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.

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

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

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?

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.

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....

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 6:40:38 PM UTC+3, Steve Leonard wrote:
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...

Pretty sure the percentage of Teslas going up in flames is no higher than for petrol powered cars, and only after crashes not before. We're not talking Note 7's here.

Tesla is CLAIMING to be building batteries costing under 200 eur/kWh...

At 21:59 23 February 2017, wrote:
Tesla is CLAIMING to be building batteries costing under 200
eur/kWh...


Here in EASA land I think there are substantial cost
implications to certifying "new(er)" batteries in an existing
certified FES sailplane (for Ultralights it's different). As current
FES performance looks pretty adequate why would the
manufacturers do it; it's not like there has been any radical
evolution in battery performance.
Dave Walsh

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 23:59:50 UTC+2, wrote:
Tesla is CLAIMING to be building batteries costing under 200 eur/kWh...

I'm sure the size of their project dictates that they can not be much off that price...