If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 news 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/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry? | BUFDRVR | Military Aviation | 151 | September 12th 04 09:59 PM |
Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts | Jack | Military Aviation | 154 | September 8th 04 07:24 PM |
Marine team designs and flies homemade, muscle-powered plane | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 26th 03 12:41 AM |
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | October 2nd 03 12:17 AM |
Marine Radar in a plane? | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 31 | August 13th 03 06:56 PM |