How much fly line?

On Mar 20, 4:28 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

A thirty foot piece of line weighing 200 grains can carry a very much
heavier fly that a 60 foot piece of line weighing 200 grains.

But it's not the weight of the two lines that determines that, now is it? Or
is a pound of feathers going to fall at the same rate as a pound of lead?


The volume of the lines is important, as is the absolute weight.
( density = mass/volume).

I know a couple of the worlds best casters. Not one of them can cast a
weighted woolly bugger sixty feet using a #3 weight line, and
regardless of the rod.

The only world class caster I know is also the chief fly line designer for
one of the big three US line makers. But I know several great fishermen who
can make that cast with the right rod and fly line.


It is impossible. 60 feet of #3 weight fly line weighs 200 grains. A
long shank weighted #6 woolly bugger ( the one that was tried here,
although of course these things vary ), weighs 50 grains. The #3
weight line will barely lift the fly. Let alone carry it anywhere. One
can "lob" it, but not anything like sixty feet.


With regard to carrying heavy flies the weight of the fly-line in use
is the only relevant factor.

No the taper and composition of the rod have a lot to do with it too.


They have nothing at all to do with it.


It is quite impossible to aerialise more than the head and a few feet
of line when using either a WF or a ST. This is because the thin
running line/shooting line can not transfer energy to the heavy fly
line.

While I won't use the word impossible and as I said, it is difficult for
most anglers, my self included to have 30' of a WF line extended on a back
cast, it is not unusual to cast a distance greater than 30' on the forward
stroke.


I can shoot thirty or forty feet into a final back cast, and others
can shoot even more. That is not the same as aerialising line.


It is not difficult of have 30+ feet of line in the air on a back cast with
DT or one of the Triangle Taper or Long Belly lines but the resistance of a
DT line will limit the distance the average caster can shoot it out. In the
modern US market, the trend has been towards faster rod actions which help
the average angler generate more line speed that one does not need 30' of
fly line.

Don´t understand that. I can aerialise a 65 foot shooting head with
no problems at all. There are people who can aerialise a whole 90 foot
DT, which is then merely a ninety foot shooting head.

Also, the "resistance" as such is not the problem, the weight is. A
short dense head can easily pull shooting line behind it. A long line
has to pull itself as well as any weight it is carrying.


One of my favorite rods is an older and softer action 8-1/2 5wt. My prefered
fly line is a Scientific Anglers Trout taper 5DT. Except when I am knowingly
fishing heavy streamers, I switch over to a Rio Nymph taper 5WF. I gained
25' with this fly line and those bugs. Can't tell you why scientifically but
I did. But it behaves differently with than the 9' rod of the same series
and weight. Go figure.

It's maker sold a series of sal****er rods that were meant to aerolize line
and they did it well. Their actions were and are unlike any of the rods sold
since. So to call it impossible is wrong.

The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely
irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly-
casting is the momentum of the fly line.

p=mv

whe

p is the momentum
m is the mass
v the velocity

A short object of a certain weight, will carry any given weight
further than a long object of the same weight, as it offers less
fluid resistance, and so loses its momentum more slowly. The surface
area is a very great deal less.

The analogy with lead and feathers is correct. But used incorrectly. A
small dense object travels with a given momentum travels further in
air than a larger object of the same weight.

Rods don´t generate line speed, casters do. The line speed is a
direct result of the force applied to the line. A short object
propelled with the same momentum as a larger object of the same
weight, travels faster and further. ( which also means it can carry
more weight), Regardless of how that momentum was obtained.

TL
MC

On Mar 20, 12:07 am, wrote:


The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely
irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly-
casting is the momentum of the fly line.


Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to
aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly.

On 20 Mar 2007 10:21:49 -0700, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:

Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to
aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly.

Amen. And I can cast a #2 10x Grey Ghost 60 feet with my 4 weight
Sage. No problem whatsoever. Back to lurk, hoping this is the end
of a useless thread.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
"Wayne Knight" wrote:
Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to
aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly.

Amen. And I can cast a #2 10x Grey Ghost 60 feet with my 4 weight
Sage. No problem whatsoever. Back to lurk, hoping this is the end
of a useless thread.

But to cast a fly that size you must be using a cut down 12wt flyline
on that Sage 4wt. Right ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:04:32 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

But to cast a fly that size you must be using a cut down 12wt flyline
on that Sage 4wt. Right ? ;-)

Who da hell would cut down a perfectly good 12wt line to toss a size 2
10x Grey Ghost? I use a 4 wt sinking line (on an Orvis...gasp
reel). No problem casting 60+ feet. If you're standing on the rock,
ya gotta cast *across* the two currents dontchaknow, and dats more
than 60 feet.

BTL

On Mar 20, 6:21 pm, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:07 am, wrote:



The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely
irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly-
casting is the momentum of the fly line.

Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to
aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly.

If you don´t understand how a fly is carried to its target, it is
surprising that you can cast at all.

One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it
is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable
of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a
"theory".

If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything
within reason. This is also a simple fact.

I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not
aware how many of you are simply stupid.

MC

On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote:
One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it
is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable
of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a
"theory".

If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything
within reason. This is also a simple fact.

Jumping in here without reading the entire thread, I may be
misinterpreting the context; but while what you say is mathematically
true enough, I have to disagree that there is a functional equivalence
when applied to fly fishing. First, I'll restate what I think you are
saying as a preamble. If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of
weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that
same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same
action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains. Does that
accurately restate your premise? If so, I'd offer that the logical
extreme of this is spin fishing: line weighs ~nothing, lure is heavy.
It doesn't violate your restatement of the obvious, but it sure isn't
fly fishing.

I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not
aware how many of you are simply stupid.

Perceiving stupidity among those whose means of expression are less
technical is an unfortunate condition afflicting many engineers.
Having read as much as I have of this discussion, however, I'm seeing
many of the same divergences that befall most long threads here. Once
the basic disagreement is established, parties continue to argue not
only their own points, but also in their own languages and paradigms,
all of which frequently differ from the original. I'd proffer that
when one party perceives the other as stupid, it is usually one's
failure to understand what they're saying as much as their failure to
understand you.

In this case, you seem intent on making the point and securing
agreement that casting 200 grains is casting 200 grains. I don't see
anybody here stupid enough to argue the mathematics and physics
therein. Some responders, less lateral thinkers, do not see the need
to agree on that point before moving on to other considerations such
as rod action or aerodynamics of the fly, which unless you are arguing
the equivalence of spin & fly casting, are undeniably relevent. That
doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them
stupid.

$.02,
Joe F.

On 21 Mar 2007 06:26:25 -0700, "rb608" wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote:
One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it
is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable
of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a
"theory".

If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything
within reason. This is also a simple fact.

Jumping in here without reading the entire thread, I may be
misinterpreting the context; but while what you say is mathematically
true enough, I have to disagree that there is a functional equivalence
when applied to fly fishing. First, I'll restate what I think you are
saying as a preamble. If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of
weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that
same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same
action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains. Does that
accurately restate your premise? If so, I'd offer that the logical
extreme of this is spin fishing: line weighs ~nothing, lure is heavy.
It doesn't violate your restatement of the obvious, but it sure isn't
fly fishing.

I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not
aware how many of you are simply stupid.

Perceiving stupidity among those whose means of expression are less
technical is an unfortunate condition afflicting many engineers.
Having read as much as I have of this discussion, however, I'm seeing
many of the same divergences that befall most long threads here. Once
the basic disagreement is established, parties continue to argue not
only their own points, but also in their own languages and paradigms,
all of which frequently differ from the original. I'd proffer that
when one party perceives the other as stupid, it is usually one's
failure to understand what they're saying as much as their failure to
understand you.

In this case, you seem intent on making the point and securing
agreement that casting 200 grains is casting 200 grains. I don't see
anybody here stupid enough to argue the mathematics and physics
therein. Some responders, less lateral thinkers, do not see the need
to agree on that point before moving on to other considerations such
as rod action or aerodynamics of the fly, which unless you are arguing
the equivalence of spin & fly casting, are undeniably relevent. That
doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them
stupid.

$.02,
Joe F.

What are you boy, some kind of troublemaker? Mike has spoken, the
sockpuppets have agreed, and that's that. It's now girllaw.

HTH,
R

On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, "rb608" wrote:
SNIP

That
doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them
stupid.

$.02,
Joe F.

So a solid mathematical argument like "that´s hooey" is valid?

Or a purely logical "you're a ****in' dip****." invalidates any facts?

Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast,
when it has absolutely nothing to do with it?

Not to mention a host of equally stupid remarks.

Not one of these stupid arseholes knows what the hell they are talking
about. I did not post for them, I posted for the guy seeking
information.

I will assume what you wrote here

" If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of
weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that
same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same
action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains."

Is a result of typing errors, or whatever.It is not what I wrote, and
is incorrect.

You may disagree all you wish, but the only thing I do is use a
shorter weight.

A shorter fly-line of the same weight is more dense, it has greater
mass for its volume. This means it travels faster and further.

It is still fly-casting because the weight is a line, and the line is
what carries the fly.

A shorter weight also offers less fluid resistance, and retains its
momentum longer, also allowing it to travel faster and further. This
also automatically enables it to carry more weight than a longer piece
of line of the same weight.

If a rod can cast 200 grains, it does not matter to the rod what that
weight consists of. It will cast 200 grains of anything at all within
reason.

30 feet of line weighing 200 grains will carry a very great deal more
weight than 60 feet of line weighing 200 grains.

Those are all quite simple facts.

Apart from anything else. I use this system all the time, as do many
people I have taught. It is especially suitable for beginners, as it
makes casting much easier. The rod loads more quickly, and the caster
can "feel " what is happening better.

It has a number of applications, but one of the primary applications
is casting heavy streamers and similar on light gear. This is useful
in the pursuit of certain quarry, where heavier rods would be
overkill.

I only replied to you in order to be polite. I don´t intend to waste
any more time on this. There is no point in attempting to explain
these simple facts over and over again. Either they are obvious after
the first explanation, or the people concerned are simply stupid.

TL
MC

wrote:
"rb608" wrote:
SNIP
That
doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them
stupid.

So a solid mathematical argument like "that´s hooey" is valid?
snip
Not one of these stupid arseholes knows what the hell they are talking
about. I did not post for them, I posted for the guy seeking
information.

You posted this (emphasis yours) for the guy seeking information:

"MOST
LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME
AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!!"

Which is, of course, "hooey" or if hooey offends you, rubbish.

You are free to post rubbish here but I am free to call it rubbish
for the benefit of especially obvious newbies like the person who
posted the original query who might not know better than to believe
your silly proclamations.

--
Ken Fortenberry