Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:28:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mpls-qmqp-01.inet.qwest.net ([63.231.195.112] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b8) with SMTP id 2440560 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:15:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 95434 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 2003 22:15:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.231.195.5) by mpls-qmqp-01.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 23 Jun 2003 22:15:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JLPIBM) (67.41.166.154) by mpls-pop-05.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 22:15:06 -0000 X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:15:19 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003601c339d4$f037e1f0$be01a8c0@ARLINST> From: "John L. Petersen" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Reply-To: Subject: Stormscope or not? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Was going to put a Stormscope in the LIVP but had a number of LIVP owners say that they had lot's of problems with it (noise, inaccuracies). One said that he had never met anyone with one in a LIVP that was really happy with it . . . then saw this new WSI Inflight systems that takes down WX from a satellite and displays it in the Chelton EFIS and was thinking that this might be a good alternative to the potential problems of the WX 500. Any feedback? John L. Petersen N60JP 90%