VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Glass Cockpit
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:19 AM
mikeyj350's Avatar
mikeyj350 mikeyj350 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA / USA
Posts: 159
Default Long transponder cable - RG-213 instead of RG-400?

(Posting here after some initial thoughts discussed in the RV-10 section.)

I'm trying to understand the requirements for installing a transponder antenna. I have a GTX45R and a CI-105 antenna. Due to some equipment changes (Originally I had planned for a separate GDL39R and GTX23ES), I have ended up with my GTX45R up in the panel and my CI-105 antenna in the tailcone, aft of the elevator bellcrank. I'm estimating about a 15' coax run for this configuration. I knew there was a *minimum* distance between the transponder and the antenna (3 feet physical separation), but I somehow missed and was unaware of a maximum distance until today. The GTX23ES manual actually does a much better job of explaining this than the GTX45R manual, but both do mention a maximum cable loss (the GTX23ES specifies 1.5dB and the GTX45R specifies 2.0dB).

Using various online calculators and spec sheets, I've pieced together some information on this setup, and would love some confirmation/advice/recommendations from the experts here:

(1) RG-400 and Amphenol 31-326-RFX connectors. This was the original plan, as it is the kind of cable I'm using for all other antennas in the airplane. With 250W at the transmitter and 15' of cable at 1090MHz, I lose 2.4dB over the cable, giving 143.8W at the antenna. This is below Garmin's 150W minimum power and 2.0dB maximum loss and is therefore not acceptable, I believe.

(2) RG-213 (MIL-C-17/74) with Amphenol 112562 connectors. Using the same calculators, this cable seems to have a 1.2dB loss over 15' at 1090MHz, giving 189.6W at the antenna, which is within spec. This cable also appears to be able to handle the necessary power (up to 270W).

So I guess my questions are: Can I use RG-213 for my long-ish transponder cable run? Is there another kind of cable that is an even better fit? Am I missing something else? Any other concerns with a 15-foot cable run?
__________________
Mike Jimenez & Sarah Hammonds
EAA Chapter 33 Prez & Soc Chair
Marion, IA USA

RV-10 In progress! (N165MJ reserved)
-Emp & Wings complete
-Panel wired up, working on Fuse & Finish
-Blog horribly outdated (sorry)
-Too many distractions, we will finish the plane someday!!!

http://mikeandsarahrv10.blogspot.com/
http://www.eaa33.org/

Last edited by mikeyj350 : 01-30-2017 at 10:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:38 AM
HarryL HarryL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Woking UK
Posts: 56
Default

I think you'd be better off with RG142: https://www.pasternack.com/images/Pr...F/RG142B-U.pdf

RG213 has a PVC jacket (no flame-resistant) and is pretty bulky. RG142 has pretty much replaced it in certified avionics and it has a dual screen braid.
__________________
Harry Lees
G-DOUZ. 120910.
60 hours so far. Loving it!
http://harrysrv.blogspot.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:47 AM
jdeas's Avatar
jdeas jdeas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 626
Default Frm GTX 330 manual

Watch out, some of the cables get really thick and connectors can be difficult to obtain $$


Max. Length (feet)---- ECS Type---- MIL-C-17 Type----- RG Type

8.8 ------------------------- M17/128----------------------------------RG400
10.0------------------------ 3C142B
12.5 ---------------------------------------------M17/112 -------------RG304
17.0 ------------------------311601---------- M17/127 ------------RG393
21.0 ------------------------311501
27.0 ------------------------311201
41.0 ------------------------310801
__________________
JD
----------------------
RV-7 N314SY (KWHP)
IO-360-B1B

CANbus based trim/flaps and electrical
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-30-2017, 11:25 AM
mikeyj350's Avatar
mikeyj350 mikeyj350 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA / USA
Posts: 159
Default

Thanks guys. I had considered RG142, however at least according to this calculator it doesn't meet the specs I'm after with respect to loss. (It's close, but still 2.1dB loss. Good point about the PVC jacket, too though.

As far as thickness and $$, yes that was considered as well. Cost-wise RG-213 isn't great but for one 15-ft run it's not going to break the bank. It is also quite a bit thicker than RG-400 (0.405" dia vs. 0.195"), but again for just one run that shouldn't be too big of a deal.

JD There is a similar chart in the GTX23ES manual as well, along with a note that says "Note that any 50 Ω, double shielded coaxial cable assembly that meets airworthiness requirements and the 1.5 dB maximum loss figure (including connectors) may be used."
__________________
Mike Jimenez & Sarah Hammonds
EAA Chapter 33 Prez & Soc Chair
Marion, IA USA

RV-10 In progress! (N165MJ reserved)
-Emp & Wings complete
-Panel wired up, working on Fuse & Finish
-Blog horribly outdated (sorry)
-Too many distractions, we will finish the plane someday!!!

http://mikeandsarahrv10.blogspot.com/
http://www.eaa33.org/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-30-2017, 01:27 PM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 798
Default

Would you not consider moving that Transponder antenna forward enough to satisfy the loss minimum? Most rod mounted antenna have a small single hole that would be easy to close up on a 10.
__________________
DRRhodes
2020 VAF Supporter
RV9 N908DR
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-30-2017, 02:22 PM
snopercod's Avatar
snopercod snopercod is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,104
Default L-com had RG-213 with BNC connectors

I was thinking that you wouldn't be able to use BNC connectors on RG-213 due to the diameter, but L-com stocks RG-213 cable assemblies with BNC straight connectors. $28 for a 15' cable. I'm not sure if they offer 90 degree ends, but you can call them and ask...or use an adapter.

I used RG-142B on my transponder, and be aware that it has a solid center conductor and is somewhat stiff.
__________________
(2020 dues paid)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-30-2017, 02:31 PM
Thermos's Avatar
Thermos Thermos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: KASH
Posts: 498
Default

Mike,

I went through the same trades and couldn't find any low-loss coax that wasn't expensive, thick, inflexible and/or readily available. So, I stayed with RG-400 and placed the antenna just behind the firewall, away from the exhaust and on the opposite side of the airplane from my GTX-45R which will be mounted under the subpanel. That location keeps the line and connector losses within Garmin's requirements but I'm probably on the ragged hairy edge of that 3-foot minimum - maybe the Garmin experts can chime in on the reason for that minimum distance?

That probably won't help solve your problem, but at least it's a data point.

Dave
__________________
Dave Setser
RV-7 N701ED FLYING!
Nashua, NH (KASH)

Last edited by Thermos : 01-30-2017 at 02:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-30-2017, 08:52 PM
mikeyj350's Avatar
mikeyj350 mikeyj350 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA / USA
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRhodes View Post
Would you not consider moving that Transponder antenna forward enough to satisfy the loss minimum? Most rod mounted antenna have a small single hole that would be easy to close up on a 10.
If I have to, I have to, but I'd really prefer not to, since I've already made the necessary cutouts and installed doublers not only for the transponder but for the CI-122 COM antenna. If I move the CI-105 up front, I will likely have to relocate my COM antenna as well. It's all doable, but it would be much easier and allow me to stick with the original layout if I can keep the transponder antenna in the back. I had even thought about installing the GTX45R in back, but with four RS232 runs and an ethernet cable run going all the way to the panel, I think I'm in better shape if I just have to run one fat antenna cable from the front to the back...

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopercod View Post
I was thinking that you wouldn't be able to use BNC connectors on RG-213 due to the diameter, but L-com stocks RG-213 cable assemblies with BNC straight connectors. $28 for a 15' cable. I'm not sure if they offer 90 degree ends, but you can call them and ask...or use an adapter.

I used RG-142B on my transponder, and be aware that it has a solid center conductor and is somewhat stiff.
Appreciate the info! I did actually check on that myself as well, I was planning on purchasing the cable in bulk and then getting the crimp connectors (Amphenol 112562) from Mouser or Digikey for around $8 apiece. The RG-213 actually does have a stranded center conductor, so hopefully it will still have some flexibility in spite of its thickness. I don't have any sharp bends or anything in any of my runs, so we should be all set. I'm really just curious if others have done something like this or not... From everything I've researched it sounds like it is acceptable, but it would be great if I found someone who actually did this already. One person brought up the PVC jacketing, that does raise a flag but I believe it is still an aviation-grade cable, so it must qualify in some way.

Thanks for all the responses and data points! I think I might reach out to the Garmin folks if I can't raise them on here and see what they have to say, and get a final thumbs-up or -down.
__________________
Mike Jimenez & Sarah Hammonds
EAA Chapter 33 Prez & Soc Chair
Marion, IA USA

RV-10 In progress! (N165MJ reserved)
-Emp & Wings complete
-Panel wired up, working on Fuse & Finish
-Blog horribly outdated (sorry)
-Too many distractions, we will finish the plane someday!!!

http://mikeandsarahrv10.blogspot.com/
http://www.eaa33.org/
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-31-2017, 06:23 AM
jdeas's Avatar
jdeas jdeas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 626
Default Caution using the chart data

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyj350 View Post
JD There is a similar chart in the GTX23ES manual as well, along with a note that says "Note that any 50 Ω, double shielded coaxial cable assembly that meets airworthiness requirements and the 1.5 dB maximum loss figure (including connectors) may be used."
Using the chart, I did a 15ft run. It worked for the 330 but after replacing the 330 with a Dynon (for ADSB)The unit would not pass a mode S test. I had to relocated the Trig to fix the problem.
__________________
JD
----------------------
RV-7 N314SY (KWHP)
IO-360-B1B

CANbus based trim/flaps and electrical
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:45 AM
Mike F's Avatar
Mike F Mike F is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: T67 Hicks Airfield, Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 98
Default RG-393

I've used RG-393 in a couple of larger aircraft (not RV's). It has the same physical qualities as RG-400 (double shield, silver plate, FEP jacket - not PVC) but a larger diameter (same as RG-213 I believe). It is expensive, I pay around $6/ft. At 1000 MHz, 15' has a 1.125 dB loss.
__________________
Mike Ferrer
A&P/IA - North Texas Avionics
RV-7 QB - Finish Kit / N772RV <Sold>
Hicks Airfield T67
Fort Worth, Texas
--- and sometimes ---
Pittstown Point - MYCP
Crooked Island, Bahamas

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. 2018 DUES PAID

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.