I am sure their is a forum for discussion of high tec. quasi military aircraft but it is not here. I am afraid we are happy to fly the typical GA stuff and I for one are just not interested in your ongoing attempts to impress.
You see where assumption gets you?
These were piston powered civil aircraft. The systems on board were properly installed by professional avionics technicians, and maintained by the same. These would be "typical GA stuff," in fact, and the Xaon units on board were performing the same mission that any "typical GA stuff" is expected to perform. Looking for other traffic in low, slow general aviation type equipment. Go figure.
I have no need to impress you or anyone else, and have never had any intention of so doing. Were you to see the equipment in question, no doubt you would be highly underwhelmed, which is rather the idea.
Which once again demonstrates you dont understand the equipment or how a visual scan should work.
Really?
A visual scan involves dividing the sky into sectors and searching them methodically, and constantly. A visual scan involves ensuring that one's eyes are focused out of empty field myopia, that one is actually seeing where one looks, and searching near and far, high and low, one cockpit sector at a time with a continuous search.
When one's attention is needlessly diverted to a part of the sky where there is no traffic, one's scan is interrupted, and one may miss actual traffic while searching out and focusing on a phantom.
I give up - this is just complete nonesense.
Quite. You should have done that long ago, than drag out your emotional attachment to faulty equipment. Perhaps doing so might save someone else the wasted money on the Xaon unit in favor of more flight training and safety instruction; undoubtably a better investment.