R509 vs 38BL-9HR

Hi guys would any one out there know which one of these transducers would give better definition down deep (1300 - 2500 feet?) It will be paired with a fcv295. Come in SNIPS?
 
Chewbucca17,
There are quite a few differences between those two transducers. First is the element count, the 3kw R-509 has 24 where as the 2kw 9hR has 9. The way the elements are arranged give the R-509 an elliptical beam pattern of roughly 9 for/aft and 18 port/star, the 9Hr is 20.5 x 20.5. This means the R-509 will produce shorter and harder target returns than 9HR. For bottom hardness the 9HR is a better choice because of it's higher Q factor.

Snips
 
Snips":r6ljovw7 said:
Chewbucca17,
There are quite a few differences between those two transducers. First is the element count, the 3kw R-509 has 24 where as the 2kw 9hR has 9. The way the elements are arranged give the R-509 an elliptical beam pattern of roughly 9 for/aft and 18 port/star, the 9Hr is 20.5 x 20.5. This means the R-509 will produce shorter and harder target returns than 9HR. For bottom hardness the 9HR is a better choice because of it's higher Q factor.

Snips


Thanks for the speedy response snips. So..... if I am trying to mark the scattered bait layer and individual swordfish in mid water 300 metres-800 metres down, which transducer would perform better for this application paired with fcv295?
 
Chewbucca17,
Bait is a lot easier to detect than an individual target, especially at depth. If you change the frequency from 38 to 28Khz. Two of the R-509's characteristics improve. First the depth performance and second is that the beam width will get slightly wider.

Are you going to try to fit the R-509 on that high speed hull you asked about before?

Snips
 
Snips":3ktmfik6 said:
Chewbucca17,
Bait is a lot easier to detect than an individual target, especially at depth. If you change the frequency from 38 to 28Khz. Two of the R-509's characteristics improve. First the depth performance and second is that the beam width will get slightly wider.

Are you going to try to fit the R-509 on that high speed hull you asked about before?

Snips


Thanks snips. Yes we are looking at installing the R509 in the boat. ..... mainly because I don want to shoot through the fibreglass due to the decreased performance, and the boat builder wants to install this type of transduce with fairing. We NEVER go over cruise speed , so will easily stay within the speed requirements for this type of transducer. Couple more questions. ...I have been told the R509 on a fcv295 is quite 'noisey' on the screen (fills screen with a lot of noise when gain is turned up compared to other transducers). Is this true? Have you noticed this? Also, would the R109 be better for what I'm trying to do with my fishing? Or I'd the R509 good? Thanks again snips
 
Chewbucca17,
The R-509 has 24 elements which makes it extremely sensitive to everything. The lower the frequency the more susceptible any transducer will be to noise or turbulence. You have a 8m hull which means you are going to have a very shallow draft. Shallow draft hulls are very prone to turbulence. Is the R-109 a better choice, hard call, because it doesn't change the draft of the hull

Snips
 
Snips":zbidi5k1 said:
Chewbucca17,
The R-509 has 24 elements which makes it extremely sensitive to everything. The lower the frequency the more susceptible any transducer will be to noise or turbulence. You have a 8m hull which means you are going to have a very shallow draft. Shallow draft hulls are very prone to turbulence. Is the R-109 a better choice, hard call, because it doesn't change the draft of the hull

Snips


Thanks snips. So to suit the type of fishing we do,1/bottom fising in 400-500m, + 2/ lookn for bait and swords in midwater 400-700m down, would u suggest another transducer? Or will be the 509 be ok? Cheers
 
Chewbucca17,
The biggest issue is your shallow draft is going affect any transducer that is hull mounted. How you ever thought about a pole mounted transducer?

Snips
 
Snips":xfxpwrsf said:
Chewbucca17,
The biggest issue is your shallow draft is going affect any transducer that is hull mounted. How you ever thought about a pole mounted transducer?

Snips


I had a pole mounted transducer on my last boat, worked ok, but was annoying to have to slow right down to use it . I have just come across a guy who uses a r109 here on a very similair boat as mine that gets great results. .. so think I will go that way. I have a question about the R109 snips.... I have read that a r109 LHW can damage main board when connected to a fcv295..... (wrong impedence). I am looking at using the R109 LH ...... will this damage the fcv295 at all like the LHW does? Or will it be fine?

Thanks again.
 
Chewbucca17":yd4zjb9w said:
Snips":yd4zjb9w said:
Chewbucca17,
Go ahead and give it try.

Snips


Thanks snips


Hi snips. I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on this question? ...I ended up thru hull mounting the R109 in the new boat,hooked upto the fcv295. LUCKILY it is performing as good if not better than I expected. The deepest I have been is 330 feet, and doing 50kph it holds bottom perfectly and show's up fish very clearly at this speed/depth.
My question is.... when sounding around reefs looking for fish schools on or near the bottom it shows them up but the seperation between fish isn't great. (Shows schools of fish as sort of big blurry blobs as opposed to a heap of singular dots as my old transducer did) . I'm just wondering if I have the tvg settings wrong? I had the tvg at 4 and the distance at 330 feet. (Same as the depth we were fishing). Should I have the distance deeper at say 600 feet when in shallower water (300 feet) or should I reduce the tvg down from 4? Thanks heaps for your help.
 
Chewbucca17,
Without seeing a screen shot I can only imagine what you are looking at. If you are trying to better separate fish depth wise try using a Max TX rate and a Short 1 pulse length.

Snips
 
Snips":13gnf80n said:
Chewbucca17,
Without seeing a screen shot I can only imagine what you are looking at. If you are trying to better separate fish depth wise try using a Max TX rate and a Short 1 pulse length.

Snips

Hi snips thank you for the reply. Unfortunately I didn't take a screenshot when I was out in the boat. ...I will try those settings you just recommended when I'm out next . I'll make sure I get a screenshot and report back. ThanKS again!
 
Hi snips. I went out again and Tryed a few different settings with the 295. Definately improved the readings I was getting, just had 1 last thing I need to tidy up.... I seem to have faint/subtle verticle lines through the fish schools I was locating. I've tried to upload the screenshots on here but am struggling. Would it be possible to email them to you?
 
Hard to tell much from that screen shot. If I had to guess I would say that you were using the HF, at a lower gain setting and that the target returns were being affected by turbulence. Next time out pl;ease take a screen shot of the entire display, using both frequencies with a gain setting that is high enough to show clutter in the water column.

Snips
 
Thanks alot snips. Your correct. ...it was in high frequency. I use high frequency in this depth 80-100m so I can get right over the fish school with the narrower cone width/diameter. It was very rough the day I took this screenshot, so like u you say it may have been a turbulence thing. I will definately take a screenshot next time I'm out as per what you suggest and hopefully it is not as rough. Just a quick question. ...obviously in deep water (400-500m you should have the tvg distance set to the depth your in, is this also advisable in say 80-100m of water? + any tip as to how high to have the tvg when in 80-100m ?

Thanks for your help snips!
 
Back
Top