The big quad weights about 1,5 tons, even there is a special made
gin pole at the site to get it up and down, first that gin pole has
to be mounted and for that business a smaller gin pole is used ;-),
and even then the antenna is still at a height of 14m with its boom.
So all mounting was done with the help of a crane and a manbucket
used for wiring the elements.
There is another 24m tower next to it, especially erected for alignment
purposes, is carrying also an Optibeam multiplier antenna now.
>From its top the 80/40 reflector can be reached for F/R adjustments and
with an foldable outrigger on it the driven Element can be reached for
tuning as well, same applies to the other elements when the beam is turned.
I went several times for repair of the quad, that is also usually done by
use of the manbucket on a crane.
I will go there again as soon as possible, it was damaged by the big
icestorm just before WWDX CW, the top 80/40 reflector spreader is broken
and a fiberclass pole needs to be replaced.
Also the top 16m of the 56m high elevated 160m groundplane broke of when
a guywire failed by the iceload in the heavy storm and needs repair.
The owner is 65 and still needs only rarely help.
That quad is in the air for about 15 years with minor repairs.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of K4SAV
Sent: Freitag, 13. Januar 2006 23:18
Subject: [TowerTalk] Monster quad
I am sitting here looking at the pictures of this monster antenna,
wondering how you would ever get something like this into the air. My
hat's off to the guys who managed to put this up. Amazing feat. How do
you think they did it? It obviously has to be assembled while in the
air. Do you think the guys crawled out on that boom to bolt the elements
Full size quad, 3 elements on 80 meters, 5 elements on 40 meters on a 30
>The best approach is to use slewing bearings at the bottom of the tower.
>This freestanding, 40m high, rotatable tower of a fellow ham
>with stacked long boom quads works flawless for more the 20 years:
>those bearings are obtainable pretty cheap at crane companies
>[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Taylor
>My big fear with a tower such as this is that instead of multiple weak
>(ring rotors), where perhaps one antenna bites it, you have one big weak
>link that would make the whole assembly bite it. The other angle that is
>perhaps not been explored either is the capacity of the tower to accept
>additional loads along its length.
>If I recall correctly, the Big Bertha tower worked because the entire tower
>base was inserted into the bearings which were held down by lots of
>and because the design assumed from the start multiple antennas from top
>TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list