Maybe Lithium batteries in gliders not quite such a good idea yet?

[[email protected]]

I have been very actively looking for the perfect "new technology" battery solution for my glider for a few years. I have been looking to fill two battery trays in my 27B fitted for the standard 6' x 2.6" x 3.7" 12 volt 9ah lead batteries with lighter and higher amp hour batteries. There has been lots of discussion around various solutions here on the web over the last few years. Many glider pilots have already switched to one "new tech" battery or another and report good results.

So Boeing is not dumb. I highly doubt they are roughly handing their lithium batteries and I am sure their wiring is better than most glider wiring patch jobs! :) But here they are having problems with batteries smoking and even possibly worse while in use. I sure don't want to have that problem when I am at 17,999 ft behind my head. Are the "new age" batteries being used by gliders safer than those at Boeing? I am not trying to make a statement with this thread or questions. I am still moving down the path of switching out batteries before the season and want to make the correct/safe decision. Why are they having problems and we are not so far?

BTW, my panel is full of fun electronic toys and if I ever want to do a 10+ hour flight, 2 9ah lead batteries will be hard pressed to get the job done..

Oh yeah, sign up for the Nephi, Utah Camp August 7-11 :)

Thanks,
Bruno - B4

[JP Stewart]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:46:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I have been very actively looking for the perfect "new technology" battery solution for my glider for a few years. I have been looking to fill two battery trays in my 27B fitted for the standard 6' x 2.6" x 3.7" 12 volt 9ah lead batteries with lighter and higher amp hour batteries. There has been lots of discussion around various solutions here on the web over the last few years. Many glider pilots have already switched to one "new tech" battery or another and report good results.
>
>
>
> So Boeing is not dumb. I highly doubt they are roughly handing their lithium batteries and I am sure their wiring is better than most glider wiring patch jobs! :) But here they are having problems with batteries smoking and even possibly worse while in use. I sure don't want to have that problem when I am at 17,999 ft behind my head. Are the "new age" batteries being used by gliders safer than those at Boeing? I am not trying to make a statement with this thread or questions. I am still moving down the path of switching out batteries before the season and want to make the correct/safe decision. Why are they having problems and we are not so far?
>
>
>
> BTW, my panel is full of fun electronic toys and if I ever want to do a 10+ hour flight, 2 9ah lead batteries will be hard pressed to get the job done.
>
>
>
> Oh yeah, sign up for the Nephi, Utah Camp August 7-11 :)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bruno - B4

The A123 (Nanophosphate-Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries are regarded as being extremely tolerant to abuse. From my RC plane flying you generally won't have any issue if the batteries are kept at a moderate temp and they aren't overcharged. Boeing's issue is believed to be overheating, which is pretty reasonable given the load that they have.

JP

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:46:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I have been very actively looking for the perfect "new technology" battery solution for my glider for a few years. I have been looking to fill two battery trays in my 27B fitted for the standard 6' x 2.6" x 3.7" 12 volt 9ah lead batteries with lighter and higher amp hour batteries. There has been lots of discussion around various solutions here on the web over the last few years. Many glider pilots have already switched to one "new tech" battery or another and report good results.
>
>
>
> So Boeing is not dumb. I highly doubt they are roughly handing their lithium batteries and I am sure their wiring is better than most glider wiring patch jobs! :) But here they are having problems with batteries smoking and even possibly worse while in use. I sure don't want to have that problem when I am at 17,999 ft behind my head. Are the "new age" batteries being used by gliders safer than those at Boeing? I am not trying to make a statement with this thread or questions. I am still moving down the path of switching out batteries before the season and want to make the correct/safe decision. Why are they having problems and we are not so far?
>
>
>
> BTW, my panel is full of fun electronic toys and if I ever want to do a 10+ hour flight, 2 9ah lead batteries will be hard pressed to get the job done.
>
>
>
> Oh yeah, sign up for the Nephi, Utah Camp August 7-11 :)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bruno - B4

Boeing is said (by a Boeing engineer) to be using LiPo batteries. Any RC guy would tell you that's crazy. So I wonder if there is more to the story or if the info is just wrong. Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) is what's being used successfully as a SLA replacement in sailplanes. They have a pretty good track record so far as I know (similar to PB SLA -- the big hazard is accidental short circuit, not auto ignition. As long as the internal construction is robust and there is an external fuse at the battery, they should be fine). I plan on replacing my Pb SLA batteries with LiFePO4 when they warrant it. The lithium batteries are still improving in performance and cost.

T8

[Mike the Strike]

Light weight and high energy density requires reactive materials for batteries.

I worked in a lab some years ago where one division was developing a sodium/sulfur battery. Light weight and high energy density made this combination appealing, although the design operated at high temperatures with both elements molten. It did not go well! The natural state of the combination appeared to be fire, with the special benefit for firefighters of dealing with burning molten sodium.

Lithium isn't all that far from sodium on the periodic table! I'll stick with lead for now, thanks!

Mike

[[email protected]]

Here is an article regarding LiFePO4 batteries from Soaring Cafe. It's a couple years old and I didn't see anything else more recent. However, pretty informative.

http://soaringcafe.com/2011/01/new-technology-in-glider-batteries/




> Boeing is said (by a Boeing engineer) to be using LiPo batteries. Any RC guy would tell you that's crazy. So I wonder if there is more to the story or if the info is just wrong. Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) is what's being used successfully as a SLA replacement in sailplanes. They have a pretty good track record so far as I know (similar to PB SLA -- the big hazard is accidental short circuit, not auto ignition. As long as the internal construction is robust and there is an external fuse at the battery, they should be fine). I plan on replacing my Pb SLA batteries with LiFePO4 when they warrant it. The lithium batteries are still improving in performance and cost.
>
>
>
> T8

[Roel Baardman]

Can I briefly ask the naive question: What is wrong with a few lead
batteries? Weight? Installing/removing? The circuitry?

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:26:43 +0000, Roel Baardman wrote:

> Can I briefly ask the naive question: What is wrong with a few lead
> batteries? Weight? Installing/removing? The circuitry?

Space and weight, particularly if you fly an older glider and like to put
electronic toys in your cockpit.

The problems with anything much more exotic than sealed lead-acid gel
cells (SLA) are cost and the need for more intelligent (and expensive)
chargers.

That said, IMO you're cheating yourself if you don't use a charger that
can detect full charge, and hence won't over-charge the battery, and can
automatically cycle batteries and measure the battery capacity. Same goes
for buying cheap batteries: I like Yuasa SLAs, which reliably give me 3-4
years flying.

I cycle and test my batteries each winter and log the measured capacity
of each battery: this makes it really easy to see when one should be
replaced.

I use Sunpower multi-stage mains chargers for my SLA glider batteries and
never leave them partially charged: the batteries are put on charge as
soon as I get home from flying.

I have a fairly basic Pro-Peak Prodigy multi-chemistry charger (lead-
acid, NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, Li-poly) that I use for testing the SLAs and
for charging and testing the other batteries I use in models, cameras,
etc. Pro-Peak and similar chargers are sold wherever you by RC and
electric model aircraft gear.

I also have a Vencon charger/cycler, but this is a beast of a very
different stripe: it is controlled and programmed by a management program
running on a Windows PC. This kit is not cheap, but if you're serious
about battery monitoring or have a lot of batteries that are used for
critical tasks its the one to use.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-8, Roel Baardman wrote:
> Can I briefly ask the naive question: What is wrong with a few lead
>
> batteries? Weight? Installing/removing? The circuitry?

I've been running A123 cell packs for several years now. I built the packs myself in the days before you could just buy them. I also did some destructive testing to satisfy myself that the risk was acceptable.

There are several advantages other than the weight savings:

(1) The have a very flat voltage profile as they discharge.

(2) Their capacity is relatively insensitive to ambient temperature. So for long wave flights they are ideal, you get well over 80% of the rated capacity down to -10 °C IIRC.

(3) They don't have issues with "memory"

Chris
42DJ

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:26:43 PM UTC-7, Roel Baardman wrote:
> Can I briefly ask the naive question: What is wrong with a few lead
>
> batteries? Weight? Installing/removing? The circuitry?

The problem is I have limited battery tray space and need higher amp hours in the same tray than lead acid can provide. Again, this is to be able to fly 10+ hours on a wave day later this year.

Bruno - B4

[[email protected]]

Bruno,

I have an ASW-27 also. I use 2 tenenergy 10ah LiFePo4 batteries... Kickass

They have special cicuitry that allows them to be charged via regular 12V SLA charger (so if you forget your charger on a trip...WalMart!)

I run a Cambridge 302, ClearNav, Radio (of course) and PowerFlarm. I have yet to have a single battery drain to the point of switching. That includes an 8 hour long out and return this past year.

Also... The other folks here are right... LiPo are the dangerous battery. LiFePo4 are quite safe. The chance of an oxygen pocket being formed are damn near zero.

Terry

[JS]

Like Terry, I reiterate there's a confusion between Polymer and Phosphate.
I have three 10AH LiFePO4 in my glider.
It takes more than lead acid to make long flights with a large moving map display, transponder, com, flarm, and flight computer.
Jim

[K]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:22:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:

> The problem is I have limited battery tray space and need higher amp hours in the same tray than lead acid can provide.
The problem is that your panel has more toys than an adult novelty shop ;-).. Just use the correct charger/balancer and you will be fine. Another thing for safety and longevity is the cut off circuitry. These have been used in gliders for some time with good results. Look at the Antares (Slight variation in chemistry). Also, Doesn't the JS1 come with LiFePo4 from the factory.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:39:38 -0800, terry wrote:

> Also... The other folks here are right... LiPo are the dangerous
> battery. LiFePo4 are quite safe. The chance of an oxygen pocket being
> formed are damn near zero.
>
Here's a bit more on the 878 problem. It includes a photo of the burnt-
out PSU at Boston. Scary.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/17/faa_grounds_boeing_787_batteries/



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[howdy]

Bruno,

Several of us use these K2 batteries. They have a "battery management system." The BMS controls the charge and allows it to be charged with a lead acid charger, as long as it gets up to around 14 volts or so. It also controls discharge to prevent battery damage. I guess lithium batteries don't like to be discharged too far. Be sure to get the ones that have "EP" at the end of the number, because they do sell the same without a BMS. They're expensive but have a very flat discharge voltage curve, weigh a lot less and should far outlast our old lead acid batteries in years. By the way, isn't A123 in bankruptcy?

http://store.peakbattery.com/12lfpba.html

And if you want to see one dissected:

http://www.etotheipiplusone.net/?p=1991

[cfinn[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 9:30*pm, gotovkotzepkoi
> wrote:
> Does anyone know what type of lithium batteries are used in the electric
> self launchers like the Taurus or the Antares?
>
> --
> gotovkotzepkoi

From Antares web site: http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/battery_system.html.

"The Antares 20E is equipped with a battery-system utilizing Li-Ion
cells of the type SAFT VL41M.".

"As a user of SAFT VL41M cells, Lange Aviation is in good company.
SAFT VL41M are also used in most new European satellites, the RQ-4B
Global Hawk UAV, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Airbus A380 and in
many other high-tech applications.
Next to being a great vote of confidence to SAFT VL41M cells, the
military implementations mean that the cells which are now being built
into the Antares 20E will be available at least until 2031."

Charlie

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:27:09 AM UTC-6, cfinn wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:30*pm, gotovkotzepkoi
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know what type of lithium batteries are used in the electric
>
> > self launchers like the Taurus or the Antares?
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > gotovkotzepkoi
>
>
>
> From Antares web site: http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/battery_system.html.
>
>
>
> "The Antares 20E is equipped with a battery-system utilizing Li-Ion
>
> cells of the type SAFT VL41M.".
>
>
>
> "As a user of SAFT VL41M cells, Lange Aviation is in good company.
>
> SAFT VL41M are also used in most new European satellites, the RQ-4B
>
> Global Hawk UAV, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Airbus A380 and in
>
> many other high-tech applications.
>
> Next to being a great vote of confidence to SAFT VL41M cells, the
>
> military implementations mean that the cells which are now being built
>
> into the Antares 20E will be available at least until 2031."
>
>
>
> Charlie

A further advantage of LiFePo batteries is the higher current they can take when charging. I charge my 8.4 Ah 4-cell battery with 4A on a balancing charger. The fuse on the battery is 5A so I could easily go a little higher. According to the spec sheet the charge current could be as high as 16A (2C)

[[email protected]]

Thanks everyone for the great info and quick replies. I received a very helpful email from someone who reminded me that in the Boeing situation these batteries are not just being drawn down but also charged during use. I can see how that makes a huge difference compared to just drawing down during the flight.

A question and concern from looking at some of these batteries mentioned. In the specs and warnings the manufacturers are warning against submerging these batteries. I don't plan on landing in any water soon but I have heard of gliders having their ballast leak into the rear deck and cockpit. I heard of a 29 doing this so maybe my 27 could possibly have this happen as well. When the batteries get submerged back there and short out. Then what?

Thanks for your patience with us guys lagging behind in so many ways. ;)

Bruno - B4

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/18/2013 7:00 AM, wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:27:09 AM UTC-6, cfinn wrote:

>> "As a user of SAFT VL41M cells, Lange Aviation is in good company.
>>
>> SAFT VL41M are also used in most new European satellites, the
>> RQ-4B
>>
>> Global Hawk UAV, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Airbus A380 and
>> in
>>
>> many other high-tech applications.
>>
>> Next to being a great vote of confidence to SAFT VL41M cells, the
>>
>> military implementations mean that the cells which are now being
>> built
>>
>> into the Antares 20E will be available at least until 2031."
>>
>> Charlie
>
> A further advantage of LiFePo batteries is the higher current they
> can take when charging. I charge my 8.4 Ah 4-cell battery with 4A on
> a balancing charger. The fuse on the battery is 5A so I could easily
> go a little higher. According to the spec sheet the charge current
> could be as high as 16A (2C)

The Antares cells are Li-ion, in case anyone was wondering.

I like the idea of LiFePO4 batteries, but I'm not comfortable with the
commercial offerings, like those from Tenergy or K2. The data sheets
I've been able to obtain are incomplete compared to what I can get for
any of the comparable SLA batteries by manufacturers like PowerSonic,
Yuasa, Panasonic, and so on. The idea of paying 7 to 10 times as much
for a complex, poorly characterized battery is not enticing.

If I could buy a direct replacement 12 volt LiFePO4 battery from one the
major battery companies, with a full datasheet, then I'd think about it,
and would be much more comfortable suggesting them for other pilots.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Hi Bruno,

29's have a small plug at the wing root that can be left open while the
glider is in the trailer to allow leftover water to evaporate from the
tanks. I have seen a few 29 drivers forget this plug while they fill
the glider and end up having water in their cockpit. The 27's do not
have this as far as I know so it may not be an issue.

Luke

On 01/18/2013 10:50 AM, wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the great info and quick replies. I received a very helpful email from someone who reminded me that in the Boeing situation these batteries are not just being drawn down but also charged during use. I can see how that makes a huge difference compared to just drawing down during the flight.
>
> A question and concern from looking at some of these batteries mentioned. In the specs and warnings the manufacturers are warning against submerging these batteries. I don't plan on landing in any water soon but I have heard of gliders having their ballast leak into the rear deck and cockpit. I heard of a 29 doing this so maybe my 27 could possibly have this happen as well. When the batteries get submerged back there and short out. Then what?
>
> Thanks for your patience with us guys lagging behind in so many ways. ;)
>
> Bruno - B4
>

[Mike the Strike]

As I noted in an earlier post, lithium is a bit less reactive than sodium - however, it reacts strongly with water to produce hydrogen and can self-ignite. I'd only consider having any battery with lithium in a glider if it were in a form that severely inhibits this behavior.

Mike

[howdy]

>
> I like the idea of LiFePO4 batteries, but I'm not comfortable with the
>
> commercial offerings, like those from Tenergy or K2. The data sheets
>
> I've been able to obtain are incomplete compared to what I can get for
>
> any of the comparable SLA batteries by manufacturers like PowerSonic,
>
> Yuasa, Panasonic, and so on. The idea of paying 7 to 10 times as much
>
> for a complex, poorly characterized battery is not enticing.
>
>
>
> If I could buy a direct replacement 12 volt LiFePO4 battery from one the
>
> major battery companies, with a full datasheet, then I'd think about it,
>
> and would be much more comfortable suggesting them for other pilots.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)


I called K2 before I bought mine and they were very helpful answering my questions. The person I talked to said he has worked with other glider pilots to address their concerns too. From my experience, I think they would be happy to fill in the blanks.

They were expensive compared to SLA but for me, it was a good cost effective choice. I like all their advantages and, if they last for over 2000 charges like they say, I'll probably never need to buy another battery.

MK

[bumper[_4_]]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:50:46 AM UTC-8, wrote:
When the batteries get submerged back there and short out. Then what?
>
> Bruno - B4


The rising column of black smoke will assist in locating your glider underwater :c)


bumper

[[email protected]]

A lot of misinformation here. Read this instead:

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html

Keep in mind also that where there are problems is when recharging, not discharging, so use in gliders is not a problem. Also, most ELTs are shipped with lithium chemistry batteries now and have been used in aircraft in Canada since 2008 so a lot of pilots are already flying with them.

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:58:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> A lot of misinformation here.

Duh, this is R.A.S...

> Read this instead:
> http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html

And don't take it TOO seriously, unless you have personally
checked the batteries used and understand all the issues...

> Keep in mind also that where there are problems is when recharging,
> not discharging,

You think drawing excessive current will not harm the cells ?

> so use in gliders is not a problem. Also, most ELTs are shipped
> with lithium chemistry batteries now and have been used in aircraft
> in Canada since 2008 so a lot of pilots are already flying with them.

Lets not compare apples and oranges.
Cells differ in many ways:
- electrolyte chemistry
- anode chemistry and construction
- cathode chemistry and construction
- general construction (thicknesses => damage tolerance and behavior)
- etc.
A cell design balances many factors for not just capacity,
but damage resistance, number of cycles, weight, cost,
temperature range, etc, etc, etc.

Without looking at the SPECIFIC cells used and the Thales battery
management system, it is very hard to tell what's wrong in 787.

Generalizing about anything that contains lithium is a bit silly...
Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: This flight crossed 800 hours in my (lithium-ion powered) Antares 20E:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=2811077

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/19/2013 4:58 PM, wrote:
> A lot of misinformation here. Read this instead:
>
> http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html
>
> Keep in mind also that where there are problems is when recharging,
> not discharging, so use in gliders is not a problem. Also, most ELTs
> are shipped with lithium chemistry batteries now and have been used
> in aircraft in Canada since 2008 so a lot of pilots are already
> flying with them.

The ELT batteries are "primary" batteries, and are not rechargeable, so
I do not think they are relevant to our gliders. Since many pilots do
recharge batteries in their gliders, or in their homes, I think problems
when recharging are very relevant. Since we don't have much history with
Li-Fe batteries used in gliders or similar situations by people of
widely varying knowledge, and the drop-in units we can currently buy do
not seem to be well characterized, I am not keen to use them or
recommend them.

About a year ago, a group of us looked for batteries suitable for the
Perlan high-altitude glider. Because weight is critical to it's ability
to reach 90,000' and plenty of power is needed for all the systems, we
wanted the highest energy/kg we could safely get. Cost was a tertiary
issue. Eventually, we settled on the BA-5590, a primary lithium battery
used by the military for flights above about 60,000', and the
rechargeable BA-5390 for flights below 60,000'.

The two are physically identical, so they will fit in the same battery
box, but the primary battery has more energy per battery and per kg, but
at a much higher cost than the rechargeable battery. These batteries are
highly characterized and have plenty of history, so we believe they can
be trusted in the extreme conditions the Perlan will encounter.

We did try to get Li-Fe battery packs from Saft, but they weren't
interested in custom orders. Companies that would do custom orders
tended to be small assemblers of cells made in China by various
companies whose reliability we could not determine to our satisfaction.
I'm sure this situation will change in time, perhaps this year, but
we're not there yet, I think.

It was a definite disappointment we couldn't get the Saft batteries, as
they seemed almost ideal for gliders.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/20/2013 9:00 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:

>
> Generalizing about anything that contains lithium is a bit silly...
> Hope that helps,
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> PS: This flight crossed 800 hours in my (lithium-ion powered) Antares 20E:
> http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=2811077

You're not flying enough, Dave! The batteries will last longer than you
do, if you don't pick up the pace .. :^)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:44:23 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> It was a definite disappointment we couldn't get the Saft batteries,

Because of the hazards associated with battery misuse, SAFT will
*only* sell to qualified organizations. Its expensive for them
to qualify an organization and application, so small custom
lots are out of the question...

> as they seemed almost ideal for gliders.

Yes, SAFT make some cells that are ideal, hence use in Antares...

Best Regards, Dave

[RAS56]

My company has 787's on order, but they won't be delivered until 2014 (if then) and I'm glad I'm not having to fly the thing while this entire episode gets sorted out.
An inflight fire is one of the, if not the worst things that could happen to you. I had a cockpit fire breakout behind the engineer's panel after landing in an E-3A back in the 80's that was electrically generated and it spread with amazing speed and put out an incredible amount of smoke and fumes in a very short time. Fortunately, killing all power to the aircraft pretty much stopped the conflagration..but had it happened 10 minutes earlier while we were in hard IFR on downwind...

BTW, if you're wondering where you've heard the company named "Thales" that's mentioned in this thread and the article below, they gained prominence in the Air France 447 loss over the Atlantic some years back when the pitot tubes they manufactured iced up and were cited as a factor in that accident..

Rob
ZAP


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-grounding-orders-moves-787-into-uncharted-territory-381148/

ANALYSIS: Grounding order moves 787 into uncharted territory

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

02:29 17 Jan 2013

Source:

A grounding order by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) moves the Boeing 787 programme into territory uncharted for a modern airliner as long as a recently discovered "battery fire risk" remains unsolved.

The order by the FAA effectively grounds six 787s operated by United Airlines and aligns the US regulator with two Japanese airlines - All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines - that ceased 787 operations earlier on 15 January. But the action also forces five other airlines operating the 787 to reconsider the aircraft's safety for an undetermined period.

Boeing must demonstrate that it has eliminated any risk of a battery-ignited fire before the grounding will be lifted. Jim McNerney, Boeing's chief executive, says the entire resources of the company will be put at the disposal of the effort to discover the source of the battery fire risk and to correct it.

Engineering resources, meanwhile, could be diverted from other strategic efforts in 2013, such as doubling the 787's monthly production rate, completing the assembly and launch flight testing of the 290-seat 787-9 and launching the potential 320-seat 787-10.

The grounding may not have an immediate impact on aircraft valuations, as no market exists for second-hand 787-8s yet, with only 51 of the type delivered.

But the public and regulatory safety concerns growing around the programme could make it harder for some airlines and lessors to obtain financing, says Les Weal, head of valuations for the Flightglobal Ascend consultancy.

"If you were asked to finance one today, you may have to pass on the opportunity," says Weal, explaining that such financiers have no shortage of requests bearing less risk than the 787. In the hours leading up to the FAA grounding order, Flightglobal Ascend still assigned a $110 million valuation for a new 787-8 built in 2013.

On top of the programme's financial concerns, Boeing may also need to restore confidence in the 787's entire electrical architecture. It was designed as a technological leap forward, reducing fuel consumption by several percentage points, and using electricity to replace parasitic bleed-air to power onboard systems and cabin pressurisation.

But the power system with nearly 1.5MW (2,010hp) of capacity has been a source of constant headaches barely 15 months into service. A suspected batch of poorly-built circuit boards are likely to have caused a series of glitches on power distribution panels of several aircraft in December 2012, forcing United and Qatar Airways to briefly ground some aircraft to perform repairs.

Far more worrisome, however, are the newly-realised risks of fire posed by the two lithium-ion polymer batteries, a powerful chemistry is described as a "first" in commercial aviation on the 787. Boeing selected a lithium-ion-based battery proposed by electrical power conversion system supplier Thales, which packaged an industrial-grade battery designed by Japanese firm GS Yuasa and a battery charger unit made by Securaplane, based in Tucson, Arizona.

Industry and government regulators were aware of the risks of potential safety hazards posed by battery chemistries based on lithium-ion.

In 2006, Securaplane's administration building "burned to the ground" because of a botched laboratory test involving a GS Yuasa battery designed for the 787. In 2007, the FAA imposed a set of special conditions for Boeing to prove the safety of lithium-ion batteries before the agency would grant airworthiness certification for the new aircraft.

The certification tests appeared to show that Boeing had passed the FAA's test. The lithium-ion battery allowed Boeing to start the auxiliary power unit with a device half the size of comparable nickel-cadmium or lead acid batteries used in previous aircraft designs.

Last week, Michael Sinnett, the 787's chief project engineer, said lithium-ion is not the only acceptable solution, but it was still the best option for the 787.

Any future design must show that the battery is safe, even if something fails and heat builds up to dangerous levels, says Hans Weber, head of the Tecom aviation consultancy.

Such a design must ensure that a fire is contained and is quickly extinguished by being deprived of oxygen, he says. Moreover, most, if not all, of the smoke generated by the flames must be vented outboard, rather than be allowed to circulate inside the pressurised cabin, he says.

Speaking hours before the FAA imposed by the grounding order, Weber said the public and regulatory response to the ANA and JAL battery incidents had been surprising.

"It's been driven by emotion, which is understandable," he says. "The emotion generated by a fire on board is high. That's one of the scariest things to contemplate."

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:59:45 PM UTC-5, RAS56 wrote:
> .... In 2006, Securaplane's administration building "burned to the ground"
> because of a botched laboratory test involving a GS Yuasa battery designed
> for the 787. In 2007, the FAA imposed a set of special conditions for Boeing
> to prove the safety of lithium-ion batteries before the agency would grant
> airworthiness certification for the new aircraft.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/20/us-boeing-ntsb-idUSBRE90J06I20130120

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/20/2013 10:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:44:23 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> It was a definite disappointment we couldn't get the Saft
>> batteries,
>
> Because of the hazards associated with battery misuse, SAFT will
> *only* sell to qualified organizations. Its expensive for them to
> qualify an organization and application, so small custom lots are out
> of the question...
>
>> as they seemed almost ideal for gliders.
>
> Yes, SAFT make some cells that are ideal, hence use in Antares...

Hmm, maybe the Perlan Project could buy some "spare" Saft cells from
Antares, in anticipation of ordering an entire glider ... eventually.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[RAS56]

Interesting.

This article:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020173453_787teethingpainsxml.html

Has a Japanese safety investigator opining that it COULD BE overcharging that led to the event(s). Boeing and the US NTSB saying one thing, Japanese Safety Board saying "...not so fast." These batteries are so big, I'm wondering if there is the possibility of developing localized internal "hot spots" during charging that the sensors cannot detect that result in the explosions/fire? It seems too early to unequivocally state it is or is not one thing or another.

I'm a huge fan of Boeing products, having flown most of my career in them, but I am cynical enough to remember that according to Boeing, there wasn't anything wrong with the 737 rudder system either, but "we'll redesign it anyways".

There is a gigantic financial interest in seeing these things get flying again, ASAP.

[Dave Nadler]

I love part about the former Securaplane employee who sued them,
claiming he was dismissed for raising concerns about their chargers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/21/us-boeing-ntsb-idUSBRE90J06I20130121

I bet he is in demand at the moment ;-)

[Peter Higgs]

Some Aero-Modelers, who use Li-Poly batteries to power their aircraft,
leave ventilation space between adjacent cells to aid cooling.
Looking at the burnt out 787 battery pack, their cells don't seem to have
any ventilation space, and are just packed together. Maybe they don't
want a pathway for any fumes to get into the cabin, so make the unit as
sealed-up as possible.

phiggs

[Tom[_12_]]

We are testing a new battery that seems to be easy to use and safe. The weak link is the user who sometimes ignores instructions.

The battery must be tolerant of those who . . .

I'll be flying with the new battery in our Duo Discus at The Seniors contest in Florida.

Tom Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies