Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Mounting\s+in\s+the\s+tower\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Mounting\s+in\s+the\s+tower\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: shane@eatel.net (Shane Dugas); Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 06:46:43 -0500 (CDT); also Well this is kinda weird. I just came in from the shop where I just realized that that the as25g doesn't fit inside a regular section of tower. So NOW I get this message.<G> I'm trying to do so; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00130.html (9,891 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: grhosler@imation.com (Gary R. Hosler); Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 08:45:43 -0500; I had to remove a good deal of material in order to clear the "Z" braces. As I indicated in my previous posting, I would not want to depend on the modified rotor shelf to handle vertical loads. Worki; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00133.html (11,485 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: notawc@juno.com (notawc@juno.com); Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:38:42 -0400; On Fri, 7 May 1999 06:46:43 -0500 (CDT) Shane Dugas <shane@eatel.net> writes: I have been on many towers that have the 2nd thrust bearing mounted on a redrilled AS25G and installed in the normal shel; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00136.html (11,572 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: shane@eatel.net (Shane Dugas); Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 05:10:16 -0500 (CDT); junction As far also plate I guess my question should have been....How is everyone mounting their rotors on these stacked HF beam setups. I can't possible see anyone putting up two HF beams on a mas; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00158.html (9,173 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 11:14:58 EDT; putting bearing. A stack of HF beams on 25G? Must be small HF beams. But you're right. Everyone is mounting the rotator in the one other spot where it can be mounted - ten feet down where the section; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00168.html (8,764 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: shane@eatel.net (Shane Dugas); Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 14:47:21 -0500 (CDT); Well I only have a 10 foot mast pipe and I want to put a small vhf beam on top with the HF beam on the bottom. The problem with the top section that I have is that the rotor plate is only about 12 in; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00173.html (10,029 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 23:03:21 -0700; This is good advice! What "everyone is doing" is the better choice of the available solutions. We may whine about the fact that the Rohn rotor plates only fit at one of two places in the top section.; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00181.html (11,432 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: mcduffie@scottsbluff.net (Gary McDuffie, Sr.); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 06:56:20 -0600; This whole situation bothers me about my "new" HG54HD also. I look at the mounting position of the rotor and wonder why it isn't further down inside the top section. Has anyone successfully moved one; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00188.html (9,621 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: steve@oakcom.com (Steve Maki); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 11:13:47 -0400; No. The best idea is to not install these stacked monstrosities which can be nightmares to service. Install a taller tower, put a single large beam at the top which can be turned by a rotator in the; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00193.html (9,212 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 09:30:21 -0700; A good way to avoid having to figure out how to solve the problem! I think more towers that are taller with more rotors would also be better! Everyone gets to decide which configuration is best for t; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00195.html (9,355 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 16:34:27 EDT; The problem with a crank-up is that the tower has to be partially extended to get a rotator in in the first place. Putting the rotator further down means you have to have the crank-up even FURTHER ex; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00201.html (9,102 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:12:05 -0700; Somehow, this response didn't make it past the TT filter this morning. Gary, It certainly can be done, but is probably not necessary. Freestanding towers are different from guyed towers. I think you'; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00202.html (9,858 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: mcduffie@scottsbluff.net (Gary McDuffie, Sr.); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 18:35:41 -0600; Thanks, Kurt. However, I wasn't looking for increase in tower capability. I was looking to unload some of the side stress of the short coupling to the rotor. It would be nice to be able to transfer b; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00204.html (9,797 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: mcduffie@scottsbluff.net (Gary McDuffie, Sr.); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 18:39:16 -0600; Since I wouldn't try to service the rotor without laying the tower over, I don't have a lot of trouble with extending the sections a little (with support under the tower) to get access to it. Point w; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00205.html (8,838 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 08:01:01 -0700; <373884b3.136674822@208.14.222.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-towertalk@contesting.com Precedence: bulk X-List-Info: http://www.contesti; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00207.html (9,922 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: steve@oakcom.com (Steve Maki); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 22:57:13 -0400; Thanks! Hey, great idea - And, IMO, a poor choice in many cases; when cost, ease of service, flexibility, and effectiveness are considered. Sorry to go off on the tangent though - of course, if one M; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00212.html (9,633 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:35:38 -0700; Well, now I understand what you are trying to accomplish. I've never seen a side load rating for any of the commercial rotators, so I don't know if you need to make a change and if you do, what chang; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00214.html (9,720 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] Mounting in the tower (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 09:27:04 EDT; << I've never seen a side load rating for any of the commercial rotators, so I don't know if you need to make a change and if you do, what change will make your rotator happy. >> A destruct test done; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-05/msg00216.html (8,219 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]