New OTA Antenna

I would agree with the need in 5th wheel since many cannot reach the crank because of the higher ceiling depending where the antenna was placed on the roof.

Folks, here's a different perspective on why Winegard may have introduced this product:

The motorized version of the Sensar (MA-1000) we all know and love/hate was discontinued last year, and they're scarcer than hens' teeth. (I know because my handicapped-equipped RV has one; when the motor gave up the ghost last month, I had to search all over the country to locate one of the remaining unopened factory carton models.)

Some owners may simply be physically incapable of reaching high enough to crank either a Jack or Sensar. For those of us in that situation, this product offers some prospects -- and we'll accept a bit less capabilities in order to get at least something we can use!

They had to come out with something new to try to empty your wallet.

Put RV and HD in the advertising and it will sell at any price. :)

MNtundraRet wrote:

Pirate wrote:
Whenever the antenna is called an "HD" antenna, I begin to think the article or person making the comment is clueless.

Whenever I see a comment like this I see an even more clueless person making a useless reply. :R

The wave band is made up of all signals from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. It covers areas we may never identify for years to come.

The television bands we use over certain segments of wavelengths has changed. There are less segments of bands used for digital television transmission. Radios by the way, cover much larger areas above and below television frequencies.

That's why antennas, like mouse traps, come in many shapes and sizes. There is nothing wrong with a manufacturer claiming an antenna is made for the current televisions being produced for the current frequencies allowed by the FCC.

It's time for some of you out there to "Get a life" and to only give helpful replies.

It is an antenna. It will pick up whatever it is designed to pick up. My batwing could be used to receive FM audio, should I call it HD FM? Calling it an HD Antenna only serves to confuse an already confused audience. I will give any reply I want, if you don't like it, don't respond to it. Sorry that you feel you are one of those I mentioned. If you need some help figuring out antennas, let me know.

Pirate wrote:
Whenever the antenna is called an "HD" antenna, I begin to think the article or person making the comment is clueless.

Whenever I see a comment like this I see an even more clueless person making a useless reply. :R

The wave band is made up of all signals from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. It covers areas we may never identify for years to come.

The television bands we use over certain segments of wavelengths has changed. There are less segments of bands used for digital television transmission. Radios by the way, cover much larger areas above and below television frequencies.

That's why antennas, like mouse traps, come in many shapes and sizes. There is nothing wrong with a manufacturer claiming an antenna is made for the current televisions being produced for the current frequencies allowed by the FCC.

It's time for some of you out there to "Get a life" and to only give helpful replies.

I have yet to find an omnidirectional television antenna that will pull in as many channels as my crank up and turn Winegard. No matter how omnidirectional they claim to be they still have to be turned in another direction to get some channels. This is just Winegard jumping on the omnidirectional bandwagon. When I see a side by side comparison in use I will believe one of these is better.

Whenever the antenna is called an "HD" antenna, I begin to think the article or person making the comment is clueless.

Quote from review:
"The Rayzar had slightly better picture quality but not enough to be significant. We had to look really closely to see the difference."

The type of antenna will make absolutely no difference in picture quality. There most likely will be a difference in signal levels but if the signal is high enough the TV will perform the same.

The article also shows that the Batwing pulled in more stations even without the addition of the Wingman.

The method of testing by the magazine was rather simplistic. Using the TV's strength meter to get the antenna directly aimed at the tower will always find more stations than their method of picking 4 directions at right angles. The Winegard III, or IV, will find many more then they found. One question I have is how in the h( )l do they know what direction the new antenna was aimed in the first place. The position inside is the last direction aimed at the previous use.

The antenna should have been placed in a level position since it contains a rotating antenna inside the cover. The author should have known the power for the unit comes from the coaxial cable.

Their main market is for the clueless who may replace a omnidirectional directional antenna with something as simple as it can get to pick up some stations, if not the maximum possible.

As for the unit sitting low on the roof the other comments are correct.

I have sitting in a box right beside my PC a brand new Sensar IV to replace the so-called omni my rig came with. I think they should have called it a "nomni" meaning it gets no channels.