First Fly Rod, Reel and line Questions??

On 7 Mar 2006 14:47:54 -0800, "Erratic Grouse"
wrote:

Hello,

I recently purchased my first fly rod, a 5wt 4 piece. Now I need to
find a reasonably priced reel to go with it. Most of my fishing will be
for trout on small to medium sized streams in the Pacific Northwest.
There will also be the occasional lake and pond fishing for trout and
bass.

My questions a

1.) What is a good reel for a college student on very limited budget?
I'd like to keep the price of the reel under $50. I see alot of
pflueger reels priced inexpensively($30). I've also seen A redington
in my price range. I plan on upgrading at some point, so I can have a
back up rod or one for friends to use. My main concern is to be able to
some serious fishing from now until winter.

Orvis makes a fairly good beginner's reel, The Clearwater, for under
$40. Also, the Battenkill for about 80. The Redington should also be
good.



2) Do I need a large arbor reel? Would you mind explaining what that
is?

A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel. On a five
weight rod, I don't think you need a large arbor reel. (The arbor is
the part of the reel (spool) that holds the line and backing. Also, a
large arbor reel requires fewer turns of the crank (handle) to bring
in the line.)

3) I've read that a good quality line is more important than the reel,
is this true?
What would be a good line? I can probably drop another 40-50 bucks on
this.

4) Which type of line would you reccomend? Weight Forward or a double
taper.

Sci Anglers, Rio, Cortland all make good lines for about $50. If you
use a double taper line, you can reverse it and use it twice as long
as you would a WF. If you keep it clean (soap and water) and don't
abrade it on rocks, logs, etc, a DT should last you four or more
years. There are those on this forum that will tell you it will last
longer, but they're cheap *******s to begin with.


Thanks for reading all of this and thanks in Advance for any responses,

Your welcome. Good luck. Post what you decide.

BTW, what rod did you buy? Name/model?

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel.

I think there are different types of large arbor. If just the center hub is
bigger, it would actually hold less.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel.

I think there are different types of large arbor. If just the center hub
is bigger, it would actually hold less.

http://p218.ezboard.com/fflyfishingt...picID=35.topic

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:13:48 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel.

I think there are different types of large arbor. If just the center hub is
bigger, it would actually hold less.


Unless it is much wider, as are all of my large arbors.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:13:48 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel.

I think there are different types of large arbor. If just the center hub is
bigger, it would actually hold less.

I have several large arbor reels (Bauers and Loops) and they hold less backing
than the corresponding small arbor reels for the same line weight. I think this
is pretty typical.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:02:17 -0500, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:13:48 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
. ..
A large arbor reel holds more backing than a normal reel.

I think there are different types of large arbor. If just the center hub is
bigger, it would actually hold less.

I have several large arbor reels (Bauers and Loops) and they hold less backing
than the corresponding small arbor reels for the same line weight. I think this
is pretty typical.

Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable. I'd
offer it'd be a certainty unless the reel is, for no apparent practical
reason, designed to avoid such - IOW, a unnecessarily (or even
ridiculously) wide or large reel. I'd further offer that such (a)
design(s) would actually be a detriment.

IMO, large-arbor reels acquired with the large arbor being the primary
characteristic sought are for those who know exactly why they _want_
them. There's nothing wrong with getting a reel that one likes that
happens to be a large-arbor, but that doesn't mean that one can "defend"
having it from a practical standpoint on the basis of it being a
large-arbor reel. For most FFers, and a great deal of FFing, the arbor
size is simply not material.

TC,
R

wrote in message
Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable.

For whatever reason, this reminded me of a mathematical problem whose answer
is mathematically correct, but (to me anyway) seemed counterintuitive at
first. Here ya go:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

pi feet

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On 3/8/06 11:39 AM, in article
et, "rw"
wrote:

rb608 wrote:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

pi feet

Isn't pi the constant?

My guess was 6(pi) inches. It's C=pi(d), so if we add six inches to d
(which we had converted from feet to inches), we have C=pi(d+6). Balances
out with 6(pi). No?


Bill

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?


.8 feet
-tom