How much fly line?

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


large measure of salt, anybody who tells you to cast a 6wt or
heavier line on your 3wt has got a screw loose.



Although I agree that Mike's comments might confuse a newbie, I HAVE fished,
successfully and many times, using a 2 wt and a cut down '8wt' shooting
head. Now, obviously ( I think) when you cut most of the 8wt head off what
is left is no longer an '8wt line' ... it is simply a very short 2wt
shooting head.
Backed with Amnesia running line it is somewhat like a spin casting/fly
casting hybrid but gets the fly out there rather well.

I, personally, only used this system years ago on putentake stillwaters
around home here when I silly enough to think I wanted more sense of "fight"
from these sluggish fish. Two weight heads weren't available and a
shooting head is the way to fish stillwaters, imho, 99.874% of the time.
So I experimented starting with a 'retired" 8wt head and it surprised me how
well it worked. The system worked better and was more pleasant to cast (
for me ) than most shot/bobber/weighted nymph/standard line combinations
I've used.

I no longer use the 2wt/8wt marrage because I no longer fish a 2wt
....period. But I still buy 10wt heads and cut them down for my 8wt striper
rod ( balancing to feel, cutting off a little at a time and testing ) and
have fished this 10/8 combo and an 8/8 combo both enough to be able to
declare the shorter head works better for me, most times and situations.

You've mentioned fishing for Pike ( or something new for you, maybe not
Pike ) and shopping for a 9wt .... when you get one ... try cutting back a
11 or 12 head until you feel it balances the rod with a couple feet of
overhang ... it might surprise you how well it tosses a big fly


NOTE: I am a ****poor caster and no expert ... just a guy who "has done
that"

On Mar 20, 3:08 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

actually,Mike, much of what you say is true. I think you are exaggerating
the reality a bit to make a point, but many of us overline a rod for certain
situations. I do so with a 5 weight for streamer presentations(7 weight head
and running line, or a 6 weight intermediate). And yes,
tension keeps the line aloft, but trust me, I have fished with a lot of
these guys, and trees keep the tension intact far longer than the rod or
casting motion. I remember distinctly hearing a certain member mutter
"****ing hemlocks!", and the vast bulk of his line stayed in the air for a
good half an hour......g
Tom

No, actually I am not exaggerating at all here. As long as the weight
matches the rod, the length of line is irrelevant within certain
limits. The longer the specific weight is, the harder it is to cast.

Heads under twenty five feet or so also become harder to cast properly
for other reasons.

In order to reach maximum distance with any rod of any nature at all,
one needs a piece of lead ( or similar) of the right weight. Any rod
will cast a range of lead weights, but there is one specific weight
which it will cast the furthest.

The same applies to lines, with a couple of other factors thrown in.

Using a matched head ( or other piece of line within the casting
capacity of the rod), is not the same as "overlining". Overlining is
generally not a good policy at all, as it may result in straining a
rod.

With a matched head it is not possible to strain a rod, as the weight
is matched to it. This also makes casting a lot easier.

TL
MC

On Mar 20, 3:03 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Your theories are so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous
parodies when it comes to real life fishing and for most folks
it is about real life fishing and not some nonsensical physics
exercise in distance casting. It is sufficient to label your
"articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know
any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility.

--
Ken Fortenberry

As usual, you are not "arguing" or even attempting to discuss anything
at all, you are merely engaging in personal insults.

MC

wrote in message
oups.com...

There are only very very few people who will be able to cast a full
#3DT line. Indeed, the vast majority will never even get close to 65
feet. But there are plenty who can quite easily cast thirty feet of
#10 line on a #3 weight rod quite a long way.

There's your problem with generalizations, many three weights don't have the
taper to not get overpowered by 30' of #10 line, but without resorting to
name calling I would have to agree trying to cast 90' of 3wt is different
than trying to cast 30' of 10wt, regardless of the rod.

Furthermore, there is NOBODY who can cast a weighted #6 woolly bugger
60 feet, or even close to it, using a #3 weight line and a #3 weight
rod.

I'm not a particularly accomplished caster and I would take that bet.
Regardless I know several who could make that cast.

This involves double hauling the thirty foot head ( or however long
the matched piece happens to be), and shooting the backing. It is not
even particularly difficult.

The weight is the same, merely the length of the weight has changed.
This has no affect at all on the rod.

Disagree again, The weight of the line is but one factor. The length of the
aerolized line is but one component of the process, that's why people who
try to back cast with 30' of WF line often loose it because the
combination of rod load, line speed, and taper get all shot to hell when the
fatter "head" portion is dependent upon the skinnier running line to support
the flight path. There were specific rods made to aerolize line but they
tend to be softer action than the medium fast to fast action rods in vogue
on this side of the pond.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... It is sufficient to label your
"articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know
any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility.

As usual, you are not "arguing" ...

Yeah, that's what I said. I'm not arguing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 20, 3:31 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

There are only very very few people who will be able to cast a full
#3DT line. Indeed, the vast majority will never even get close to 65
feet. But there are plenty who can quite easily cast thirty feet of
#10 line on a #3 weight rod quite a long way.

There's your problem with generalizations, many three weights don't have the
taper to not get overpowered by 30' of #10 line, but without resorting to
name calling I would have to agree trying to cast 90' of 3wt is different
than trying to cast 30' of 10wt, regardless of the rod.

Furthermore, there is NOBODY who can cast a weighted #6 woolly bugger
60 feet, or even close to it, using a #3 weight line and a #3 weight
rod.

I'm not a particularly accomplished caster and I would take that bet.
Regardless I know several who could make that cast.

This involves double hauling the thirty foot head ( or however long
the matched piece happens to be), and shooting the backing. It is not
even particularly difficult.

The weight is the same, merely the length of the weight has changed.
This has no affect at all on the rod.

Disagree again, The weight of the line is but one factor. The length of the
aerolized line is but one component of the process, that's why people who
try to back cast with 30' of WF line often loose it because the
combination of rod load, line speed, and taper get all shot to hell when the
fatter "head" portion is dependent upon the skinnier running line to support
the flight path. There were specific rods made to aerolize line but they
tend to be softer action than the medium fast to fast action rods in vogue
on this side of the pond.

The taper and other factors are irrelevant. If the rod can cast 200
grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything. The length of that
weight is also quite irrelevant (within certain limits and dependent
on technique) whether it is a one inch piece of lead, or a thirty foot
piece of line.

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.

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.

With regard to carrying heavy flies the weight of the fly-line in use
is the only relevant factor. ( Unless the weight of the flies and
technique used is great enough to actually pull the fly-line, in which
case it is no linger fly-casting, but bait-casting).

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.

TL
MC

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
. ..

Following my own post because of typing disfunction.

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.

one does not need 30' of line on a backcast to generate a 60-90' cast.

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, 4:33 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
"Wayne Knight" wrote in message

. ..

Following my own post because of typing disfunction.

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.

one does not need 30' of line on a backcast to generate a 60-90' cast.

I did not suggest one did?

However, as a general rule, the more line one can aerialise, the
farther one can cast.

A short dense head of thirty feet may be hauled a very long way. Over
two hundred feet is not unusual. This is not practical for normal
fishing though.

TL
MC