Fish hawk or not

[lt119]

Northwoods has the 4x the whole unit for 529$ I think u have to call ..I didn't spend the Xtra on 4xd because my graph picks up my riggers up to about 90-100 ft .and I don't need blue tooth ...4x was great had my best season last yr

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Adk1]

thanks, but if  Iam gonna do it I am buying the best one out there.

[lt119]

Northwoods has the 4xd too they were the best price I could find and I did a bunch of seching u will have to call and ask 4 the price tho

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[steelfire]

Looks like I will be buying a fish Hawke x4 also since my sub troll was having issues last fall.  For the guys that have them, have they lasted a while with out problems? Seems like every other year I was having problems with my sub troll.

[PennYan20]

The first year of the X4D I spent $739.00 for the unit. I was impressed, to say the least. With 12# weights, the Depth read out was handy as I could factor how far the weights were blowing back. The unit read-out was very stable and didn't jump around a lot. I was also able to determine approximate depth with my dipseys. Glad to see the prices have come down on these units. Installation was straight forward with no coated cables to worry about and large numbers that I could see from the back of the boat. Steve..... 

[Frogger]

Also interested in the upgrade to the XD, but after thinking, which is always not good, if the blow back with your ball isn't accurate on your FF due to the angle (which I'm not debating), how would a fish in the same location within the cone of your transducer be any more accurate in depth on your FF? Meaning if the weight is near the fish how are they so different in depths?

[PennYan20]

I stopped the boat in 100 feet of water. Dropped the rigger with just the probe to 75 feet (rigger reading)Observed the reading on the Hawk. increased speed in 1/2 MPH incriments, and took readings of depth of ball (probe) as they swung back, I lost depth. At the different MPHs the depth read-out was different.I had to do this a few times on calm days and taking in consideration for down currants. My fishfinder rarely picked up my weights @100 feet of water. My 12#s blew back ( I lost 6 feet of depth) @ 3 MPH. I lowered the riggers 6 feet to compensate. Steve.....

[PennYan20]

 PS, it would also be helpful if the fish cooperated with the temperatures that they are supposed to swim in.    Steve.....

[TyeeTanic]

I just bought one after 10 yrs only made one trip so far with it..I found myself concentrated on temp more than just fishing ...I did fine without one.but that's years of practice and learning. My graph marks my balls not much blow back normally 2ft different on the graph from rigger reading so I didn't get the 4xd just the 4x ..I did a lot of research and not having the coating on the cable sold it 4 me ..and the cheapest price I found was 529. At northwoods outlet ..they shipped it super fast and didn't have tax so I saved about a hundred from amazon and ebay..with practice and using when the fishing gets tough should help I only really needed for a east troll..because of current I was right my down speed was a few tenths faster than my sog..good luck ..

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

Your fish finder won't tell you the depth of the rigger ball. It only tells you how far it is away from the transducer. It displays that as depth, as that's the only way it can. So if the ball is back of the boat, the FF does care how far back, it just thinks it's deeper. 

 

What size rigger weight do you have.

 

A 12 lb weight, travelling 2.5 mph downspeed, at 100 ft will probably be off depth by 20 to 30 ft (you actually need to drop the rigger to 130 ft to get 100 ft deep).

 

So both your rigger and FF will say the same thing, but that doesn't mean you know what depth the ball is at.

[TyeeTanic]

Also interested in the upgrade to the XD, but after thinking, which is always not good, if the blow back with your ball isn't accurate on your FF due to the angle (which I'm not debating), how would a fish in the same location within the cone of your transducer be any more accurate in depth on your FF? Meaning if the weight is near the fish how are they so different in depths?

 

You are correct in saying that one can't be 100% sure if that fish is directly under the transducer. BUT!  Fish are WAY less dense than the lead rigger weight. So it's much easier to lose sonar signal return from a fish.  Basically when you see a fish arch, pay attention to 2 things - 1) what's the top of the arch and 2) what's the color of the arch. If the color of the arch is all blue (assuming you use a standard pallet), then the sonar signal from the fish is weak (fish is off to the sides). If you see the inside of the arch red, and at the core yellow, that is a hard return (strong signal) and means the fish is pretty close to the transducer and probably right under the boat.

 

Of course, the top of the arch is the true depth of the fish, assuming it's directly under the transducer.

[lt119]

Your fish finder won't tell you the depth of the rigger ball. It only tells you how far it is away from the transducer. It displays that as depth, as that's the only way it can. So if the ball is back of the boat, the FF does care how far back, it just thinks it's deeper.

What size rigger weight do you have.

A 12 lb weight, travelling 2.5 mph downspeed, at 100 ft will probably be off depth by 20 to 30 ft (you actually need to drop the rigger to 130 ft to get 100 ft deep).

So both your rigger and FF will say the same thing, but that doesn't mean you know what depth the ball is at.

I don't believe 20-30 ft at all ....I've seen 6-10 with others that have 4xd.. I understand it's not as accurate but for the money I'm good

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[TyeeTanic]

I've measured it.  Others have done the test driving their boats up to shallower water and seeing when the ball hits bottom.  At 2.5 mph with a 12 lb weight, that rigger ball is 60 ft behind the boat. That lifts the ball about 20 ft.

 

Now if you have a 16 lb weight, it makes a huge difference, and then it becomes less of an issue.

[lt119]

I think I run 15 lb sharks they even have less drag than a ball. I couldn't decide between 13 and 15's so I don't even remember what ones I got

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[TyeeTanic]

I think I run 15 lb sharks they even have less drag than a ball. I couldn't decide between 13 and 15's so I don't even remember what ones I got

Sent from my SM-G900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

15 lb sharks make a big difference.  In fact you'd be suprised how much worse a 12 lb ball is. And 10 lbs, well that is just ridiculous. I wouldn't even bother. Unfortunately my rigger and gunwale can't take much more than 12 lbs, so depth is important to me so I can compensate.

[Adk1]

I use 12lb sharks, and that was a big step up from the 10lb ball weights!

[lost a lure]

The Cannon blowback charts show the 10lb weight having less blowback than the 12lb at 4 mph at 100 feet?????

[PennYan20]

Yeah, I saw that. Even though the 12# is heavier than the 10#, the 12# is larger in circumferance and causes more resistance in the water. Steve....

[lost a lure]

Everyone claims the heavier the weight the less blowback????

[CaptDennis]

I think big Dave is right on. I run a charter boat and I would be lost without. You could get away with not knowing the depth by fishing the marks but knowing your down speed is a must. I'm thinking about buying a depth raider in addition to the fish hawk just so I can compare the two when the fh speed is giving funny numbers

[TyeeTanic]

Yeah, I saw that. Even though the 12# is heavier than the 10#, the 12# is larger in circumferance and causes more resistance in the water. Steve....

 

No ways. That is against all engineering principles. The larger the weight, the better it gets. It's simple with math. When you talk drag, we think about the cross section area(circumference is obviously related to this), so it's the area of the circle that's travelling through the water. 

 

As a sphere gets bigger the area increase more slowly than the weight increases. That means you have less and less area per lb as the weight gets bigger. So basically yes the drag goes up, but not as fast as the weight does and the pull of gravity.

 

If it was the opposite, we'd see a 1000 kg ball start floating on the water due to too much drag, which obviously isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

So, the heavier the ball, the less the blowback.

 

Don't believe everything you read, incuding what Cannon publishes. It's BS. There's no way you can have less blowback, unless you increase the weight or change the shape so that there's less cross sectional area (which is what a shark and torpedo weight does, and is the principle behind the pancake weights, although those don't track nicely).

 

10#s have stupid blowback, and at 4 mph, It would be over 100 ft behind the boat, if you were 100 ft deep, probably even worse than that.

Edited January 29, 2016 by TyeeTanic

[lost a lure]

So what your saying is if the sphere on the 12lb was larger than the sphere on the 10lb Cannon weight the 12lb would have more blowback.

[PennYan20]

Just a wild guess. I played hookey that year in skool.  I changed over to shark weights long ago. I did notice that we were catching less fish with the sharks than the 10# cannon balls. Design, color...couldn't figure it out. Maybe less action with them, Well, lunch hour is over...my next class is anatomy101. Steve....   

[TyeeTanic]

Just a wild guess. I played hookey that year in skool.  I changed over to shark weights long ago. I did notice that we were catching less fish with the sharks than the 10# cannon balls. Design, color...couldn't figure it out. Maybe less action with them, Well, lunch hour is over...my next class is anatomy101. Steve....   

 

Hey Steve, now you know. Test is tomorrow.

[PennYan20]

I can't make it. I have an alzheimers meeting to go to and can't remember the time or where the meeting is. I do agree that one must have bigger balls on Lake O! Have a great afternoon! Steve.......

[TyeeTanic]

LOL.