dorky in-hull transducer video ;D

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
:P :P :P

http://youtu.be/CWU-wgshRYQ

it's open to all... I'm so inspired with this!! :D

What I did before was use the standard transom mount unit that I later in-set into the trim tab. That worked better than on the transom, but still got too much engine/prop noise.

Next I imagined trimming the transducer down to be in-set on the inside cabin floor area - it worked best of all and didn't loose that much gain.

Now that I had to replace a dead sounder, I have a dedicated "in-hull" unit. I spent a lot of effort on the best install I could think of. Enjoy :beer :xtongue
 
Gregg,

Nice Job. Good video and Oh, some guts to cut that hole into the bottom and not through. Would the transduce not see through the full balsa cored hull? I sure like the location. Thanks for sharing.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
After conversation with the techs at Garmin, they said the transom transducer that came with my new Garmin GPS/sounder would work by just gluing to the hull. The hull must be solid-not cored. I tested the small bilge under the stove in my 22 by placing the transducer in a baggie filled with water and then running it in all conditions. It work fine so I just glued it to the bilge floor with epoxy. See the photos in my photo album. This may save you some work if you choose to do it this way. (second boat I have done this to with success).
Pete
Pompano
 
I did this on Kerri On ahead of the helm under v berth where the core stops to go to single skin. The transducer is glued in with silicone. Reads depths just fine till I hit 20 miles per hour. Then the hull is out of the water.
 
about to test it out soon :) I wish I would have started the vid' at the beginning of the project instead :| I've upgraded the radar and gps now too, built a whole new helm even, will post some about it soon. It's true you don't need a dedicated transducer to do this, the old one was a hacked-down transom mount unit that I bonded down in the same spot with gel coat. It was all I had on hand. Will be back when I can :P
 
Nice job!
Harvey, any air gap--such as the cellular elements of the balsa core--a foam core, or even plywood core will not transmit ultrasound waves from the depth sounder. There has to be a media coupling the transducer and outer hull solid glass--in this case Red Fox used antifreeze. Water works in warm climates, as does epoxy or other resins, as well as silicone.
 
thataway":af74ryn4 said:
Nice job!
Harvey, any air gap--such as the cellular elements of the balsa core--a foam core, or even plywood core will not transmit ultrasound waves from the depth sounder. There has to be a media coupling the transducer and outer hull solid glass--in this case Red Fox used antifreeze. Water works in warm climates, as does epoxy or other resins, as well as silicone.
Click to expand...

Passing question that occurs: (I'm sure this one recurs on many discussion sites.)

The in-hull bonded unit is much nicer in appearance and apparent simplicity to having one bonded outside to the transom, and may give better results at speed since it's forward in the water stream and may not experience air bubble issues, but how does the ultimate fine definition achieved on screen compare between the in-hull mounted unit and one mounted in the water only behind the transom and without the fiberglass hull and bonding agent to shoot through? And is one bonding agent better or worse than the others in this respect?

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
I installed in hull in both my 19 and 22. I did the Humminbird 160 sounder as in 8 years at West Marine I sold literally hundreds of these as inexpensive bulletproof sounders and not one ever came back. Really simple. I see the 600 foot limit and bottom contours and fish in the screen with no loss that I can tell. The only issue in both boats was that the core stops under the vee berth ahead of the helm bulkhead about a foot and goes to single skin. So that area does come out of the water at high speed so around 22 mph I will lose bottom. Not a biggie for me. I also reported wrong in that I used silicone to install. One can of course but both of mine were done with Marinetex thickened epoxy. It is a really clean neat install with no worries about knocking it off on the trailer or leaks etc. Works like a charm George
 
Joe there is little loss--not enough that you can see it in a well done installation, as Red Fox's is. I have compared the same depth finder with in the water (over the side and thru the hull, and could not see any difference. On the Cal 46 we had a 200 watt unit, and always hit 600 feet--occasionally more. I was shooting thru about 1" glass, and just using the bilge water in a sump aft the the keel lead.

In some other boats I have built boxes and used mineral oil--which works well. I have seen silicone, epoxy resin and water all give about the same results.

This will not be true for the structure scan and probably the forward scan. Probably work as well for the broad band units.
 
I might put in today and be back with a report on the new in-hull TD. The other one I noticed a definite loss of power and detail, but not as much as I expected. What impressed me the most was the isolation from engine noise in the forward location.

More reasons I wanted in-hull were…

1. Reducing more cable clutter and routing hassles running back to the transom.

2. Engine noise issues seem far less.

(even over the prior trim-tab mounting aft of the prop)

3. no more banged-up-expensive-irritatin-tranducer-losses :D

4. I don't need high detailed soundings for my fishing or playing.

5. Appearance :P

6. The river! :P

7. The secret drive of evolution to increase depth ;)
 
just a quick message... it works like a dream :love far better than any other arraignment of any other kind of transducer mounting - ever!

The only gripe I have is the new Furuno LS4100 min' is 15 feet instead of 10 :shock: for the delta, that I miss, but the digit readout seems far faster than the old LS 6000 ever did. ttfn :beer
 
Back
Top