I think its time the 91x series needs also extended into 92x or 93x series with PoE in AND PoE out to replace rb4xx boards.

Many installations have one rb43x boards in a box attached to antennas. In upgrading your network to 'ac' standards and also to work with higher power levels is not possible unless you re-design the whole setup;
1. There are no HP radio's (+30dBm duo chain) that fit these boards.
2. These boards are usually 100Mb ethernet
3. These boards are max. cpu 680MHz

If you want 720Mhz cpu the only same form factor is the RB953GS-5HnT(-RP) but it has 'n' radio only! AND SMPA (RP-SMPA) connectors! Why this change????

If the radio would be 'ac' it would be very nice!
If it now also could be made available with 2 ('D' version)/3x mmcx connectors it could immediately be used for fast and easy upgrade of existing rb43x boards in backhauls and AP's without the need of replacing boxes, fit new cables etc. etc. 80% of my AP's and Backhauls are made of these rb43x boards and I presume so is with many other operators...
Would make a big upgrade item with high sales!

Since many towers have rb43x series in use with more than one ethernet port in use the only other alternative is to build in same box two rb91x boards. This now need more space, consume more power and also therefore need a second power feed. (Hence my suggestion of a PoE-OUT port on such new 92x or 93x board.)
Plus each cable is a point of failure so I would have preferred a one board solution.

No, imho a RB953G-5SHPac(D/)T with (2/)3x MMCX connector and 128Mb would make it the perfect form factor replacement board for upgrading your network to the latest and highest standard.
"Beat the competition!"

OmniTIK:

1. 7,5dBi duo chain??
2. 26dBm??
3. 400Mhz??
4. 64Mb??
5. 802.11a/n?
6. Only ethernet?

When do we see them replaced with:

1. Possible 8-10dBi range duo chain.
2. 30dBm radio
3. 720Mhz cpu
4. 128Mb
5. 802.11a/n/ac
6. Gigabit ports (with and/or without PoE) (And proper grounding screw or nut! Very important!)

Note:
1. The higher gain would make it a better 'sender' (projects higher signal at client. CPE nowadays are very powerful, but it is the signal 'towards' the client that needs highest signal, thus higher throughput = download). Better micro print antenna would still fit in existing housing. Or slightly higher housing wouldn't harm no one I'd think....

2. For the same reason as "1." we need to deliver more power to the client. Not the otherway around.

3. If higher speeds are set to clients and/or more clients a faster cpu would help.

4. More is better

5. Who works still with 'a'? And in congested spectral areas, 'ac' is definitely needed, just to stay out of the 'a' & 'n' interferences. (Also; 'ac' usually means new chipset = better. 20Mhz 'ac' is therefore better than 20Mhz 'n')

6. Higher speeds to many clients need higher cable throughput. Usually this is done with ftp cable that needs proper grounding.

If now such new high power/high capacity OmniTIK would get heat issues; Make the same in metal form and you get as bonus the extra shield against external radio noise!

This new OmniTIK (U)PA.5HPacD would make it a perfect replacement for existing OmniTIK's and also a nice companion for the new SXT-ac range of CPE's.

Such an high power OmniTik would also make it a perfect solution for city wide mesh (wds) network deployment.
For fixed installations it means one frequency can cover all.

Combine each with a 2,4ghz duo or triple chain AP (2,4Ghz OmniTik is been asked for many times) and you can build the perfect city wide network for mobile devices.

2,4Ghz OmniTik is still a good idea for remote locations were trees and mountains make a 5Ghz system having a hard time....

I am for better directional antennas and link planning instead of bigger power with bigger omni antennas in wds mode.

I am for better directional antennas and link planning instead of bigger power with bigger omni antennas in wds mode.

You have the QRT? But they are expensive.
It is just the fact that the directional client units (SXT, SEXTANT, even QRT) all are good for client, but we need more signal from the AP at the client.. You can only achieve that with more power at the AP and/or higher gain omni antenna.
Signal at client needs to be better to sustain its higher traffic demand. Its predominantly download traffic that is needed, and that needs best conn. rates from the AP to CPE. (AP-Tx => CPE-Rx)

What do you mean with "better link planning"?

QRT actually needs 'ac' model too + 720Mhz cpu and possibly 2nd ethernet port (with PoE-out functionality!)

And Sextant? Same thing, 'ac' and 720Mhz! (And possibly a bit more antenna gain. 18dBm should really be 20 or so..)

Depends where you are. In desert or in taiga you surely can accommodate huge power radios. In crowded spaces adding power of one omni Ap just to get 3dbi more than other neighbouring omni APs is not the way to get better results. Others will just do the same. You need to use sectors and shield them well against surrounding noise instead feeding omni antenna by more watts. This for example is part of what I called link planning. As always : it is better to be smart than just powerful.

OmniTIK:

1. 7,5dBi duo chain??
2. 26dBm??
3. 400Mhz??
4. 64Mb??
5. 802.11a/n?
6. Only ethernet?

When do we see them replaced with:

1. Possible 8-10dBi range duo chain.
2. 30dBm radio
3. 720Mhz cpu
4. 128Mb
5. 802.11a/n/ac
6. Gigabit ports (with and/or without PoE) (And proper grounding screw or nut! Very important!)

Note:
1. The higher gain would make it a better 'sender' (projects higher signal at client. CPE nowadays are very powerful, but it is the signal 'towards' the client that needs highest signal, thus higher throughput = download). Better micro print antenna would still fit in existing housing. Or slightly higher housing wouldn't harm no one I'd think....

2. For the same reason as "1." we need to deliver more power to the client. Not the otherway around.

3. If higher speeds are set to clients and/or more clients a faster cpu would help.

4. More is better

5. Who works still with 'a'? And in congested spectral areas, 'ac' is definitely needed, just to stay out of the 'a' & 'n' interferences. (Also; 'ac' usually means new chipset = better. 20Mhz 'ac' is therefore better than 20Mhz 'n')

6. Higher speeds to many clients need higher cable throughput. Usually this is done with ftp cable that needs proper grounding.

If now such new high power/high capacity OmniTIK would get heat issues; Make the same in metal form and you get as bonus the extra shield against external radio noise!

This new OmniTIK (U)PA.5HPacD would make it a perfect replacement for existing OmniTIK's and also a nice companion for the new SXT-ac range of CPE's.

Such an high power OmniTik would also make it a perfect solution for city wide mesh (wds) network deployment.
For fixed installations it means one frequency can cover all.

Combine each with a 2,4ghz duo or triple chain AP (2,4Ghz OmniTik is been asked for many times) and you can build the perfect city wide network for mobile devices.

2,4Ghz OmniTik is still a good idea for remote locations were trees and mountains make a 5Ghz system having a hard time....

I would like to see a design like mimosa is planning. This looks like omni but has 4 sectors inside connected to 4 RF-Paths. This gives much better gain than a typical omni and is much more compact than using sectors.