Hot stormscope--need advice

[AlphaWhiskey]

I'm at the avionics shop getting software upgrades for my Garmin and Aspens and asked about the error message on the stormscope which I think is a WX900. The avionics shop owner says it is getting very hot when powered on and gave me some options:
1. Live without it.
2. Send it in for evaluation, minimum $1K to get it evaluated
3. Put in a new one, $6500 plus install, will display on my Garmin and Aspens
4. Put in a used one, $2500 plus install if I can get my hands on a working one
I'm working on my IFR now.
Advice?
Thanks!

 

[rbridges]

I'm at the avionics shop getting software upgrades for my Garmin and Aspens and asked about the error message on the stormscope which I think is a WX900. The avionics shop owner says it is getting very hot when powered on and gave me some options:
1. Live without it.
2. Send it in for evaluation, minimum $1K to get it evaluated
3. Put in a new one, $6500 plus install, will display on my Garmin and Aspens
4. Put in a used one, $2500 plus install if I can get my hands on a working one
I'm working on my IFR now.
Advice?
Thanks!

try getting in touch with www.stormscopes.com and see what he says. He might be able to give you some insight over the phone.

btw, what is the error message?

 

[Henning]

How important is it to you? Have you thought about opening it and cleaning it out for starters?

 

[wabower]

Do you have nexrad capability?

I had access to an older stormscope and all the installation stuff. When I asked the radio shop if I should install it, the shop-owner and long-term friend laughed softly and said no. He said if you got one and like it, don't take it out. If you don't got one, don't install one.

The guy owns a plane similar to mine, although much better equipped, and flys it all over the US on a regular basis, so I trust his input on this issue. YMMV.

 

[AlphaWhiskey]

Hard to know how important it is since I'm not IFR yet. I will have the avionics shop take a look inside then I will call the stormscopes.com folks for advice.
Thanks as always.

 

[Henning]

Hard to know how important it is since I'm not IFR yet. I will have the avionics shop take a look inside then I will call the stormscopes.com folks for advice.
Thanks as always.

Well, it can give you a good indication of where the heavy convection is since that is what breeds lightning, and it is in real time rather than XM radar which is significantly delayed in fast building/moving systems.

 

[wabower]

If you allow yourself to fly that close to such systems you got more problems than trying to sort out the merits of various weather devices.

Well, it can give you a good indication of where the heavy convection is since that is what breeds lightning, and it is in real time rather than XM radar which is significantly delayed in fast building/moving systems.

 

[Henning]

If you allow yourself to fly that close to such systems you got more problems than trying to sort out the merits of various weather devices.

Won't argue that which is why I stay under them.

 

[wabower]

Whatever. I've never been in that big a hurry.

Won't argue that which is why I stay under them.

 

[DaleB]

1. Live without it.
2. Send it in for evaluation, minimum $1K to get it evaluated
3. Put in a new one, $6500 plus install, will display on my Garmin and Aspens
4. Put in a used one, $2500 plus install if I can get my hands on a working one

5. Clean the dust out with compressed air, and install a $10 PC fan to blow cool air on it.

 

[gismo]

Do you have nexrad capability?

I had access to an older stormscope and all the installation stuff. When I asked the radio shop if I should install it, the shop-owner and long-term friend laughed softly and said no. He said if you got one and like it, don't take it out. If you don't got one, don't install one.

The guy owns a plane similar to mine, although much better equipped, and flys it all over the US on a regular basis, so I trust his input on this issue. YMMV.

I disagree WRT the usefulness of any recent vintage stormscope. If you're talking about a ancient WX-7 or the nearly useless WX-8 I would concur that installing one isn't worth the cost or effort. But a WX-900, WX-950, WX-1000 and probably even a WX-10 is a valuable supplement and backup to XM. I have a WX-1000 plus XM and onboard radar and I use all three when negotiating TRW.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Most electronics that has a processor will have a cpu fan which needs to be cleaned and sometimes replaced. Try cleaning out all the surfaces and air holes first. See how it is then. A digital IR thermometer is $27 at harbor freight and you can take before and after measurements. Also make sure the cables and other stuff is not blocking the air holes when it is reinstalled as it could simply be that something is blocking the holes.

Put a laptop computer on a soft surface like a sofa or bed and it will overheat as the soft surface blocks the air holes on the bottom. This is a normal occurrence in electronics and one that is easily fixed.

you might be able to get a can of air and spray out the dust but it should be unplugged from power and if you touch anything inside the housing you should be grounded first.

Since you are not yet IFR rated you might consider having them leave it unplugged (inop) sticker added until such time that you can use it. Alternatively you can spend $80 to have an off on switch added to it. If you have a real heat issue it could cause a fire but then again the shop might just need to boost profits. $2000, $6500 is a lot of motivation.

Hard to know how important it is since I'm not IFR yet. I will have the avionics shop take a look inside then I will call the stormscopes.com folks for advice.
Thanks as always.

 

[N747JB]

I've got an older Stormscope, WX1000+? in the Conquest, when I updated the avionics my options were leave it in or take it out. It isn't compatible with the Garmins stuff I installed, but it works, so I left it in. I honestly would pay for XM weather before spending many $$ on an older stormscope. They are better than nothing, but XM is cheap and pretty reliable.

Do you have nexrad capability?

I had access to an older stormscope and all the installation stuff. When I asked the radio shop if I should install it, the shop-owner and long-term friend laughed softly and said no. He said if you got one and like it, don't take it out. If you don't got one, don't install one.

The guy owns a plane similar to mine, although much better equipped, and flys it all over the US on a regular basis, so I trust his input on this issue. YMMV.

 

[jesse]

Won't argue that which is why I stay under them.

You can easily get forced right into the ground going VFR under severe weather. It's relatively easy to trap yourself. I would be careful about selling that as the way to get through weather because being trapped on the deck is a damn good way to kill yourself and it's rather possible for someone to do that to themselves.

I flew with a pilot that thought that was the way to go. Right up until it didn't work and we were a moment or two from being forced right into the ground, at which point I took over, did a popup IFR and worked my way out via Nexrad and ATC's radar.

 

[rbridges]

I've got an older Stormscope, WX1000+? in the Conquest, when I updated the avionics my options were leave it in or take it out. It isn't compatible with the Garmins stuff I installed, but it works, so I left it in. I honestly would pay for XM weather before spending many $$ on an older stormscope. They are better than nothing, but XM is cheap and pretty reliable.

I doubt if it's a 1000+. That's one of the newer ones.

 

[gismo]

I doubt if it's a 1000+. That's one of the newer ones.

Not all that new. I think it came out in the early to mid 80's.

 

[AlphaWhiskey]

I have Nexrad.
The shop checked on the repair price again and it is a flat rate of $1200 to exchange so I'm going that route. After the shop guy removed the unit, he thought that at one time a nearby wire was touching the unit and caused an electrical arc which shorted out the processor. This was evidenced by some burn markings on the edges of the stormscope display that were hidden from view when mounted.
Thanks again for the input.

 

[rbridges]

Not all that new. I think it came out in the early to mid 80's.

poor wording. I meant it's one of the later models. actually, you were pretty close on the date.

WX-1000+

Introduced in 1989 the WX-1000+ Stormscope is in current production and includes all of the WX-1000 features plus it is heading stabilized. It automatically keeps weather information relative to the current aircraft heading. Part Numbers: processor 78-8051-9160-4, display 78-8051-9170-3, new style display after 1989, 78-8060-5900-8 black bezel 78-8060-5900-9 gray bezel, antenna 78-8051-9200-8whitefinish 78-8051-9220-6 black finish and system part number 78-8051-9240-4.

 

[douglas393]

With inflight weather you can never have too much information. Scud running is not my thing. Florida may be flat but we make up for it with towers all over the friggin place. In any case, I have XM, and stormscope, and find the combination of stormscope and XM to be nice. Stormscope is more immediate, and easier to read than XM lightning, but in any case I use them to confirm what I know from what I am seeing, and Nexrad. The system I have seems to work fine for me. Is replacing a stormscope worth 6500 I do not know, 1200 or 2400 probably.

 

[jesse]

With inflight weather you can never have too much information. Scud running is not my thing. Florida may be flat but we make up for it with towers all over the friggin place. In any case, I have XM, and stormscope, and find the combination of stormscope and XM to be nice. Stormscope is more immediate, and easier to read than XM lightning, but in any case I use them to confirm what I know from what I am seeing, and Nexrad. The system I have seems to work fine for me. Is replacing a stormscope worth 6500 I do not know, 1200 or 2400 probably.

I've yet to ever experience either of the two following events:

1. Fly into something that my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD advise me not to simply because of what a stormscope says.

2. Not fly into something my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD tell me is fine because of what the stormscope says.

Because of the above I would not buy one and wouldn't pay more than a thousand to fix one. The theory of them being a big help is nice and all but in practice it just does not provide a substantial enough benefit over other technology available. Before NEXRAD in the cockpit sure but not today.

Just one guys opinion...

 

[N747JB]

poor wording. I meant it's one of the later models. actually, you were pretty close on the date.

Funny to say a newer one that came out almost 25 years ago, only in aviation!!

 

[Bill]

I've yet to ever experience either of the two following events:

1. Fly into something that my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD advise me not to simply because of what a stormscope says.

2. Not fly into something my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD tell me is fine because of what the stormscope says.

Because of the above I would not buy one and wouldn't pay more than a thousand to fix one. The theory of them being a big help is nice and all but in practice it just does not provide a substantial enough benefit over other technology available. Before NEXRAD in the cockpit sure but not today.

Just one guys opinion...

Depends on how fast the cells are developing. Stormscope sniffs out a developing storm faster than XM/NEXRAD can report.

 

[jesse]

Depends on how fast the cells are developing. Stormscope sniffs out a developing storm faster than XM/NEXRAD can report.

Sure in theory but as I said I've never seen the data produced by it being significant enough to change my decision.

I would pay good money for real radar but a stormscope, no.

 

[Bill]

Sure in theory but as I said I've never seen the data produced by it being significant enough to change my decision.

I would pay good money for real radar but a stormscope, no.

I wouldn't re-buy it either, but it's in the bird, and it HAS sniffed out things NEXRAD doesn't yet see. It also falses sometimes as well (especially around power plants or big xformer yards)

 

[Ted]

I disagree WRT the usefulness of any recent vintage stormscope. If you're talking about a ancient WX-7 or the nearly useless WX-8 I would concur that installing one isn't worth the cost or effort. But a WX-900, WX-950, WX-1000 and probably even a WX-10 is a valuable supplement and backup to XM. I have a WX-1000 plus XM and onboard radar and I use all three when negotiating TRW.

I agree. We installed a WX-500 into the 310 (paired to the 530W/430W) and find it to be a useful addition to the on-board radar (KWX-56, which I find to be alright). We don't have NEXRAD, but expect to add ADS-B in the next couple of years which will give me enough for my liking.

 

[wsuffa]

I've yet to ever experience either of the two following events:

1. Fly into something that my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD advise me not to simply because of what a stormscope says.

2. Not fly into something my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD tell me is fine because of what the stormscope says.

Because of the above I would not buy one and wouldn't pay more than a thousand to fix one. The theory of them being a big help is nice and all but in practice it just does not provide a substantial enough benefit over other technology available. Before NEXRAD in the cockpit sure but not today.

Just one guys opinion...

Depends on how fast the cells are developing. Stormscope sniffs out a developing storm faster than XM/NEXRAD can report.

Sure in theory but as I said I've never seen the data produced by it being significant enough to change my decision.

I would pay good money for real radar but a stormscope, no.

I'm with Bill on this. I've seen it a number of times, primarily with fairly fast developing systems over the mountains - most recently last fall over West Virginia. Nexrad's update cycle was just too slow to show the developing heads, including one that started dumping rain & throwing lightining just after the cycle update. I could see the noise on the stormscope far enough ahead of Nexrad to request deviations.

It really depends on where you are and where you're flying. Along the Gulf Coast and Ohio & east, I've found the stormscope to be quite beneficial. Great plains, New England, and most of Texas it was of less value.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Henning]

I've yet to ever experience either of the two following events:

1. Fly into something that my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD advise me not to simply because of what a stormscope says.

2. Not fly into something my eyes, atc, and NEXRAD tell me is fine because of what the stormscope says.

Because of the above I would not buy one and wouldn't pay more than a thousand to fix one. The theory of them being a big help is nice and all but in practice it just does not provide a substantial enough benefit over other technology available. Before NEXRAD in the cockpit sure but not today.

Just one guys opinion...

On the way back from OSH heading into Atlanta through a line, my buddy is head down in the XM telling me to turn right 60° to avoid a bad cell. ATC is telling me to turn 60° right to avoid a bad cell. I told ATC "Negative sir, I am in VMC and heading for clear sky, 60° to my right is a dark black cell emitting lightning." My buddy pops his head out of the 496 and looks over, "Holy ****!" ATC calls a Mooney that's behind us that he had also advised to turn for weather avoidance and turns him back to follow my path. This was not a unique experience of me finding XM weather too far behind the eight ball to trust for tactical storm avoidance, nor the last. It's good stuff for strategic, but too latent for tactical, and I find the worse the weather, the longer between updates.

 

[Bill]

This was not a unique experience of me finding XM weather too far behind the eight ball to trust for tactical storm avoidance, nor the last. It's good stuff for strategic, but too latent for tactical, and I find the worse the weather, the longer between updates.

Bingo, you need both (as well as eyes) to know what is going on. Radar would be nice, but ain't happening.

 

[douglas393]

On the way back from OSH heading into Atlanta through a line, my buddy is head down in the XM telling me to turn right 60° to avoid a bad cell. ATC is telling me to turn 60° right to avoid a bad cell. I told ATC "Negative sir, I am in VMC and heading for clear sky, 60° to my right is a dark black cell emitting lightning." My buddy pops his head out of the 496 and looks over, "Holy ****!" ATC calls a Mooney that's behind us that he had also advised to turn for weather avoidance and turns him back to follow my path. This was not a unique experience of me finding XM weather too far behind the eight ball to trust for tactical storm avoidance, nor the last. It's good stuff for strategic, but too latent for tactical, and I find the worse the weather, the longer between updates.

The FAA came out with the problems with NexRad being delayed about six months ago if I remember correctly. Their point is the age stated on the picture is the age of the picture when it was posted, and not in real time. So even if it says 3 or 4 minutes the actual conditions it is depicting could be from 20 minutes ago. As for the latency, I have found(and confirmed this with XM) that the system tends to get overloaded the worse the weather is and will get slower, and can shut down completely at times.

For me weather tracking in flight is a combination of flight data via datalink, and what I see outside, with the latter being the defining factor. ATC will often describe something to me, and they seem to be as often right as they are wrong.

 

[Paul Hamilton]

I've been flying with a Stormscope for at least 20 years, XM for six years, and ADS-B since February. I could have only one, I'd pick Stormscope. Reasons:

- Worked for over 20 years with almost no downtime.
- Better time resolution -- spots fast-moving or fast-developing storms.
- Better predictor of turbulence than NEXRAD.
- More reliable than a tablet with either ADS-B or XM

NEXRAD gives me a "big picture" and better spatial resolution, especially with XM. The two systems compliment one another really well. I really like having both.

Tablets are a great enhancement, but they are consumer-grade and therefore plagued with frequent "updates" that may render them inoperative, as well as planned obsolescence and short lifetimes. Over 20 years, a Stormscope is pretty cheap.

 

[jesse]

On the way back from OSH heading into Atlanta through a line, my buddy is head down in the XM telling me to turn right 60° to avoid a bad cell. ATC is telling me to turn 60° right to avoid a bad cell. I told ATC "Negative sir, I am in VMC and heading for clear sky, 60° to my right is a dark black cell emitting lightning." My buddy pops his head out of the 496 and looks over, "Holy ****!" ATC calls a Mooney that's behind us that he had also advised to turn for weather avoidance and turns him back to follow my path. This was not a unique experience of me finding XM weather too far behind the eight ball to trust for tactical storm avoidance, nor the last. It's good stuff for strategic, but too latent for tactical, and I find the worse the weather, the longer between updates.

I agree with everything you say. My point is that I don't think a Stormscope itself provides enough of a bang in 2013 for what it costs. Once you combine nexrad, your eyes, and ATC the amount of additional benefit a Stormscope provides is much less than it did in the 80s. The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there for me.

Have they been helpful for me? Sure. Have they ever made a difference in my ultimate decision, No. Perhaps that's because I operate with a decent margin and good strategy.

 

[Jeff K]

I'm at the avionics shop getting software upgrades for my Garmin and Aspens and asked about the error message on the stormscope which I think is a WX900. The avionics shop owner says it is getting very hot when powered on and gave me some options:

So it never works at all? Just get's hot?

That would rule out a cooling issue... since it would work for a while before it overheated.

Sounds to me like the shop either is incompetent and/or just doesn't want to work on it. Something major has obviously failed causing increased current draw. That's generally not too hard to find.

You've already gotten alot of pro/con with regards to fixing it. I just wasn't that impressed with the shop punting it.

 

[Anymouse]

If the Stormscope is hot, you might consider filing off the serial number.

 

[gismo]

I agree with everything you say. My point is that I don't think a Stormscope itself provides enough of a bang in 2013 for what it costs. Once you combine nexrad, your eyes, and ATC the amount of additional benefit a Stormscope provides is much less than it did in the 80s. The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there for me.

Have they been helpful for me? Sure. Have they ever made a difference in my ultimate decision, No. Perhaps that's because I operate with a decent margin and good strategy.

Where a SS pays off is when you're in IMC and there is some possibility for TRW to pop up. XM is insufficient for that. Even if you can stay VMC (a very good TRW avoidance method) a SS makes a good real-time strategic tool.

 

[wabower]

On the way back from OSH another piston twin flew about 60 additional miles and stayed in the clear. As you noted, it negated the need for any fancy footwork or scud-running.

Where a SS pays off is when you're in IMC and there is some possibility for TRW to pop up. XM is insufficient for that. Even if you can stay VMC (a very good TRW avoidance method) a SS makes a good real-time strategic tool.

 

[jesse]

Where a SS pays off is when you're in IMC and there is some possibility for TRW to pop up. XM is insufficient for that. Even if you can stay VMC (a very good TRW avoidance method) a SS makes a good real-time strategic tool.

If things are that likely to just pop up out of nowhere and surprise the **** out of you a stormscope might not do the job either. You might be totally trapped by the time the lightning starts.

Or the damn thing might just be broke. I'm not a huge fan of putting your life into the readings of one device.

I'm not saying there aren't times that they could be useful. I'm saying the times imo are limited given their cost and their usefulness during those times isn't nearly enough to me.

Ask me the same question later in life when my income is much higher and I might answer differently. This is all relative

 

[weilke]

I find the WX500 displaying on a 530W to work as advertised, particularly when used in conjunction with nexrad. I never found the older units with the little green screen to be particularly useful.

 

[wabower]

I don't think your opinion will change much. I bought a new WX-10 when they were the latest and greatest thing availble and have since owned several of the 1000's (that won't play on the avionics screens) and the 500's that will.

For me the value was to watch the far-out storm movement, primarily to know whether to beat it to destination or work in behind it. At some point you figure out how you're going to fly and how to get the info you want to make decisions and what you need to do it. If you decide the spherics boxes aren't necessary for any number of reasons, the money won't matter either way. Hence my non-SS equipped ride.

Ask me the same question later in life when my income is much higher and I might answer differently. This is all relative

 

[Ted]

If things are that likely to just pop up out of nowhere and surprise the **** out of you a stormscope might not do the job either. You might be totally trapped by the time the lightning starts.

Or the damn thing might just be broke. I'm not a huge fan of putting your life into the readings of one device.

I'm not saying there aren't times that they could be useful. I'm saying the times imo are limited given their cost and their usefulness during those times isn't nearly enough to me.

Ask me the same question later in life when my income is much higher and I might answer differently. This is all relative

True, but as with everything once you have it (and have spent the money) you are usually happy with the results. The previous owner of the 310 flew it for 25 years with an RDR-160 and saw no benefit for a stormscope. Meanwhile, when you and I were flying to Houston from Lincoln, that storm over Oklahoma I think was a good example of a time when a stormscope would be useful. My recollection is the 310 had just gotten radar installed, but since there wasn't a ton of precip relative to the convective activity, it didn't help as much. I've had the same in Canada.

I see very few of them getting installed in this upper 5 to 6 figure panels in twins these days. Most people seem to be figuring that the on-board radar and ADS-B/XM provides plenty. I think they're typically right, but I also fly enough in areas where neither will work, which has shaped my views regarding having a self-sufficient airplane.

 

[N747JB]

I had a WX 500 that displayed on my 530 as well, great set up! I don't think I would spend what it takes to put one in, but I would spend a couple bucks to keep one working.
If I could only have one of the three in order of importance to me for my flying:

1. XM weather
2. live radar
3. Storm scope

I find the WX500 displaying on a 530W to work as advertised, particularly when used in conjunction with nexrad. I never found the older units with the little green screen to be particularly useful.