Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Typhoon H battery

Well, I just got an email from Jessops saying that: '...This order has now been fulfilled and is waiting to be dispatched, however, it appears the pre-authorisation for your order has expired and needs to be reprocessed. Could you please contact us on 0344 800 4444 within the next 7 days.'

Not surprising that my authorization has expired since it was something like 10th June when I placed the order. I'll give them a ring later today or Monday to re-authorize.

Edit: Looks like Wednesday next week before we will get weather good enough for flying. Just as well: I'm busy doing other stuff Monday. Tuesday my car is in having some scuff marks removed, so It'll be Wednesday anyway before I can have a fly.
Might as well get one, it could be the last time we get a genuine one!
 
Yes yesterday. IR still in single figures, very closely matched. They seem to beselling quickly. The box use to be a brown plain box, so I don't know why the new fancy one?
Typical bad weather forecast for days!
I tested the IR on that new Gifi when it arrived the other week but I suspect that there may be somat wrong with the tester...the IR just looked too low for me to be confident with the read-outs. I forgot to to a test on my other batteries to make a comparison though. I'll do that when that Jessop's battery arrives.
 
A good battery will display IR’s of 1-2mOhm/cell. That does not reflect actually quality, just the condition. Cells displaying IR’s of 4 or more per cell after the first use cycle are giving us fair warning they aren’t in as good a shape as they could have been.

A new 4 cell battery in really good shape will a display an IR total value in single digits.

PSA for Yuneec battery manufacture dates. The date shown under the release latch appears to be the battery case assembly date. Individual cells do not have a date code in the serial/batch numbers. This implies we don’t have any idea of the age of the cells, we only have info relative to when the case was assembled.

After disassembling several Yuneec batteries for both the H-480 and Chroma not one had a date noted on the cells themselves.
 
A good battery will display IR’s of 1-2mOhm/cell. That does not reflect actually quality, just the condition. Cells displaying IR’s of 4 or more per cell after the first use cycle are giving us fair warning they aren’t in as good a shape as they could have been.

A new 4 cell battery in really good shape will a display an IR total value in single digits.

PSA for Yuneec battery manufacture dates. The date shown under the release latch appears to be the battery case assembly date. Individual cells do not have a date code in the serial/batch numbers. This implies we don’t have any idea of the age of the cells, we only have info relative to when the case was assembled.

After disassembling several Yuneec batteries for both the H-480 and Chroma not one had a date noted on the cells themselves.
Date of manufacturer or build date or whatever, nobody knows, the cells assembled into the battery, obviously they might of been supplied earlier before final assembly, even brand new batteries are giving higher readings either a reflection on poor quality cells, quality control, bad storage or just general problems with UK supply chain.
 

Attachments

  • IMAG1520.jpg
    IMAG1520.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 9
PSA for Yuneec battery manufacture dates. The date shown under the release latch appears to be the battery case assembly date. Individual cells do not have a date code in the serial/batch numbers. This implies we don’t have any idea of the age of the cells, we only have info relative to when the case was assembled.

After disassembling several Yuneec batteries for both the H-480 and Chroma not one had a date noted on the cells themselves.
That's an interesting point that never occurred t me if I'm honest. I've always believed the deluded notion that the date under the flap denoted the battery's manufacture date...not the manufacture date of the case alone.

This means that we have no real idea when the completed batteries were manufactured. The case may say 2017 but final assembly could easily be 2019...or 2017...or any date in between. The one true thing we can say about complete battery manufactured dates, then is: 'Buggered if I know'. However, if it says a date 2017 we know that the case was built in 2017...but the cells could be older or younger. Again: 'Buggered if I know'.

I'm ringing Jessops later today to give them the info they require to release the battery I've had on order with them since 10th June. From what @Mrgs1 was saying about the date on his battery he received the other day I'm expecting my battery to say 2017. Now that date 2017 is pretty meaningless. The only method I have in determining it's health now is IR and lack of bulging.

BTW, it seems that my IR tester readout isn't as suspect as I had thought.
 
I think we can take "Date of manufacturer" as final assembly date. How long the cells were constructed is anyone's guess, hopefully within a few weeks of months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
I think we can take "Date of manufacturer" as final assembly date. How long the cells were constructed is anyone's guess, hopefully within a few weeks of months.
Having though about it, I think the date found under the flap will still be a reasonably good indicator of the batteries age given that manufacturers wouldn't want to have too many un-assembled parts hanging around. That doesn't make economic sense: Having money tied up in stock that can't be sold. If a battery says 2017 under the flap then, at least from an economic viewpoint, I think it would be a reasonably fair assumption that the cells contained therein will be of 2017 manufacture albeit maybe a few months prior to the final assembly.

One thing we can take from this, though, is that if a battery says '30/09.2017', say, then that won't be the date of the cells. They can be older. By how much older we don't know...as you say, hopefully within a few weeks or months of final assembly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
...I'm ringing Jessops later today to give them the info they require to release the battery I've had on order with them since 10th June. From what @Mrgs1 was saying about the date on his battery he received the other day I'm expecting my battery to say 2017. Now that date 2017 is pretty meaningless. The only method I have in determining it's health now is IR and lack of bulging.
Just spoken with Jessops. Battery should be delivered tomorrow by courier.

Just in time to flight test it on Wednesday since if this morning's weather forecast is anything to go by, Wednesday looks like the only day this week that it will be good enough for a fly.
 
Just spoken with Jessops. Battery should be delivered tomorrow by courier.

Just in time to flight test it on Wednesday since if this morning's weather forecast is anything to go by, Wednesday looks like the only day this week that it will be good enough for a fly.
Keep us posted what it performs like!
 
Will do.

Just received an email from the courier saying it will be delivered this morning.
Just received it...a day late and too late to fly it today. Just looked at the weather for tomorrow: Winds gusting at 14 to 16 miles per hour so not suitable for a battery flight test. It'll have to sit for a while until we get a more favorable day.

Not tested IR yet. I'll do that after tea. I note, though, that the under-flap label has a 2016 date. However, I take note of above posts that point out that the date on the label may not be a 100% reliable indicator of the manufacture date of the cells. An IR test will reveal it's health.
 
My thoughts are that if they ever enact equipment certifications for these things they should mandate battery manufacturers place a date of manufacture on every cell, and any cell lacking the manufacture date could not be used in aerial applications. That’s the only way I can think of for users to accurately track battery life cycle.
 
Just received it...a day late and too late to fly it today. Just looked at the weather for tomorrow: Winds gusting at 14 to 16 miles per hour so not suitable for a battery flight test. It'll have to sit for a while until we get a more favorable day.

Not tested IR yet. I'll do that after tea. I note, though, that the under-flap label has a 2016 date. However, I take note of above posts that point out that the date on the label may not be a 100% reliable indicator of the manufacture date of the cells. An IR test will reveal it's health.
My thoughts are that if they ever enact equipment certifications for these things they should mandate battery manufacturers place a date of manufacture on every cell, and any cell lacking the manufacture date could not be used in aerial applications. That’s the only way I can think of for users to accurately track battery life cycle.
Can't imagine that unless forced to, it's another way to deceive with age and quality of the battery. Even Yuneec say it's OK to have a 3 year old battery and no deterioration should be present!
 
Another data point: I ordered two Power 4 batteries from Yuneec USA last Thursday. They arrived today with no ORM-D or Lithium battery warning labels on the outer box. Each battery was packed in a cardboard box with a small date stamp on the front. Both stamps read "2017.03.07". I'm guessing this is the battery assembly date. Both batteries have the date "01042016" under the flap.This does look like a case build (extrude?) date. Both batteries arrived at 3.8 Volts per cell.
 
Another data point: I ordered two Power 4 batteries from Yuneec USA last Thursday. They arrived today with no ORM-D or Lithium battery warning labels on the outer box. Each battery was packed in a cardboard box with a small date stamp on the front. Both stamps read "2017.03.07". I'm guessing this is the battery assembly date. Both batteries have the date "01042016" under the flap.This does look like a case build (extrude?) date. Both batteries arrived at 3.8 Volts per cell.
No one will know for sure what the dates mean. The only thing for sure is there old, like a lot of users have found out.
 
Another data point: I ordered two Power 4 batteries from Yuneec USA last Thursday. They arrived today with no ORM-D or Lithium battery warning labels on the outer box. Each battery was packed in a cardboard box with a small date stamp on the front. Both stamps read "2017.03.07". I'm guessing this is the battery assembly date. Both batteries have the date "01042016" under the flap.This does look like a case build (extrude?) date. Both batteries arrived at 3.8 Volts per cell.
I used to think that the date under the flap was an indication of the date of manufacture but not any more. Probably indicates the manufacture date of the casing...maybe..but not the entire battery. IMHO we only have IR testing available to us to indicate a battery's health. One thing is certain as @Mrgs1 points out, they ain't new.
 
Just received it...a day late and too late to fly it today. Just looked at the weather for tomorrow: Winds gusting at 14 to 16 miles per hour so not suitable for a battery flight test. It'll have to sit for a while until we get a more favorable day.

Not tested IR yet. I'll do that after tea. I note, though, that the under-flap label has a 2016 date. However, I take note of above posts that point out that the date on the label may not be a 100% reliable indicator of the manufacture date of the cells. An IR test will reveal it's health.
After roughly 6 weeks since I received this Power 4 battery I was finally in a position to fly it this morning.

It performed well.

I needed to delay take-off a few minutes while I waited for some people to walk clear of my Area Of Operations so take off was at 16.6v. In the air having a 'normal' kind of flight (no hover test) for 12 minutes and 6 seconds landing at 14.7v. This in temperature of 3c. I wanted to fly it longer down to 14.4v but had to land because some people entered my Area Of Operation again. As a rough comparison I also flew my Gifi8050 in similar conditions where that one was in the air for 12 minutes and 35 seconds taking off at 16.7v and landing at 14.7v (people knocking around again)...so, roughly speaking, this new (to me) Power 4 battery seems to be performing the same as my Gifi8050

I admit that this wasn't an ideal test of this battery. I knew that I wouldn't be able to hover test it because people were coming and going and I had a mission on to take video of a certain landmark. Next time I fly it, then, I'll try to do it in a place where I can hover test it to 14.4v to see what sort of maximum time I can get out of it. But extrapolating up from what I did today I think it would easily come close to my Gifi, if not surpass it.

By the way, once I've processed the video I'll post a link to the pictures & video section. That'll likely be tomorrow.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,954
Messages
241,586
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval