Return-Path: Received: from smtpa.gateway.net ([208.230.117.254]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:08:31 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust188.tnt2.coeur-dalene.id.da.uu.net [63.20.49.188]) by smtpa.gateway.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA28438 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000b01befb42$c3414300$bc31143f@oemcomputer> Reply-To: "dfs" From: "dfs" To: "Lancair List" Subject: Batteries - Concorde vs. Hawker Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:12:55 -0700 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Marv. The manufacturers I have had some personal and business experience with are these two, Concorde and Hawker. and there is some subtle but significant differences in just how they formulate and build their cell components. I'm not sure but there may be enough difference to require different charging parameters. Note that I use Concorde (RG- 25 XC) in my Lancair and was instrumental in getting the horrendous NiCads off the B-1B and installing Hawker RG's (two per airplane). I like them both but they are slightly different. Dan Schaefer [Thanks for the personally experienced input, Dan... it's always good to get information from folks with first hand experience. Since you brought up the differences between these two suppliers' products, perhaps you could tell us what the differences are that are required of the charging systems? I'm really interested in your experience with the Hawker batteries as those are what I've based my battery installation on. ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html