Collision Avoidance
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
IO
”Rod1 - how is the empty weight of your homebuilt made up? % due to engine, airframe, avionics, etc. It should be trivial to save 5-10kg by replacing certain non-structural items. I realise you carry a transponder but you gave this example as representing huge numbers of pilots. “
A VLA does not have the problem of a max empty weight. It is the micros, which have the problem. The CT and Eurostar aircraft are within 0.5kg of max empty weight factory built and that is with min allowable kit, no radio and no transponder. My glass panel and standard kit is quite light (the HSI is 300g all in including the solid state gyro). If I had to save weight the navcom is 3.88 lbs and the transponder is about 2 kg excluding wiring and aerial so they would be the obvious choice. I could exchange the CS prop for a fixed pitch, but this is only going to save a few kg as the prop is a state of the art carbon bladed electrical unit. Non of the above will help the CT/Eurostar as they would not have any of it to start with. The empty weight of mine is 253kg, mtow 490kg so she nearly lifts her own weight.
I agree that large chunks of GA are below 2000ft, including most spam cans. It was your assumption of a connection between no electrics and flying low that I was disagreeing with. The aerobatic boys do not fly low and a lot of home built and some factory stuff comes with no electrics to save weight and improve performance. I make no comment on this being a good thing, it just is.
Ironically, the number of flying machines, which cannot carry transponders, is set to increase massively over the next few years. Literally 100’s of unregulated 115kg max empty weight machines are on order and new designs are coning in to this new CAA approved category. Do not assume these will not fly above 2000ft
WR
There is a guy at Old Sarum who works in engineering and owns a vintage piper who has exactly the setup you describe. In practice he gets about 1.5 hours out of the battery with the wind generator operating, but that is with the radio and transponder on. It is sufficient to get him into L2K and out again but he only uses the transponder to get into cas. Sorry I cannot remember his name; it has been a long week.
Rod1
”Rod1 - how is the empty weight of your homebuilt made up? % due to engine, airframe, avionics, etc. It should be trivial to save 5-10kg by replacing certain non-structural items. I realise you carry a transponder but you gave this example as representing huge numbers of pilots. “
A VLA does not have the problem of a max empty weight. It is the micros, which have the problem. The CT and Eurostar aircraft are within 0.5kg of max empty weight factory built and that is with min allowable kit, no radio and no transponder. My glass panel and standard kit is quite light (the HSI is 300g all in including the solid state gyro). If I had to save weight the navcom is 3.88 lbs and the transponder is about 2 kg excluding wiring and aerial so they would be the obvious choice. I could exchange the CS prop for a fixed pitch, but this is only going to save a few kg as the prop is a state of the art carbon bladed electrical unit. Non of the above will help the CT/Eurostar as they would not have any of it to start with. The empty weight of mine is 253kg, mtow 490kg so she nearly lifts her own weight.
I agree that large chunks of GA are below 2000ft, including most spam cans. It was your assumption of a connection between no electrics and flying low that I was disagreeing with. The aerobatic boys do not fly low and a lot of home built and some factory stuff comes with no electrics to save weight and improve performance. I make no comment on this being a good thing, it just is.
Ironically, the number of flying machines, which cannot carry transponders, is set to increase massively over the next few years. Literally 100’s of unregulated 115kg max empty weight machines are on order and new designs are coning in to this new CAA approved category. Do not assume these will not fly above 2000ft
WR
There is a guy at Old Sarum who works in engineering and owns a vintage piper who has exactly the setup you describe. In practice he gets about 1.5 hours out of the battery with the wind generator operating, but that is with the radio and transponder on. It is sufficient to get him into L2K and out again but he only uses the transponder to get into cas. Sorry I cannot remember his name; it has been a long week.
Rod1
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
If Richard can only get about 1.5 hours with a wind generator backing up the battery then you would need a very big battery to get 8 hours. I therefore assume that the transponders get interrogated a lot more than the above examples assume. The guy who did the “science” part of the LAA submission to the CAA certainly thought it was a non starter to power an existing transponder with a battery, but I do not have a copy of this assumptions and calculations. Unless you could build an entirely portable box it would be of little use in most aircraft anyway.
Rod1
Rod1
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
From: South Norfolk, England
I still think we're approaching the problem with the wrong technology. What's wrong with the gps based FLARM system? see ... http://http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=308235
It appears very practical, cheap in comparison and light. Power consumption is low and it is self contained. I'm guessing that because the system works aircraft to aircraft and not aircraft to ground, that the CAA ect have nothing to gain. It's the sort of system that could actually work if we all supported it but just like TCAS, will fail if only a few aircraft use it. It does though seem more likely to be practical than transponder based systems, or am I missing something obvious?
SS
It appears very practical, cheap in comparison and light. Power consumption is low and it is self contained. I'm guessing that because the system works aircraft to aircraft and not aircraft to ground, that the CAA ect have nothing to gain. It's the sort of system that could actually work if we all supported it but just like TCAS, will fail if only a few aircraft use it. It does though seem more likely to be practical than transponder based systems, or am I missing something obvious?
SS
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
A straight calculation based on modern LIPO batteries seems to defy the above logic.
I know I keep coming back to this, but do the dealers who sell these clearly state that
- you cannot fly to NORDO airfields (loads of them)
- you cannot fly in transponder airspace (plenty of that too esp. abroad)
Looking at 253kg, saving 5-10kg on that should be easy. There are loads of parts which are not significantly stressed and these could be made of magnesium instead of ally. I machine Mg routinely at home; it's perfectly safe.
Finally, I agree aerobatic planes fly potentially anywhere vertically but they are not a statistically significant bit of the big picture. If they were, they would be introducing a new hazard, but aerobatic pilots generally choose places to do it where there isn't much traffic.
The CT and Eurostar aircraft are within 0.5kg of max empty weight factory built and that is with min allowable kit, no radio and no transponder
- you cannot fly to NORDO airfields (loads of them)
- you cannot fly in transponder airspace (plenty of that too esp. abroad)
Looking at 253kg, saving 5-10kg on that should be easy. There are loads of parts which are not significantly stressed and these could be made of magnesium instead of ally. I machine Mg routinely at home; it's perfectly safe.
Finally, I agree aerobatic planes fly potentially anywhere vertically but they are not a statistically significant bit of the big picture. If they were, they would be introducing a new hazard, but aerobatic pilots generally choose places to do it where there isn't much traffic.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Finally, I agree aerobatic planes fly potentially anywhere vertically but they are not a statistically significant bit of the big picture. If they were, they would be introducing a new hazard, but aerobatic pilots generally choose places to do it where there isn't much traffic.
We do indeed tend to fly in places that see little through traffic though, try to get the best ATC service available (well, at least I do) and squawk either the assigned discrete code or 7004. There is an implicit expectation that ATC, where possible, will issue traffic warnings about aerobatics pilots when they know about them, regardless of "limited service due to controller workload" or the exact service that someone obtained, as keeping a lookout while doing an aerobatics sequence is a tad harder.
Fortunately we do change direction, altitude and speed a lot, making us a little more conspicuously than traffic that flies straight and level. Remember it's the traffic that doesn't move with respect to your windscreen that kills you.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“I know I keep coming back to this, but do the dealers who sell these clearly state that”
I have no idea and it is not really relevant to the debate. If you allowed us to junk the current rules and start from scratch we could knock up a better regulatory set of rules in a few days. When we started all this the CAA said that there would be a mobile phone size transponder, when it did not materialise we pointed out some basic ideas. Number one was allow micros with a transponder to increase the max empty weight by 5kg. The CAA group who were peddling the “transponders for all” went away and asked their opposite number in a different department, who said no way. This was one of the nails in the transponders for all coffin. It would still be good if we could win the concession, but I am unaware of any progress on this in the last 9 months. You now start to see what we are up against…
If you think it is possible to save 10kg on my aircraft basic structure give Cristoph Robin a call at Dyn Aero, he will probably reward you greatly. Just remember it is mostly carbon fibre and is much lighter than any of the opposition, which is why it performs so well.
“FLARM system”
This was pushed hard by the BGA. The formal CAA response to the 1st consultation spends some time dismissing it as unsuitable. I think you will find the document on the LAA site, but it must be on the CAA site too.
Can I suggest that if some of you would like to get involved at the sharp end of all this I know of several organizations who are desperate for help. Be prepared for a big shock, as any allusions you had that there is a big plan and somebody has thought it all through will rapidly disappear. The considerable number of people who worked on this on your behalf may not have won every battle, but we did iron out a huge number of kinks in the plan.
There is a meeting on the 15th March at LAA headquarters open to all. The CAA will be presenting the case for the second consultation and will be available to answer questions. I will be there and it would be nice to think you would all come along...
Rod1
I have no idea and it is not really relevant to the debate. If you allowed us to junk the current rules and start from scratch we could knock up a better regulatory set of rules in a few days. When we started all this the CAA said that there would be a mobile phone size transponder, when it did not materialise we pointed out some basic ideas. Number one was allow micros with a transponder to increase the max empty weight by 5kg. The CAA group who were peddling the “transponders for all” went away and asked their opposite number in a different department, who said no way. This was one of the nails in the transponders for all coffin. It would still be good if we could win the concession, but I am unaware of any progress on this in the last 9 months. You now start to see what we are up against…
If you think it is possible to save 10kg on my aircraft basic structure give Cristoph Robin a call at Dyn Aero, he will probably reward you greatly. Just remember it is mostly carbon fibre and is much lighter than any of the opposition, which is why it performs so well.
“FLARM system”
This was pushed hard by the BGA. The formal CAA response to the 1st consultation spends some time dismissing it as unsuitable. I think you will find the document on the LAA site, but it must be on the CAA site too.
Can I suggest that if some of you would like to get involved at the sharp end of all this I know of several organizations who are desperate for help. Be prepared for a big shock, as any allusions you had that there is a big plan and somebody has thought it all through will rapidly disappear. The considerable number of people who worked on this on your behalf may not have won every battle, but we did iron out a huge number of kinks in the plan.
There is a meeting on the 15th March at LAA headquarters open to all. The CAA will be presenting the case for the second consultation and will be available to answer questions. I will be there and it would be nice to think you would all come along...
Rod1
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
Battery powered transponders
I've installed battery-only powered transponders in non-electric aircraft.
A couple of light-weight/low power examples:
Filser TRT800. Weight 570g. Consumption typical 200A.
Becker ATC6401. Weight 800g. Consumption 370mA.
A typical battery used in Tigermoths and many gliders is the Yuasa 6.5A/Hr sealed lead-acid. When operating both a VHF (Becker AR4201) and a transponder, battery life is normally around 5 hours. A new aviation approved Lithium battery is about to be available which doubles the capacity to 13A/hr in the same size case - it's being targeted directly at the glider community.
If you needed to swap the transponders between different aircraft, both of the above units store the aircraft data in non-volatile memory, either in the aircraft mating connector (TRT800), or in a 'dongle' (ATC6401) which plugs into the transponders (same method as many 406 ELT's use), so you don't need to re-programme or risk sending the incorrect Mode S address when you swap units around.
A couple of light-weight/low power examples:
Filser TRT800. Weight 570g. Consumption typical 200A.
Becker ATC6401. Weight 800g. Consumption 370mA.
A typical battery used in Tigermoths and many gliders is the Yuasa 6.5A/Hr sealed lead-acid. When operating both a VHF (Becker AR4201) and a transponder, battery life is normally around 5 hours. A new aviation approved Lithium battery is about to be available which doubles the capacity to 13A/hr in the same size case - it's being targeted directly at the glider community.
If you needed to swap the transponders between different aircraft, both of the above units store the aircraft data in non-volatile memory, either in the aircraft mating connector (TRT800), or in a 'dongle' (ATC6401) which plugs into the transponders (same method as many 406 ELT's use), so you don't need to re-programme or risk sending the incorrect Mode S address when you swap units around.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
And all this is approved, as far as approvals are necessary? Sounds very interesting.
Is this mode A, C or S? If C or S, do you get static pressure from the cockpit or does it tie in with existing static plumbing?
Are the units accessible in-flight to change a squawk?
How about the antenna. Is it permanently wired into the aircraft or portable in some way?
Oh, and I assume the Filser uses 200mA instead of 200A...?
Is this mode A, C or S? If C or S, do you get static pressure from the cockpit or does it tie in with existing static plumbing?
Are the units accessible in-flight to change a squawk?
How about the antenna. Is it permanently wired into the aircraft or portable in some way?
Oh, and I assume the Filser uses 200mA instead of 200A...?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
Backpacker
Whoops! Yes, 200mA.
Both units have EASA ETSO approval, so installation is good in any European state. These units are approved for aircraft below 175kts/15000 feet, but both manufacturers make similar units for higher speed/altitude.
The Filser unit has a built-in altitude encoder - you connect the aircraft static directly to the back of the unit. The Becker needs an external encoder (they were promising an encoder module to plug on the back, but I haven't seen one yet).
An external antenna is required (Comant CI01 for about $90), and this needs a ground plane - this can be foil or copper mesh on a plastic aircraft - it needs to be about 15cm diameter. You can even mount the antenna internally on fibreglass or fabric aircraft (not with carbon-fibre, as it shields the signal)
If you want to do the installation in an EASA certified aircraft, you will need some form of design approval, either from an EASA Part 21J design organisation, or via a direct minor modification application to EASA. If it's an annex 2 aircraft, you apply directly to the National Authority for the minor change (In the UK, most Part 21J companies also have a UK national design approval as well for annex 2 aircraft).
Hope this helps.
Both units have EASA ETSO approval, so installation is good in any European state. These units are approved for aircraft below 175kts/15000 feet, but both manufacturers make similar units for higher speed/altitude.
The Filser unit has a built-in altitude encoder - you connect the aircraft static directly to the back of the unit. The Becker needs an external encoder (they were promising an encoder module to plug on the back, but I haven't seen one yet).
An external antenna is required (Comant CI01 for about $90), and this needs a ground plane - this can be foil or copper mesh on a plastic aircraft - it needs to be about 15cm diameter. You can even mount the antenna internally on fibreglass or fabric aircraft (not with carbon-fibre, as it shields the signal)
If you want to do the installation in an EASA certified aircraft, you will need some form of design approval, either from an EASA Part 21J design organisation, or via a direct minor modification application to EASA. If it's an annex 2 aircraft, you apply directly to the National Authority for the minor change (In the UK, most Part 21J companies also have a UK national design approval as well for annex 2 aircraft).
Hope this helps.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
These units are approved for aircraft below 175kts/15000 feet, but both manufacturers make similar units for higher speed/altitude.
It's the same damned product.I would like to know what is the real meaning of an "aviation approved" lithium battery. It's a bit like a barbeque approved for use inside a petrol refinery.
Wigglyamp - should there be a problem with a transponder which is fixed to the (non-electric) aircraft's panel, and the battery being on a flying lead with a connector? That makes the battery portable, and portable stuff does not need approval (except for transmitting equipment where the CAA has the responsibility for approving e.g. Icom handheld transceivers).
It also means that if the battery starts smoking, you can unplug it and chuck it out of the window (if you have a window at all).
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
IO-540
You can't have an approved transponder installation with a PORTABLE battery - it's not certifyable. To certify the installation means showing that all component parts will remain in place to specified G loads - bits in the cockpit which can injure the occupants in an accident must be secure to 18G forwards. Hidden bits need to meet 9G (all details are in EASA CS23.561)
The Lithium battery problems with catching fire have long been recognised - hence they've not seen widespread use so far, other than memory back-ups in GPS systems and deployment batteries for ADELTS (helicopter deployable ELT's used on North Sea).
The new development in Li batteries is meant to address these issues and provide the opportunity for smaller, higher capacity batteries so you can run essential equipment e.g. transponders in non-electric aircraft. I've heard it mentioned from a battery manufacturer that the EU will ban production of Lead-Acid batteries from 2012 - will we go to Ni-Cad, with similar overheat problems, or to the new high-capacity Li. I think it'll be the latter, as we'll end up with more glass cockpits needing more power for continued operation when the generator fails.
On the different transponder units for height/speed ranges, certainly the Filser unit required a different altitude sensor to get the required 35000 feet, and it's got to maintain it's accuracy, so it's got to be pretty good, considering it's tiny space in the existing transponder case. Also, for both Filser and Becker, the output power is higher for the greater range requirements. As aviation product runs are much smaller that commercial electronics, I guess the manufacturers see this as a way to claw back some of the additional development and certification costs.
The Lithium battery problems with catching fire have long been recognised - hence they've not seen widespread use so far, other than memory back-ups in GPS systems and deployment batteries for ADELTS (helicopter deployable ELT's used on North Sea).
The new development in Li batteries is meant to address these issues and provide the opportunity for smaller, higher capacity batteries so you can run essential equipment e.g. transponders in non-electric aircraft. I've heard it mentioned from a battery manufacturer that the EU will ban production of Lead-Acid batteries from 2012 - will we go to Ni-Cad, with similar overheat problems, or to the new high-capacity Li. I think it'll be the latter, as we'll end up with more glass cockpits needing more power for continued operation when the generator fails.
On the different transponder units for height/speed ranges, certainly the Filser unit required a different altitude sensor to get the required 35000 feet, and it's got to maintain it's accuracy, so it's got to be pretty good, considering it's tiny space in the existing transponder case. Also, for both Filser and Becker, the output power is higher for the greater range requirements. As aviation product runs are much smaller that commercial electronics, I guess the manufacturers see this as a way to claw back some of the additional development and certification costs.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
ChrisN has lots of experience of FLARM, but the CAA are quite clear that currently it is illegal to use it in the UK - apparently it upsets people who have radio-controlled garage doors, or something!!!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
>>>>>>>>>>Can I suggest that if some of you would like to get involved at the sharp end of all this I know of several organizations who are desperate for help. Be prepared for a big shock, as any allusions you had that there is a big plan and somebody has thought it all through will rapidly disappear. The considerable number of people who worked on this on your behalf may not have won every battle, but we did iron out a huge number of kinks in the plan.
There is a meeting on the 15th March at LAA headquarters open to all. The CAA will be presenting the case for the second consultation and will be available to answer questions. I will be there and it would be nice to think you would all come along...
Rod1<<<<<
Rod
Well said. The whole issue is one that needs constant monitoring in our 'copious spare time'.
I have been to many such meetings and have spoken to the CAA staffers. I have usually come away somewhat mollified, then, weeks later, found that others in the department have reneged on everything that was said previously.
Whilst I have great respect for one or two in the Mode S CAA team, I can see that they have decided to use 'salami tactics'. That is to come to the original conclusion slice by slice.
Where in this new consultation is the commitment to the 'mobile phone sized, sub 700 euro LAST/LPST? They do state that in Phase 2 gliders will lose exemption, but, again, make no comment as to how this can happen.
The radiological study is lacking the 'Ladybird Guide' for scientific innocents like me, despite a strongly worded request from the LAA.
No, as many of us as possible need to highlight the outstanding stupidies and impracticalities in the CAA document and a good start is to attend one of the roadshows.
I'll be at Turweston, as well, if only to scrag a CAA rep
There is a meeting on the 15th March at LAA headquarters open to all. The CAA will be presenting the case for the second consultation and will be available to answer questions. I will be there and it would be nice to think you would all come along...
Rod1<<<<<
Rod
Well said. The whole issue is one that needs constant monitoring in our 'copious spare time'.
I have been to many such meetings and have spoken to the CAA staffers. I have usually come away somewhat mollified, then, weeks later, found that others in the department have reneged on everything that was said previously.
Whilst I have great respect for one or two in the Mode S CAA team, I can see that they have decided to use 'salami tactics'. That is to come to the original conclusion slice by slice.
Where in this new consultation is the commitment to the 'mobile phone sized, sub 700 euro LAST/LPST? They do state that in Phase 2 gliders will lose exemption, but, again, make no comment as to how this can happen.
The radiological study is lacking the 'Ladybird Guide' for scientific innocents like me, despite a strongly worded request from the LAA.
No, as many of us as possible need to highlight the outstanding stupidies and impracticalities in the CAA document and a good start is to attend one of the roadshows.
I'll be at Turweston, as well, if only to scrag a CAA rep
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
Re Flarm, and batteries for gliders
robin wrote:
"ChrisN has lots of experience of FLARM, but the CAA are quite clear that currently it is illegal to use it in the UK - apparently it upsets people who have radio-controlled garage doors, or something!!!"
------------------------
Sorry, not quite accurate. I have a Flarm, but have not yet used it in the air – a job for this season, assuming CAA approves it. I have, however, read lots about it, including results of trials in 2007 at Portmoak and elsewhere. My impression is still that it does more good than harm, but only of course between Flarm-equipped aerial conveyances, which is likely in the UK only to be some gliders, some tugs, and maybe some of various other categories at the light GA end.
Nothing would prevent other GA from getting them too, especially those who complain that they hate gliders/can’t see us/it’s our fault we can’t fit transponders (even for those gliders where it is not our fault, of which there are many) etc. – but I’m not holding my breath.
Although Flarm uses radio-controlled garage door frequency, I have been told it is too low powered to cause a problem. No doubt that is part of what CAA were/are looking at.
CAA were saying it had no approval YET for UK use, but the BGA told me, in effect, watch this space; it was likely to get either approval or at least not actively disapproved early this year.
- - - -
I shall be interested to see if the Li battery mentioned by somebody comes about with aviation “approval”. I’d like the extra juice, but don’t think I would dare use them unless the “approval”/formal certification is real. (Would chancing it without such approval endanger insurance cover in the event of a fire or other incident/accident? Don’t bother answering here – the only answer I would believe would be from my insurer and only then if in writing.)
Chris N
"ChrisN has lots of experience of FLARM, but the CAA are quite clear that currently it is illegal to use it in the UK - apparently it upsets people who have radio-controlled garage doors, or something!!!"
------------------------
Sorry, not quite accurate. I have a Flarm, but have not yet used it in the air – a job for this season, assuming CAA approves it. I have, however, read lots about it, including results of trials in 2007 at Portmoak and elsewhere. My impression is still that it does more good than harm, but only of course between Flarm-equipped aerial conveyances, which is likely in the UK only to be some gliders, some tugs, and maybe some of various other categories at the light GA end.
Nothing would prevent other GA from getting them too, especially those who complain that they hate gliders/can’t see us/it’s our fault we can’t fit transponders (even for those gliders where it is not our fault, of which there are many) etc. – but I’m not holding my breath.
Although Flarm uses radio-controlled garage door frequency, I have been told it is too low powered to cause a problem. No doubt that is part of what CAA were/are looking at.
CAA were saying it had no approval YET for UK use, but the BGA told me, in effect, watch this space; it was likely to get either approval or at least not actively disapproved early this year.
- - - -
I shall be interested to see if the Li battery mentioned by somebody comes about with aviation “approval”. I’d like the extra juice, but don’t think I would dare use them unless the “approval”/formal certification is real. (Would chancing it without such approval endanger insurance cover in the event of a fire or other incident/accident? Don’t bother answering here – the only answer I would believe would be from my insurer and only then if in writing.)
Chris N
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Nothing would prevent other GA from getting them too, especially those who complain that they hate gliders/can’t see us/it’s our fault we can’t fit transponders (even for those gliders where it is not our fault, of which there are many) etc. – but I’m not holding my breath.
There's a perfectly good standard out there for this which is an ICAO standard. It's ADS-B over 1090ES which most large aircraft and an increasing number of light aircraft already have the equipment to use. The issue is surely only about the power required vs the range of the equipment -- I can't see anything about FLARM that improves the range to power over 1090ES. All the cost is in the certification and it's as easy to certify a light and low-power 1090ES transponder (or at least, ADS-B-out box) as it is to certify FLARM.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I've heard it mentioned from a battery manufacturer that the EU will ban production of Lead-Acid batteries from 2012 - will we go to Ni-Cad, with similar overheat problems, or to the new high-capacity Li
I've designed countless charging circuits for battery powered appliances over the years.
NICD or NIMH needs a constant current charger with a voltage and/or temperature-rise based cutoff. I wonder how they charge the ones used in jets?
