 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rv8iator
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
Location: Newberg, OR
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:13 am Post subject: 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
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
C. Stone (RV8iator) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ceengland
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Posts: 381
Location: MS
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:49 am Post subject: 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 AM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com (rv8iator(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
Charlie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv8iator
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
Location: Newberg, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:29 am Post subject: 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 (at) .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 AM Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com (ceengland7(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 AM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com (rv8iator(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
|
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
C. Stone (RV8iator) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matronics(at)rtist.nl
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:43 am Post subject: RG-316 v RG-400 |
|
|
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:
| Quote: | 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 (at) .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 AM Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com (ceengland7(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 AM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com (rv8iator(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
|
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 30 Jun 2020
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:58 am Post subject: RG-316 v RG-400 |
|
|
The biggest issues with copper clad steel conductor rather than all copper is susceptibility to corrosion if the exposed to moisture and attenuation at DC for applications like satellite where power is transferred through the cable in addition to signal. Also, CCS cable is tough on cutting tools so don’t you your finest cutters to cut the cable.
RG-316 is probably fine for use in most airplane applications, though I wouldn’t use it for GPS antennas given their low signal levels and need to minimize attenuation. RG-316 has substantially higher attenuation than RG-400.
If you install outdoor style weather proof connectors, you can probably keep moisture away from the cut end of the steel conductor and avoid corrosion issues a decade or so down the road.
You must be running several runs to the wingtips to save 4 lbs. I show 60’ of RG400 to weigh about 3 lbs (using 50 lbs /1,000’) and 60’ of RG316 to weight about 0.7 lbs for a weigh saving of 2.3 lbs for two runs to the wingtips. It would take more than 100’ of coax to yield a 4lb weight saving.
Makes me glad that my antennas are all fuselage mounted with short cable runs where RG400 isn’t a problem either for weight or bend radius.
Matt
Sent from my iPad
| Quote: | On Dec 13, 2023, at 1:31 PM, Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> 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 (at) .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 AM Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com (ceengland7(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 AM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com (rv8iator(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
|
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
rv8iator
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
Location: Newberg, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 11:06 am Post subject: RG-316 v RG-400 |
|
|
Huber+Suhner(Mouser) lists weights asRG-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 AM Rob Turk <matronics(at)rtist.nl (matronics(at)rtist.nl)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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:
| Quote: | 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 (at) .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 AM Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com (ceengland7(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 AM Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com (rv8iator(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
|
|
|
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
C. Stone (RV8iator) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matronics(at)rtist.nl
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 12:15 pm Post subject: RG-316 v RG-400 |
|
|
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:
| Quote: | 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
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
rv8iator
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
Location: Newberg, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 1:35 pm Post subject: 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 PM Rob Turk <matronics(at)rtist.nl (matronics(at)rtist.nl)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Turk <matronics(at)rtist.nl (matronics(at)rtist.nl)>
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
>
===========
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
C. Stone (RV8iator) |
|
| 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
