What's new
Van's Air Force

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

A very lucky pilot! (LI Iron Battery)

Wow..

Simply astonishing. I was considering Aerovoltz battery after reading some favorable comments on LiFePo batteries on VAF. Now there is no way ...
 
I cant tell if the OP is the original author of the linked pdf. Since this happened in March I wonder if the manufacturer has a comment about this incident. No mention of whether they wanted the battery back to investigate the cause.
 
I am not the author. It would have expected the manufacturer to have requested the battery back and try and determine the cause. I have no knowledge if that has happened.

George
 
It looks bad, but is consistent with other conclusions from VAF threads - put it in a stainless steel box and vent overboard. At least it did not burst into flames. And take an airplane with it.

Now the discussion about what set it off. . .

edit: I stand corrected on the flames -after landing and exposing, it did have flames. I was referring to a burst cell case where the contents violently spewed gas, liquid and flames. This post was a bit tongue in cheek as I have posted previously that just because it has IRON in it (alone), does not make it safe. It can still have an exotherm, as exhibited here. The LiFePh chemistries have a lower peak exotherm temperature that allows case containment, but is still over 300C. I still don't believe we have a reliable installation and management procedure, short of the sealed, vented overboard, stainless battery box.
 
Last edited:
It looks bad, but is consistent with other conclusions from VAF threads - put it in a stainless steel box and vent overboard. At least it did not burst into flames. And take an airplane with it.

Now the discussion about what set it off. . .

I believe it did burst into flames but after the aircraft was on the ground. Proper venting would be critical. A smoking Litium battery is not survivable in a enclosed cockpit. The fumes will quickly incapacitate the pilot. A firewall mounted battery would be better in that situation then the location in my six between the rudder pedals. I don't believe this battery fire would have been survivable in my aircraft.

George
 
Vent overboard? How about diet to save the 10lbs and put a real battery on board. If he were cruising anywhere near the altitudes I cruise at....he would have been in serious trouble. 17500 is a long ways from the ground with smoke in the cockpit. Especially in an aircraft like the -8 with the battery inside and I dont think it's very easy to stick your head out of an RV in flight like he was able to.

I've been on fire in race cars....it isn't fun. I simply can't fathom risking my life, leaving my family without me....for 10lbs, or 100 for that matter.
 
Last edited:
United Airlines had trouble with Lithium batteries on their new 787's. FAA grounded them for a while. I think one started smoking on the ramp in Japan. Don't know what Boeing did for a fix, but it might be worth looking into. (I "think" something about a sealed box and ventilation is what I heard, but I'm honestly not sure)

Just a thought.
 
United Airlines had trouble with Lithium batteries on their new 787's. FAA grounded them for a while. I think one started smoking on the ramp in Japan. Don't know what Boeing did for a fix, but it might be worth looking into. (I "think" something about a sealed box and ventilation is what I heard, but I'm honestly not sure)

Just a thought.

Just to keep this thread on track, I do not believe that the 787 Lithium battery was a Lithium IRON battery. Not all "Lithium" battteriies use the same chemistry, and they have significantly different characteristics.


The Aerovolts IS LiFePo, and it would be very interesting to hear more facts on this incident..
 
Last edited:
Just a counter point:
Lead Acid batteries fail too. Last week, my brother had one on a charger that blew about 1/3 of the top off. I was talking to him on the phone when it happened, and I heard it very well over the phone.
Not a smelly smoking mess with a fire. A big blast with the top of the battery case blown off.
I don't know which will be the more damaging, or which type has the greatest failure rate.
My RV-8 shed about 70 pounds when I removed the Mazda turbo rotary engine, and replaced it with a lightened parallel valve IO-360 w/ CATTO 3 blade prop. It now weighs 1035 lbs with wheel pants! Needless to say, the CG shifted aft. I removed the PC680 from behind the baggage bulkhead today. Now I can remove a couple of pounds of battery cable too.
I never liked the battery being in the back, it's hard to get to it for inspection or replacement, and it's not really isolated from the passenger compartment.
I'll put the battery on the firewall, low, and away from the fuel system.
I'm leaning toward a LiFePO4 with built in charge management circuits. I'm open to the idea of a vented case and/or a battery temp monitor.
 
Last edited:
I also fly large scale remote control control gas and electric planes and helicopters, LifePO4 batteries have been extremely stable for all of the RC world but the majority of us balance charge our batteries for longevity. In the RC world life batteries have a nominal voltage of 3.3v/cell, different than the aerovoltz but the principal is the same.

Have you ever balanced charged your aerovoltz lifepo4 battery? Over time you can get a voltage differential between the cells which during the constant charging you could get a cell or two with elevated voltages that could lead to a cell failure.

The aerovoltz website does mention the periodic balancing of the cells.

http://aerovoltz.com/av_mgt.html
 
Last edited:
United Airlines had trouble with Lithium batteries on their new 787's. FAA grounded them for a while. I think one started smoking on the ramp in Japan. Don't know what Boeing did for a fix, but it might be worth looking into. (I "think" something about a sealed box and ventilation is what I heard, but I'm honestly not sure)

Just a thought.

The battery went through a mild redesign to separate the cells, and the whole thing is entombed in a steel box. I don't rememeber if it's vented overboard but I can find out if you're really curious (my old man is a 787 instructor for Boeing).

I agree with others... I'll stick to traditional batteries. the risk vs reward on this one is off the charts.
 
Just to keep this thread on track, I do not believe that the 787 Lithium battery was a Lithium IRON battery.

Correct as usual, Paul. The 787 battery is a Lithium-Cobalt-Oxide chemistry. And with the re-design it is indeed enclosed in a steel box that is vented overboard.

Have a read of the NTSB final report on the B787 battery fire in Boston here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attac...2&d=1417522601

My personal stance is that I will not allow any large format or high-power capacity (more than a cell phone or ipad) lithium ion batteries of any chemistry in or on my airplane. Especially one that I can't chuck out the window if necessary. I suppose I do need to think about how to throw a cell phone out of my slider canopy if it were to vent.

Over on the RV10 forum there was some talk recently of lithium ion battery powered jump-starters. They're certainly attractive from a weight and power perspective, but in my opinion are even more dangerous than a lithium ion battery mounted on the firewall because one would most likely store it in a flight bag inside the cabin.
 
Last edited:
My personal stance is that I will not allow any large format or high-power capacity (more than a cell phone or ipad) lithium ion batteries of any chemistry in or on my airplane. Especially one that I can't chuck out the window if necessary. I suppose I do need to think about how to throw a cell phone out of my slider canopy if it were to vent.

Not sure on the other glass screens but my Dynon has a Lion backup battery but I would imagine the charge rate is extremely low and the usage on the battery is pretty much non existent unless you have a buss failure or purposely draw off the backup battery.
 
Causes of battery failure

I don't know. I'm with Paul on this?.. let's wait for ALL the details. The pictures and story are a little suspicious. How many of us can just open a hatch and remove our batteries? Any hold down clamps? Maybe a cover or strap to remove? If I was to guess, this battery was sitting in a tray and just vibrating away for, who knows how many hours?.. MAYBE a hole got worn through the case, maybe something external shorted it out? I don't know. But, let's just get rid of all these nasty LITHIUM batteries ?.. I don't know, maybe all these "homemade" airplanes should be grounded?.. Just kidding, of course, but let's not let mob mentality take over.
 
I heard that a car crashed last week. No way am I getting back in another car. They're dangerous.

Folks, let's see what the cause was. Lithium doesn't always equal fire, smoke, or an emergency. Done correctly it can have great benefits.

This is experimental aviation, something I think folks forget about. We all have varying levels of comfort / risk we are willing to fly with. Those levels should be respected by everyone, not slammed because they aren't the same as your own. Flying is inherently dangerous, we just mitigate the risk and accept the rest.

I for one will put a LifePo battery in my 10, safeguarded as much as possible and accept the risks just like other key components in my plane.
 
Some years ago I had a new Yuasa battery blow its top off in my Harley while on a ride. Did about $5000 in damage. I contacted Yuasa, they sent me a special container to ship it to their lab for analysis. Surprisingly enough they claimed responsibility, saying they had a bad batch of batteries and the one I had was one of them. With the letter there was a check for all the damages. This Yuasa was a common lead acid battery. Point is, there's no 100% safe battery made. The first generation lithium ion batteries were unstable and got a bad reputation but there's different chemistries now with lithium, mostly very stable..... That being said, there's still some growing pains with this technology. With any battery, there's a tremendous amount of instant energy sitting there in your battery box. If something goes wrong they all have the potential to China syndrome.
 
I heard that a car crashed last week. No way am I getting back in another car. They're dangerous.

Folks, let's see what the cause was. Lithium doesn't always equal fire, smoke, or an emergency. Done correctly it can have great benefits.

Give that man a dollar!

I completely agree. While some talk about risk analysis, I suspect it's more of a casual term rather than a serious look at the situation. When I replaced the PC-680 with a Shorai LiFePO4 in my -6A a year ago, I was quite content with the risks and mitigations as identified via an FMEA exercise.
 
I'd wait for the full analysis if there is one before pointing fingers but the report brings home the effects of what can happen if there is a Lithium battery fire. Make no mistake, if this happens to a cabin mounted battery in flight without proper containment and venting, you will be incapacitated within seconds.

You cannot believe the amount of smoke and soot that one of these can produce when things go wrong...

Design accordingly.
 
Here is a update on this event:

Now that some time has passed I wanted to update everyone on the battery fire issue. This week we repaired the airplane, making a new hatch door, and relocating the battery installation from the nose to the under engine compartment. We installed an Odyssey battery. We did not replace the regulator yet, but did correct the ground wire connection that was burnt, running both power and ground wires from the regulator directly to the battery terminals to ensure a good connection. Removing the extra battery cable saved a few pounds. The odyssey battery weighs 13 lbs, so a lot more than 3.5 lbs, but a lot less than what he had. Moving the location really put the CG where we wanted it. This morning, Monday, I flew the airplane down to West Virginia. What I discovered was that with the Odyssey battery, the voltage was rising, right past 14.4 and on to over 16 volts before I turned on the landing lights to load it back down to a safe voltage. The landing lights draw close to the output of the charging system, or possibly even more. So that kept the voltage down under 12. There is no question now that the regulator is bad. I think that we can reasonably assume now that the regulator is the cause of this incident. What I find very interesting though is that when the Lithium battery was installed, the volts did not exceed 14.4. I think Jim Showker might be on to something here in that with these lithium batteries they simply cannot absorb any energy past a full charge, they simply began to overheat and if it continues, start a thermal run away. A 13-20 lb lead acid battery has a lot of thermal mass and can absorb a lot of heat, plus water boiling away dissipates a lot of heat as well if it is a flooded battery. So it is very conceivable that a lithium battery would be very vulnerable to an overcharge situation. But also, it may be that with a lithium battery there will be little indication of over charging. It seems that the lead acid battery will allow the voltage to go right on up, where possibly the lithium battery is absorbing that energy thus keeping the voltage down, not indicating an overcharge condition on the voltmeter. I don't know this to be true for sure, but it certainly appears to be the case. I will discuss this with Aerovoltz and also see if we can find some solid solutions to prevent this. Steve, the owner of Aerovoltz did call me today, but I was on a flight to Sun N Fun and could not take the call. Hopefully I'll catch up with him soon. The owner of the airplane has a key west on order and will install in ASAP! So, in conclusion for now, I think we can determine that overcharging is the cause of this incident. The el cheapo junk regulator was the culprit. Using these batteries can be done safely in my opinion, however, I would only use a very good quality regulator like key west, and consider anything above 14.0 V to be dangerous. Monitoring system voltage is a must in my opinion. And still might not be a bad idea to consider the possibility of thermal runaway on one of these when you install it. Being able to easily access it and throw it overboard would be a good idea. Keeping it away from anything flammable. Having a way to shut off the charging system in the event of an over voltage should be considered also. As long as they are not over charged there should be no issue. The questions then become, if it is overcharging, will you know it, and if so, what will you be able to do to remedy it. Remember it only took 30 minutes from a cold battery to on fire. Over voltage has to be able to be detected and remedied quickly in flight.
 
Thanks for the followup! Over voltage/over charge is the Achilles heel of the Li batteries.
 
Give that man a dollar!

I completely agree. While some talk about risk analysis, I suspect it's more of a casual term rather than a serious look at the situation. When I replaced the PC-680 with a Shorai LiFePO4 in my -6A a year ago, I was quite content with the risks and mitigations as identified via an FMEA exercise.

I'm curious about the risk analysis you've done. Have you done a test to show how much smoke would enter the cockpit should the battery melt down? Is the plane flyable in that condition? How much of that type of smoke would it take to incapacitate the pilot? What financial protections does your family have should you become incapacitated and plummet into a house or a school?

This discussion and those like it are public and easily found. An attorney fresh out of school will be calling the failure and its consequences easily foreseen...and your build not only liable but negligent.

My job requires daily and constant risk analysis. I've dealt with those attorneys and had to defend my actions. It's less than enjoyable, and I had done everything right with no liability. Defending this battery tech would be significantly more difficult with all of the failures out there. Sure, the FAA allows it under experimental conditions but that does not release you from liability. It places that liability directly on you the manufacturer...and your family....and assets...and future assets.

Sit down and think worst possible scenario versus best possible benefit. Worst....you kill yourself, your neighbors grandson who you offered a ride to and a school bus filled with children. Best possible benefit, you climb an unmeasurable amount faster and your W&B has a slightly smaller number on it. If a battery is significantly affecting your weight and balance or carrying capacity...you've built something wrong.
 
I'm curious about the risk analysis you've done. Have you done a test to show how much smoke would enter the cockpit should the battery melt down? Is the plane flyable in that condition? How much of that type of smoke would it take to incapacitate the pilot? What financial protections does your family have should you become incapacitated and plummet into a house or a school?

This discussion and those like it are public and easily found. An attorney fresh out of school will be calling the failure and its consequences easily foreseen...and your build not only liable but negligent.

My job requires daily and constant risk analysis. I've dealt with those attorneys and had to defend my actions. It's less than enjoyable, and I had done everything right with no liability. Defending this battery tech would be significantly more difficult with all of the failures out there. Sure, the FAA allows it under experimental conditions but that does not release you from liability. It places that liability directly on you the manufacturer...and your family....and assets...and future assets.

Sit down and think worst possible scenario versus best possible benefit. Worst....you kill yourself, your neighbors grandson who you offered a ride to and a school bus filled with children. Best possible benefit, you climb an unmeasurable amount faster and your W&B has a slightly smaller number on it. If a battery is significantly affecting your weight and balance or carrying capacity...you've built something wrong.
Guess I'm just curious why some here offer so many repeated objections over the Li chemistry battery choice. Thank you! But we get it. There are other considerations using these batteries. The archives will reflect your objections.
 
I'm curious about the risk analysis you've done. Have you done a test to show how much smoke would enter the cockpit should the battery melt down? Is the plane flyable in that condition? How much of that type of smoke would it take to incapacitate the pilot? What financial protections does your family have should you become incapacitated and plummet into a house or a school?

This discussion and those like it are public and easily found. An attorney fresh out of school will be calling the failure and its consequences easily foreseen...and your build not only liable but negligent.

My job requires daily and constant risk analysis. I've dealt with those attorneys and had to defend my actions. It's less than enjoyable, and I had done everything right with no liability. Defending this battery tech would be significantly more difficult with all of the failures out there. Sure, the FAA allows it under experimental conditions but that does not release you from liability. It places that liability directly on you the manufacturer...and your family....and assets...and future assets.

Sit down and think worst possible scenario versus best possible benefit. Worst....you kill yourself, your neighbors grandson who you offered a ride to and a school bus filled with children. Best possible benefit, you climb an unmeasurable amount faster and your W&B has a slightly smaller number on it. If a battery is significantly affecting your weight and balance or carrying capacity...you've built something wrong.

Doesn't that argument work just as well just for flying any aircraft regardless of battery choice? Engines fail - there are stats to prove it - so isn't that a foreseeable event that could have the same effect?
 
Doesn't that argument work just as well just for flying any aircraft regardless of battery choice? Engines fail - there are stats to prove it - so isn't that a foreseeable event that could have the same effect?

Perhaps. But is there a slightly heavier engine that doesn't fail nearly as often, or that, when it does fail, doesn't do so in quite so spectacular a manner? If so, then it may be considered reasonable to choose that one instead.

Eliminating risk isn't the point. Minimizing risk is.
 
Eliminating risk isn't the point. Minimizing risk is.

Ahhh....but the point is...when have you minimized it ENOUGH? Every person has a different risk line - the line they don't want to cross. Everyone thinks everyone else's risk line is either too conservative, or too liberal. I've played this game professionally my whole life.

When looking at problems like these, you need to look at risk TRADES. I was a firefighter for several decades, and saw a lot of lead/acid battery explosions in vehicles - so they happen as well. It is not a case of zeroing out the risk by not using a Lithium-based battery. There is risk the other way as well.

To quote that (now) old movie..."Interesting game - the only way to win is not to play!"
 
If you're going to use a lithium battery in your plane, please get one with a built-in Battery Management System (BMS).
A BMS would have likely prevented this fire by disconnecting the battery cells once the voltage started to run away.

EarthX batteries do have a built-in BMS and others may also.

The Shorai and Aerovoltz do not have a BMS.

Fly safe,
David
 
Couple of thoughts...

Bad Regulator => Over volts => (non BMS) Li battery = issue (probably).

Firstly, whilst the OP puts down to a poor regulator "and now has a good one", it would seem more important (and not just for the battery, but avionics) is a OV unit (Crowbar?) - which some alternators (e.g. PP) have built in.

Secondly, most of us in RVs have fancy EFIS/EMS systems. Seems there is scope for ensuring there is a red warning / alert / noise at as low a Voltage as you can set in Normal Ops. Then even the first sign of rising voltage gives you a chance to shut off the Alternator.

As Paul says, it's risk assessment and mitigation, the ultimate of which is "don't fly" :eek: There are lots of Li batteries flying, very few incidents, but anything that can be done to "trap" those incidents before they become hazards has to be a benefit ;)
 
I'm curious about the risk analysis you've done. Have you done a test to show how much smoke would enter the cockpit should the battery melt down? Is the plane flyable in that condition? How much of that type of smoke would it take to incapacitate the pilot? What financial protections does your family have should you become incapacitated and plummet into a house or a school?

I did an FMEA exercise through which I identified potential risks and their mitigations. For example, exothermic failure with case venting is a risk that has several mitigations: battery external to cockpit, battery mounted in a location away from fuel/oil lines, and an aural indication of over voltage condition. An example of a less critical failure mode is discharging completely following an alternator failure whilst in IMC conditions - the mitigations for that include aural annunciation of alternator failure, a standby battery for the EFIS, and testing to determine how long the battery can run nav/com equipment sans charging source.

I appreciate your concern for risk management - too often we see examples of TLAR ("that looks about right") engineering that has obvious risks with no mitigations. That said, I find that hyperbole ("plummet into a house or school") to often be a sign of persuasion through fear, not knowledge.
 
Folks, if you are considering a lithium ion battery of any type in your aircraft or other vehicle, do yourselves a favor and read the recently released NTSB report on the JAL 787 Yuasa battery failure. It includes information related to two other lithium chemistry battery failures on the 787 fleet.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AIR1401.aspx

Read the report *fully* and understand its implications. While lithium battery chemistry does not equal certain death and any sort of high density energy storage device can be said to be dangerous, this report details some important points to be aware of.

I won't get into the details of the report, because I feel it is important for experimenters to fully understand for themselves the issues raised. That said, the report deals with several potential root causes they considered, all of which are important to consider and address in a battery installation. One particular detail I will mention is that of wrinkles introduced by the cell manufacturing process in the individual cell windings. These wrinkles possibly resulted in internal short circulating of at least one individual cell in the battery, which led to thermal runaway (exotherm) of that cell, cascading to most of the other cells. Failure modes such as this can be independent of the specific chemistry of the battery.

I make no claims to special knowledge on the topic, and I still am undecided as to whether I would use a lithium cell battery in a project, but I encourage folks to read the report. I certainly learned a lot about battery manufacturing and the details of lithium cells in particular.
 
Folks, if you are considering a lithium ion battery of any type in your aircraft or other vehicle, do yourselves a favor and read the recently released NTSB report on the JAL 787 Yuasa battery failure. It includes information related to two other lithium chemistry battery failures on the 787 fleet.

Lithium Colbalt Oxide is a very different makeup than Lithium Iron Phosphate, with significantly different characteristics.

A much better link for learning about the characteristics of lithium chemistry batteries will take you to Battery University: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion
 
Lithium Colbalt Oxide is a very different makeup than Lithium Iron Phosphate, with significantly different characteristics.

A much better link for learning about the characteristics of lithium chemistry batteries will take you to Battery University: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion

I am aware of the difference in chemistries. The report notes mechanically induced failure modes that could be common to any number of different battery chemistries. In addition, there are other items that users should want to be aware of that are addressed in the report, such as the quality of manufacturing quality control processes. Again, I'm not making a case for or against these batteries, merely suggesting that everyone avail themselves of all sources of information.
 
I am aware of the difference in chemistries. The report notes mechanically induced failure modes that could be common to any number of different battery chemistries. In addition, there are other items that users should want to be aware of that are addressed in the report, such as the quality of manufacturing quality control processes. Again, I'm not making a case for or against these batteries, merely suggesting that everyone avail themselves of all sources of information.

The NTSB report is so-so for understanding Li battery performance limitations, and considerations for abuse testing. It implies that Boeing (contractor/) was either naive or ignored the vast amount of information, chemistries, research, and testing that has been done by a wide array of companies. This includes our own government sponsored work for hybrid transportation, NREL, in Golden, Co. Many of these reports are public that are incomplete but give a much better picture of failure modes, abuse testing and odd discoveries. Like internal temperature rise onset and testing for 7 days, yes 7 days waiting following the abuse performance levels to determine if the cell will ramp to failure.

EarthX has done many of these tests on cells and packs with the BMS. Whether these tests, alone, sufficient to yield a drop-in replacement is unknown, but they did not just make a pack for sale. Along with a sealed box, (a vault) and crowbar circuit for runaway voltage regulator mitigation we just might have a winner.

Regardless of testing, until there is enough volume and usage, and quality control all along the line from raw materials to the completed pack, we should be careful. Don't expect that it is an on the shelf, blister pack, use it anyway you want and sue the manufacturer when it fails product, not yet. And, maybe never for aviation. We ARE experimental, so care, learning and understanding should be taken in the application of everything we do. Never be complacent. Never stop questioning, and don't discourage (please!) those who do.

Sorry, that was not intended to sound like a lecture, just some thoughts on the subject.
 
Last edited:
BillL, I agree with what you've written. The NTSB is often circumspect in its conclusions when the data lean in a direction but there is not conclusive evidence of a specific root cause.

When you say that it is implied that Boeing was naive and placed too much trust in its contractors' processes I agree, that was my take as well. The battery manufacturer as well may have had the chemistry down pat, but the mechanical flaws introduced in the assembly process may have contributed to the failure. As experimenters, the individuals in the community here take on the role Boeing had as a systems integrator, and need to exercise skepticism and good judgment when selecting suppliers.

Probably too much of a lecture here as well. I really want to see light, high density power supplies succeed, but success implies safety as well as performance.

One other note...if you take the "contain it and vent it" approach to risk mitigation, make absolutely sure the materials you use in your containment and vents are suitable for the environment surrounding a runaway battery.
 
Last edited:
I'll probably be dead soon!

I've got a Shorai in the front baggage compartment of my 8. However, it is in a stainless box, I have my EIS set to alarm for an over voltage condition, and I have a very small alternator (SD20 only) which will likely fry itself even before the crowbar fails.

I am not going to get rid of the Shorai, but having read this and using the 'just in case' rule, it will soon be moved to the firewall as low and cool as possible. That's enough caution for me. If I want to rule out every possible battery incident, I'll fly my no-electrics Biplane. But then I have to hand prop...
 
I've got a Shorai in the front baggage compartment of my 8. However, it is in a stainless box, I have my EIS set to alarm for an over voltage condition, and I have a very small alternator (SD20 only) which will likely fry itself even before the crowbar fails.

I am not going to get rid of the Shorai, but having read this and using the 'just in case' rule, it will soon be moved to the firewall as low and cool as possible. That's enough caution for me. If I want to rule out every possible battery incident, I'll fly my no-electrics Biplane. But then I have to hand prop...
Having on the other side of the firewall would be better. But would you not be comfortable directing the battery box vent through the firewall and overboard somehow? Is the box vented currently?
 
Charging?

If the Challenger had a Rotax 2-cycle engine, which is very likely, the charging system is not the most sophisticated. I suspect the battery was being overcharged, and apparently that battery is not as tolerant of this as a lead-acid battery.
 
Lets hope you are NOT dead soon!

I've got a Shorai in the front baggage compartment of my 8. However, it is in a stainless box, I have my EIS set to alarm for an over voltage condition, and I have a very small alternator (SD20 only) which will likely fry itself even before the crowbar fails.

I am not going to get rid of the Shorai, but having read this and using the 'just in case' rule, it will soon be moved to the firewall as low and cool as possible. That's enough caution for me. If I want to rule out every possible battery incident, I'll fly my no-electrics Biplane. But then I have to hand prop...

It sounds like you are taking quite reasonable precautions. I was thinking about the "vault" Would it be prudent to provide some forced ventilation to the box to ensure that there is some cooling to the box, and if the plastic begins to smoke, that there is some velocity to the exiting gas? Do you have some thoughts about the sealing of the wire exits to ensure that the solution to one issue does not present others?
 
I just wanted to pass along an idea for those with LiFePo4 batteries--In addition to monitoring voltage (which I think is critical), I've also installed a couple of surface-mount thermocouples to monitor individual battery temperature.

If either parameter goes out of limits, I plan on disconnecting the offending battery from all charging or load. So far so good, and I wouldn't feel comfortable experimenting with a low-volume technology without the added data.
 
Bill is on the same page

Hey Bill, that's what I'm planning. Battery forward of the firewall, with forced air cooling. I'm as concerned about battery longevity as anything else.
 
Pulled from COZY Forum

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Greg Norman [email protected] [canard-aviators]" <[email protected]>
To: Canard Aviators <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [c-a] Lithium Iron Batteries will kill you!!

Burrell,
I can't thank you enough for sharing that with us. I was actualy considering that brand when battery shopping. Would have been the scarest (and fatal) ever having that in the nose of our planes. Now have you told Aircraft Spruce and sent them the video? I need more stuff so I don't want their warehouse burning to the ground any time soon.
Greg Norman
Cozy MKIV #134

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Burrall Sanders [email protected] [canard-aviators] <[email protected]> wrote:

Just accidentally sent this message before is was ready. But I am ready now.
We have a Cozy MKIV in the shop that I am working on the wiring. The builder installed an Aerovoltz Lithium Iron battery. Yesterday, I heard a soft poof and then a hiss coming from the battery, and within ten seconds the battery was spewing a huge smoke plume and was melting the battery's case. We scrambled to get the hanger door open and the plane pushed outside. While the smoke decreased after about 3 minutes the heat continued. I decided I could get in the back of the plane and cut the battery cables with a good set of cable cutters. So, I held my breath and climbed in and as quickly as I could I cut the cables and tossed the battery out on the ground. It was then I was able to get a video of the battery as it continued to self destruct. The battery burned for at least ten minutes before it quit spewing smoke, sparks and its internal parts.
We have just finished installing a pair of these batteries in a Long-EZ and within a few days of installation one began showing signs of not holding a charge and I noticed it was getting warm to the touch. I removed it and Aircraft Spruce promptly warranted the battery and sent us a new one. The one that burned yesterday was showing similar signs of not holding a charge and about an hour before it burned I noticed it was warm to the touch. I had no idea at the time of the first battery failure how close it was to the catastrophic results that we saw yesterday.
It is absolutely horrifying to think of that happening while airborne. As fast as it escalated it would have filled the cockpit with that terrible smoke and fumes in just a couple seconds. By the time I took the video linked below the smoke had tapered off considerably. In my opinion no one in the aircraft would have survived had this happened while in the air. No one should even consider having these batteries in the aircraft with them.
One of the scariest things I have seen. Might as well have a wing come off, the outcome is the same. I have added a link below to the video I took. Have a look at the video, you'll be shocked.
Best, Burrall Sanders

https://vimeo.com/206299953
 
Was this battery being charged, or shorted to ground?

The battery was not being charged or shorted. Here is a continuation of the discussion...

"None of your questions matter to me. There should be no failure mode that would allow this to happen. So what if my voltage regulator failed in flight? This still should not happen.
So what if I am an idiot and used the wrong charger? ( I didn't) In fact on the ACS website under specifications for the Aerovoltz, it says no special charger needed. Still should not happen. The battery was connected to the plane, but nothing was turned on. The battery was taken off a two amp charger at least two hours before it burned. Cutting the cables did nothing to slow the battery fire, cutting them only let me get the battery out of the plane faster. Took about two minutes on google to find a photo of a EarthX that had a big hole burned into the side of it. Other than a structural failure, tell me of another failure mode that leaves you with no options. Well I guess if you have a BRS and a structural failure you would still have a good chance. a BRS would not help you in this battery fire scenario. The amount of smoke it emitted in the beginning was appalling, I wish I could have got a video of that. "
 
The battery was not being charged or shorted. Here is a continuation of the discussion...

"None of your questions matter to me. There should be no failure mode that would allow this to happen. So what if my voltage regulator failed in flight? This still should not happen.
So what if I am an idiot and used the wrong charger? ( I didn't) In fact on the ACS website under specifications for the Aerovoltz, it says no special charger needed. Still should not happen. The battery was connected to the plane, but nothing was turned on. The battery was taken off a two amp charger at least two hours before it burned. Cutting the cables did nothing to slow the battery fire, cutting them only let me get the battery out of the plane faster. Took about two minutes on google to find a photo of a EarthX that had a big hole burned into the side of it. Other than a structural failure, tell me of another failure mode that leaves you with no options. Well I guess if you have a BRS and a structural failure you would still have a good chance. a BRS would not help you in this battery fire scenario. The amount of smoke it emitted in the beginning was appalling, I wish I could have got a video of that. "



Once again - there's not enough detail here, although the report appears detailed. Early EarthX batteries didn't have built in BMS circuitry - is the one that he saw a picture of an early or late one? From my understanding, Aerovoltz didn't have an onboard BMS, for instance. I urge everyone who is thinking of using LiFePo to do some REAL research into the technologies, the versions that are out there, and the physics - not just read scare (or happy) stories on the net. the technology has changed radically in just a year. Then do a risk management analysis, and see if you can mitigate those risks - and then decide if the residual risk is acceptable to you.

Full disclosure - I am testing a late generation 900 in our Tundra - forward of the firewall, in a case. Not ready to put one in the cabin yet, but only because of what I don't know, not because of what I do.
 
Your choice

As a holder of a patent on lithium ion battery charging and protection, i would never use one in my RV or fly in a non certified plane with one. It just is not worth the risk. I feel LiIon batteries are too dependent on manufacturing defects to keep them safe for airplane use. Also the cold at altitude and other environmental factors may (over)stress the battery. They are great for model airplanes and consumer electronics one can chuck out the window if they get too hot in flight. This is my opinion based on what I know of the physics of Li ion batteries. I feel I have to speak out becuase most pilots dont know what they dont know about the dangers of Li Ion technology for RV use.
 
Last edited:
Can you post an opinion on LiFePO4 battery technology for our aircraft? I chickened out and just got a Deka ETX-30L to be ready to replace a Concorde RG-25XC when the time comes.

Could not bring myself to have even an EarthX on the fleshy side of the firewall, yet.
 
Ion?

As a holder of a patent on lithium ion battery charging and protection, i would never use one in my RV or fly in a non certified plane with one. It just is not worth the risk. I feel LiIon batteries are too dependent on manufacturing defects to keep them safe for airplane use. Also the cold at altitude and other environmental factors may (over)stress the battery. They are great for model airplanes and consumer electronics one can chuck out the window if they get too hot in flight. This is my opinion based on what I know of the physics of Li ion batteries. I feel I have to speak out becuase most pilots dont know what they dont know about the dangers of Li Ion technology for RV use.


I'm pretty sure no one is advocating for Lithium Ion. EarthX and others are Lithium Iron Phosphate chemistry, which by all accounts is much safer than the Lithium Ion.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that lithium iron phosphate (LiFePo) is actually a type of lithium ion battery?
 
Back
Top