On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:29:14 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

This is only one of several places this discussion is happening, and I get
constant reference to both positive and negatives on 400, 8x, 58, 142, 9913,
and a few others...

400 is too big, too heavy and too inflexible. I think you know that.
I've also heard bad things about water intrusion but I have used it
successfully on our boat for short runs to WiFi antennas which operate
at *much* higher frequencies than marine VHF (max about 162 MHz).

8x is highly susceptible to water intrusion.

58 is cheap junk suitable only for short runs in non-critical
applications.

142 (MIL spec variety) I like and have had good experience in the
past, no need to belabor those points. Have you heard any negatives
other than price?

9913 I have no experience with but I'm pretty sure it does not have
teflon insulation or silver plated conductors.

Here's a brief comparison from a respected source:

http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/...-net/coax.html

They don't mention 142 for some reason, perhaps because of price or
availability but I don't know.

I'm trying to understand your issue with the Metz antenna that
required extra connectors. I've had several Metz over the years and
don't recall having that problem. I believe the Metx comes with a
small "L" shaped bracket that mounts to the side on the mast, and the
female connector on the bottom of the coil goes through the top of the
"L" and is held in place with a thin lock nut. The top of your coax
should be terminated with a male PL-259 connector that hooks right up
with the Metz female connector protruding through the "L" bracket.
Make sure that top connection is well taped and sealed. I like to
use several layers of self-sticking silicone tape topped off with more
layers of white vinyl rigging tape to provide UV protection.

What am I missing ?