Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:07:05 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-963598@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=166.82.201.14; envelope-from=jschroeder@perigee.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Antenna Lead
References: <list-963046@logan.com>
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <list-963046@logan.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3929)

Leon -

What antennas are you using and where is the number two antenna. We aren't  
flying yet, but it would be nice to know your installation. We used all  
RG400 on al antennas, except for short pigtails of RG58 on the antenna  
ends of the antennas in the wings (Bob Archer VOR in the right wing and a  
homemade copper foil glideslope and homemade VOR in the left wing). Both  
comms have RG 400 all the way. #1 comm is a Bob Archer in the vertical fin  
and comm 2 is one of his "E" shaped antennas on the right wall of the  
baggage compartment.

You might want to post this on the AeroElectric list for Bob Nuckolls to  
see.

Thanks,

John


On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:04:55 -0500, LEON SMITH <lsmith541@msn.com> wrote:

> Quick question for the avionics gurus.
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Leon Smith
> LNCE N63LS


--