[alberg30] Re: fishfinder

Robert E Johns bobjns at nais.com
Tue Mar 2 09:17:15 PST 1999


From: Robert E Johns <bobjns at nais.com>

>From: Bill Newman <bnewman at netcom.ca>
>
>I need to replace my depthsounder on my Alberg 30 and am considering
>installling a Fish Finder which seems to be cheaper and offer more
>information.  Has anyone done this?  Is there any reason not to?
>
>Bill Newman
>Marion Rose #233

Bill,

I've used flashers, digital (single reading), and fishfinder depth sounders
on my Alberg #397 that we bought in 1976. We mount them under the cover in
the bridgedeck, which keeps them handy, but out of the way.

The flasher is obsolete and I don't think it's even made any more. The main
trouble with the digital depth sounder is that if it false alarms due to
fish or turbulence, you read that depth and not the bottom's depth. Some of
the newer ones might have circuitry that avoid the false alarms, but I am
dubious about how effective they may be.

I thought that the fishfinder would be ideal because it can show both fish
and bottom. It also shows a plot of past depths so at a glance you can see
if the the water is getting deeper ot shallower. I bought a "Humminbird"
brand fishfinder some years ago. The base price was about $99 but I paid
extra to get a thru-hull type transducer instead of the standard transom
mount transducer. One thing that lead me to choosing the Humminbird was
that it fit in the space in the bridgedeck. The thru-hull transducer was
about the same size as the the previous transducers. (The transom mounts
would have a lot of drag.) The Humminbird also has all kind of extra
features such as anchor alarm, automatic scale changing (which I keep
locked out most of the time), and other stuff.

The only real gripe I have is that the sensitivity is poor. At around 50
feet, and sometimes  less,  the readings become erratic, appparently
depending somewhat on the bottom. I installed a 100 amp alternator that
caused interference with the Humminbird, but that was mostly cured when I
added a suppression filter. The Humminbird is instrumented to read
something like 400 feet,  but in practice, no way! It might be that I have
a weak transducer. I used to use the depth sounder as a primary navigation
tool, but that is less important with loran, etc. I still  like to use
depth to confirm the position.

In short, I like the idea of a fishfinder because of the being able to see
both interference and the bottom and not just the interference. I am not
happy with the Humminbird that I have because of the erratic readings, but
in truth I have not confitmed that the transducer is OK.

Hop that this is of some help.

Bob





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist:  The leading provider of free email list services

 920395035.0


More information about the Public-List mailing list