----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Thanks for the info. IIRC, I read that RG400
is now specified for aircraft radio installations, and especially GPS
antenna. Expensive, yes! And actually a specified BNC
connector. The connectors for the 58 won't fit making the job a bit
more expensive, too!
Al
> ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
> advice in this forum.]----
>
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I looked up RG-400 and found
> it's a very well designed cable, silver
> plated and all, easy to solder to, but very expensive $1.80 a foot.
> It's
> great for some uses but aircraft RF is ok but not it's forte'.
> It's loss at 100 mhz is 4.5 db and at 1000 Mhz 18.8 db. If it were
> given to me, I would use (nav/com only) it since we only use 10 feet
> or so but I wouldn't
> spend the money. RG-58 the mil spec stuff, not
> the junk, is 4.5 db at 100 Mhz and 17.0 db at 1000 Mhz. I would not use
> it. RG-8X is 3.1db at 100 and 11.2 db at 1000 Mhz at 1/5th the cost. I
> guess
> I'm just splitting hairs since we use short runs of it but a
> tenth of a db could make the difference in long range communication.
> Using any of this stuff for transponder or DME is a crime. Lose 3db and
> you've
> lost half your power and in bad WX it will mean the difference
> between being seen and not. I always try to squeeze every db I can out
> of a system. They do add up. The manufacturers used to specify RG-8
> style low loss cables (RG-213 7.6
============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
