Sealed Batteries

Any user experience with sealed lead acid batteries?
tia, gene

I have a Concorde RG35AXC. Going on my 5th year with the
battery and it still passes the annual load test with as
much margin as when it was new. It saved my butt once with
an alternator failure, which I didn't notice until after
landing. Far outperforms a conventional battery. I put
mine in before it was STC'd for a PA-32, so I needed a field
approval. Installation involved replacing the battery box
lid (it is slightly taller than the original Gill, so
doesn't quite fit under the original piper sloped top box
lid), a weight and balance change (it is 4 lbs heavier) and
a continued airworthiness instruction which involves annual
load testing. It relieves you of periodic battery service,
and battery box maintenance. It does have a lower internal
resistance, so your starter will crank faster and you'll get
a bit more time out of it in a no alternator situation. On
the flip side, the charge current can be excessive if the
battery is run down. If that is the case, the battery
should be recharged on a current limiting charger rather
than with the airplane's electrical system. I highly
recommend this battery, and wouldn't consider putting a
conventional lead-acid battery in my airplane again.

Gene Vignali wrote:

Any user experience with sealed lead acid batteries?
tia, gene

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin
Franklin, 1759

I got an RG35AXC in my Skylane earlier this year. Piece of cake to
install, there's a small mod needed to the battery box lid, requiring
a highly specialized tool (a utility knife). The battery is STC'd for
various airframes, the STC paperwork was available from Concorde free
of charge.

I needed the involvement of an IA because of the STC issue, but
further replacements can be done by myself.

They're maintenance free, and they're not venting corrosive
fumes. They're a little more expensive than flooded cells, but in
AMU's, the difference is a pittance.

Go for it.

-jav

I am considering one for my 182. What do you have to do to the battery
box and what is the difference in weight?

Javier Henderson wrote:
I got an RG35AXC in my Skylane earlier this year. Piece of cake to
install, there's a small mod needed to the battery box lid, requiring
a highly specialized tool (a utility knife). The battery is STC'd for
various airframes, the STC paperwork was available from Concorde free
of charge.

I needed the involvement of an IA because of the STC issue, but
further replacements can be done by myself.

They're maintenance free, and they're not venting corrosive
fumes. They're a little more expensive than flooded cells, but in
AMU's, the difference is a pittance.

Go for it.

-jav

Hmmm,,, Why a 35 amp in a single? I have the Concorde RG35 in a twin with
long cables to the engines aluminum even and it turns the prop like the
engine is already running...
Plus, the 25 amp RG Concorde battery will out power a standard 35 amp
battery by a significant margin.. For a Lane (owned one for a decade) the
RG25 will do the job and then some...
Denny
"Newps" wrote in message
news:OlKeb.648972$YN5.497973@sccrnsc01...
I am considering one for my 182. What do you have to do to the battery
box and what is the difference in weight?

Javier Henderson wrote:
I got an RG35AXC in my Skylane earlier this year. Piece of cake to
install, there's a small mod needed to the battery box lid, requiring
a highly specialized tool (a utility knife). The battery is STC'd for
various airframes, the STC paperwork was available from Concorde free
of charge.

I needed the involvement of an IA because of the STC issue, but
further replacements can be done by myself.

They're maintenance free, and they're not venting corrosive
fumes. They're a little more expensive than flooded cells, but in
AMU's, the difference is a pittance.

Go for it.

-jav

Because it is also the electrical system back-up. My PA-32's type certificate
calls out a 35Ah battery (I forget the brand). At the time it was
manufactured, there was no such thing as sealed or RG aircraft batteries.
Having the RG35AXC in there is extra peace of mind, and saves considerably on
the maintenance dollars as well. FWIW, the battery is more expensive to
purchase, but so far it has lasted nearly twice as long as the flooded cell
batteries had. Between that battery, the Bogert cables and the Skytec
starter, I could probably taxi my Cherokee Six with the starter. It spins
that fast.

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

Hmmm,,, Why a 35 amp in a single? I have the Concorde RG35 in a twin with
long cables to the engines aluminum even and it turns the prop like the
engine is already running...
Plus, the 25 amp RG Concorde battery will out power a standard 35 amp
battery by a significant margin.. For a Lane (owned one for a decade) the
RG25 will do the job and then some...
Denny
"Newps" wrote in message
news:OlKeb.648972$YN5.497973@sccrnsc01...
I am considering one for my 182. What do you have to do to the battery
box and what is the difference in weight?

Javier Henderson wrote:
I got an RG35AXC in my Skylane earlier this year. Piece of cake to
install, there's a small mod needed to the battery box lid, requiring
a highly specialized tool (a utility knife). The battery is STC'd for
various airframes, the STC paperwork was available from Concorde free
of charge.

I needed the involvement of an IA because of the STC issue, but
further replacements can be done by myself.

They're maintenance free, and they're not venting corrosive
fumes. They're a little more expensive than flooded cells, but in
AMU's, the difference is a pittance.

Go for it.

-jav


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759