Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+CRANK\s+UP\s+TOWERS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+CRANK\s+UP\s+TOWERS\s*$/: 79 ]

Total 79 documents matching your query.

41. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: w7ni@easystreet.com (Stan & Patricia Griffiths); Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:37:39 -0800; w2rds@arrl.net towers position Well, they DID, at least in the mid-70's. I have a TriEx catalog from that period in time showing some manually installed "Safety Stops" that were to be installed at th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00322.html (14,044 bytes)
42. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:42:21 EST; tension to . Actually all of the crank-ups that came out of the central valley in California were designed by Lou Tristao, KG6VY, SK. The old Tristao company became Tri-Ex (Tristao Expanding Towers); /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00331.html (8,672 bytes)
43. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:50:11 -0500; Steve, actually, these exist. A local ham has a crank-up that has some sort of flip-over device at the end of each section. It locks the next section to the previous one and takes the strain off the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00442.html (8,743 bytes)
44. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:53:15 -0500; I thought the advantage of crank-ups is you didn't have to climb them.... For that matter, you should never climb a crank-up. No worries about anything settling then. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mai; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00443.html (8,385 bytes)
45. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:24:12 +0000; I reckon AA4LR mentioned the crank-up tower I was thinking of previously when K7LXC replied to another post about crank-ups & how they do not provide a way to take the load off the cable when extende; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00476.html (8,598 bytes)
46. [TowerTalk] Crank up Towers (score: 1): Author: g3vfu@hotmail.com (Sheridon Street); Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:21:37 GMT; Hello, My name is Don, current call HS0/G3VFU ex A92BE and A45XU. I have just retired to Chiang Mai in Northern Thailand. I am sure that the subject of home made towers, is old hat, and discussed man; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-09/msg00212.html (7,756 bytes)
47. [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: 74046.1410@compuserve.com (Ken Fath); Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:39:44 -0400; Hi all, I recently obtained a Cushcraft X7 beam. I need to purchase a crank up tower for the beam and possibly a small WARC beam stacked on top at a later date. The site for the tower is among multip; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00243.html (7,391 bytes)
48. [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: dlhough@vegas.infi.net (Dave); Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 04:26:40 -0700; I use an X7. You're going to like it a lot. There are a few tips worth passing along on putting it together that aren't in the sheets. Check GM4NHI Homepage for his review on the X-7, really worth r; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00246.html (8,112 bytes)
49. [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:56:37 -0600; Re: 55 ft vs. 72 ft towers from W4 The lower height will be more effective during midday. You really need high and low antennas to cover all the angles supported by the ionosphere. I like 40 ft for m; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00251.html (8,489 bytes)
50. [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: amcastmis@earthlink.net (Jim); Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:27:12 -0700; Hi Ken, If the X7 is all you're putting up, the TX series should be more than adequate. After all, it's rated at almost twice the load handling that the X7 will introduce. Even with a small WARC beam; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00254.html (9,024 bytes)
51. [TowerTalk] Crank Up Towers (score: 1): Author: JBeamer@PanAmSat.com (Beamer, Jay); Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:40:00 -0500; This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BD0AE1.20F0C010 Content-Type: text/plain He; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-12/msg00405.html (9,233 bytes)
52. [TowerTalk] Crank Up Towers (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC); Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:48:09 EST; Hi, Jay -- The big difference is that anything within 100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean is classified as being close to hurricane oceanline and subject to BIG winds. While PA typically has a low wind s; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-12/msg00422.html (8,697 bytes)
53. [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: "AD5VJ Bob" <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:26:19 -0600; Can I get some feed back from you guys on experience with Crank Up towers? 1. Is it the way to go? Pros and cons 2. Who makes a good one (inexpensive) example: Hazer is too expensive 3. Which ones to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00357.html (7,476 bytes)
54. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: "George P." <ab2kc@optonline.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:39:12 -0500; I bought a used triex-51 50 foot crank-up. It is slightly "overloaded" with a 3 element quad for 10-20 meters. Up for three years with no trouble. It goes up and down about twice a week. I keep it do; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00358.html (9,134 bytes)
55. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: "Doug Rehman" <rehman@surveil.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:16:14 -0500; Pros: 1) Clean profile as opposed to a guyed tower (a big plus for the XYL) 2) Can crank down before bad weather (better survival chances for antennas at 20' instead of 60') 3) If the base allows it,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00360.html (8,337 bytes)
56. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:21:38 EST; Crank Up towers? Pros and cons Cons - increased mechanically/electrical complexity; much more expensive than other similar antenna structures; potentially fatal cable failures; sometimes dangerous to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00394.html (9,540 bytes)
57. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: Peter Sundberg <sm2cew@telia.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:48:13 +0000; expensive of Huh........................?! Having both type of towers I can see a lot of advantages with a crank ups. Blimey, you must be having a bad day Steve.. :-)) 73/Peter SM2CEW www.sm2cew.com; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00398.html (8,137 bytes)
58. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: Jim Rhodes <k0xu@iowadsl.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:02:02 -0600; Of course if you are an experimenter with antennas it makes much more sense to have them come to you than to have to go to them. Unless you have a lot of money to spend on "Professional tower service; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00401.html (8,818 bytes)
59. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: Rick Tavan N6XI <rtavan@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:42:11 -0800; As a crankup owner and K7LXC customer, I agree with most of your comments, Steve. I wouldn't characterize UST customer support as "good." A better description might be "reluctantly effective." I have; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00403.html (9,471 bytes)
60. Re: [TowerTalk] Crank Up towers (score: 1): Author: Kelly Johnson <n6kj.kelly@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:05:22 -0800; I'm looking at putting in a tower and I've been leaning toward the crankup for exactly the same reason: neighbor appeasement. I'm sure my wife would probably like it a bit more too, but she's support; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00410.html (11,886 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]