Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In-Hull Transducer - Garmin-gctid340226

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dmcb
    replied
    I see said the blind man.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2850Bounty
    replied
    SomeSailor wrote:
    Check out the link Rick. The housing is glued down with 5200, then filled with PG.
    Mike.... :hammer.... we're both on the same page here, and the same page that I've been on through this entire conversation!

    [SIZE]8 wrote:
    [/SIZE]NO 3M 5200 for attaching the actual transduce to the hull!

    The 3M 5200 is not suitable for Quote> "Gluing the ducer down"

    Leave a comment:


  • SomeSailor
    replied
    2850Bounty wrote:
    If so, then that's along the lines of my earlier suggestion to Chief in that the 3M 5200 would not be suitable if in contact with the ducer itself.
    Check out the link Rick. The housing is glued down with 5200, then filled with PG.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnrupp
    replied
    Rick and Doug, I agree with the bubbles on a normal puck transducer, see the link posted by SS. With the P79 only the outer housing is "glued" to the hull. By turning it you adjust for deadrise angles from 2 to 22 degrees. Once the "glue" is set you add a little RV antifreeze. The tranducer is then inserted from the top and it twists and locks. If the base is correctly installed the transducer shoots straight down.

    To put it a different way, the transducer doesn't shoot thru the "glue" only thru the RV antifreeze and hull. They work great for depth only readings, are easy to install, and very easy to replace the trnsducer unit if it fails.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2850Bounty
    replied
    SomeSailor wrote:
    The housing is filled with PG.
    Well that's what I've read.... either PG, minerial spirits, and occasionally bubble-free epoxy.

    If so, then that's along the lines of my earlier suggestion to Chief in that the 3M 5200 would not be suitable if in contact with the ducer itself. Yes/No?

    Leave a comment:


  • SomeSailor
    replied
    2850Bounty wrote:
    John, are you talking about sealing the outer housing down, or the actual placement and securing of the transducer against the fiberglass? I'd be surprised if the 3M 5200 material offers the density and/or "transparency" needed for ultrasonic signals.
    The housing is filled with PG.

    http://"http://www.airmartechnology....chures/P79.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • 2850Bounty
    replied
    johnrupp wrote:
    Rick, I just want to point out that the attachment you have in post 6 contains incorrect info. Airmar recommends using the following to attach the P79 housing, silicone sealant, fiberglass resin, 3M's 5200, or Marine-tex epoxy putty. 3M 5200 is perfectly fine to use.
    John, are you talking about sealing the outer housing down, or the actual placement and securing of the transducer against the fiberglass?

    I'd be surprised if the 3M 5200 material offers the density and/or "transparency" needed for ultrasonic signals.

    You may be correct, and I'll stand corrected!

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • dmcb
    replied
    My only concern with any thick glue like 5200 would be the possibility of a small air bubble being in the mix.

    I like resin because it is liquid enough to settle without the added possibility of an air bubble.

    Don't forget the angle of the hull. Somehow you have to adjust for that.

    Also something to think about. Ease of removal if something is wrong. Just try to remove a factory installed puck and you will see what I mean.

    Doug

    Leave a comment:


  • johnrupp
    replied
    I agree with Doug and Somesailer, if all you want is a depth reading go with the in hull or shoot thru hull as some call them. I prefer that P79 for its ease of compensating for hull deadrise and if the transducer go bad it can be replaced using the original housing.

    Rick, I just want to point out that the attachment you have in post 6 contains incorrect info. Airmar recommends using the following to attach the P79 housing, silicone sealant, fiberglass resin, 3M's 5200, or Marine-tex epoxy putty. 3M 5200 is perfectly fine to use.

    Leave a comment:


  • SomeSailor
    replied
    Doug is correct there. If it's just for finding the bottom, I'd just mount it TO the hull. If you're fishing, or concerned with following the bottom at speed, maybe a through hull would be worth it. If you mount a through-hull, you have to be aware of it all the time the boat is out of the water. They can be damaged pretty easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2850Bounty
    replied
    dmcb wrote:
    ............ If a boat is to ever be trailered, caution should be made that the transducer will never come in contact with the trailer. Even with a miss while loading.

    Doug
    Very true!

    This ends up being a non-issue for me, as my bunks clear this with space to spare......, but is definitely something to be considered.

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • dmcb
    replied
    One thing I am sure of it is best to drill a hole below the water line when the boat is out of the water.

    About the difference between a through hull and a shoot thru the hull application.

    I have a very good Raymarine through hull transducer. A large brass thing that cost the former owner about $1200 installed.

    I have 2 inexpensive Humminbird units, one upper and one lower that are shoot through the hull mounted as I suggested.

    In 200 feet of water they will be within 1 foot of the other and I think that difference is where they are placed in the boat.

    Given my choice, I would mount the Raymarine unit glued to the inside of the hull and avoid another hole in the hull.

    I would lose the paddle wheel speed function that isn't worth a darn anyway. Also temps but I don't fish with this boat so the temps aren't of much value either.

    If a boat is to ever be trailered, caution should be made that the transducer will never come in contact with the trailer. Even with a miss while loading.

    Doug

    Leave a comment:


  • itsabowtime2
    replied
    True, not apples to apples comparison.

    But I can say that the thru-hull has yet to not give a reading. The shoot-thru and the transom mounted would both blank out from time to time.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2850Bounty
    replied
    itsabowtime2 wrote:
    Steve, I installed a thru-hull on my 3055 last season and was amazed at the results vs. the shoot-thru style which was an OEM Larwrence unit.
    It's probably tough to compare one brand/quality with another brand/quality regarding S/T -vs- T/H ducers.

    I think that in order to be fair, you'd need to compare the same make/model Depth Sounder/Fish Finder head unit..... with both S/T and T/H ducers connected.

    Difference now being the "Ducer" type only.

    My decision became easy once I spoke with the experts at Rodgers Marine Electronics here in Portland..... plus the hull had been previously bored for a T/H.

    I'd still have done it had it not been!

    Leave a comment:


  • itsabowtime2
    replied
    Steve, I installed a thru-hull on my 3055 last season and was amazed at the results vs. the shoot-thru style which was an OEM Larwrence unit.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X