XM vs Stratus weather

[Danb]

I just received my invoice for my XM weather service in excess of $550 for the year, I also have a Stratus with there weather product which is free. I've come to rely on the XM for years and can't make up my mind on canceling it and just going with the Stratus, I feel XM is a better and more reliable product. What has everyone's experience in that regard, I have until 11-8 to decide...,

[midlifeflyer]

There are features of XM weather not in ADS-B that pilots rely on bu,t ultimately both are strategic and not tactical when properly used, so I don't see the benefit of the costs for the extra features. I stopped using XM weather a few years ago but kept my Garmin 396 just in case I felt a need to re-up. When  I bought a Stratus last year, I sold the 396. But that's just me.

[RobertE]

You're probably looking for commentary from one who has experience with both.  I'd like to see that as well. 

 

I pay for SiriusXM because the thought of losing weather info when over Nevada or Wyoming or what I THINK are poor coverage areas just creeps me out.  I was fine for years without any weather in the cockpit but now I want it always, including while on the ground before departing.  Lots of piece of mind for modest $$.  If you're as cheap as I am you might get the lower cost package that has everything except winds aloft and save something like $10/mo.

 

And I bet SiriusXM lowers their prices over the next few years because they'll likely start losing people to the free services. 

[pirate]

I purchased the Stratus 2 this year. The radar coverage on the stratus reminds me of the early control vision days blocky but doable. My opinion at this point the XM graphics and reliability are far more superior.

[smwash02]

I flew with XM for a long time and now have ADSB. I cancelled my XM because I don't fly in severe enough conditions to warrant it.

 

Generally above 5000 feet you have ADSB coverage. The way I handle not having ADSB on the ground is by using Garmin Pilot on my phone too -- it pulls it down instantly from the 4G data.

 

I found the XM picture to be clearer. The NEXRAD on the ADSB appears to be pretty real time, but I find the METARs can be quite delayed in some areas while in others are always updated regularly.

 

I believe XM has the edge in consistency and reliability right now. If you're a hard IMC flyer, I'd want XM. For ligher I think ADSB is OK.

 

This is the 2012 coverage map. I imagine it's better now.

 

[carusoam]

Gulf of Mexico gets stronger coverage, 1500', because of the helicopter traffic?

Best regards,

-a-

[larryb]

I have both ADSB (GDL88) and XM (796)  I like some of the XM products that are not available on ADSB such as lightening strikes, cloud tops, IR clouds, etc. I find that sometimes the METAR for my destination is unavailable in ADSB yet XM has the report. And this is in California with good coverage.

 

If I look back at all of this years flights, none of them would have honestly been impacted had I only had ADSB weather and not XM weather. However, the extra products give me a sense of comfort that things are good ahead and I can safely continue the flight. I find the comfort worth the cost of the service.

 

Larry

[laytonl]

I've used both and give the XM product a slight edge, but it's not worth the price difference. I flew with both for awhile and the displays were always showed approximately the same weather. My biggest complaint about ADSB is that the METARs are not available beyond a certain distance (200 miles?) from your current location. At Mooney speeds, that's not very far away.

I use a Stormscope in combination with the ADSB.

On my recent trip from North Carolina to Montana I had ADSB coverage all the way except for a small area between Rapid City and Sheridan WY.

Lee

[DonMuncy]

I'm in the same boat. I have a 696 with XM and like it a lot. I just got a Stratus, and don't like the weather quite as well. However, I think I am going to cancel the XM. I don't think the cost difference is worth it.

[M20F]

Sole ADSB user as both are really just for replacing easily what you can get from Flightwatch. Once I get a picture any picking I do is going to be minimal and supported by the guys on the ground who can guide you through. Far to many people (not saying on this thread) view either product as a tractical resource as opposed to a strategic resource.

[RocketAviator]

I had both XM is a better product in my opinion but not worth the price. I fly a fair amount of IMC have to pick my way through storms like yesterday coming from Northern CA. 2 mooneys one with both XM & Stratus one Mooney with dual ADSB both served well. In the end I only use as guide and not to thread the needle. ALL the weather is time lagged especially the radar.

[Txbyker]

I have XM and a Stratus 2. Not that impressed with the Stratus overheating and battery issues. The weather is ok but ADSB seems to show less detail and the square pixels. I like to correlate both. Like the XM music however!

Russ

[Bob_Belville]

I had XM on my 696 before I added GDL88 and GTN750.

 

I have perhaps 2000 hours flying with stormscopes in a couple of Mooneys. The stormscope provides the critical weather info I need. NEXRAD is nice, strategically, I can zoom out and pan on the 750 to see what might be trending at my destination but tactically, up close, it simply shows stuff that ain't there.

[Amelia]

I spent much of last winter comparing XM with Dual ADS-B in real-world wx. No question, XM is a smoother rendition of the precip, and with the Aviator or better subscription, there are more products to use. Aviator Lite is equivalent to XM, just not as blocky.  But the continuing hassles with XM customer "service" and the fact that my old XM box was wearing out, and to replace it would cost another $800 to start over, I decided to see how it went with just the ADS-B. I'm not sure whether the blockiness is unavoidable, or whether eventually ADS-B and EFB programmers will figure out how to smooth them out better. I'm not sure why ADS-B is as rudimentary-looking and limited as it is, seems that all the information, winds,lightning, etc, is available. Why can't I have it? Anyway, what I really want to know is where the heaviest rain is, and ADS-B tells me that.

[Bob_Belville]

I spent much of last winter comparing XM with Dual ADS-B in real-world wx. No question, XM is a smoother rendition of the precip, and with the Aviator or better subscription, there are more products to use. Aviator Lite is equivalent to XM, just not as blocky.  But the continuing hassles with XM customer "service" and the fact that my old XM box was wearing out, and to replace it would cost another $800 to start over, I decided to see how it went with just the ADS-B. I'm not sure whether the blockiness is unavoidable, or whether eventually ADS-B and EFB programmers will figure out how to smooth them out better. I'm not sure why ADS-B is as rudimentary-looking and limited as it is, seems that all the information, winds,lightning, etc, is available. Why can't I have it? Anyway, what I really want to know is where the heaviest rain is, and ADS-B tells me that.

What does the ADS-B display on? I have no complaint at all with NEXRAD on the GTN750. 

[FloridaMan]

You'd think that with so many airliners now having high speed internet connections, among other data connections, that it'd be nice to get what their weather instruments are detecting, and combine it for better real-time weather and atmospheric data. 

[Amelia]

What does the ADS-B display on? I have no complaint at all with NEXRAD on the GTN750.

It's a yoke mounted iPad mini, running (at the moment) mostly WingX, which displays data from the DualXGPS170.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I am (still) using XM as it does provide additional coverage both in area and products offered. 

METARs at or near your destination are valuable to get as you fly along an hour or two out - well beyond what ADS-B currently provides.

Lightning is a great supplement to NEXRAD images and XM shows both.

The lightning coverage from XM also serves to calibrate your on-board lightning detector -- It is important to know the stormscope really is working and that it is showing strikes at the proper azimuth.  

 

[Piloto]

Antares

 

Airliners use onboard wx radar that provides more detail data in real time anywhere in the world. No comparison with anything on the internet or on ADS-B. For METARS they use ACARS, Inmarsat, VOLMETS. And for traffic they have been using TCAS-II for the past 20 years. ADS-B WX is for those that can not afford the XM subscription, at the taxpayer expense.

 

José 

[Jeff_S]

I have been using both in the cockpit for a couple of years now. I find that the XM nexrad picture is a bit more "aggressive," meaning that it seems to show cells bigger and nastier than the Stratus. I suspect this is because it's using a composite of more altitude layers than ADS-B but I haven't tried to confirm that. But I like having both because it's a good cross-reference, and it just adds another layer of "backup" capability in case one of them goes bad. In fact, this has been happening lately, because for some reason every once in awhile the XM METAR feed will introduce a tautly data packet or something, and it takes out all the METAR data coming from the GDL 69.  This usually fixes itself on the next cycle, but it's annoying. Having the Stratus backup makes this less of a concern.

 

Also, I really like having the flexibility of the ForeFlight map display that I can more easily zoom in and around.  It's just a faster way to pick out routes around weather. And this summer, with more thunderstorm days than I remember in recent years, it has really helped me complete flights that I otherwise might not have done.

[aaronk25]

I also dropped xm......sure miss the cold/front warm front charts, graphic winds aloft compared to Adsb that only has it in text for a single airport at a time, there is no lightning.......

For the year 2014 it's pretty disappointing......but that's what we get when the government designs something.

Traffic is nice, but my guess is that is just a cleaver way of allowing the Feds to track us.

[Andy95W]

I also dropped XM and will never go back, partly for price and partly for the extremely poor customer service. I was only able to drop XM when my credit card expired, after 2 months of trying to cancel the service!

Sure, ADS-B weather is blocky and doesn't have the same amount of information as XM. I have been told that is a bandwidth issue, not funding or design. And I love the price!

[Ftlausa]

I have been using both.  I have found that ADS-B shows more weather than XM, but the detail on XM is preferable overall.  The ability to time lapse the ADS-B weather on Foreflight is very helpful.  Bottom line for me is that its worth having both because they both have benefits. 

[FlyDave]

Is the lower resolution of ADS-B NEXRAD really an issue in deciding whether or not to fly into an area or is it just aesthetics?

I have found ADS-B NEXRAD provides plenty of information on the intensity of precipitation for penetration guidance. Generally anything yellow leading into red is a no-go for me. Also, I have a stormscope so real time lightning also helps in that decision though the XM lightning overlay is nice.

[Parker_Woodruff]

On a recent flight from Salt Lake City to Memphis, I was only without ADS-B coverage on my Stratus for about a 5 minute segment at 15,000 feet.

 

I am definitely a fan of ADS-B.  I haven't used XM in awhile, but it seemed like the refresh rate was slightly better with ADS-B.  I also thought the WX depiction was a little more accurate for what I was actually flying around/through than what XM paints.