I have not installed forward scanning sonar. At least, not yet.
It has been a quite a while since I last evaluated forward sonars, so my comments might be very out of date.... The ability to actually display something I felt I could easily interpret in real time at a useful level of precision didn't impress me. The times we bump bottom we are going from 6.9 feet to 6.5, not from 40 feet to 5 feet. I know some people swear by them, so there is utility there I am not seeing.
Double that on the power usage of the 3G radar! We routinely leave the radar on at sea now. One of the downsides people have listed about the broadband radars is that they are not as good at rain/squall detection. I don't see it. On our trip down here we were regularly seeing rather light squall activity well before the rain started to fall to the surface. For weather tracking and avoidance at sea, the 3G certainly meets my needs, even if it can't pick out a spot of drizzle at 20 miles!
It was good to meet you,
LMC, Fort Lauderdale, FL
---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :
Bill, Due to a lightning strike we had every instrument on the boat replaced from tv antenna to ssb , everything. I chose to go with all B&G , 12 inch plotter at the helm and a 9 in. at the nav . station. I opted for the Forward Scan , it seemed erratic , with the image of the bottom spiking up and down , while in an area with a flat bottom (Chesapeake Bay ) . I could place no faith in it to accurately depict what was in front of me. I installed a new transducer , as suggested by a B&G rep. , I have yet been able to test it out, and will be hauling the boat asap . My question, do you find the forward scan to accurately depict an image of the bottom , or is the image erratic , showing the bottom depth shoot up and down. I thought that perhaps the mud bottom we have here does not reflect well and maybe it works better in a sand / coral bottom . I also really like the radar and it uses very little power . It was nice to meet you in Annapolis.