Some of the aircraft I worked on originally used NiCad batteries. These were used to power the aircraft and start the engines at remote airfields (no ground power unit) and could provide about 20-30 minutes of power for the radios, instruments etc. in the event of multiple generator failures.
One thing about NiCad is the possibility of thermal runaway. They had a greater potential if the batteries were used to start a reluctant engine (drained significantly) then charged up too fast by the generators, or used to many times during a day for starting. On one aircraft type I worked on (Beechcraft B200) there was a modification available to replace the NiCad battery with a lead-acid starved electrolyte (AGM) battery. The AGM batteries could be abused forever and not overheat, but were not serviceable and had a replacement interval of about 24 months. I imagine that they will likely replace the Yuasa Lithium batteries with old-fashioned (but very safe) AGM lead acid batteries. The amount of weight difference really isn't significant in that large of an aircraft, and will get them flight compliant in no time. Tom Keenan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Dube Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:34 PM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire I should note that selected models of the Cessna business jets have been flying LiFePO4 batteries since 2010. http://saeaero.saejournals.org/content/3/1/149.abstract _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
