Portable "stormscope" for aircraft?
Dan Luke
http://www.boltek.com/ld250.htm
Scroll down a ways and check this out:
>Connect your GPS or marine compass to your LD-250 and track lightning from
your car, truck or boat.<
>Turn on the LD-250's heading indicator when running mobile. The blue
triangle in the center of the screen rotates as your vehicle turns to show
the LD-250 is using your GPS or marine compass to correct for changes in
your vehicle's direction.<
Pricing:
>LD-250 Lightning Detector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . $799.00
Includes LD-250 Receiver, Antenna, 50 feet of Antenna Cable, USB Cable,
RS232 Cable, GPS Cable, Windows Software, and Manual.<
That's less than 1/6 the installed cost of a Strikefinder without heading
stabilization.
Now, the only real problem I see with this is the antenna mounting. How do
you put this (uncertified) thing outside the airplane? Would it be possible
to get a 337 for the antenna only, as long as the rest of the gear stayed
portable?
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Tom Pappano
"Dan Luke" <c172rg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ukbedr...@news.supernews.com...
Velcro?
Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA
Richard Kaplan
news:<nan19.576$RD5.36...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Now, the only real problem I see with this is the antenna mounting. How do
> > you put this (uncertified) thing outside the airplane? Would it be
> possible
> > to get a 337 for the antenna only, as long as the rest of the gear stayed
> > portable?
Perhaps you could get a field approval for the antenna.
Although it is not a perfect analogy, the evolving satellite-based
weather datalink systems from Merlin and from WSI with both initially
be available only as portable, non-certified systems with permanently
mounted, STCd antennas. The difference in this case is that the
antenna is not STCd or TSOd for aviation use, so a field approval
would perhaps be the way around this.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@umrpc.com
www.umrpc.com/p210
Michael Oxner
<c172rg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Now, the only real problem I see with this is the antenna mounting. How do
>you put this (uncertified) thing outside the airplane? Would it be possible
>to get a 337 for the antenna only, as long as the rest of the gear stayed
>portable?
I'm wondering just how well this piece of equipment would funciton if
the antenna were mounted inside the airplane. I know that wooden
frames, such as houses and whatnot, will not bother the reception, but
metal may. Several photos on Boltek's website indicate that current
users in cars tend to mount the antenna outside, so it may not be
possible. I'm hoping to snag one of these little beauties myself
someday.
Michael Oxner
CZQM
Michael
> . . . . . . $799.00
> Includes LD-250 Receiver, Antenna, 50 feet of Antenna Cable, USB Cable,
> RS232 Cable, GPS Cable, Windows Software, and Manual.<
>
> That's less than 1/6 the installed cost of a Strikefinder without heading
> stabilization.
My installed cost on a Stormscope (WX-10) was $2500. But then I did
the work myself.
The WX-10 fits neatly into a hole. The LD-250 will require you to
have a box and laptop in the cockpit. That's fine unless there is
someone in the right seat. It would be different if it would work
with a PDA.
I have no doubts that this gadget is technologically superior to the
old spherics devices, since it probably utilizes modern off-the-shelf
technology without regard to certification - but will it work and play
well with all the other avionics?
> Now, the only real problem I see with this is the antenna mounting. How do
> you put this (uncertified) thing outside the airplane? Would it be possible
> to get a 337 for the antenna only, as long as the rest of the gear stayed
> portable?
My guess is that some A&P's will be willing to install an antenna on a
logbook entry, and others will insist it requires a field approval.
The middle ground is a 337 using the data on antenna installation from
AC 43-13.
Depending on the FSDO, the field approval route may range from easy to
impossible.
Michael
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> The WX-10 fits neatly into a hole. The LD-250 will require you to
> have a box and laptop in the cockpit. That's fine unless there is
> someone in the right seat. It would be different if it would work
> with a PDA.
When I first read this thread, I wondered if it would work with
that Compaq slightly-bigger-than-Palm computer. Shoot, I have a
mind like a steel sieve, I can't remember what it's called or
the GPS it runs. Where's someone who owns one? Nauga?
Anyway it struck me the real beneficiaries of this could be
the homebuilders.
Cheers,
Sydney
bender
<hoel...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>
>> The WX-10 fits neatly into a hole. The LD-250 will require you to
>> have a box and laptop in the cockpit. That's fine unless there is
>> someone in the right seat. It would be different if it would work
>> with a PDA.
>
>When I first read this thread, I wondered if it would work with
>that Compaq slightly-bigger-than-Palm computer. Shoot, I have a
>mind like a steel sieve, I can't remember what it's called or
>the GPS it runs. Where's someone who owns one? Nauga?
the iPaq?
bender
Dewey M. Sasser
HP Journada.
It was a fully capable computer (we had one running Windows 2000
Server) that was about 4"x9"x1.5" or some such (1/2 size screen with a
scroll bar on the right).
They are no longer made. The rumor I heard was that MS didn't like
them because they weakened the market position of WinCE and therefore
leaned on HP to scrap them.
Compaq iPac is a WinCE device.
--
Dewey M. Sasser <de...@sasser.com>
Dan Luke
> >I'm wondering just how well this piece of equipment would funciton if
> >the antenna were mounted inside the airplane. I know that wooden
> >frames, such as houses and whatnot, will not bother the reception, but
> >metal may. Several photos on Boltek's website indicate that current
> >users in cars tend to mount the antenna outside, so it may not be
> >possible. I'm hoping to snag one of these little beauties myself
> >someday.
>
> (with a suction cup) work well, provided they are placed at the very
> top of the front window.
I doubt this would work. A spherics antenna is a different animal. An
electrically "quiet" site must be found for it on the outside of the
aircraft.
bob cook
Stormscope is a Spherics device that is looking for very week electrical
impulses in which a DSP processor is then looking for specific patterns
associated with "strikes". To make this work you need a good ground plane
and you must eliminate as much electrical interference as possible to to the
miniscule electrical impulses. Typically the manufacturers want the
antenna mounted on the bottom of an aircraft and it should be "mapped" to
reduce stray electrical fields on the skin of the aircraft. Installations
are tricky to begin with on any any of the approved spherics devices.
I cannot see where a portable device can be effective where the antenna is
subject to all kinds of interference in the cockpit. It might delect
lightening when it the aircraft is hit by lightening <G>
Bob
"Dewey M. Sasser" <de...@sasser.com> wrote in message
news:uvg6u4...@sasser.com...
Michael Oxner
>I cannot see where a portable device can be effective where the antenna is
>subject to all kinds of interference in the cockpit. It might delect
>lightening when it the aircraft is hit by lightening <G>
Ok, thanks for the explanation of the Stormscope. How about Boltek's
LD-250? I'm assuming it works on a similar principle. Would it work on
an inside antenna position?
Here's another thought: It won't give you a picture of lightning, but
Strike Alert! is a little pager-sized device that can report the
distance of a lightning strike out to 40 miles. This would warn that
you're near a storm, supposing it would work in the cockpit. It
certainly won't tell you wher the storm is, but it *could* warn you of
one.
Michael Oxner
Michael Oxner
>For some reason this thread is not connected to an earlier discussion. Oh
>Well..... I think this original thread was discussing the LD-250. Spherics
>is a tricky business and it took years of software to bring the stormscope
>and/or strikefinder to where it is today... hence the cost. I question the
>ability to downsize the product without losing it's reliability or
>functionality.
The first paragraph of my response was related to the LD-250. I was
wondering if an antenna position in the windshield would work. The
second item, the pager-sized lightning detector, was merely an
additional question. I do agree with you on the point of azimuth
information. Although, living in a climate where *most* T-Storms are
embedded in stratus cloud, this other little device could be an early
warning without having to spend $10K on another device. You know, give
you a reason to suspect heavier weather in your area so you can ask
for further information. I'm saying it would replace all other means
of weather devices for a cheap price.
Michael Oxner
Fred Fillinger
> The first paragraph of my response was related to the LD-250. I was
> wondering if an antenna position in the windshield would work. The
> second item, the pager-sized lightning detector, was merely an
> additional question. I do agree with you on the point of azimuth
> information. Although, living in a climate where *most* T-Storms are
> embedded in stratus cloud, this other little device could be an early
> warning without having to spend $10K on another device. You know, give
> you a reason to suspect heavier weather in your area so you can ask
> for further information. I'm saying it would replace all other means
> of weather devices for a cheap price.
I have an LD-250, and at home it works amazingly well. However, it
did not do so until the antenna was mounted up in the attic. So,
mounting anywhere in/on the aircraft can be compromising, with no good
way to test it. These devices (including the aircraft ones), while
azimuth is easy, cannot plot distance except through fancy software
algorithm. If the airborne antenna installation further messes up
azimuth, the safety margin will be more diminished. As many times as
I have observed local CB activity with it, against Weather Channel, I
have asked myself how wide a berth I would allow in the air, and I get
a little queasy. There are often random strikes in dry areas on the
TV, which may be software or may be for real. Lightning also is not
necessarily associated with some really bad winds and recip, like
later stages of a storm, which can be fast-moving.
Another problem is that at cruise speeds, you will lose the usefulness
of playing back the last X (selectable) number of strikes, whereas at
home this can better depict what's out there. If you're moving fast,
you could just get a bunch of dots seemingly everywhere.
Another factor is that it analyzes pulses (presumably by the unique
signatures of the various types of strokes), and rejects those
determined to be noise. So the extent to which electrical noise from
the plane's systems, or static buildup on the airframe, causes
rejection of true strikes will be matter of flight testing too. Be my
guest!
Fred F.
Michael Oxner
<fill...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Another factor is that it analyzes pulses (presumably by the unique
>signatures of the various types of strokes), and rejects those
>determined to be noise. So the extent to which electrical noise from
>the plane's systems, or static buildup on the airframe, causes
>rejection of true strikes will be matter of flight testing too. Be my
>guest!
I hadn't thought of the noise issue. I just thought about their
"mobile installations" that they have depicted there iwth cars.
Aircraft engines are somwhat different(two sets of spark plugs, etc),
so they may not be as "clean" as the car installations when it comes
to interference.
Michael Oxner
John R. Copeland
That shielding in aircraft is what keeps their ignition interference low.
Mass-production autos are very much noisier than airplanes.
Ask any amateur-radio operator about car-ignition interference.
---JRC---
"Michael Oxner" <mox...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:f37qlugnfq97ipgh8...@4ax.com...