RP-TNC / TNC, why not more popular in Amateur Radio?

[sonoronos]

I recently got done working on a system with some Persistent MPU5's and FRPA GPS antennas. All of the connectors were RP-TNC or TNC.

A quick comparison of the TNC's against N connectors from this Amphenol Flyer (https://www.mouser.com/pdfdocs/AmphenolRuggedBrochure.pdf) doesn't show much of a difference in the two connectors. Obviously, the N connectors are larger in diameter than the TNC's, but other than that...?

I come across Type N's in the Amateur world quite a bit (although not as common as PL-259 and SO-239) but I've never seen an RP-TNC or TNC used before (heck, everyone I know in Amateur Radio thinks TNC stands for Terminal Node Controller ). Is there a reason for this? Just convention?

 

[DaveInDenver]

Would be nice to see better connectors like the TNC in ham radio. I think the downside to the TNC is that it's a fairly complex connector mechanically and doesn't offer enough to justify in many cases.

The N handles slightly more power and will tolerate large coax and hard line a little better, so for high power, base installs that's where you go. If not a 7/16" DIN.

For mobile radios the N size is still acceptable and saves you a little budget when you're not on a military or government contract.

For portable radios the TNC would be nice for its robustness but the SMA and BNC get you acceptable performance and offer the smaller size and less stress on the case or PCB. Portable radios is probably where TNC would make the most sense in ham radio but even Motorola etc don't use them on commercial gear, preferring SMA or similar dimension proprietary.

Of them all the only one I don't like as much is BNC as an antenna. I run them for convenience but it frustrates me every time an antenna rotates and falls off. The BNC is a lab or shack connector. For things that don't get moved the bayonet is great.

The bottom line all of them blow away the UHF, which needs to just fade into history.