FCV 295 paired with Airmar B275LHW/R109LHW

[spork87]

Hi,
Im currently trying to decide on a new sounder/transducer combination. I have been looking towards either the R109LHW or the B275 LHW. Has anyone had any personal experience with pairing either of these with a FCV 295? I'm currently getting feedback that the 295 will not run well through the low frequencies with either of these transducers due to the amount of noise picked up by these chirp transducers. is this the case?

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
I guess I need a better definition of "noise". Noise when the vessel is going fast or just sitting still. I would also love to see a screen shot of this reported "noise".

Snips

 

[Anonymous]

I have a CM599 L/H (Chirp) and it runs faultlessly with the 295, no noise whatsoever from turbulence etc. So whoever told you that is incorrect in the extreme, laughably so.

 

[Snips]

Blackie,
Thank you for your input.
Would you mind sharing with the forum what size your boat is and the type of fishing you do?

Snips

 

[Anonymous]

No problem I have a 25ft aluminium plate cat with 2 x 250hp outboards the majority of my fishing is deep drop anywhere from 500 to 2500 feet.

Cheers

Blackie

 

[spork87]

Hi snips,
I'm not 100% sure with the noise thing,I'm only going off the feedback I received from the furuno sales guys. They said that the testing they had done with the low frequency chirps that they struggled to tune them and gain a decent result compared to the 82b 35r. Have you tested either of these transducers that I'm interested in with the 295 or 1150? I really want the wide beam high frequency and would prefer to only install the 1 transducer.

Blackie, thanks for your feedback. Do you have and screenshots to show the performance your getting with the low chirp?
Cheers guys

 

[spork87]

Hi snips,
I'm not 100% sure with the noise thing,I'm only going off the feedback I received from the furuno sales guys. They said that the testing they had done with the low frequency chirps that they struggled to tune them and gain a decent result compared to the 82b 35r. Have you tested either of these transducers that I'm interested in with the 295 or 1150? I really want the wide beam high frequency and would prefer to only install the 1 transducer.

Blackie, thanks for your feedback. Do you have and screenshots to show the performance your getting with the low chirp?
Cheers guys

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry have never been in the habit of taking screen shots as I only have an "old persons" phone. The 295 has some blocked frequencies but I have been able to slew the frequency on the open frequencies easily.

I was like you I only wanted one transducer so I got the smallest pocket mount available and pole mounted it. I had all sorts of inaccurate information passed of as fact when I was deciding. But I can assure you that I get an excellent picture with clear targets and absolutely no noise.

Main thing I found was clean water flow over the face of the transducer and shielding the cable from electrical interference from other sources.

All the other information in relation to settings I got from Snips and other moderators on this site. I had a play with the settings and found what works best for me.

So long story short low chirp works extremely well with a Furuno 295 I use 2kw up to about 200m and then 3kw from then on into the depths.

Cheers,

Blackie

 

[spork87]

Hi snips,
What is your recommendation for transducers to pair with a 295? Main things are the wide beam HF and fairing mounted. Most fishing will be done in 20-150m for Marlin etc with the occasional day deep dropping in 5-600m.

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
Tough call for me. I think it comes down how much time you will be spending in 20-150m range. To my knowledge both transducers use the same wide element for HF side. So the main difference (besides mounting style) would be the LF side. The arrangement of the LF elements gives the 275 a conical pattern but the elements in the 109 are in rows so it has an elliptical pattern. So its wider side to side than for/aft. Below is a screen shot where I compared the LF side during one of my tests. Note that the B-265 and the B-275 use the same LF arrangement. The big thing here is to note how the beam width of the transducer affects the target returns i.e the wider the BW the more arched the returns. I also found the LF side of the 275 likes 42Khz and the 109 likes the 36-38Khz range. Of the two the 109 will give you better results in deep water. Hope this helps.

Snips

 

[spork87]

Hi snips,
Thanks for the feed back.
In relation to the picture you attached. What sounder module was this on? Would I receive the same results running each of the transducers on a 295? Also have you got any ideas why I would be getting the feedback from sales about the issues with using the LF chirp transducers with the 295? Have you done tests using them and had any issues compared to say an 82b 35r? Sorry for the 100 questions I just want to get it right..
Cheers

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
Asking questions now saves asking questions later.
A little more about that last screen shot I posted. That was done early on when I first starting test our UHD (Chirp) module. Basically I wanted to see how different transducers affected its performance. I didn't change any of the sounder settings just tried different transducers. Also the UHD is 1kw so all the difference in the target returns is strictly transducer related. The bigger transducers have a narrowly beam width and more elements so your target returns come back shorter but harder. Now I did a little different test using an FCV-1150 a couple years later. In this test I more interested in finding the frequency sweet spot of the transducer rather than comparing beam widths. But it should give you idea of what scattered fish targets will look like. One thing to note in the below screen shot is while the targets appear to be at the same strength the gain for the 509 is 1.5 vs. the 265 at 4.8.

While the CA82B-35R is a good transducer it is not popular in the US.

Snips

 

[spork87]

Hi snips,
Seems like the chirp transducers work quiet well on your 1150. Is there any reason why they wouldn't work well over here? I'm just worried why they don't sell or recommend them at all here? Any ideas? 95% of the fishing will be done inside 200m. But was thinking it's worth going to the 2kw if changing from a 585/1kw to a 295. Or is the dff1 UHD a better option?

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
I can't say I have never had or seen noise issues but they have never been directly related to having a "Chirp" transducer. I have water flow issues and I have seen electrical interference but I seen those types of problems with non-Chirp transducers also. If you are spending 95% of your time in 200m or less you really can't go wrong pairing the 295 with either transducer. Remember the only difference will be the beam width on the LF side.
If you already have a MFD onboard for the DFF1-UHD that would save dash space as you wouldn't need to add an additional display.

Snips

 

[spork87]

Hi Snips,
I don't currently have a MFD i was just looking to get the best possible result..
Have you tested either of these transducers in depths of 5-600m I know that the HF of the 275 will perform well up to 200m as everyone over here is currently running the 175HW with great results. The main reason i was looking into the 109 was for the extra power for the deep water. Do you think the 2kw r109 will have a noticeable difference when fishing deeper water to warrant paying double what the 275 is? Im open to other suggestions for transducers as long as they are fairing mounted as i currently have a b260 fairing moulded into the keel so i would like to use the same mounting style i also want the wide beam high frequency.

Cheers

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
There are three components in the depth performance. Power, beam width and frequency. Of those three, most think power is the main factor in going deeper but in fact it is the least important. Of the three, frequency is the most important followed by the transducers beam width and then power.

Simply put it all starts with the transducer and its location. Overall the R-109LHW is a better for deeper waters so it comes back to how much time will you spend in water deeper than 200m?

The LH side of the R-109LHW is a better (but narrower) than the B-275. If you can fit it and it works with your budget, that's the way I would go.

Snips

 

[spork87]

Hi Snips,
Thanks again for your input. Will the 109 also out perform the 275 in the HF/ shallow water?

 

[Snips]

Spork87,
I think I posted two pretty good screen shots earlier. You will need to decide how you want your LF targets to appear. The HF side appear the same.

Snips

 

[spork87]

Hi Snips,
thanks for the help to date. i will let you know how i go.
cheers

 

[spork87]

Hi Snips,
I have decided to go with the 275. Just in relation to setup you mentioned that your best results were at 42khz on the low. Do i need to make sure that the slewing/bandwidth settings in the sounder won't let me change the frequency outside the operating bandwidth of the transducer?