---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 12/13/23: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 09:13 AM - RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone) 2. 09:49 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Charlie England) 3. 10:29 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone) 4. 10:43 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Rob Turk) 5. 10:58 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Matthew S. Whiting) 6. 11:06 AM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone) 7. 12:15 PM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Rob Turk) 8. 01:20 PM - Re: Re: CHT/EGT connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 01:35 PM - Re: RG-316 v RG-400 (Christopher Cee Stone) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 09:13:49 AM PST US From: Christopher Cee Stone Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316 performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400. Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same braided shield as the RG-400. Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316? Chris Stone Another RV ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:49:26 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emergency access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would certainly make running it easier in certain situations. Charlie On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316 > performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in > our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400. > Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same braide d > shield as the RG-400. > Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316? > > Chris Stone > Another RV > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:29:36 AM PST US From: Christopher Cee Stone Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 RG-316: Max power at 1.05 GHz is 125 Watts (I am using RG-400 for Xponder). ~350 Watts max power at comm frequencies. Attenuation at 0.15 Ghz (nominally comm freq) 0.096 db/ft (RG-400 @ .30 Ghz is 0.073 db/ft) RG-400 doesn't list attenuation below 300 Mhz). Nominal capacitance is almost identical, 97 v. 94 pf/m. Spec wise it looks good. Long runs to wingtip antennas save about 4 lb over RG-400. On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 9:51=AFAM Charlie England wrote: > Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about > transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emergen cy > access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would > certainly make running it easier in certain situations. > > Charlie > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone > wrote: > >> Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316 >> performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used in >> our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400. >> Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same >> braided shield as the RG-400. >> Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316? >> >> Chris Stone >> Another RV >> > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:43:44 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 From: Rob Turk WW91IG1heSB3YW50IHRvIGRvdWJsZS1jaGVjayB0aG9zZSB3ZWlnaHQgY2xhaW1zLiBJJ3ZlIHJl YWQgNSBzaGVldHMgZm9yIA0KUkctMzE2IGFuZCB0aGV5IGFsbCBjbGFpbSBzb21lIG90aGVyIHdl aWdodC4NCg0KT24gMTIvMTMvMjAyMyA3OjI4IFBNLCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBDZWUgU3RvbmUgd3Jv dGU6DQo+IFJHLTMxNjogTWF4IHBvd2VyIGF0IDEuMDUgR0h6IGlzIDEyNSBXYXR0cyAoSSBhbSB1 c2luZyBSRy00MDAgZm9yIA0KPiBYcG9uZGVyKS7CoCB+MzUwIFdhdHRzIG1heCBwb3dlciBhdCBj b21tIGZyZXF1ZW5jaWVzLiBBdHRlbnVhdGlvbiBhdCANCj4gMC4xNSBHaHogKG5vbWluYWxseSBj b21tIGZyZXEpIDAuMDk2IGRiL2Z0IChSRy00MDDCoEAgLjMwIEdoeiBpcyAwLjA3MyANCj4gZGIv ZnQpIFJHLTQwMCBkb2Vzbid0IGxpc3QgYXR0ZW51YXRpb24gYmVsb3cgMzAwIE1oeikuwqAgDQo+ IE5vbWluYWzCoGNhcGFjaXRhbmNlwqBpcyBhbG1vc3TCoGlkZW50aWNhbCwgOTcgdi4gOTQgcGYv bS4NCj4NCj4gU3BlYyB3aXNlIGl0IGxvb2tzIGdvb2QuwqAgTG9uZyBydW5zIHRvIHdpbmd0aXAg YW50ZW5uYXMgc2F2ZSBhYm91dCA0IA0KPiBsYiBvdmVyIFJHLTQwMC4NCj4NCj4NCj4gT24gV2Vk LCBEZWMgMTMsIDIwMjMgYXQgOTo1MeKAr0FNIENoYXJsaWUgRW5nbGFuZCA8Y2VlbmdsYW5kN0Bn bWFpbC5jb20+IA0KPiB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4gICAgIEFzc3VtaW5nIHRoZSBzYW1lIFJGIHNwZWNz IChpbmNsdWRpbmcgcG93ZXIgaGFuZGxpbmcsIGlmIHRhbGtpbmcNCj4gICAgIGFib3V0IHRyYW5z cG9uZGVyIHVzZTsgZGlkIHlvdSBjaGVjayB0aGF0PyksIHRoZSBiaWdnZXN0IGlzc3VlDQo+ICAg ICBtaWdodCBiZSBlbWVyZ2VuY3kgYWNjZXNzIHRvIGNvbm5lY3RvcnMgJiB0b29scyB0byByZXBh aXIgaXQuIFRoZQ0KPiAgICAgdGlueSBkaWFtZXRlciB3b3VsZCBjZXJ0YWlubHkgbWFrZSBydW5u aW5nIGl0IGVhc2llciBpbiBjZXJ0YWluDQo+ICAgICBzaXR1YXRpb25zLg0KPg0KPiAgICAgQ2hh cmxpZQ0KPg0KPiAgICAgT24gV2VkLCBEZWMgMTMsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTE6MTbigK9BTSBDaHJpc3Rv cGhlciBDZWUgU3RvbmUNCj4gICAgIDxydjhpYXRvckBnbWFpbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiAg ICAgICAgIExvb2tpbmfCoGF0IHRoZSBzcGVjcyBmb3IgYW50ZW5uYSBjb2F4IHRoZSBSRy0zMTYg diBSRy00MDAsIHRoZQ0KPiAgICAgICAgIFJHLTMxNiBwZXJmb3JtcyBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIFJHLTQw MCBmb3IgdGhlIHNob3J0IHJ1bnMgYW5kIFJGDQo+ICAgICAgICAgZnJlcXVlbmNpZXMgdXNlZCBp biBvdXIgT0JBTcKgYWlyY3JhZnQuwqAgVGhlIFJHLTMxNiBpcyAxLzQgdGhlDQo+ICAgICAgICAg d2VpZ2h0L2Z0IGFzIFJHLTQwMC4NCj4gICAgICAgICDCoE1lY2huaWNhbHkgdGhlIFJHLTMxNiB1 c2VzIHRoZSBzYW1lIGluc3VsYXRpb24gbWF0ZXJpYWxzIGFuZA0KPiAgICAgICAgIHNhbWUgYnJh aWRlZCBzaGllbGQgYXMgdGhlIFJHLTQwMC4NCj4gICAgICAgICBJcyB0aGVyZSBzb21ldGhpbmcg SSBhbSBtaXNzaW5nIGFzIHRvIHdoeSBJIHdvdWxkbid0IHVzZSBSRy0zMTY/DQo+DQo+ICAgICAg ICAgQ2hyaXMgU3RvbmUNCj4gICAgICAgICBBbm90aGVyIFJWDQo+DQo ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:58:57 AM PST US From: "Matthew S. Whiting" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:06:50 AM PST US From: Christopher Cee Stone Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as RG-400 6.4 kg/100m RG-316 1.6 kg/100m RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316 I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between manufacturers. ...chris On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:46=AFAM Rob Turk wrot e: > You may want to double-check those weight claims. I've read 5 sheets for > RG-316 and they all claim some other weight. > > On 12/13/2023 7:28 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > > RG-316: Max power at 1.05 GHz is 125 Watts (I am using RG-400 for > Xponder). ~350 Watts max power at comm frequencies. Attenuation at 0.15 > Ghz (nominally comm freq) 0.096 db/ft (RG-400 @ .30 Ghz is 0.073 db/ft) > RG-400 doesn't list attenuation below 300 Mhz). Nominal capacitance is > almost identical, 97 v. 94 pf/m. > > Spec wise it looks good. Long runs to wingtip antennas save about 4 lb > over RG-400. > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 9:51=AFAM Charlie England > wrote: > >> Assuming the same RF specs (including power handling, if talking about >> transponder use; did you check that?), the biggest issue might be emerge ncy >> access to connectors & tools to repair it. The tiny diameter would >> certainly make running it easier in certain situations. >> >> Charlie >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:16=AFAM Christopher Cee Stone < >> rv8iator@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Looking at the specs for antenna coax the RG-316 v RG-400, the RG-316 >>> performs as well as RG-400 for the short runs and RF frequencies used i n >>> our OBAM aircraft. The RG-316 is 1/4 the weight/ft as RG-400. >>> Mechnicaly the RG-316 uses the same insulation materials and same >>> braided shield as the RG-400. >>> Is there something I am missing as to why I wouldn't use RG-316? >>> >>> Chris Stone >>> Another RV >>> >> > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:15:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 From: Rob Turk You are right, it's indeed 1/4th the weight. I guess I looked at the wrong sheets. The attenuation is quite a bit different though. You lose half of your signal for every 3dB. I'm looking at Allied Wire & Cable: https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg316-coax-cable https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg400-coax-cable The PDFs list the attenuation at 100MHz to be 4.5 - 4.5dB /100ft for RG400 and 7.8-11.0 dB/100ft for RG316. Comm is 118-136MHz so a bit more attenuation for both types. With short runs this may be acceptable. For transponder use (1080MHz) the table lists up to 18 dB/100ft for RG400 and up to 38(!)dB/100ft for RG-316. That is substantial, Rob On 12/13/2023 8:06 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as > RG-400 6.4 kg/100m > RG-316 1.6 kg/100m > > RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316 > > I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between manufacturers. > > ...chris > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 01:20:04 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: CHT/EGT connectors At 09:27 AM 12/10/2023, you wrote: > >This is on my Experimental. I have no idea what brand of PIDG Alcor >used. The ones I purchased look identical. The A/P said these >connectors are used on all new planes. > Forgive me . . . 'PIDG' is a trademark of AMP, Inc., a legacy manufacturer of wire termination products going back nearly 100 years. It stands for "PreInsulated Diamond Grip" . . . a reference to the 3-piece, wire grip feature of this class of terminal. In fact, dozens of companies manufacture equivalent devices conforming to military specification MIL-T-7928. 'PIDG' has become the common name for the technology sorta like 'XEROX'. It represents the-best-we-know-how-to-do in mating a wire with a variety of terminations. The way you can tell a true PIDG device from knock-offs is the existence of a copper sleeve over the wire grip and under the insulation grip as shown in the attached illustration. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ In the interest of creative evolution of the-best-we-know-how-to-do based on physics and good practice. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:35:24 PM PST US From: Christopher Cee Stone Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-316 v RG-400 Rob... All good points and I appreciate your confirmation and critique. Xponder and GPS RG-400, Comm & Nav radios RG-316. I am on a weight diet... trying to keep unnecessary weight gain from getting away from target weight. I have all the dies for crimping RG-316 as it is nominally the same dimensions as RG-174. ...chris On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:18=AFPM Rob Turk wrot e: > > You are right, it's indeed 1/4th the weight. I guess I looked at the > wrong sheets. > > The attenuation is quite a bit different though. You lose half of your > signal for every 3dB. > I'm looking at Allied Wire & Cable: > https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg316-coax-cable > https://www.awcwire.com/rg-catalog/rg400-coax-cable > > The PDFs list the attenuation at 100MHz to be 4.5 - 4.5dB /100ft for > RG400 and 7.8-11.0 dB/100ft for RG316. Comm is 118-136MHz so a bit more > attenuation for both types. With short runs this may be acceptable. > > For transponder use (1080MHz) the table lists up to 18 dB/100ft for > RG400 and up to 38(!)dB/100ft for RG-316. That is substantial, > > Rob > > On 12/13/2023 8:06 PM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > > Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights as > > RG-400 6.4 kg/100m > > RG-316 1.6 kg/100m > > > > RG-400 is 4x the weight of RG-316 > > > > I would hope that the weight of cable is consistent between > manufacturers. > > > > ...chris > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.