A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FES&electric system batteries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 8th 16, 03:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,965
Default FES&electric system batteries

Battery temperatures rise during use, it is part of what the pilot monitors during the launch. I've never seen or heard of battery temp being the limiting factor on power output. That is always motor temp in my experience.

What I've heard from Leo B-L is that the oldest highest use FES batteries are still charging to 99%. I'd love to hear more details on this 70% claim.
  #12  
Old December 8th 16, 03:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default FES&electric system batteries

torstai 8. joulukuuta 2016 16.21.22 UTC+2 Tony kirjoitti:

What I've heard from Leo B-L is that the oldest highest use FES batteries are still charging to 99%. I'd love to hear more details on this 70% claim..


I'm a bit confused here. Are we talking about the voltage they charge to? You measure batter capacity by the amount of amperes you get. Obviously even older battery will have same voltage when charged full, but that does not say anything about capacity. If FES with 100% new battery gives you 60 minutes of level flight time (for example), 70% capacity battery would give you 42 minutes.

  #13  
Old December 8th 16, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default FES&electric system batteries

Well, since you mention that, I did once launch in a friend's ASW-24E
out of Kelly Air Park (7,050' MSL, 3,500' paved runway) on July 6,
2000. It took two attempts to get airborne and then a little nap of the
earth flying to gain speed. Not for the faint of heart... The '24 is
labeled an "E" but I think "T" would be more reasonable.

On 12/7/2016 11:26 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 2:21:34 AM UTC+3, Casey wrote:
I've noticed that 13.5m FES are advertised as Front Engine Self Launchers and 15m are advertised as Front Engine Sustainers. I did here of a LAK 17b FES launch off asphalt. I wonder if the batteries heat up more from a 15m launching than a 13.5m? Or if the batteries heat up during prolong usage with either the 13.5m or 15m?

Any glider with a sustainer can self-launch from a sufficiently long hard surface, with plenty of pressure in the tyre and a push start. Or, better, a tow to 100-120 km/h with a car.


--
Dan, 5J
  #14  
Old December 8th 16, 04:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom (TK)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default FES&electric system batteries

Dave Walsh, have you installed the Antares hard/soft upgrade yet for "charge plus". The software revision 6 provides for better charging and balancing of the batteries. There are two of us here in the US that are going to have this done in January. The factory is in the process of writing a new software version 7, which ads a number new functionalities.
One of the more interesting functionalities is internet access, which would allow the factory to access the US aircraft remotely and even perform software fixes and upgrades from Germany. On a side note; due to improved monitoring, version 7 will also make the recurring (normally annual) inspection have 3 years of validity, significantly reducing inspection costs for EASA certified aircraft. Version 7 is expected to be certified in the autumn of next year.

  #15  
Old December 8th 16, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom (TK)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default FES&electric system batteries

From the Lange website:
The life expectancy of the battery is decisively influenced by two factor the number of cycles and the natural aging process.

The battery capacity decreases with increasing number of charging and discharging processes. The life expectancy of the battery is based on the latest findings with more than 4500 SAE cycles. One SAE cycle stands for full charging of the battery and a discharge to 20% of the capacity. Partial discharge corresponds only to an equivalent portion of a full cycle. After 4500 of these SAE cycles, the capacity of the battery has decreased to 80% of the initial state. For the pilot, this means that the battery allows a minimum of 10,800,000 risers before it is replaced.

In practice, the natural aging of the batteries is more relevant. It is therefore recommended to change the batteries according to the latest findings at an average storage temperature of 20 ° C after approx. 20 years. Even then the battery capacity has decreased to 80% of the initial capacity.
  #16  
Old December 8th 16, 10:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Walsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default FES&electric system batteries

At 15:45 08 December 2016, Tom TK wrote:
Dave Walsh, have you installed the Antares hard/soft upgrade

yet for
"charg=
e plus". The software revision 6 provides for better charging

and
balancing=
of the batteries. There are two of us here in the US that are

going to
hav=
e this done in January. The factory is in the process of writing a

new
soft=
ware version 7, which ads a number new functionalities.=20
One of the more interesting functionalities is internet access,

which
would=
allow the factory to access the US aircraft remotely and even

perform
soft=
ware fixes and upgrades from Germany. On a side note; due to

improved
monit=
oring, version 7 will also make the recurring (normally annual)

inspection
=
have 3 years of validity, significantly reducing inspection costs

for EASA
=
certified aircraft. Version 7 is expected to be certified in the

autumn of
=
next year.=20

This thread seems to be drifting into Antares territory; the

Antares and FES (especially an Ultra-light FES self-launcher, i.e.
the Silent Electro) are very different sailplanes. They are only
similar in that electric power should get you to the nearest
airfield/home. In theory the "electrics" option should be more
reliable than the two stroke option, the downside is the much
reduced range of current "electric" systems. In this regard FES is
a much better "get you home" option than a self-launcher.

To answer the previous post I have software version 6.0
("Charge Plus"); it was already installed when I bought the A/C
two years ago. It allows you to charge the batteries to about
118-120%; I don't actually understand this (I'm a biochemist
not an electrical engineer) but what it means is that I can launch
from Sisteron (French Alps 1700 ft elevation, ~30C), climb to
about 5000ft (about the limit before the engine temperature gets
into the red), stow the engine and have about 60% battery
power remaining. If you don't use the "charge plus" feature the
remaining battery power is about 45-50%. These figures are for
10 year old batteries, with a total of 700 flight hours.
Looking at my considerable file of invoices I see that the upgrade
to software 6.0 was not cheap. I am told that one of the big
advantages of version 6.0 is that it prevents catastrophic total
discharge of the batteries which can happen through operator
error (for instance putting the A/C away, going on holiday, whilst
accidentally leaving the radio switched on). This, I am told, can
be a very, very expensive mistake as it requires replacement of
all 72 battery cells.
Version 6.0 "Charge Plus" has some limitations; the batteries
once charged to 120% have to be used, so the A/C has to be
rigged and the engine to be ground run to reduce power back to
100%. This can take quite some time! (There may be some
other way to do this buried in the software, but as all my
documentation is in German, I have never tried it).
Also if you use "Charge Plus" immediately before flight some of
the electronics and the batteries will be hot. I have heard various
opinions on whether this is a significant factor. I avoid this by
running Charge Plus overnight.

Here in EASA land I am not sure that the extended inspection
periods you mention are relevant?

On your side of the pond Dave Nadler (an ex Antares owner)
might be a good source of information?
Dave Walsh

  #17  
Old December 9th 16, 12:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default FES&electric system batteries

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:45:29 AM UTC-5, Tom (TK) wrote:
...One of the more interesting functionalities is internet access,
which would allow the factory to access the US aircraft remotely
and even perform software fixes and upgrades from Germany.


Non-USA Antares have had this facility from beginning.
All USA Antares, including yours, already have this capability.
I wrote and installed the facilities required for USA many years ago ;-)

Unfortunately its not so useful in practice.
Poor internet connectivity at many sites makes it dodgy.
Do you want a remote update over a poor connection killing the machine?
For this and other reasons, you always need a qualified tech on site for
updates, which makes this not so useful.

For diagnostics, better is diagnostic dump to USB.
USA Antares, including yours, have had this for years.
You may guess who wrote and installed it ;-)

See ya, Dave
  #18  
Old February 23rd 17, 12:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default FES&electric system batteries

Interesting that while current Kokam batteries for FES cost 8000 euros (2000eur/kWh), at the same time Tesla is building batteries costing under 200 eur/kWh. Assembling FES battery with new Tesla cells would cost one tenth, even doubling or tripling that would still keep it quite affordable. Why use so expensive battery?
  #19  
Old February 23rd 17, 02:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Surge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default FES&electric system batteries

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 13:27:10 UTC+2, krasw wrote:
Why use so expensive battery?


Because we all know that money makes aircraft fly.
If we don't pay lots of money things won't fly.


  #20  
Old February 23rd 17, 04:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default FES&electric system batteries

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:27:10 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
Interesting that while current Kokam batteries for FES cost 8000 euros (2000eur/kWh), at the same time Tesla is building batteries costing under 200 eur/kWh. Assembling FES battery with new Tesla cells would cost one tenth, even doubling or tripling that would still keep it quite affordable. Why use so expensive battery?


I think this is where Bob K or Darryl R inserts pictures of Flaming Tesslas....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASW24 - electric valve system Norbert Gulczynski Soaring 1 January 25th 15 02:13 PM
AGM Batteries Dave Anderer Owning 13 March 29th 08 08:38 PM
System Operation of Aircraft System [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 1 October 12th 07 06:50 AM
2-Batteries [email protected] Soaring 69 January 4th 07 05:09 AM
160 new batteries Mal Soaring 0 October 27th 06 11:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.