Wingman... Removed.

[stahrmcgee]

There was a lot of bragging going on about the Wingman at the campsites I was staying at and when we got the new camper, we got one and after a fer camps we installed it. I pulled it off after the 2nd camp(on a 5 camp run) and tried to draw in the channels again. Short answer on my experience: Ours was better without the Wingman. With it on, we got 3-5 channels of moderate signal quality. Without it, we got between 15-18 channels that were all watchable. So. I did a little reading, yes, I should have prior, but I didn't, and I found out that it makes the antennae directional instead of how it is out right off the lot.

Has anyone else had the same experience?

[Bill_Satellite]

We tend to be in AZ in the Summer and the NW in the Winter. Kind of sucks being me!
If you want to pay shipping I could send you one.

[SCVJeff]

BurbMan wrote:
Maybe OP will volunteer his since he's not using it :B

yeah but he could sell or give it to a good home. I'm coming at it with metal shears and a Dremel Tool... 🙂

[SCVJeff]

I'm in Quartzsite in Jan., but will be all over Arizona doing a big microwave project hopefully AFTER summer. Are you there for any length of time?

[BurbMan]

Maybe OP will volunteer his since he's not using it :B

[Bill_Satellite]

I have one that I would give you if we were nearby.

[SCVJeff]

Bill.Satellite wrote:
You can cut off the first "wing" and plastic all the way back to the beginning of the 2nd "wing". This will reduce reception a bit but you should still see about 75% of the gain that would have been available from all 3 wings. That may or may not be enough to provide the necessary clearance. If not (or even if it is), I would add the Sensar Pro to allow you to correctly point the antenna for best reception plus add a secondary inline amp to boost those weaker UHF signals (it will boost both UHF and VHF but the UHF seem to be the most frequently complained about).

Bill: I wouldn't buy one to cut it up, but if you ever run across a junked, but still mechanically intact Wingman (elements and spacing are still there), please let me know. It would be really interesting to bring out the big toys and precisely measure the decrease in gain and expanding sidelobes as the elements are removed front to back to clear obstructions.

[SCVJeff]

rk911 wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:
ALL channels are NOT on UHF, that is a complete myth. While its true that a significant number did move, and mostly from Lo-VHF, VHF et al is alive and well nationwide. Look it up...

did someone say that ALL channels moved to UHF? you're right...not all have. but a lot have.

Yes they did. Read up

[Dutch_12078]

There are about 465 TV stations still broadcasting on VHF, plus an unknown number of repeaters and low power stations. Of those 465, about 38 stations still broadcast on the VHF-low (ch 2-6) band.

[Bill_Satellite]

You can cut off the first "wing" and plastic all the way back to the beginning of the 2nd "wing". This will reduce reception a bit but you should still see about 75% of the gain that would have been available from all 3 wings. That may or may not be enough to provide the necessary clearance. If not (or even if it is), I would add the Sensar Pro to allow you to correctly point the antenna for best reception plus add a secondary inline amp to boost those weaker UHF signals (it will boost both UHF and VHF but the UHF seem to be the most frequently complained about).

[1775]

There are some large and major networks digitally broadcasting VHF in major markets - ABC in NY for one. For best reception with an antenna the antenna needs both good UHF and VHF capabilities - and despite what some of the omni-directional antennas claim, the antenna needs to be able to be pointed in the direction of the signal.

I have looked at adding the Wingman to my Winegard but the antenna is positioned so that where the Wingman would extend out, the black tank vent on the roof is in the way. It would be nice if there was a way to modify the position the Wingman is mounted by a few inches.

[Bill_Satellite]

RvBill3 wrote:

burlmart wrote:
Are we all getting this right, or is there a difference in getting a signal, as opposed to receiving viewable content? I am not electrically that swift.

It is said there is NO such thing as a DIGITAL ANTENNA, only antennas that can receive VeryHF and UltraHF signals. So the old analog stuff - whether VHF or UHF signal channels - might be received at 70 mi, but be so snowy as to have no content.

And for the new digital signals (also either VHF or UHF), they too might be received at 70 mi, but the content is too dim to have integrity with resulting digital emptyness that is similar, in effect, to the analog snow.

Need the gurus on this.

Just one clarification: All new digital signals are UHF, no matter what the channel number is. The FCC, in the switch to digital, moved the old VHF channels (2-13) to UHF. This was to address frequency clutter and interference in the VHF range. TV's with digital tuners "know" to look for channels 2-13 in the UHF frequencies assigned to them. Since all channels are now UHF (except a few special situations still using VHF), an antenna optimized for UHF will provide the best results. Hence Winegard added the Wingman option to their antenna line.

As mentioned, this clarification is not correct. Here in Phoenix, channels 8, 10 and 12 are still in use. Channels 2-6 are nearly (but not completely) gone and the remaining TV programming is being broadcast one VHF-Hi (7-13) and UHF (14-52). Even the upper UHF channels are scheduled to be reduced down to somewhere around channel 36 IIRC but there will be multiple SD sub-channels (3.2, 3.3) to fill the gap.
The channel number of the screen is "generally" not the broadcast channel. As an additional example channel 5.1 in Phoenix is broadcast on UHF 17. That makes the majority of channels being broadcast on UHF but not UHF only.

[stahrmcgee]

BurbMan wrote:
Is is possible the signal booster was off on the first scan but subsequently turned on (maybe by DW?) so removal of the Wingman unknowingly coincided with the signal booster being turned on, resulting in more channels received? Maybe worth trying the experiment again at home and see what the results are?

Nope, booster was (is) on. I only touch that when we have cable at a camp ground, and DW won't touch any of the av stuff (still don't think she can turn on the DVD player in the camper). Good thought though!

[stahrmcgee]

MNtundraRet wrote:
Getting a different number of stations when aimed at the same location, same site, can only change under the following conditions;

Then connection of the coaxial cable on the roof is loose, or a dirty connection. You should disconnect it, clean the connection, and re-connect it. Adding or removing the Wingman have messed with a good connection.

Is the antenna mount on the roof too loose and rattling in the wind? The nut inside above handle is loose.

Having a good cloud cover during the day can easily bring in weaker signals. It allows for a "bounce signal" and blocks interference from the sun. A clear sky can allow sun, depending on angle or if aliened with your station direction, loose weaker signals. If the sky is clear when I first scan I will run another if it clouds up, or later when the sun is below the horizon. I will always get more signals.

I find blaming trees is a bunch of "Baloney". I camp in woods most of the time and can get extreme range with my system. Interference is electronic, or metal structures between you and the transmitter. Close by neighbors, motors, manufacturing, buildings, etc.

Don't forget to check the coaxial connection on your TV, and switch-box if used.

You know, you bring up a few things I have taken for granted. I have not verified the connections to any great extent, and didn't pay much attention to the actual mount. I will revisit these. As for clouds, I can't particularly remember.

I really can't explain it and was even looking at those signal meters to see if it would help as I would take the inside aim at the traditional north, south, east, west with channel search on each and if I didn't get anything I would try the half-ways. (NE, NW, SE, SW)

[rk911]

SCVJeff wrote:
ALL channels are NOT on UHF, that is a complete myth. While its true that a significant number did move, and mostly from Lo-VHF, VHF et al is alive and well nationwide. Look it up...

did someone say that ALL channels moved to UHF? you're right...not all have. but a lot have.