![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |