FCV295 transducer

[Anonymous]

This subject might have been beat to death, but I need to make a decision. I recently replaced an FCV292 with a 295 and am hauling the boat next week for bottom paint. I have not changed the transducers and am still running separate 50 kHz and 200 kHz 1kw transducers from about 1999, when my boat was built. I need to decide if I should replace the transducers and if so, with what. From what I have learned so far, I'm looking at either a B260 or a B265LH if I change. I fish southern CA, year round, so sometimes bottom and sometimes pelagic fish and sometimes hooping for lobster. By law, we can't fish the bottom in more than 300 feet, and when the tuna are around, I'm really only looking at the top 250 feet no matter how deep the water is, so I don't need the added depth capability of more than 1kw. What I'm interested in is using the full capabilities of the FCV295 to get the most detail in the picture, like discerning fish laying on the bottom, finding spawning squid beds and locating structure to anchor up to or to place lobster hoops. Will I get more detail or a clearer picture with a newer transducer than with my old pair? Will the B265LH provide clearer detail than the B260? heavy 35' boat, twin Cummins 450C's, transducers are currently mounted through the hull with fairings, two feet on each side of the keel in line with the CH18 Sonar dome that is in the keel, near the front of where the engines are mounted.

 

[Snips]

Radofish,
The 295 could use your existing transducers if they were still in good shape. The big question is what ducers do you exactly have, we had a couple of different models of 1kw 50Khz and 200Khz to choose from back then. If we assume that your transducers need to be replaced and your choices were between a 260 or 265 I would lean toward the 265 because you will have more frequency options than just the 50/200Khz that the 260 would offer. From my testing I have found that the 265 works a little better at 42Khz than 50Khz. One other thought to consider is maybe using a 275 which has a wider high frequency beam than the 265.

Snips

 

[Anonymous]

I am currently using the old transducers with the 295 and they do work. I considered the 275LHW, but am concerned that the wide angle on the hi frequency would reduce my ability to pinpoint structure on the bottom and possibly reduce bottom definition. My real question is if technology has changed enough in transducers since 1999 for me to see a noticeable improvement in definition on my sounder screen if I upgrade, because I am hauling the boat next week and this is a good opportunity to upgrade. The FCV295 does seem to provide better definition than the FCV292 I replaced. Will I also see an improvement if I upgrade transducers? Sorry I don't know exactly what is there now other than they are 1kw. I've only owned the boat for two years. The boat was built in 1999 to be a charter boat and seems to have had the best of everything available at that time though. I would think that the transducers were specified to equal the quality level of the FCV292.

Thank you!
Jim

 

[Snips]

Radofish,
If you go with a 260 or 265 the HF beam width will be around six degrees compared to the stand alone 200Khz 1kw Furuno transducers that were around 8.5 degrees. To me definition/resolution is a combination of the sounders Pulse Length and the transducers Beam Width. The shorter the Pulse Length the easier it is the separate targets depth wise. With the 295 you have more control over the Pulse Length than the 292. Between the 260 and the 265 I would choose the 265 but set the LF to 42Khz.

Snips

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Snips,

I found I have a Furuno 50b-62m and can't find numbers on the 200 khz transducer. Assuming it is the proper matching one, would you expect them to work well with the fcv295? Any suggestions for settings?

Thank you.

 

[Snips]

Radofish,
Assuming the 92m is in good shape and in a good location it will work with the FCV-295.

Snips