In Hull transducer Vs Pocket Mount

[TeamRezoned]

Good morning,

We have a 33T Contender that is currently set up with a 587 and pair of 1KW H/L transducers. We are doing more and more bottom fishing SMALL, LOW RELIEF spots in deep water (500'+) and the current set up works ok, but we are looking for more detail especially in 500'-1,000' of water. Our PRIMARY goal is to be able to determine hard vs soft bottom and distinguish fish holding close to bottom.

We have come to the realization that we are going to need a complete overhaul of our fishfinder system in order to maximize our ability to fish in these depths.

We have decided on the FCV295 as the bottom machine, but need to identify which transducer is going to work best with our boat. We are currently looking at the CM599LH and the R599LH. It is my understanding that the only difference between these two units is that one is keel-pocket mounted and one is a "in hull" transducer. below are my concerns with each:

1. CM599LH- This would would have to be glassed in to the keel of the boat. Our boat has very little flat space on the keel, and there are a couple through hull water pickup that may have to be moved in order to make the installation work. The glass work for this installation also comes with a hefty price tag.

2. R599LH- I understand that these "in Hull" transducers lose some power because they have to shoot through the glass. The hull of our boat is solid glass, and remarkably thin (5/8" or so) so I am not sure how much power will be lost. This option is by far the path of least resistance installation-wise.

Does Furuno have any deep water examples of the difference between these transducers? I would imagine that either option will be far and away better than our current 1KW setup, especially when paired with the 295 unit.

I am looking forward to any feedback you guys can provide.

Thanks in advance,

Dan

 

[Snips]

TeamRezoned,
I don't have any comparisons in deeper water, only shallow. With in-hull transducers you lose both ways i.e. power (TX) and receiving (RX). Below is a chart from Airmar of the round trip signal loss vs hull thickness on fiberglass hulls. One other factor to consider is that both transducers you mentioned are low "Q". This means they won't show a very long tail in the primary echo for bottom hardness. So you will need to rely on the 2nd or 3rd returns to determine seabed hardness.

Snips

 

[TeamRezoned]

Thanks Snips.
It sounds like we really need to be looking at the wet faced transducers. Is there an Airmar or Furuno 3kw transducer that has a higher "Q" than the two I mentioned? Which transducer would you recommend for the above application?

 

[Snips]

TeamRezoned,
If your max depth is 1000ft I would look at the CA50BL-12HR (2kw) or 24HR (3kw). Below is a screen shot of the 12HR at roughly 850ft. For your second frequency you might look at the CA200B-8B.

Snips

 

[TeamRezoned]

Snips,

I have done my research of the two transducers you suggested above. On our boat (33 contender Center Console) the only area we can really mount the wet faced transducers is in the keel on the centerline of the boat. This means that one transducer would have to be pocket mounted directly in front of the other (also pocket mounted). could this potentially create turbulence issues?

 

[Snips]

TeamRezoned,
If you have the option the low frequency should be in front of the high.

Snips