[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Fwd: When is a 100' tower only 97' tall?

Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: When is a 100' tower only 97' tall?
From: Hans Hammarquist <>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <">>
I found that too for both Universal Tower and Highs Tower, but as I have a 
"custom made" footing I made it up there :-). The "funny" thing is that 
Universal Tower claims on their drawings that the height of their towers are 
the "nominal" sections x 10 feet (not 9' 8.5").

Hans - N2FS

-----Original Message-----
From: John Becker <>
To: towertalk <>
Sent: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 11:25 am
Subject: [TowerTalk] When is a 100' tower only 97' tall?

I was looking at the engineering drawing for Rohn 25G yesterday, and was 
surprised to see that the total length of a section is 10' 0". This 
*includes* the 3.5" that is inserted into the next section. The 
effective height of a 10' section is only 9' 8.5". While not significant 
for one section, it quickly adds up on a tall tower.

I wondered if this was possibly an error on the drawing, so I went out 
to my tower and took a measurement. Sure enough, the distance from the 
bottom of the first section to the bottom of the second section is 9' 8.5".

And here I've been thinking for years that my Rohn 25G-FK-68 tower was 
really 68' tall, when it's actually only 66' 3". I would call this a 
"truth in advertising" problem!

73, John, K9MM


TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

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