Marine Radar in a plane?

[Jay Honeck]

Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather, Mary
and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our Pathfinder.
Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
just coming on the market.

So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use? Checking
around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set up
for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
cost.

Anyone tried this in a home-built plane? What's the range of those units?
Installation?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JerryK]

I thought marine radar was tuned for seeing objects not weather? Things
like radar bouys and other ATONs, and ships in the fog.

Also, I have to say after having radar for 4 years I find radar useful, but
not critical. You still want to keep 20 miles or so from any storm, and
most of the GA sized units can only accurately depict weather at 40 miles.
Much further and the beam is too big.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Y7OZa.121718$uu5.17371@sccrnsc04...
> Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather,
Mary
> and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our
Pathfinder.
> Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> just coming on the market.
>
> So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use?
Checking
> around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set
up
> for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
> cost.
>
> Anyone tried this in a home-built plane? What's the range of those units?
> Installation?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > http://www.cheap*******software.net/
> >
> > NOT recommended for real time bad weather penetration, but very useful
> > nevertheless. And used Palm VIIx are dirt cheap these days.
>
> Interesting website (although I never could find any info about what it
> actually costs for the service).
>
> Unfortunately it says "coverage in the center of the country is spotty"...
> --

It's cheap*******s! It doesn't cost anything!!! (Well, there is a monthly
service for the palm). Ron and I've used it a lot flying all over and haven't
found it spotty, but we've never used it in Iowa :-). For the cost of a used
palm VII and the $$ to hook up the Palm (which also gets you the handy
starbucks locator among other things, it's worth a try. We are looking at the
WSI right now, not only for the up to date weater (cheap*******s in about 15 -
20 minutes old) on the big screen, but also for the up to date, graphical
TFRs which are a real consideration here near DC and with the roaming
presidential one might be a real concern everywhere.

Margy

[Ross Oliver]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:55:52 GMT, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather, Mary
>and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our Pathfinder.
>Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
>just coming on the market.
>
>So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use? Checking
>around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set up
>for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
>cost.


I have always heard that a lightning detector such as StrikeFinder
or Stormscope works just as well as radar for thunderstorm avoidance,
and is more compact and less expensive than full-blown weather radar.
Eastern Avionics website lists several models for $3-6000 plus
install.


Ross Oliver

[Bob Gardner]

Radar reflects energy from something more or less solid...like a cloud full
of water. Sferics devices detect electrical discharges. They are two
different systems performing two different functions by measuring different
parameters. The ideal is to have both. If you have only one, you must
understand its limitations. A sferics device will not keep you from flying
into an ice-filled cloud, and radar will not detect clouds that do not
contain droplets of a certain diameter relative to wavelength.

Belt and suspenders.

Bob Gardner

"Ross Oliver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:55:52 GMT, Jay Honeck >
wrote:
> >Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather,
Mary
> >and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our
Pathfinder.
> >Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> >just coming on the market.
> >
> >So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use?
Checking
> >around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set
up
> >for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
> >cost.
>
>
> I have always heard that a lightning detector such as StrikeFinder
> or Stormscope works just as well as radar for thunderstorm avoidance,
> and is more compact and less expensive than full-blown weather radar.
> Eastern Avionics website lists several models for $3-6000 plus
> install.
>
>
> Ross Oliver

[Warren & Nancy]

If I had a plane anymore, and I had the bucks to put in radar or
lightning detector, the lightning detector would win hands down. It
will keep you out of the killer turbulence, whereas radar only keeps
you out of the wet stuff. IMHO of course! ;-)))

Warren (Hi Jav)

Robert Moore wrote:

> (Ross Oliver) wrote
> > I have always heard that a lightning detector such as
> > StrikeFinder or Stormscope works just as well as radar for
> > thunderstorm avoidance,
>
> You've heard way wrong.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
> FI ASE/IA
> USN S-2F P-2V B-3B
> PanAm (retired)

[Robert Moore]

Warren & Nancy wrote
> If I had a plane anymore, and I had the bucks to put in radar or
> lightning detector, the lightning detector would win hands down.
> It will keep you out of the killer turbulence, whereas radar
> only keeps you out of the wet stuff. IMHO of course! ;-)))

In 45 years and over 20,000 hours of flying, every instance of
"killer turbulence" that I encountered WAS associated with the
"wet stuff". Most of those years were spent flying out of Florida
to the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone...thunderstorm alley. I
have always found that avoiding the wet stuff is the best plan of
action.

Bob Moore

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Y7OZa.121718$uu5.17371@sccrnsc04...
> So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use?

Granted, I know very little about marine radar, but just given the
application, I'd suspect that it would not have characteristics suitable for
aviation. For one, all of the marine radar installations I've seen use a
rotating antenna, which would be hard to find a place to mount on a plane.
Beyond that, I don't know what the range of a cheap marine radar is, but
I'll bet it's significantly shorter than an aviation unit. Also, my
understanding is that marine radar is designed to optimize imaging of other
watercraft and coastlines, not weather.

Far be it from me to dissuade someone from trying. But I sure wouldn't hold
my breath waiting to see if they were successful.

I'd rather have both radar and lightning detection, but I agree that the
lightning detection gives you much more utility for the money.

Pete

[Russell Kent]

Snowbird wrote:

> I'd bank on CBAV + a sferics device over trying to make Marine
> radar work for wx detection in a plane which is moving 10-15x
> faster than a boat.

You obviously haven't been in Margy & Ron's plane recently... :-)

Russell "I can *row* faster!" Kent

[Kevin Horton]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:09:41 -0700, pac plyer wrote:

>> (Ross Oliver) wrote
>> > I have always heard that a lightning detector such as StrikeFinder or
>> > Stormscope works just as well as radar for thunderstorm avoidance,
>>
>> You've heard way wrong.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>> ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
>> FI ASE/IA
>> USN S-2F P-2V B-3B
>> PanAm (retired)
>
> Man you said it Bob. Twice out in the South Pacific with convective wx,
> ops tried to get me to fly the trip without any radar. My response was
> the same both times: If you can't fix it, just give us a call at the
> hotel, cuz that's were we'll be until you break out the bucks to go buy
> one from Singapore Airlines or somebody and fly it on over here. (some
> of those Equatorial boomers go up to 70,000 ft) I'm just too ****ing
> cute to die anymore.
>
> pacplyer
> ex-thunderstorm nafod

pacflyer - which aircraft do you have your StormScope or StrikeFinder time
on? Have you flown any GA radars?

I've flown both StormScopes and WX radar (I don't have any time on cheap
GA radar though), and one of my current aircraft actually has both. You
need to understand that the two technologies have different limitations.
Radar does a good job of finding water, and pretty much any thunderstorm
worth worrying about will be dumping lots of water. But, you need to
understand how to work the tilt knob, and you need to understand that just
because that glob of red looks pretty thin doesn't mean it is a good place
to try to punch through. If the water is coming down strong enough, it
will stop the radar from seeing anything further out in that direction. So
you may see a glob of red, with green and black on the other side, but it
is only green or black because the radar signal isn't punching through to
there.

The StormScope stuff, in theory, should keep you out of the really bad
stuff, as any CB should be producing lightening. It won't keep you out of
TCUs, but they shouldn't kill you, although they may scare the hell out of
you. I've seen quite a bit of variation in performance on different
StormScope installations. One aircraft I flew (TB-21) had a StormScope
installation that worked extremely well. The C550s that I fly with
StormScope seem to work much less well. I suspect the technology is very
sensitive to where the antenna is located, how well everything is
grounded, and how much electrical noise the aircraft produces. YMMV.

With weather radar, I suspect there is probably less installation to
installation difference in performance, for the same model unit and same
antenna. Obviously more expensive units with bigger antennae and more
power will work better than the cheaper GA stuff.

If I was spending my money, I'd take a StormScope over a cheap radar. But
I would do a lot of testing in VMC with CBs in the area to satisfy myself
that it was working properly before I went into clouds with it. If I was
spending my boss's money, I'd take an expensive radar over a StormScope.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[JerryK]

Wisconsin and Minn do not have support outside of urban areas. There was
not support in either Pierre or Rapid City, SD, or Salt Lake, UT.

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> Margy Natalie > wrote in message
>...
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > > http://www.cheap*******software.net/
> > > Interesting website (although I never could find any info about what
it
> > > actually costs for the service).
>
> > > Unfortunately it says "coverage in the center of the country is
spotty"...
>
> I haven't found anyplace in eastern Iowa/IL/IN w/out coverage.
> Haven't tried everywhere of course.
>
> Kansas/Nebraska and some parts of Arkansas are without. It's
> line-of-sight, depends upon how high you are.
>
> > It's cheap*******s! It doesn't cost anything!!! (Well, there is a
monthly
> > service for the palm).
>
> Palm VIIx $60-$70 on ebay plus $10/month for cheapest plan.
>
> You want to check the Palm website for coverage map and info on
> plans. The cheap plan is available only w/ the Palm VIIx
>
> There's a subscription service (weatherclip) which supposedly
> provides more current radar.
>
> I'd bank on CBAV + a sferics device over trying to make Marine
> radar work for wx detection in a plane which is moving 10-15x
> faster than a boat.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Kevin Horton]

Well, the original question was about a radar for a Piper PA-28-235
Pathfinder. That is not an aircraft designed to fly in serious weather.

I'm not sure there are any STCs to put a radar on the plane, even if the
money was available. The originally discussed marine radar is a
non-starter, I think, as it is designed to see land, not water. So that
leaves StormScope technology, or the new datalink stuff, or nothing.
Given those choices, I would try the StormScope type systems. The
datalink stuff might be worth a look, if you expected to always be flying
in areas where there is coverage.

Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:21 -0700, Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Well, basically, every plane designed to fly in serious weather has
> radar, not spherics. With radar you see the problem, with spherics you
> hear it. With radar you know the exact bearing and distance to the
> target. With sperics you have a pretty good idea where the target is
> and some idea of how far away it is. I agree that radar with a small
> antenna is pretty limited.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Kevin Horton" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> pacflyer - which aircraft do you have your StormScope or StrikeFinder
>> time on? Have you flown any GA radars?
>>
>> I've flown both StormScopes and WX radar (I don't have any time on
>> cheap GA radar though), and one of my current aircraft actually has
>> both. You need to understand that the two technologies have different
>> limitations. Radar does a good job of finding water, and pretty much
>> any thunderstorm worth worrying about will be dumping lots of water.
>> But, you need to understand how to work the tilt knob, and you need to
>> understand that just because that glob of red looks pretty thin doesn't
>> mean it is a good place to try to punch through. If the water is
>> coming down strong enough, it will stop the radar from seeing anything
>> further out in that direction. So you may see a glob of red, with green
>> and black on the other side, but it is only green or black because the
>> radar signal isn't punching through to there.
>>
>> The StormScope stuff, in theory, should keep you out of the really bad
>> stuff, as any CB should be producing lightening. It won't keep you out
>> of TCUs, but they shouldn't kill you, although they may scare the hell
>> out of you. I've seen quite a bit of variation in performance on
>> different StormScope installations. One aircraft I flew (TB-21) had a
>> StormScope installation that worked extremely well. The C550s that I
>> fly with StormScope seem to work much less well. I suspect the
>> technology is very sensitive to where the antenna is located, how well
>> everything is grounded, and how much electrical noise the aircraft
>> produces. YMMV.
>>
>> With weather radar, I suspect there is probably less installation to
>> installation difference in performance, for the same model unit and
>> same antenna. Obviously more expensive units with bigger antennae and
>> more power will work better than the cheaper GA stuff.
>>
>> If I was spending my money, I'd take a StormScope over a cheap radar.
>> But I would do a lot of testing in VMC with CBs in the area to satisfy
>> myself that it was working properly before I went into clouds with it.
>> If I was spending my boss's money, I'd take an expensive radar over a
>> StormScope.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada
>> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Y7OZa.121718$uu5.17371@sccrnsc04...

> Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather,
Mary
> and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our
Pathfinder.
> Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> just coming on the market.


Strikefinder or Stormscope would be far more useful than radar in a
single-engine plane.

My RDR-160 radar was the worst investment I ever made in my plane. CBAV is
far more useful, and certainly the newer portable and panel-mount datalink
systems seem to have the potential to beat CBAV.

Saying my radar has a range of 160 miles is a cruel joke; its range is
really only 40-50 miles, and even then it only works that far out if there
is a strong storm around. No piston airplane has the speed or altitude
capability to pentrate a line of thunderstorms and thus any piston plane can
get boxed in if a hole closes in from behind while trying to use radar to
find "holes" in storms.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> to the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone...thunderstorm alley. I
> have always found that avoiding the wet stuff is the best plan of

That plan may have been the best in airline flying, but not at piston
airplane altitudes.

How much experience do you have with radar in piston airplanes? In
particular, how much experience do you have with radar in piston
non-turbocharged airplanes such as Jay's?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...

> Well, basically, every plane designed to fly in serious weather has radar,
> not spherics. With radar you see the problem, with spherics you hear it.

Every plane designed to fly in "serious weather" is a pressurized turboprop
or jet, which gives a whole lot more options for flying above weather than
any piston airplane.

At the altitudes and airspeds attainable by piston airplanes, spherics beats
radar hands-down.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Robert Moore]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
> How much experience do you have with radar in piston airplanes?
> In particular, how much experience do you have with radar in
> piston non-turbocharged airplanes such as Jay's?

I've done about three years in a PA-23 with RADAR but only
half-a-dozen flights in a C-210 with stormscope. I'll still
take the RADAR. I strongly suspect that the lack of adequate
training on RADAR operation compared to very little required
for stormscope accounts for much of the stormscope preference.
I've encountered few GA pilots who really understand the gain,
tilt, and contour controls.

Bob

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> At the altitudes and airspeds attainable by piston airplanes, spherics beats
> radar hands-down.

There can still be significant turbulence where there isn't lightning.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> I've encountered few GA pilots who really understand the gain,
> tilt, and contour controls.

Is Archie Trammel's course sufficient for you for training?

Besides, assume perfect radar knowledge of use on a single-engine airplane
which therefore has only a 40-mile effective range.. do you think 40-mile
range on a radar is preferable to 100+ mile range on Stormscope?



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[pac plyer]

Kevin Horton > wrote <snip>
>
> pacflyer - which aircraft do you have your StormScope or StrikeFinder time
> on? Have you flown any GA radars? <snip>

Kev, For me it's been all Wx Radar. BE-18 had an old-timey (RCA I
believe?) set that was broken most all of the time. All of my other
experience has been with numerous different commercial sets in jets:
Bendix, Collins, RCA, etc. Lots of the guys I flew with at four
airlines however, flew Stormscope stuff in GA. None of them
has ever said anything good about it. In fact most of them say these
exact words when asked: "it's better than nothing." Unquote. After an
old hand like me teaches em how to set the gain manually and put a
little ground clutter out there with the tilt for insurance they don't
want to go back. Approaching a line? Use the tilt formula to
calculate if the cell is above your altitude or not. Doubt you can
tell much about vertical development with a Stormsope but then I've
never used one; been spoiled with good radar. The newer Collins sets
have auto-tilt and gggreat turb modes (magenta) but no one has been
able to explain to me how this feature works even in clear air. It's
amazing. And I'm a guy who used to fly into IAH every night in
occluded fronts, windshear, downbursts etc on an old Bendix green
screen (and I thought that was great.)

How's the weather?

We used to say: "what difference does it make? we're going anyway!"

>
<snip>
.. If the water is coming down strong enough, it
> will stop the radar from seeing anything further out in that direction. So
> you may see a glob of red, with green and black on the other side, but it
> is only green or black because the radar signal isn't punching through to
> there.

Yes indeed. This is called attenuation (actually the radar probably
does make it to the curved edges of the drops in your downburst or
strong cell, its just that the energy is absorbed or deflected and
never makes it back to the aircrafts' antenna receiver dish.) This
killed the crew and occupants of a NWA flight one night. They punched
into a > level five I think we would call that today. This was a
famous accident in the industry and one night I was jumpseating on AWA
to JFK and we watched another flight below us try to do the same thing
over Kansas City. A huge discharge that blinded us for a second
convinced him to turn around. He kept arguing with ATC about how good
it looked straight ahead. We were all laughing our asses off when we
saw him do the 180!
>
> The StormScope stuff, in theory, should keep you out of the really bad
> stuff, as any CB should be producing lightening. It won't keep you out of
> TCUs, but they shouldn't kill you, although they may scare the hell out of
> you. I've seen quite a bit of variation in performance on different
> StormScope installations. One aircraft I flew (TB-21) had a StormScope
> installation that worked extremely well. The C550s that I fly with
> StormScope seem to work much less well. I suspect the technology is very
> sensitive to where the antenna is located, how well everything is
> grounded, and how much electrical noise the aircraft produces. YMMV.
>
> With weather radar, I suspect there is probably less installation to
> installation difference in performance, for the same model unit and same
> antenna. Obviously more expensive units with bigger antennae and more
> power will work better than the cheaper GA stuff.

Radome cleanliness is important with big commercial units. I've lost
ability to paint targets due to extreme ice built up on the nose in
flight, and due to peeling paint. Peeling paint is the worst. You
constantly are dodging phantom cells that aren't there. We cringe at
the thought of no radar, but truthfully, a lot of the old guys flew
Connies without any and weren't concerned about it. They were
*always* in the weather they told me. Of course several disappeared
and were never found.

Ahhh ... constant turbulence that spills my coffie on my white shirt
and the faint smell of burning glycol in the packs and the
acrid odor of negative ions at high altitude, combined with bone-dry
eyeballs and radioactive, infectious, packages just inches from the
meal storage box.... makes me want to be scud-running in my little
airplane with a strike finder!

Stay away from Freddie Kilowatt!

pacplyer - out

[pac plyer]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
>
> Strikefinder or Stormscope would be far more useful than radar in a
> single-engine plane.
>
> My RDR-160 radar was the worst investment I ever made in my plane. CBAV is
> far more useful, and certainly the newer portable and panel-mount datalink
> systems seem to have the potential to beat CBAV.
>
> Saying my radar has a range of 160 miles is a cruel joke; its range is
> really only 40-50 miles, and even then it only works that far out if there
> is a strong storm around. No piston airplane has the speed or altitude
> capability to pentrate a line of thunderstorms and thus any piston plane can
> get boxed in if a hole closes in from behind while trying to use radar to
> find "holes" in storms.

I bet your Radar does have a 160 mile range. What altitude were you
at? Because of the curvature of the earth that set's going to
attenuate badly down low. You probably can't use the 160 range
effectively till you get up much higher like over 10,000AGL. Even
jets have to step the range down as they get lower. Bob's right:
using the set correctly is quite an art. Many copilots I've flown
with can't do it right. For some reason, radar training is kind of a
lost art.

Best Regards,

pacplyer

[Ron Natalie]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message ...
> Snowbird wrote:
>
> > I'd bank on CBAV + a sferics device over trying to make Marine
> > radar work for wx detection in a plane which is moving 10-15x
> > faster than a boat.
>
> You obviously haven't been in Margy & Ron's plane recently... :-)
>
Hey, my plane is plenty fast (well it will be once the engine gets fixed).

[Ron Natalie]

"JerryK" > wrote in message ...
> Wisconsin and Minn do not have support outside of urban areas. There was
> not support in either Pierre or Rapid City, SD, or Salt Lake, UT.
>
Gee, I don't know what you term "urban". But it worked all the way from MKE to
OSH. Remember that you get a lot more range on the system a few thousand feet
up. The thing works much better in the air than on the ground.

[JerryK]

Ron,

I tried in air all along the California to Wisconsin route going to and of
from OSH in late June. It worked on the ground in Oshkosh and Livermore,
but not at SLC or Rapid City and Pierre, SD. It did not work on the ground
15 miles outside of Oshkosh. In air, it work once by Minniapolis(sp?) and a
few times in the middle of Nevada. We were at alttitudes from 10,000 to
FL230.

On the good side, the XM radio worked the whole way. So as soon as they get
the kinks worked out of the XM system that might be the way to go.

jerry

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "JerryK" > wrote in message
...
> > Wisconsin and Minn do not have support outside of urban areas. There
was
> > not support in either Pierre or Rapid City, SD, or Salt Lake, UT.
> >
> Gee, I don't know what you term "urban". But it worked all the way from
MKE to
> OSH. Remember that you get a lot more range on the system a few thousand
feet
> up. The thing works much better in the air than on the ground.
>
>
>

[Greg Burkhart]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> ("JerryK" wrote)
> >In air, it work once by Minniapolis(sp?)
>
> Minneapolis (MSP)
>
> Or better yet .....*punt*. Go with St. Paul (state capital).

Or St Cloud, St Peter or St James...

Don't all the people in Minnesota live in Minneapolis? Those that don't,
don't count. When I tell people I moved back to Minnesota, they ask me where
in Minneapolis. It's like everyone that lives in California is from LA...

Had to get use to hearing the 'Yah shuure, yuu bettcha' again...

-Greg Burkhart
Not MiniApples, MiniSoda...

[JerryK]

The RDR-160 has a 160 mile setting but the beam is huge at anything over 40
miles. At 40 miles it is something like 40,000 feet tall. So anything in
the range is going to get hit and might return. So if you try to use tilt
for identifying anything much beyond 40 miles (next settings are 80, 120 and
160) you are painting with a very big brush, and with limited power
(compared to big iron). The joys of 10 or 12 inch antennas.

With that said it is still nice to know what is out there are 40 miles or
so. I just wish it painted a better picture further out.


"pac plyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> >
> > Strikefinder or Stormscope would be far more useful than radar in a
> > single-engine plane.
> >
> > My RDR-160 radar was the worst investment I ever made in my plane. CBAV
is
> > far more useful, and certainly the newer portable and panel-mount
datalink
> > systems seem to have the potential to beat CBAV.
> >
> > Saying my radar has a range of 160 miles is a cruel joke; its range is
> > really only 40-50 miles, and even then it only works that far out if
there
> > is a strong storm around. No piston airplane has the speed or altitude
> > capability to pentrate a line of thunderstorms and thus any piston plane
can
> > get boxed in if a hole closes in from behind while trying to use radar
to
> > find "holes" in storms.
>
> I bet your Radar does have a 160 mile range. What altitude were you
> at? Because of the curvature of the earth that set's going to
> attenuate badly down low. You probably can't use the 160 range
> effectively till you get up much higher like over 10,000AGL. Even
> jets have to step the range down as they get lower. Bob's right:
> using the set correctly is quite an art. Many copilots I've flown
> with can't do it right. For some reason, radar training is kind of a
> lost art.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> pacplyer

[Nick Funk]

I am not an expert! But I have several friends, both of which are
ex-military pilots. One owns a C310 with radar and stormscope and the
other friend has a C210 with radar and stormscope.

Both agree that given a choice they would rather have the stormscope
over radar any day. They reason they said is that the stormscope
displays lightning and electrical disturbance and that is exact where
the worst convective air is. Radar only shows where water is. Simply put
convective air kills and rain doesn't.



Jay Honeck wrote:
> Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather, Mary
> and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our Pathfinder.
> Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> just coming on the market.
>
> So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use? Checking
> around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set up
> for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
> cost.
>
> Anyone tried this in a home-built plane? What's the range of those units?
> Installation?

[pac plyer]

Nick Funk > wrote in message >...
> I am not an expert! But I have several friends, both of which are
> ex-military pilots. One owns a C310 with radar and stormscope and the
> other friend has a C210 with radar and stormscope.
>
> Both agree that given a choice they would rather have the stormscope
> over radar any day. They reason they said is that the stormscope
> displays lightning and electrical disturbance and that is exact where
> the worst convective air is. Radar only shows where water is. Simply put
> convective air kills and rain doesn't.
>

Kind of a funky argument Nick (sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
Interesting theory though, haven't heard that one before. The biggest
thing to avoid is the third stage of a thunderstorms' life: the mature
stage. Characterized by heavy precip (rain and hail) lightening,
strong up and downdrafts within the cell and strong surface winds etc.
Either means of detection will let you know that something's there.
But wx radar, in the right hands will yield more info about how tall
the cells are (and that's what's going to kill you, a powerfull cell
that towers up to say 30-50K in the northern hemisphere that for some
reason, has no excessive positive ions on the bottom of it for the
moment.) What I want to know when I'm crossing a line is: which is
the tallest set of cells so I can avoid that direction all together.
Getting "boxed in" happens to everybody sooner or later in X-C GA IFR,
and it would be nice to be able to know which choice is the lesser
evil and then go around the upwind side of the shortest cell if
possible.

After lots of guys get out of their units, we retrain them and they
become staunch advocates of full wx radar. I see it all the time.
Disclaimer: I have not used much GA radar so I am talking about a
three degree beam with a lot of juice and a big dish.

Keep the pointed end forward,

pacplyer

[Nick Funk]

I don't have the luxuary of either radar or stormscope.
But I do have the "poor mans" stormscope, the old trusty ADF.
Always points where the lightning is.

Nick
PA28-180 'D'


Jay Honeck wrote:
> Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather, Mary
> and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our Pathfinder.
> Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> just coming on the market.
>
> So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use? Checking
> around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar set up
> for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
> cost.
>
> Anyone tried this in a home-built plane? What's the range of those units?
> Installation?

[Mike Rapoport]

Having flown through a lot of clouds with frequent lightning but minimal
radar returns and gotten a smooth ride, I disagree with your friends thesis.
Fifty thousand tons of water didn't get 40,000' in the air without a lot of
convection.


Mike
MU-2


"Nick Funk" > wrote in message
...
> I am not an expert! But I have several friends, both of which are
> ex-military pilots. One owns a C310 with radar and stormscope and the
> other friend has a C210 with radar and stormscope.
>
> Both agree that given a choice they would rather have the stormscope
> over radar any day. They reason they said is that the stormscope
> displays lightning and electrical disturbance and that is exact where
> the worst convective air is. Radar only shows where water is. Simply put
> convective air kills and rain doesn't.
>
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Yesterday, as we were once again flying blindly toward unknown weather,
Mary
> > and I lamented the fact that we'll never have radar on board our
Pathfinder.
> > Too expensive to contemplate. Ditto with the "live uplink" stuff that's
> > just coming on the market.
> >
> > So, I thought, why not adapt a marine radar unit to aircraft use?
Checking
> > around on-line, it looks like you can get a pretty basic marine radar
set up
> > for less than $2000 -- a tiny percentage of what "aviation" radar would
> > cost.
> >
> > Anyone tried this in a home-built plane? What's the range of those
units?
> > Installation?
>

[Jay]

What band are these GA weather radars on? C or X band? Sounds like
people's biggest complaint is the antenna gain (in elevation rather
than azimuth). So when you're flying at the altitudes that a regular
piston power GA plane flys at you mainly see ground clutter when you
try to look way out.

Of course the other angle is you data link the picture from a nice big
ground based weather radar payed for and maintained by tax dollars.

(pac plyer) wrote in message >...
> Nick Funk > wrote in message >...
> > I am not an expert! But I have several friends, both of which are
> > ex-military pilots. One owns a C310 with radar and stormscope and the
> > other friend has a C210 with radar and stormscope.
> >
> > Both agree that given a choice they would rather have the stormscope
> > over radar any day. They reason they said is that the stormscope
> > displays lightning and electrical disturbance and that is exact where
> > the worst convective air is. Radar only shows where water is. Simply put
> > convective air kills and rain doesn't.
> >
>
> Kind of a funky argument Nick (sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
> Interesting theory though, haven't heard that one before. The biggest
> thing to avoid is the third stage of a thunderstorms' life: the mature
> stage. Characterized by heavy precip (rain and hail) lightening,
> strong up and downdrafts within the cell and strong surface winds etc.
> Either means of detection will let you know that something's there.
> But wx radar, in the right hands will yield more info about how tall
> the cells are (and that's what's going to kill you, a powerfull cell
> that towers up to say 30-50K in the northern hemisphere that for some
> reason, has no excessive positive ions on the bottom of it for the
> moment.) What I want to know when I'm crossing a line is: which is
> the tallest set of cells so I can avoid that direction all together.
> Getting "boxed in" happens to everybody sooner or later in X-C GA IFR,
> and it would be nice to be able to know which choice is the lesser
> evil and then go around the upwind side of the shortest cell if
> possible.
>
> After lots of guys get out of their units, we retrain them and they
> become staunch advocates of full wx radar. I see it all the time.
> Disclaimer: I have not used much GA radar so I am talking about a
> three degree beam with a lot of juice and a big dish.
>
> Keep the pointed end forward,
>
> pacplyer

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay" > wrote in message m...
> What band are these GA weather radars on? C or X band?

X band.