Testing Dry Flies

Any of you 'test' flies at home? On occassion, I have tried testing flies to see how they sit on/in water or how long they float. For the latter I was comparing different body materials.

Anyway, I failed to consider specific conditions that I could not identify and which may have effected the tests outcome. Perhaps someone with the correct background will be able to clarify those conditions I failed to consider and may be of interest to anyone who tries these homebrew type tests.

That is: I used tap water that is treated and I imagine has had purification chemicals added as well as some natural chemicals removed. Freestone rivers like the Beaverkill, Willow and others contain whatever is the natural state of the chemical make-up. So I ask:

* Is 'raw' water harder and more resiliant than tap water?
* Does the alteration of 'raw' water into tap water increase the softness and therefore makes it less resiliant to a floating fly?
* Does the natural movement, oxygen content and dirt content of river water add, subtract or not have any effect on the floatation of a fly?
* Do the results of glass tests or bathtub tests in the home accurately reflect what would happen in the natural environment?

Looking forward to your responses.

Allan

[loteckjoe]

Allan,
I think current, wind and waves are going to be the most difficult to reproduce. I suppose you could use your home-testing as a constant in your experiment. Then test outside to see how all the elements of nature factor in to change your constant results. I DO think that home-testing is a good idea and can be used to determine the "floatability" of one fly as compared to another. But nature will always throw you a curve. Best of luck, and let us know.
God Bless,



------------------
He Knocks. You Only Have To Ask.
Joe

[CTCaneman]

I conducted a similar experiment on the stream a couple of weeks ago.
While opening a compartment box in a little wind, several flies took flight.
Here's what I found; flies without tippet and leader attached float a long, long time, at least until way out of site.
Positive ID of the flies eaten is hard to determine past 20'.
Heavy hackled flies tend to blow across the surface, flies with the hackle trimmed from the bottom hung tight to the surface film.
I have read a couple of articles, can't remember where though, on this subject. If I can dig them up, I'll post the links.
Pete

[Royal Wulff]

Allan, RW here

I used to do that all the time, not so much for flotation but to see if my flies balanced in the water, not just on a dry, flat surface like a table.

Here's what I came up with. Maybe not just what your looking for, but you can add my findings to the mix of answers:

Consider that I've done this with untreated well water where I live in Maine, and treated city water when I lived in Jersey. There was no difference.

I simply put several flies in a glass or clear glass bowl of water and let them sit overnight. I also squirted a couple with floatant and a couple not with floatant. The next morning (say 8 hours) when I got up, both were still floating like I'd just put em in the water, standing up on their hackles like little troopers. I think what you're doing is trying to draw too fine a line as to conditions you'd find on a stream (as per caneman's post) and testing the flies under controlled conditions. I don't think it'll prove much. All it proved to me is that they'll float all night in a glass of water and at least 2-to 10-feet in a stream, and that's good enough for me.

Later, RW

------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-



[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 06 October 2005).]

[djo]

hi Allan:

You have just figured out the big dilema faced by all research scientists. You have to do the experiment that you can do, not the experiment you want to do. The experiment you want to do is to float flies through identical stretches of water, delivered with identical casts, taken by identical fish, played with identical grace, and repeated over and over so that you can make statistically significant comparisons. But you can not do that. What you can do is float them in a glass of water. Now you understand one of the key limitations of science - you can only do the experiments you can do and nothing more. Think of it next time you want to argue that no one can demonstrate that protecting NW forests helps save the spotted owl or that no one has proven that human sources are causing global warming. You can not do the experiment you want so you must rely on what you can do.

Now for your questions>

I doubt that you would find much difference between stream water and tap water in your fly floating test. There may be differences in hardness levels, but this has to do with the amount of minerals like calcium and magnesium dissolved in the water and would not likely have a big effect on your test. The dirt content of stream water could have a big effect. A dirty dry fly will not float as well as a clear fly. A little algae or fish slime will be a big factor. All taken together, I would expect that the fly that floats the best and longest in a tub would do the same in fairly still water but as RW states that may not be that useful. The big difference is that in rough water the fly gets splashed and even sunk. You might try to simulate this in your tub and try seeing how often you can push or pull the fly under and still have it float properly.

By the way Caneman I have already done that experiment. Last week I repeated it with a compartment of nymphs. My considered opinion is that they don't float - particularly the ones with beadheads.

David

[OkieBass133]

I tie about 18 inches of mono to them and drop 'em in a swirly, whirly bathtub (to simulate some current)

[D. Micus]

i used to drop them in the toilet and flush, but i lost too many flies that way!!!

[zimrx17]

JC has a very detailed account of this very subject, go to the Features side bar, then Flies only. One of the first things I read when I started coming here, very interesting.
Drew

------------------
A bum-legged old man and a drunk. That's all you got?
That's WHAT I got.

[MOturkE]

I'm not sure I want to be around the guy who tries to create wind in a bathtub, if you know what I mean.

I've tested some flies in a clear glass of water so I could look at the "signature" of the fly from below. We have a water softener which removes most of the chemicals from tap water, but I've noticed no difference between softened and unsoftened water.


------------------
There's almost nothin' wrong with the first lie, it's the weight of all the others holdin' it up that gets ya'! - Tim

[mantis]

Allan,
I think what makes most flies sink is when you pull the slack out of your line and get it moving to pick up and cast. The fly 'plows' a bit in the water. When you make your forward cast the surface water on the fly is shaken off but not all that is soaked into the body material...So you false cast and dry it a little more...but it is still a bit moist...which means a bit heavier. Also depends on the water surface and any drag that may incur.
I have tried home float tests but more for the trick John Betts showed me many years ago: to see what "shadow" is cast on the base of the bowl.
Do you remember Bill Phillips? A long time ago at one of Brandts Oneonta TU Banquets I got into a long discussion with Bill at breakfast the following morning. He believed that any moving water is faceted even if it looks nearly glass smooth. He had some great photo work to prove it. and show how it affected the float of the fly and how much of the fly the trout could see.
What you are doing is what a lot of serious FFers do at one time or another. There is no substitute for doing it for yourself no matter where it is written or who wrote it.
Hey,...you want one more shot at the Kill or the West Branch?...Let me know and I'll meet you down there...Bob