It should be noted that all of your electronics have circuit boards to protect them and make sure they operate correctly, from your TV, cell phone, Laptop, to your glass panel of instruments. This is not a new or novel concept. Part of the features of the BMS in the battery is it can alert you to an issue that is outside of normal so you can investigate and mitigate a potential issue before it even happens.  A lead acid battery can not do that.  The more knowledge you have about your aircraft, the more reliable your systems and you increase your safety. We are all for that. 

The addition of REQUIRED electronics to a battery when the previous technology did NOT require any represents an ADDED risk of failure (and, added cost).

Yes, a BMS system can provide monitoring functions.  I did not see that the aviation EarthX batteries provided any such information.  Did I miss an USB/RS232/other output port providing that data and interface specifications that would 'alert me'?  Or, is that something that you may provide in the future?

[201Mooniac]

2 hours ago, EarthX Inc said:

We do have a destructive video that might be of interest here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcKIIiHi6U

Must have been fun to make that, I always enjoy product torture testing :-)

[ArtVandelay]

There’s also some special installation work (installing a annunciator light and wiring back to the battery), don’t know why just monitoring the voltage as with other batteries isn’t good enough? It may sound easy but some interior panels need to be removed to install the wires.

[Hank]

9 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The other issue with light weight is we seldom have issues with aft CG.  More problems with the forward CG, so, while the UL gain is nice, the CG shift is not so nice.

And remember, the plane flies faster with an aft CG.

Those of us with carburetor and batteries on the firewall would move the CG aft by buying a lighter battery. Thus the question for A-D & G models.

This would mostly negate CG changes for the 3-blade propellor.

Folks who moved their battery back to the avionics bay would have the same CG issues as you would.

[EarthX Inc]

On 8/19/2024 at 8:36 PM, MikeOH said:

Striving for accuracy I'd like to point out the Concorde RG35AXC is 33 Ahr, not 32:

I don't make light of having HALF the time available to me should the alternator fail in IMC. (33 Ahr vs. 15.6 Ahr).  Saving 20 pounds (3 1/3 gallons of gas) isn't a trade-off I'm willing to make. YMMV

 

Thanks Mike for correction of my typo and I did correct it. Good catch. 

I did notice you mentioned a 20 pounds weight savings if you are currently using the RG35AXC, but it would be a difference of (32-5.4=26.6) almost 27 pounds.  

And as I mentioned in my post, if you need more than 60-90 minutes to be able to find a place to land in the event of an alternator failure, then the ETX900-TSO battery would NOT be a good choice for you and you should absolutely use a higher capacity battery.

Again, I want to reiterate, it is very important as a pilot of know exactly how much energy you need in the event of an alternator failure, so you know how much time you have to land.  This is why you must have your battery checked annually for its capacity as time will decrease the name plated Ah.  If you need 10 amps an hour, then you know that with the EarthX battery, you have 1.5 hours to land.  If you had the RG35AXC, you would have 3.5 hours to land.  Me personally......if my Mooney has an alternator failure or any type of component or part failures in flight, I am looking for the nearest airport to land, not what is the farthest one I can get to. 

[MikeOH]

@EarthX Inc

And, I have corrected my post to reflect 27 pounds instead of 20

I fully understand that, as the manufacturer, you wish to minimize the shortcomings of your product.

Acting as if, and rationalizing why, giving up 50% of your electrical capacity an emergency is ok is a bit disingenuous, IMHO.  That massive of loss is a SHORTCOMING.

I suppose there are pilots that will take off with the absolute legal minimum of fuel for their planned flight; perhaps they are your target market?  NOT me, however.

Despite the fact I'm going for the nearest suitable airport if I experience alternator failure in IMC I want the MOST electrical reserve I can get; I am not voluntarily giving up half of it to save 27 pounds.

[Shadrach]

27 minutes ago, EarthX Inc said:

Thanks Mike for correction of my typo and I did correct it. Good catch. 

I did notice you mentioned a 20 pounds weight savings if you are currently using the RG35AXC, but it would be a difference of (32-5.4=26.6) almost 27 pounds.  

And as I mentioned in my post, if you need more than 60-90 minutes to be able to find a place to land in the event of an alternator failure, then the ETX900-TSO battery would NOT be a good choice for you and you should absolutely use a higher capacity battery.

Again, I want to reiterate, it is very important as a pilot of know exactly how much energy you need in the event of an alternator failure, so you know how much time you have to land.  This is why you must have your battery checked annually for its capacity as time will decrease the name plated Ah.  If you need 10 amps an hour, then you know that with the EarthX battery, you have 1.5 hours to land.  If you had the RG35AXC, you would have 3.5 hours to land.  Me personally......if my Mooney has an alternator failure or any type of component or part failures in flight, I am looking for the nearest airport to land, not what is the farthest one I can get to. 

I think there would be interest in a dual EarthX set up giving more reserve Ah over a conventional AGM while still yielding a significant weight reduction.  No downside to  more capacity for less weight save for maybe the price. A single EarthX would increase my plane's Useful Load to approximately 1084lbs. I'd gladly give up 6lbs of that for greater capacity.

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I think there would be interest in a dual EarthX set up giving more reserve Ah over a conventional AGM while still yielding a significant weight reduction.  No downside to  more capacity for less weight save for maybe the price. A single EarthX would increase my plane's Useful Load to approximately 1086lbs. I'd gladly give up 6lbs of that for greater capacity.

Yes!

In fact, if I infer correctly from @EarthX Inc post, the existing 15.6 Ahr battery weighs 5.4 pounds.  If the weight is linear with capacity, that would mean 46.8 Ahr at 16.2 pounds! Saving nearly 16 pounds over the RG35AXC with significantly more capacity!  I would pay more for that product!  (Still would need to fit the footprint of the RG)

[Will.iam]

This thread argument reminds me of the same new technology arguments that came up when anti-lock brakes first came out. All the pro racers said they could do better than the anti-lock brakes could and for awhile the pro racers were correct but only in the fact the anit-lock brake systems sucked so bad it was a hinderance more than an asset but the companies kept at it and today i do not know of any pro racers that do not have anti-lock brakes in their cars. Same thing happened with manual compared to automatic transmission systems. At first a manual system were faster and more fuel efficient but the double clutch systems soon where able to shift faster than any human could manually and by designing 8, 10 and even 12 gears into the automatic they are now more efficient than the manual system too. They only advantage left in having the manual is the overhaul is much cheaper than the automatics. 
i think the lithium and their variants of batteries will be the standard in the future especially when the economy of scale helps with the prices (thank you cirrus for shipping new planes with this new technology) that we all might afford it in the near future. 

[EarthX Inc]

On 8/19/2024 at 6:46 PM, EarthX Inc said:

The question/concern I am seeing on this thread is, why is the EarthX battery have much less capacity? The answer is rather simple, back when this aircraft (and many other GA aircraft as this is an old market) was designed, to have enough cranking amps to turn over the engine, they had to have more capacity (Ah) as these 2 things are related.  The more the capacity (Ah), the more the cranking amps. The engine in the Mooney’s has not changed. It is the same engine from 50+ years ago. You never needed that much capacity (Ah) to meet the safety regulations/requirements if your alternator failed and you are flying on battery power only.  The more capacity you have, the more weight you have. These are also related.

When testing and engineering what would be the ideal capacity and cranking amp lithium battery as a replacement for hundreds of aircraft that use the Concorde and Gill batteries, the ETX900-TSO with 15.6Ah and 390 CCA’s was determined as it meets all the safety requirement needed for capacity and met or exceeded what the engines required to turn them over. This lower capacity was not a mistake, or an oversight, or even a mistake on the FAA’s part to approve it, but a tested and engineered solution. 

At 15.6Ah, the battery will provide over an hour of equipment operation used in the event of an alternator failure. If you fly your Mooney into locations where you do not have any airports to land at over an hour period of time, then this is a significant spec and you should have a higher capacity battery. This is a very rare situation.  The amount of energy you need to operate your equipment in a scenario such as this should not be a guess, you should know what your amperage draw will be and how long you can fly until you deplete your battery, lead acid or lithium.  

Which brings me to the next consistent comment I am seeing, the increase in cost.  We also studied this in depth as we wanted all to be able to afford it, versus a few.  There is a TSO 14V lithium battery on the market with 26 Ah capacity, 10 pounds, and 425CCA that retails for $2,499.  This does not include the STC cost as this is a separate charge (once one is attained), nor does it cover the installation kit costs.  For those of you that believe the $200 premium for an EarthX brand is expensive, how many of you would upgrade to a 10X premium increase? Our experience and market research data says: no one. If you don’t need it to meet the safety requirements and performance needs, why would you do it? Increase capacity means increased costs.

 

Hi Mike and Shadrach,

I copied my earlier response as it does explain why we did what we did. In order to attain a FAA TSO approved lithium battery with an STC for a certified aircraft, it took over 5 years of time and resources, encompassing over 161 different tests to be completed and passed to engineer a battery that meets or exceeds all of the safety and performance regulations.  The ETX900-TSO model with 15.6Ah achieved this.   I understand you WANT more, but more is not needed based on A LOT of empirical data and tests.  

There is engineering and FAA regulations to govern the safety and reliability for everything on or in your plane. From the fuel tanks and how many gallons you can carry, to the wheels, to the propeller, to the length of your wings, etc. This battery is no different.  I agreed to come on this forum to help answer questions for knowledge and understanding as up until now, you had no other choice but a lead acid battery. We worked very hard to provide an alternative choice, and it is just that, a choice.  

[Hank]

So @EarthX Inc, any idea on the timeline for carbureted Mooney approval? I think my current Concorde RH-35-AXC should have about 4 more years' life . . . .

[EarthX Inc]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

So @EarthX Inc, any idea on the timeline for carbureted Mooney approval? I think my current Concorde RH-35-AXC should have about 4 more years' life . . . .

Hi Hank,

We gave up trying to guestimate when the FAA will approve any of the STC's but it will be before you need a new battery.   

[hammdo]

That’s good, I just bought a new concord so I’m betting in the next 5 to 7 years the FAA will be ready..

;o)

-Don

[Shadrach]

57 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

This thread argument reminds me of the same new technology arguments that came up when anti-lock brakes first came out. All the pro racers said they could do better than the anti-lock brakes could and for awhile the pro racers were correct but only in the fact the anit-lock brake systems sucked so bad it was a hinderance more than an asset but the companies kept at it and today i do not know of any pro racers that do not have anti-lock brakes in their cars. Same thing happened with manual compared to automatic transmission systems. At first a manual system were faster and more fuel efficient but the double clutch systems soon where able to shift faster than any human could manually and by designing 8, 10 and even 12 gears into the automatic they are now more efficient than the manual system too. They only advantage left in having the manual is the overhaul is much cheaper than the automatics. 
i think the lithium and their variants of batteries will be the standard in the future especially when the economy of scale helps with the prices (thank you cirrus for shipping new planes with this new technology) that we all might afford it in the near future. 

No doubt that Lithium Ion appears to be the future. There is also no doubt that the capacity is lower than current AGM products but in a much, much, lighter package. I understand the argument that capacity is sufficient. Just as I imagine others understand that if you can reduce weight and increase capacity, you’ve shut down most performance based objections and are really talking about pricing at that point. Early adopters can choose when they’re ready beta test and I look forward to the first pireps. 

 Your summary above is a bit optimistic in terms of how rapidly past innovations have lived up to expectations. It took over 50 years for anti locks and auto transmissions to become superior in all aspects of performance (save for maybe weight). 
I am happy that folks are innovating and hope the advances occur at an ever increasing rate.

[Will.iam]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

No doubt that Lithium Ion appears to be the future. There is also no doubt that the capacity is lower than current AGM products but in a much, much, lighter package. I understand the argument that capacity is sufficient. Just as I imagine others understand that if you can reduce weight and increase capacity, you’ve shut down most performance based objections and are really talking about pricing at that point. Early adopters can choose when they’re ready beta test and I look forward to the first pireps. 

 Your summary above is a bit optimistic in terms of how rapidly past innovations have lived up to expectations. It took over 50 years for anti locks and auto transmissions to become superior in all aspects of performance (save for maybe weight). 
I am happy that folks are innovating and hope the advances occur at an ever increasing rate.

Actually I was not implying that the past innovations were rapid if that came across that way that was not my intent. Sadly the battery tech will most likely take as long as well. I hope I am wrong but history shows it takes time before people will accept something new. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

This thread argument reminds me of the same new technology arguments that came up when anti-lock brakes first came out. All the pro racers said they could do better than the anti-lock brakes could and for awhile the pro racers were correct but only in the fact the anit-lock brake systems sucked so bad it was a hinderance more than an asset but the companies kept at it and today i do not know of any pro racers that do not have anti-lock brakes in their cars. Same thing happened with manual compared to automatic transmission systems. At first a manual system were faster and more fuel efficient but the double clutch systems soon where able to shift faster than any human could manually and by designing 8, 10 and even 12 gears into the automatic they are now more efficient than the manual system too. They only advantage left in having the manual is the overhaul is much cheaper than the automatics. 
i think the lithium and their variants of batteries will be the standard in the future especially when the economy of scale helps with the prices (thank you cirrus for shipping new planes with this new technology) that we all might afford it in the near future. 

It may remind you of earlier technology advances but it is a poor analogy at this point in time!  It would be as if the early anti-lock brakes were only 1/2 as effective  Or, the shifts were slower by 50% (and, by your own admission the early versions of both systems were NOT as good as the manual ones they were destined to replace).  So, I agree that at some point in the FUTURE the lithium tech WILL be a good fit.

JUST. NOT. NOW.

All the testing/meeting specs/FAA approval are swell, but the FACT remains that the EarthX battery approved for my Mooney presently has only HALF the capacity.

If you want to buy into the argument from EarthX that you really ONLY need half your present battery's capacity then purchase away.

Until they can match capacity, NO THANKS!

[Shadrach]

30 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Actually I was not implying that the past innovations were rapid if that came across that way that was not my intent. Sadly the battery tech will most likely take as long as well. I hope I am wrong but history shows it takes time before people will accept something new. 

I am not talking about acceptance. I’m talking about technical supremacy. There is almost no argument for non antilock brakes. The only argument for manual transmissions is light weight and joy of operation, autos are technically superior. Lithium Ion Battery tech is already close.  It’s easy to say that less capacity is adequate on the ground. In IMC or VMC on top with icing conditions underneath you? I want as much time (capacity) as possible to sort out options.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

This thread argument reminds me of the same new technology arguments that came up when anti-lock brakes first came out. All the pro racers said they could do better than the anti-lock brakes could and for awhile the pro racers were correct but only in the fact the anit-lock brake systems sucked so bad it was a hinderance more than an asset but the companies kept at it and today i do not know of any pro racers that do not have anti-lock brakes in their cars. 

Yup.   I used to do those demonstrations for a driving school I was involved with and it wasn't hard to teach the students how to out-brake the ABS, and it was a big confidence builder for them to learn it (this was for teenagers, some of whom had little driving experience).    The table started turning at least a decade ago when the factory ABS systems just got a lot better.   I was demonstrating the difference (attempting to, anyway) in a pretty new Mercedes GLK, and slammed on the pedal to get deep into the ABS and it just stopped, very quickly, with no drama whatsoever, in a very short distance.   For the first time I thought, I'm not going to be able to out-brake that.    I'd been warned by friends who were test drivers at some of the factory tracks around here that the new ABS systems were the shizzle, but that was the first time I'd actually enountered it.

Even with the older systems many racers (like me) kept the ABS just to keep from flat-spotting expensive tires.   If you weren't screwing up it didn't get in the way, and if you were it saved you a ton of money.

When I was in A&P school we had a Lear 23 that had a Goodyear analog electronic ABS system that was being put on certified airplanes in 1963.   I got to take that all apart, including the computer, and see how it worked, and it was brilliant in its functional simplicity.   Airplanes have had ABS for a long time, but it had a slightly different job than it does in cars.

[EricJ]

I'm not convinced that Lithium (or similar) technologies are the future for high-capacity applications, unless there's another leap in the capabilities somewhere along the way.   Maybe another battery chemistry will appear that solves all the problems, but sometimes the technology pendulums swing back and forth.

Lithium batteries were all the rage in the racing community for a while since they provided a significant weight reduction (which is always good), and had enough capacity to start an engine under most reasonable conditions.    Unfortunately, too many people got caught out having to do am irregular restart in a hot pit or during a race (maybe a red flag situation, or maybe just trying to rejoin after an off-track excursion), and wound up with a DNF because the battery died before they got the engine restarted.    You could look down the paddock and count the number of cars that switched back to AGM or whatever, because they got burned by the lure of weight reduction with a Lithium.    You still see them around, but there was definitely a couple swings of the pendulum in the acceptance and then a lot of people returning to the old tech when it just didn't work for them.

I can see something similar potentially happening in aviation.

[Utah20Gflyer]

I just converted an electric golf car from 36 volt lead acid to 48v Lifepo4.  I dropped more than 200 pounds of weight and now have probably 4 times the range - although I haven’t tested just how much range it has because frankly I don’t want drive  50 miles to find out when it’s going to finally give up.   Sunday I drove it 12 miles in three different trips and based on the recharge time it didn’t use up much capacity.   The charger is 15 amps and it ran for maybe 60 - 90 minutes.  So basically I used 15-20% of capacity?  
 

I purchased a 100 AH battery which I am happy with because I also made the golf cart into a mobile 5.1kwh “power wall” that I can plug stuff into if the power goes off.   The point of this long winded story if I were just using it for driving around I easily could have gone half the capacity and still had plenty of range.  
 

Personally I really like how Lifepo4 batteries perform and based on the fact I have multiple backups besides my starting battery I don’t see much downside.  
 
 

 

 

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I just converted an electric golf car from 36 volt lead acid to 48v Lifepo4.  I dropped more than 200 pounds of weight and now have probably 4 times the range - although I haven’t tested just how much range it has because frankly I don’t want drive  50 miles to find out when it’s going to finally give up.  

I have a gas-powered golf cart, but out in the country, it's not going on any trips. I fill it with avgas, just because car gas goes bad so fast. I probably use ~5 gallons annually,  so the additional cost and trouble are negligible. It usually takes just a couple of minutes to fill up in the driveway.