fishfinder for halibut

^ this sounds like the thing that I'm trying to do! :thup :thup :thup :thup

Screenshots??


Minor derail:

Ill post more later, but I've now tried the hummingbird 360 sonar, and it's cool, but, meh. It's just a sidescan image from a rotating transducer, rendered in a circle. The info you get is identical to the info you get with sidescan, but it's cool to point it at one spot and watch for awhile if fish are there. I'm not sure it's a vastly more effective tool though. I will definitely help me for my application at work, but if I were going to buy for myself, I don't think I'd spend money on panning sidescan at all, but higher res, bigger screen, better ducer, etc. my $0.02.

End derail.
 
How effective is the 360 in showing what is ahead? I can see for a bass fisherman who is casting--that the "usual" side scan does not show structure until you are abeam or past the point, and you missed the fish, unless you cast back, and to the side.
 
It is very effective for looking ahead and can be constrained to look ONLY ahead, or aside, or behind…

It's really cool for what I'm doing at work, but hasn't found me a lot of flatfish. I haven't been able to really use it for that very much though.

In terms of our applications at work, I think the spotlight would be a better tool, but it's essentially the same thing. Being able to have the scanning sonar (albeit manual) plus the ability to project waypoints on your scan, as well as storing scans on your plotter would make it easier for me to make use of the info. However, the 360 sonar is super cool. It works VERY well, and in shallower applications is about the neatest think out there. In terms of practicality, the info you get is the same as side scan, you can just point it wherever you want.
 
How about specifics on the 360/ How far ahead can you reliably determine depths? What about the ratio between water depth and sight ahead?

If you are in 10 feet of water, how far ahead are you reliably able to see structure, bottom and bottom depth?

Thanks
 
I would like to chime in with this tidbit. I have heard over and over that the raymarine is a hard system to use. Though I find it easy to use I can understand that the system could be harder to use then something you are familiar with. At the boat show this year I spent some time on the new Raymarine units. I can say that they have completely revamped the screens and menus. They hired a phone app designer to redo all the menus. I bring this up because I no longer believe that menu "ease of use" is any longer a reason not to buy a Raymarine sounder.
 
Well Bob. Reliably is a bit tricky. See, I've marked a lot of rocks and hazards with the 360 that were to be avoided. I put my gear in place and it didn't hit any hazards. BUT, that doesn't really mean that I marked all the hazards properly.

The 360 sonar can't display depth. That's an issue. But if you also have the regular transduce you have depth directly under the boat. you can then infer the depth in front of you. I'll say that it's difficult to see when you have shallow water in front that gets deeper beyond. You cant' see the deeper section, because of the "shadow." But you can infer and see contours pretty well. So, while it does not display depth data out in front of you like a lot of true forward looking sonar, you can do a lot with the info you have.

BUT, it's clearly made to see the bottom well for fishing, not for navigating. I think that the trackback and the ability to project waypoints onto your scan (lowrance spotlight) it would be easier to verify the accuracy, and probably be a better tool for me.
 
There is a difference in needs in the PNW, AK etc--where there are generally steep drop offs, and hazards like rocks, snags etc. Vs. the South and East of the US, where there are long stretches of 9 to 10 foot ICW, with shoals in the passes, or where river's "T" into the waterway systems. One of the problems also is keeping in the center of the waterway, because of side currents (set--bearing current is taking-- and drift--magnitude of current). Where if you are looking forward, you seem to be in the waterway, but the current has taken you out of the main channel--and the warning may be a low depth, on the sounder, (but with the sounder aft, may not be enough warning)--and then the boat grounding or at least throwing sand/gravel on the hull.

The goal would be to see the shoaling ahead--which is a gradual decrease in depth, rather than a desecrate obstacle. Most forward looking sounders/scanners do not do well in this type of scenario--and wondered if the 360 can differentiate between the channel, vs gradual shoaling as you drift out of the channel.

Thanks.
 
Big differences in the two areas. I'm lucky to have been in both, and e Great Lakes extensively. Understanding your application, I am not sure it would work well for you because the image deteriorates quickly at any speed. When we are going about 3kt we can still se a usable image. Quality deteriorates quickly after than even in shallow water. It is said to be okay to 7mph, but it hasn't worked that well for me at those speeds. Current is not an issue, only speed over ground.

If you were to stop and deploy the 360 periodically to check shoals when you weren't sure, it would be pretty great. If you wanted to watch as you motored at any efficient cruise speed (displacement or step) you wouldn't be happy with the performance.

One spot where it does better than forward looking sonar is that it is not constrained in how far forward it can see by how deep it is. If its shallow it can still look out in any direction 50' or more (I've only had it set to look close, but it can go farther, I just can't comment on its effectiveness at range) just fine, even if it's only a few feet deep.

We used it looking about 20-40' from the boat, mostly, in about 10' of water. It did well in tests at 3' as well.

The deeper you set the transducer the better it sees, and it's adjustable, but it can easily get down below your motor skeg, so be careful with it in the really shallow stuff.
 
you're welcome. Sorry for my sloppy typing. iPad.

Anyway, One thing I might mention is that I have only ever used the 360 on a jet boat (no lower unit beneath the hull). I've seen others comment on it needing to be lowered below the prop, which is why I issued the earlier warning. I used it in 3' of water, but the transducer was only about 6" below my hull. If I had a prop down there I'd have had it dangerously close to the bottom, and at risk.

Further, I don't believe that the problem with the image at speed comes from anything but transducer movement and aeration. I believe that if one were to build this transduce into a through hull it would work fine at speed. I also may have hinted that the only consequence of using the unit at planing cruise speed (i.e. ~ 20 kt.) was poor image. Actually, you would probably destroy the transducer instantly, especially if it were deployed below your prop.
 
Back
Top