[TowerTalk] Utility poles/McFarland

[Pat Barthelow]

Years ago Telerex made some side mount brackets/thrust bearings for 
rotatable antennas mounted on poles.  Quite generic, made from angle iron 
and I assume, metal plate.  The idea mentioned  by Ed, below, using the Rohn 
25 top seems a good one.  Some years back I contacted McFarland-Cascade, to 
compare pricing for a big pole vs Big tower, and was pleasantly surprised.   
A Class A, 120 ft, pressure  treated pole as I recall was about $7000 
delivered to central California   (with about half that being transportation 
costs.)   Weighed about 8K lbs.   Probably another $1K to get it  vertical 
in a hole.  And some more, (but reasonable)  for installing pole steps.  For 
that you get a bullet proof, self supporting, climbable  antenna support far 
far stronger than steel towers, and it has a more acceptable eye impact  
than lattice towers.  The rule of thumb of the utility construction crews 
around here is to bury it 10% of it's height, plus 2 ft.  Assuming good 
soil, the savings on non necessary concrete foundations would also be 
substantial.  One wooden pole manual I have seen rates some 60 ft wooden 
poles as being able take a side lode at the top, of more than 1200 lbs....
I dont know the bottom line costs for a Steel Self supporter that is 120 ft, 
but recon  it is far more than an equivelant wooden pole....
Check McFarland  Cascasde site:   http://www.mcfarlandcascade.com/

73, de Pat AA6EG   aa6eg at hotmail.com


>From: K4SB <k4sb at bellsouth.net>
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Utility poles
>Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:20:54 +0000
>
>Barry Fox wrote:
> > Greetings to the list.  Has anyone here used a standard wooden
> > telephone/utility pole to support an HF beam?  I am thinking of having 
>the local
> > utility install one at my QTH.  The big problem I see is how to support 
>a rotor.  Does > anyone make a rotor and thrust bearing mount for such 
>poles?
>
>Used to be pretty commonplace, but that was before the "big yagi" era.
>I've seen many which merely had a 2" pipe bolter to the top, with the
>rotor on the pipe, but don't think much of that idea.
>
>The one I remember which seemed to overcome the problem was a buddy in
>NC who "telescoped" a piece of Rohn 25 ( I think ) over the top of the
>pole so that about half was over the wood, and the rotor plate mounted
>just above the top of the pole. Seemed to work well.
>
>With the difficulty involved in climbing the thing, plus the other
>factors, I would think Rohn 25 would be a better and cheaper answer.
>
>73
>Ed