Is the Stormscope a dead-end?

[rpadula]

So Henning's comment got me thinking:

The way everything in that industry changes, I wouldn't want to mount anything in the panel.

Used SS's are coming down in price and since I have no weather in the plane now, I was wondering if one might be worth it. The daily summer thunderstorms in the hazy Southeast give me the willies, but I think I might be too much of a cheap b*****d to want to pay a $50 monthly XM subscription for a Garmin 396.

Opinions?


-Rich

 

[Ken Ibold]

The stormscope is a good way to avoid the kinds of storms you see in the southeast. Not like radar, but real-time at least. I have picked my way through plenty of lines with either a WX-900 or a Strikefinder.

What you have to look at, though, is the installation cost. The installers have to map the airframe, looking for the spot with the least amount of stray RF, and then put it there. The condition of your airplane's wiring will greatly influence how much that costs.

The WX-900 in an airplane I used to have would throw a moster thunderstorm at my 11 oclock and 5 miles every time I switched the audio panel from one com to the other.

 

[ScottM]

If my strobes are on I get a monster thunderstorm. But with the type of IFR flying I do the storm scope is great. I had thought long and hard about getting the 396 with XM WX. The cost is pretty high but it is for safety right?? Well I asked myself would I be flying in conditions where the 396 would make a difference. The simple answer is that I do not cut it that close when there are thunderstorms around. The storm scope gives me a good warning that stuff is up ahead and I can take the long way around or land.

 

[TMetzinger]

The 396 and XM weather is strategic. Stormscopes and radar are tactical.

You do not want to use XM to navigate through weather - you use it to navigate AROUND (sometimes far around) weather, like 50-100 miles around it.

Stormscopes let you get a little closer - say 25 NM, and are very useful when you find yourself in a not-so-good situation and you want to not make it any worse.

 

[gismo]

So Henning's comment got me thinking:



Used SS's are coming down in price and since I have no weather in the plane now, I was wondering if one might be worth it. The daily summer thunderstorms in the hazy Southeast give me the willies, but I think I might be too much of a cheap b*****d to want to pay a $50 monthly XM subscription for a Garmin 396.
-Rich

I've been flying with a Stormscope for about as long as I've been instrument rated (20 years) and while I do think XM-Nexrad is as good or better from a TRW avoidance perspective, the SS is local and real time which are definitely a plus. Also a SS is often more capable of detecting a budding storm that isn't producing enough precipitation to show on radar yet still offers significant turbulence. Bottom line is any SS is way better than nothing when you are slogging along in the murk when TRW is a possibility. OTOH, for a lot less total outlay (installation+ purchase) I think a Garmin 396 has a lot more to offer.

 

[bbchien]

The 396 and XM weather is strategic. Stormscopes and radar are tactical.

You do not want to use XM to navigate through weather - you use it to navigate AROUND (sometimes far around) weather, like 50-100 miles around it.

Stormscopes let you get a little closer - say 25 NM, and are very useful when you find yourself in a not-so-good situation and you want to not make it any worse.

Agree exactly.

 

[wsuffa]

The 396 and XM weather is strategic. Stormscopes and radar are tactical.

You do not want to use XM to navigate through weather - you use it to navigate AROUND (sometimes far around) weather, like 50-100 miles around it.

Stormscopes let you get a little closer - say 25 NM, and are very useful when you find yourself in a not-so-good situation and you want to not make it any worse.

Agree 100%, though you learn to use both to cover both strategic and tactical.

 

[poadeleted20]

There are a lot of ways you can lose the up/downlink data -- a Stormscope or Strikefinder in your plane is there regardless. In addition, ground-based weather radar or lightining strike data are very site-dependent, and their utility is seriously degraded as you move away from the site. Further, in some parts of the country, the sites are awfully far apart. I had a Stormscope in my Cougar, and I'm putting one in my Tiger.

 

[rpadula]

The 396 and XM weather is strategic. Stormscopes and radar are tactical.

You do not want to use XM to navigate through weather - you use it to navigate AROUND (sometimes far around) weather, like 50-100 miles around it.

Stormscopes let you get a little closer - say 25 NM, and are very useful when you find yourself in a not-so-good situation and you want to not make it any worse.

That was my understanding, too. No I don't wish to get closer and/or go through. Like Lance said, I thought the SS has the slight advantage of possibly being able to detect forming cells (static charges from the lifting friction, IIRC). Most of my trips aren't much farther than 300 nm, so a Nexrad "big picture" in the cockpit isn't necessarily that important. It's the airmass trw's that completely dot the map anywhere between say ATL and JAX.

Ah well, guess I'll continue with my standard position: fly early!

My interest was piqued a little by the occasional Ebay listing...but that's a whole separate trouble-avoidance issue


-Rich