Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Lithium batteries redux

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 10:35 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
Quote:
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:

Quote:
I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:

http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html

they seem to offer signficant weight reduction


I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.

I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:

http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf

As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.


Bob . . . [quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
JLuckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:28 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

Bob,

Thanks for the Li Batt summary.

One issue: I can’t remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice if the first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us memory-challenged readers the full text.

Transpositions:
Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it as SVLA (as opposed to SLVA).
Second page, 5 th para
Second page, 6 th para


After Wikipedia did not have a listing for this FLA (four-letter Acronym), I Googled for a few seconds. Some of the results were rather humorous:

Software Vendors License Agreement (that’s what I thought of immediately, ‘cause I’m a computer geek)
Sri Lanka Veterinary Association (my favorite)
Salt Lake Valley Atheists (my new favorite – the irony is too funny – Atheists in Utah/Mormons. No offense intended to Mormons)

Thanks for making us all smarter,

-Jeff



From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:32
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux


At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:


At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:



I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:

http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html

they seem to offer signficant weight reduction


I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.

I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:

http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf

As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.



Bob . . .
Quote:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8
Quote:
9
[quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 2:01 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 04:22 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Quote:
Bob,

Thanks for the Li Batt summary.

One issue: I can�t remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice if the first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us memory-challenged readers the full text.

Got my mouse cord tangled around my eye-teeth
and couldn't see what I was typing. That's supposed
to be (V)alve (R)egulated (L)ead-(A)cid or
VRLA. A.K.A. recombinant gas, starved electrolyte,
absorbed glas-mat, etc.

Quote:

Transpositions:
Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it as SVLA (as opposed to SLVA).
Second page, 5 th para
Second page, 6 th para

Had it hosed several places. Found the spell checker
in my word processor was contaminated. All is right with
the world . . . and revision B posted a few minutes ago.
Thanks for the heads-up!



Bob . . . [quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
JLuckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 2:34 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

My pleasure! It’s good to know that I wasn’t having a “senior moment” (this time;)



From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 14:55
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux


At 04:22 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:


Bob,

Thanks for the Li Batt summary.

One issue: I cant remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice if the first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us memory-challenged readers the full text.

Got my mouse cord tangled around my eye-teeth
and couldn't see what I was typing. That's supposed
to be (V)alve (R)egulated (L)ead-(A)cid or
VRLA. A.K.A. recombinant gas, starved electrolyte,
absorbed glas-mat, etc.




Transpositions:
Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it as SVLA (as opposed to SLVA).
Second page, 5 th para
Second page, 6 th para

Had it hosed several places. Found the spell checker
in my word processor was contaminated. All is right with
the world . . . and revision B posted a few minutes ago.
Thanks for the heads-up!




Bob . . .
Quote:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8
Quote:
9
[quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 7:00 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations... charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special chargers to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery. (remember when laptop computers and cell phones were reported to catch fire) I think but an not entirely sure this has been overcome.

The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held at a minimum. Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery for himself.

Noel

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: May 11, 2011 4:02 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Lithium batteries redux

At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:

I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:

http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html

they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.

I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:

http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf

As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.

Bob . . .
Quote:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
[quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 9:43 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 09:56 AM 5/13/2011, you wrote:
Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other
considerations... charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special
chargers to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery.
(remember when laptop computers and cell phones were reported to
catch fire) I think but an not entirely sure this has been overcome.

There are several Li-ion technologies . . . each with its
own attendant weaknesses and strengths. And yes, keeping
an array of series-parallel cells equally serviced in large
capacity batteries is a technology challenge. The cells
are very energetic and the demands for integrating them into
long lived, low maintenance, low risk arrays are challenges
to be met.

There ARE several lithium technologies flying in air transport
category aircraft and military aircraft. ALL of these aircraft
enjoy a great deal more attention from trained, professional
ground crews on budgets that would discourage the OBAM aircraft
owner/pilot.

The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held
at a minimum.

But "best" is non quantified. And weight is a moving
target. One might suggest that the airplane will perform
"better" if you never fly with more than 1/4 tanks. Obviously,
this cripples the overall mission performance in trade
for "better" performance en route.

Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.

Absolutely. Further, it goes beyond acquisition costs
to include cost of ownership over an extended period of
time equal to the battery's expected service life.
This was emphasized in the short essay I published. These
are an emerging technology . . . with the historically
predictable acquisition costs. My first 4-function calculator
cost me $75 used in 1980, Needed 9v batteries it ate like
popcorn. The same functionality today costs $1 at big lots and
runs for years on a button cell.

We're in the "1980's emerging technology" mode with lithium
ion batteries as main batteries for aircraft. The high
volume usage by automotive markets will have the same effect
on aircraft lithium cranking batteries as consumer grade
GPS products had on aviation specific GPS navigation. If
our fellow citizens have it bolted to THEIR cars and RV's,
then it's going to get better for OUR airplanes in the
future.

But you're right. There are dragons to slay, new dogs to
train, old dogs to retire, and market confidences to be
gained. We are presently witnessing the opening minutes
of the first quarter.

Putting the numbers to a complete set of design goals
is what the guys in the heavy-iron bird business do
to justify their salaries and test budgets. That's why
it cost $30 million to bring the Star Ship to market . . .
If we'd spent another $10 million in doing the numbers
and testing, we might have saved a boatload of money
by discovering that the product was doomed before we
put it into production.

Bob . . .

---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
stuart(at)stuarthutchison
Guest





PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:26 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

G'day,

www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is very well regarded as an expert in these technologies.

Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the same way as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead Acid. Lithium technologies have upper and lower voltage limits, otherwise the battery is ruined. In other words, if you load a Lithium battery and let it run down below the minimum voltage limit (about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the first time you use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to electronic devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of energy left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the battery is flat (such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire if short circuited.


Stu


From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:57 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux


Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations... charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special chargers to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery. (remember when laptop computers and cell phones were reported to catch fire) I think but an not entirely sure this has been overcome.

The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held at a minimum. Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery for himself.

Noel

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: May 11, 2011 4:02 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Lithium batteries redux



At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:


At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:

I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:

http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html

they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.

I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:

http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf

As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.

Bob . . .
Quote:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8 [quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
Eric M. Jones



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:58 am    Post subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

Quote:
Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations... ... Planes work best when the weight is held at a minimum. Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery for himself.
Noel


Noel et al: See the brilliant note on this in Bob's archives:

http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
You can do your own calculation on this but I'd guess that the Lithium Battery is well worth using, and time will make this decision even easier.


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 7:15 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 12:22 AM 5/14/2011, you wrote:

G'day,

www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is
very well regarded as an expert in these technologies.

Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the
same way as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead
Acid. Lithium technologies have upper and lower voltage limits,
otherwise the battery is ruined. In other words, if you load a
Lithium battery and let it run down below the minimum voltage limit
(about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the first time you
use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to electronic
devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of
energy left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the
battery is flat (such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire
if short circuited.
To be sure, the lithium batteries are not drop-in
replacements for your grandpa's tractor battery.
In spite of their relatively attractive energy/
weight/volume ratios, they are also fragile by
legacy standards.

There's been more than one tense discussion between
individuals-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
and wannabe suppliers of lithium products to aviation.

When you put any battery in an airplane, the legacy
consensus is that the pilot should be allowed to
drag every watt-second of energy out in case of
an 'emergency'. The lithium wannabes were intent upon
shutting the battery off before the terminal voltage
dropped below a level that was damaging to the battery.
Never mind that either scenario happens with perhaps 5% of
the battery capacity remaining. Those who dictate
management of emergencies would rather that your
radios fade gracefully during the last few minutes of
your emergency as opposed to going dark " just to protect
a battery". Never mind that either scenario was but
a handful of minutes before total darkness.

Both factions were honorably driven by noble ideas
. . . and both were missing the whole point of
designing failure tolerant systems supported by
thoughtful preventative maintenance programs. The
idea that we can design systems that never put a
pilot into that situation seldom occurs. Except,
of course, for cases of maintenance neglect or
bad operational decisions.

Successful and comfortable integration of lithium
batteries into the plain-vanilla GA aircraft will
require some re-adjustment of attitudes and
demand more attention from the owner/operator to
compensate for the lithium battery's unique
limits.

. . . and yes, the writings of Isidor Buchmann are
a wealth of solid information and understanding of
battery function and performance.
Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
stuart(at)stuarthutchison
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 7:37 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

G'day Bob,

Yes. I was aslo thinking of those with utility lights or other loads coming
directly off the battery bus. If a load is left on for any reason, even a
new lithium battery could be rendered useless overnight (as it won't safely
accept a charge below the minimum operating voltage).

Kind regards, Stu

--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 6:04 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held
at a minimum.

But "best" is non quantified. And weight is a moving
target. One might suggest that the airplane will perform
"better" if you never fly with more than 1/4 tanks. Obviously,
this cripples the overall mission performance in trade
for "better" performance en route.

* Noel: Being that I am the guy who normally flies at MTOW the lighter the
parts I carry aloft allow me to carry more fuel or cargo (read fishing gear)

Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.

Absolutely. Further, it goes beyond acquisition costs
to include cost of ownership over an extended period of
time equal to the battery's expected service life.
This was emphasized in the short essay I published. These
are an emerging technology . . . with the historically
predictable acquisition costs. My first 4-function calculator
cost me $75 used in 1980, Needed 9v batteries it ate like
popcorn. The same functionality today costs $1 at big lots and
runs for years on a button cell.

* Noel: Only the future will tell about the cost of lithium polymer cells.
If they become common enough the price will drop the question is of course
how much. The whole question of cost has to be compared to the value of a
dollar on any particular day. For instance the calculator you bought in
1980 and cost $75 would only be around $15.00 at today's value of the
dollar. BTW in 1980 I found a graphing calculator program for my little RS
computer... Worked great but occasionally it would give results to 16
decimal points even when set to only give two decimal point results.
We're in the "1980's emerging technology" mode with lithium
ion batteries as main batteries for aircraft. The high
volume usage by automotive markets will have the same effect
on aircraft lithium cranking batteries as consumer grade
GPS products had on aviation specific GPS navigation. If
our fellow citizens have it bolted to THEIR cars and RV's,
then it's going to get better for OUR airplanes in the
future.

But you're right. There are dragons to slay, new dogs to
train, old dogs to retire, and market confidences to be
gained. We are presently witnessing the opening minutes
of the first quarter.

Putting the numbers to a complete set of design goals
is what the guys in the heavy-iron bird business do
to justify their salaries and test budgets. That's why
it cost $30 million to bring the Star Ship to market . . .
If we'd spent another $10 million in doing the numbers
and testing, we might have saved a boatload of money
by discovering that the product was doomed before we
put it into production.

Bob I'm interested on the reason the Star Ship disappeared. I felt it had
great potential for markets where there were short paved runways. In fact I
was a little surprised when it wasn't taken up globally.

Noel

Bob . . .

---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 11:31 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
Quote:

<stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>

G'day Bob,

Yes. I was aslo thinking of those with utility lights or other loads coming
directly off the battery bus. If a load is left on for any reason, even a
new lithium battery could be rendered useless overnight (as it won't safely
accept a charge below the minimum operating voltage).

Those are the kinds of questions to be asked
and answered. If it is a no-no to deeply discharge
the lithium battery, one might offset the
characteristic by providing automatic disconnect
when the battery voltage (or watt-seconds of
drain) past certain limits. Of course, this
adds to system complexity with electro-whizzies
to manage battery idiosyncrasies. This means
another produce to design, develop, test,
produce, install, maintain, and finance the fuel
to carry it around.

This is why it is so important to know ALL there
is to know about a new product and to gage
new facts with legacy design goals to deduce
a potential for unhappy surprises.

At Beech in the 1970-1980 time frame, we had
a gentleman who ran "Jack Thurman's House of
Horrors". The general consensus was that if
Jack couldn't tear it up, it was okay to bolt
to an airplane.

Jack had all manner of vibration, bake, freeze,
wet, oil, and electrical system mock-ups with
which to torment the offerings of the hopeful new
supplier. I knew Jack pretty well as one of those
"hopefuls" and learned to do my homework before
I let him get his hands on it. He contributed
greatly to my education as a thoughtful designer.

Bottom line is that the four-color brochures and
30-second promotional videos offer only the surface
of what's needed for making the confident decision.
Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 10:10 am    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

At 10:00 AM 5/15/2011, you wrote:
Quote:

* Noel: Being that I am the guy who normally flies at MTOW the lighter the
parts I carry aloft allow me to carry more fuel or cargo (read fishing gear).

How often do you find yourself trading off between fuel
and cargo for the purpose of making a 15 pound adjustment?
I ask this in the context of using weight savings to drive
a decision to go lithium. Suppose your airplane was specifically
crafted for light weight in every detail. Dick Rutan had
bad dreams about bending the very-light rudder peddles
in Voyager . . . an airplane that had no paint on the bottoms
surface of the wings. Going lithium as one component of
many in the weight savings equation might make a whole lot
of sense. But I presume your airplane is pretty much the
same as every other example . . . so if you DO shave 15 pounds
out of a battery . . . how likely is it that you get an
attractive return on investment for that single savings?

Quote:
Bob I'm interested on the reason the Star Ship disappeared. I felt it had
great potential for markets where there were short paved runways. In fact I
was a little surprised when it wasn't taken up globally.

A whole host of reasons. It was rushed into production
without fully exploring all the ramifications of getting
the thing certified. We didn't know much about building
a composite airplane. The FAA knew less about certifying
one. We use a lot of "aluminum" techniques to build
a composite airplane. By the time certain certification
deficiencies were identified and 'beefed up', the airplane
came out 2000 pounds heavier than wished/planned for.

The thing was noisy inside. Some of our guys in the Targets
Division received a charter to play with some active noise
reduction techniques in the Starship cabin . . . no joy.

Things that got us all excited about uncle Burt's POC
aircraft did not come to pass in the production model.
Here's a pretty good short story on the rise and
fall of the Starship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship

One of the best narratives on the Starship was
written by Peter Garrison which you can find here:

http://www.starshipdiaries.com/files/Flying%20Review.pdf

The airplane DID pioneer some firsts. Collins did
the first all glass cockpit tailored to a GA aircraft.
Over 150 distributed microprocessors. MUCH easier to
manage software to specific tasks. Then the FAA came
along and levied DO178 on software and the bureaucracies
of distributed processing became overwhelming. So now
we certify ONE chunk of do-everything software in
super-processors . . . UGH!

I got a call one day to see if I could assist a tech
in deducing a problem with a Starship de-ice controller.
Upon first sight of the thing spread out on the workbench
my first impulse was to turn around and walk back out.

The logic boards alone were on two nearly foot-square,
multi-layer ECB's with over 100 discrete logic chips
on each board. The drawing for the schematic was a roll
size thing about 8' long. I was told that the designer
received some kind of award for his efforts . . . and
left the company a short time later. Clearly not a
student of the elegant solution.

It's been an interesting line of speculative conversation
amongst my peers at Beech as to how things might have
been done differently under the design and marketing
philosophies of the Beech/Wallace/Lear schools.

While Starship was in development, I was working the
"Baby Starship" program (GP-180) at Learjet. THAT airplane
turned out to be the poor exec's hot rod. Mostly
aluminum built on very simple tooling, that airplane
was also a large catalog of firsts. Being a mostly
aluminum airplane, the performance goals were largely
met if not exceeded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti

Wichita has been a very interesting place to work
and to observe the evolution of general aviation.
It's a rich history of successes and failures . . .
and a harsh school of hard knocks for evolving
marketable recipes for success. I could not have
picked a better place to work.
Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 12:55 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

--

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest





PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 1:09 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

What is "the old coffin nose Cord"?

Thanks.

do not archive

Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN

"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine

On 05/15/2011 03:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Bob I'll check the sites. Sounds like a replay of the old coffin
nose Cord or even the Edsel. Light years ahead of its time and not entirely
thought out.



- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
harley(at)AgelessWings.co
Guest





PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 1:32 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

IMHO, one of the purtiest cars ever made....along with the original Mercedes 300SL Gull wing and the Mercedes C111 (www.pistonheads.com/news/images/6730-1.JPG):

The Cord: http://tinyurl.com/69rcv4d

Harley
On 5/15/2011 5:04 PM, rayj wrote: [quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> (raymondj(at)frontiernet.net)

What is "the old coffin nose Cord"?

Thanks.

do not archive

Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN

"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine

On 05/15/2011 03:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Bob I'll check the sites. Sounds like a replay of the old coffin
nose Cord or even the Edsel. Light years ahead of its time and not entirely
thought out.

[b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
 
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 7:38 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

Sorry, every now and then I have to be reminded that not everyone follows
great car marques.
The coffin nose Cord (1937) was a front wheel drive super charged American
car that had a lot of firsts. Amongst many things, It was the first car to
have its headlights and tail lights built into the fenders and it had a
radio speaker mounted on the forward part of the roof so people in the rear
seat could also hear it. It also had a pneumatic pre-select transmission.
The idea of that is to make it impossible to miss a gear and grind the
tranny. Sometimes it actually worked. It got the name coffin nose because
the nose of the car between the fenders looked like a rounded coffin with
horizontal trims. I think it is a car that arguably could be one of the
five greatest cars ever made. In the list I'd also include the Bugatti type
88 Royale,(Howard Hughes had one) the Duisenberg model J, The Rolls Royce
Ghost (London -Edinburgh) and finally the Blower Bently.

Any of those cars should get well into seven figures today.

Gee am I ever a dreamer!

Noel
--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 7:46 pm    Post subject: Lithium batteries redux Reply with quote

I like the 300SL too but it had some nasty handling characteristics not to mention trying to back it up. Of course there is an argument that that car should never go backwards! The C111 I didn’t consider because it just has no personality.

BTW I liked getting the side of the model J in your photo too. Now there’s a car with personality!

Noel

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harley
Sent: May 15, 2011 6:59 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux

IMHO, one of the purtiest cars ever made....along with the original Mercedes 300SL Gull wing and the Mercedes C111 (www.pistonheads.com/news/images/6730-1.JPG):

The Cord: http://tinyurl.com/69rcv4d

Harley

On 5/15/2011 5:04 PM, rayj wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> (raymondj(at)frontiernet.net)

What is "the old coffin nose Cord"?

Thanks.

do not archive

Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN

"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine

On 05/15/2011 03:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
Thanks Bob I'll check the sites. Sounds like a replay of the old coffin
nose Cord or even the Edsel. Light years ahead of its time and not entirely
thought out.
Quote:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
[quote][b]


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group