I have watched an old YouTube of Fran Betters tying his Ausable patterns.
I think he was an amazing tier/fisher and, especially for “mainstreaming” the precursor pattern to the Comparadun and ultimately the Sparkle Duns.
I heard something on his video that I had missed before. In the pattern he was tying ( I think an Ausable Wulff), when wrapping the two hackle feathers, he mentions using two different sized hackles. He says, that way, if the longer barbules of one break through the water surface, the shorter barbules one will assist in keeping the fly afloat.
Interesting concept. I may unwittingly achieve the same result since I tie hackle tip end first so that the hackle fibers get longer as I continue the wrap
There is a problem with that concept. There is IN PHYSICS, NO FREE LUNCH! Let us do a mind experiment.
Assumptions:
We ignore the minor difference in fly mass between one fly of identical mass and construction tied with 2 hackle feathers of different barb length vs an otherwise identical fly tied with 2 hackles of identical barb length.
Therefore, we assume the hackle density of each fly will be identical, we assume that the identical numbers of hackle fibers are positioned to support the fly, we assume the mass to be supported by the hackles is identical.
Therefore, on the fly with longer and shorter hackles only the longer hackles will be supporting the fly initially. TWICE the number of hackles will be supporting the fly tied with identical length hackles.
Therefore, each hackle on the fly with mixed hackle supports TWICE the weight of the other fly; therefore, it is more likely to sink though. One the longer hackle sinks through, the shorter hackle assumes the load but it also supports twice the load and is more likely to penetrate the meniscus.
CONCLUSION - Unless I am missing something, the concept is faulty and will not work. For it to work, half the hackle fibers have to be able to support an identical mass just as well as twice the hackle fibers.
One advantage of genetic hackle is that the hackle fiber density is greater and therefore has more supporting hackle per wrap. For Betters concept to work, hackle density would have to be unimportant in supporting the fly since he is effectively tying the fly to initially float with half the hackles.
He did heavily hackle the fly, using two hackles.
He may have been wrong, but is an intriguing thought, nonetheless? Is hackle the only aspect supporting a fly?
Had the fly been tied with one hackle, only, would it float?
Byron there are two videos your link is to the one that Fran is wearing the blue shirt. It’s the one that he’s wearing the yellow shirt that he refers to using two sizes of feathers. Fishin’ Jimmy
Flies are supported by two methods but both methods depend on the displacement of water.
The easiest to understand is direct displacement, which is how a boat floats. The boat?s hull displaces the volume of water which is qual to the mass/weight of the boat. This is how bass bugs and foam hopper flies float.
The second method is the way that hackled flies float whether they are palmered hackled or parachute hackled. They ?float? on the water?s meniscus by virtue of the fact that water is a polar molecule and the water molecules attract each other.
Cohesive forces between liquid molecules are what cause the phenomenon known as surface tension. Surface molecules do not have other molecules on all sides of them, and consequently they cohere, more strongly to those with direct contact to them on the surface. This effect forms a surface “film” which makes it more difficult to move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely submerged.
Surface tension is how a steel needle is able to ?float? on water. To ?float? on the meniscus, the object (needle or heavier than water fly) MUST displace an amount of water equal to its mass/weight. The law of displacement must be satisfied for an object to float whether is it floating in the water like a boat or on the water like a fly. Notice that the although the needle in the photo below is floating ?on? the surface, it has displace so much water that is actually ?below? the surface of the water next to it.
The needle bends (angles) the water surface because it displaces the water surface. This also angles Snell?s Window. The same thing happens when a mayfly floats on water. The feet and abdomen displace the water surface and through the window, the trout can see portions of the fly and refracted light which causes bright spots around insects legs.
To answer your second question, one cannot hackle a fly any denser than with touching wraps of hackle. So whether one hackle or more than one hackle, whether the hackle length is equal or not - the density of hackle per area is nearly equal with touching wraps of equal quality hackle. In this situation, the fly with hackle of equal length will have more hackle tips on the meniscus and will be less likely to break through the meniscus.
Silver
Thanks. Was aware of most of that. But, was sorta hoping Fran’s nuance might hold up. I did put his theory out for others to comment as to their thoughts about his hackling method.
Appreciate your analysis!
Still confused about one aspect though. On many hackled flies, we use one feather and do 3-4 wraps behind wings and then maybe 4 in front. In patterns like his stated “heavily hackled” flies, he, in essence, doubles that which would be in a single feather hackled pattern. Or, am I missing something.?
If all else was equal, I would say the physics fits and Silver is spot on. However, shorter hackle, differing hackle on the neck, etc. holds differing properties. Barb count may differ, splaying when wrapping may differ. stiffness may not be exact…the list goes on. Surface tension can work in many ways in our favor. when hackle is over-wrapped but at differing angles, it often sits much better in the film than a straight collar. I wouldn’t be too quick to say no, he was wrong. Fran I am sure based much of his thoughts on time on the water and observation.
I know on very heavy skating style flies and over-sized hackle, I would tie the first hackle butt end at the thorax, then the 2nd butt end at the eye, then wrap back from the eye and forward over it from the thorax. the result was a fly that would skitter better than most. Nearly the same concept in the end. Was shown it early on.
As I said, I am looking for thoughts on the subject. I accept all that Silver Creek points out, but am wondering about the heavy hackling that Fran did. IN effect, doubling the number of barbules in front and behind the wings.
Might that affect the situation. Just trying to understand whether Fran Betters might have had a point on the concept of doubling the hackle and half being slightly shorter than the other half.
Might be a “myth”, “rural legend”…just curious.
Could it be that equal length hackle tips soak up water at the same rate where as the shorter hackle is dry longer? Or is there another thing that was not considered. Mr Betters’ theory may be faulty but his observation may be correct. In my experiences my theories often are proven wrong by observation and require me to rethink and sometimes I find factors I overlooked. Sometimes I don’t but Like Ralph, I wouldn’t bet against Betters.
What? No consideration for the quality of the hackles? Okay, we’ll say that the 2 are the same. However, there’s been no mention about the placement of the hackles along the shank. If too far forward, the fly will land like a parachute, head down, and the hackles will be splayed in a circular fashion. While theories may work sometimes, they often don’t on just as often. Any fly will work sometime. A pattern may catch trout on April 10th and be a spectacular failure on the 11th. Some work better then others. Some we put our faith in more so then others as well. Pattern, size, shape, color, hackle length, overall proportions, presentation, drag, etc. There are theories about each of these individually and in combination. After all, if we give a trout credit for being smart, the greater we can attribute our superiority when we catch one. Theories are just that. They have no way of being proven because, “You can never step into the same water twice”. So theories will always stay just that and generally they are $%*(UI**^&. But I guess we fly fishers love them and that’s why there are more books written on fly fishing then any other sport for that reason. Go fish and have fun. Leave the theories to the fly fishing authors. That way they can sell more books.
I, for one, enjoy exploring fly design theories. Enjoy reading about them. Enjoy trying to replicate and test through observance, etc., etc.
My mentioning the two-sized hackling method used by Fran on his Aussable Wulff really has little or nothing to do with whether or not that particular pattern is good at enticing trout to take.
It had to do with his belief that using two hackles of different length barbules would really improve buoyancy. That is something which could be verified one way or the other through careful, controlled experimentation. Not that I would do that, but it could be done, I believe.
However, I was simply looking for the opinions of others who might have tried it or, like Silver Creek, have a thorough understanding of buoyancy factors and how they affect the water’s meniscus.
In this pattern, I tried to have some “legs” further back on the fly than at the thorax area. So, I had to select a significantly shorter hacke to wrap at the upper part of the abdomen.
Gotcha nj,
The method I used was not palmering, but tying just one hackle wrap or so of a much shorter hackle at one location near the top end of the abdomen…primarily to suggest rear legs…not really for added support.
Gentlemen,
I read this thread as I read Charles Goren on Bridge ( to which I admit equal ignorance). I DO KNOW from MY experience that the fishies don’t really care if one “palmers” or include a “shorter body haclkle” etc. Presentation and “if they’re there” have always been my basic GO TOs. Needless to say, SOME common sense prevails. When “they” appear to be eatin midges, streamers won’t work. You tying dudes are artists for sure but you must admit , SOME of your ties are for YOUR eyes only , suitable for display and not for fish slime and digestive mutilation.
I do envy your skills and wish…
Mark
PS: I also note that when they’re eatin 22’s, 16’s won’t work either. BUT, when they want 22’s,I move on to “dumber” waters. :>)
