Weather Radar

[M20Kid]

I recently purchased an 1981 M20K that has an onboard weather radar system.  The system is an RCA 1001 display head with the antena in the right wing.  The head will light up and appear to work but it won't even paint the ground so I have no hope that it will paint weather.  The place where I bought the aircraft did not charge extra for having it installed (since it didn't work) but I'm wondering if anyone else has this system and if it might be brought back to life?

Thank you for any suggestions!

[FBCK]

I have the same system in my 1981 231 as well, you need to turn the brightness up to max to see the old CRT.  I'm not sure who you would get to fix the radar itself if it's not working, but I will be removing mine later this year to install a new gps.  

[M20Kid]

I've turned the brightness on mine up and down but gotten no results.  Occasionally it will paint a blip on the screen so I know it's getting some signal, just not anything meaningful.

[FBCK]

Mine seems to take a good 5 minutes to warm up, I assume you used the tilt function, you can see the buldge on my wing when I move it up and down, take a look to see if yours is moving, it could be its just stuck pointing at the stars.

[M20Kid]

I have used the tilt from full up to down and not seen much change.  If I point it full down it may paint a few spots that could be the ground and these spots do diminish if I tilt it up.  However, I've never seen any movement in the wing.  Does the buldge on your wing physically move when you tilt the radar??  I could take the screws off and just look at what's happening under there but I've never seen any movement.

[xftrplt]

I don't know the specs of the 1001, but it should make an effective, albeit large, paperweight or a small anchor.

The physics and the technology dictate that, even if it "worked," the antenna is too small for adequate resolution, the power too low for effective range, and the MTBF too low for confidence.  When it operates, it can give a false sense of security, and when it fails, it doesn't fail-safe. 

Modern data-link wx may not be perfect, but it's far better than what a Mooney can mount, especially compared to old technology and especially if used primarily "strategically," and used "tactically" with due caution.

Save you AMUs and your payload.

You might be interested in the following discussion:

http://www.nwas.org/committees/avnwxcourse/radar_realities.htm

[Piloto]

You are better off with a Stormscope. The Mooney radar never worked well even when new. I could only detects storms that where no more than 20nm ahead and it would show them with very poor resolution. A stormscope is more practical with longer range and 360deg coverage. Best to have is the XM\WX overlayed on your GPS. Gives you WX data that not even the $50K radars can provide.

Jose

 

 

 

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: xftrplt

I don't know the specs of the 1001, but should make an effective, albeit large, paperweight, or a small anchor.

The physics and the technology dictate that, even if it "worked," the antenna is too small for adequate resolution, the power too low for effective range, and the MTBF too low for confidence.  When it operates, it can give a false sense of security, and when it fails, it doesn't fail-safe. 

Modern data-link wx may not be perfect, but it's far better than what a Mooney can mount, especially compared to old technology and especially if used primarily "strategically," and tactically with considerable caution

Save you AMUs and your payload.

You might be interested in the following discussion:

http://www.nwas.org/committees/avnwxcourse/radar_realities.htm

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: Piloto

You are better off with a Stormscope. The Mooney radar never worked well even when new. I could only detects storms that where no more than 20nm ahead and it would show them with very poor resolution. A stormscope is more practical with longer range and 360deg coverage. Best to have is the XM\WX overlayed on your GPS. Gives you WX data that not even the $50K radars can provide.

Jose

 

 

 

[M20Kid]

Dick - Thank you for the link; that was very interesting reading!  About the small radar sets, I've got thousands of hours flying jets and have never thought much of the smaller radar units for exactly the reasons we've been discussing.  I do have a stormscope (WX-900) installed so that base is covered, too.  My only thought with this unit is IF it worked, it may provide some information within 10~20 miles of storms for deviation information.

[Piloto]

Quote: M20Kid

Dick - Thank you for the link; that was very interesting reading!

[Piloto]

Quote: M20Kid

Dick - Thank you for the link; that was very interesting reading! About the small radar sets, I've got thousands of hours flying jets and have never thought much of the smaller radar units for exactly the reasons we've been discussing. I do have a stormscope (WX-900) installed so that base is covered, too. My only thought with this unit is IF it worked, it may provide some information within 10~20 miles of storms for deviation information.

 

On daytime you would be better off looking yourself at the cloud tops than relying on this radar. The radar beam sweep is too narrow and the resolution is too poor for finding a deviation path. Because of its low penetration capability it can not show the depth of the weather behind. At night time it may be of some help but look outside the window and avoid lightning areas.