What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

LiFePo4 battery on the firewall?

NovaBandit

Well Known Member
I'm strongly considering using an EarthX EXT36C Lithium battery on the firewall of my 10 instead of in the stock battery box in the tail. A buddy did a structural analysis, and there are no issues structurally, by a good margin. What I'm wondering about is placement. The two places that look like good candidates are on the upper firewall between the brake reservoir and the firewall recess, or centered below the brake reservoir.

The battery I'm considering is very small and light (5.9" x 3.4" x 5.4", 3.5lbs), but still has 680 cranking amps, and importantly in Minnesota, 405 cold cranking amps. I think that this combined with the MUCH shorter wire runs to the starter should give me great starting power.

My original plan was for a PC925 in the tail. This would be a 22.5 lb reduction for me with only the battery, plus the weight of that big #2 cable that will get a lot shorter.

I am also planning a TCW Backup Battery for critical avionics, and a secondary alternator.

Does anyone have any comments about placement or capacity of the battery I'm considering?

http://earthxmotorsports.com/product-category/experimental-aircraft/

photo%25201%25281%2529.JPG


photo%25202%25281%2529.JPG


photo%25201%25282%2529.JPG


photo%25202%25282%2529.JPG
 
Operating temps appear to be 60c (140f) on the EarthX batteries. What is the normal temps in that location you are considering?

If you plan to have a 2nd alternator then the higher position picture would interfere I think.
 
I can't speak to the RV-10 specific placement but can speak to the LiFePo-4 in the engine compartment. I've been running two batteries - my main and my backup - on my RV-8 in a location similar to where your reservoir is located for 2+ years now.
 
May I suggest you run a sample W/B with the change in battery location??

There is a reason that the engineers at Vans put the weight of the battery where they did.

You are suggesting not only removing that weight, but adding some on the opposite side of the C/G.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to the RV-10 specific placement but can speak to the LiFePo-4 in the engine compartment. I've been running two batteries - my main and my backup - on my RV-8 in a location similar to where your reservoir is located for 2+ years now.

Sorry to derail but got any feedback on the battery? Which ones do you have?
 
I can't speak to the RV-10 specific placement but can speak to the LiFePo-4 in the engine compartment. I've been running two batteries - my main and my backup - on my RV-8 in a location similar to where your reservoir is located for 2+ years now.

So to clarify....you have been running two LiFePo4 batteries in the engine compartment for 2+ years?
 
Operating temps appear to be 60c (140f) on the EarthX batteries. What is the normal temps in that location you are considering?

Just a side note here. The PC680 that a lot of use is also recommended only up to 140 degrees.
 
So to clarify....you have been running two LiFePo4 batteries in the engine compartment for 2+ years?

To be completely accurate, one of the batteries has about 2.5 years on it and one has about 1.5 years. I didn't mean to embellish.

2.5 years ago I did a direct swap of a PC680 for a Shorai 18A. I ran that for about a year when I then wen with an all electric panel. I decided I needed a second battery and went "bigger" with Shorai 36A as my primary and made the 18A my backup.

While I consider these overkill in size for their assigned roles, the EarthX thread suggests the 36A may be right as a main battery if you need the extra CCA.

With my personal results, I would use both 18A batteries in my plane if I were doing it again. I'm not suggesting my decision is right for others; I'm just not seeing the requirement for the larger main battery.
 
All things being equal, keeping electrical items out from under fluids is recommended so the position beside the brake reservoir would be better.
 
Was thinking the same about firewall mounted batt

This is very timely posting. I had the same thoughts after Oshkosh. The C of G issues can be overcome by adding smaller weight far back in tail I would think. Huge weight saving. Understanding and trusting LiFePO is another issue I battle with (the article in latest Kitplanes did not instil a lot of trust).
Ed, what is the fire protection on your firewall?
Thanks
Johan
 
That would be my biggest concern with putting a lithium battery on the firewall. I think you insure that any engine fire be it fuel, oil or electrical in nature becomes unsurvivable.

George
 
Same topic/conversation posted over on Matronics, so here is what I responded there.

A couple of things come to mind as I am working through this same issue.

The EarthX 36 is LOWER reserve/usable capacity than the PC925. They do not recommend this as a swap for the 925.

I currently have an EarthX 48E sitting on my bench waiting for install. However, my plane is to install it in the tail in the original battery mount. My intent is to remove the dead weight that I can't manage and the impact on CG. I already fly with a 25lb bag of shot when flying solo, so I can easily bump that up to accomodate the 20lb loss. But when I am flying with a full bird, it then becomes weight I can move and affect CG and loading much better. I've already had issues where the plane was loaded to the point that I was close to dropping the tail, so the ability to move that big of a weight moment is very helpful.

EarthX also estimates their batteries to be about an 8 year lifetime, so considerably longer than the Odyssey PC925. So on a yearly basis the numbers should work out to be about the same.
 
Battery

I think these batteries are great and have used one for about 2 years on the firewall with no issues. If I had to do it over again, I would install on the cabin side of the firewall to get it away from heat as Carbon Cub does on all their installations.:cool:
 
Hi Mike, the topic of "fire" comes up every time a new thread on "lithium" batteries starts.

If you've not followed those discussions here on VAF you might find it interesting reading.

The lithium chemistry in that video is significantly different from LiFePO4.
 
I am concerned about how the battery would react to a external fire source. From what I can tell the result would be bad.

George
 
Hi Mike, the topic of "fire" comes up every time a new thread on "lithium" batteries starts.

If you've not followed those discussions here on VAF you might find it interesting reading.

The lithium chemistry in that video is significantly different from LiFePO4.

I have followed them, and I am aware that the newer chemistry batteries are much less prone to fire-------but they are not exempt.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

"Like all alkali metals, lithium is highly reactive and flammable."

Not trying to start a scare campaign here, just want folks to be informed.

I would like to see the MSDS for one of these batteries.
 
Any Lithium battery

Lithium batterys are considered Hazardous materials as per the MSD sheets. For aviation there extremely hazardous. When one is part of a fire in a fire or what ever, they produce a very toxic vapor. Not a good thing on in or near a airplane.

When i was in the air force. As a crew member on the C-5, at any time we had lithium batterys on the plane as cargo. we were not allowed to take any passengers on that that leg if the trip. It was not even able to be waver-able either. So no Lithium batteries in my plane.

There very reactive and extremely toxic gasses, if involved in a fire. So I consider them unsafe for General Aviation.
 
Seal the firewall well, and make a thin stainless battery box to enclose the battery. Problem solved. :)
 
Earth X

I was intrigued to see the Earth X batteries at OSH this year, and actually experience the difference in size and weight (which is amazing). I even bought a small battery for my motorcycle, to see how well it performs. However, I'm concerned about the fire risk. Maybe it's less of an issue if it's located behind the baggage compartment in the 10 (Van's planned location for the 680). I would love it, if someone with a lot of "scientific method" experience would put a match, corrosive fog and maybe an axe to one (or a couple) of these batteries to see how they hold up. The other thing I worry about besides fire, is cranking ability and how long they would hold up in an emergency depletion situation (i.e. lost alternator). It seems like the vendors of these batteries don't have much information to provide the consumers...
 
--- make a thin stainless battery box to enclose the battery. Problem solved. :)

Not necessarily solved, but mitigated greatly.

After all, we do build thin aluminum boxes that we fill with gasoline.

Lots more gasoline than lithium by a huge margin. And the gas is a lot easier to ignite than the Li.

No, I am not flipping on my position about having a LI FE battery in the cabin, I am just trying to get folks to think about the safety factors involved. There are ways to deal with things, such as what Bob suggested.
 
Not necessarily solved, but mitigated greatly.

After all, we do build thin aluminum boxes that we fill with gasoline.

Lots more gasoline than lithium by a huge margin. And the gas is a lot easier to ignite than the Li.

And run said gasoline thru fuel line just a few inches from a glowing red hot exhaust.

Mounting a LiFePO4 on the firewall wasn't possible in my rocket due to room constraints but I enclosed them in 0.015" stainless battery boxes I fabbed in the tunnel between my feet. There is no way for a flame to propagate and the battery cables pass thru small Garolite blocks I machined to make the boxes as gas-tight as possible in the event of a smoldering battery fire.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#8557k412/=t5cu5a
 
I will put two in the back in place of my 925L/680 as soon as they go bad and you guys test fly them some more. I will install two thermistor temp sensors inside them similar to what I have at the cowl exit now(runs 180-230F).

As the kids get bigger, this will help a lot.
 
<snip> It seems like the vendors of these batteries don't have much information to provide the consumers...

Marketing is making us fall in love with the product. Love is hard to quantify. Hard facts and data are what will keep us within the envelope. If we don't have them there are risks. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but it is only intended to stimulate the experimental brain and think about the consequences, like Bob as done. I will likely use this product, but only after some quantified information is gained. Until then caveat emptor applies.

A123 battery company worked with DOE for many years and has a well quantified and controlled product. In experimental we become our own development engineers. They have mitigated many of the issues, but do the companies that copy their product do the same? A123 has had many groups test their batteries in adiabatic (insulated) thermal runaway conditions precipitated by elevated temperatures, and over voltage charging. They still exhibit the runaway failure mode, but the peak temperatures are much lower than other chemistries, and seldom cause the adjacent cell to fail in a cascade manner. Can the other vendors say that?

When it comes to this product, "i don't know" is not a very good answer with the severity potential of this failure. Earth-X says 140F is the limit environmental temp. Is under cowl under that? Always? I have not seen the listing of what happens if the alternator puts out 16 volts continuously (16.3 vdc is the crowbar trip voltage). And we don't know who supplies the cells, nor exactly what the BMS does.

RocketBob has take two steps to reduce the risks, 1 - lower temp environment, and 2-containment structure if the possible happens. We should all continue to take a cautious approach and study to be aware of the risks. Within that environment - lets make these things work!

BTW We talk about gasoline, but heating gasoline in a container won't make it release its energy internally, it needs oxygen, and ignition. The same can not be said of these batteries. If the Li battery - all of them -are heated then they will reach a point of internal self heating. Bad ones will reach 1300F, good ones maybe only 700F. Which one are we buying?
 
Well, let's say the thing is self-heating at 700 deg. F. Even if it's contained, where would be a safe place to have that?

I thought of two places, neither practical: in the wingtip or on the ground.

I sure wouldn't want it ahead of the firewall because that's where there are lots of important items.

And I certainly wouldn't want it in the cabin.

If it were mounted behind the baggage compartment, I'd be afraid of the integrity of the fuselage.

These batteries are very attractive. I'd like to see some more experience and data, though.

Dave
 
Well, let's say the thing is self-heating at 700 deg. F. Even if it's contained, where would be a safe place to have that?

I thought of two places, neither practical: in the wingtip or on the ground.

I sure wouldn't want it ahead of the firewall because that's where there are lots of important items.

And I certainly wouldn't want it in the cabin.

If it were mounted behind the baggage compartment, I'd be afraid of the integrity of the fuselage.

These batteries are very attractive. I'd like to see some more experience and data, though.

Dave

Good questions all, Dave. In a best case scenario, one cell goes bad, and cooks, it does not spread to the other cells, it melts part of its case and is contained in a steel box with a vent to the outside. An alarm goes off and we take action. In the best best case all is kept inside the battery itself. There are 6-9 cells in the battery. So the exotherm of one cell is small compared to the whole. It maybe that mounted on the firewall, with blast cooling, in an appropriate box is the final recommendation and minimal change. We just don't know yet, so let's be careful out there. Data will help us all. A certified component with FAA validation might not need the same scrutiny.

In a vision of the final best case the BMS measures the internal resistance, temperatures, and voltages. It manages all the above so the the "battery pack" is a drop in replacement and it can tolerate anything within a defined set of operating conditions. When this is the case, hopefully a battery company will use this as advertising material to sell their products. An "I do know" approach. With good questions they will all get there, or the best ones will.
 
(Cross Posted from the "other" discussion)
I've gathered some more data, based on some of the concerns raised in this discussion. The main issues brought up are
1: Safety
2: Performance and capacity
3: Weight and Balance.

Warning! Info dump to follow!


1: Safety
I looked at a few scientific research papers on the safety of LiFePo4 battery cells, and I was actually able to understand some of the words! After uncrossing my eyes, I actually searched something asked for in this discussion; what do these cells do when they are abused. I found some interesting videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBapfB0Imo - Full Destruction of a charged cell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTqY4FY1yk - Penetration Test 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZf2pKzBErk - Penetration Test 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XymqQ-YlfJ0 - Over Charge


Also, here is some information from Wikipedia, which I know is NOT a infallible source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery#Safety

And Finally, from http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithiumS.htm :
Phosphate based technology possesses superior thermal and chemical stability which provides better safety characteristics than those of Lithium-ion technology made with other cathode materials. Lithium phosphate cells are incombustible in the event of mishandling during charge or discharge, they are more stable under overcharge or short circuit conditions and they can withstand high temperatures without decomposing. When abuse does occur, the phosphate based cathode material will not burn and is not prone to thermal runaway. Phosphate chemistry also offers a longer cycle life.
Recent developments have produced a range of new environmentally friendly cathode active materials based on Lithiated transition metal phosphates for Lithium-ion applications.


2: Performance and Capacity
Some of the questions brought up relating to this were the operating temperatures that a LiFePo4 battery would encounter on the firewall of an RV10. I had asked the EarthX rep this question at Osh, and his response was this: "The operating range of the EarthX battery is wider than a comparable Odyssey SLA battery". This looks to be mostly true, as the Odyssey manual lists the range without a protective metal case to be only good to 113°F, but 176°F with an added shield. I'd imagine that you could add a similar, or even the same shield to the EarthX to get even more temperature range.

Also, a few of our fellow RV10 pilots are going to stick some temperature probes on the firewall in a few places to see what the requirements really are. As it stands today, it doesn't sound like temperature is going to be an issue.
Odyssey Operating Temperature Range
PC545, PC680, PC925, PC1200 and PC1700 without metal jacket: -40°C (-40°F) to 45°C (113°F),
PC545, PC680, PC925, PC1200 and PC1700 with metal jacket: -40°C (-40°F) to 80°C (176°F),

EarthX Operating Temperature Range
Operating Temperature* -30°C (-22°F) to +60 °C (140°F)
Storage Temperature -40°C (-40°F) to +60 °C (140°F)


EarthX Discharge Versus Temperature
We use a similar Cold Cranking Amp test standard (SAE test performed at 0°F, but 3
second discharge time) as the lead acid battery manufacturers. As such, our battery with a
similar CCA rating as a lead acid battery should provide the same cranking performance
at 0°F. But, below 0°F an equivalent lead acid battery will outperform a lithium battery
(From http://earthxmotorsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ETX_Manual_111017_G.pdf)

As far as capacity, the EarthX battery that I am considering has 12ah. According to Skytec's specs, the 149-NL starter that I'm going to use has a draw of 125-185 amps. The 12ah battery will give me almost 4 minutes of solid cranking at the highest spec'd starter draw. As far as electrical emergency capacity, between whatever is left in the starter battery (say after 2 minutes of engine crank) and a 6ah TCW backup battery, I'll have 12ah, which at 6 amps of draw (rough estimate) gives me two hours of endurance buss time. And that is if both the primary and secondary alternators fail.

3: Weight and Balance
Taking the suggestion of a few people in this discussion, we figured out an example weight and balance for a generic RV10, found the arms of the battery tray and the firewall, and ran the numbers with a 26lb battery in the tail, and a 4lb battery on the firewall. Even with the battery on the firewall and 26lbs removed from the tail, it's difficult to get the plane into a CG past the forward limits. Pretty much any weight you carry in the plane pushes the CG back. So, worst case scenario would be a light pilot on low fuel. Even with the stock battery in the stock location, you'll be forward of the CG limit. Adding ~40 lbs in the baggage area will keep the plane within CG in this light configuration, and have the benefit of being removable when carrying capacity is needed. If even a single 65lb person is in the back seat, this extra weight isn't needed.

The real problem is hitting the aft CG before you hit gross weight, because, as I stated before, pretty much every pound you add pushed the CG rearward. Because of this, I personally would prefer to have a CG as far forward as possible to give me more options.

Basically, having the battery in the tail only moves the cg aft 1" in a single pilot no fuel scenario
but allows you to carry 30lbs more baggage in a full gross scenario.

The one thing these numbers don't include are the weight and CG changes from removing the large #2 power cable from the tailcone to the firewall.

Thehe WnB spreadsheet I've used for my numbers is here:
http://www.edandcolleen.com/files/RV10WeightBalance.xlsx
Thanks to Justin Twilbeck for throwing this together for me. (It even has a calculation for the loading needed to cause a tailstrike! Good stuff!)
 
Ed, you have been busy doing your homework-----good.

Now that you have a better idea of what you are getting into, "go forth and conquer" as my favorite pseudo mother would say.

Good luck.

And, thanks again for hosting the RV 10 cookout:D
 
Here is a LiFePO4 fire last summer...

http://www.thepolypost.com/news/lit...cle_6a254736-bf27-11e2-b3a2-0019bb30f31a.html

This company put one in the G650...

http://www.securaplane.com/products/energy-storage-technologies

Concorde is working them too...

http://www.concordebattery.com/lion.php

Put in a Odyssey 925L for now and enjoy the extra baggage later. Be patient and keep pounding rivets or take some more trips.

NEGATIVE...LITHIUM MAIN BATTERIES NEVER MADE IT TO THE G650. One reason is SecuraPlane's building burned down due to a lithium fire. Another reason is Cessna had an aircraft destroyed by a lithium battery fire.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...um-batteries-bizjets-remain-scarce-are-coming

Every major aircraft battery manufacturer is trying to make safe lithium batteries, however call Concorde and ask them how they feel about the current generation of lithium batteries being installed on aircraft.
 
Two issues I see. One is that the operating temps may be within limits, but the amount of sustained heat in the engine compartment during a flight will be hard on the battery's life. Also, with the added heat from being in the engine compartment it could increase the risk of a thermal runaway, which leads to the fire or explosion part. The Boeing 777 is still contending with battery issues, and they are spending big dollars trying to figure things out.
 
Two issues I see. One is that the operating temps may be within limits, but the amount of sustained heat in the engine compartment during a flight will be hard on the battery's life. Also, with the added heat from being in the engine compartment it could increase the risk of a thermal runaway, which leads to the fire or explosion part. The Boeing 777 is still contending with battery issues, and they are spending big dollars trying to figure things out.

From what I'm hearing (and if you read some of the links posted above) the LiFePo4 batterys don't really get into a thermal runaway situation. Other Lithium Ion battery chemistries , like the LiCoO2 that was used in the Dreamliner, do.

From Wikipedia:
The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[24] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[25] types (such as LiFePO4)and LiMn2O4 (Lithium Manganate), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[26][27] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[28][29] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells,[30] but the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[31]

Also, temperature is VERY hard on Lead Acid batteries, but there are a lot of those installed on firewalls with no adverse affects:
From http://www.leadacidbatteryinfo.org/lead-acid-battery-uses.htm
The optimum operating temperature for lead-acid batteries is 25 degrees Celsius. It is important to be aware of temperature when using and storing lead-acid batteries for every 8 degrees Celsius rise in temperature will cut the battery life in half.
 
Last edited:
NEGATIVE...LITHIUM MAIN BATTERIES NEVER MADE IT TO THE G650. One reason is SecuraPlane's building burned down due to a lithium fire. Another reason is Cessna had an aircraft destroyed by a lithium battery fire.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...um-batteries-bizjets-remain-scarce-are-coming

Every major aircraft battery manufacturer is trying to make safe lithium batteries, however call Concorde and ask them how they feel about the current generation of lithium batteries being installed on aircraft.

Great link! This is the kind of information that I'm looking for.

From that article:
According to an FAA spokeswoman, the FAA discovered that [the CJ4 fire] was caused by a mechanic’s intentionally bypassing the safety systems built into the battery–“that’s why the fire occurred.”

Reading that article, specifically the testing Cessna did with the battery, actually makes me feel better about this chemistry.

Also, Concorde IS developing a LiFePo4 battery.
 
Last edited:
The two certified lithium main battery installations both have "safety features" which commercial off the shelf batteries and aircraft ship system charging/monitoring systems do not! There is an Advisory Circular regarding certification of lithium batteries that I can't seem to locate right now, it is a good read though, lots of information regarding the Cessna fire.
 
clarity

Since there are several chemistries of Lithium batteries and we're interested in what is best for aircraft, it would be good to state what lithium battery you're talking about when adding a data point, "fact" or personal experience etc. Otherwise this all gets lumped under one name being "Lithium" which is not helpful when trying to differentiate.


Bevan
 
Regarding lithium being toxic. I have no doubt that it is toxic in some concentration, but it was (and may still be) used as a medicinal ingredient (taken orally I believe) and was even part of the recipe of at least one popular soft drink many decades ago. Hmmm. Don't try this at home! :eek:

Bevan
 
Since there are several chemistries of Lithium batteries and we're interested in what is best for aircraft, it would be good to state what lithium battery you're talking about when adding a data point, "fact" or personal experience etc. Otherwise this all gets lumped under one name being "Lithium" which is not helpful when trying to differentiate.


Bevan

I did not specify a particular chemistry because my above statement of equipment requirements for a safe installation cover ALL types of chemistries. I do not pretend to know what is the best or the safest, I have just read for hours on end and despite what some would have you believe, they ALL have the potential to be a disaster.

What does "toxicity" have to do with this discussion? Planning to fly around with a mouth full of lithium batteries? ATC may have a hard time understanding your radio transmissions:D
 
For FWF installation, it's likely that the major heat impact will be following a long taxi after landing and then shutdown. The engine bay temps can get pretty high then.

Any temperature monitoring will need to include the case of having the airplane all turned off, with high temps under the cowl for a significant period of time.

What's significant? I don't know. That's a qustion for the battery vendors to answer.

I'm beginning to think that a relatively thick stainless steel case, with the battery accessible through an external blast and access door, might be reasonably safe. It would still need to be insulated from anything important.

Dave
 
Detailed install provided for the EarthX ETX48E

I was about to post this on another thread and saw this one so it seemed appropriate to put it here as well.

Kathy, I was able to get the battery installed in my RV10 today. There was only a little bit of work to do to get it to fit. Here are the notes and links to pictures. http://tinyurl.com/nadnssd



1) The width of the ETX48E is an exact fit for the width of the Odyssey
PC925 - so anyone that is using that battery (most all RV10s), the existing angle piece in the battery tray works perfect to hold the aft end of the ETX48E.
2) The depth of the ETX48E is about 1-5/8" thinner than the PC925 (typically installed on its side). I used a piece of UMHD with some lightening holes to reduce weight to take up the extra room in the tray behind the ETX48E battery.
3) The stock battery tie-down lands on top of the battery but is off the back of the center built up area (where the EarthX label on top is). To fix this, I made a 6"x3/8" piece of UMHD and epoxied it to the top of the battery. The tie-down bar then fell equally on the UMHD block and the exposed battery top.
4) The existing wiring runs from the Master Relay and the Ground Wire were all a perfect length to reach the ETX48E when using the Terminal Adapters to move the attach points to the front of the battery from the top.
5) The screws to attach the Terminal Adapters were outfitted with a lock washer and a flat washer to secure the screws in place. The same thing was done to secure the battery cable lugs to the terminal adapters.
6) A MS25171-3S insulting rubber boot was installed over the top of the POSITIVE side of the battery terminal adapter to protect the exposed terminal. It also protects it from the nearby battery tie-down bar.
7) The change out took about 2 hours including fabricating the new spacers.
8) The battery worked great and it seems like the starter has a little more oomph than the Odyssey battery.




Hope this helps answer some questions out there.

Kathy
 
Last edited:
High risk for sure

I see these battery as such a high risk, and if for some reason something goes wrong, then the fire and any gasses that are let loose are extremely toxic, and the thin firewall is not enough protection.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 
Opinion wanted on battery box

We would love to hear your feedback here at EarthX on what you think of this proposed battery box? It's aluminum, weighs less than 2 pounds and the straps could be adjustable. This is only a prototype. You can also email us at [email protected]


23r0p76.jpg
[/IMG]
 
We would love to hear your feedback here at EarthX on what you think of this proposed battery box? It's aluminum, weighs less than 2 pounds and the straps could be adjustable. This is only a prototype. You can also email us at [email protected]

That just makes me laugh. If I see it on your airplane, you'll be providing more welcomed amusement for me :).

My 2c worth of opinion.
 
Dear Scard,

I should have given more details on the battery box, we are not making it but had a metal fabricator send us this "idea" on something that he could do. The straps are a no go...they must be flame proof such as an aluminum bar and ideally, it would be a solid aluminum casing around it in the event of an engine fire to protect it from flames as well.

But maybe I don't understand what you mean by it makes you laugh.....care to offer a more detailed opinion?

Kathy
 
Kathy,

One thing that might help you is to understand that there is a pretty polarized audience for the LiFePO4 batteries. You either recognize the benefits and accept the risks, or you think they're unacceptably dangerous and will hear nothing of using one. Try asking those who appreciate the benefits and accept the risks for application suggestions. Otherwise, you won't get sincere or productive feedback on your ideas.

Bryan
 
Last edited:
I installed an EarthX in my plane a few months ago and am completely happy with it. I put it in the standard location for the -10 (behind baggage wall) and so my 2c on the battery box is that its not necessary since the battery can be very easily made to fit in the standard battery tray.
 
Since I started this thread, I figured I should update you all as to what I decided to do.

I'm going to be following Brian's example and I will be installing an EarthX battery in the stock RV10 location. I still really like the idea of having the battery on the firewall, but a friend measured cowl temperatures in the locations I was looking at, and during taxi both before and after the flight, the temperature would climb up to around 180 degrees. I feel a lot better not exposing the battery to those temperature extremes.

Thanks for everyone's input!
 
Back
Top