Proxalert R5 Proximity alerter

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 06:48 28 May 2004, Bhelman wrote:
My Trafficscope has always been extremely accurate
in range. I think their engineering took into account
all of the factors you mentioned.
All I can say is that if anyone who is conered with
surrounding
traffic, the VRX trafficscope is the most accurate
and dependable device on the market today.


OK

Here is the desrcition from the Trafficscope web site...

'The new TrafficScope models contain the latest third-generation
TPAS? (Traffic Proximity Alert System) technology.
TrafficScope listens for transponder replies from all
aircraft within the detection window 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.

TrafficScope also listens to your own transponder to
establish a base reference. Since virtually 100% of
the US and most outlying airspace falls within radar
coverage, aircraft can be detected with a great amount
of certainty. TrafficScope is mircoprocessor controlled
and utilizes menus to assist pilots in a aspects of
fight.'

UK cost £585

As few gliders in the UK are fitted with transponders,
all most all fly in uncontrolled airspace and airport
radar has difficulty in detecting relatively slow moving
glass gliders. In some case the signals are filtered
out.

I am not being deliberately negative, but at the present
time the benefits do not appear practical. Whilst I
do not doubt that the equipment is dependable it can
only give advice on the target it can see.

It may be worth running a few tests, could you ask
the manufacturers for a few samples?
Dave