Weather Radar Installation?

OK, so I imagine that this question will generate a few responses like "you'll never afford it" or "why would you want this", so let's try to avoid discussions of the excessive cost (imagine a few years down the road if a non-certified unit were to be available at low cost).

Has anyone seriously considered installing a weather radar pod on an RV-10 or any other RV? By serious, I mean have you looked at installation details, structural requirements for wing mounting, power and data wiring, etc., for an RV based installation of a weather radar such as the Garmin GWX 70?

Again, the cost is rather prohibitive, but what if an inexpensive version would become available, but at about the same weight, size, power, and performance as existing GA weather radar models? Would you do it?

Nope and I fly IFR all of the time. For me, the value added isn't worth the money (even if less expensive then today's offerings), the effort to install it, or the effort to learn to use it (there's more to it than looking at a NEXRAD plot).

Auburntsts said:

Nope and I fly IFR all of the time. For me, the value added isn't worth the money (even if less expensive then today's offerings), the effort to install it, or the effort to learn to use it (there's more to it than looking at a NEXRAD plot).

Click to expand...

Actually, isn't this reply exactly what the OP asked NOT to discuss? Value = Price. So, what if that new lower priced radar gadget were say, $253.85? Would that "value" change your mind? Such is the point the OP is making about price. Suspend your initial reactions to price and look at the installation, structural changes, etc. of such an item and make the decision on technical issues instead of price.

My answer, of course I would consider such an item. Of course there would be the caveat of: the hypothetical accuracy of such an instrument. But then again that would be a discussion similar to that of price. That is to say, if the technology existed to provide this data resource accurately, at a reasonably low price, I would say it would be kind of like the question of whether you would use a GPS for navigation instead of paper charts.

True Luddites not withstanding, I would expect we would all want the functionality.

RVbySDI said:

Actually, isn't this reply exactly what the OP asked NOT to discuss? Value = Price. So, what if that new lower priced radar gadget were say, $253.85? Would that "value" change your mind? Such is the point the OP is making about price. Suspend your initial reactions to price and look at the installation, structural changes, etc. of such an item and make the decision on technical issues instead of price.

My answer, of course I would consider such an item. Of course there would be the caveat of: the hypothetical accuracy of such an instrument. But then again that would be a discussion similar to that of price. That is to say, if the technology existed to provide this data resource accurately, at a reasonably low price, I would say it would be kind of like the question of whether you would use a GPS for navigation instead of paper charts.

True Luddites not withstanding, I would expect we would all want the functionality.

Click to expand...

Actually re-read my post. I didn't base my 2 cents just on price. IMO on-board radar is not a panacea. I'd rather have realtime NEXRAD via FIS-B if such a thing were ever possible.

Auburntsts said:

Actually re-read my post. I didn't base my 2 cents just on price. IMO on-board radar is not a panacea. I'd rather have realtime NEXRAD via FIS-B if such a thing were ever possible.

Click to expand...

It seems to me on-board radar would be as realtime as radar can get. If that on-board radar can sweep, say a 300 mile radius around your airplane, that would be giving you realtime coverage based upon your airplane as the "center of the universe".

This is all hypothetical discussion for discussion's sake but it is what was originally asked.

RVbySDI said:

It seems to me on-board radar would be as realtime as radar can get. If that on-board radar can sweep, say a 300 mile radius around your airplane, that would be giving you realtime coverage based upon your airplane as the "center of the universe".

This is all hypothetical discussion for discussion's sake but it is what was originally asked.

Click to expand...

But I already can receive NEXRAD today (just not realtime) and it requires zero training to use and no airframe mod to install. I'm still a no vote. YMMV...

Putting aside the bandwith required and other technical hurdles to realtime dissemination of NEXRAD data, would it truly replace onboard radar? As I understand it, airborne radar can view a volume (given vertical scanning capability) ahead of the aircraft, whereas NEXRAD is limited to a single stationary point of view. While NEXRAD also views a volume, it might not be quite as useful to an airborne aircraft, seeing as the beam direction will be different unless the radar station lies directly along the airplane's flight path. One might not be "better" than the other inherently, depending on the relative positions of the radar station (ground or air) and any potential weather obscuring radar phenomena.

Probably the best would be a system that can combine ground-based and airborne radar into a single picture.

Anyway, I am ignorant of weather radar operation, so would people with more experience than me (e.g., pro pilots) accept realtime NEXRAD in the cockpit in lieu of onboard radar?

Here ya go>>>>
http://www.metroproductsupport.com/pdf%20files/EC135/GTNSPIFR/Manufacture_Manuals/190-00829-01C-IM-GWX-70.pdf


Bulkhead mounted on an aircraft nose or in a pod.
I am guessing that putting the necessary structure in a 10 wing is an accomplishable task as is making a pod.

I am also assuming an existing efis could be adapted as a display.

The unknown is aerodynamic effects of a wing pod on an RV 10 You truly would be a test pilot.

The garmin unit above has a 10" dish I think there are some 7.5" units out there.

Since mentioning price draws fire I won't mention the 5 figure price tag.

True Luddites not withstanding, I would expect we would all want the functionality.

Click to expand...

Since I really love new technology and incorporated the newest into my builds I do not qualify as a Luddite but airborne radar is NOT a functionality I would want in an RV or any light GA aircraft. Not even if the price came down to $253 from the current $21,000.

I just do not see what it provides beyond a storm scope and XM.
But I do certainly think technically installing one on an RV is doable.


Never mind price, assume structural issues and aerodynamic issues are insignificant to over come. My big concern is that improper use and interpretation of the radar image will get you into more trouble than it will help you avoid.

Many pilots (some of them 30,000 hr veteran airline pilots) have flown into severe thunderstorms because they did not know how to use the radar or interpret correctly what they were seeing.

http://code7700.com/mishap_southern_airways_242.html

1001001 said:

Again, the cost is rather prohibitive, but what if an inexpensive version would become available, but at about the same weight, size, power, and performance as existing GA weather radar models? Would you do it?

Click to expand...

So this is the final one of the OP's questions - and my answer is "no". Airborne radars that I have used have so many limitations on interpretation and just not seeing what is behind the "bad" stuff ahead of you that they don't compare to the NeXrad images we have available today.

"Ahhh, yes", you say, "but onboard radar is real time and Nexrad is a few minutes old! Doesn't that make it more valuable?" Well theoretically, in one sense - yes. But if the weather is so bad, and so dynamic that the difference in five (or ten) minute old data is that critical, you might rethink whether or not you want to be there in an RV-10.....or any RV for that matter.

An onboard weather radar would be nice, but I don't think it would be compatible with what our airplanes are capable of. I can imagine it leading pilots to tackle weather that they should otherwise avoid, in an airplane that can't outclimb really fast-building precip, hasn't been tested for HIRF/EMI resistance, and doesn't have known-ice capability.

I'd be inclined to stick with FIS-B or XM Weather radar...my $0.02.

Dave

so would people with more experience than me (e.g., pro pilots) accept realtime NEXRAD in the cockpit in lieu of onboard radar?

Click to expand...

Nexrad is not real time, as I remember it can be delayed by up to 12 minutes and on occasion more. This means depending on, direction of trave,l and velocity of both you and storm cells, the position of the cell relative to you can be as much as 50 miles off.

It also does not provide the detail of airborne radar. (this assumes you are proficient and experienced in the use and interpretation of airborne radar)

I think nexrad is a great tool for IFR flight as long as you know it's limitations and understand what it does not show.

I also agree with what Iron said, if the weather is so bad that you can't navigate it with nexrad you probably shouldn't be there.

Radar is a tool it cannot make bad weather more flyable and it cannot compensate for bad decisions.

True, NEXRAD is limited in it's presentation and not really suitable for "tactical" weather avoidance, but I'd still like a realtime picture. However, I tend to try and not put myself in a situation where on-board radar would be helpful. I've never been in IMC and said geez, I wish I had on-board radar. If I flew turbine equipment and had a schedule to keep, I'd probably change my tune. YMMV...

I'm really glad to see the responses this post has generated so far.

I agree that an aircraft like an RV, with comparatively little excess power and lacking the climb and ceiling capability of typical radar-equipped aircraft, is unsuited to negotiating the types of weather that make onboard radar a good idea. As a pilot with only a small amount of real IMC under my belt, my tendency would be to get the plane on the ground and wait it out, were I to see a storm radar image (NEXRAD or onboard) ahead of me that I couldn't fly completely around with a wide margin.

So, if a consensus among experienced radar-using pilots is that onboard radar isn't useful on an RV, what say you about whether realtime NEXRAD would be a suitable replacement for onboard radar. Leave out concerns such as comms failure, NEXRAD outages, uncovered areas etc. Would realtime NEXRAD do the same job as onboard radar?

If I had a choice I'd rather have someone come up with a FIKI system--now for me, that would be value added.

Auburntsts said:

If I had a choice I'd rather have someone come up with a FIKI system--now for me, that would be value added.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this, being based in an area that's susceptible to icing for a good part of the year. There is the Therm-X system, but at an installed price tag probably north of $20k, it rivals the cost of the radar. Plus the required 100A, 70V alternator to power the system sounds like a real beast.

In a word, no!

1001001 said:

Anyway, I am ignorant of weather radar operation, so would people with more experience than me (e.g., pro pilots) accept realtime NEXRAD in the cockpit in lieu of onboard radar?

Click to expand...

For my day job, I fly a B737. We have some of the newest and most advanced on-board radar systems available. Even with all of the "automatic" features built in to this radar, we frequently need to switch it to "manual" to really understand what the display is telling us. It takes some training and a good bit of experience to interpret the radar correctly. We are just now getting to the point where we can receive uplinks from ground-based systems to our on-board tablets.

I used to own a DA40 with XM weather. It was great as a strategic tool but lousy as a tactical one. Trying to use it in a tactical manner will get you killed. That being said, it was a great improvement over nothing at all.

If I had a choice, even in an RV-10, I would love to have both.

Onboard radar would be a big help, especially for us in the south that frequently encounter widespread areas of scattered precipitation.

NEXRAD and onboard radar are perfectly complementary. NEXRAD gives you the big picture and compensates for the limited range, shadowing/"box canyon" limitations of onboard radar. Onboard radar let's you make tactical navigation decisions that would be unsafe with NEXRAD alone.

David

Strikefinder or Stormscope?

I flew several different Cessna 210T's during the 80's and 90's. Started with black and white radar and moved to a color presentation. What Paul said is correct, too many limitations- especially with a small antenna. My last 210 carried a Strikefinder, which I found much more useful than the previous radar units. On the other hand, none of those old units allowed me to scroll ahead and look at METARS along my route and at my destination. Would it be great to have "everything"? Probably, but in the end, we're always limited by our own abilities and the capabilities of the aircraft. The ability to use, read and understand radar requires practice that you're not likely to get a s a weekend warrior. At the same time, the added hardware isn't going to translate into significant improvement in capability in any RV. Kind of reminds me of the weekend golfer who has to have the latest clubs when what he really needs to get to single digits is more lessons and practice.
Interesting thread.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

Radar

Its doable, but my answer is No. About 25 years ago I did the first ever field install of radar on a T182 via the field approval process. A Caravan pod was used for a starting point. It worked and flight characteristics were unaffected. The "real time" aspect is the best part, but the performance & range of a dish that size is dismal and is a bit like driving your car at night with a weak flashlight instead of headlights. The weather products available today used with the knowledge that it is not real time is the best option for our little planes.

Don Broussard

RV 9 Rebuild in Progress

1001001 said:

Putting aside the bandwith required and other technical hurdles to realtime dissemination of NEXRAD data, would it truly replace onboard radar? As I understand it, airborne radar can view a volume (given vertical scanning capability) ahead of the aircraft, whereas NEXRAD is limited to a single stationary point of view. While NEXRAD also views a volume, it might not be quite as useful to an airborne aircraft, seeing as the beam direction will be different unless the radar station lies directly along the airplane's flight path. One might not be "better" than the other inherently, depending on the relative positions of the radar station (ground or air) and any potential weather obscuring radar phenomena.

Probably the best would be a system that can combine ground-based and airborne radar into a single picture.

Anyway, I am ignorant of weather radar operation, so would people with more experience than me (e.g., pro pilots) accept realtime NEXRAD in the cockpit in lieu of onboard radar?

Click to expand...

I have used both extensively and now at my airline have the ability to see both at the same time. The first thing I will state is there is no need for weather radar in a RV. It will only lead people into trouble. This is not a aircraft that should be flown anywhere near embedded thunderstorms under any circumstances. Storms can pop so fast with the right conditions that there is no acceptable safety net. The storm that brought the Delta L1011 down in Dallas grew at a incredible rate and had no effect at all on a Learjet a minute or two ahead.
NEXRAD is not realtime and probably will not be in the near future. It also relies on ground based radars that have holes in their coverage or may be down for maintenance. The FAA has cautioned over and over that NEXRAD should only be used for general planning and never tactical storm avoidance.
On the subject of the radars the newest generation are vastly improved over just a few years ago. They feature auto mode shifts and tilt that build a much more complete wx picture then 10 years ago. In addition they measure Doppler giving real time turbulance viewing. Given a choice between the two the radar wins hands down.
Stay away from thunderstorms. Don't skirt by them and don't duck under them. Hail can be tossed miles downwind of a cell. I have been hit by lightening no where near a cell and in the right conditions severe turbulance can exist downwind of a cell. Rapid and unexpected temperture changes can lead to unforcast icing. Stay Away! Stay far away!

physics

A real limitation on single engine radar is the antenna size. On twins you can hide a large diameter antenna in the nose. Bigger antenna means the energy is better focused on transmit, so it can penetrate further. On receive, a bigger antenna has better resolution. But an antenna that size in a pod has a lot of drag. And the smaller antennas actually used have the drawbacks mentioned. I do not know of anyone that has overcome these limitations.

I wouldn't have one

As a VFR pilot, I use my on board Nexrad for strategic planning to avoid weather that I am not comfortable approaching. I doubt that onboard radar would make the utility of my airplane any greater, and it would certainly add to system complexity that I really try to avoid at any price.

I suppose if it weighed no more than my ADSB receiver, added no drag or structural concerns and cost only $268 dollars I might reconsider.

Don