Originally Posted by Aeroplayin

Good idea. This should do it, and I included all batteries this time. RepC is the represented C to the left of Joe's Real C. I formatted the values that are half the Real C or less, in red. If it don't open big enough to read the first time you click on the image, click the opened image and it will open in a separate browser tab.

Great list.
One thing I noticed is actual mAh is in RED if it tests under 5000 but a 6200 with 5417 and 8000 with 5417 are in BLACK but, IMO, should be RED
Is this by design? I am known to miss things...

Rick

Originally Posted by Aeroplayin

Good idea. This should do it, and I included all batteries this time. RepC is the represented C to the left of Joe's Real C. I formatted the values that are half the Real C or less, in red. If it don't open big enough to read the first time you click on the image, click the opened image and it will open in a separate browser tab.

I like it!

Joe

Originally Posted by rampman

Great list.
One thing I noticed is actual mAh is in RED if it tests under 5000 but a 6200 with 5417 and 8000 with 5417 are in BLACK but, IMO, should be RED
Is this by design? I am known to miss things...

Rick

What I've done is mark those that are marginal according to my requirements since 5000mAh is what I would need at about 115A to get a full 6 minute flight:

115A / 5Ah = 23C
60 mins / 23C = 2.61 mins to zero capacity at WOT
2.61 min * 0.8 = 2.087 minutes to 20% capacity
2.087 mins / 35% power average = ~6 mins

On the other hand, all the other performance variables gives me the ability to make a relative decision based on real capacity. So there are subjective reasons why the SMC 60C 5200 is #9 on my list and the RT 70C 5000 is #17 even though they are both in red, weigh about the same, and the RT's are less expensive. Someone else may rank them a lot closer and it would be tough to argue with them looking at the other performance variables. An objective ranking would bring them closer as well and my original PAR would make them 4 places apart instead of 8.

My 2¢

The label column should include the false C-rate (in scare quotes) and claimed weight, as part of the pack "model identifier string" only.

Then the real weight and "real C" objective data columns can be updated as they are found to vary.

Originally Posted by Aeroplayin

Good idea. This should do it, and I included all batteries this time. RepC is the represented C to the left of Joe's Real C. I formatted the values that are half the Real C or less, in red. If it don't open big enough to read the first time you click on the image, click the opened image and it will open in a separate browser tab.

Thanks Aeroplayin. I didn't think of this until after you updated the chat, but perhaps we should have called it BSc.

I have just completed the 45C load test which for both the SMC 6200 and R-Line 5100 started out around 235 Amps and averaged 210 Amps to full discharge and that's were I'm calling it for both packs: Based on ~5000 test criteria both the TATTU R-Line 5100 "95C" and SMC 6200 40C are 45 RealC units

Actually the SMC performed considerably better but the Tattu passed the metrics and earned the rating. They both had enough margin left to justify a 50C run but I've done this enough to know all it would do is over stress the packs and possibly heat damage the covering around the power lead exit points. There is no useful purpose served doing so. The Tattu was starting to lose it on the voltage curve and the SMC was on the verge of maxing out it's temperature budget. But the SMC benefits from straight up and honest labeling on both the capacity and C. Since the ~5000 standard rates it against all others in it's weight class (<920g) it's actual 6.2Ah x 40C or 248A capability is why it still had margin left at ~5000/45C. (225A)

Now the real testing begins. Each pack will be "aged" with 10 full discharge cycles at their 45 RealC level and then run through the same series of 5 (25C-45C) TUL cycles and the results compared to their NIB performance. In the meantime the new release versions of the Liperior 65C and 45C packs are starting their RealC qualifying cycles.

Joe

Both the Liperior 65C and 45C packs performed well at 25C which is no surprise. It's also no surprise both the SMC and R-Line packs performed better however considering the Liperior's are $54 and $50 respectively who cares, right? However with only a $4 and 10g difference I'm not sure why one would select the 45C over the 65C pack.

Liperior 5000 45C, 790g, $50
3.7v @ 33 sec.
3.6v @ 81 sec.

Liperior 5000 65C, 800g, $54
3.7v @ 38 sec.
3.6v @ 82 sec.

SMC 6200 40C, 825g, $115
3.7v @ 63 sec.
3.6v @ 132 sec.

TATTU R-Line 5100 "95C", 860g, $140
3.7v @ 53 sec.
3.6v @ 104 sec.

I also noticed Liperior has a 6200/40C/880g $76 pack so I put it on order to round out the Liperior data set and go head to head flight time wise with the SMC 6200.

Joe

Fantastic stuff, donating to you feels more and more like a great investment, as much as my daily political donating ritual, drip drip drip toward a better future. . .

Originally Posted by John61CT

Fantastic stuff, donating to you feels more and more like a great investment, as much as my daily political donating ritual, drip drip drip toward a better future. . .

I normally kick in ~$2 for every $1 donated, better then the polito's matching fund program with Uncle Sam . However I usually get about $0.50 on the dollar back selling the packs after testing which really makes it more of a matching fund scenario.

For anybody else interested in stepping up my Paypal is giamona@comcast.net

Joe

Liperior 30C results here. The 45C and 65C performance is close enough to again confirm that for like chemistry weight is the primary metric. We also see that with the Tattu/R-Line being a heavier GensAce and performing on par with most others of similar weight.

Liperior 5000 45C, 790g
3.7v @ 21 sec.
3.6v @ 57 sec.

Liperior 5000 65C, 800g
3.7v @ 24 sec.
3.6v @ 58 sec.

SMC 6200 40C, 825g
3.7v @ 42 sec.
3.6v @ 94 sec.

TATTU R-Line 5100 "95C", 860g
3.7v @ 32 sec.
3.6v @ 72 sec.

Joe

Originally Posted by MCSGUY

Both the Liperior 65C and 45C packs performed well at 25C which is no surprise. It's also no surprise both the SMC and R-Line packs performed better however considering the Liperior's are $54 and $50 respectively who cares, right? However with only a $4 and 10g difference I'm not sure why one would select the 45C over the 65C pack.

Well, other than the 65C's being out of stock, they're listed at 884 grams on the website, not the 800 actual grams they weigh, which is not an insignificant difference.

The supposed 65C weight initially put me off as the 65C were both heavier than the 75C and heavier than I'd like for my planes in general. So I bought some 75C's which are good batteries, but heavier and longer than many.

How about 1300g, 6S 12000MAH battery putting out 140A for $103?
This fellow has good success:

evening flight Sebart mini Avanti S WeMoTec Midi Evo 90mm HET 700-68-2250 Li-ion 3x 6s Samsung 40T (10 min 3 sec)

I think Samsung 40T 21700 cells are made with much better quality and consistency than the flat packs we typically use. I think making cylindric cells are easier to produce with good results. They clearly put out more current than the manufacturer rates them at.
The only bummer is you have to solder a pack together.
I have a few on the bench and after I finish another project I think I'll make two 8S 4000MAH packs and see how it goes.

A 12000 mAh pack putting out 140A is less than 12C ... Not all that exciting, and no plane I have right now could handle the weight of such a pack. The price is nice, but not having to assemble it.

Your 8S 4000 packs could be interesting.

Well he got the same current with the 8000MAH version too. So, the packs can do better than 12C.
What 6S EFD systems draw more than 150A?

I think he gets a 9-min flight with the 12000MAH packs.

I am kinda surprised more research is not done on the 21700 cells for EFD jet use. A lot a space is used here about the false C ratings. Samsung rates their 40T at 10C and in practice the cells are doing much better. Weight and cost are better too.

If the 6S/8000 configuration did weigh in around 870g I’d love to test it. Not sure I’d use it because one of the defining parameters of C is the voltage it’s able to maintain. I have no idea what a 40T would do but the 8000 HobbyStar “100C” actually uses 12C-15C cells and it’s not enough to scoop out much more then 3600mah of its 8000mah at a 140A average load before it sinks below 3.5v

Joe