LMR240 carries less cable loss than LMR200 at the same frequency and length, while LMR200 uses less routing space and accepts a tighter installation bend. For a medium length RF run, the decision depends on how much link margin the lower loss cable recovers and whether the larger cable fits the enclosure, cable path, connector body, and strain relief. A fixed length limit does not separate the two models.
LMR200 and LMR240 at a Glance
Both cables are 50 ohm flexible low loss coaxial cables with shielding effectiveness above 90 dB. Their electrical purpose is similar, but their physical size and attenuation are different enough to affect a medium length run.
LMR200 has an outside diameter of 4.95 mm and an installation bend radius of 12.7 mm. LMR240 increases the outside diameter to 6.10 mm and the installation bend radius to 19.05 mm.
| Item | LMR200 | LMR240 |
|---|---|---|
| Impedance | 50 ohm | 50 ohm |
| Outside diameter | 4.95 mm | 6.10 mm |
| Installation bend radius | 12.7 mm | 19.05 mm |
| Repeated bend radius | 50.8 mm | 63.5 mm |
| Approx. cable weight | 0.03 kg/m | 0.05 kg/m |
| Shielding effectiveness | >90 dB | >90 dB |
The diameter increase is about 1.15 mm, but the installation impact can be larger than that number suggests. The connector rear body, crimp ferrule, boot, cable gland, clamp, and minimum bend clearance also become larger. A route that comfortably accepts LMR200 may place LMR240 close to a panel edge or force a bend immediately behind the connector.
How Much Loss Does LMR240 Save?
The loss advantage of LMR240 grows with both frequency and length. At 900 MHz, the typical cable attenuation is 32.6 dB per 100 m for LMR200 and 24.8 dB per 100 m for LMR240. At 2500 MHz, the values increase to 55.4 and 42.4 dB per 100 m. At 5800 MHz, they reach 86.5 and 66.8 dB per 100 m.
The table below converts the published cable attenuation into the signal loss recovered by changing from LMR200 to LMR240. These figures cover the cable itself. Connector loss, adaptors, temperature, assembly workmanship, and measurement uncertainty are outside the calculation.
| Frequency | Saved at 5 m | Saved at 10 m | Saved at 15 m |
|---|---|---|---|
| 900 MHz | 0.39 dB | 0.78 dB | 1.17 dB |
| 1800 MHz | 0.55 dB | 1.10 dB | 1.65 dB |
| 2500 MHz | 0.65 dB | 1.30 dB | 1.95 dB |
| 5800 MHz | 0.99 dB | 1.97 dB | 2.96 dB |
At the lower end of the frequency range, a short medium run may show less than 0.5 dB difference. The same cable change can recover around 1 to 2 dB when the frequency or length increases.
That recovered margin can matter in a link with limited transmit power, weak received signal, multiple connector transitions, or little allowance for installation loss.
When LMR200 Is Enough
LMR200 fits a medium length run when its calculated cable loss remains inside the link budget and the installation benefits from a smaller cable.
It is often a practical option near the lower end of the run length, at lower operating frequencies, or inside compact equipment where a 6.10 mm cable creates routing or connector clearance problems.
- The LMR200 cable loss leaves adequate margin after connector and adaptor losses are included.
- The cable passes through small glands, narrow channels, or dense internal routing.
- The route contains bends that fit the 12.7 mm installation radius but do not provide comfortable clearance for LMR240.
- The saved loss from LMR240 is small compared with the available system margin.
The smaller cable is not automatically the lower cost choice after installation. A special connector, difficult termination, or repeated rework can offset the cable saving.
When LMR240 Is Worth the Larger Size
LMR240 becomes more attractive as the run moves toward higher frequencies or longer lengths. The lower attenuation is easier to justify when the saved loss reaches a meaningful part of the remaining link margin.
A 10 m run at 2500 MHz saves about 1.30 dB compared with LMR200. At 5800 MHz, the same length saves about 1.97 dB.
- The run operates in a higher frequency band where the attenuation gap grows quickly.
- The length is near the upper end of the planned route and later extension is possible.
- The receiver sensitivity or transmit power margin is limited.
- The enclosure and cable path provide enough bend clearance, support, and connector space for the larger cable.
LMR240 is also useful when the assembly has several unavoidable loss contributors. These may include a bulkhead interface, a right angle connector, an adaptor, or a short flexible pigtail.
A Simple Selection Rule for Medium-Length Runs
The selection can be reduced to two questions: how much loss does LMR240 recover over the actual run, and does the larger cable fit the available route without creating a mechanical problem?
Start by looking at the attenuation at your actual operating frequency, instead of using a generic reference point. Then take the difference between the two cables and multiply it by your planned cable length to see how much loss LMR240 can save.
If the recovered loss is small compared with the remaining link margin, LMR200 may be sufficient and easier to install. If the recovered loss accounts for a meaningful part of the available margin, LMR240 becomes easier to justify.
The electrical benefit must then be checked against the physical route. Confirm the available cable diameter, bend clearance, cable entry angle, and straight space behind the connector. LMR240 should not be selected if the installation requires it to be compressed, kinked, or bent below its specified radius.
FAQ
Conclusion
LMR240 is easier to justify when a medium length RF run operates at a higher frequency, extends toward the upper end of the planned length, or needs additional loss margin. LMR200 remains the practical choice when its calculated attenuation fits the link budget and the installation benefits from a smaller diameter and tighter bend radius. For a custom LMR200 or LMR240 cable assembly, the operating frequency, cable length, interface configuration, routing limits, and required insertion loss can be shared with the Bafitop team for specification confirmation.