Sounder upgrade recommendations

[BruceFish1]

I am using a FCV 582L with what appears to be a 525T-BSD transducer. The boat is an Osprey 26 Long Cabin with a 200 HP Volvo AD41p duo prop drive. I fish shallow water for Calico bass, Halibut etc and also fish 200 to 300 feet deep for rockfish. I would like to get better performance for the rockfish.

Can you give me some idea of the performance improvement I would see for rock fishing with the following options?
Change the transducer to a B260 and keep the FCV 582L
Change the transducer to a B260 and the Sounder to a FCV 587
Change the Sounder to an FCV 295 or FCV1150 with the appropriate transducer
Change the Sounder to a BBDS1 or DFF1-UHD with the appropriate transducer
What transducer would you recommend?

Thanks for your help.
Bruce

 

[Snips]

Bruce,
I would first upgrade your transducer. Also I would try to get the transducer in the best possible location with a high speed fairing. I looked online at the 26 Long Cabin and saw that your trailer probably has bunks. If you decide to go with the B-260 I would try to place it on centerline. If you can't do this, look for a location as close to the bottom of the "VEE" as possible. As far as the sounder goes I would look at the 1670 and 1870 first because of the price, both are good sounders plus you get a chart plotter. After these I would look at the 627, 587, 295 and 1150 depending on your budget. If you want to use the BBDS1 or DFF1-UHD you will need to add a MFD-8/12 or TZT-9/12. Hope this helps.

Snips

 

[BruceFish1]

Snips,
Thanks for the reply.

I can mount the transducer on the center line but had never considered it. The present transducer is mounted about 10 inches on the starboard side of the center line. If the new transducer is mounted forward of the present transducer, could I leave the present one in place without degrading performance of the new one?

I would like to be able to reliably judge the presence of rockfish over 10 inches long in 300 feet of water. If I could do this at a speed of 10 knots it would be great.
Do you have any idea which of these sounders will do this?
Also, can you give me any idea how much improvement I should expect with the 295 over the 587 in looking for rockfish at 300 feet?
Would the B-260 be a good choice for the transducer? It is my understanding that the B-260 with a diplexer is compatible with the 587 and the version without the diplexer is compatible with the 295 so it seems I need to make a decision on the sounder before I make a decision on the transducer.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks again,
Bruce

 

[Snips]

Bruce,
You are correct on the transducers, the 587 will need a diplexed B-260 and the 295 will use a non-diplexed one. It's a hard call for me on the rock fish detection because they are not around in our local waters. But in Alaska using a B-270 we were able to easy see them at 120ft on both frequency's using a 295. We could have gone deeper but that's where they were on the day's we fished. Comparing the 587 to the 295, with the 295 you will be able to do more individual tweaking on either frequency. With the 587 you have a common TVG and Clutter controls, on the 295 you have individual Gain, Clutter, TVG Level and Distance controls for both LF and HF. You can control the Pulse Length on the 295, with the 587 you can't. Will you need all the capabilities of the 295, probably not, but they are there. As far as placing the new transducer lower and forward of the existing, I would advised against that. The B-260 is a bigger housing than your existing transducer and the turbulence it will cause will flow back (depending on vessel's speed) and up. Your existing transducer will probably be right in the path of the turbulence.

Snips

 

[BruceFish1]

Snips,

Thanks for the information. I appreciate the explanation of the difference in features between the 295 and the 587. I am still having difficulty judging the performance difference in 300 feet of water. Do you have any screen shots of the 587 and the 295 in 300 feet of water that would give some idea of the relative performance of the 2 units at that depth?

Do you know if the 587 can see a second or third return of the bottom in 300 feet of water with the 526TID-HDD W/FAIRING?

Anything else regarding the relative performance in 300 feet of water would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Snips]

Bruce,
Picture wise the best I can do is the 295 and 585. Please keep in mind that this is not an apples to apples comparison because the 295 was using an R-309 and the 585 was using a B-260. However this picture does show the second echo at 300ft+ on the 585. Hope this helps.

Snips

 

[BruceFish1]

Snips,
Thanks very much for the comments and the photos. The 585 looks pretty good to me. Am I correct in presuming the 587 is at least as good as the 585?

For working in 300 feet of water, is there a better choice of transducer than the 526TID-HDD for the 587? I think this is the same as the B-260. Is that correct?
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Snips]

Bruce,
There are a couple of different models of the B-260 but the 526TID-HDD is the model that will connect directly to the 587. The 587 is an updated 585, the main differences are the 587 has different LCD, Post Gain control and Bottom Discrimination/Classification.

Snips

 

[BruceFish1]

Snips,
Is there a performance disadvantage of using the B260 with an external diplexer with the 587? I understand there is a cost disadvantage but it would give me the option of going with other sounders.
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Snips]

Bruce,
I have always used the diplexed B-260 with the 587. I have no test data with the non-plexed B-260/MB-1100 combination with any of our sounders.

Snips