Aircraft battery (Gill versus Concorde)

These “failed load test” Concorde batteries have at least 10 and possibly 20 years of life in them, for applications like UPSs, alarm systems, inverters, etc. I have a 10 year old one on a UPS and working perfectly. Of course it is vastly bigger than the one originally inside the UPS, which is handy. The challenge is to find a UPS which uses 24 volts worth of batteries, not 12, 48, etc although obviously one could use two 24V Concordes to make up 48V, etc. I would never throw them out. They are high grade batteries, way better than anything you find in a car or (especially) a UPS whose batteries are mostly cheap chinese jobs.

The trouble is that they can go suddenly and completely. I’ve had this a couple of times. A battery passing its check, but then one day, even quite soon after the check, being completely and utterly dead.

For that reason I now replace them regularly, whether they appear to need it or not.

highflyer wrote:

My 24 V Gill Battery has not lasted so long as shown below, but nine years and eight month are not bad either.

Well to be honest, Gill wasn’t always that bad. I reckon they changed supliors or some such at some point about 10 years ago.

Since then, you’d be lucky to get 3 years out of one .

So my guess is your Gill was prob90 one of the last before they changed.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we’ve had a Gill battery that failed after 6mos of use!

Roger wrote:

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we’ve had a Gill battery that failed after 6mos of use!

Like I said – Gill is absolute crap !

My experience of both is that a Gill can fail suddenly and totally, potentially weeks after passing the load test, whereas Concorde ones continue to start the engine perfectly long after failing a load test. However we are comparing a wet battery with a gel battery, and Gill were getting into gel batteries too. And the Concorde is about 2x the price, which for people who rarely fly far from base (probably the great majority of GA) is relevant.

Gill v. Concorde threads merged.

I have the following from a US based DAR:

Can a Concorde battery (which is not an FAA-PMA replacement for a Gill one) be installed on an EASA-reg plane, using CS-STAN?

Another interesting route described by @tomjnx is above.

Actually all these batteries are the same chemical type, gel or not. I still have to find a “gel” battery that contains real gel. What you most likely see is sort of paper material between plates like Kleenex or paper tissue that gets soaked with standard sulphur acid just so much that it will not leak when you turn the battery upside down – for aerobatic aircraft essential. Typically a battery will die by sludge low down that produces a short between plates, or some chemophysical process that deteriorates the plates somewhat. I guess these electronic chargers care for that and there is even some chemical you could put into the cells for extending life, don´t remember the name. Vic

What about the Odyssey battery. I spoken to a couple of RV owners and they swear by them. Plus they are cheaper.

What would be required to put one of those in say a PA28?

Odyssey AGM batteries are indeed widely used on Experimental RVs etc, almost universally. There is an aircraft dedicated Odyssey that is approved by STC for Cubs IIRC, and also under the FAA TC of some other aircraft like the Citabria, as it’s now installed on new planes. A friend with an older Citabria uses one that way. To install one on another certified aircraft legally you’d need some form of field approval, which at least under FAA rules would be easier if it is STC’d for other aircraft. A different or modified battery box would be needed because an Odyssey of the same capacity is physically smaller (but seems to weigh about the same)