ribbing wulffs
 

Tom Nakashima schrieb:

Interesting site.
How critical to a tied fly is holding dimensions to tolerance?
-tom

Depends rather a lot on the fly concerned, and what materials are being
used. It can be very critical if one requires the fly to have certain
characteristics. How it floats, how high it floats, etc. It can also
make a considerable difference in behaviour on wet flies, streamers,
etc.

It is in any case not just a question of how the fly looks. Usually
form follows function.

TL
MC

ribbing wulffs
 

Joe McIntosh wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Stephen Welsh wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:



The way I've been tying mine seems to help with the problem of
"nose-heavy" flies, but will probably make the purists cringe. I use
"parapost" synthetics for the wing, and I don't always bother to post
the wings separately. *gasp*


IJ suggests -bottom loading i hope----royal wolf is my go to and in small
mountain streams seems to do the job---strongly suggest that my friend at
Troutflies sells them for 99cents each--they may be imported but none of
the small brookies I caught this past weekend just off the Blue ridge -
seemed to be worried about " fair trade"-- they were just hungry until the
sun was able to get thru the trees and onto to the creek. and throw some
shadows.
Please do not post any thing about the western clave --my planned
unattendance is causing a evening manhatten attack --do you think that
blond from Va. [ i think Las Vegas ] will be down at the seaside
bar?



though warren has kept a low profile, there are rumors a fish goddess
from southern california will descend for several days.

last report from warren - the fishing was going well on the madison,
salmonflies on the lower section of the river.

jeff

ribbing wulffs
 

Stan Gula wrote:
wrote:
... Wulff's? Small sizes, they're great in the
west.

Have you ever tried an H&L Variant? It's a peacock bodied dry fly like a
Royal Wullf without the red band, and with the back half of the peacock quil
de-flued, just the quill.

Wierd coincedence that yesterday morning I was reading about the H&L
Variant in the first flytying book I ever owned (Jack Dennis' Western
Fly Tying) and thought in the small sizes it would be deadly and you
could see the things.

I'll have to tie some up.

Your pal,

TBone

ribbing wulffs
 

ribbing wulffs
 

wrote:



Oops, left out the instructions!

http://www.troutflies.com/tutorials/royal_wullf/

TL
MC


Harry's tutorials are great.

Willi

ribbing wulffs
 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:04:25 -0600, Willi wrote:

wrote:
Hi All,

Tying up a batch of small wulffs for a trip.

1) Do you guys rib them? They look better in my eye with some fine gold
wire or crystal flash, though this is not apparent on any pattern or
references.

2) Do you use deer or elk? Can you articulate what makes good hair?

3) When you tie in the wing is it about 1/2 way up the shank?

4) How long do you make the tails?

I ask 3 and 4 because I have had some problems with Wullf's riding on
their noses though they look fine.

Thanks very much,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel...



Try tying a few trude style. I think they work even better, they're
easier to tie and they never land "wrong."

Willi

I'm curious as to your experience with these never landing "wrong."
I don't see, as a broad statement and without taking the
proportions/"float line" into account, how the wing position/style could
make this true, but ???

TC,
R

ribbing wulffs
 

wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:04:25 -0600, Willi wrote:

wrote:
Hi All,

Tying up a batch of small wulffs for a trip.

1) Do you guys rib them? They look better in my eye with some fine gold
wire or crystal flash, though this is not apparent on any pattern or
references.

2) Do you use deer or elk? Can you articulate what makes good hair?

3) When you tie in the wing is it about 1/2 way up the shank?

4) How long do you make the tails?

I ask 3 and 4 because I have had some problems with Wullf's riding on
their noses though they look fine.

Thanks very much,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel...



Try tying a few trude style. I think they work even better, they're
easier to tie and they never land "wrong."

Willi

I'm curious as to your experience with these never landing "wrong."
I don't see, as a broad statement and without taking the
proportions/"float line" into account, how the wing position/style could
make this true, but ???
[snip]

Howdy,

This is kind of at the heart of this thread. A long time ago I was
taught that the tails of a wulff should be shorter than on a normal dry
fly, and more bulky, and that the wings should be set back a little
towards the middle than on a normal thorax dry. In reviewing this
thread several things have come to mind and a few more questions
remain.

Instead of saying "wulff" to define this class of tie I think
"hair-wing dry fly" is better. Are the proportions different (than
other winging methods) because the weight of deer hair too far forward
tends to overcome the weight of the gap part of the hook and tail,
despite otherwise normal proportions? I'd like to weigh a wing size
clump of hair, some hackle tips, calf tails etc. as well as the weight
of just the gap of a hook. I imagine that the weight of thread is
potentially contributory as more is needed to secure deer hair ends.

The other thing of interest (to me anyway) is that I tie on more varied
hook styles than ever before. Someone mentioned 1X shank length to make
these easier and look better, but I believe it's possible that this
would only increase the potential for nose dive moving it forward of
the COG more.

It also dawned on me, d'oh, that the normal prescription for tails, (1
X shank length), is not as fundamentally sound as making it relative to
the gap width as this has more to play with hackle length and that
'plane' which runs from hackle tips to tail points. So, for the deer
hair dry flies we might be better served by Tail - 1 to 1.5 Gap, Wings
positioned only slightly forward of center of shank.

Thanks,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

ribbing wulffs
 

ribbing wulffs
 

On 29 Jun 2006 06:58:50 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:04:25 -0600, Willi wrote:

wrote:
Hi All,

Tying up a batch of small wulffs for a trip.

1) Do you guys rib them? They look better in my eye with some fine gold
wire or crystal flash, though this is not apparent on any pattern or
references.

2) Do you use deer or elk? Can you articulate what makes good hair?

3) When you tie in the wing is it about 1/2 way up the shank?

4) How long do you make the tails?

I ask 3 and 4 because I have had some problems with Wullf's riding on
their noses though they look fine.

Thanks very much,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel...



Try tying a few trude style. I think they work even better, they're
easier to tie and they never land "wrong."

Willi

I'm curious as to your experience with these never landing "wrong."
I don't see, as a broad statement and without taking the
proportions/"float line" into account, how the wing position/style could
make this true, but ???
[snip]

Howdy,

This is kind of at the heart of this thread.

Then I readily admit I'm lost. I didn't know Trude-style flies had
anything to do with it until Willi mentioned them. I realize you had a
question about wing positioning, but I thought it was in the context of
a "standard" Wulff tie. IOW, I'd offer that what might be called a
Trude "variation" is quite often really a different fly that may or may
not use the same or similar materials to, for example, a particular
Wulff. To help support this, I'd offer the Lime Trude. While I'm sure
some might tie a "Lime Wulff," it certainly isn't as popular as the
Trude, and while there are "Royal Trudes" (or whatever), they aren't as
popular as Royal Wulffs or even Coachmen.

A long time ago I was taught that the tails of a wulff should be shorter
than on a normal dry fly, and more bulky, and that the wings should
be set back a little towards the middle than on a normal thorax dry.
In reviewing this thread several things have come to mind and a
few more questions remain.

What do you mean by "normal" dry fly? If you are speaking of imitators,
they should attempt to have the same, or as close to as possible,
silhouette as what it imitates, preferably in 3D, but certainly from the
fish's perspective. As to attractors/stimulators, they don't really
imitate anything, so if putting the wings in the back and a "tail" in
front and having them ride any old way, but they still attract fish,
they are "right." And one of the big selling points of Trude style
flies, I thought, was that they could be (particularly and
intentionally) fished dry or wet.

Instead of saying "wulff" to define this class of tie I think
"hair-wing dry fly" is better. Are the proportions different (than
other winging methods) because the weight of deer hair too far forward
tends to overcome the weight of the gap part of the hook and tail,
despite otherwise normal proportions? I'd like to weigh a wing size
clump of hair, some hackle tips, calf tails etc. as well as the weight
of just the gap of a hook. I imagine that the weight of thread is
potentially contributory as more is needed to secure deer hair ends.

The other thing of interest (to me anyway) is that I tie on more varied
hook styles than ever before. Someone mentioned 1X shank length to make
these easier and look better, but I believe it's possible that this
would only increase the potential for nose dive moving it forward of
the COG more.

It also dawned on me, d'oh, that the normal prescription for tails, (1
X shank length), is not as fundamentally sound as making it relative to
the gap width as this has more to play with hackle length and that
'plane' which runs from hackle tips to tail points. So, for the deer
hair dry flies we might be better served by Tail - 1 to 1.5 Gap, Wings
positioned only slightly forward of center of shank.

IMO from my training and experience, trying to use a formula won't
always work, and since that's the point of a formula, don't use one.
It's proportions and the imaginary line with the three points previously
described and little or nothing to do with weight (assuming the material
type and amount are kept within a reasonable range, of course). As
always, your and other folks mileage may well vary from mine and each
others.

And I'd try to stay away from trimming such flies into working if
possible.

TC,
R

Thanks,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

ribbing wulffs
 

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:23:54 -0600, Willi wrote:

wrote:


I'm curious as to your experience with these never landing "wrong."
I don't see, as a broad statement and without taking the
proportions/"float line" into account, how the wing position/style could
make this true, but ???

TC,
R


Never is a chancy word, but the weight of the relatively heavy hair wing
lying horizontally prevents the fly from "standing on its nose" while a
heavy upwing hair wing tends to cause it.

Granted "never" and I didn't take your use of it in this case as an
absolute.

That said, I'd offer that if the material weight is really affecting
things, positively or negatively, something isn't "right" - too much is
being used, the wrong proportions (of material, not the fly's
proportions) are being used - for example, a tail with one or two
strands and a really full hackle and wing, or other "flaws" in the tie.
I thought that Trudes were tyed as such to streamline them when fished
wet, rather than as a weight distribution system, but ???

I can see that the weight could come into play with ties that get a
little too far outside the "sweet spot" range of material usage or if
the fly's proportions were a little less than good, but again ???

TC,
R

Willi