DFF1-UHD WITH 3KW

[CQuestII]

I have 3 - TZ2 displays and also have the DFF3d with thru hull and also a B260 thru hull I am using with the internal sounder on a 38 ft twin screw diesel sportfish. I would like to upgrade my depth capabilities so I can deep drop and sword fish in depths up to 2,000 ft and would like to read bottom up to 5,000 ft.

What are my options for changing out the B260? I was told the Chirp will provide better depth but I am unsure if adding the DFF1-UHD with a 3kw transducer would be better than a DFF3 with a 3kw transducer. Can the DFF1 utilize the added power of a 3kw transducer?

What transducer would you recommend with either one? I also do like to bottom fish in 80' to 300 ft.

Thanks Tom

 

[C-Bass]

CquestII,

Thank you for your inquiry.

1.) The DFF1-UHD was not designed to be a high power deep drop fish finder, so for your swordfish applications to find bottom at those depths I would recommend the DFF3 with a low frequency transducer with higher output power, like 3kw that you mentioned.

You might be looking for something like a CM599LHG.

That would also be a good fit for bottom fishing as well because it uses a narrow beam high frequency.

C-Bass.

 

[CQuestII]

Ok thanks Is there any chance that a high power Chirp module is going to be available in the future? Would I get better results if I upgraded on of the tzt2's to a tzt3 and add the amplifier? Is chirp really better for the deeper depths or not.

 

[Snips]

CQuestII,
In the grand scheme of things, power by itself does not equal depth. Doubling the power will maybe get you 10-15% more depth. Frequency is the main component is going deeper followed by the transducers beam width and then applied power. Yes you could use a bigger transducer with the UHD and below is an example how the target returns will look. Higher power transducers have more elements so their beam width is narrower, resulting harder but shorter returns.

Snips

 

[CQuestII]

I am a bit confused. If power is not really going to help me would I be better off just changing the B260 transducer on my current setup? In other words if I would like to bottom fish in 80 ft to 1200' what would be my best setup? I would like to mark bottom deeper if possible but really need it to mark fish in up to 1,200 ft. of water.

How deep will my DFF3d work to help me deep drop or fish in depths deeper than 600 ft.?

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Snips]

CQuestII,
Besides frequency what makes a 3kw transducer have better depth performance than a 1kw? Generally the more power a transducer can handle the more elements it has. The more elements a transducer has the narrower it's beam width becomes, narrower beam widths increase the power on target. Also the more elements a transducer has the more efficient it becomes. So now you have a narrower beam plus a more efficient transducer regardless of it input power. Below is a test I did years ago of what fish returns can look like putting 600 watts into a narrower beam of a 1kw transducer.

So back to your original question, UHD or DFF3. The DFF3 is going to have more transducer options available.


Snips

 

[DeepSouthTX]

CQuestII,
In the grand scheme of things, power by itself does not equal depth. Doubling the power will maybe get you 10-15% more depth. Frequency is the main component is going deeper followed by the transducers beam width and then applied power. Yes you could use a bigger transducer with the UHD and below is an example how the target returns will look. Higher power transducers have more elements so their beam width is narrower, resulting harder but shorter returns.

Snips

Snips, thats interesting. I have read, probably from you, that frequency is more important than power but never seen it given any metric. Have you all ever tested what effect halving the frequency does. For example, what the depth capabilities a transducer has at 30 and then 60khz?

 

[Snips]

DeepSouthTX,
All transducers have a peak resonate frequency, meaning their performance will decrease above or below that point. If we look at a Furuno CA50BL-24HR for example it likes 50Khz, its performance really starts to decrease below 45 or over 55Khz.

It is always recommended to start with a transducer that has a frequency range for the depth of water you are working in.

Snips

 

[CQuestII]

So one last question if I go with the DFF3 What would be the difference with using the R109LH vs R509LH? The R109lh on airmar's site says its a 2KW but when you look at it on Furuno site it says 2KW/3KW. Assuming 2KW high and 3KW low?

Will I get a better image marking fish deeper than 1000' ft. with one over the other?

 

[Snips]

CQuestII,
The 509 is 3kw on the LF and 2kw on the HF side. The 109 is 2 and 2. The HF side uses the same transducer so the difference between the two is the LF side. The 509 is physically larger than the 109. Both will do the job at a 1000ft, if money is not a consideration go with the 509 as it is slightly better.

Snips