If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I did fly with one and had one. The Monroy would give traffic alerts
of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others that passed well below me. It was clear to me very quickly that the claim of "within 1500 feet" was just not the case. It sounds like you like that unit, but my opinion is that it was just more of an annoyance than useful because aircraft well above me or below me (or even some that never existed at all!) would set it off, where as I have never had that problem with this traffic scope. I think knowing the altitude of the other plane is the biggest key. As an example, I was flying 2 days ago when my traffic scope started showing range decreasing rapidly and his altitude 200 feet above me, at .6 miles I STILL did not see him so I just descended 300 feet. about 2 seconds later the Baron passed above me by 500 feet in exact opposite direction. With the Monroy I would not have known what to do but panic. I guess it comes down to personal preference and budget, because there are still some who do prefer the ADF / VOR as opposed to upgrading to GPS, in fact I was one for 6 years!! Thomas Borchert wrote in message ... BHelman, The Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody murder. Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual operation. Whenever you get a warning for traffic close enough to be visible, when scanning outside in a sensible range, you'll spot that traffic, on our experience. Thus, I have looked at the vrx with interest from a gadget freak standpoint, but I don't think the altitude sensing would be worth that much money to me. I would, however, love to see the vr in action. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
BHelman,
The Monroy would give traffic alerts of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others that passed well below me. Hmm. Simply doesn't happen with ours. Do you have the feeling that, apart from the altitude feature, the general detection is more reliable with the "new-gen" Surecheck unit? IOW, would you think that even without the altitude indication, the vr would be a better unit than the Monroy? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual operation. It *has* to be affected by the limits imposed by positioning in the particular aircraft, internal antenna vs external, etc. My experience varies with yours. I get alerts often from flight level traffic I never see, and I get some alerts from same altitude traffic so late it worries me. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Marco,
Don't have feedback but i noticed they delayed delivery multiple times. A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly same price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device will also integrate an altitude alerter. Everything is packaged in a small box consuming only 1 watt compared to 5 watts minimum for the Trafficscope system. Feel free to contact me should you need more info. Regards, Thierry "Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message ... I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the terrible reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a Google search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was positive. Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the TrafficScope? Marco Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hello,
A new higher performance unit will be available from end of October.(R5) Price will compare to the TrafficScope VRX unit for functionalities close to the Ryan 8800 which sells at 6500 USD. It will display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to 3 threat aircrafts information including SQUWAK (not provided by the trafficscope unit), altitude (absolute MSL or relative to your altitude) and estimated distance. Horizontal range is programmable up to 10 Nm and vertical up to Unlimited. The unit works airborne or on the ground to monitor traffic around. It's amazing to actually see a commercial jet above and watch its squawk, altitude and distance displayed on the unit. Our unit consumes only 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the other. We integrated in the same box an altitude alerter to track your cruise altitude. FREE To be completely fair you should know that I own the new company who developped this system. Those who are interested could contact me at Regards, Terry ProXalert is a trademark. TrafficScope is a trademark of Surecheck (c) ps: Have a look at www.proxalert.com (Prototype site under construction ...) "Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message ... Thanks. The consensus is that the Monroy was better than the Surecheck TPAS. I wouls be curious to see if the Monroy still holds up to the Traffic Scope. Be sure to post a review if you ever get a chance to fly with the new SureCheck box. Marco "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Marco, We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Thierry" wrote in message om... A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly same price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device will also integrate an altitude alerter. Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract with ATC. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CriticalMass,
Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code my traffic is squawking? I'm interested in the group's opinion on this. Also, would you care to look at the display tracking three targets? When three other aircraft are out there, I'd want to be looking outside for them. Oh wait, my RIO can do the tracking ;-) Seriously, though: What do you guys think of these features? -- Thomas |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"CriticalMass" wrote in message ...
"Thierry" wrote in message om... A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly same price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device will also integrate an altitude alerter. Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract with ATC. Hello, First of all if a traffic is following you, could identify it by its squawk number. If you don't have the SQ displayed you may think this is a new traffic crossing your path. If you have it you could also ask your ATC more info about a specific SQ. This will greatly help the ATC to answer precisely. You could also check if it's a VFR or not (1200, etc). Displaying three threats simultaneoulsy will help you take the proper flight level in order to avoid them all. ie : One threat "A" 200 ft below, one 200 ft above "B". To avoid "A" You climb 200 ft and risk a collision with "B". Our device also distinghish threats squawking mode A only (no altitude reported). Check if the other do the same. Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db which allow us to offer a maximum range of 10 Nm instead of 5 Nm. This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of our radar receiver. Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the TS. This is a large difference. Imagine this small box on your dashboard during a sunny day. Internal temperature will quickly exceed the functional limit. This will also impact the reliability of the device. Electronic devices don't heat. Last but not least you get an altitude alerter for free + free lifetime software upgrade thru our web site. I recommend you double check the exact level of performance of the competitive device(s). I was reported a number of inaccuracy concerning their previous generation device. Finally you get all these functionalities for nearly the same price. Rgds, Proxalert |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
To be up front I got a trafficscope and have been very pleased with
its performance. But your post made some points I felt I wanted to ask or address. "Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db: This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of our radar receiver." Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't dynamic ability indicate range of reception, not "quality" of the receiver? example 5NM or 10 NM? I have been a HAM operator for over 6 years and my experience is that S/N ratio is an indicator of "quality" not reception dynamics right? "Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the TS." I run my trafficscope off of the adapter which uses aircraft power, so why should power consumption be of concern? even 20 watts is minimal power draw on a 14 volt system. Does your unit have a battery compartment or do you have to lug around a battery pack (like some headsets) because frankly battery packs are more clutter. As far as squawk goes most of the aircraft (I would say 90%) that I fly around are on 1200 "VFR" so adding this would not be much of an improvement to advisory conditions. I saw the website, and it shows an altitude of "65" do you have a way of showing how that is relative to my altitude? trafficscope gives me "UP 500 feet" which instantly shows me how far up or below to look, so by giving their actual altitude, wouldn't that leave the mathematics up to the pilot to perform? My last question is what is your company background in producing these types of devices? Is this the first product they will produce? Has it been Beta tested? (Thierry) wrote in message . com... "CriticalMass" wrote in message ... "Thierry" wrote in message om... A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly same price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device will also integrate an altitude alerter. Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract with ATC. Hello, First of all if a traffic is following you, could identify it by its squawk number. If you don't have the SQ displayed you may think this is a new traffic crossing your path. If you have it you could also ask your ATC more info about a specific SQ. This will greatly help the ATC to answer precisely. You could also check if it's a VFR or not (1200, etc). Displaying three threats simultaneoulsy will help you take the proper flight level in order to avoid them all. ie : One threat "A" 200 ft below, one 200 ft above "B". To avoid "A" You climb 200 ft and risk a collision with "B". Our device also distinghish threats squawking mode A only (no altitude reported). Check if the other do the same. Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db which allow us to offer a maximum range of 10 Nm instead of 5 Nm. This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of our radar receiver. Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the TS. This is a large difference. Imagine this small box on your dashboard during a sunny day. Internal temperature will quickly exceed the functional limit. This will also impact the reliability of the device. Electronic devices don't heat. Last but not least you get an altitude alerter for free + free lifetime software upgrade thru our web site. I recommend you double check the exact level of performance of the competitive device(s). I was reported a number of inaccuracy concerning their previous generation device. Finally you get all these functionalities for nearly the same price. Rgds, Proxalert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SureCheck Micro/VR/VRX | Hilton | Piloting | 0 | October 24th 04 03:50 PM |
(PIREP, long) Cherokee 180 from Bay Area to Bishop, CA | Dave Jacobowitz | Piloting | 15 | June 24th 04 12:11 AM |
Trafficscope PIREP - long | SeeAndAvoid | Owning | 6 | November 24th 03 08:24 PM |
Surecheck TrafficScope Pirep? | Marco Leon | Owning | 30 | October 21st 03 02:44 PM |
Surecheck TrafficScope Pirep? | Marco Leon | Piloting | 20 | October 13th 03 03:39 PM |