LiPo vs Semi-Solid UAV Battery Packs: How to Compare Quotes Before Buying

Start with a model number and datasheet revision for each candidate. “Conventional LiPo” and “semi-solid” are useful buying labels, but they do not define two fully separate categories. Tattu, for example, uses both “semi-solid” and “LiPo” in the name of one pack. Do not read “semi-solid” as “all-solid-state,” or assume that two packs with the same series count share charging limits.

Keep the chemistry background brief when comparing quotes. The solid-state and semi-solid UAV battery background covers technology maturity and broader supplier checks. Here, the question is narrower: does each quoted pack have enough documented information to enter your project's sample evaluation?

Write one common comparison brief before opening the supplier tables:

• The aircraft's allowed battery voltage window, including the lowest acceptable loaded voltage.
• The required mission, payload and current profile.
• The available battery space and maximum installed battery mass.
• The charger, connector, wiring, BMS and communication requirements.
• The reserve policy and the conditions a sample must meet.

Use the same mass boundary for both candidates. If one quote excludes leads, mounting hardware or required electronics, ask for the installed total before comparing its Wh/kg with a complete pack.

Two simple calculations catch inconsistent inputs:

Nominal energy (Wh) = nominal voltage (V) × capacity (Ah)

Nominal specific energy (Wh/kg) = nominal energy (Wh) ÷ complete-pack mass (kg)

These formulas check the quoted numbers. They do not tell you how much energy remains usable at your mission load, temperature and cutoff.

The supplier pages below were checked on October 18, 2026. Confirm the current model revision before using their numbers in an order.

The Tattu 22 Ah 6S 30C specification gives the first pack's inputs. Dividing 488.4 Wh by 2.460 kg gives about 198.54 Wh/kg, calculated from the manufacturer's nominal figures. This is not an independently measured result.

The Tattu 28 Ah 6S 5C specification contains the voltage conflict shown in the table. The two energy calculations are conditional alternatives. They are not a measured energy range, and neither should become the confirmed energy of that SKU until the supplier resolves the voltage.

Check series tables the same way. The Grepow 350 Wh/kg pack table lists TARBG3533K06S10X as 33 Ah, 22.2 V and 273.6 Wh. Multiplication gives 732.6 Wh. Using the listed 2.216 kg mass, that calculation gives about 330.60 Wh/kg, which matches the density column. Flag the conflicting Wh entry and ask which fields apply to the quoted revision. Do not silently replace 273.6 Wh with your calculation and label it supplier-confirmed.

Scroll the diagram horizontally to read every label.

Energy is only one part of the sample decision. Give each supplier the current profile your project requires, including the duration of peaks and the required loaded voltage. Request the conditions behind any continuous and peak ratings: temperature, starting state of charge, voltage sag and the point at which the test stops.

C-rate converts to a label-current figure when multiplied by capacity in Ah. For the examples above, 22 Ah × 30C is 660 A, while 28 Ah × 5C is 140 A. These are label conversions, not permission to draw those currents through the connector or aircraft. They do not establish validated continuous output under your conditions. The battery C-rate and current calculation guide explains the units and the limits of that shortcut.

Use a current-review sheet with separate rows for takeoff, cruise and landing. Enter the required current and duration, the minimum loaded voltage, the supplier evidence and any unresolved condition. A large nominal-energy figure should not erase a missing peak-duration or voltage-sag answer.

Once the quote is consistent, turn the missing evidence into an agreed sample acceptance plan. The engineering team and supplier should confirm an appropriate test procedure within the limits of the pack, equipment and aircraft. This worksheet is a planning aid, not a set of operating limits.

Leave measured-result fields blank until testing supplies them. If the packs need different approved operating limits, show those limits explicitly and explain how the project will compare them. Do not force identical settings that conflict with either manufacturer's instructions.

A nominal Wh difference is not the same as a flight-time difference. The acceptance record must connect the usable output to the actual aircraft duty and installed mass. Without that connection, the defensible result is a sample candidate or an unresolved question, rather than a promised endurance gain.

Ask for a quotation that separates the battery price from the changes needed to use it. That makes a lower pack price easier to assess and prevents an incomplete quote from appearing cheaper simply because it omits work.

Mark each interface “unchanged,” “change required” or “unresolved.” Do not call a candidate a direct replacement while a required interface remains unresolved. Keep currency, quote date, quantity and included services beside the costs so the totals describe the same purchasing scope.

Use a scenario rather than a chemistry-based savings claim:

Cost per accepted mission = attributable pack, integration, qualification and replacement costs ÷ accepted mission count

Choose a consistent project period and cost boundary for both candidates. Define an accepted mission before filling in the denominator—for example, a mission meeting your agreed duty and reserve criteria. Keep the definition the same in both scenarios.

The difficult input is often the accepted mission count. If matched duty-cycle evidence is unavailable, leave it as an assumption and show how the decision changes when it changes. Do not substitute a marketing cycle-life number for missions your aircraft has actually completed under the required conditions.

Keep a short assumption log: quoted costs and currency; integration and qualification costs; expected use; replacement criteria; and the evidence behind mission count. Where warranty coverage or downtime affects the decision, state the assumption and its source. Without comparable prices and life evidence, the model cannot support a fixed savings percentage or payback date.

The useful output is a procurement action with a reason. It does not have to be a chemistry winner.

Apply the same evidence standard to both candidates. A familiar pack still needs documented suitability for the intended duty. A new candidate still needs more than a high density label to earn an order.

Scroll the diagram horizontally to read every label.

AntBattery's published reference information needs the same scrutiny. The 350 Wh/kg series shows an 8S reference with 29.6 V, 40 Ah and 1,184 Wh. A verified complete-pack mass is still needed before calculating that pack's specific energy. The 400 Wh/kg series shows a 6S reference with 2 kg mass and 70 × 75 × 190 mm dimensions; its 800 Wh figure is conditional on 400 Wh/kg × 2 kg. Confirm nominal voltage, Ah and whether the density rating refers to cells or the complete pack.

These references do not establish a tested advantage over the Tattu examples. They help identify the questions a configuration-specific request must resolve. The reference pack's dimensions, mass or capacity should not be copied across other series configurations.

Use the UAV battery pack configuration options to identify the relevant series and prepare an evaluation request. Include the aircraft and mission, voltage window, required usable energy, current profile, battery space and mass limit, charger and interfaces, quantity and destination. Attach the two-column quote sheet, highlight contradictions and request the relevant configuration-specific datasheet, drawing and available test or transport documents.

Ask for three clear outputs: a revision-specific quotation, written answers to the unresolved fields, and the proposed conditions for sample evaluation. Those documents make the next purchasing decision reviewable without turning a label or a calculation into a performance promise.