I was about to jump on you and disagree. However, I found this on the Times
Cable site:
CABLE DESIGNATIONS
Cables that are manufactured to MIL-C-17 specifications no
longer carry the RG designation. For example, RG-214 has been
replaced by M17/75-RG214. In the future, any new cable design
will be designated by an M17 part number only. In addition to the
M17 number, all cables are marked with the manufacturer’s name
and government identification number, for example,“M17/75-
RG214, MIL-C-17, Times Microwave Systems, 68999 AA-3409”
Cables that are not marked with this information are not qualified
and there is no guarantee of their performance.
MIL-C-17 QPL LISTING
Only qualified cables should be used for military contracts. All
manufacturers of MIL-C-17 cables must obtain qualification ap-
proval for their cables. The qualified products are then listed in
QPL-17 which is updated periodically throughout the year.
Please note that all RG numbered cables have been cancelled
from MIL-C-17 and only cables with part numbers starting “MIL/
17” should be used for new military contracts. Since there is no
longer any control of “RG” specifications, many cables on the
market with RG designations may be completely different in con-
struction and performance.
On 8/30/2016 3:34 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On Tue,8/30/2016 11:54 AM, Matt Lovewell wrote:
I would use RG-213. Quite a bit more flexible and durable.
RG-213 is not a cable spec, it's a generic description that primarily defines
Zo and approximate size.
I think Davis RF BuryFlex would be a great choice for this application.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|