Battery

[GAHorn]

Thanks, Gary. I don't know Mr. Ells and cannot dispute what he states with regard to their battery... but I must say that there is surely no way any aircraft battery that meets approval, can have a recharge rate that can cause a generator to overheat if the regulator is within specification... regardless of whether that regulator is vibrating-point (original style) or solid state. The sort of logic Mr. Ells appears to be using would lead one to believe that flying around with the landing lights on would overheat a generator, despite the fact that said generator/regulators have been certified to that output level. (Electrical charging systems must be capable of producing 120% of potential demand continuously for certification.)
If Mr. Ells' battery causes overheating of certified charging systems... then perhaps his company should consider withdrawing it from the market and notifying the FAA that their product is potentially harmful to certified aircraft?

[bradbrady]

Gary,
Aparently we read the same thing! I think George is right on! Mr. Ells brought up several good ideas! But I also had some difficalitys with what he was saying! That was the reason for my post. I still (after a week) haven't heared from Astratec (the Brittish Co. I mentioned earlier) on their battery tester! After all, all batterys need tested and you can't test a recumbent like a flooded battery .
brad

[n2582d]

I e-mailed Concorde about Skip Koss' comment in the Sept. issue of AOPA that aircraft with under 50 amp generators should use flooded cell batteries rather than RG batteries. Here is his response:

"I was miss-quoted in Steve Ells September 2006 AOPA PILOT article

What I said or meant was that I recommend the standard "RG" batteries for installation over the "Platinum RG Series or XC versions when the aircraft has a generating system rated under 50 amperes.

I have had several reports from Ercoupe and Stinson operators that have small capacity generating systems, that have installed the higher capacity "XC" batteries in their aircraft and because of the "XC" versions lower internal resistance, the "XC" battery will accept a higher recharge current then the generator system was designed to produce and their generator circuit breaker pops and has to be reset several times before the battery is charged enough to reduce the current flow to a point where the circuit breaker will stay in.

This obviously is overtaxing the smaller systems and is not a safe practice. To clear this up, the standard RG batteries have the same number of positive and negative plates per cell as the standard vented "CB" series do so their internal resistance is similar between them, but because the Platinum "XC" Series have more plates per cell, their internal resistance is lower and they accept a higher recharge current after an engine start.

Skip Koss
VP Marketing
Concorde Battery Corporation"

[GAHorn]

I e-mailed Concorde about Skip Koss' comment in the Sept. issue of AOPA that aircraft with under 50 amp generators should use flooded cell batteries rather than RG batteries. Here is his response:

"I was miss-quoted in Steve Ells September 2006 AOPA PILOT article

What I said or meant was that I recommend the standard "RG" batteries for installation over the "Platinum RG Series or XC versions when the aircraft has a generating system rated under 50 amperes.

I have had several reports from Ercoupe and Stinson operators that have small capacity generating systems, that have installed the higher capacity "XC" batteries in their aircraft and because of the "XC" versions lower internal resistance, the "XC" battery will accept a higher recharge current then the generator system was designed to produce and their generator circuit breaker pops and has to be reset several times before the battery is charged enough to reduce the current flow to a point where the circuit breaker will stay in.

This obviously is overtaxing the smaller systems and is not a safe practice. To clear this up, the standard RG batteries have the same number of positive and negative plates per cell as the standard vented "CB" series do so their internal resistance is similar between them, but because the Platinum "XC" Series have more plates per cell, their internal resistance is lower and they accept a higher recharge current after an engine start.

Skip Koss
VP Marketing
Concorde Battery Corporation"

Thanks for clarifying that Gary,...but... those remarks don't make sense.
If the smaller systems circuit breaker is "popping" (and if the CB and regulator is properly sized for a healthy charging system), then if any version of their aircraft batteries causes overheating and "popping" of the breaker their battery isn't appropriate for aircraft, regardless of the aircraft's charging system capacity.

That is true for the same reasons previously stated: In a properly maintained system the regulator should be sized correspondingly with the generator. The wiring circuit and current limiters (fuse or circuit breaker) should also be properly sized relative to the charging system's capacity. In other words, if the Ercoupe or whatever has a 12 Amp generator, a 12 Amp regulator and a 12 Amp circuit breaker, then the regulator will only request 12 Amps from the generator regardless of the electrical system's demands (electrical demands including battery re-charge demands.) If their battery has low internal resistance so as to overheat a charging system then their battery is not suitable for the intended purpose (not airworthy), IMHO. They should withdraw it from the market and the FAA should revoke any approvals for it's installation in aircraft.

If, on the other hand, they have received anecdotal reports from an Ercoupe (or whatever) owner who has installed their battery and subsequently experienced such difficulties... the prudent thing for them to do (again IMHO) is to investigate further the condition of the subject aircraft's electrical system to determine that it meets specification. It's possible that some Ercoupe (or whatever) owner has installed a 25 Amp regulator in his 12 Amp system thinking he's improving his system capacity...when in fact he's exceeded the capacity of the gen and circuit breaker. If so, that certainly would cause 1) an overheated generator and 2) a popped circuit breaker.

In either case, Mr. Koss's alleged remarks would not inspire confidence as regards his understanding of charging systems.

[iowa]

i don't fly much in the winter.
would a battery tender be
appropriate to use during this time?

http://batterytender.com/default.php?cP ... aa292afc81

thanks
dave

[GAHorn]

There's a lot of material published both on the web and in print regarding the pros/cons of "maintenance" charging of batteries.
The question I would pose is: Do you want your unattended airplane continuously connected to an electrical device? What are the risks associated with that versus the risks of alternatives such as 1) removing the battery and taking it home where it can be more closely monitored, 2) Operating the aircraft once a month or so (on a pretty day perhaps) to keep the battery charged AND keep the airplane and engine excersized.
In my opinion, it's better to let the battery sit inactive for a month or so and then either remove it for charging, or alternatively flying the airplane, or alternatively removing the battery from the aircraft and placing it on a maintenance charge in a location where it will be monitored more closely.
An unmonitored battery on charge can: 1) boil over, overcharge, overheat (should the charger fail to drop it's charge rate properly) and damage the airplane. 2) Electrical malfunctions can cause fire destroying the battery the airplane or the entire hangar and the neighboring airplanes. (Most electrical codes require unattended equipment to be unplugged from the bldg. electrical supply. 3) A failed fuel valve which leaks fuel onto the hangar floor or a failed carb float needle can cause a carburetor to flood fuel into the engine compartment. These are fire hazards to an aircraft on continuous charge.
I'm fortunate that my airplane is hangared at my private hangar. But if it were in a public hangar I would be uncomfortable knowing an adjacent aircraft were continuously plugged into a charger and unmonitored. I would try to persuade the hangarkeeper to prohibit continuous "maintenance" being undertaken by absent personnel.

[spiro]

i don't fly much in the winter.
would a battery tender be
appropriate to use during this time?

I think so, you can double your battery life. Never heard of one of these overcharging a battery or burning up an airplane. I use the BatteryMinder vs. the Tender, see:
http://www.batteryweb.com/batterymindercomparison.cfm

paul

[iowa]

thanks for the replies.
i'll just plan to fly enough
to keep it charged,
and then remove the battery
during the winter!
dave

[PilotMikeTX]

I like your poetry, Dave. Is that Haiku?

[iowa]

i don't write poetry!
but the prose style of writing
has stuck with me since the days
of reading Faust, Beowolf, Shakespheare etc.
thanks
dave

[GAHorn]

i don't write poetry!
but the prose style of writing
has stuck with me since the days
of reading Faust, Beowolf, Shakespheare etc.
thanks
dave

Methinks that be Shakespeare... but wish not to make much ado about nothing.

[R COLLINS]

Well after toasting two Gill 25 batteries in two years its good to come on here and find some type of reasoning to it. My plane has a 50 amp altenator on it, and in the summer I do not get to fly very often due to hay baling season. This leads up to the point my battery gets weak and when I do get to fly I throw a charger on it long enough to start or use jumper cables for ten minutes or so. My previous 170 had a 35 amp generator on it and this system worked fine. So before you decide to change to a new expensive altenator you might consider they have short comings too. Just ordered a new Concorde RG25-XC from Spruce. I guess all this means less flying time, because if the plane sits idle for a month, I will not be able to go out and fly when there's about an hour of daylight left without putting a charger back on the battery first.
BTW: Is it ok to hook the battery charger to the cables where they meet the relay and mount to keep from hasseling with the battery box lid. There are componets mounted on the firewall just above the battery box and it is a P.I.T.A to get out. Thanks, Randal

[GAHorn]

Randal, if you have a copy of the Electrical Systems Service Manual, you will see the installation of the AN-2552-2 ground service plug. (also can be found in Fig. 93 of the B-model IPC.)
This unit connects directly to the battery at the master solenoid and provides an easy/fast way to connect a charger directly to the battery. This can allow you to charge the battery without uncowling, or jump start without accessing the battery box. The AN 2552-2 plug is accessed thru the lower cowling exit, at the firewall lower edge, so no cutting or sheet metal work is required. You don't even have to open a cowl door. (If you plan to be at Reklaw you can see my installation.)
I still have the necessary parts for a couple of AK70B52-9 Ground Service Plug Kits available which include the AN 2552-2 plug, stainless mounting bracket, and the 00 copper cable. Price: $125.
Or you can buy the AN 2552-3A (a valid substitute) from Spruce, and come up with your own additional parts as necessary.

This is a good mod also for those with alternators, since you can use any auto or FBO's 12-14 volt ground power unit to start and/or charge your aircraft and battery without propping. (While a generator equipped airplane will charge a battery after hand-propping...the alternator equipped aircraft will not, unless there is a source of power to excite the alternator's field, such as thru a GPU or jump-start.)

I have a set of auto jumper cables I cut the clamps off one end and installed the ground power unit's AN 2551 female plug on that end. Now I can jump start, charge from an auto, or charge from a battery charger all without uncowling the airplane. I also can use the charger as a ground power supply when running the airplane electrics on the ground when I don't want to discharge the battery or start the engine (such as in the hangar.)

[R COLLINS]

Thanks for the reply George. I hate to add one ounce of weight to my plane. I rountinely fly with four seats full of 680#s of flesh and the boys are still growing. Also I am not one to trust a battery tender hooked to my plane for a month or two unattended either. What about a solar panel maintainer/charger on the roof of the hanger with clips to hook to relay? Would it be worth the time, not hard to unhook it while checking oil, etc.? RC

[GAHorn]

<edited>
A solar battery charger may work, but most of them are such low-power it's unlikely to do much for you unless connected for a while. It's probably just safer to place the battery on charge once a month, or at least while you preflight and load up. Your auto can be used for a GPU/and charge your aircraft battery while you're getting the wx and loading up.

The reason I was willing to go to the trouble/expense of a Ground Service Plug was because my 53 B-model's battery is on the starboard side of the firewall, but my cowl only has a door on the port side, making the battery box inaccessible unless the upper cowl is removed. The Ground Service Plug was the easy way out for me.