Storm Scope Necessity

[Steve Dawson]

I've been going over the relocation and worth of some of the pieces in my panel. Do you think that with XM weather and soon ADS-B weather that a storm scope is a necesary instrument?

 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

Storm scope has better up to date info. Other sources are nice, but can leave you feeling a bit empty....

I would consider keeping as much info as you can get in this situation.

This is a non-professional opinion, from a weekend flyer. Ymmv...

-a-

[AndyFromCB]

http://www.safepilots.org/library/contributed/Weather_Stormscope&Radar(NEXRAD)-ACompariativeAnalysis_08-23-10.pdf

 

Depends what kind of flying you do, to me, if I had to pick one, I'd take stormscope, but I like both, actually, I do have both, WX-500, WX-1000E, XM on GMX200 and ADS-B on 796 ;-)

[AmigOne]

Don't have a Stormscope in my Mooney now (have XM Weather in my 696) but I have flown with SScope and Strikefinder for many years, more recently in a ferry flight to Southamerica.  For me there is no comparison between XM and SS.  Of course if you can have both all the better but if I had to choose between the two it would be XM for all the weather products available in flight which will help you avoid the dangerous stuff.  I don't use XM weather to navigate around weather unless I have some visual confirmation that it is OK and never if I am embedded in clouds.  Don't have ADS so I can't comment on that. 

[Bob_Belville]

I have both with a lot more experience with the SS. I flew through the line of CBs activity that frequently across N. Florida many, many times. ISTM, the XM or ADS is really useful for mostly different info. I don't think I'd like to pick a hole through a line of weather with only the XM info.

[AndyFromCB]

Don't have a Stormscope in my Mooney now (have XM Weather in my 696) but I have flown with SScope and Strikefinder for many years, more recently in a ferry flight to Southamerica.  For me there is no comparison between XM and SS.  Of course if you can have both all the better but if I had to choose between the two it would be XM for all the weather products available in flight which will help you avoid the dangerous stuff.  I don't use XM weather to navigate around weather unless I have some visual confirmation that it is OK and never if I am embedded in clouds.  Don't have ADS so I can't comment on that. 

 

XM will not let you know about building stages, and some CBs even 2000 feet tall are scary inside and will show on stormscope. On the other hand some 30,000 feet tall are a smooth ride even though red on XM after they are finished dumping most of the rain. Stormscope is the ultimate confirmation tool short of dopler radar. I really like having both, by observing trends on XM, I can confirm stormscope readings. By having stormscopes I can confirm approach radar guiding me into red on XM. I has happened on multiple times: red on XM, nothing on stormscope, Omaha approach telling me others are reporting good rides. So far so good every time. I've had the opposite too where I refused a clearance based on stormscope.

 

I really comes down to what you do with your airplane, if all you ever do is VFR, there is no need for stormscope, if you fly summer time IFR, like I do, in IMC with potential for embedded thrunderstorm or bumps, I'd keep my stormscope. You can always get the WX-500 to save space. The reason why I like my WX1000E is it's right next to my HSI and displays the flight plan so I never have to think twice which direction to turn next on approach, kind of like having a Sandel.

[carqwik]

FWIW, the SS can verify whether the view ahead is truly nasty or just looks nasty.  It's real time and with heading stabilization (not all SS offer this...I have the WX950 tied to the HSI I think) can help make course adjustments easier to determine or simply whether to tackle wx ahead.  The only thing I'd say is that it's just one piece of a puzzle...and sometimes a bunch of info has to be integrated into a decision. Frankly, I'd keep the SS only because the XM/ADS-B wx is often too old to be of use and given that t-storms can quickly spawn, the SS gives you that real time knowledge as developing storms generate electricity internally even w/o a discharge which the SS picks up.

[AmigOne]

Radar of course remains the best tool provided it is powerful enough to overcome as much attenuation as possible and even then it requires expertise to interpret. IMHO XM is a poor man's radar provided it is used with with due attention to the time delay and to avoid penetrating areas of heavy convective activity.  For me this means deviate if I can and if not land.  it is unwise to attempt to navigate through severe weather with XM, SS or both.  If my flight is a must do and the weather is iffy then I take the airlines. I never have to  be anywhere. 

[bd32322]

We had a long thread on this here:

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/5499-stormscope-recommendation/?hl=stormscope

It seems you need both. I had adsb weather (nexrad) and decided to install a stormscope because of nexrad delay and also because of growing cumulus that doesnt have precip yet

[rbridges]

We had a long thread on this here:

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/5499-stormscope-recommendation/?hl=stormscope

It seems you need both. I had adsb weather (nexrad) and decided to install a stormscope because of nexrad delay and also because of growing cumulus that doesnt have precip yet

I thought I'd read a thread about the stormscope, but I couldn't remember where.  Given that you already have one, I'd definitely keep it.  It's worth the weight penalty IMO.  Until XM weather overcomes the lag, I think it's a good idea to have one if you go into IMC.

[Piloto]

I kept my Stormscope despite having XM\WX on the 560. XM\WX does not works past GTK in the Caribbean. Despite it limitations Stormscope is good at depicting serious WX.

José

[stormscopes]

I have a lot of good information on my website about Stormscopes including downloadable owner's manuals and a link for the NTSB warning on limitations of cockpit weather displays.

 

www.stormscopes.com

[WardHolbrook]

XM Weather and Stormscopes are two distinct tools with two distinct uses. I've been flying behind Stormscopes and weather radar for over 25 years and over 10,000 hours. Stormscopes work best strategically to determine which areas best be avoided and Radar works best tactically, because of its better resolution, to determine exactly how to avoid the area. The radar returns that you get via XM Weather shows you water in the atmosphere. The assumption is made that where there's water, there's turbulence. That's not always the case. The spherics detectors (Stormscopes) simply indicate distance and range of electrical discharges caused by atmospheric motion. The assumption is that where there is adequate motion to cause electrical discharges there is turbulence. That's pretty much always true. The big problem with Stormscopes is that it lacks the level of resolution that wx radar has. In 25 years of flying behind 3 different types of spherics detectors, I've yet to have been lead astray with them. However, as I said, I use them strategically, not tactically. XM Weather Radar is good, but the problem lies with the refresh rate. There are times when things are popping that it's just not fast enough. Also, once you leave the borders of the continental 48 states, it goes away entirely. So, like I said, there's a place for both types of equipment if you've got the room and the budget. If I was in a single and could only have one type, it would probably be XM Weather. If I was in a twin and could only have one type, it would probably be wx radar. However, my preference would be airborne weather radar, XM Weather and a Stormscope. Three different tools, three different uses. As always, the above is my personal opinions and YMMV.