X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:21:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7) with ESMTP id 963106 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:19:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.144.208; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.df.24939602 (3866) for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:18:11 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:18:10 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Antenna Lead X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1138771090" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5300 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1138771090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/31/2006 11:05:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, lsmith541@msn.com writes: ATC reports the #2 com in my ES is weak (compared to #1) even after having it checked out by the manufacturer. Number 1 uses RSG/400 (or is it RGS/400?) while the number 2 uses the old RG/58 for the ant lead in. Could this be the problem? The RG/58 is accessible except for the last 2 ft. near the ant in the vert stab. Can I leave the 2 ft of RG/58 and replace the remainder with the 400? Will the transition from one to the other create a reflection problem due to differing impedances? Or should I just leave it alone and put up with it? Leon, Your description implies that you have two comm antennae. What is the orientation and composition of each? Can you switch which radio goes to which antenna? If so, doe the problem follow the antenna or the radio? BTW I have some mixed RG58 and 400 in antenna lines to an antenna switch and then RG 58 back to the tail. The only problem has been the leaky RG 58. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) -------------------------------1138771090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 1/31/2006 11:05:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 lsmith541@msn.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DVerdana color=3D#000000 siz= e=3D2>

ATC reports the #2 com in my ES is weak (compared to #1) even af= ter=20 having it checked out by the manufacturer. Number 1 uses RSG/400 (or= is=20 it RGS/400?) while the number 2 uses the old RG/58 for the ant lead in.&nb= sp;=20 Could this be the problem? The RG/58 is accessible except for the la= st 2=20 ft. near the ant in the vert stab. Can I leave the 2 ft of RG/58 and= =20 replace the remainder with the 400? Will the transition from one to=20= the=20 other create a reflection problem due to differing impedances? Or sh= ould=20 I just leave it alone and put up with it?

Leon,

Your description implies that you have two comm antennae. What is= the=20 orientation and composition of each? Can you switch which radio g= oes=20 to which antenna? If so, doe the problem follow the antenna or the=20 radio?

BTW I have some mixed RG58 and 400 in antenna lines to an antenna switc= h=20 and then RG 58 back to the tail. The only problem has been the leaky R= G=20 58.

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

-------------------------------1138771090--