Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Source\s+for\s+\(4\)\s+265\s+foot\s+towers\.\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: john nistico <electric911inc@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:47:31 +0000
I am looking to build my retirement station consisting of 4-265 foot towers with stacked mono banders on each band and wires for 80 and 160 meters. The monos would be 4 over 4 on 40m 6 over 6 on 20m,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00286.html (6,969 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: mike repinski via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:59:38 -0500
They probably thought it was an early April fools joke............ I am looking to build my retirement station consisting of 4-265 foot towers with stacked mono banders on each band and wires for 80
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00287.html (8,656 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:02:10 -0600
Why so high? Chuck W5PR _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mai
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00288.html (9,509 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: "Chris Hoelzle" <choelzle@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:52:17 -0800
On a similar note, I am going to install a 150 foot tower ( need to get over tall trees) in South West Oregon. Could someone please advise where to buy Rohn 45 to save some money? Thanks NN6CH Chris
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00289.html (8,261 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:10:17 -0500
I am not sure what company that you reached out to or what you looking for in a response. If they sell towers it should be easy to find 260' ones. Four 265 towers, each with two stacks of monobanders
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00291.html (8,394 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Drax Felton <draxfelton@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:27:30 +0000 (UTC)
Your above the special restrictions height. Just so you're aware.   http://www.hamradioschool.com/g1b01-maximum-antenna-structure-height/ Sent from Outlook Mobile I am looking to build my retirement
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00293.html (8,686 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:11:01 -0800
Interesting. Now I know why the big contest station towers are at 200 feet. Bob K6UJ Sent from Outlook Mobile I am looking to build my retirement station consisting of 4-265 foot towers with stacked
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00295.html (9,456 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Mark Stennett <mark@stennett.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:35:36 -0600
It is still a good idea to make sure your tower passes the FAA Slope Test even if it is 200 feet or less. Some towers require paint and/or lights even if they are below 20 feet tall. It is all about
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00297.html (11,077 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:58:08 -0800
The guys you have to watch for are the dirt strips that pop up out of nowhere. Ive got a neighbor that comes over the towers at 300 feet or so on final to his dirt strip. As I understand it the strip
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00298.html (11,997 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Mark Stennett <mark@stennett.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:23:24 -0600
That was supposed to read "200 feet tall". _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00303.html (8,189 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: "Mike & Becca Krzystyniak" <k9mk@flash.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:57:54 -0600
Prior to buying this country QTH, I checked to see if the six dirt strips within the 3-4 miles were 'real' FAA airports. They were not so I believe notification was not required. However the usual FA
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00304.html (9,340 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:43:26 -0500
I know that the BIG multi-op contest stations and a few others on this list have ham towers that exceed 200 feet. Is it a big deal to register, is it costly to register, is it difficult to maintain t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00305.html (9,350 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:33:24 -0600
If it were me I would install redundant lights so as to not have to climb the tower when a bulb burns out. Ditto for LED's as they can fail prematurely, especially in the environment to which they wo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00308.html (10,259 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff DePolo" <jd0@broadsci.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:01:31 -0500
That's not always practical for a top-mounted beacon due to the size. Also keep in mind that most ham towers have rotating antennas at the top, and it is very unlikely that a conventional incandesce
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00309.html (10,885 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:36:05 -0800
see http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47cfr17_main_02.tpl As I read it, every light needs to be verified operational every 24 hours by visual or automatic means and when a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00310.html (10,952 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: TexasRF--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:55:10 -0500
Strobe type lighting is suitably visible during daylight hours that painting is not necessary. One still has to meet the other requirements. If there are neighbors in the area you can expect some com
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00311.html (11,931 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Source for (4) 265 foot towers. (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:57:46 -0500
Interesting find Grant. I guess you could have a camera to verify that the light is operational. If you are out of town repairing it quickly may be an issue. They are pretty large wattage bulbs and y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-02/msg00313.html (12,287 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu