View Single Post
  #7  
Old June 1st 04, 03:16 PM
Andrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bhelman is ridiculous ... When Avcon said in their April 2004 issue
surecheck is 'slightly better' than the Monroy Surecheck found useful
to report this
statement on their website.

When the same Aviation Consumer says in their June 2004 that the
Proxalert R5
is the EASY WINNER over surecheck, Surecheck people like Bhelman says
AvCon is biased ...

Have a look at Avcon reaction over Surecheck usage of their logo in
Avcon article 'Surecheck altered reality'. They recommend potential
customers to be very cautious with what they advertize on surecheck
website ...

Saying that Proxalert is not a US company is a lie. Check Arizona
company file !
Nevertheless using this kind of argument is very poor and it shows how
desperate these surecheck guys are ...

One of my best friend is german and worked as the key architect during
the design of the IBM AS/400 in Stuttgart. He designed a wonderful and
very successful product. He is not american so what ?
The transponder system as virtually every piece of technology is based
on international standards this is why the Proxalert R5 works
everywhere with the same performance.

Bhelman reacts as someone who perfectly knows that his product is very
limited and use ridiculous arguments to convince himself that he will
not lose ground on this market.

The Proxalert R5 works from 6 to 35 volts with a power consumption of
1 watt where the surecheck 'pumps' 5 watts.
The surecheck can only display info about one traffic. When there are
more it is lost. No squawk info and no trend. Have a look at their
altitude alerter, they added this function after Proxalert announced
the R5. The R5 includes a very powerful altitude alerter function. The
LCD displays your own MSL altitude and your altitude drift. No need to
scroll thru menu to activate/deactivate the function like on the
surecheck. On the Proxalert R5 you get a dedicated key to set/reset
this function.

Read carefully Aviation Consumer June 2004 article and you will see
that the Proxalert R5 is far better than the surecheck gadget.

This is what they say :

"It is cheaper than the Surecheck(c) and has better performance and
features"

"The R5 is the easy winner over Surecheck(c)"

"We think the R5 is worth the additional $250 over the Monroy(c)"

The surecheck products are very well advertized to hide poor products.
It was the same story for their TPAS shoe box.

Finally Avcon evaluation is the only independant one to trust.

Everybody is fed up by these spam reports posted here by surecheck
friends or owners since months.

Andrew,


Dave Martin wrote in message ...
At 07:54 21 May 2004, Andrew wrote:
Hi,
Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5
proximity alerter
and what they say is crystal clear : 'It has better
performance and
features' than other devices and 'The R5 is the easy
winner over
Surecheck' trafficscope.

Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
www.aviation-consumer.com'

Andrew


As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
for glider use, I have looked the following web page
which gives details of the device

http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
web pages

'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
e range'

'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
in the area and derives altitude and range information
on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
C) information.'

'All transponder-equipped aircraft will be displayed
on the easy-to-read, backlit LCD display, along with
TCAS-style warning indicators, and professionally-recorded
audio alerts indicating traffic threats.'

There is a place for such a device, but in free airspace
unless we are all equipped then such a device could
be as much a danger as help. It could lead some to
fly in the belief that they are safe, especially when
the sky gets busy.

It is however a start, but have you seen the price!!!!!

Dave Martin