Stormscopes, how useful?

I wouldn't want to take long trips in the South without it. I've had both Stormscope and StrikeFinder and swear by them both. Stormscope or radar? I've never flown with radar in a single engine aircraft but based on what I've read, I'll take Stormscope (or SF) over the small antenna radar used on SE, and its ugly pod. Multi-engine, no experience. I've trusted the Stormscope through stuff that ATC was routing people around, with a smooth ride. It's also kept me out of stuff ATC wasn't concerned about, and I could visually see the lightning. You do have to learn how to use it, like any other piece of equipment. ADSB certainly takes away some of the value, but I still like having it.
 
It's listed as a WX-10 model, if that makes a difference here.
 
If you don’t fly IMC, then you can avoid TS with your eyes.
My WX 10 worked, sort of, it seemed to have a lot of false positives...I removed it and got 10 lbs more in useful load.
 
Ken Ibold said:
No. Stormscope only detects the spark, not the convection.
Click to expand...

Convection makes the spark, so it does essentially detect convection. Even building cells that are not producing visible lightning, will light up a storm scope. The moisture and shear inside the cloud creates enough electricity to be detected on the scope. As those build into full fledged Tstorms, the depiction on your scope will become more intense.

http://www.completeavionics.com/assets/wx500-brochure.pdf

Older scopes might not pick up building cells as well. Most of my experience is flying with the 500 or 1000

I use it to compliment the ADS-B. I do try very hard to stay visual on days when convection is possible. However, going in the clouds is sometimes unavoidable. Its very nice to have a stormscope in those situations, a real-time check on what your ADS-B is telling you.
 
I guess my question if your plane doesnt have one; either stormscope or strikefinder, is it worth adding?
 
Really is a mixed bag these days. I have an inop WX-900 as well. I was on the fence about keeping it for awhile. Decided the panel space was better spent on something else.

Let there be no misunderstanding - NEXRAD, as we all (should) know is an inherently limited form of weather detection and presentation to the crew. It can never trump weather radar. But a sferics device? Of course the instantaneous nature of the information from a Stormscope can be valuable. But I've been flying my little piston twin in low IFR conditions since I purchased it 18 years ago, and I can't think of a single instance in which the stormscope was a difference maker when I had NEXRAD imagery on board. Same goes for flying bigger equipment with weather radar and NEXRAD. Of course you use the radar, but if you understand how to 'read' the NEXRAD data it's often plenty good enough to make strategic decisions.

If you have a Stormscope or Strikefinder and it works, and you don't have anything else you need the panel space for, I'd keep it. I wouldn't spend anything to keep it runnng, and I wouldn't install one fresh these days. I'm good with ADS-B weather products from here on out.

But this is definitely a subjective matter. Really depends on the experience you're drawing upon to evaluate the value of the sferics device.
 
Challenged said:
It's listed as a WX-10 model, if that makes a difference here.
Click to expand...

If the fix is going to cost you more than an hour or two of labor i'd look into upgrading it to a wx-1000 or a wx-500. The 1000 has a display and the 500 has no display but will interface with many popular GPS units and PFD/MFD's. You could save some weight and free up some panel space.
 
charheep said:
I guess my question if your plane doesnt have one; either stormscope or strikefinder, is it worth adding?
Click to expand...

On the off chance that XM/ADS-B weather actually is delayed 15 minutes and a storm cell happens to pop up in your path during that time, it will show up on the stormscope.
 
Off Chance? There’s a good bet it’s at least that old. Just the other day on my flight home there was a fast moving area of weather. If I’d gone by the ads-b, I would have diverted 50 miles to get around it, but between the on board radar and looking out the window, it was obvious that our current course was smooth sailing. Imagine if I’d been on the downwind side trying to beat it with NEXRAD alone ......
 
dell30rb said:
Convection makes the spark, so it does essentially detect convection. Even building cells that are not producing visible lightning, will light up a storm scope. The moisture and shear inside the cloud creates enough electricity to be detected on the scope. As those build into full fledged Tstorms, the depiction on your scope will become more intense.

http://www.completeavionics.com/assets/wx500-brochure.pdf

Older scopes might not pick up building cells as well. Most of my experience is flying with the 500 or 1000

I use it to compliment the ADS-B. I do try very hard to stay visual on days when convection is possible. However, going in the clouds is sometimes unavoidable. Its very nice to have a stormscope in those situations, a real-time check on what your ADS-B is telling you.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, based on my use of a 900. I have had the experience of a cell not showing up on the scope, then reaching a critical activity level where it suddenly appeared on the scope in front of me. That is what I was referring to.
 
If I had one that worked I’d leave it
If I had one broken I’d trash it
I wouldn’t add one to a plane

Not a substitute for onboard radar.


Side note, a ADF works as a strike detector too
 
We have a WX-950 (I think) and I don't find it to be particularly useful. It's very nice for what it is, and it's hooked to the HSI so when the plane turns, all of the strikes move on the screen. That way, you don't have to clear it every time you turn.

But, you're not supposed to pick your way through stuff with it, and with ADS-B weather I can get enough of a strategic view to make a plan, and just talk to ATC if necessary for live updates. Nothing I'm going to do in a piston single requires more than that.

It may be that I've just not learned enough about it to get value out of it, or that it automatically boots to the 200nm range, or the fake line of "storms" that appears on about a 340-to-160 line on every flight, but if a cell suddenly popped up on it, I probably wouldn't even notice. It just doesn't give me valuable enough information to even end up in my scan most of the time.
 
Yes, I liked it and was great with tactics around fast moving storms. It is most useful when combined with radar. The combination allows you to find embedded cells.
For example when you running under a layer of nimbus clouds with occasional embedded cells you can avoid the nasty bumps.

Would I install it? Only in a plane that has a 1000nm range and does 250 ktas or higher. Basically it is a good tool for crossing systems and fronts. And planes that capable cross a lot of them.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Ryan F. said:
.........
.............



But this is definitely a subjective matter. Really depends on the experience you're drawing upon to evaluate the value of the sferics device.
Click to expand...
This really is subjective as I have had 2 or 3 experiences where the stormscope really made the difference. On one of these, Canadian ATC and my Nexrad was informing me not to penetrate where my eyeballs and stormscope provided a contrary path. After picking the latter, I’m responding to this because I believe my WX500 was/is invaluable.
 
Several have commented that spherics is no substitute for radar. Really, in a SE plane? What does radar cost, and how effective is the little antenna that is fitted to a SE wing? I am really asking, as I have no experience. With spherics, attenuation is not an issue and you have a 360 degree view, even on the ground. Interpretation is much more simple than radar. Based on what (little) I know, I'd install a Stormscope in my Bonanza in preference to radar. Anyone convince me otherwise? Now, if we're talking twins and big budgets, that's another discussion.
 
DoubleD said:
Several have commented that spherics is no substitute for radar. Really, in a SE plane? What does radar cost, and how effective is the little antenna that is fitted to a SE wing? I am really asking, as I have no experience. With spherics, attenuation is not an issue and you have a 360 degree view, even on the ground. Interpretation is much more simple than radar. Based on what (little) I know, I'd install a Stormscope in my Bonanza in preference to radar. Anyone convince me otherwise? Now, if we're talking twins and big budgets, that's another discussion.
Click to expand...

Fair point, actually. Tiny dishes aren't that valuable compared to larger diameter options.

But, even a low-powered radar is far superior to a Stormscope or Strikefinder. Radar gives you accurate azimuth AND range, even lower-powered variants (which will still be accurate, just to shorter ranges... arguably not that big of an issue if you're flying at lower speeds anyway.) Sferics-based detectors are good with azimuth but terrible with range, giving only a loose idea of "where's what" inside an embedded system. For that reason, I would not agree that interpretation is simpler with a sferics device. Interpretation requires some guesswork and interpolating other sources such as ADS-B weather, but the point of the "now" information (i.e. radar or the Stormscope) is to remove the guesswork.

That said, radar in a single-engine piston airplane, or even a twin, is a questionable value proposition unless you're talking cabin class and up.
 
DoubleD said:
Several have commented that spherics is no substitute for radar. Really, in a SE plane? What does radar cost, and how effective is the little antenna that is fitted to a SE wing? I am really asking, as I have no experience. With spherics, attenuation is not an issue and you have a 360 degree view, even on the ground. Interpretation is much more simple than radar. Based on what (little) I know, I'd install a Stormscope in my Bonanza in preference to radar. Anyone convince me otherwise? Now, if we're talking twins and big budgets, that's another discussion.
Click to expand...

I think a modern stormscope is definitely of greater value to you than a small radar that you could put on a bonanza, for the reasons you mention.

Ryan F is correct that a stormscope is not very accurate when it comes to range. That does not matter so much to me. NEXRAD gives plenty of information for strategic planning. I use the stormscope primarily as a check on NEXRAD if I have to enter IMC in a convective environment. We know it delivers real time information that is accurate in azimuth. So if the stormscope shows cells to my right or left, but out in front is clear, and this agrees with my nexrad, I feel pretty good about proceeding.
 
dell30rb said:
I think a modern stormscope is definitely of greater value to you than a small radar that you could put on a bonanza, for the reasons you mention.

Ryan F is correct that a stormscope is not very accurate when it comes to range. That does not matter so much to me. NEXRAD gives plenty of information for strategic planning. I use the stormscope primarily as a check on NEXRAD if I have to enter IMC in a convective environment. We know it delivers real time information that is accurate in azimuth. So if the stormscope shows cells to my right or left, but out in front is clear, and this agrees with my nexrad, I feel pretty good about proceeding.
Click to expand...

The smallest airplane I've flown which had radar installed was a Navajo. None of the pilots thought much of it, and I would have to agree that by the standards of the other airplanes we were all flying with much larger antennae it was not very good.

My same pilot group also flew King Air C90s and 200s with better resolution/range radars, higher powered with larger diameter antennae, which were still pretty bleah compared to the midsize jets most of us were sitting right-seat in at the time. Size matters.

But, in the Navajo we flew around at 8-12,000 feet in Florida and even though its radar was weak, we used the heck out of it to dodge around cells at night and pick our way through embedded systems. There's no other way to get around reliably in the southeast during thunderstorm season except to to thread the needle on a fairly regular basis, and it would have been impossible without that little monochrome radar display.

This was well before inexpensive datalink weather products were available like they are today, so there were no iPads with NEXRAD weather displays, XM receivers, etc.

If you'd offered me a Stormscope in addition to the radar, I'd have said "sure!" but it would have been a nice extra which wouldn't affect any go/no-go decision making. An inop weather radar, on the other hand, would stop us in our tracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top