VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:16 AM
macrafic's Avatar
macrafic macrafic is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 420
Default Comant CI-507 diplexer vs RAMI AV-570 Coupler

These units both seem to do the same thing; allow a Nav antenna's signal to be broken into VOR/LOC and Glideslope for feeding into NAV units such as the Garmin 430. Yet, there is a significant price difference between the two.

What is the difference? Anybody have experience with either/both? Is this a case where "you get what you pay for"?
__________________
Rich and Cindy Macrafic
Rochester, MN
Flying
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2010, 04:29 PM
roee roee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 770
Default Diplexer vs. coupler

No experience with these particular two models, but there's a fundamental difference between a diplexer and a coupler in how they split the received signal. VOR/LOC signals are in the 108-118 MHz band, while GS signals are in the 329-335 MHz band. A diplexer ideally directs all the energy in the 108-118 MHz band to the VOR/LOC port, and all the energy in the 329-335 MHz band to the GS port. So in the ideal case, both VOR/LOC and GS receivers should receive the same signal level as if they each had their own antenna. A simple coupler on the other hand just splits the signal between the two ports without discriminating in frequency, so even in the ideal case each receiver will only receive the signal at half strength. Bottom line: a diplexer gives better performance than a coupler.
__________________
Roee Kalinsky
San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
RV-7A under construction
www.kalinskyconsulting.com/rvproj/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-10-2010, 04:57 PM
roee roee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 770
Default

P.S. ...and to quantify "better performance": in the ideal case a diplexer should give you about 41% longer range than a coupler.
__________________
Roee Kalinsky
San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
RV-7A under construction
www.kalinskyconsulting.com/rvproj/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:16 PM
roee roee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 770
Default

P.P.S. I looked up the specs on both of these, and they are actually both diplexers. The CI-507 however specifies a max insertion loss of 0.5 dB where as the AV-570 specifies a max insertion loss of 1.0 dB. That 0.5 dB difference would translate to a difference in range of about 6% in favor of the CI-507.
__________________
Roee Kalinsky
San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
RV-7A under construction
www.kalinskyconsulting.com/rvproj/
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 01:42 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.