Hi, I have a 97 Albin 28 TE and want to upgrade my electronics. I want to install TZ 9", chirp DFF1-UHd sounder and R109 transducer. Fishing up to 1000 meter, Tuna and sailfish and deep dropping at 300-400 meters.
Any opinion, feedback will be appreciated.
The DFF1-UHD offers two unique modes in ACCU-FISH and Bottom Discrimination that our competitors don't have. Because these modes work best with a transducer that has a conical beam pattern, the 265LH series was the logical choice and why it is the only transducer in the UHD's data base. However we have tested the 109 and 509 series with the DFF1-UHD to see how they would work. Where the 265 has a conical beam pattern both the 109 and 509 are elliptical. This means the returns come back stronger using the 109/509LH but are shorter due to the narrower forward/aft beam width. The low frequency of the 109LH has a forward/aft beam width of 5-10 degrees compared to 5-11 degrees for the 509LH. For reference the forward/aft beam width on the 265's low frequency is 16-25 degrees. Good fishing.
Snips, thank you very much for your answer. In order to be clear I have some more questions.
- R109 LH is also a chirp transducer like 265LH, true?
- What is the practical difference between conical and elliptical beam?
- Do R109 LH has also Accu fish and bottom discrimination?
- What depths were tested with both transducers? And at what speed?
- I also have FCV 587 with B260, is the difference with chirp transducer (265) significantly better with chirp?
The 109LH is a higher power CHIRP transducer with the same frequency range as the 265LH. Since the 109LH beam pattern characteristics are not in the UHD's data base, the information from both ACCU-FISH and the Bottom Discrimination modes will be unreliable.
We have two main testing areas, one that is fresh water to 200ft and the other is salt water to 1000ft. We have an array of different transducers on a mounting board that is attached on the arm of a crane. This allow us to compare a number of different transducers during any given test. We tested the B265 with the 587 and found that the 200Khz was slightly better and the 50Khz side was degraded compared to the B-260. At this time the B-260 is a better choice.
It depends on the frequency you want to use on the FCV-587. The 265 is a little hotter on the 200Khz side but in my testing it likes to resonate around 42Khz on the 50khz, so the B-260 is better. Around I would give the nod to the 260 for the FCV587.