Replacement for sage 590 RPL

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

So, what you're saying is that it would be possible to develop denser
plastic lines and use a floatant with them to achieve a floating line
with the same line diameter as a silk line.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but sure, the dacron or nylon core is
smaller than the silk line, this could be done.

If this is true, then the
reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter is the fact that
fishermen prefer their lines care free.

Bingo!


Maybe it would be possible to just use an intermediate plastic line
with a floatant.

A thought, but most intermediate lines are made with a coating that
wants to break the surface tension, and I'm not sure how they would
take the floatant. I think in general you need to be careful what you
put on the modern lines, some chemicals could attack the plastic.

Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind,
so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the square peg of a
modern line into the round hole of a silk line. I'd bet a fair amount
that I can cast cleanly and accurately with modern equipment to any
fish these guys can cast to with bamboo and silk. The advantage of
silk is aesthetics, not function.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

If this is true, then the reason why plastic lines have a larger
diameter [than silk lines] is the fact that fishermen prefer their
lines care free.

Chas Bingo!

:-)

Chas Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in
Chas a wind, so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the
Chas square peg of a modern line into the round hole of a silk line.

Well, for me that seems to depend on the length of the cast. For
example, while fishing with my 2wt last week, I was having plenty of
trouble with the sidewind when trying to reach feeding fish that were
further away. (I can't give you any exact measures of the distance I
was or was not able to handle.)

I am aware that a 2wt is not a long-distance tool, but since I
couldn't wade there, and the fish were surface feeding, and _did_ take
the fly when I was able to cast it there...

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Chas Wade wrote:
snip
Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind,
...

But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Chas Wade wrote:

snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in
a wind, ...


But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)


Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous
assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all
of us can do it.

Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch!

Willi

Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Chas Wade wrote:
snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT
in a wind, ...

But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)

Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous
assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all
of us can do it.

Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch!

Nigh on impossible for me, and I'm no slouch.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willi wrote:


Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Chas Wade wrote:

snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT
in
a wind, ...


But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)


Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous
assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all
of us can do it.

Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch!

Thanks for the complement Willi, but I've seen a few folks who can cast
circles around me. I think the essence of what I'm suggesting here is
that casting lessons and some practice are a better solution than
archaic equipment. I remember my father talking about draping his old
silk lines around the cabin to dry every night when he was up north
fishing. He also talked about the surprise breaks caused by rotten
spots in the line.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Chas Wade wrote:
snip
Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a
wind,
...

But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)

I haven't used that costume since silk lines went out of fashion. ;-)

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Chas Wade wrote:
The advantage of
silk is aesthetics, not function.


I think there are advantages, but for me the care required out ways them.

As I understand it, a four weight silk is going to be about the same
diameter as a 2 weight. I think that is a VERY big advantage when
fishing for rising fish on flat water. It is also going to cast better
because of less wind resistance. I think I'd like to fish a silk line in
the lighter weights but I need my equipment to be as low maintenance as
possible.

Willi