Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <443A8574.6010001@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:19:00 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: State-of-the-art airplane battery
References: <list-1063112@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1063112@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

> As for the uses, I would think it would be better for the Lycoming 
> crowd than the alternate engine folks, mostly due to the small 
> capacity of the battery.   I would never consider something that small 
> for main battery on a rotary engine, unless you had two of them (very 
> expensive), or another alternator (heavy and complicated).   It would, 
> however make a dandy backup battery.


I'm with Rusty on this one.  I'm needing more in the range of 30Ah worth 
of batteries for the engine out scenarios.  8.8Ah would be able to do 
little more that flash a "Pick your crash site" lamp. 8*)

-- 
         ,|"|"|,               Ernest Christley     |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----     Dyke Delta Builder    |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |