Antenna replacement

[Munchie]

I have a 2014 19’ FC with a batwing tv antenna and I would like to replace it with a more modern and efficient model. Anyone have any suggestion?

[Woosch]

We wanted to replace ours when we were at Jackson Center last summer. The advice from them was to leave it as is. Apparently the opinion is the Winegard batwing is better than anything you could replace it with.

[uncle_bob]

Hi

Better and more efficient = larger antenna on a taller mast. Yes, you can do this. Is that *really* what you want to have on the top of your trailer? I'm betting not. If you *are* after something big, chime in and various folks among the group can supply details.

As mentioned above, *any* of the new / small / low profile antennas will do a worse job than what you now have in terms of picking up signals. They will be far more cute.

Bob

[SeeMore]

I installed the new King Jack antenna, the shorty OA8200, and can state the following; "reception is no different, there is no risk of forgetting to crank down the mast, and it is easier to find the stations when using the built-in signal meter." The process was straight forward and it freed up terrain for solar panels.

[rmkrum]

Yup. I’m going to one to have more room for solar panels and ham radio antennae on the roof. [emoji3]

[uncle_bob]

Hi

Having played "who can get what station" a few times when bored at remote campsites .... the old crank up's always win.

Bob

[rmkrum]

We rarely, if ever use the television. I think it got used two days in the last 5 years so far, when the weather was too ugly to risk traveling in West Texas. Plugged in to cable tv at the KOA and watched weather reports, mostly.

[AFTER TAXES]

Originally Posted by Munchie

I have a 2014 19’ FC with a batwing tv antenna and I would like to replace it with a more modern and efficient model. Anyone have any suggestion?

wow, replaced with the same, but with newer model batwing
works great !

[66Overlander]

Do NOT change to the round "flying saucer" omnidirectional antennas used on new Airstreams. They do NOT pick up nearly as many channels in low signal areas as the earlier antennas that could be turned (and raised higher above the roof) to maximize signal strength. It is an engineering fact that an an omnidirectional antenna will never have the same "signal gain" as a directional antenna.

The ONLY advantages of the flying saucers are that you cannot forget to lower them and they take up less space on the roof. I suspect these are the reasons Airstream changed to them, NOT because they work better.

[Munchie]

Thank you all for your insight. You have helped me decide to stay status quo.

[Captn.Ken]

I started a thread recently about reception, which only got one response. I agree with Joe that the new, low profile omnidirectional antennas do not work all that well. I don't think AS is really concerned about giving us the absolute best in antennas.

[polarlyse]

Let me throw something out there to consider. We have an Airstream friend that mounted one of the round omni-directional disc antenna's to the top of his antenna mast and claims great reception. He needed to make a new mounting base for it to work but it raises and lowers just like it was designed to do and works well for him. Gonna try it myself one of these days.

[rmkrum]

"Omnidirectional" when applied to antennas just means it receives signals equally badly in all directions... (A little Ham radio humor there, but it's true...)

In most cases, an antenna that needs aiming will get a much stronger signal over the "omnidirectional" type, when aimed correctly. With digital television systems nowadays, you either have 'enough' signal to get a picture, or you get nothing. A directional antenna can get a better signal to the set's tuner, and make a difference.