 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cbirdsall6(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:18 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead |
 |
|
The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age,
corrosion). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough
corrosion on the antenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking
about replacing the antenna. So, I have the following questions:
Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun
and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the
balun in the antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost
and having to spend a short amount of time making the balun ...)
Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the
antenna lead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I
could simply cut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC
connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.)
I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the
bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the
existing antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors
in the antenna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a
significant loss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$
and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run?
Radios are 2x KX170B w/additional GS receiver, single 1-in / 3-out
splitter divides between them.
Thanks,
Chuck
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:47 am Post subject: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead |
|
|
At 01:15 2014-11-11, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net>
The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age, corrosion). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough corrosion on the antenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking about replacing the antenna. So, I have the following questions:
Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the balun in the antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost and having to spend a short amount of time making the balun ...)
I presume that the antenna configuration being considered for replacement has bee functioning satisfactorily. It's a toss up between the two antennas for performance. Baluns are not hard to build but the antenna with the built in matching is fitted with a BNC connector. Much 'cleaner' termination of coax than ring terminals.
Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the antenna lead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I could simply cut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.)
Not that you can tell from the pilot's seat. It would probably work just fine.
I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the existing antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors in the antenna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a significant loss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$ and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run?
If you're doing the work yourself, the $risks$ are low. Carry out the experiment and tell us what you discover. "Corrosion" on the stock 'whiskers' is cosmetic and easily cleaned off to effect connection to a new balun. You can fabricate the balun on the end of enough coax to make the run into better environments where the RG-58 is in better shape and splice in with BNC-CM/CF pair. It's a $low$, low risk experiment with good odds of working just fine.
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbirdsall6(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:15 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead |
|
|
Thanks! I'll try making a baling with the RG400 I have first and report back.
Chuck
On Nov 11, 2014, at 07:46, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
At 01:15 2014-11-11, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net (cbirdsall6(at)cox.net)>
The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age, corrosion). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough corrosion on the antenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking about replacing the antenna. So, I have the following questions:
Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the balun in the antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost and having to spend a short amount of time making the balun ...)
I presume that the antenna configuration being considered for replacement has bee functioning satisfactorily. It's a toss up between the two antennas for performance. Baluns are not hard to build but the antenna with the built in matching is fitted with a BNC connector. Much 'cleaner' termination of coax than ring terminals.
Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the antenna lead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I could simply cut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.)
Not that you can tell from the pilot's seat. It would probably work just fine.
I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the existing antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors in the antenna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a significant loss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$ and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run?
If you're doing the work yourself, the $risks$ are low. Carry out the experiment and tell us what you discover. "Corrosion" on the stock 'whiskers' is cosmetic and easily cleaned off to effect connection to a new balun. You can fabricate the balun on the end of enough coax to make the run into better environments where the RG-58 is in better shape and splice in with BNC-CM/CF pair. It's a $low$, low risk experiment with good odds of working just fine.
Bob . . . [quote]
[b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
