Question on 1986 LD February 02, 2014, 03:34:01 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144841Hi, We are slowly learning our way around the 1986 22' LD we purchased. We have one door on the outside which we cannot open and can't figure out what it's for. Is there anyone whose had an older LD that I could send pictures to who might be able to tell me what it's for, so we can figure out if we need to break the door or go to a locksmith?Cindy T.
TV Antenna Reply #1 – February 02, 2014, 04:27:20 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144843I successfully replaced the old CRT/Tape TV in our 2001 RB with a flat screen HDTV and am quite satisfied with the results. A Winegard replacement antenna head on Amazon gets very good reviews for improving reception: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-RVW-205-Sensar-Antenna-Replacement/dp/B003ZOH63W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391378488&sr=8-1&keywords=wingard+rvw-205Does anyone know the model of the LD Winegard antenna? It says this replacement head is compatible with Sensor II or Sensor III. Has anyone had experience in replacing the Winegard head? If so, does it improve HD reception? I seem to remember earlier that the Winegard 'Wingman' did not improve reception particularly, but it does not get as good of reviews as the replacement head above.Barry As an Amazon Associate Lazy Daze Owners' Group earns from qualifying purchases.
Re: Question on 1986 LD Reply #2 – February 02, 2014, 04:45:39 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144845Send pic to us: ! We are intimately acquainted with 84 & 92 models! We love our Dazees! Happy trails, Alexandra and Jack
Re: TV Antenna Reply #3 – February 02, 2014, 07:23:19 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144850Barry: About three or four years back we looked at doing the same thing but then I read an item about the "Jack" antenna. We went with it. You replace the bat wing head with the Jack head. Pretty straight forward installation. Reception is much improved. We get more signals with it than what we were getting with the straight bat wing and better reception in most areas. They also make a new Jack that another LD'er installed. It is apparently a bit more robust. Reports indicated better quality reception also over the bat wing.Bob in FL 30IB AE
Re: Question on 1986 LD Reply #4 – February 02, 2014, 10:40:03 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144852We picked up a really sweet 1986 LD in November. We've only taken a few short day trips so far but we are absolutely loving it! Ours is a rear lounge (RL?) with the front bath(FB?) Still not real sure about the abbreviations on that. But all of our doors open so I might be able to help you out. This is my first post by the way-really appreciate all the good info that this forum provides. Scott D
Re: TV Antenna Reply #5 – February 02, 2014, 10:59:30 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144853"Does anyone know the model of the LD Winegard antenna? It says this replacement head is compatible with Sensor II or Sensor III."I installed one last year on a 2003 RB. Your LD should have the same base. One wire connector and two pins to remove and replace. It's a ten minute job. Since the old head was smashed to bits, I could not make a comparison between the old and new.Larry
Re: Question on 1986 LD Reply #6 – February 02, 2014, 11:00:58 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144854"Ours is a rear lounge (RL?) with the front bath(FB?) Still not real sure about the abbreviations on that." Congratulations on your new rig, Scott! It sounds as if you probably have what Lazy Daze calls a "Twin/King" (because the rear couches can be made up as either twin beds or one king-sized bed)--the most popular of the small LD models. Their terminology can be confusing at times, but you can verify which model you have by checking it against the floorplans in the "Lazy Daze Pocket Guide."Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels
Re: TV Antenna Reply #7 – February 03, 2014, 09:31:03 am Yahoo Message Number: 144858Barry, in 2012 we replaced the batwing antenna on our friends 07 LD and our 06 with the Jack antenna. We replaced the entire unit rather than just the head.For us there were other benefits that might not be obvious. Since we full time and spend most of the time in the west we experience lots of windy days. We found the batwing to be rather noisy at times and frequently would lower it. Anyway, so with the Jack no noise, you don't have to remember to lower it before you move on and with its much lower profile and no need to lower it takes up much less roof space.I can say that the lights on the control while pretty aren't that useful. I have frequently found channels where no signal is registering as far as the lights are concerned.We are happy with the Jack.The first install was a pain but we learned and the second was easier. You can read about that here.http://littleadventures-jg.blogspot.com/search?q=Jack
Re: TV Antenna Reply #8 – February 03, 2014, 10:15:49 am Yahoo Message Number: 144859Quote Barry: About three or four years back we looked at doing the same thing but then I read an item about the "Jack" antenna. We went with it. You replace the bat wing head with the Jack head. Pretty straight forward installation. Reception is much improved. We get more signals with it than what we were getting with the straight bat wing and better reception in most areas.Bob in FL 30IB AE After reading the reviews on both the Jack and the Sensar IV (Winegard), I opted for the Sensar IV (replacing just the head). While some say the Jack gives improved reception, there are a goodly number of reviews claiming the opposite. Either no improvement or worse than than the Winegard. I also ordered a Winegard RFL-342 to replace the factory antenna amp.bumper
Re: TV Antenna Reply #9 – February 03, 2014, 01:08:44 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144862Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions about the TV antenna. After reading all of the comments and Jim's blog of how much effort it was to remove the original Winegard and mount the Jack antenna, I think I will opt for the simpler replacement of the original batwing head with the Winegard RVW-205 Sensar IV.A question for Bumper: Was the replacement of the original factory amplifier necessary because of a frequency difference in the digital signals, or was the change just to get the signal strength features? Do you recommend the replacement? If so, was it a simple replacement for the factory model, or were there any complications during installing it? Do you find the signal strength very useful?Thanks.Barry
Re: TV Antenna Reply #10 – February 04, 2014, 10:29:34 am Yahoo Message Number: 144874Quote A question for Bumper: Was the replacement of the original factory amplifier necessary because of a frequency difference in the digital signals, or was the change just to get the signal strength features? Do you recommend the replacement? If so, was it a simple replacement for the factory model, or were there any complications during installing it? Do you find the signal strength very useful?Thanks. Barry Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I have ordered the Sensar IV head and new amplifier, haven't received it yet. Previously I have installed the Winegard "Wingman" attachment (Yaggi array) to improve digital TV reception. It worked, as did the original amplifier. No way to quantify the improvement afforded by the Wingman and stock amp, except to say I was able to receive more digital channels with the Wingman and by turning on the digital amp - - so clearly the bandwidth of the amp was at least adequate to improve reception. Bottom line, completely unscientific testing, but they worked. From what I've read about it, the new amp fits in place of the old, but will require enlarging the mounting hole. Replacing the antenna head is a simple 5 minute job. I'll compare the new antenna and amp to the old and report back later.bumper
Re: TV Antenna Reply #11 – February 04, 2014, 10:58:29 am Yahoo Message Number: 144875Thanks Bumper. I went ahead and ordered both new head and amplifier. I will install them when it gets a little warmer, and like you, give a report.BarryFrom: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:29 AM To:lifewithalazydazerv@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [LD] TV AntennaI'll compare the new antenna and amp to the old and report back later.bumper
Re: TV Antenna Reply #12 – February 05, 2014, 03:41:31 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144896Just received and installed my new Winegard Sensar IV antenna head. This was replacing the original '05 factory batwing antenna with "Wingman" added for digital reception. I live about 50 miles south of Reno, NV and tucked up against the eastern flank of the Sierra, so don't have spectacular reception. Still, with the Wingman and my original antenna amp turned on, I'm able to get a few channels from Reno, the best showing a signal strength of 81 with amp on and 0 (zero) with amp off. Installed the new, should be much better, Sensar IV. Best I could get was 74. (the new digital amp has not arrived yet, so more tests to follow). Conclusion: the new Winegard Sensar IV is no better than the III with Wingman added. Unless you antenna is bent or otherwise trashed, don't waste your money.bumper
Re: TV Antenna Reply #13 – February 05, 2014, 10:31:43 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144905Got the new digital amp a little later on in the day (split shipment). Much nicer looking than the original. Design eliminates the coax connection on the front, all connections are behind the panel for a cleaner install. I aligned one mounting hole of the included "spacer" with the top original screw hole, then traced around the inside the spacer to mark the area to be cut out. Using the included spacer is optional, but it does "simplicate" the installation.Looks good . . . okay, how's it work? Well, at least in terms of signal strength, it's a disappointment as it's no better than the original amp. Some of the other functions are nice, scan and signal strength look to be worthwhile - - and it does look better. But if you are looking to increase the reception range for digital signals over the original "cheapo" amp, this won't be the ticket.bumper
Re: TV Antenna Reply #14 – February 05, 2014, 11:06:31 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144906I installed the 205 Sensor IV with Wingman antenna and have been extremely happy with the better reception that is delivered to our flat screen digital TV. The over the air reception was improved 100%. I've been amazed at the pickup of stations. The install was easy also. Norma Taylor LD 26 IB 2000.
Re: TV Antenna Reply #15 – February 08, 2014, 05:19:13 pm Yahoo Message Number: 144963I installed the new TV antenna head & amplifier today. Here are the results. Note this is only my experience, based on a single trial:1. With the original antenna & amplifier on the 2001 RB, I could receive 10 stations where the LD was sitting.2. After replacing the antenna head, still with the original amplifier and re-searching for channels, I could receive 14 stations, and the quality of the picture seemed to be noticeably clearer. (This surprised me, as I would have thought that with digital signals, either you received it or not.) 3. After installing the new amplifier (leaving the old one in place as a backup), using the signal strength meter built into the amplifier to fine-tune the direction and re-searching for channels, I could receive 23 stations.For me at least, the head & antenna seem to be worth the cost & minor effort to install.BarryFrom: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:58 AM To:lifewithalazydazerv@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [LD] TV AntennaThanks Bumper. I went ahead and ordered both new head and amplifier. I will install them when it gets a little warmer, and like you, give a report.
Re: TV Antenna Reply #16 – February 09, 2014, 12:57:40 am Yahoo Message Number: 144972Norma, Did the old antenna you replaced have the "Wingman" addition? If not, I would understand the improvement you've experienced. The new Sensar IV, having the "Wingman" built in, will provide much better digital reception than a previous antenna without the wingman add-on. That said, Amazon was "kind enough?" to goof and send me two new Sensar IV antennas, so I tried both of them to see if either would be better than my old Sensar III w/Wingman. Nope, both performed identically - - which is to say "good", but not quite as good as my previous antenna (with Wingman).I'll be returning them to Amazon.bumper
Re: Question on 1986 LD Reply #17 – February 09, 2014, 08:55:16 am Yahoo Message Number: 144974Digital TV uses a subset of the old frequencies. If you have a perfectly working antenna or amplifier, it will work fine for digital TV. The frequencies formerly used by channels 2-6 (54 - 88 MHz) are no longer used. But the remaining parts of the spectrum were all in use before. The actual channel numbers are now all soft, rarely aligning to a specific RF frequency. That is the reason we now all have to "scan" to find the channels.New "digital" antennas are smaller, because they do not have to cover the lower frequencies (54-88 MHz). But an older antenna/amp that has not failed, will continue to work fine in the digital world.-Dave '06 MB, Indianapolis
TV Antenna Reply #18 – October 05, 2014, 05:51:24 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148850The time has come for me to replace my old TV antenna with a new digital antenna. Can anyone recommend a good replacement with amplifier? Must be short so it clears my Solar Panels when folded down.Thank you, Bob 01 23.5 TK with toys Eagle Point, OR for a few...
Re: TV Antenna Reply #19 – October 05, 2014, 06:11:10 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148852I have a 2004 RB and had the mother ship install a manual direct tv dish. Works like a charm, but over the years when I rotate dish it is getting harder. Any suggestions on how to lube the dish to make rotating smother. See all of you in the desert in a week or so. Looking forward to Apple Alley pie shop in Julian.Greg in Yorba Linda Great Ford RV service Fairway Ford in Placentia, Ca
Re: TV Antenna Reply #20 – October 05, 2014, 06:28:21 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148853Digital TV has less signal strength than analog TV, but you don't need a special antenna. I use the stock factory-installed Winegard batwing antenna with the Wingman attachment.I do not use the original amplifier. I use this:Winegard RFL-332 SensarPro Black TV Signal Strength MeterIt works great!Kevin Lindsay Garden Grove CA 2000 Lazy Daze 30 IB As an Amazon Associate Lazy Daze Owners' Group earns from qualifying purchases.
Re: TV Antenna Reply #21 – October 05, 2014, 06:32:08 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148854Kevin, My antenna is broken that's why I am replacing. It no longer rotates that is the issue.Thanks, Bob 01 23.5 TK with toys... Eagle Point OR for a few...
Re: TV Antenna Reply #22 – October 05, 2014, 07:25:49 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148856Bob:Call Winegard Customer Support. You might just be able to replace a gear or another inexpensive part. Unlike most all "customer service" nowadays, in my experience, they are really helpful.Kevin
Re: TV Antenna Reply #23 – October 05, 2014, 10:51:53 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148863Kevin, where did you install this device in your 30'? Could you email a photo?Chris
Re: TV Antenna Reply #24 – October 06, 2014, 12:54:25 pm Yahoo Message Number: 148867Chris:I'm not able to take a picture of it for you right now. I mounted it inside the cabinet in the entertainment center to the left of the TV, where the switch is for the existing TV amplifier. I used a plastic junction box to install the meter facing out. Once you use it to adjust your reception, you can close the cabinet door.It is also handy to switch between the batwing and park cable, and the amplifier gain is adjustable.I have used this for over a year now, and it is amazing how many more channels you can find. Not all channels are broadcast from the same locations, and in many areas there are repeaters that you can find.Kevin
Topic: Question on 1986 LD (Read 22 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Question on 1986 LD (Read 22 times)
previous topic - next topic