Re: Dream Time -- Little help here?

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..

> Just recently I saw a "stormscope" in a magazine devoted to Park and
> Recreation Department people. It's designed to allow Park and Rec
directors
> to close/open outdoor events when storms get close by.


Not even close in performance to an aviation panel-mount Stormscope or
Strikefinder.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...


> What do you see the WSI In Flight system or XMRadio system as giving
> the pilot which is significantly greater than CBAV or WeatherClip on a
> wireless Palm?

1. Reliable coverage anywhere in the USA

2. Access to the national lightning network to display accurate lightning
strike data

3. Automatic screen updates and thus much less pilot heads-down time

4. Precip tops radar

5. Color display (easier to distinguish between precip levels)

The bottom line should be a much more pilot-friendly interface which should
give more information to the pilot with more reliability and less
effort/less distraction from other pilot tasks. And I think this should
help to make the most critical weather decision of all: What is just precip
and what is a thunderstorm and how do I plan a route with only precip?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Ryan Ferguson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> OR (heh, heh, heh...), I can keep the same monthly payment, and get MORE
> (bwa-ha-ha!) money, with which to upgrade my woefully out of date panel. :)

Hi Jay,

You don't fly the plane IFR, and you say everything works. Take the free
mileage out of the working avionics and enjoy it. When things start breaking,
possibly consider upgrading at that time.

Money you sink into avionics goes into a dark hole and never comes out at
resale.

I say keep things simple and use the money for better purposes. I know it
doesn't sound nearly as fun, but someday you might wish you'd done just that!
(Especially when you look back on interest rates and kick yourself for not
buying real estate this year!)

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

[[email protected]]

:> of usefulness. I disagree with the comments that handhelds are
:> sufficient, since cig lighters do die, and a hardmounted antenna does a

: When a cigarette lighter power source dies, presumably there are other
: avionics on board to complete the flight. Also the handheld will have
: batteries to complete the flight.

: On the other hand, when the electrical system dies, all the avionics go out
: except the handheld GPS.

: Therefore a handheld GPS can be more useful and a better safety tool even
: than a panel-mount GPS.

I agree that a handheld is a good backup device, and I think it's a great idea to have
one, and fresh batteries with you. Having used both, however, between the wiring clutter in the
cockpit, intermittent cig lighters, and mediocre reception from a non hard-mounted antenna, a
panel mount is a more solid part of the plane. They're not very expensive, of course I
primarily did the install.

: Jay flies in an area where radar service is almost always available and
: therefore he could usually fly IFR DIRECT using a handheld GPS to back up
: radar vectors and to back up his onboard IFR-approved VOR/LOC equipment. It
: does not sound as if flying IFR approaches into airports served only by a
: GPS approach is a major issue for him. Therefore, a $7000 Garmin 430 would
: not provide Jay with any utility or safety advantage which he could not get
: with a $1000 or so Garmin 196 or Garmin 295.

I don't think that a Garmin 430 makes much sense for most pilots.... Especially for
Jay's mission. If it were priced more affordably, it would make good sense. I'd rather outfit
a whole stack of older equipment for a lack of single-point failure.

The money saved would pay for : a very nice Strikefinder/Stormscope or for a very nice portable
weather : datalink system, either of which would indeed provide him with a substantial : upgrade
in airplane utility and safety for either IFR or VFR flying.

Would be nice, agreed. I agree with other posts suggesting finishing the IR, and making
use out of currently functioning avionics. Of course, I'm generally a cheap b*st*rd, so of
course I'd lean that way... :)

Use the $$ to buy more autogas, Jay!

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

wrote:

> I agree that a handheld is a good backup device, and I think it's a great idea to have
> one, and fresh batteries with you. Having used both, however, between the wiring clutter in the
> cockpit, intermittent cig lighters, and mediocre reception from a non hard-mounted antenna, a
> panel mount is a more solid part of the plane. They're not very expensive, of course I
> primarily did the install.

Just for reference, when I suggested that perhaps a panel-mount
GPS didn't provide much utility over a good handheld, I also
suggested an installed antenna and a power outlet.

A new cigarette lighter outlet on a sound circuit shouldn't
be any more intermittant than any other part of the electrical
system, but a small power outlet just behind wherever one
mounts the GPS is much neater.

I'm not sure what one means by "not very expensive" on the panel-mount
GPS, nor am I really arguing against it....but the two disadvantages
of the handheld (the external antenna, and the funky power) can almost
certainly be taken care of for much less than the cost of VFR
panel-mount, and the panel mount does not IMHO replace the handheld.

So if I were going to put the effort and time into an install, I'd
go for a used approach-capable IFR GPS and get the significant utility
of IFR approaches. Around here, there are plenty of airports where the
only approaches are NDB, or GPS, and IMO it *is* a significant increase
in capability.

OTOH, how much time did you spend on the install? Given a choice
between 25 hrs of install time vs. 25 hrs working on the instrument
rating, I would have to agree with those who suggested that the
latter might be a better investment!

Sydney, a Cheap ******* with another POV

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> First, get your instrument rating --

Jay's problem is that they don't sell those at Oshkosh.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message
...
> one, and fresh batteries with you. Having used both, however, between the
wiring clutter in the
> cockpit, intermittent cig lighters, and mediocre reception from a non
hard-mounted antenna, a
> panel mount is a more solid part of the plane. They're not very
expensive, of course I
> primarily did the install.

If you want, you can install fresh batteries before a trip and/or travel
with extra batteries in your flight bag and then there is no wiring clutter
at all.

I am not sure why you feel there is mediocre reception from a non
hard-mounted antenna; perhaps this was an older generation GPS or perhaps it
has something to do with your particular cockpit. My Garmin 295 works fine
without any external antenna at all. And if antenna reception is a problem
in any given airplane, just have an external GPS antenna installed with a
connector on the panel -- that is still way cheaper than a panel-mount GPS.

There is actually a key advantage to a handheld GPS being used as a regular
part of an avionics suite -- if I were to lose my electrical system while in
IMC, I would not skip a beat continuing to a landing (preferably finding
VMC, but IMC if necessary). With a handheld GPS in the flight bag one
would need to pull out the GPS, remember how to use it, initialize its
position, etc., etc.

> I don't think that a Garmin 430 makes much sense for most pilots....
Especially for
> Jay's mission. If it were priced more affordably, it would make good
sense. I'd rather outfit
> a whole stack of older equipment for a lack of single-point failure

OK, I may agree with you there on second thought considering the plane and
the mission as I understand it. Keeping with the "trailing edge of
technology" argument, I would say that there are excellent bargains to be
had with a used Northstar M3 Approach GPS. Or for a slight upgrade, a King
KLN94 Approach GPS offers nice value as well.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:dg1Ma.67372$R73.9226@sccrnsc04...

> Yeah, but if it's 10% of the price -- and half as good -- well, you get
the
> idea...

In that case just use your ADF as a Stormscope... it will probably be as
accurate.

When you get into IMC, you will be *very* glad you paid for the "real thing"
and got a true sferics device.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

: If you want, you can install fresh batteries before a trip and/or travel
: with extra batteries in your flight bag and then there is no wiring clutter
: at all.

Sounds like a good idea, but it's one more thing to forget to bring. Granted, for a
real trip and not just a quick $100 hamburger, it's not that much more significant.

: I am not sure why you feel there is mediocre reception from a non
: hard-mounted antenna; perhaps this was an older generation GPS or perhaps it

I've had poor experiences with a handheld unit. Frankly, I'm amazed they work as well
as they do inside a spam can.

: There is actually a key advantage to a handheld GPS being used as a regular
: part of an avionics suite -- if I were to lose my electrical system while in
: IMC, I would not skip a beat continuing to a landing (preferably finding
: VMC, but IMC if necessary). With a handheld GPS in the flight bag one
: would need to pull out the GPS, remember how to use it, initialize its
: position, etc., etc.

True enough. Point taken.

: OK, I may agree with you there on second thought considering the plane and
: the mission as I understand it. Keeping with the "trailing edge of
: technology" argument, I would say that there are excellent bargains to be

I believe the term was, "cutting edge of yesterday's technology," but it amounts to the
same thing... :) I got a *full* old-school digital IFR panel for $4500 and probably about 20-40
hours of my time installing it. That's shopping around, getting equipment off ebay, etc and
consists of:

Dave Clark Isocom, KMA-20 audio panel w/ MB, KLX-135 VFR GPS/COM, KY-197 COM, KNS-80
NAV/LOC/GS/DME/RNAV w/ KNI-520 head, KN-53 NAV w/ KI-203 head, KT-76 transponder with AR-850
encoder.

That's the point I was making about the lack of sense for a Garmin 430. With that you
get one of most things (COM/ILS/GPS), but for 2x the price and no redundancy. About all it has
going for it is the IFR GPS with spiffy display, and coolness factor. Most of the installs I've
seen have been primarily because of the latter.

... but whatever floats your scope. :)

-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: A new cigarette lighter outlet on a sound circuit shouldn't
: be any more intermittant than any other part of the electrical
: system, but a small power outlet just behind wherever one
: mounts the GPS is much neater.

I've experienced quite a few issues with the big, fat cig connector in its socket. With
a more robust power connector somewhere (Molex or DC battery disconnect type), I'd agree.

: I'm not sure what one means by "not very expensive" on the panel-mount
: GPS, nor am I really arguing against it....but the two disadvantages
: of the handheld (the external antenna, and the funky power) can almost
: certainly be taken care of for much less than the cost of VFR
: panel-mount, and the panel mount does not IMHO replace the handheld.

I got a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COM for $1200, with install kit, and antennas. Took less than 5
hours to install myself and have it signed off on. That was even tying it into the
transponder's altitude encoder to help resolve a GPS solution.

: So if I were going to put the effort and time into an install, I'd
: go for a used approach-capable IFR GPS and get the significant utility
: of IFR approaches. Around here, there are plenty of airports where the
: only approaches are NDB, or GPS, and IMO it *is* a significant increase
: in capability.

I'd heard enough horror stories about getting an IFR GPS installation approved that I
declined that route. A friend of mine did buy a KLN-90B for pretty cheap, however ($1500 IIRC).
It would be nice to have, but for my IFR training, I wanted to be proficient at old-school
stuff. The GPS will only make it easier... :)

: OTOH, how much time did you spend on the install? Given a choice
: between 25 hrs of install time vs. 25 hrs working on the instrument
: rating, I would have to agree with those who suggested that the
: latter might be a better investment!

This is true. I guess that's why I'm working on my IFR ticket a year later, since last
year at this time I was busy locating and installing equipment.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

I'm looking through this all in hindsight, of course. My installation time could be off
by as much as a factor of 2, but I wouldn't say any more than that.

: I'm amazed that you were able to install all of the above in only 20-40
: hrs, including antennas and splitters one assumes.

: It took more than 20 hrs for us to install our intercom (of course,
: DH is a trifle anal about wanting everything neatly bundled,
: heat shrinked, etc.

I've done a fair bit of wiring in my educational pursuits, so I've gotten used to
soldering, heat shrinking, bundling, etc. Only difference here was mil-spec wire.

: Part of that time of course was taking out and putting in the
: interior, which of course you'd only have to do once, but still,
: especially for stuff you got off ebay which might not have a
: sound wiring harness and proper connectors...

True enough, but for those that needed it, install kits and pin removal tools.

For grins, I posted up a quick page showing the before and after pictures. I'd
forgotten how rough it looked before.

http://juneau.me.vt.edu/~papenfuss/plane.html

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

wrote:
> I'm looking through this all in hindsight, of course. My installation
> time could be off by as much as a factor of 2, but I wouldn't say
any more
> than that.

I'd believe 50-60 hrs more easily, but I guess that proves what people
say, if you're going to do significant avionics upgrades it's cheapest
to wait until you're going to do the whole thing. I'm sure having
big gaping holes made some aspects easier. And of course if you solder
and do wire bundling on a daily basis I'm sure that makes you faster.

> http://juneau.me.vt.edu/~papenfuss/plane.html

Beautiful work!

But if it were me I woulda sprung for one piece
of fancy new equipment: one of those PS Engineering combination
audio panel/intercoms with the built-in CD player :)

Fly it in good health,
Sydney

[clyde woempner]

Why replace anything till it breaks, get your money's worth out of what you
have, as long as it works use it. Now do I sound like the wife??
Clyde

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3GLLa.58186$Ab2.132024@sccrnsc01...
> Okay, the interest rates aren't going any lower, and I can refinance our
> relatively-small-but-still-fairly-significant aircraft loan for a much
lower
> rate, and lower my monthly loan payments to next to nothing.
>
> OR (heh, heh, heh...), I can keep the same monthly payment, and get MORE
> (bwa-ha-ha!) money, with which to upgrade my woefully out of date panel.
:)
>
> SO, here's the deal -- I need you guys to help me plan my Oshkosh shopping
> trip! Here are the parameters:
>
> 1. Figure around $8K to play with.
> 2. Figure VFR needs only, but with minimal IFR capability. (I will
> eventually finish that rating...)
>
> Here's what I've got now:
>
> 2 Narco coms
> 2 Narco VORs, both with glide slope
> Narco audio panel
> Narco transponder
> Narco DME
> JPI FS 450 fuel flow meter
> PS Engineering CD player/4 place intercom
> JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer.
>
> Everything works. We have a hand-held Lowrance Airmap 300 that has just
> started acting hinky, and we'll be looking to replace it at OSH.
>
> For the panel, I'm leaning toward installing a good VFR GPS/COM
> (UPSAT/Apollo?), leaving one of my Narco coms as "Com 2", and leaving the
> Narco VOR Navs "as-is". I'd really like to junk the Narco audio panel,
and
> install the PS Engineering one, but I'm not sure if I can swing the
GPS/Com,
> the new handheld GPS AND a new audio panel...
>
> What do you guys think? (Or should I install "God's Own Leather
Interior"
> instead? :)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Use the $$ to buy more autogas, Jay!

The latest count off the gauge on the Mighty Grape: 1300 gallons pumped:

Translated into dollars, that's 1300 gallons x $1.50 (per gallon price
differential comparted to Avgas) = $1950.00 saved since November.

It's hard to beat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:
:> It would be nice to have, but for my IFR training, I wanted to be
: >roficient at old-school stuff. The GPS will only make it easier... :)

: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

: Spoken like a man who definately doesn't have an IFR approach
: GPS, especially an older model.


I believe we're making the same point. I'm already irritated at having to dial up
obscure identifiers on my VFR GPS (push, push, wind-wind-wind, push, wind-wind-wind, push, etc).
I know that dealing with the unit itself would be a pain, but once it's in a moving map approach
makes things simpler to actually fly. My point was that for learning, I'd rather make it hard
on myself and learn to deal with situational awareness, distractions, and airplane control on
partial panel on the initial rating. Maybe later when actually proficient with this will I
consider making thing easier. Fine line between easy/complacency and difficult/proficiency.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
:> Use the $$ to buy more autogas, Jay!

: The latest count off the gauge on the Mighty Grape: 1300 gallons pumped:

: Translated into dollars, that's 1300 gallons x $1.50 (per gallon price
: differential comparted to Avgas) = $1950.00 saved since November.

: It's hard to beat.

Preaching to the choir here, Jay. I'm already sold on autogas with a $1.25/gal diff
between based 100LL and 93 AKI with a $0.125 tax rebate (obviously since the pricey STC). I'm
still lugging 6-gal cans to the airport though. I'm pretty sure the new Nazi airport manager
would have kittens if I tried to use/store a fuel truck/trailer on the line. Still thinking
about how to do it for cheap. If I could easily filter the 6-gal containers to get the small
amount of sediment and water out of it, I probably wouldn't even bother with trying to do it
bulk.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dennis O'Connor]

I've been swilling that cheap arabic 83 octane for years... Can't be
beat... I do tend to go crazy in the hot weather and use <gasp> 87 octane,
though...

My mechanic hates, absolutely hates, mogas, so come annual time I run the
tanks down and fill with 100LL to cover up the odor... Every year he glares
at me and says, "Why aren't these plugs fouled?"....
I change the subject and never answer him, but he's getting suspicious as to
why my over 500 hour set of plugs are still like spanking new - which cuts
into his profit margin...

Denny

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LwhMa.8356$Xm3.151@sccrnsc02...
> > Use the $$ to buy more autogas, Jay!
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message

> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > Just recently I saw a "stormscope" in a magazine devoted to Park and
> > Recreation Department people. It's designed to allow Park and Rec
> directors
> > to close/open outdoor events when storms get close by.
>
>
> Not even close in performance to an aviation panel-mount Stormscope or
> Strikefinder.

I would probably agree. But from where does this information come? What's
the difference . . . other than up to fourteen-thousand dollars?

I performed a search for the gadget that I originally mentioned and cannot
find it. It had a LCD screen that gave you range and direction of the
strike within something like 60 miles. The only one I could find out there
was this piece of crap that gives distance only:
http://www.bryanglobalservices.com/skyscan.html

So, if this is what you are comparing a "real" Stormscope to then I would
have to agree.

But this other gadget (that I cannot find on the Web) was much niftier. I
imagine that some enterprising aviation enthusiast cold very easily take the
digital range/direction output from this gadget and overlay that information
on a palm computer aviation map and, whalla!, a Strikefinder that rivals the
"performance" of the "real" thing at literally pennies on the dollar.

Y'all send me a dollar or two when you invent it and become wealthy, okay?

--
Jim Fisher

[[email protected]]

: But if it were me I woulda sprung for one piece
: of fancy new equipment: one of those PS Engineering combination
: audio panel/intercoms with the built-in CD player :)

The intercom,audio panel, and GPS/COM were the first things we put
in. That was when we were still planning on a simple VFR panel. Upon
pricing old equipment like the KX-170B, it quickly became apparent that
for only very slightly more money, we could go with old-school digital
IFR. Doing it over I'd probably put in a little better intercom, but this
one works fine and has a "good sounding" name.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ryan Ferguson]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

> But if it were me I woulda sprung for one piece
> of fancy new equipment: one of those PS Engineering combination
> audio panel/intercoms with the built-in CD player :)

Feh! CDs are old technology, and they're not cockpit-friendly. I bought a
Creative Labs Nomad 20GB mp3 player. It stores the equivalent of hundreds of CDs
and has about 20 hours of nonstop playtime thanks to two lithium ion rechargeable
batteries. It plugs into my intercom via a 1/8" stereo audio cable, so it eats no
panel space. Best of all - no changing CDs! Grand total cost: about $430,
including the second battery. (Play time is 10 hrs. with just one.) I also use
it when forced to fly commercial to drown out the little screamers. I even fall
asleep to soothing tunes in hotel rooms across the country thanks to high-quality
Sony earbuds (about $30.) You can't even feel 'em in your ears as you sleep.

I have about 16GB filled, and have no idea what I'll do with the remaining 4GB -
will fill it with new albums as I buy them, I suppose. Gotta love technology.

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> > Just recently I saw a "stormscope" in a magazine devoted to Park and
> > Recreation Department people. It's designed to allow Park and Rec
> directors
> > to close/open outdoor events when storms get close by.
>
> Not even close in performance to an aviation panel-mount Stormscope or
> Strikefinder.

What makes you say that? If the unit he's talking about is the one
I've seen, I certainly don't agree.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...

> So, if this is what you are comparing a "real" Stormscope to then I would
> have to agree.

That is more or less what I am assuming the portable device is, or at least
I would expect comparable performance.

The reason I am assuming this is because I have never seen or read about an
acceptable portable antenna for any sferics device. If I am wrong and
someone out there has indeed invented a portable sferics antenna with
acceptable performance, please let me know.. if so, I think such a device
would sell for about 1/2 the cost of an existing spherics device, not 10% of
the cost.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Jim Fisher]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> The reason I am assuming this is because I have never seen or read about
an
> acceptable portable antenna for any sferics device.

I really have no doubt that this gadget doesn't rival the performance of a
14k unit but, like you, I have nothing to base this on but the thought that
"it can't be as good 'cause it ain't as expensive and it doesn't have
'Airplane Use Only' printed on it."

However, the old Stormscope I had in my Cherokee had a cool, colorful little
led-based, radar-like screen. It would tell you if a strike was between 0
and 30 miles, 30 and 60 and 60 to 90 miles out. It also gave you a general
idea of the direction from which the strike was detected in ~25 degree
increments. This thing supposedly added $3,500 bucks to the Trade-a-Plane
value of my plane when I sold it.

I didn't use it for "serious" IFR because, number one, I wasn't IFR rated
and, number two, even if I was I would never attempt to fly in any "serious"
IFR with embedded CB all around me where I would actually need such a gizmo.
I only found it comforting to have in the panel in case I ever needed it to
get my ass out of a sling some day.

It was nothing like the newfangled gizmos that plot a little lightning bolt
in the exact range and direction of your position.

My point is that this handheld gizmo would just HAVE to give me at least as
much info as my old Stormscope--which wasn't much but would probably come in
handy if I ever needed it.

I'll dig up that magazine and post the name of it here when I get a chance.

--
Jim Fisher

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...

> increments. This thing supposedly added $3,500 bucks to the Trade-a-Plane
> value of my plane when I sold it.

I am comparing it to a $3000 or so used Strikefnder or Stormscope.


>It was nothing like the newfangled gizmos that plot a little lightning bolt
>in the exact range and direction of your position.

The "newfangled gizmos" -- even the $14,000 ones -- still are not accurate
enough to plot your way through embedded storms. They are most useful in
steering you to areas where storms are absent -- and a used $3000
Strikefinder/Stormscope does that just almost as well as the new $14,000
units.

Spending $14,000 on a Stormscope makes no sense IMHO...a better plan would
be to spend $3,000 on a used Stormscope and then spend the difference on a
weather datalink system which includes data from the national lightning
detection network.


> My point is that this handheld gizmo would just HAVE to give me at least
as
> much info as my old Stormscope--which wasn't much but would probably come
in


A Strikefinder or Stormscope -- any age, any model -- is most helpful when
it is blank. They tend to be quite accurate in determining storm direction
but poor in determining distance. However, when a Stormscope or
Strikefinder of ANY vintage shows a blank screen then you can be very
confident that there is no convective activity within the range of this
sferics device.

I think a better analogy is that this gizmo would just HAVE to give you at
least as much information as an ADF -- while an ADF can indeed point to
thunderstorms, I certainly would not use an ADF to verify the *absence* of
thunderstorm activity, and I doubt this portable device would be that
reliable or sensitive either.

The bottom line is that an old Stormscope or Strikefinder may not be
terrific at telling you where thunderstorms ARE, but they sure are
outstanding at telling you where thunderstorms are ABSENT. I doubt this
portable device could determine the absence of thunderstorms with the same
level of sensitivity.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> The "newfangled gizmos" -- even the $14,000 ones -- still are not accurate
> enough to plot your way through embedded storms. They are most useful in
> steering you to areas where storms are absent -- and a used $3000
> Strikefinder/Stormscope does that just almost as well as the new $14,000
> units.

I think that's conditionally true. With a good installation, the
older technology is really just as good. With a poor one, it's not.
Mostly, I disagree about the use of the device to plot a course
through embedded T-storms.

Anyone who understands how an ADF works will intuitively understand
how the bearing portion of a sferics device works. Range is more
difficult.

The most primitive way of determining range would be signal
instensity. Unfortunately, a strong but distant discharge would have
the same intensity as a weak but close one. Therefore, to have any
hope of determining range at all, you have to do better than that.
Manufacturers are notoriously closed-mouthed about the methods they
use, but really anyone who designs electronic equipment for a living
(which I do) can figure it out. Basically, a distant but strong
signal will show 'spread' - it doesn't all happen at once. A local
but weak discharge will be much 'tighter.' These fine points of
signal shape will be largely lost if the way the antenna is installed
causes significant signal distortion. Largely but not totally -
sufficiently good signal processing will be able to recover a lot.
Thus the newer sferics devices are less sensitive to installation
error. Not a big deal if you have a good friend who is an expert on
such things to help you put one in, but worth the extra money if the
installation will be done by an avionics shop technician.

In any case, the device will suffer from radial spread. In fact, when
it shows a lightning strike, an older unit will show it as multiple
dots along a radial. Any distance information thus derived is
approximate - factor of two at best. A later strike, unless it is
directly ahead, will be along a different radial line. If you're
flying an honest heading and constant airspeed, you can use the
elapsed time between strikes and the change in the angle to estimate
the range to the cell quite accurately.

Of course this assumes that there is plenty of room (10-20 miles)
between cells. If you're going to try to make it through the 2-3 mile
soft spots between cells, you need RADAR.

> Spending $14,000 on a Stormscope makes no sense IMHO...a better plan would
> be to spend $3,000 on a used Stormscope and then spend the difference on a
> weather datalink system which includes data from the national lightning
> detection network.

$3K for a used Stormscope with installation is doable, but just so you
understand, an avionics shop will generally bill $50-$75 per shop
hour. I will pay a GOOD electronic technician (one who can actually
troubleshoot and understand the concepts involved) $50K+ and bennies
to work in a nice, air conditioned environment rather than crawling
under the dash of a Mooney. You do the math. On the other hand, if
you can find an installer who really knows what he's doing, it makes a
lot of sense.

> However, when a Stormscope or
> Strikefinder of ANY vintage shows a blank screen then you can be very
> confident that there is no convective activity within the range of this
> sferics device.

That's very true, and maybe useful in some parts of the country. Here
on the Gulf Coast, it's a rare summer day when you see a blank screen.

> I think a better analogy is that this gizmo

I think you need to be more specific about which gizmo. I've seen one
sold in one of the 'scientifics' magazines (maybe Edmund's) that went
for about $500. It gave very accurate bearing, and range about as
accurate as a Stormscope. To tell you the truth, I could build one
today that would sell at that price if I could move a few tens of
thousands a year. DSP's are cheap these days.

There is also another gizmo out there, goes for about $150, been
around much longer, and really only measures intensity. Pretty
useless, IMO - not much better than an ADF.

BTW - this is an excellent reason to retain the ADF in the IFR panel,
especially an older all-analog model. To an extent, it backs up the
Stormscope. The way to get best performance is to tune to a locally
unused frequency, and then use the test circuit to point the needle to
the tail. If the needle stays put, you are generally OK - any
activity that may be present is mostly behind you.

> I doubt this
> portable device could determine the absence of thunderstorms with the same
> level of sensitivity.

I think that depends on which device you're talking about. Three
years ago I would have agreed with you. Not anymore.

Of course that doesn't mean that even the more modern gadget is usable
in an airplane. The problem is that there never was, and probably
never will be, a usable sferics antenna that can be placed INSIDE a
metal cage. That means the antenna that comes with the gizmo would
have to be installed - and I'm betting nobody is going to sign off on
that in a certified airplane. On the other hand, in an experimental
there's no longer any good reason to pay for a certified unit.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> Of course this assumes that there is plenty of room (10-20 miles)
> between cells. If you're going to try to make it through the 2-3 mile
> soft spots between cells, you need RADAR.

Oh, boy, now there is a jump... from a VFR pilot to flying embedded
thunderstorms at a 2-3 mile range.

No thank you, in fact not for me either, not even with Strikefinder plus
RDR160 radar plus CBAV aboard... I keep at least a nice 25 miles from all
sferics hits. I still have "only" a piston airplane and the speed/climb
performance just are not there to escape if the door closes behind me.


> in an airplane. The problem is that there never was, and probably
> never will be, a usable sferics antenna that can be placed INSIDE a
> metal cage. That means the antenna that comes with the gizmo would
> have to be installed - and I'm betting nobody is going to sign off on


Exactly my point (though stated much better...thank you)... therefore no
portable "gizmo" will match the performance of a used
Stormscope/Strikefinder and in fact no such "gizmo" is likely to even come
close.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Montblack]

Sorry this is a tad late (7 days).How about this:

Buy an old Suburban or a pickup truck with a large gas tank - pickups used
to have second gas tanks, do they still?...something that burns regular
(whatever). Pump from the large gas tank(s) in the truck over to the plane.
Arrive on Full and leave the airport on E in your vehicle. Fill up on the
way home. No extra "fuel tank" in the bed of your truck. You need an small
electric pump (with flow meter) and a good strainer - that's it. Oh, some
grounding clips might not be a bad idea either ...<g>.

With the right truck, maybe 35 or 40 gallons per "swap". Anyone do this???

Speaking of trucks, my local county is having a vehicle auction in a few
weeks - I'm going to see what the "auction" prices are for a used van/truck
for a beater second vehicle. Sold the 1989 Motel Probe this past week, need
another vehicle out here in the burbs.

--
Montblack

(Cory wrote)
<snipped>
>I'm pretty sure the new Nazi airport manager would have kittens if I tried
to use/store >a fuel truck/trailer on the line. Still thinking about how to
do it for cheap. If I could >easily filter the 6-gal containers to get the
small amount of sediment and water out of >it, I probably wouldn't even
bother with trying to do it bulk.

[Greg Burkhart]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Montblack wrote:
> > Sorry this is a tad late (7 days).How about this:
> >
> > Buy an old Suburban or a pickup truck with a large gas tank - pickups
used
> > to have second gas tanks, do they still?...something that burns regular
> > (whatever). Pump from the large gas tank(s) in the truck over to the
plane.
> > Arrive on Full and leave the airport on E in your vehicle. Fill up on
the
> > way home. No extra "fuel tank" in the bed of your truck. You need an
small
> > electric pump (with flow meter) and a good strainer - that's it. Oh,
some
> > grounding clips might not be a bad idea either ...<g>.
> >
> > With the right truck, maybe 35 or 40 gallons per "swap". Anyone do
this???
>
> Your problem will be flow rate. If it takes a long time to transfer 40
> gallons it will lose its appeal rather quickly. I would guess that
> about 8 gpm would be a bare minimum.

I have seen 'real' fuel trucks for auction on EBay. Don't see one offhand
currently. There is this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33556&item=2423009415 Not sure what the flow rate would be, probably need a pump?