New Antenna?

[30BR]

My TT is an '05, and it has the typical (for that time) the crank up Weingard rotatable antenna. It has the antenna outlet inside with the booster on/off button. Is there a better, more gain, over the air antenna available now?

[SCVJeff]

Drank: We own at least two TV transmitters on all the major sites (6 sites, at least 12 transmitters) in the Central Valley from Bakersfield all the way to Sacramento along the Eastern mtn. ranges and I know the coverage in the valley very well. With the exception of the Modesto area, that 300 miles is rock solid coverage from at least one site. The Wingman isn't a "gadget" or toy. It is a passive adapter that produces UHF gain on the Batwing. The older ones you buy the Wingman as an add-on, and the newer ones are incorporated. In either case, anywhere on the valley floor from the base of the Grapevine, to well North of Sacramento has sufficient coverage that it is not needed.

BTW- there are lots of antennas better than a Batwing, but none are built for RV service.

[Dtank]

30BR wrote:
My TT is an '05, and it has the typical (for that time) the crank up Weingard rotatable antenna. It has the antenna outlet inside with the booster on/off button. Is there a better, more gain, over the air antenna available now?

My 5th is an 06. It has the "standard" Winegard crank-up antenna.
When they first came out, I bought the "add-on" attachment - but it's
still in the box. (I usually use Satellite).

I was in an RV park this last week in Central CA, noticed the number of crank-up antennas in use (with no special attachments or "trick stuff").

So, cranked 'R up to give it a try - no problem with xln't pictures from the network TV channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) plus a few more.

Still haven't replaced my old CRT TV - so using a cheap-O digital converter for those.

IMO - maybe you should save your bucks in lieu of the add-ons?..:@

*********************

BTW - on edit -
At my sticks & bricks, I have satellite.
A few years ago, I kept seeing the Clear Stream Digital Antennas at Costco for about $70. (Model C 2-V-CJM).

Looks like a wire BBQ grill with a plastic figure '8' in the middle.

OK - why not. If it doesn't do what it's supposed to, I'll return it.

Mounted to the eve of the house about 15' off the ground.
(Neighbors ask what it is, LOL.)
Pretty amazing! I'm about 100 miles from the Los Angeles area.
Pulls in all the networks (in HD) and lots of others.
(Allows watching one channel -over the air- and record another off sat, or vice-versa).

Trivia: At a CG, I noticed a DP MH with the same antenna attached to the top of his ladder...;)


.

[dodge_guy]

:S :R

I'm done!

[davent1946]

Not all batwing's are Winegard. I had a Signal Commander batwing on the Big Horn that the Sensar wouldn't adapt to. Installed the Jack head on the mast without any noticable improvement.

[SCVJeff]

dodge guy wrote:
FWIW I still have the factory coax and amplifier.

Now tell me how 4 antennas that I know personally did not work are better than my Jack that pulls in way more stations than the other 4 antennas combined!

Sorry, maybe the "scientific" tests may look good, but in the real world is where I draw my conclusions.

I've seen other scientific tests that can also be factored out in real world use!

Its simply not even worth responding that question because you will NEVER get it. Tell me how much more "real world" an antenna test can be than doing it on a factory installed antenna on an RV. Am I missing something??

Your responses are simply argumentative from someone that cannot substantiate or back up ANY of your claims other than yours works better and you have no idea why? Can there be 4 broken Batwings? Of course! But you clearly aren't qualified to make that determination. Here's an idea: Stick with what you know, and I'll do the same. And this clearly isn't yours.

[Chris_Bryant]

mlts22 wrote:
I like one thing about the Jack antenna -- no worries about having to crank it up or down... or drive off with it still up and having it shear off.

The trouble is, the Jack catches tree branches, and is all plastic, so it is easily sheared off, leaving a gaping hole in the roof, whereas the crankup type simply breaks the elevating gear- no worries about leaks.
There have been a couple of folks here who have had that happen.

[MFL]

dodge guy wrote:
FWIW I still have the factory coax and amplifier.

Now tell me how 4 antennas that I know personally did not work are better than my Jack that pulls in way more stations than the other 4 antennas combined!

Sorry, maybe the "scientific" tests may look good, but in the real world is where I draw my conclusions.

I've seen other scientific tests that can also be factored out in real world use!

I am not choosing sides, but no matter the scientific test results, Dodge guy has to go with the results that work best for him, comparing, with his camping group.

Everyone can have different results, I know some tvs bring in more channels, using the same antenna.

Jerry

[mlts22]

I like one thing about the Jack antenna -- no worries about having to crank it up or down... or drive off with it still up and having it shear off.

[dodge_guy]

FWIW I still have the factory coax and amplifier.

Now tell me how 4 antennas that I know personally did not work are better than my Jack that pulls in way more stations than the other 4 antennas combined!

Sorry, maybe the "scientific" tests may look good, but in the real world is where I draw my conclusions.

I've seen other scientific tests that can also be factored out in real world use!

[Dutch_12078]

Over the years, I've worked on a number of RV's, particularly TT's, that had non-amplified Winegard batwing antennas, failed amplifiers, and bad wires or connections, all indicated by their substandard performance. I'll trust SCVJeff's scientific test results over the non-scientific anecdotal reports, even my own, thank you.

[SoundGuy]

dodge guy wrote:
I have also done real world testing and it shows that the Batwing does not perform as well as the Jack!

SoundGuy wrote:
So you've done "real world testing" by turning on your television and noting the number of stations you received with your Jack TV antenna vs what you call a "batwing" antenna without specifying exactly which version it was. Meanwhile SCVJeff has provided a detailed report of results gathered using test equipment which as he's reported is "is worth well over twice" what your RV is worth. Hmmmm ... now who, and which tests, would I tend to believe? :S Gee, such a tough decision. :R

dodge guy wrote:
I would believe the guy that is not trying to "substantiate" his multi thousand dollar equipment! but rather his before and after comparison. it`s very simple and doesn't need to be complicated!

Seriously?! :S Thank goodness manufacturers don't design equipment like this based on your theory "stick it in the air and see what happens"! Using electronic test equipment designed specifically for these sorts of tests is hardly "substantiating" the cost of the equipment, it's common sense, and as forum participants we're lucky to have someone like SCVJeff take the time to do these types of extensive tests and report the results. As for the equipment itself we don't know who actually owns the equipment - perhaps Jeff, perhaps someone else - but the point is he had access to it, one way or another. And now you're questioning the results, insisting your methodology of just turning on your TV and noting what stations you can receive with your Jack TV antenna is the superior testing method?! Good grief! :S

[Chris_Bryant]

dodge guy wrote:

I would believe the guy that is not trying to "substantiate" his multi thousand dollar equipment! but rather his before and after comparison. it`s very simple and doesn't need to be complicated!

I used a $40 converter with built in signal meter, and 2 brand new antennas. The Jack brought in slightly lower signal levels across the board, other than our channel 2, which is still a VHF carrier, and it was significantly worse with the Jack.

Because I make a larger profit on the Jack, one would think that is what I would recommend. I do not, other than in some circumstances (a rental where the operator cannot remember to crank the antenna down, a roof with very limited space, or someone who wants to watch OTA TV while traveling.

Sorry, you are simply flat out wrong, unless you are only saying that a working Jack is better than a broken Sensar, in which case, well.... yeah, no surprise.

[dodge_guy]

SoundGuy wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
I have also done real world testing and it shows that the Batwing does not perform as well as the Jack!

So you've done "real world testing" by turning on your television and noting the number of stations you received with your Jack TV antenna vs what you call a "batwing" antenna without specifying exactly which version it was. Meanwhile SCVJeff has provided a detailed report of results gathered using test equipment which as he's reported is "is worth well over twice" what your RV is worth. Hmmmm ... now who, and which tests, would I tend to believe? :S Gee, such a tough decision. :R

I would believe the guy that is not trying to "substantiate" his multi thousand dollar equipment! but rather his before and after comparison. it`s very simple and doesn't need to be complicated!

[SoundGuy]

dodge guy wrote:
I have also done real world testing and it shows that the Batwing does not perform as well as the Jack!

So you've done "real world testing" by turning on your television and noting the number of stations you received with your Jack TV antenna vs what you call a "batwing" antenna without specifying exactly which version it was. Meanwhile SCVJeff has provided a detailed report of results gathered using test equipment which as he's reported is "is worth well over twice" what your RV is worth. Hmmmm ... now who, and which tests, would I tend to believe? :S Gee, such a tough decision. :R