Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:58 PM - RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 ()
2. 05:07 PM - Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? (jetboy)
3. 08:38 PM - Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 (Wayne Sweet)
4. 09:42 PM - Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? ()
5. 11:35 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 (Gilles Thesee)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
5/13/2007
Hello Dean,
You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
transponder or GPS? Or both?"
I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material. RG
400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people favor
RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance to
flexing fatigue failure.
RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as BNC.
There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
airplane -- with good reason I think.
Look at RG 58 here:
http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
RG 400 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
And Rg 142 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------
Time: 11:07:05 PM PST US
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 coax.
I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Final wiring tasks.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? |
The Icom is a KY97a internally and is what I use. An excellent radio if you have
the panel space. I have worked on Icom, Microair, Becker and Xcom installations
lately.
In NZ the transponder system has been changed to better accomodate mode S and this
has caused a recall of all Microair transponders for "upgrade". Shades of
the 'Terra vanishing problem'? that blighted a perfectly compliant transponder
at the time and pretty much set up the demise of Terra. I corresponded with Microair
about this problem but they dont seem to agree that they've been shafted
(maybe they havent - perhaps they never studied the Terra problem) so they
are on their own. Upgrades are at owners expense.
Therefore for the transponder I would fit Becker or Garmin. If, like myself, its
preferred to keep with one brand suite, consider the Garmin SL40 as your com.
Its got the weather channel receive capability and VOX intercom built in that
some of the others lack.
Regards, Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112655#112655
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
FWIW (a lot if a 430W is involved), Garmin requires RG400 coax when
upgrading to a GNS430/530W along with a new (different) antenna. And, a
gotcha, the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Also if one is contemplating upgrading their 430/530, the antenna's come
with a TNC connector vice a BNC, another gotcha.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
<dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
>
> 5/13/2007
>
> Hello Dean,
>
> You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
> transponder or GPS? Or both?"
>
> I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
>
> RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material.
> RG 400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people
> favor RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance
> to flexing fatigue failure.
>
> RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as
> BNC. There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
> airplane -- with good reason I think.
>
> Look at RG 58 here:
>
> http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
>
> RG 400 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
> And Rg 142 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
>
> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Time: 11:07:05 PM PST US
> From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
>
>
> When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
> ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142
> coax.
> I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
> transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
> the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
> for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Final wiring tasks.
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? |
Hi James,
Can you elaborate on the Becker unit a bit? I have both the radio and
transponder from Microair but I am not happy with the radio and was
actually trying to decide if I should buy a Becker as I would like to
use the existing panel space. \
Thanks
Franz RV7A-60h
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
berkut13@berkut13.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
I sure can...I've installed and used both in the same aircraft.
Stay AWAY from the Microair transponder, they do not work well in the
US. The Microair radio is fine, but the A200 is a superior unit. I
love that A200.
I have since parted with both Microair products and replaced them with
Becker units - the best equipment available for a 2.25 hole.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Don <mailto:donmorrisey@hotmail.com> Morrisey
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Hello Listers:
Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a
decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to hear
back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, distance on
reception and transmission and just general overall quality of the
hardware.
If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their transponder.
If I went with The Icom I would probably go with a Garmin GTX 327
transponder.
Thanks for the help. Don....
www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/>
Don Morrisey's Skunkworks
_____
Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check
it out!
<http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&
ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
<w_sweet@comcast.net>
> the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Wayne,
I installed a Garmin 400 series in our project with RG400 and regular
"RG58" connectors. Works great.
And yes, the connector at the unit end is a TNC, but the installation
technique is the same as a BNC.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|