New TV Antenna

Bill.Satellite wrote:
The 2004 would not have had the Wingman add-on and you will want to add that to get the best reception on the channels used with the digital transmissions.

I tend to feel manufactures mislead the public in advertising 'digital' TV antennas. Theres nothing magical about digital that requires a different antenna over the old analog transmissions. Some antennas are designed mostly for VHF and do poorly receiving UHF. The Wingman is a UHF add-on to add that capability. In some cities the majority of digital channels are UHF and thus such an add on would be beneficial but Winegard and other manufactures are misleading that it has anything to do with digital transmissions. It's UHF vs VHF whether its analog or digital.

That's an interesting point. You're correct about any directional antenna vs. Omni, but the lack of gain or image rejection may cancel any possible channels gained, depending on terrain.

My Sharp doesn't rescan and log (not sure who's does), but I can add to the stored stack. The problem is how to find active channels... That's what I use the SensarPro for.

I have the Batwing with the Wingman add-on. The only problem I have is that, when I do a scan with my tv to search for new channels, my tv misses some channels because of the side and rear rejection of the antenna. If I move the antenna to another direction and rescan, my tv loses the channels it found in the first scan.

I know this is a tv problem and not an antenna problem and is only because the antenna is directional. I have tried three different tv's and none of them give you the option to keep the found channels and scan for new channels. Also, the ability of the tv to retain channels when doing a new scan is not the kind of information you can find out before actually purchasing the tv, unless you know someone who owns a like model.

This is something I run into in one campground we frequent. There are usable signals from three different directions but I can't get them scanned into my tv at the same time. I have even tried moving the antenna during the scan, but really had no idea about when to change directions.

I'm sure an omnidirectional antenna would be different but not better.

USMC46 wrote:
I would like to replace my coach's original rooftop TV antenna with something more advanced. Has anyone here had experience with any of the low profile types that you do not have to rotate ? Any recommendations appreciated.

Thanks.

I'll trade you my low-profile Omni that I don't have to rotate for your batwing!

I'm going to put a batwing on my rig this winter. Trash the Omni.

wa8yxm wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:
One simply cannot compare a Batwing, Jack, or frankly any other directional RV antenna against an Omni-directional antenna. They have no gain, and are fraught with problems receiving multi-path....

Actually. Jeff, is that not more or less how all antennas are rated, Gain over isotropic?

Though a true Isotropic antenna is not possible, the Omni is as close as you get.

(Of course some measure gain in dBd (Compared to a dipole that really does exist,, we call it a Batwing) But even the batwing has gain over a basic dipole (Due to electronics inside the head) add the Wingman and ... Well the UHF gain goes UP.

By the way.. I have seen the test results.. I have done some testing myself.. Batwing with Wingman and Sensar pro.. WINS, for long distance reception. if changing to a jack made an improvement, something was wrong with the old antenna.

yes but... This isn't QST, and the number of people that understand antenna radiation on these forums can be counted on one hand. That was a stick it in the roof; 1-2-3 comparison with the omni a very distant 3rd. I think we all agree on that.

jorbill2or wrote:
Winegard has a new flat panel (UHF) replacement called Rayzar , Sorry thats the one i was referring to. it is a Winegard product soooo.
I don't disagree !. the Batwing is "better"! just That most people aren't That far in the boonies and Good enough is enough. Personally I use the batwing/wingman but on occasion I do have to move it when I change channels Im very pleased with the increased reception. some would rather get nothing than do that and trying to convince them otherwise is pointless, as you have found out in countless posts on here
.If I didnt move the batwing to point properly at different transmitters and I was close to the transmitters in different locations the Jack or omni WOULD "seem" better. Of course the batwing would do the same if it was rotated BUTmany people DONT want to do that.So what can you do?

You noticed.. :)

SCVJeff wrote:
One simply cannot compare a Batwing, Jack, or frankly any other directional RV antenna against an Omni-directional antenna. They have no gain, and are fraught with problems receiving multi-path....

Actually. Jeff, is that not more or less how all antennas are rated, Gain over isotropic?

Though a true Isotropic antenna is not possible, the Omni is as close as you get.

(Of course some measure gain in dBd (Compared to a dipole that really does exist,, we call it a Batwing) But even the batwing has gain over a basic dipole (Due to electronics inside the head) add the Wingman and ... Well the UHF gain goes UP.

By the way.. I have seen the test results.. I have done some testing myself.. Batwing with Wingman and Sensar pro.. WINS, for long distance reception. if changing to a jack made an improvement, something was wrong with the old antenna.

The Rayzar Air flat panel you mention will do UHF plus VHF high (channels 7-12). It is bi-directional making pointing much less critical but at a slight expense of distance.

Winegard has a new flat panel (UHF) replacement called Rayzar , Sorry thats the one i was referring to. it is a Winegard product soooo.
I don't disagree !. the Batwing is "better"! just That most people aren't That far in the boonies and Good enough is enough. Personally I use the batwing/wingman but on occasion I do have to move it when I change channels Im very pleased with the increased reception. some would rather get nothing than do that and trying to convince them otherwise is pointless, as you have found out in countless posts on here
.If I didnt move the batwing to point properly at different transmitters and I was close to the transmitters in different locations the Jack or omni WOULD "seem" better. Of course the batwing would do the same if it was rotated BUTmany people DONT want to do that.So what can you do?

Winegard IS the Batwing.
All this techie comparison is all about being able to do exactly what you said. While the Jack is OK, when you get out in the boonies it simply takes a better antenna to do the same job.