![]() |
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 9th 04 03:47 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 04 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 1st 04 08:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | January 1st 04 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 03 06:27 AM |