Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:25 AM - Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 12/19/11 (teamgrumman-list@kessens.com)
2. 12:11 PM - Re: Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 12/19/11 (923te)
3. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: Tinnerman speed nuts #4 (Gary Vogt)
4. 06:57 PM - Re: Lithium-Ion =?UTF-8?Q?Battery=3F? ()
5. 07:04 PM - Flying 626 (Gary Vogt)
6. 07:20 PM - Re: Flying 626 (Scott Trejo)
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: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 12/19/11 |
Jim,
> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>
> Time: 11:03:27 AM PST US
> From: <jim@poogiebearranch.com>
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Lithium-Ion =?UTF-8?Q?Battery=3F?
>
> I was intrigued, because I've been following some of the "electric
> flying" stuff at EAA and other sites, and there's a lot of "control
> stuff" that goes along with those batteries. Got me wondering what
> Concorde knew that others didn't... So I went to their website to read:
They are trying to say: We are a very profitable duopoly and we are not
interested in innovation as that would cut directly into our bottom line.
At the same time, we warn everybody that we do know that this technology
exists as we are happy to sell such uncertified batteries for overinflated
prices to the military industrial complex so there is no point as a little
guy to try and get your own STC as we are ready to crush you if you dare to
come to market with a product like this.
Just check out http://www.shoraipower.com for a company that sells a very
nice battery that is simply no comparison to batteries that we are forced to
fly with.
David Kessens
PS1 Speaking with fresh hole in my wallet having just bought another G25 that
is filled with nasty and dangerous acids, will fail within 2 years and
forces me to carry around 15pds of extra weight on every
flight compared to a more modern equivalent.
PS2 Our car contains 660 pds of battery of similar chemistry and
I don't feel exactly unsafe.
---
>
> <<"The lithium-ion main aircraft battery will not be a retrofit battery.
> In order to assure safe operation, the lithium-ion battery must be
> integrated into the control software and electronics of the aircraft
> system. Redundant safety systems built into the aircraft as well as into
> the battery are required to control the lithium-ion battery. With
> adequate protection systems and monitoring, the battery will provide
> reliable power for the aircraft of the future.>>
>
> <<Advantages:
> * High energy density potential for yet higher capacities.
> * Does not need prolonged priming when new. One regular charge is all
> that's needed.
> * Relatively low self-discharge - self-discharge is less than half that
> of nickel-based batteries.
> * Low Maintenance - no periodic discharge is needed; there is no memory.
>
> * Specialty cells can provide very high current.>>
>
> <<Limitations:
> * Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and current within
> safe limits. Protection circuitry involves both additional hardware and
> software.
> * On aircraft battery monitoring and alarms will be required for safe
> operation.
> * Subject to aging, even if not in use - storage in a cool place at 40%
> charge reduces the aging effect.
> * Transportation restrictions - shipment of larger batteries may be
> subject to regulatory control.
> * Expensive to manufacture - about 40 percent higher in cost than
> nickel-cadmium.
> * Not a fully mature chemistry - metals and chemicals are changing on a
> continuing basis.
> * Extremely flammable electrolyte. ">>
>
> While the advantages sound great, the disadvantages are significant, and
> it sounds like there's a lot of work to be done before it will be
> available for "new designs" - likely a LOT longer for retrofit -
> especially since they are saying "The lithium-ion main aircraft battery
> will not be a retrofit battery."
>
> Seems like we'd be safe going ahead with a Concorde for the next 2-3
> years, at least... (Just my 2 cents worth.)
>
> Jim Parker (hoping to be a "new" Cheetah owner before the end of the
> year...)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:02:51 PM PST US
> From: 923te <923te@att.net>
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Lithium-Ion Battery?
>
>
> Jim
> I think there is perhaps a lot of protection language on the Concorde website.
> That is liability protection. The experimental world is already using the Lithium
> Iron Phosphate batteries as direct replacements. These latest generation batteries,
> like in the Chevy Volt and others do not have the issues of blowing
> up etc and don't require the controls you are talking about
> See. http://www.lithiummoto.com/
>
> And others like for more info
>
> Where you can replace your 29lb 12volt battery with one that weighs around 2.5lbs
> as in the following picture
> http://www.lithiummoto.com/gallery.html
> Ned
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:00 PM, <jim@poogiebearranch.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "923te" wrote:
> > << Probably by the time you get an STC the new Lithium ion batteries
> > will be available for our grummans. You might want to consider that
> > before investing a lot of time into a battery that will probably fade
> > away in the not to distant future. The lithuim ion battery will be half
> > the weight of the current battery. Maybe even less.>>
> >
> > I was intrigued, because I've been following some of the "electric
> > flying" stuff at EAA and other sites, and there's a lot of "control
> > stuff" that goes along with those batteries. Got me wondering what
> > Concorde knew that others didn't... So I went to their website to read:
> >
> > <<"The lithium-ion main aircraft battery will not be a retrofit battery.
> > In order to assure safe operation, the lithium-ion battery must be
> > integrated into the control software and electronics of the aircraft
> > system. Redundant safety systems built into the aircraft as well as into
> > the battery are required to control the lithium-ion battery. With
> > adequate protection systems and monitoring, the battery will provide
> > reliable power for the aircraft of the future.>>
> >
> > <<Advantages:
> > * High energy density potential for yet higher capacities.
> > * Does not need prolonged priming when new. One regular charge is all
> > that's needed.
> > * Relatively low self-discharge - self-discharge is less than half that
> > of nickel-based batteries.
> > * Low Maintenance - no periodic discharge is needed; there is no memory.
> >
> > * Specialty cells can provide very high current.>>
> >
> > <<Limitations:
> > * Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and current within
> > safe limits. Protection circuitry involves both additional hardware and
> > software.
> > * On aircraft battery monitoring and alarms will be required for safe
> > operation.
> > * Subject to aging, even if not in use - storage in a cool place at 40%
> > charge reduces the aging effect.
> > * Transportation restrictions - shipment of larger batteries may be
> > subject to regulatory control.
> > * Expensive to manufacture - about 40 percent higher in cost than
> > nickel-cadmium.
> > * Not a fully mature chemistry - metals and chemicals are changing on a
> > continuing basis.
> > * Extremely flammable electrolyte. ">>
> >
> > While the advantages sound great, the disadvantages are significant, and
> > it sounds like there's a lot of work to be done before it will be
> > available for "new designs" - likely a LOT longer for retrofit -
> > especially since they are saying "The lithium-ion main aircraft battery
> > will not be a retrofit battery."
> >
> > Seems like we'd be safe going ahead with a Concorde for the next 2-3
> > years, at least... (Just my 2 cents worth.)
> >
> > Jim Parker (hoping to be a "new" Cheetah owner before the end of the
> > year...)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:33:26 PM PST US
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 2011 List of Contributors
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> The 2011 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple
of
> weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. Its
> the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible.
> Their generous contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and
> running!
>
> You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
> time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
>
> Matt Dralle / Matronics
> 581 Jeannie Way
> Livermore CA 94550
>
>
> I also want to thank Bob, Jon, and Andy for their generous support through the
> supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great products and I
encourage
> you to visit their respective web sites:
>
> Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
> Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
>
> Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
>
>
> And finally, I'm proud to present The 2011 Fund Raiser List of Contributors:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/loc/2011.html
>
>
> Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
David Kessens
---
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: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 12/19/11 |
David,
That was really good
Probably much more accurate than we care to acknowledge....
ned
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman-list@kessens.com
To: TeamGrumman-List Digest Server
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:21 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 6 Msgs -
12/19/11
Jim,
> ________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
>
> Time: 11:03:27 AM PST US
> From: <jim@poogiebearranch.com>
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Lithium-Ion =?UTF-8?Q?Battery=3F?
>
> I was intrigued, because I've been following some of the "electric
> flying" stuff at EAA and other sites, and there's a lot of "control
> stuff" that goes along with those batteries. Got me wondering what
> Concorde knew that others didn't... So I went to their website to
read:
They are trying to say: We are a very profitable duopoly and we are
not
interested in innovation as that would cut directly into our bottom
line.
At the same time, we warn everybody that we do know that this
technology
exists as we are happy to sell such uncertified batteries for
overinflated
prices to the military industrial complex so there is no point as a
little
guy to try and get your own STC as we are ready to crush you if you
dare to
come to market with a product like this.
Just check out http://www.shoraipower.com for a company that sells a
very
nice battery that is simply no comparison to batteries that we are
forced to
fly with.
David Kessens
PS1 Speaking with fresh hole in my wallet having just bought another
G25 that
is filled with nasty and dangerous acids, will fail within 2 years
and
forces me to carry around 15pds of extra weight on every
flight compared to a more modern equivalent.
PS2 Our car contains 660 pds of battery of similar chemistry and
I don't feel exactly unsafe.
---
>
> <<"The lithium-ion main aircraft battery will not be a retrofit
battery.
> In order to assure safe operation, the lithium-ion battery must be
> integrated into the control software and electronics of the aircraft
> system. Redundant safety systems built into the aircraft as well as
into
> the battery are required to control the lithium-ion battery. With
> adequate protection systems and monitoring, the battery will provide
> reliable power for the aircraft of the future.>>
>
> <<Advantages:
> * High energy density potential for yet higher capacities.
> * Does not need prolonged priming when new. One regular charge is
all
> that's needed.
> * Relatively low self-discharge - self-discharge is less than half
that
> of nickel-based batteries.
> * Low Maintenance - no periodic discharge is needed; there is no
memory.
>
> * Specialty cells can provide very high current.>>
>
> <<Limitations:
> * Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and current within
> safe limits. Protection circuitry involves both additional hardware
and
> software.
> * On aircraft battery monitoring and alarms will be required for
safe
> operation.
> * Subject to aging, even if not in use - storage in a cool place at
40%
> charge reduces the aging effect.
> * Transportation restrictions - shipment of larger batteries may be
> subject to regulatory control.
> * Expensive to manufacture - about 40 percent higher in cost than
> nickel-cadmium.
> * Not a fully mature chemistry - metals and chemicals are changing
on a
> continuing basis.
> * Extremely flammable electrolyte. ">>
>
> While the advantages sound great, the disadvantages are significant,
and
> it sounds like there's a lot of work to be done before it will be
> available for "new designs" - likely a LOT longer for retrofit -
> especially since they are saying "The lithium-ion main aircraft
battery
> will not be a retrofit battery."
>
> Seems like we'd be safe going ahead with a Concorde for the next 2-3
> years, at least... (Just my 2 cents worth.)
>
> Jim Parker (hoping to be a "new" Cheetah owner before the end of the
> year...)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:02:51 PM PST US
> From: 923te <923te@att.net>
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Lithium-Ion Battery?
>
>
> Jim
> I think there is perhaps a lot of protection language on the
Concorde website.
> That is liability protection. The experimental world is already
using the Lithium
> Iron Phosphate batteries as direct replacements. These latest
generation batteries,
> like in the Chevy Volt and others do not have the issues of blowing
> up etc and don't require the controls you are talking about
> See. http://www.lithiummoto.com/
>
> And others like for more info
>
> Where you can replace your 29lb 12volt battery with one that weighs
around 2.5lbs
> as in the following picture
> http://www.lithiummoto.com/gallery.html
> Ned
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:00 PM, <jim@poogiebearranch.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "923te" wrote:
> > << Probably by the time you get an STC the new Lithium ion
batteries
> > will be available for our grummans. You might want to consider
that
> > before investing a lot of time into a battery that will probably
fade
> > away in the not to distant future. The lithuim ion battery will be
half
> > the weight of the current battery. Maybe even less.>>
> >
> > I was intrigued, because I've been following some of the "electric
> > flying" stuff at EAA and other sites, and there's a lot of
"control
> > stuff" that goes along with those batteries. Got me wondering
what
> > Concorde knew that others didn't... So I went to their website to
read:
> >
> > <<"The lithium-ion main aircraft battery will not be a retrofit
battery.
> > In order to assure safe operation, the lithium-ion battery must be
> > integrated into the control software and electronics of the
aircraft
> > system. Redundant safety systems built into the aircraft as well
as into
> > the battery are required to control the lithium-ion battery. With
> > adequate protection systems and monitoring, the battery will
provide
> > reliable power for the aircraft of the future.>>
> >
> > <<Advantages:
> > * High energy density potential for yet higher capacities.
> > * Does not need prolonged priming when new. One regular charge is
all
> > that's needed.
> > * Relatively low self-discharge - self-discharge is less than half
that
> > of nickel-based batteries.
> > * Low Maintenance - no periodic discharge is needed; there is no
memory.
> >
> > * Specialty cells can provide very high current.>>
> >
> > <<Limitations:
> > * Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and current
within
> > safe limits. Protection circuitry involves both additional
hardware and
> > software.
> > * On aircraft battery monitoring and alarms will be required for
safe
> > operation.
> > * Subject to aging, even if not in use - storage in a cool place
at 40%
> > charge reduces the aging effect.
> > * Transportation restrictions - shipment of larger batteries may
be
> > subject to regulatory control.
> > * Expensive to manufacture - about 40 percent higher in cost than
> > nickel-cadmium.
> > * Not a fully mature chemistry - metals and chemicals are changing
on a
> > continuing basis.
> > * Extremely flammable electrolyte. ">>
> >
> > While the advantages sound great, the disadvantages are
significant, and
> > it sounds like there's a lot of work to be done before it will be
> > available for "new designs" - likely a LOT longer for retrofit -
> > especially since they are saying "The lithium-ion main aircraft
battery
> > will not be a retrofit battery."
> >
> > Seems like we'd be safe going ahead with a Concorde for the next
2-3
> > years, at least... (Just my 2 cents worth.)
> >
> > Jim Parker (hoping to be a "new" Cheetah owner before the end of
the
> > year...)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:33:26 PM PST US
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 2011 List of Contributors
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> The 2011 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended
a couple of
> weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of
Contributors. Its
> the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and
Forums possible.
> Their generous contributions keep the servers and Internet
connection up and
> running!
>
> You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift
at the same
> time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
>
> Matt Dralle / Matronics
> 581 Jeannie Way
> Livermore CA 94550
>
>
> I also want to thank Bob, Jon, and Andy for their generous support
through the
> supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great
products and I encourage
> you to visit their respective web sites:
>
> Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
> Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
>
> Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore -
http://www.buildersbooks.com
>
>
> And finally, I'm proud to present The 2011 Fund Raiser List of
Contributors:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/loc/2011.html
>
>
> Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
David Kessens
---
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: | Re: Tinnerman speed nuts #4 |
When I click on the Falcon link, the price comes up as $.16 each.-=0A=0AW
hat do you mean, "If you get stuck with Falcon?"=0A=0A16 cents is reasonabl
e.-=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: grumpyparts <i.r.m@
btinternet.com>=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, Decem
ber 19, 2011 7:50 AM=0ASubject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Tinnerman speed nuts
ernet.com>=0A=0AGary and Bob=0A=0AThe A6187-4Z-1's came in today, they look
good. If you get stuck with Falcon I have 50 and will be getting more.=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/v
iewtopic.php?p=361201#361201=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A=0Ahttp://foru
==================
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: | Re: Lithium-Ion =?UTF-8?Q?Battery=3F? |
Hey, Ned. It sounds really great, and I look forward to the day they
make the LIon battery avaialble for certified airplane use. My point
was really not so much about "is it safe" as it was about how long
before the feds will approve it for use in certified airplanes. Then,
once that is done, how long (if ever) before Concorde elects to pursue
"retrofit" applications - which directly correlates to whether or not
the complex charging/discharging management circuits are required.
Slightly tangential to this topic, there was a great explanation of the
micro-controllers than handle all of this on the Apple website (of all
places) the Apple website, when the current-generation "aluminum shell"
MacBook Pros were launched. Basically, they showed how they were able
to take each cell of the battery, and install a small micro-controller
in the circuitry that permitted each cell's charge/discharge rate to be
managed independenty. This advance (not really original in concept to
Apple - it's been around in solar-cell technologies for home use for a
while) allowed them to get a pretty phenomenal battery life from these
laptops. I'm sure Concorde is (or will be) using something similar, as
most of the Radio-Controlled crowd is already on board with this as
well.
It's pretty amazing the pace of advancements in the battery field that
has occurred since fuel costs have come up to the present levels. I
hope that we eventually do see the availability of "practical" electric
flight while I'm still young enough to participate in it... There are
several electric airplanes flying now with about a 1-hour flight time,
and folks who follow that industry closely expect to see 2 to 2 1/2 hour
ranges within the next couple of years. That won't replace our internal
combustion engines for cross-country flying, but for a 1-2 hour local
area sightseeing flight, or just going out to shoot some touch-and-go
patterns, it would sure be less expensive!
Great to be alive and a pilot these days, even with the high cost of -
well - EVERYTHING!
Jim (Expecting "my" Cheetah to be ready any day now... Worse than a kid
on Christmas Eve!)
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 |
|
We flew 626 to Lancaster yesterday to get a pitot-static test done. -=0A
=0AWhen Larry bought the plane, it would max out at about 130 knots. -It
was a real slug for a Tiger. -2 overhauled cylinders, overhauled prop and
new wheel pants an it does 140 knots true at 5000 feet. -=0A=0AThe autop
ilot works too. -It had been disconnected because the trim was frozen sol
id.=0A=0AThe landing lights (I landed after sunset) are a joke. -Why in t
he world would anyone prefer those wingtip lights????=0A=0AI took the left
one apart today to fix it so it didn't point at the sky. -Talk about a ha
mmered installation. -At least it points 50 feet ahead now. -There is n
o way to get the lights to point toward the middle. -They are recessed to
o deep to have turning them have any effect.=0A=0AGive me a simple single l
anding light, in the middle, any day.
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 |
|
Gary, I have Wing tip lights and they work great. I switched to LED about a
year ago , but I can tell you they more then light up the taxiway and beyon
d.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We flew 626 to Lancaster yesterday to get a pitot-static test done.
>
> When Larry bought the plane, it would max out at about 130 knots. It was a
real slug for a Tiger. 2 overhauled cylinders, overhauled prop and new whe
el pants an it does 140 knots true at 5000 feet.
>
> The autopilot works too. It had been disconnected because the trim was fr
ozen solid.
>
> The landing lights (I landed after sunset) are a joke. Why in the world w
ould anyone prefer those wingtip lights????
>
> I took the left one apart today to fix it so it didn't point at the sky. T
alk about a hammered installation. At least it points 50 feet ahead now. T
here is no way to get the lights to point toward the middle. They are reces
sed too deep to have turning them have any effect.
>
> Give me a simple single landing light, in the middle, any day.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|