[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45

To: <>, <>, <>
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45
From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:54:54 -0500
List-post: <> writes: 
> Tower capacity is directly related to leg strength; the more 
> compression it'll take - the more load and wind it'll take. 
> 55G is significantly stronger because of the addition wall 
> thickness of the legs. Pretty simple.

3 guages of wall thickness (11 vs. 14), 1.5" diameter vs. 1.25" 
diameter and 95# per section vs 70# per section... 

The additional ultimate strength is fine if one is looking for 
maximum load at maximum height.  Since I'm looking to put up 
a pair of towers in the 100 to 150 foot range over the next 
couple of years, I was looking at the tradeoffs.  

With the shorter towers, the vertical weight should not come 
close to the limit for Rohn 45 even with the vertical component 
of the increased guying.  With the compressive loads are well 
below the limit, increasing the guying to make certain that 
the tower remains in column at maximum surface area should 
provide do the job.  

That said, the direct comments have all been "go with 55 and 
don't sweat it."  


   ... Joe, K4IK 


See:  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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>