X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.107] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTP id 2970100 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:49:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.59.1.107; envelope-from=ims1@iinet.net.au X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwBAPQLVkh8qb3Z/2dsb2JhbAAIrS8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,652,1204470000"; d="scan'208";a="330056803" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.1.1.5]) ([124.169.189.217]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 21:48:34 +0800 X-Original-Message-Id: From: Michael Aarons X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Traffic Systems X-Original-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:48:34 +0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Hi All, I wonder if some among you have any experience with the Avidyne TAS610 or the L3 Skywatch HP. This would be connected to an OP Technologies EFIS in a 4PT I'm interested to know how the systems perform. The Avidyne has a 2 antenna system and their sales blurb state this is the best way to go as it gets around the problem of the aircraft shadowing the antenna, thus giving best coverage and performance. The L3 crowd say the single 4 pole antenna system performs better than a two antenna system because in a 2 antenna system, both antenna need to see the traffic for it to give an accurate bearing. Perhaps there are other issues at play. Who likes what and why? Where does the truth lie? Michael Aarons Perth Australia 4PT 95%