Chewbucca17
Member
Hi guys would any one out there know which one of these transducers would give better definition down deep (1300 - 2500 feet?) It will be paired with a fcv295. Come in SNIPS?
Snips":r6ljovw7 said:Chewbucca17,
There are quite a few differences between those two transducers. First is the element count, the 3kw R-509 has 24 where as the 2kw 9hR has 9. The way the elements are arranged give the R-509 an elliptical beam pattern of roughly 9 for/aft and 18 port/star, the 9Hr is 20.5 x 20.5. This means the R-509 will produce shorter and harder target returns than 9HR. For bottom hardness the 9HR is a better choice because of it's higher Q factor.
Snips
Snips":3ktmfik6 said:Chewbucca17,
Bait is a lot easier to detect than an individual target, especially at depth. If you change the frequency from 38 to 28Khz. Two of the R-509's characteristics improve. First the depth performance and second is that the beam width will get slightly wider.
Are you going to try to fit the R-509 on that high speed hull you asked about before?
Snips
Snips":zbidi5k1 said:Chewbucca17,
The R-509 has 24 elements which makes it extremely sensitive to everything. The lower the frequency the more susceptible any transducer will be to noise or turbulence. You have a 8m hull which means you are going to have a very shallow draft. Shallow draft hulls are very prone to turbulence. Is the R-109 a better choice, hard call, because it doesn't change the draft of the hull
Snips
Snips":xfxpwrsf said:Chewbucca17,
The biggest issue is your shallow draft is going affect any transducer that is hull mounted. How you ever thought about a pole mounted transducer?
Snips
Chewbucca17":yd4zjb9w said:
Snips":13gnf80n said:Chewbucca17,
Without seeing a screen shot I can only imagine what you are looking at. If you are trying to better separate fish depth wise try using a Max TX rate and a Short 1 pulse length.
Snips