Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - Re: Did anyone get a chance to visit the Titan Engine Booth? (Ed Kranz)
2. 07:40 AM - Re: Did anyone get a chance to visit the Titan Engine Booth? (Kelly McMullen)
3. 07:59 AM - Alternator question (bob88)
4. 08:01 AM - Seat belt question (bob88)
5. 08:20 AM - Re: Alternator question (Ben)
6. 08:22 AM - Re: Seat belt question (Bob Leffler)
7. 08:29 AM - Re: Alternator question (Rob Kermanj)
8. 08:30 AM - Re: Alternator question (David Saylor)
9. 08:31 AM - Re: Alternator question (Carl Froehlich)
10. 08:47 AM - Re: Seat belt question (Carl Froehlich)
11. 09:02 AM - Re: Seat belt question (David Saylor)
12. 09:56 AM - Re: Alternator question (Pascal)
13. 10:17 AM - Lithium battery on the firewall (Ed Kranz)
14. 10:41 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (AirMike)
15. 10:53 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Carl Froehlich)
16. 10:57 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Don McDonald)
17. 11:10 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Jeff Carpenter)
18. 11:17 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Don McDonald)
19. 11:41 AM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (John Cox)
20. 11:42 AM - Re: Seat belt question (johngoodman)
21. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (John Cox)
22. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (LES KEARNEY)
23. 12:27 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Ed Kranz)
24. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Ben Westfall)
25. 02:21 PM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Michael Kraus)
26. 03:32 PM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Gary)
27. 05:24 PM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (charliewaffles)
28. 06:40 PM - Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Don McDonald)
29. 06:47 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Ed Kranz)
30. 07:16 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Kelly McMullen)
31. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (David Saylor)
32. 07:39 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Linn Walters)
33. 07:54 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Carl Froehlich)
34. 08:05 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Kelly McMullen)
35. 08:08 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (David King)
36. 09:09 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Tim Olson)
37. 11:20 PM - Re: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall (Deems Davis)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Did anyone get a chance to visit the Titan Engine Booth? |
If I recall correctly, the IO540 was $46,000, but they had a show special a
few thousand dollars cheaper than that. So just slightly cheaper than the
Lycoming.
Availability was't going to be until November/December.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
> I was disappointed to see that it cost about the same as a Lycoming.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 3, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Tal Holloway <whodja@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was very impressed with this engine but wanted to hear what other RV
> builders thought.
> > http://www.titanengine.com/exp/
> >
> > Also, thank you to Ed and the gang for putting together the RV-10
> dinner. It was nice to put a face with the emails. I look forward to
> building and the many years of flying.
> >
> > Tal Holloway
> > Building
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Did anyone get a chance to visit the Titan Engine Booth? |
It is interesting that Vans apparently no longer offers certified engines.
IIRC when I bought my empennage in 2008 $37K would buy a certified engine,
which rose to IIRC $48K last year? Too bad the TCM engines are too heavy,
as I believe they are noticeably cheaper. If Titan was offering several
thousand off their list for the show, it certainly would be a good option.
Since virtually all of their parts have PMA approval for use on a certified
engine, the completed engine should be very equivalent.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I recall correctly, the IO540 was $46,000, but they had a show special
> a few thousand dollars cheaper than that. So just slightly cheaper than the
> Lycoming.
>
> Availability was't going to be until November/December.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I was disappointed to see that it cost about the same as a Lycoming.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> I-TEC, Inc.
>> jesse@itecusa.org
>> www.itecusa.org
>> www.mavericklsa.com
>> C: 352-427-0285
>> O: 352-465-4545
>> F: 815-377-3694
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Tal Holloway <whodja@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I was very impressed with this engine but wanted to hear what other RV
>> builders thought.
>> > http://www.titanengine.com/exp/
>> >
>> > Also, thank you to Ed and the gang for putting together the RV-10
>> dinner. It was nice to put a face with the emails. I look forward to
>> building and the many years of flying.
>> >
>> > Tal Holloway
>> > Building
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator question |
Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF kit) internally
regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally regulated (B&C)?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427928#427928
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Seat belt question |
How important is the crotch strap for the rear seat pax? I would like to dispense
with it unless there is a problem with people sliding forward without it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427929#427929
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator question |
I have had great performance with these alternators... I am a big fan o
f "one wire "alternators.... I am sure others will disagree..http://www.
ecae.com/alt1.html Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Alternator question
Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF kit)
internally regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally regulated
(B&C)?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427928#427928
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossi
bly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/53dfa47b163ce247a654cst04duc
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat belt question |
A fair number of builders don't have a rear crotch strap. I don't.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:01 AM, "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
How important is the crotch strap for the rear seat pax? I would like to dispense
with it unless there is a problem with people sliding forward without it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427929#427929
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator question |
and it fits Rv10 without pain?
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
772-418-1417
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Ben <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
> I have had great performance with these alternators... I am a big fan
of "one wire "alternators.... I am sure others will disagree..
> http://www.ecae.com/alt1.html
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Alternator question
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:59:28 -0700
>
>
> Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF
kit) internally regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally
regulated (B&C)?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.=================
=====; ================
========= &n -Matt
Dralle, List=====================
================
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
> The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly
rich.
> fool.com
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator question |
I've replaced our PP alternator one time in 1400 hours, under
warranty,because it falsely indicated low voltage. It came back looking a
little different, like the OV module had been moved inside. I've installed
quite a few on customer's planes and can't think of a complaint.
On the other hand, external regulators usually get installed in the most
inconvenient places, so you're reading the terminals with a mirror and
flashlight...
--Dave
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:59 AM, bob88 <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF kit)
> internally regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally regulated
> (B&C)?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427928#427928
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator question |
I used the Plane Power on two planes, and will on the next project as well. A
lot of hours and zero problems.
I did not use the Van's FWF kit.
Carl
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF kit) internally
regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally regulated (B&C)?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427928#427928
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat belt question |
I kept it in thinking it would not hurt and it provides additional tie down points
if I have the rear seats out to carry extra baggage.
I spent some time trying to figure out how to do a five point harness on the front
seats - never solved that problem.
Carl
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Bob Leffler <rv@thelefflers.com> wrote:
>
>
> A fair number of builders don't have a rear crotch strap. I don't.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:01 AM, "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> How important is the crotch strap for the rear seat pax? I would like to dispense
with it unless there is a problem with people sliding forward without it.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427929#427929
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat belt question |
Van says the crotch strap keeps you from slipping out from under the belt.
He called it "submarining", which happens without a crotch strap because
of the semi-reclining position. I've sat in back plenty of times and it's
not even really noticeable. My kids have been putting then on by
themselves since they were 7 or 8--can't be that difficult. And I guess if
you squashed the junk in an accident, then the belt did it's job, right? I
vote to keep 'em.
--Dave
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:01 AM, bob88 <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> How important is the crotch strap for the rear seat pax? I would like to
> dispense with it unless there is a problem with people sliding forward
> without it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427929#427929
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator question |
My plane power went out and they quickly replaced it, and were honest with
the reason for the failure. I would also use them again.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Froehlich
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Alternator question
I used the Plane Power on two planes, and will on the next project as well.
A lot of hours and zero problems.
I did not use the Van's FWF kit.
Carl
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have strong feelings about using the Vans supplied (FWF kit)
> internally regulated alternator (Plane Power?) vs externally regulated
> (B&C)?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427928#427928
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lithium battery on the firewall |
I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the
firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A buddy
did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by a good
margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that look
like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reservoir
and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.
The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4",
3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota, 405
cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter wire
runs to the starter should give me great starting power.
My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb
reduction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2
cable that will get a lot shorter.
I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a
secondary alternator.
Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery
I'm considering?
http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/
<http://earthxmotorsports.com/product-category/experimental-aircraft/>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
I do not know very much about lithium batteries, but I would be concerned about
the heat up there especially when you shut down on a hot day. That area just
stays hot for many hours. Computer lithium batteries are not very stable in heat,
but I do not know about the battery that you are talking about.
Secondly, the RV10 is naturally nose heavy. I keep about 40# of lead in my baggage
area when only the front two seats are occupied - this with the battery in
the normal area behind the rear bulkhead.
Unless you have a very light composite prop, I am not so sure that this is a good
idea. Just another note. If I am not mistaken, I think that an early RV10 fatal
crash plane had the battery installed forward of the firewall.
--------
See you OSH '14
Q/B - flying 4 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427948#427948
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
I'm running two PC-625s both located using the per plans placement, but with
a custom mount. I note that one PC-625 has more amp-hr capacity than the EX
T36C. I would offer the EXT36C is far too limited on this important aspect.
While a second alternator will mitigate the risk you will need to be thoug
htful on how you set up your power distribution so you don't end up with a s
ingle failure point taking out all power. This last piece is not trivial. T
he other issue is that while the cold cranking amps is impressive for this p
roduct, the low amp-hr rating says you will not have that juice for long. N
ote the CCA for two PC-625s in parallel is about the same but for a much lon
ger crank time. My experience is I would not want any less. There is no fre
e lunch.
Other than reduced wiring I don't see any advantage for mounting any battery
on the firewall for an RV-10, and a lot of downside. Please also note that
most W&Bs for RV-10s benefit having the battery(s) mounted in the tail cone
. Compensating with a second alternator will only aggravate the W&B issue.
Carl
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the fir
ewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A buddy did a
structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by a good margin
. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that look like good c
andidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reservoir and the fire
wall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.
>
> The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4", 3
.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota, 405 c
old cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter wire run
s to the starter should give me great starting power.
>
> My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb redu
ction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2 cable tha
t will get a lot shorter.
>
> I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a secon
dary alternator.
>
> Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery I
'm considering?
>
> http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/
>
> to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Probably ok... if you have a std compression engine.- If you have a two b
lade Hartzel, you're nose heavy in the stock configuration... and now you'v
e take the heaviest thing in the tail, eliminated it, and added more weight
in the front.- By yourself in the plane might mean 100 pounds in the bag
gage area.- Weight is almost always an issue with airplanes, but what I c
an tell you is the 10 will haul anything!- I just brought back from Calif
thru Oregon to Texas 220 lbs of steel angle, 47 lbs of #12 wire rolls, ABS
plumbing fittings, a box of 6 new construction recessed cans, golf clubs a
nd our bags.- The only fuel stop from Oregon was Spanish Flats (fuel was
$4.95), and the density altitude there was 9,500'.... no issue.=0ADon McDon
ald=0A650 hours and still lovin it!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_________________________
_______=0A From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.co
m =0ASent: Monday, August 4, 2014 12:16 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: Lithium ba
ttery on the firewall=0A =0A=0A=0AI'm strongly considering using an EarthX
EXT36C Lithium battery on the firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock bat
tery box in the tail. A buddy did a structural analysis, and there are no i
ssues structurally, by a good margin. What I'm wondering about is placement
. The two places that look like good candidates are on the upper firewall b
etween the brake reservoir and the firewall recess, or centered below the b
rake reservoir.-=0A=0AThe battery I'm considering is very small and light
(5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4", 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importa
ntly in Minnesota, 405 cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with
the MUCH shorter wire runs to the starter should give me great starting pow
er.=0A=0AMy original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5
lb reduction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2
cable that will get a lot shorter.=0A=0AI am also planning a TCW Backup Bat
tery for critical avionics, and a secondary alternator.-=0A=0ADoes anyone
have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery I'm consideri
ng?=0A=0Ahttp://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/=0A=0A=0A=0A
================
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
I've just caught bits of the Bob Nuckolls discussion of Lithium
Batteries on the aeroelectric list. Personally, I wouldn't go near them.
Risk/Reward seems upside down.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Ed Kranz wrote:
> I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the
firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A
buddy did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally,
by a good margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places
that look like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the
brake reservoir and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake
reservoir.
>
> The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x
5.4", 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in
Minnesota, 405 cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the
MUCH shorter wire runs to the starter should give me great starting
power.
>
> My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb
reduction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2
cable that will get a lot shorter.
>
> I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a
secondary alternator.
>
> Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the
battery I'm considering?
>
> http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Another note.... because I have a little higher compression, and dual light
speed elec ignition, I have 2 batteries and 2 alternators.... for 500+ hour
s and 4.5 years I had 2ea, Odyssey 680's.... since then I replace one of th
em with one with a little more amperage,,,, maybe the 925, but I can't reme
mber.- It's kind of a nice thing knowing the engine is ALWAYS going to tu
rn over.- It also is recommended by some to run a second ground from the
engine to the firewall... not much weight, easy to do, and great insurance.
=0A=0ADon McDonald=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Ed
Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, A
ugust 4, 2014 12:16 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: Lithium battery on the firewal
l=0A =0A=0A=0AI'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium batte
ry on the firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail
. A buddy did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally,
by a good margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places tha
t look like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake res
ervoir and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.-
=0A=0AThe battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.
4", 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota,
405 cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter w
ire runs to the starter should give me great starting power.=0A=0AMy origin
al plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb reduction for
me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2 cable that will ge
t a lot shorter.=0A=0AI am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical
avionics, and a secondary alternator.-=0A=0ADoes anyone have any comments
about placement or capacity of the battery I'm considering?=0A=0Ahttp://ea
===========
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Read Jim Weir's article in Kitplanes magazine first.
John
On Aug 4, 2014 10:19 AM, "Ed Kranz" <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the
> firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A buddy
> did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by a good
> margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that look
> like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reservoir
> and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.
>
> The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4",
> 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota, 405
> cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter wire
> runs to the starter should give me great starting power.
>
> My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb
> reduction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2
> cable that will get a lot shorter.
>
> I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a
> secondary alternator.
>
> Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery
> I'm considering?
>
> http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/
> <http://earthxmotorsports.com/product-category/experimental-aircraft/>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat belt question |
I kept mine, and I wish there was a way to put a five-point on the front seats.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427958#427958
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Dan Lloyd with a Subie.
On Aug 4, 2014 10:43 AM, "AirMike" <Mikeabel@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> I do not know very much about lithium batteries, but I would be concerned
> about the heat up there especially when you shut down on a hot day. That
> area just stays hot for many hours. Computer lithium batteries are not very
> stable in heat, but I do not know about the battery that you are talking
> about.
>
> Secondly, the RV10 is naturally nose heavy. I keep about 40# of lead in my
> baggage area when only the front two seats are occupied - this with the
> battery in the normal area behind the rear bulkhead.
>
> Unless you have a very light composite prop, I am not so sure that this is
> a good idea. Just another note. If I am not mistaken, I think that an early
> RV10 fatal crash plane had the battery installed forward of the firewall.
>
> --------
> See you OSH '14
> Q/B - flying 4 yrs.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427948#427948
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Hi
Dan's battery was in the tunnel or so I thought. In any event, IIRC, it was not
the battery per se that caused his crash. See the NTSB report for info.
I saw the Lithium batteries at KOSH and spoke to the reps. I was impressed until
I spoke to retired avionics / electrical tech where I was staying. I can't see
the potential risk being worth it especially when weight is needed in the tail
for W&B considerations.
I did have two Odyssey batteries mounted on my firewall while I had a Subie installed.
I used a couple of battery boxes from Vans and tied them into the cross
braces that run diagonally on the lower part of the firewall. I dont know if
that would work for the IO540 mount.
Given that I am now retrofitting an IO540 (*sigh*), I have moved the batteries
back to the tail. I was able to use battery boxes to make a mount that fits in
the stock location and that accommodates the two batteries.
Cheers
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cox" <rv10pro@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 12:42:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Lithium battery on the firewall
Dan Lloyd with a Subie.
On Aug 4, 2014 10:43 AM, "AirMike" < Mikeabel@pacbell.net > wrote:
I do not know very much about lithium batteries, but I would be concerned about
the heat up there especially when you shut down on a hot day. That area just
stays hot for many hours. Computer lithium batteries are not very stable in heat,
but I do not know about the battery that you are talking about.
Secondly, the RV10 is naturally nose heavy. I keep about 40# of lead in my baggage
area when only the front two seats are occupied - this with the battery in
the normal area behind the rear bulkhead.
Unless you have a very light composite prop, I am not so sure that this is a good
idea. Just another note. If I am not mistaken, I think that an early RV10 fatal
crash plane had the battery installed forward of the firewall.
--------
See you OSH '14
Q/B - flying 4 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427948#427948
===========
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
.... and I don't believe that incident had anything to do with the battery
chemistry or location.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, John Cox <rv10pro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan Lloyd with a Subie.
> On Aug 4, 2014 10:43 AM, "AirMike" <Mikeabel@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I do not know very much about lithium batteries, but I would be concerned
>> about the heat up there especially when you shut down on a hot day. That
>> area just stays hot for many hours. Computer lithium batteries are not very
>> stable in heat, but I do not know about the battery that you are talking
>> about.
>>
>> Secondly, the RV10 is naturally nose heavy. I keep about 40# of lead in
>> my baggage area when only the front two seats are occupied - this with the
>> battery in the normal area behind the rear bulkhead.
>>
>> Unless you have a very light composite prop, I am not so sure that this
>> is a good idea. Just another note. If I am not mistaken, I think that an
>> early RV10 fatal crash plane had the battery installed forward of the
>> firewall.
>>
>> --------
>> See you OSH '14
>> Q/B - flying 4 yrs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427948#427948
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
It does seem very attractive to me to consider swapping my PC925 for say an EarthX
48E for weigh savings. The 48E states a 56 min reserve as opposed to the
27 min for the 36. The swap may potentially allow another 20lbs in the baggage
compartment at the cost of $725 for the battery though I would hope to get a
lot of life out of it. It would seem for those 10's w/the lighter composite
props on the nose the lighter battery in the tail would be doable.
I'd welcome a discussion about "the potential risks" here for the sake of knowledge.
Ben Westfall
-----Original Message-----
Hi
Dan's battery was in the tunnel or so I thought. In any event, IIRC, it was not
the battery per se that caused his crash. See the NTSB report for info.
I saw the Lithium batteries at KOSH and spoke to the reps. I was impressed until
I spoke to retired avionics / electrical tech where I was staying. I can't see
the potential risk being worth it especially when weight is needed in the tail
for W&B considerations.
I did have two Odyssey batteries mounted on my firewall while I had a Subie installed.
I used a couple of battery boxes from Vans and tied them into the cross
braces that run diagonally on the lower part of the firewall. I dont know if
that would work for the IO540 mount.
Given that I am now retrofitting an IO540 (*sigh*), I have moved the batteries
back to the tail. I was able to use battery boxes to make a mount that fits in
the stock location and that accommodates the two batteries.
Cheers
Les
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
So I'll counter some ideas on battery placement....
I travelled to Oshkosh with my wife (pax seat) and two children in the back s
eats (both under 10 yrs old). Full camping gear for the week. At take off a
nd full fuel, I was 50 lbs under gross and CG was good, but as I got down to
16 gallons, I was aft CG. So I had to place some heavy bags in the back se
at floor and I was able to keep CG within specifications all the way to 4 ga
llons remaining.
I do have an MT prop (lighter) so maybe if I had a metal prop I'd have been a
t gross and ok on aft CG, not sure... I am considering moving my battery fo
rward so I can have more options when fully loaded knowing I'll have to carr
y dead weight in the baggage compartment when flying solo....
Just another perspective....
-Mike
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wr
ote:
>
> I'm running two PC-625s both located using the per plans placement, but wi
th a custom mount. I note that one PC-625 has more amp-hr capacity than the E
XT36C. I would offer the EXT36C is far too limited on this important aspect
. While a second alternator will mitigate the risk you will need to be thou
ghtful on how you set up your power distribution so you don't end up with a s
ingle failure point taking out all power. This last piece is not trivial. T
he other issue is that while the cold cranking amps is impressive for this p
roduct, the low amp-hr rating says you will not have that juice for long. N
ote the CCA for two PC-625s in parallel is about the same but for a much lon
ger crank time. My experience is I would not want any less. There is no fre
e lunch.
>
> Other than reduced wiring I don't see any advantage for mounting any batte
ry on the firewall for an RV-10, and a lot of downside. Please also note th
at most W&Bs for RV-10s benefit having the battery(s) mounted in the tail co
ne. Compensating with a second alternator will only aggravate the W&B issue
.
>
> Carl
>
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the fi
rewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A buddy did
a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by a good marg
in. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that look like goo
d candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reservoir and the f
irewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.
>>
>> The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4", 3
.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota, 405 c
old cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter wire run
s to the starter should give me great starting power.
>>
>> My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb red
uction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2 cable th
at will get a lot shorter.
>>
>> I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a seco
ndary alternator.
>>
>> Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery I
'm considering?
>>
>> http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/
>>
>> to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Wt and balance are the issue here. Some will tell you that you they don't n
eed any additional wt in the rear when flying solo, but I have found that th
ey compensate by landing faster than needed if the cg is correct.
The Rans solves this problem by putting lead in the tail cone on the S19. Y
ou might run the cg calculations with this method and see if it is do-able.
Gary
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> aircraft/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue.
The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do not recommend
this as a swap for the 925.
I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install. However,
my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery mount. My intent
is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the impact on CG. I already
fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easily bump that
up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full bird, it then
becomes weight I can move and affect CG and loading much better. I've already
had issues where the plane was loaded to the point that I was close to dropping
the tail, so the ability to move that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so considerably
longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the numbers should
work out to be about the same.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Mike, the back seats are so big.... put some heavier items in front of your
kids feet.=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Michael Kr
aus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>=0ATo: "rv10-list@matronics.com" <rv10-list
@matronics.com> =0ASent: Monday, August 4, 2014 4:21 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10
-List: Lithium battery on the firewall=0A =0A=0A=0ASo I'll counter some ide
as on battery placement.... -=0A=0AI travelled to Oshkosh with my wife (p
ax seat) and two children in the back seats (both under 10 yrs old). -Ful
l camping gear for the week. -At take off and full fuel, I was 50 lbs und
er gross and CG was good, but as I got down to 16 gallons, I was aft CG.
-So I had to place some heavy bags in the back seat floor and I was able
to keep CG within specifications all the way to 4 gallons remaining. -=0A
=0AI do have an MT prop (lighter) so maybe if I had a metal prop I'd have b
een at gross and ok on aft CG, not sure... -I am considering moving my ba
ttery forward so I can have more options when fully loaded knowing I'll hav
e to carry dead weight in the baggage compartment when flying solo....=0A
=0AJust another perspective....=0A-Mike=0A=0ASent from my iPhone=0A=0AOn Au
g 4, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
=0A=0A=0AI'm running two PC-625s both located using the per plans placement
, but with a custom mount. I note that one PC-625 has more amp-hr capacity
than the EXT36C. -I would offer the EXT36C is far too limited on this imp
ortant aspect. -While a second alternator will mitigate the risk you will
need to be thoughtful on how you set up your power distribution so you don
't end up with a single failure point taking out all power. -This last pi
ece is not trivial. -The other issue is that while the cold cranking amps
is impressive for this product, the low amp-hr rating says you will not ha
ve that juice for long. -Note the CCA for two PC-625s in parallel is abou
t the same but for a much longer crank time. My experience is I would not w
ant any less. -There is no free lunch.=0A>=0A>=0A>Other than reduced wiri
ng I don't see any advantage for mounting any battery on the firewall for a
n RV-10, and a lot of downside. -Please also note that most W&Bs for RV-1
0s benefit having the battery(s) mounted in the tail cone. -Compensating
with a second alternator will only aggravate the W&B issue.=0A>=0A>=0A>Carl
=0A>=0A>On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
=0A>=0A>=0A>I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery
on the firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail.
A buddy did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by
a good margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that
look like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reser
voir and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.-=0A>
>=0A>>The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.
4", 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota,
405 cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter w
ire runs to the starter should give me great starting power.=0A>>=0A>>My or
iginal plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb reduction
for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2 cable that wil
l get a lot shorter.=0A>>=0A>>I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for c
ritical avionics, and a secondary alternator.-=0A>>=0A>>Does anyone have
any comments about placement or capacity of the battery I'm considering?=0A
>>=0A>>http://earthxmotorsports.com/product...ntal-aircraft/=0A>>=0A>>to=0A
>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0AList"">http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV10-List D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=0A//forums.matronics.com D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0Aot;">http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D = =0A>D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0AList"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV1
0-List=0AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=0A//forums.matronics.com=0AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0Aot;">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution=0AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=================
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit, I'm
not sure I fully understand.
What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a
primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for
critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup battery for
electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do with that. The
capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th redundancy in an
electrical system failure.
Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity
mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many amp-hours
is used during, say a 10 second crank.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com> wrote:
>
> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue.
>
> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do not
> recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>
> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install.
> However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery
> mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the
> impact on CG. I already fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I
> can easily bump that up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying
> with a full bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and
> loading much better. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to
> the point that I was close to dropping the tail, so the ability to move
> that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
>
> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so
> considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the
> numbers should work out to be about the same.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
It depends entirely on how you are designing your electrical system. If you
have electronic ignition, a battery needs to be your primary backup. A
backup alternator is a nice secondary backup.
Ditto instrument panel. If you rely on glass panels for primary IFR
display, then you need something, whether mechanical or independent
electrical as backup display.
I have chosen to have a single alternator, a single main ship's battery,
with dual displays, dual ADAHARs, with independent backup batteries for
each display. I am using two magnetos for ignition. IOW, very old school
except for the glass panels. My ship's battery is the primary backup to the
alternator. After the ship's battery drops below 12.3 volts, the EFIS
backup batteries take over. So Ship's battery is of paramount concern to
me. I want around 30-40 minutes power with a navcom and a glass panel
powered before I go to EFIS only with all radios and transponder shutdown.
At that point I get another 45 min before the first EFIS quits and I turn
the second back on to give me another 45 min. So I should have 2 hours
before I lose all electrical and instrument display. If I haven't either
gotten on the ground or found VFR in 2 hours I have made multiple mistakes.
The Odyssey 925 looks to be very comparable in capacity to the RG25 Van's
planned for. Engine starting is the least important use of the ship's
battery IMHO.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit, I'm
> not sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a
> primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for
> critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup battery for
> electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do with that. The
> capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th redundancy in an
> electrical system failure.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity
> mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many amp-hours
> is used during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
I think the idea is that if you use a starting battery that's a little
bigger than you need for starting, you can also use it as one of the
redundancies. So in your case if you use something with the capacity of a
925, you might do without the extra alternator.
Another reason for extra starting capacity is that sometimes starting can
be a challenge. Yes, good maintenance and EI can make starting easier, but
extra capacity can be a big help too. I've learned that my engine, for
example, usually fires on a hot start about four blades after I hear the
starter start to complain. And, I can run the panel for a few minutes with
any anxiety about what I'm doing to the battery. So a little extra is nice
to have. So is a ground power plug, big enough for starting.
Ed, keep in mind that you're proposing a fairly complex system with a lot
of interconnects and maybe a few unknowns. Ideally each component is
transparent and just "works" but in my experience it's usually not that
simple.
--Dave
PP 60A, PC 925, TCW backup for AP & GNS, Internal batts for EFIS 1, 2, &
GPS 2
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit, I'm
> not sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a
> primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for
> critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup battery for
> electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do with that. The
> capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th redundancy in an
> electrical system failure.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity
> mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many amp-hours
> is used during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue.
>>
>> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do
>> not recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>>
>> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install.
>> However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery
>> mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the
>> impact on CG. I already fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I
>> can easily bump that up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying
>> with a full bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and
>> loading much better. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to
>> the point that I was close to dropping the tail, so the ability to move
>> that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
>>
>> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so
>> considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the
>> numbers should work out to be about the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Starters can draw about 200 amps from a new battery when cranking. Add
cold weather and CCA goes down along with increased drag of thick oil
and some age ..... not a pretty combination. After starting the battery
load is really small, especially with the new avionics designs so I'd
guess you could run out of gas before you depleted the battery. Just
depends on what you can shut down .... strobes and transponder are good
current suckers.
The CCA is the batteries capacity and is the number of amps a battery
can deliver over 30 seconds at zero degrees F ..... before the battery
voltage drops to 7.2 volts.
Linn
On 8/4/2014 9:46 PM, Ed Kranz wrote:
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit,
> I'm not sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a
> primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for
> critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup
> battery for electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do with
> that. The capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th
> redundancy in an electrical system failure.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity
> mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many
> amp-hours is used during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com
> <mailto:mcooper@live.com>> wrote:
>
> <mcooper@live.com <mailto:mcooper@live.com>>
>
> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same
> issue.
>
> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925.
> They do not recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>
> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for
> install. However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the
> original battery mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight
> that I can't manage and the impact on CG. I already fly with a
> 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easily bump that up to
> accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full bird,
> it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and loading much
> better. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to the
> point that I was close to dropping the tail, so the ability to
> move that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
>
> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year
> lifetime, so considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a
> yearly basis the numbers should work out to be about the same.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>
>
> ==========
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
There is nothing as reliable as a maintained battery. As such the battery(s
) provides the foundation for electrical power distribution capacity calcula
tions. The other issue is the confidence of design that a single point fail
ure will not take out non-vital power distibution. A classic example of thi
s is a twin engine plane having two alternators and two batteries but a comm
on master buss. This led to a twin having sudden and total loss of all powe
r when the common buss failed as a result of a high resistance connection.
For me I used a design criteria of 2 hours of IFR flight using just one of t
he two installed PC-625 batteries and no altenator. This is the "must have b
attery amp-hr capacity" for my plane. Here again one must be thorough in de
sign to make sure that under practical failure modes at least one battery ca
n always be directed to the avionic loads. If you are running dual LightSpe
ed ignitions this criterial becomes exceptionally important.
Some procedural rules follow. For example if one flogs a battery(s) into th
e ground on a hard start the reserve amp-hr capacity will not be available f
or at least the first part of the flight. Another example is leaving a mast
er on. At this point even if you can breath some life back into it the batt
ery, capacity is compromised and it should be replaced. As an alternative t
o doing periodic battery discharge testing to verify amp-hr capacity I just r
eplace one of the two PC-625 batteries every two years. The pulled batterie
s end up providing many years of service in tractors here at the airpark.
Carl
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit, I'm n
ot sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a pri
mary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for critical a
vionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup battery for electronic
ignition, depending on what I decide to do with that. The capacity of the s
tarter battery will become the 4th redundancy in an electrical system failur
e.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity most
ly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many amp-hours is us
ed during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com> wrote-->
RV10-List message posted by: "charliewaffles" <mcooper@live.com>
>>
>> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue
>> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do no
t recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>>
>> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install. H
owever, my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery mount.
My intent is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the impact o
n CG. I already fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easil
y bump that up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full
bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and loading much bett
er. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to the point that I w
as close to dropping the tail, so the ability to move that big of a weight m
oment is very helpful.
>>
>> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so c
onsiderably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the numbers s
hould work out to be about the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Depends on what equipment you have. My glass panels draw about 3.7 amps
each. My transponder draw is 0.1 to 0.2 amps. My GTN650 is almost 4
amps, while the SL30 is 0.2-0.3 amps receiving and maybe 1.5
transmitting. My LED strobes and nav lights are a fraction of the old
incandescent nav lights and flash tube strobes. I figure I can fly on
one glass panel and the SL-30 for nav if needed. Given a battery
capacity of over 25 amp hours should give me 3-4 hours in theory. I'd be
happy with half that.
On 8/4/2014 7:38 PM, Linn Walters wrote:
> Just depends on what you can shut down .... strobes and transponder
> are good current suckers.
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Another thing to consider is lithium batteries are notoriously terrible in c
old weather. When I was racing motorcycles I had to warm the battery up befo
re it would think about cranking on a cold morning. I would probably install
some sort of battery heater to ensure it's operating at max efficiency when
it's started for the first time during a cold spell
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I admit, I'm n
ot sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on a pri
mary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery for critical a
vionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup battery for electronic
ignition, depending on what I decide to do with that. The capacity of the s
tarter battery will become the 4th redundancy in an electrical system failur
e.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery capacity most
ly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how many amp-hours is us
ed during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue.
>>
>> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do no
t recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>>
>> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install. H
owever, my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery mount.
My intent is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the impact o
n CG. I already fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easil
y bump that up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full
bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and loading much bett
er. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to the point that I w
as close to dropping the tail, so the ability to move that big of a weight m
oment is very helpful.
>>
>> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so c
onsiderably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the numbers s
hould work out to be about the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
I suppose I can throw in my .02 also, although with depreciation
it may only be worth .01.
I've read the other comments so far, and many people brought
up good points. First, I know of at least one other person who
lives up in the midwest (I can't remember who, but I remember
the conversation) who put a 680 in and found it wasn't quite enough
crank when very cold as it gets up here. They ended up swapping
for a 925. So at the very least, I would buy a larger battery than
gives that equivalent crank in the winter. And don't discount how
LONG it can crank the engine also...if you're flooded in a hot start
situation in the summer, it isn't inconceivable that you could end
up cranking too many times to get started with a smaller battery.
Please, I don't want to re-hash the old hot start procedures
in this thread.
I also have not warmed myself up to the idea of dual EI's. I certainly
think it can be done to a fairly good level, but as of yet I am
not willing to put all of my eggs into the EI basket. Having a mag
is still the most long-term proven thing to get you by when have
zero battery...and no, I'm not considering the phantom p-mag.
I also was lured, early on, into the "lets just buy another alternator"
concept. Check my panel, it's even got Aux Alternator silkscreened on
it. It took me a while to lose all of that crazyness. Sometimes I
think too many people don't follow the K.I.S.S. principle and not only
does it cost them build time, but it costs them lots of money, and it
can make their airplane more complex to even understand, even for the
builder who built it. It's just yet one more system that can fail,
one more piece of hardware that can leave you stranded, and one more
pile of paper out of your wallet.
I liked my aux battery pack, and my PC925 sized battery, and I knew
that would give me comfortable range. If I remember right, my Aux
will run me an hour or so. That's without even relying on the 925.
1 hour in the RV-10 can easily get you over 150nm. Do you think
you can find an airport you can successfully fly an approach to,
somewhere in a 100nm radius of where you are? I criscrossed the
country a few times and I can't remember ever being more than about
50 miles from an airport. I've probably got over 2 hours of
avionics time, if I shed some load, so the batteries alone will
get me on the ground. A dead alternator isn't that big of a deal
if you catch it. A dead battery isn't either, if you have a working
alternator. What's the chance that you'll fail both at the same
time? Not much. And if you have aux batteries, you STILL have
juice. And, take it one more step....what's the chance that even
IF you fail an alternator and battery, that you'll be in IMC
on that flight. In over 1000 hours, I've found IMC to be much more
elusive than VMC. So when you start playing odds, you're looking
at some pretty slim chances of losing everything. I personally believe
that a fairly simple system, will likely be more reliable in the
long run. And, to cap it off, I'm also not opposed to landing on the
road 2 miles off my wing if all heck breaks loose. My original
intention was to fly for a bit, and add the aux alt after I saw
what I had. After a bit, I started to see that I had just gone a
little off the deep end, and was more comfortable with just a
PC925 and aux batteries.
As far as lithium batteries go, I drive one every day to work,
and I'm comfortable with that, but I've watched enough youtube
vids and read enough on the dreamliner to know that I'm not going
to be an early adopter of any Lithium battery. I know that the
single most impossible situation to survive in an airplane is
not that the battery will die flying IFR, but that there will be
a fire in the cockpit, or on the airframe. If it was a fuel
fire, I'd be MORE comfortable, because you may have a chance of
making it out after cranking the red arrow on the tunnel top. But
if your battery does decide to smoke or burn, there is really not
anything you will do to put it out. So if you go Lithium
technologies, also consider the Halon fire extinguisher system
to put near it. I wouldn't put it in MY plane right now, when I'm
flying the family...but if you do, take every precaution. Maybe
after 6 years more of experience, when they're flying in 3000 other
eager beaver's planes, and are more widely adopted by GA manufacturers,
I'll change my mind, but in some things, being an early adopter isn't
my forte'. Fuel systems especially, but anything that can cause
a fire...definitely.
Regarding CG, if you DO go lithium, I think the firewall would
be a good place. Lose the aux alternator and you will still be
fine for CG. Trust me, when you're alone you can always add
baggage ballast (although I personally feel it's unnecessary), but
I have many many more hours where I've FILLED the tail with gear
and could USE the extra CG range aft than I have where I could
have used ballast. I probably fly 10x as much where I carry
lots of baggage than when I carry none...and when I have none, I
still have my tool bag which is maybe 8-10 lbs, and tie downs that
are 8lbs too. Also, if you put the battery on the forward side
of the firewall, I think that would be better, if you're using
lithium. Better yet would be to build a release system into
the battery so if it does start on fire, you can jettison it. But
putting it FWF may keep that fire from bringing you down...maybe.
Either way, I think CG is a non-issue...you could do a PC925
in the rear, or a Lithium in rear or front, and it just doesn't
matter. The Dan Lloyd references don't count for anything, unless
you plan to crimp your battery terminals with a pliers...which
I'm sure is not the case. Bad crimps are what was found that brought
that plane down.
I suppose since I already wrote too much, can keep going with one
more thing...load shedding. What *really* is minimal equipment if you
have an issue while flying...even IFR or VFR. Do you really CARE if
you have a transponder on if you are looking to keep your last bit
of juice? I don't think I do. Do you need strobes, or nav lights?
I don't. Maybe a landing light, 1 nav/com, and 1 GPS would be nice.
I'd want attitude/altitude at minimum too. I don't know all about
the G3X, but I'd think you could have plenty with one screen,
and the associated sensors. One thing I don't know is, do you even
need the GTN to have power? On the Chelton, each box will work
independently if it gets GPS signal from the GADAHRS. If the G3X
is the same, maybe you don't even need the GTN. Certainly if it
is VFR daytime (the most common type of flying) when it happens,
an ipad would suffice as the entire avionics suite, with your eyes
out the window. You don't even need airspeed indication to fly
the airplane.
So that's a lot to digest and think through. Some of the other big
benefits to following the K.I.S.S. principle are: lower cost,
easier to build, quicker to complete, less to troubleshoot later.
Tim
On 8/4/2014 9:31 PM, David Saylor wrote:
> I think the idea is that if you use a starting battery that's a little
> bigger than you need for starting, you can also use it as one of the
> redundancies. So in your case if you use something with the capacity of
> a 925, you might do without the extra alternator.
>
> Another reason for extra starting capacity is that sometimes starting
> can be a challenge. Yes, good maintenance and EI can make starting
> easier, but extra capacity can be a big help too. I've learned that my
> engine, for example, usually fires on a hot start about four blades
> after I hear the starter start to complain. And, I can run the panel
> for a few minutes with any anxiety about what I'm doing to the battery.
> So a little extra is nice to have. So is a ground power plug, big
> enough for starting.
>
> Ed, keep in mind that you're proposing a fairly complex system with a
> lot of interconnects and maybe a few unknowns. Ideally each component
> is transparent and just "works" but in my experience it's usually not
> that simple.
>
> --Dave
>
> PP 60A, PC 925, TCW backup for AP & GNS, Internal batts for EFIS 1, 2, &
> GPS 2
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com
> <mailto:ed.kranz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I
> admit, I'm not sure I fully understand.
>
> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on
> a primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery
> for critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup
> battery for electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do
> with that. The capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th
> redundancy in an electrical system failure.
>
> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery
> capacity mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how
> many amp-hours is used during, say a 10 second crank.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com
> <mailto:mcooper@live.com>> wrote:
>
> <mcooper@live.com <mailto:mcooper@live.com>>
>
> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this
> same issue.
>
> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925.
> They do not recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>
> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for
> install. However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the
> original battery mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight
> that I can't manage and the impact on CG. I already fly with a
> 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easily bump that up
> to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full
> bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and
> loading much better. I've already had issues where the plane was
> loaded to the point that I was close to dropping the tail, so
> the ability to move that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
>
> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year
> lifetime, so considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a
> yearly basis the numbers should work out to be about the same.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>
>
> ==========
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lithium battery on the firewall |
Finally!!!!!!!!!
: )>
something to replace Primer Wars!!!!
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose I can throw in my .02 also, although with depreciation
> it may only be worth .01.
>
> I've read the other comments so far, and many people brought
> up good points. First, I know of at least one other person who
> lives up in the midwest (I can't remember who, but I remember
> the conversation) who put a 680 in and found it wasn't quite enough
> crank when very cold as it gets up here. They ended up swapping
> for a 925. So at the very least, I would buy a larger battery than
> gives that equivalent crank in the winter. And don't discount how
> LONG it can crank the engine also...if you're flooded in a hot start
> situation in the summer, it isn't inconceivable that you could end
> up cranking too many times to get started with a smaller battery.
> Please, I don't want to re-hash the old hot start procedures
> in this thread.
>
> I also have not warmed myself up to the idea of dual EI's. I certainly
> think it can be done to a fairly good level, but as of yet I am
> not willing to put all of my eggs into the EI basket. Having a mag
> is still the most long-term proven thing to get you by when have
> zero battery...and no, I'm not considering the phantom p-mag.
>
> I also was lured, early on, into the "lets just buy another alternator"
> concept. Check my panel, it's even got Aux Alternator silkscreened on it.
> It took me a while to lose all of that crazyness. Sometimes I
> think too many people don't follow the K.I.S.S. principle and not only
> does it cost them build time, but it costs them lots of money, and it
> can make their airplane more complex to even understand, even for the
> builder who built it. It's just yet one more system that can fail,
> one more piece of hardware that can leave you stranded, and one more
> pile of paper out of your wallet.
>
> I liked my aux battery pack, and my PC925 sized battery, and I knew
> that would give me comfortable range. If I remember right, my Aux
> will run me an hour or so. That's without even relying on the 925.
> 1 hour in the RV-10 can easily get you over 150nm. Do you think
> you can find an airport you can successfully fly an approach to,
> somewhere in a 100nm radius of where you are? I criscrossed the
> country a few times and I can't remember ever being more than about
> 50 miles from an airport. I've probably got over 2 hours of
> avionics time, if I shed some load, so the batteries alone will
> get me on the ground. A dead alternator isn't that big of a deal
> if you catch it. A dead battery isn't either, if you have a working
> alternator. What's the chance that you'll fail both at the same
> time? Not much. And if you have aux batteries, you STILL have
> juice. And, take it one more step....what's the chance that even
> IF you fail an alternator and battery, that you'll be in IMC
> on that flight. In over 1000 hours, I've found IMC to be much more
> elusive than VMC. So when you start playing odds, you're looking
> at some pretty slim chances of losing everything. I personally believe
> that a fairly simple system, will likely be more reliable in the
> long run. And, to cap it off, I'm also not opposed to landing on the
> road 2 miles off my wing if all heck breaks loose. My original
> intention was to fly for a bit, and add the aux alt after I saw
> what I had. After a bit, I started to see that I had just gone a
> little off the deep end, and was more comfortable with just a
> PC925 and aux batteries.
>
> As far as lithium batteries go, I drive one every day to work,
> and I'm comfortable with that, but I've watched enough youtube
> vids and read enough on the dreamliner to know that I'm not going
> to be an early adopter of any Lithium battery. I know that the
> single most impossible situation to survive in an airplane is
> not that the battery will die flying IFR, but that there will be
> a fire in the cockpit, or on the airframe. If it was a fuel
> fire, I'd be MORE comfortable, because you may have a chance of
> making it out after cranking the red arrow on the tunnel top. But
> if your battery does decide to smoke or burn, there is really not
> anything you will do to put it out. So if you go Lithium
> technologies, also consider the Halon fire extinguisher system
> to put near it. I wouldn't put it in MY plane right now, when I'm
> flying the family...but if you do, take every precaution. Maybe
> after 6 years more of experience, when they're flying in 3000 other
> eager beaver's planes, and are more widely adopted by GA manufacturers,
> I'll change my mind, but in some things, being an early adopter isn't
> my forte'. Fuel systems especially, but anything that can cause
> a fire...definitely.
>
> Regarding CG, if you DO go lithium, I think the firewall would
> be a good place. Lose the aux alternator and you will still be
> fine for CG. Trust me, when you're alone you can always add
> baggage ballast (although I personally feel it's unnecessary), but
> I have many many more hours where I've FILLED the tail with gear
> and could USE the extra CG range aft than I have where I could
> have used ballast. I probably fly 10x as much where I carry
> lots of baggage than when I carry none...and when I have none, I
> still have my tool bag which is maybe 8-10 lbs, and tie downs that
> are 8lbs too. Also, if you put the battery on the forward side
> of the firewall, I think that would be better, if you're using
> lithium. Better yet would be to build a release system into
> the battery so if it does start on fire, you can jettison it. But
> putting it FWF may keep that fire from bringing you down...maybe.
> Either way, I think CG is a non-issue...you could do a PC925
> in the rear, or a Lithium in rear or front, and it just doesn't
> matter. The Dan Lloyd references don't count for anything, unless
> you plan to crimp your battery terminals with a pliers...which
> I'm sure is not the case. Bad crimps are what was found that brought
> that plane down.
>
> I suppose since I already wrote too much, can keep going with one
> more thing...load shedding. What *really* is minimal equipment if you
> have an issue while flying...even IFR or VFR. Do you really CARE if
> you have a transponder on if you are looking to keep your last bit
> of juice? I don't think I do. Do you need strobes, or nav lights?
> I don't. Maybe a landing light, 1 nav/com, and 1 GPS would be nice.
> I'd want attitude/altitude at minimum too. I don't know all about
> the G3X, but I'd think you could have plenty with one screen,
> and the associated sensors. One thing I don't know is, do you even
> need the GTN to have power? On the Chelton, each box will work
> independently if it gets GPS signal from the GADAHRS. If the G3X
> is the same, maybe you don't even need the GTN. Certainly if it
> is VFR daytime (the most common type of flying) when it happens,
> an ipad would suffice as the entire avionics suite, with your eyes
> out the window. You don't even need airspeed indication to fly
> the airplane.
>
> So that's a lot to digest and think through. Some of the other big
> benefits to following the K.I.S.S. principle are: lower cost,
> easier to build, quicker to complete, less to troubleshoot later.
>
> Tim
>
> On 8/4/2014 9:31 PM, David Saylor wrote:
>
>> I think the idea is that if you use a starting battery that's a little
>> bigger than you need for starting, you can also use it as one of the
>> redundancies. So in your case if you use something with the capacity of
>> a 925, you might do without the extra alternator.
>>
>> Another reason for extra starting capacity is that sometimes starting
>> can be a challenge. Yes, good maintenance and EI can make starting
>> easier, but extra capacity can be a big help too. I've learned that my
>> engine, for example, usually fires on a hot start about four blades
>> after I hear the starter start to complain. And, I can run the panel
>> for a few minutes with any anxiety about what I'm doing to the battery.
>> So a little extra is nice to have. So is a ground power plug, big
>> enough for starting.
>>
>> Ed, keep in mind that you're proposing a fairly complex system with a
>> lot of interconnects and maybe a few unknowns. Ideally each component
>> is transparent and just "works" but in my experience it's usually not
>> that simple.
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>> PP 60A, PC 925, TCW backup for AP & GNS, Internal batts for EFIS 1, 2, &
>> GPS 2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Ed Kranz <ed.kranz@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ed.kranz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> You bring up a point I've seen a few people write about, and I
>> admit, I'm not sure I fully understand.
>>
>> What do we really need starter battery capacity for? I'm planning on
>> a primary and secondary alternator, as well as a backup TCW battery
>> for critical avionics (PFD, GTN, etc). Possibly a second TCW backup
>> battery for electronic ignition, depending on what I decide to do
>> with that. The capacity of the starter battery will become the 4th
>> redundancy in an electrical system failure.
>>
>> Other than an electrical emergency, isn't the ship's battery
>> capacity mostly just useful for starting the motor? I don't know how
>> many amp-hours is used during, say a 10 second crank.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, charliewaffles <mcooper@live.com
>> <mailto:mcooper@live.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <mcooper@live.com <mailto:mcooper@live.com>>
>>
>> A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this
>> same issue.
>>
>> The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925.
>> They do not recommend this as a swap for the 925.
>>
>> I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for
>> install. However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the
>> original battery mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight
>> that I can't manage and the impact on CG. I already fly with a
>> 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easily bump that up
>> to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full
>> bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and
>> loading much better. I've already had issues where the plane was
>> loaded to the point that I was close to dropping the tail, so
>> the ability to move that big of a weight moment is very helpful.
>>
>> EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year
>> lifetime, so considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a
>> yearly basis the numbers should work out to be about the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427987#427987
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|