Notices

Airmar Xducer technology

Closed Thread

Old 01-06-2004, 05:47 AM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Peter,

How does the new "Shoot thru" technology compare to the traditional through hull transducers?

Is there a limit to hull thickness?

Are there any Truthers with feedback using 1kw shoot thru's?

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 01:25 PM
  #2  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 2004 32 Topaz
Posts: 360
Default Airmar Xducer technology

marlintini I had the same issue when i was looking for a transducer for my northstar unit. Since i had the thru hull for the furuno and really did not want to drill another hole in the hull. From what i have seen with other peoples shoot thrus they are excellent as a back up transducer. They do lose some of there signal. You do not get as diffined pictures as with the thru hull. Hope this helps
flounder1979 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 03:28 PM
  #3  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

There is a certain amount of loss shooting through any hull material but it varies by hull thickness and it varies by the frequency of the transducer. It would be hard to nail down a number that you could equate to signal loss, but basically you will lose overall sound pressure more than anything else. That could be related to a speaker and the overall distance you are able to project sound. If you have a high powered stereo feeding a speaker, and you stand 100 yards away with nothing between you and it, you will hear the sound loud and clear. If you place a sheet of plastic between you and the speaker you will probably have to move to within 80-85 yards of it to hear it loud and clear. Basically adding the layer of plastic (or fiberglass) in front of the speaker will affect the overall distance that the sound can travel. It can also affect some of the detail of that sound.

An in-hull is less affected by flow noise under the boat, and it is also out of the water so it is not creating any flow noise. In many cases the in-hull model will perform as well as, or better than a comparable through hull at trolling speeds and above. The in-hull also can be installed with the boat in the water, is not prone to fouling, and makes it easier to accomodate if the vessel is trailered.

The bottom line is that there is no substitute for a transducer being in contact with the water, but the M260 in-hull is designed to get you as close as you can get to the same performance, without having to cut a hole in the hull. The trade offs are very minimal in overall performance loss. We have had documented reports of customers tracking bottom in 3600+ feet of water with M260s. The question is how much deeper can one fish at....?

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 04:42 PM
  #4  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Will the R199 work with the Furuno BBFF3 netsounder?

What would perform better?

BBFF1 @ 1kW with the B260
or
BBFF3 @ 2kW with the R199

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 07:40 AM
  #5  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Due to the shear size and power of the R199/BBFF3 it will outperform almost any B260 installations. The real answer is a tough one. It depends on the type of fishing you will be doing, how well you want to understand the sounder and every little detail that it can possibly display, and how much you are willing to spend. The bottom line is that the R199/R99 (the R99 is an external mount version of the R199) are the most sensitive products we offer in the Recreational/Commercial markets. They will vastly improve the performance of any 600 or 1000 watt machine as well as a 2kw machine. I would suggest purchasing the sounder that gives you the features you want, and then buy the best transducer you are willing to spend your hard earned cash on. You would not be at all dissapointed with the performance of a B260, but the R199 takes it up a notch from there and is the right choice if you decide you want to play in the 2kW range.

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 08:19 AM
  #6  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Posts: 1,212
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Peter,
I am also very interested in a shoot-thru transducer but worry about loss of detail. I am looking to install the BBFF1 @ 1kw and was looking at going with the Airmar R199. I want excellent bottom detail up to about 250 feet and then after that just an accurate depth reading up to 2,000 feet would be fine. At 250 feet or less will the R199 give me just as good as detail as a thru-hull transducer?

Thanks,
Chris
Buck Wild is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:43 AM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

just to clarify....

The R199 will perform better than the B260 even at 1kW?

What is the physical size of the R199... I don't see it on the Website.

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:45 AM
  #8  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Yes, the R199 will give you a far better picture than the B260, even in the range you are looking at. Most of the high performance transducers are narrow beam models so keep in mind that the area below the boat you will see will be rather small at 250 feet. The detail will be amazing but objects will need to be within the beam to show up on your screen. The R199 should also give you very reliable bottom tracking, as well as water column detail, at 2000 feet and beyond.

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 10:45 AM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Posts: 1,212
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Thanks Peter! The only thing that concerns me from your comments is the beam width. Will I need to be in 200+ feet to get a good amount of beam width? What about when I am locating the spot in 85 feet of of water. Just want to make sure that I'm not limiting myself to deep water only.

Can you give the size of the R199?

Thanks again!
Buck Wild is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 11:29 AM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

From another thread
quote: The R199 needs a 17"L x 8.25"W x 10.5"H area to mount in, where the M260 needs 9"L x 5.5"W x 7.5"H.


Peter,

I just wanted to say thanks... all this info will serve as great reference material for all our members in the future. (At least until the next wave of new products )

*
Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 12:04 PM
  #11  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Posts: 1,212
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Thanks Marlintini. Are you going to go with the R199 and the BBFF1 @ 1kw? Any idea on the cost of the R199? I think it will have a big price tag on it.
Buck Wild is offline  
Old 01-07-2004, 04:43 PM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

I'd like to go that route.

I have a call into Consumers to get me a price on the R199 and the new "Retractable Tri"

Then I need to verify the space for it.

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-08-2004, 04:31 PM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

The list price on the R99 and R199 is $1499... the street price is $1349.

On another note....
I was mentioning the In-hull to my installer and got alot of negative feedback on in-hulls.
... they leak tank fluid? ... bubbles/air pocket in the fiberglass ... blah, blah, blah
"Through hull are much more sensative, the only way to go"

I think this guy really likes cutting holes and fairings.

If you had the choice would you want one less hole in your bottom... or doesn't it really matter?

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 06:40 AM
  #14  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Posts: 1,212
Default Airmar Xducer technology

$1349...OUCH!!!! I figured in the $600 to $800 range. Man for that amount it better tell me what kind of fish is down there and if they are of legal size.

What does a "Retractable Tri" do? I know what the Tri stands for...depth, temp, and speed. But how does the retractable portion work and what are the benefits?
Buck Wild is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 11:43 AM
  #15  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

We commonly get the same comments on the in hulls that some installers prefer thru-hulls. I can't argue with their past experiences but I can tell you that modern hull lay-ups are much better than the hulls of a few years ago, and all of our in-hull models are designed for optimum performance shooting through 'glass. Since 1kW High Performance in hulls have only been around for a few years they may be basing their experiences on a thru-hull transducer that was adapted for in-hull use. I have seen installations as crude as placing a thru-hull in a glob of silicone applied to the hull surface. First of all I don't know that the sound speed through silicone is going to be a help to good performance, but I do know that whatever signal is left to go through the hull would most certainly not go directly below the boat, instead it would reflect off at the same angle as the hull.

There really is no substitute for having the face of the transducer in contact with the water when it comes to minimizing signal loss, but the transducers that are specifically designed for in hull mounting have the distinct advantage of being able to correct for deadrise, no fouling, no hull penetration, and in most cases improved performance at speed due to their lack of drag. When you weigh all of those facts the in-hulls make sense for many applications. If you have plenty of mounting space and the boat is large enough that it is not frequently trailered, by all means consider a through hull.

The retractable Triducer IS NOT a fishfinder transducer. It has a very small ceramic and will not function beyond about 200-300 feet. It is designed for an instrument application where digital depth is calculated using a transducer, not graphical information like in a fishfinder application. It is an absolutely awesome solution for a sailboat or as an instrument sensor on a powerboat because it is a low cost sensor with depth, speed and temp all in one compact housing. The insert can be removed from inside of the boat for periodic inspection and cleaning of the paddlewheel with no need to haul the boat. We offer it in an NMEA 0183 version that will feed digital depth, speed and temp to any NMEA capable instrument. This version works at 235kHz so it makes an ideal back-up sensor to a dual frequency fishfinder. It also has a minimum depth capability of 1 foot so is ideal for navigating shallow channels where high powered sounders may tend to receive two or three echo returns.

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 12:23 PM
  #16  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: boca raton, fl, usa
Posts: 755
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Peter, you have been a great source of valuable info, maybe you can educate us on the effects of bottom paint on the outside of the hull ?. I just received my in-hull 260 and can't wait to try it out. Does the cable have all of the wires going to the transducer ? I will have to cut and splice the cable near the transducer and would like to splice a speed and temp senosr in at that point (near the actual transducer). there is no way I can snake the connector up the legs of the t-top to get to the electronics box and it makes sense to cut it near the 'ducer and snak the cable from the top down to the transducer and splice the speed /temp in down near the m260 and near the speed/temp sensor. Am I thinking clearly ???? ps. I have not cut it yet.
Eric
heatzig is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 01:05 PM
  #17  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Typically the M260, or any of the High Performance models do not have enough wires in the cable to carry speed up to the sounder. In the case of the in-hulls they typically only have provisions for the depth wires since you can't get temperature in an in-hull. If you have an existing transducer line running from the helm that carried depth, speed and temperature it can be used if you absolutely need to. You could splice the new transducers into the existing cable inside of a junction box. I need to stress that this is not the preferred method though. The cable has a layer of Mylar foil and a bare wire that shields the cable from RF noise and noise filtering into it from outside sources. You do take a chance of compromising this by cutting and re-splicing. If you have to splice it I suggest using a proper marine electrical junction box. We offer one for this operation but as long as it is a good sealed box you should be fine. Note that cutting the cable will affect the warranty in most cases.

Do yourself a favor. Before you cut anything, install the transducer in the optimum location and run the cable up over the deck to do a few sea trials. Once you are satisfied with it's performance then splice the cable if you must. This will ensure that you are happy with the performance at the beginning, and if you have problems after cutting the cable you will know right where to look for the culprit.

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 11:27 AM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manasquan, NJ
Posts: 1,024
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Are the In-hull ducers easier and quicker to install vs the through hull?

The Airmar site has install instruction for through hull and fairings ... but nothing on the in-hull (that I could find?)

Marlintini is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 11:47 AM
  #19  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston,Tx,U.S.A
Posts: 11,625
Default Airmar Xducer technology

Marlintini ....You have some mail on transducer mounting .....John


Triton 2200CC, Honda BF200,
jtburf is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 12:00 PM
  #20  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the water, USA
Posts: 81
Default Airmar Xducer technology

The in-hull can be installed with the boat in the water so I would have to say it is much easier to install than a thru-hull. Since there is no hole to cut in the hull there is less time involved in sealing and bottom painting etc. The instructions should be on the web site under M256, M260 and R199 (in-hull, removable depth transducer).

Peter Braffitt
Business Development Manager
AIRMAR Technology Corp.
Milford, NH USA
pbraffitt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: