Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] 300 ft tower conundrum

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] 300 ft tower conundrum
From: "Michael J. Castellano" <km1r@cshore.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:02:57 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
My humble opinion...

go with shorter towers in a better location.  I have two 300 footers, and if it 
were not for the fact that my company owns them (I'm in the tower business), I 
would never put them up for ham radio.

The initial expense of building and strobing them is high, and the ongoing 
costs to monitor them (alarm company that produces a printed record just in 
case...) And the neighborhood screaming about height and lighting is horrendous 
in most areas. (Even though the lighting is  federally required).

I would go with a bunch of towers UNDER 200, you won't notice the difference in 
almost all cases, and unless you live on top of an airport, you just saved a 
lot of $$ and grief about lighting... and of course, expensive steel...

This summer, my 160m dipoles and slopers are coming off the towers...just isn't 
worth the hassle... It can all be done with a quad array of ground mounted 1/4 
wave verticals...

no matter what you do, the best of success with the project... hope to hear a 
strapping signal on the bands.

73!

Mike KM1R
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather 
Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions 
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>