T
TeamRezoned
Guest
We are going through a major fish finder overhaul on our 33T Contender. We have already purchased an FCV 295 and are now trying to decide on which LF transducer to pair it with. This forum and Furuno's tech support are a HUGE reason that we keep updating our boat with Furuno Products.
Snips has already been a tremendous help via PM, but I thought other Furuno users may benefit from a thread comparing these transducers. it would also be great to hear input from other users who may be using these transducers. We have one shot to make this work, so obviously we want to do our homework and make the right decision.
We will be using the LF transducer in 400'-1,000' in the Gulf of Mexico. our top priority is discriminating hard vs. soft bottom. Second priority is marking fish and bait holding tight to the bottom. We don't have to see individual fish (groupers) but do need to know if there is any fish home on top of the hard spots. Furuno has indicated that we want higher "Q" transducers, which I believe all three of the below transducers are.
Here are a couple of our questions:
38khz vs 50khz
- If our max depth is 1,000', would there be any advantage to being able to dial in the frequency of the transducer to less than 50Khz? Or would that only really benefit us if we were fishing much deeper water?
-I believe the CA50BL-24HR has 24 elements and the CA38BL-15HR has 15 elements. Would this make the CA50BL-24HR much more sensitive than the CA38BL-15HR at depths of less than 1,000'?
3KW vs 2KW
- The two transducers mentioned above are 3KW transducers. We are also considering the CA50BL-12HR or the CA38BL-9HR as an option only because the 2KW Transducers are a full 1.6" more narrow than the two transducers listed above and that may make the install of the transducer less intrusive to the running surface of our hull. What kind of performance difference can we expect between the CA50BL-24HR and the CA50BL-12HR in depths of 400'-1,000'? Is this a viable option? Would the CA38BL-9R (2KW) be a better option than the CA50BL-12HR?
Thanks again for the great support. I am looking forward to hearing Furuno's feedback on these transducers.
-Dan
Snips has already been a tremendous help via PM, but I thought other Furuno users may benefit from a thread comparing these transducers. it would also be great to hear input from other users who may be using these transducers. We have one shot to make this work, so obviously we want to do our homework and make the right decision.
We will be using the LF transducer in 400'-1,000' in the Gulf of Mexico. our top priority is discriminating hard vs. soft bottom. Second priority is marking fish and bait holding tight to the bottom. We don't have to see individual fish (groupers) but do need to know if there is any fish home on top of the hard spots. Furuno has indicated that we want higher "Q" transducers, which I believe all three of the below transducers are.
Here are a couple of our questions:
38khz vs 50khz
- If our max depth is 1,000', would there be any advantage to being able to dial in the frequency of the transducer to less than 50Khz? Or would that only really benefit us if we were fishing much deeper water?
-I believe the CA50BL-24HR has 24 elements and the CA38BL-15HR has 15 elements. Would this make the CA50BL-24HR much more sensitive than the CA38BL-15HR at depths of less than 1,000'?
3KW vs 2KW
- The two transducers mentioned above are 3KW transducers. We are also considering the CA50BL-12HR or the CA38BL-9HR as an option only because the 2KW Transducers are a full 1.6" more narrow than the two transducers listed above and that may make the install of the transducer less intrusive to the running surface of our hull. What kind of performance difference can we expect between the CA50BL-24HR and the CA50BL-12HR in depths of 400'-1,000'? Is this a viable option? Would the CA38BL-9R (2KW) be a better option than the CA50BL-12HR?
Thanks again for the great support. I am looking forward to hearing Furuno's feedback on these transducers.
-Dan
