X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:04:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.56.75] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7) with ESMTP id 962156 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:01:35 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.56.75; envelope-from=lsmith541@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:56:59 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 71.32.254.4 by BAY101-DAV3.phx.gbl with DAV; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:56:58 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [71.32.254.4] X-Originating-Email: [lsmith541@msn.com] X-Sender: lsmith541@msn.com From: "LEON SMITH" X-Original-To: "LancairList" Subject: Antenna Lead X-Original-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:56:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C6264C.AACCDB40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:56:55 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2006 17:56:59.0615 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB987EF0:01C6268F] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C6264C.AACCDB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C6264C.AACCDB40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Quick question for the avionics gurus.

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

Thanks,

Leon Smith

LNCE N63LS

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C6264C.AACCDB40--