Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall
bracket. Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer
I am not interested in the standard lattice type which requires
climbing, but a nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or
motor. I figure if it can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of
my one story house. Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or
equivalent - wind area abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7
Big Thunder and its 7.9 sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

"MTV" wrote in message
...
I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall bracket.
Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer I am not
interested in the standard lattice type which requires climbing, but a
nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or motor. I figure if it
can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of my one story house.
Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or equivalent - wind area
abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7 Big Thunder and its 7.9
sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

About all that I can recommend is nt to do it like a local ham. His tower
is next to his house, but he can not put an antenna on it from the roof and
has to rent a bucket truck or a one man lift to get to the antenna. Seems
he put it at the side of the house and the angle of the roof is too much to
get the antenna boom from the roof to the tower. He only had a 3 element
triband bean and tehn replaced it with the Stepper 3 element and still has
the same problem. He does have a tower that can be lowered, but it does not
do him much good for that reason.

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"MTV" wrote in message
...
I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall bracket.
Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer I am not
interested in the standard lattice type which requires climbing, but a
nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or motor. I figure if it
can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of my one story house.
Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or equivalent - wind area
abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7 Big Thunder and its 7.9
sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

About all that I can recommend is nt to do it like a local ham. His tower
is next to his house, but he can not put an antenna on it from the roof and
has to rent a bucket truck or a one man lift to get to the antenna. Seems
he put it at the side of the house and the angle of the roof is too much to
get the antenna boom from the roof to the tower. He only had a 3 element
triband bean and tehn replaced it with the Stepper 3 element and still has
the same problem. He does have a tower that can be lowered, but it does not
do him much good for that reason.



Thanks for the info. I notice that the tubular and lattice towers nest
at 22' & 21'. My roof hgt is abt 16' at the peak on the ends, but only
12' on long side - where I want the tower. Might have to rethink my
placement. Or use a bucket truck, or tilt the tower on the base hinge
when mounting antenna.

Marv

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Here is how I do it. There is much more to do but it is
operational...No climbing!
http://dixienc.us/TiltOverGadget/TiltOverGadget.mht

John Ferrell W8CCW

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:13:07 -0600, MTV
wrote:

I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall
bracket. Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer
I am not interested in the standard lattice type which requires
climbing, but a nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or
motor. I figure if it can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of
my one story house. Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or
equivalent - wind area abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7
Big Thunder and its 7.9 sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Thanks for the idea, John,

Marv

John Ferrell wrote:
Here is how I do it. There is much more to do but it is
operational...No climbing!
http://dixienc.us/TiltOverGadget/TiltOverGadget.mht

John Ferrell W8CCW

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:13:07 -0600, MTV
wrote:

I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall
bracket. Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer
I am not interested in the standard lattice type which requires
climbing, but a nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or
motor. I figure if it can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of
my one story house. Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or
equivalent - wind area abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7
Big Thunder and its 7.9 sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

"MTV" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the idea, John,

Marv

John Ferrell wrote:
Here is how I do it. There is much more to do but it is
operational...No climbing!
http://dixienc.us/TiltOverGadget/TiltOverGadget.mht

John Ferrell W8CCW

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:13:07 -0600, MTV
wrote:

I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall
bracket. Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer
I am not interested in the standard lattice type which requires
climbing, but a nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or
motor. I figure if it can be lowered I could work on it from the roof
of
my one story house. Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or
equivalent - wind area abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7
Big Thunder and its 7.9 sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

Often helpful to just tilt it back with the antenna pointing up so that it
will almost rest on the reflector element. This way you can still reach the
driven element and do tuning and testing and feed point assembly. One of
the tower manufacturers makes an MA40 tubular (40') with crank up and tilt
over come-along arrangement and was very manageable from the ground. I.m
sure 55' is available.

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

I bought a self-supporting 56' Heights tower with its clamshell
tilt-over-kit unit 8 feet up from the base. I lower the tower with a 3/8"
power drill and never leave the ground for anything.

IMHO, nested towers that leave the boom 22' feet in the air and the antenna
elements 4-to-15 feet from your reach are overrated!
--
-larry
K8UT
"MTV" wrote in message
...
I'm starting to look for a 55' freestanding tower with house wall bracket.
Am undecided on a lattice type or tubular. Being an old geezer I am not
interested in the standard lattice type which requires climbing, but a
nestable type to be raised and lowered by a crank or motor. I figure if it
can be lowered I could work on it from the roof of my one story house.
Main antenna would be a Cushcraft A4S 4-element or equivalent - wind area
abt 4 sq ft. Not sure I could handle the huge X7 Big Thunder and its 7.9
sq ft., although that would be ideal.

Any first hand experience or recommendations?

Marv
W5MTV

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

I have found that the older I get the easier I need things to be!
This scheme I am working with allows one to stand on the ground in the
array and do whatever. If I receive adequate warning of a coming ice
storm or hurricane it is concievable to lower it all to a position of
safety as well.
John Ferrell W8CCW

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:41:57 GMT, "JB" wrote:



Often helpful to just tilt it back with the antenna pointing up so that it
will almost rest on the reflector element. This way you can still reach the
driven element and do tuning and testing and feed point assembly. One of
the tower manufacturers makes an MA40 tubular (40') with crank up and tilt
over come-along arrangement and was very manageable from the ground. I.m
sure 55' is available.

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

http://dixienc.us/TiltOverGadget/TiltOverGadget.mht

A web site that doesn't support browsers other than Explorer ain't a web
site.

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Larry Gauthier (K8UT) wrote:
I bought a self-supporting 56' Heights tower with its clamshell
tilt-over-kit unit 8 feet up from the base. I lower the tower with a 3/8"
power drill and never leave the ground for anything.

IMHO, nested towers that leave the boom 22' feet in the air and the antenna
elements 4-to-15 feet from your reach are overrated!

I just looked over the Heights web page and am very impressed. I'm
surprised an aluminum tower could handle the stress from tilt-over
design. Looks like everything I'd need, and very well thought out and
engineered. Might get the HD (coastal) since we had 90 mph winds from H.
Ike, which crashed most antennas or towers in the area, though I am
sheltered up to about 25'. After looking over my own layout think a 48'
tower would be all I need, with antenna on a mast then being about 6'
above tallest oak tree with clear view of horizon - have flat terrain
not far from Houston, but lots of trees. Counted 40 on our 1.25 acre
lot. Had heck of a time stringing 120' wire antenna.

Marv

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

If my budget would stand it Heights would be my first choice! My crank
up mast was purchased in about 1980 for somewhere around $400.

John Ferrell W8CCW

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:01:48 -0500, "Larry Gauthier \(K8UT\)"
wrote:

I bought a self-supporting 56' Heights tower with its clamshell
tilt-over-kit unit 8 feet up from the base. I lower the tower with a 3/8"
power drill and never leave the ground for anything.

IMHO, nested towers that leave the boom 22' feet in the air and the antenna
elements 4-to-15 feet from your reach are overrated!

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Sorry for the inconvenience. I was looking for the easiest way out
when I went to the .MHT format. What browsers do not handle .MHT's?

It is rare that anyone tells me of a problem (may be they just don't
bother?) and I want to keep things as simple as possible for all of
us.

I can go back to Front Page but it was a poor fit for me as well as a
budget breaker! It is paid for now though!

My attempt into .ASP was a lot of effort for zilch!


On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:02:33 -0800, Anon bozo wrote:

http://dixienc.us/TiltOverGadget/TiltOverGadget.mht

A web site that doesn't support browsers other than Explorer ain't a web
site.
John Ferrell W8CCW

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

Sorry for the inconvenience. I was looking for the easiest way out
when I went to the .MHT format. What browsers do not handle .MHT's?

Firefox. Probably #2 most popular browser.

I can go back to Front Page but it was a poor fit for me as well as a
budget breaker! It is paid for now though!

Isn't plain-ol' HTML sufficient?

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:49:00 -0500, John Ferrell wrote:

Sorry for the inconvenience. I was looking for the easiest way out
when I went to the .MHT format. What browsers do not handle .MHT's?

He Opera, Firefox, konqueror, lynx...

Towers - lattice vs. tubular?
 

I just tried Firefox, I see what you mean. The advantage of using the
..mht file is that I have everything wrapped into one file. If I lose
my copy I can recover by simply download the file from the web site
and us it to update. I am using Word 2007 ( only use it if you have
to, I receive .docx files for newsletters!) and it is pretty easy to
put together a web page while thinking of other things. I have
trouble keeping things sorted out with more than one site in a web
space. One file for each subject works well for me.

The real clinker for an .mht one page in one file is that the source
is all included in the page which requires the user to download a lot
of stuff that is disregarded.

I will work on getting back to the mainstream.

Thanks for the heads up...
John Ferrell W8CCW

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:49:28 -0800, Anon bozo wrote:

Sorry for the inconvenience. I was looking for the easiest way out
when I went to the .MHT format. What browsers do not handle .MHT's?

Firefox. Probably #2 most popular browser.

I can go back to Front Page but it was a poor fit for me as well as a
budget breaker! It is paid for now though!

Isn't plain-ol' HTML sufficient?