EarthX Battery

[Bigdaddie]

So who has installed an EarthX battery and what do you think?

[toto]

There was a discussion about EarthX recently. Iirc no one has installed one yet.

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/47350-alternate-battery-brands/

 

[201Steve]

The new g7 SR22 is now coming from the factory with earthx

[Ragsf15e]

22 minutes ago, 201Steve said:

The new g7 SR22 is now coming from the factory with earthx

Supposedly it’s located in the cabin (right above copilot knees) and they have cabin preheat because it doesn’t like being cold…

[MikeOH]

Sorry, this new tech strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

[carusoam]

come onnnn…. big Daddy!  

 

What are you hoping to get out of the new tech battey?

 

Even if the battery is light years above current gel technology… and it may be…

Does it prefer an optimized charging system for best performance?

Challenge1…

If I put the light weighted battery… in the same place as my original battery(s)…

I get to add lead weights in the tail cone to keep my WnB correct…

 

Fortunately for me…

I would have options like…

 add A/C, or a Fiki system that weigh a similar amount in that space… instead of lead.

 

Sooooo… if all you are looking for is the weight savings…. The challenge just got a little bigger…

Fortunately for you…

The M20K has all kinds of opportunity to move weight around…

Sooo many ancient avionics that weigh a ton…

Two batteries in the tail cone that can be swapped out…

Lots of wire in between…

 

There might be an opportunity for 100LBs of UL to be re-captured…

How are your WnB calculating skills?

Are you updating the panel any?

Tossing out a vac system, or two?

Do you have the old weather radar in the wing?

 

100 AMUs later… the most expensive battery swap ever…  

 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic…

My dream long body… will have AC, O2, and Fiki…   and a very tiny Charlie weight for WnB perfection.  And lots of touch screens…   

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Utah20Gflyer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Sorry, this new tech strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

I understand you pick up 20 lb +/- useful load by making the switch.  That’s interesting to me.  
 

There is current approval for IO360 powered airplanes which have the battery behind the baggage area, but not for O 360 powered airplanes like mine that have the battery forward of the firewall.  

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I understand you pick up 20 lb +/- useful load by making the switch.  That’s interesting to me.  
 

There is current approval for IO360 powered airplanes which have the battery behind the baggage area, but not for O 360 powered airplanes like mine that have the battery forward of the firewall.  

Well, for more interesting facts:

1) Concorde $500,  EarthX $700

2) Concorde 440 CCA,  EarthX 390 CCA

3) Concorde 33 Amp-Hour,  EarthX 15.6 Amp-Hour

4) Concorde Ipp=800 A at -18C, EarthX Ipp=390 A at -18C

 

To summarize, you get less cranking amps, less than half the peak-power current at cold temps, half the capacity (amp-hours) all for only $200 more!  But, yeah, your wife can carry 20 lbs more luggage, or 3 gallons more gas.  What's not to like?

[carusoam]

10 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

 

3) Concorde 33 Amp-Hour,  EarthX 15.6 Amp-Hour

 

Great summary Mike!
 

This would be another important calculation for flying in the clouds…

The battery(s) has to support the panel long enough to get back on the ground (or back into VMC) after an alternator failure…

it really helps to have digital electronics in the panel… for their lower amperage requirement….
And larger battery capacity… for more electrons to use.

 

we don’t usually have a ton of excess electrical power to support ancient avionics…

So cutting battery capacity in half would be going the wrong direction…. 
 

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

I don’t understand why EarthX does not offer a dual battery replacement for 35 series aircraft batteries. Better yet, design it with foot print that allow two to fit in a 35 series battery box. The area of the ETX900 is less than half of an RG-35 but two will not fit in the footprint of a the larger battery. Perhaps I am unaware of the constraints. I would be inclined to pay the premium for a system that when compared to a Concorde RG-35, yielded slightly more capacity, more than double the CCA, offered additional redundancy and saved 20lbs.
 

[A64Pilot]

I’m not aware of any Gel aircraft battery, Concorde’s are AGM, not Gel.

Lithium, is wonderful especially LifePo4 as it’s probably “safer” than lead acid, but there are potential “issues” with it, for an aircraft.

One is it will accept a very high charge rate without harm, high enough that it can cook an alternator, the BMS could I guess regulate the charge rate, but the BMS is an issue, it will disconnect the battery when it reaches a low voltage or a high voltage or an overload to protect the battery. The issue is that it can disconnect the battery, so will it never fail so that it disconnects the battery, you know like if the alternator fails?

I had the field wire break on my J the other day so I turned the Master off to save the battery. Without electricity you have pretty much nothing but the mag compass, trim ball and in my case the Artificial horizon as it’s vacuum, oh and the tachometer, You have no engine or fuel instruments at all.

Darn battery is pretty important.

I’m at a loss as to why it’s less AH than the lead acid battery, I’d expect it to be way more, that’s why most upgrade to Lifepo4 to get greater AH for campers, golf carts, sailboats etc.

IF I installed a lighter battery it would move my CG fwd, which is the wrong way because I almost never fly with people in the back seat, a fwd CG would slow me slightly and slightly increase fuel consumption as it slowed me, so I’d have to carry that three extra gallons to go the same distance.

Note, I have no idea how much it would slow me, probably not enough to measure, point is the CG shift would be in the wrong direction for me and I suspect most.

 

[A64Pilot]

I wonder what the ICA Instruction for Continued Airworthiness for the Earth X battery is?

Does it require yearly Cap checks? If not then what trips replacement? Nothing lasts forever.

[Hank]

7 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I understand you pick up 20 lb +/- useful load by making the switch.  That’s interesting to me.  
 

There is current approval for IO360 powered airplanes which have the battery behind the baggage area, but not for O 360 powered airplanes like mine that have the battery forward of the firewall.  

That would help move my CG towards the tail, but it's not approved.  . . .

 

7 hours ago, MikeOH said:

To summarize, you get less cranking amps, less than half the peak-power current at cold temps, half the capacity (amp-hours) all for only $200 more!  But, yeah, your wife can carry 20 lbs more luggage, or 3 gallons more gas.  What's not to like?

The capacity loss is bad news. But taking 20 lbs off the firewall would be nice! That's half the penalty for that 3-blade Hartzell prop.

[Vance Harral]

I can vouch that I have made several flights in a Mooney (specifically a 231) with an EarthX battery installed.  We did not run out of electrons or catch on fire.

The Mooney in question is owned by the principal owner of EarthX. 

[PeteMc]

7 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

The Mooney in question is owned by the principal owner of EarthX.

So did you see @Shadrach's comment above?  Please ask your earthX contact why they don't build the equivalent of a dual battery that will fit in the original battery box of their 231???  (Kind of surprised that if they're an Mooney owner that's not the size that they would have made.   More cranking and storage power and it fits in the battery box that's already in a lot of Mooneys (and probably other brands).

 

[McMooney]

I'm sure they are just getting started,  no reason they can't make larger capacity units

[MikeOH]

46 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

So did you see @Shadrach's comment above?  Please ask your earthX contact why they don't build the equivalent of a dual battery that will fit in the original battery box of their 231???  (Kind of surprised that if they're an Mooney owner that's not the size that they would have made.   More cranking and storage power and it fits in the battery box that's already in a lot of Mooneys (and probably other brands).

 

1) If they build a 'dual battery' the capacity will double to 31.2 Amp-hours; still a bit less than the Concorde at 33 Amp-hours.

2) The weight will double resulting in less than the original 20 pound weight savings

3) Yes, cranking amps will now be higher than the Concorde, but to what use?  There is really no advantage to having more than what the starter requires.

4) The price is likely to nearly double...so instead of paying a $200 premium ($700 vs $500) for half the capacity, you will be paying a $900 premium ($1400 vs $500) for almost as much capacity as the Concorde.

I suspect point 4 is precisely why they didn't introduce an equivalent capacity model...there would have been ZERO takers.

 

I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to go with an EarthX.

[philiplane]

It's too high tech of a solution for a problem that really doesn't exist. Sure, it's lighter, but it's also less capable. It requires a finicky battery management system in order to charge properly. Not too much volts/amps, and not too little. And, it's expensive. 

Since many planes are going all-electric, it seems that you would want the same, or more, capacity than conventional batteries. Not less, which is what the Earth-X delivers.

I have enough things to worry about, I don't want to have to think twice about my battery. 

[Utah20Gflyer]

19 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, for more interesting facts:

1) Concorde $500,  EarthX $700

2) Concorde 440 CCA,  EarthX 390 CCA

3) Concorde 33 Amp-Hour,  EarthX 15.6 Amp-Hour

4) Concorde Ipp=800 A at -18C, EarthX Ipp=390 A at -18C

 

To summarize, you get less cranking amps, less than half the peak-power current at cold temps, half the capacity (amp-hours) all for only $200 more!  But, yeah, your wife can carry 20 lbs more luggage, or 3 gallons more gas.  What's not to like?

Granted 20 lbs isn’t a huge gain but if you get a lightweight starter, switch to electronic instruments, remove the vacuum system, etc you can start making a significant difference in useful load.  As a general principle I try to strip weight out of the plane whenever possible.  I’m up 26 lbs so far, another 20 would be a big jump.  
 

The G model has the lowest gross weight of all the Mooneys other than maybe A models (50 lbs lower than a C).  If someone has an F with over 1k GW I get that they are unlikely to care about 20 pounds but I’m trying to get my gross to over 900 lbs.  I started at 849 lbs.  to each their own though.  

[McMooney]

Honestly, i'd go with an autozone special if the FAA wasn't involved.  Not enough fairy dust in magic aviation batteries

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, McMooney said:

Honestly, i'd go with an autozone special if the FAA wasn't involved.  Not enough fairy dust in magic aviation batteries

Me, too.  But, without doing an extensive survey, they just don't make car batteries with that LITTLE amp-hour capacity! Maybe motorcycle or golf cart batteries would be a more appropriate size

[Utah20Gflyer]

3 minutes ago, philiplane said:

It's too high tech of a solution for a problem that really doesn't exist. Sure, it's lighter, but it's also less capable. It requires a finicky battery management system in order to charge properly. Not too much volts/amps, and not too little. And, it's expensive. 

Since many planes are going all-electric, it seems that you would want the same, or more, capacity than conventional batteries. Not less, which is what the Earth-X delivers.

I have enough things to worry about, I don't want to have to think twice about my battery. 

Lithium Ion batteries often have their own internal charge controller, which is important because Lithium batteries are more sensitive to proper charging.  I believe the earth X batteries are this way which means from an airplane system perspective you shouldn’t have to change anything else on the plane.  Just install and good to go.  
 

 

[Shadrach]

8 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

1) If they build a 'dual battery' the capacity will double to 31.2 Amp-hours; still a bit less than the Concorde at 33 Amp-hours.

2) The weight will double resulting in less than the original 20 pound weight savings

3) Yes, cranking amps will now be higher than the Concorde, but to what use?  There is really no advantage to having more than what the starter requires.

4) The price is likely to nearly double...so instead of paying a $200 premium ($700 vs $500) for half the capacity, you will be paying a $900 premium ($1400 vs $500) for almost as much capacity as the Concorde.

I suspect point 4 is precisely why they didn't introduce an equivalent capacity model...there would have been ZERO takers.

 

I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to go with an EarthX.

The EarthX ETX900 battery is $449.  The TSO sticker is $200 extra. 
Initial buy in includes STC and Battery Management System. 
 

I think this could be compelling tech, but it’s way overpriced.
 

BTW, the Concorde RG-35 has a rated capacity of 29Ah

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

Granted 20 lbs isn’t a huge gain but if you get a lightweight starter, switch to electronic instruments, remove the vacuum system, etc you can start making a significant difference in useful load.  As a general principle I try to strip weight out of the plane whenever possible.  I’m up 26 lbs so far, another 20 would be a big jump.  
 

The G model has the lowest gross weight of all the Mooneys other than maybe A models (50 lbs lower than a C).  If someone has an F with over 1k GW I get that they are unlikely to care about 20 pounds but I’m trying to get my gross to over 900 lbs.  I started at 849 lbs.  to each their own though.  

Disagree…In the GA world, 20lbs from a simple component change is a huge gain.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

The EarthX ETX900 battery is $449.  The TSO sticker is $200 extra. 
Initial buy in includes STC and Battery Management System. 
 

I think this could be compelling tech, but it’s way overpriced.
 

BTW, the Concorde RG-35 has a rated capacity of 29Ah

Yes, I was comparing the LEGAL for install in certified aircraft; hence the $700 price 'cause you need the $200 paperwork!

And, yeah, way overpriced.

I was looking at the RG-35AXC which is 33 Amp-hour: