On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Greg Fuchs <gregoryf.flyboy@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Fred,
> FWIW, I am using RG58 for all com purposes. Should be perfectly
adequate as long as its kept in good shape. Its light and cheap, so it
can be easily replaced someday.
> The XPNDR will have a better quality cable, but haven't got it yet.
Maybe there is a avionics shop around that you can find to be able to
buy the better stuff by the foot without going the $689.00 route? Thats
ridiculus! I've had food that's hard to swallow, that stuff makes one
want to choke. I would try to keep the RG400 to less than 8' 4" just to
save the expense.
Thanks Greg=85as for the RG393, Bob Nuckolls @ AeroElectric had this to
say:
> Who ever called out RG-393 for a general aviation
> antenna installation should be banished for 30 days
> to eat lunch at McDonalds. This stuff has a 10AWG
> center conductor and an outside diameter of 0.4"
>
> If the coax was FREE, you'd still have to find connectors
> and tools to install them . . . lots of $thrashing$ around
> just to get 1db of loss in a 10' run at GPS frequencies.
I=92m going to order some RG400 (M17/128) for my XPNDR=85and
keep it in the raceway alongside the 4AWG feeders to keep the run as
short as possible. In doing so, I am relying on my memory of an older
post of Bob=92s which stated, if I recall correctly, that there is NO
EVIDENCE of coax performance being compromised by adjacency to 12v power
feeders. (Nuckolls has confirmed that this is correct.)
And since my set up allows for swapping out the RG58 for my COM
antenna anytime, I think I may just leave it in for now and replace it
w/ RG400 only if problems show up.
I=92m having one of those days where I say, =93=85screw it=85I
want to get this puppy airborne=85=94
Fred
|