Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:51 am Post subject: RG

I was told about 10 years ago that RG 400 was a replacement for RG 58 and had better shielding and less of a line loss.



Can anyone verify? I used in my airplane and it has been flawless. I have talked to other aircraft as far away as 250 miles.



Bobby



Do Not Archive

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

rampil

Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 870

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:05 am Post subject: Re: RG

Yes.



You can google coax specs to confirm

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Ira N224XS

billp(at)wwpc.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:58 am Post subject: RG

RG-58 is vinyl covered and when it burns it produces stuff you don't     want to breath. RG-400 is Teflon inside and out so it burns at a     much higher temperature. RG-58 has become a coaxial type that is     more of a commodity and manufacturers seem to take the spec as a     suggetion. I think when someone says "RG-58 type coaxial" in their     literature they mean it's roughly 50 ohms and the standard diameter.     I've seen some "RG-58" that had pretty bad construction. Very low     percentage shielding. Sometimes tinned shield braid sometimes not.     It's all over the map. RG-400 is a lot more consistent and is really     well shielded. If you are trying to keep noise out or RF in I think     the RG-400 is the way to go. My airplane is so old it has some RG-58     in it but that RG-58 was made in a time when the military spec still     meant something. Now I'm using RG-400 for all the new installations.

      	  Quote: 	
		  Bill Putney - WB6RFW (Extra-lite)

Chief Engineer

KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA



FAA PP-SEL, A&P/IA



"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper 	
     On 3/31/16 04:50,       BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net (BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net) wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		                  I was told about 10 years ago           that RG 400 was a replacement for RG 58 and had better           shielding and less of a line loss.

         

         Can anyone verify? I used in my           airplane and it has been flawless. I have talked to other           aircraft as far away as 250 miles.

         

         

         

         Bobby

         

         Do Not Archive

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:50 am Post subject: RG

At 06:50 AM 3/31/2016, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I was told about 10 years ago that RG 400 was a replacement for RG 58 and had better shielding and less of a line loss.

 Can anyone verify? I used in my airplane and it has been flawless. I have talked to other aircraft as far away as 250 miles.



 Bobby

 Do Not Archive 	


    Signal loss in the legacy coax style is

    not a significant factor in GA aircraft.

    We just don't have long runs of coax that

    tend to stack up signal losses.



    RG-400/141/142 and cousins are modern insulation

    much more resistant to environmental effects

    and easier to solder. They're also double-shielded

    which offers a TINY but insignificant improvement

    in performance. These coaxes are much more expensive

    but not a significant boost in final cost of the

    project. 



    There are some lower cost coax products half

    way between RG400/141/142 and RG-58 that used

    lower temperature insulations but are very

    good performance for our purposes . . . but

    they are fussier to work with for installing

    connectors.



    If it were my airplane, I'd go with the more

    exotic insulations in the 400/141/142 family.

    Robust, easy to work with, and dozens of sources

    on eBay for small quantities.



    But if you have RG58 on hand or already installed

    and its working . . . don't sweat it.



 

 

   Bob . . .

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum