Q & A re. Casting mechanics

Walter & Group...

From Mark Milkovitch :

Gordy,

This discussion of the two legs being in the same vs. different left to right planes on a cast where there is less than 180⁰ between the forward and  back casts raises a clarification question for me.  Would you say we have a tailing loop whenever the fly leg dips below the rod leg or would you say that the loop tailed only if the legs were in the same plane and collided?

Thanks,

Mark

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark....  Good Question !  Speaks to a "definition" of a tailing loop.

  My take is that we have a tailing loop when the fly leg crosses over the rod leg whether or not a change in line planes is involved.  Does it require a collision and a knot ?  I think not.

Some see it as a tailing loop any time the fly leg crosses over the rod leg in very close proximity or with contact whether or not a knot has formed.  That would be a practical definition.

We sometimes call it a "near tail" or "tendency to tail" if the mechanism for producing a tail is recognized and the fly leg begins to cross over but doesn't go all the way.  This is often seen when examining candidates.

In your example and going by my "definition", a tailing loop would not always be a bad thing.  One example is the out of plane tail used to flip a fly beneath an overhanging bush which some have called a "Maloney cast".  ( Named for Michael Maloney). *

* Jason Borger's THE NATURE OF FLY CASTING, pp. 75 - 76.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Bob Rumpf:

Hi Gordy & Group,

 

I have a list of questions that number well over 500 copied from out discussions from the past few years as part of my study material. All of the answers come from the group and were accepted as correct. Some of them still leave me wondering. One answer states the - Casting Plane - Trajectory and Line Plane can all be considered to be the same thing. With our ever-changing terminology, does this still hold true?

 

Regards,

 

Bob 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Bob...

 

Unfortunately, even after years of work by our FFF Glossary Committee work, we have not solidified our definitions as yet.  Other instructors around the World have not done so to the extent that there are agreed upon descriptions, names, and "definitions" and certainly no consensus.

 

It is beginning to look, to me, as though these word definitions may derive their solidarity by prevailing common usage. That is the way, for example, the Oxford English Dictionary was written.

 

Until we have firm definitions (if ever that occurs), my position is to use the ones in common usage which make the most sense to me and will likely be best understood by students.

 

Having said all that, let me use that logic to answer your question:

 

I consider LINE PLANE and TRAJECTORY to be the same thing.  Sometimes I use the term LAUNCH ANGLE.

 

I prefer the term ROD PLANE to indicate the orientation of the fly rod from left to right on either side of the caster.  In my experience this term proved less confusing to students than CASTING PLANE.

 

Some use the term CASTING PLANE to mean the orientation of the fly rod (Horizontal to vertical) as I use the term ROD PLANE.  I respect that this actually may make good sense when used for a cast in progress from a technical point of view..... more accurate though not as clear to the uninitiated.

 

Gordy

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Jim Higgens brings up this question on Counterflex and Rebound :

Gordy

Troy's comment about the oscillation / damping of bamboo rods raises the question as the rod rebounds from the counterflex and goes beyond RSP is that part of the rebound or is it a secondary counterflex in the opposite direction of the primary counterflex?

Jim Higgins

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim...  I'd consider it as part of rebound as the rod tip does go back beyond the point of RSP.

 I noted this happening when I purposely went out to observe this with a very flexible rod.

With my second attempt to demonstrate this, I used a soft action Fenwick 9' 7-8 wt. fiberglass fly rod made in the 1960's. My observations were as follows:

1. Simply placing the butt against my body, and using no fly line strung to the rod, I performed the side-to-side so-called "wiggle test " waving it back and forth at different rates and with different applications of force...... then making "casts" and observing the movement of the rod tip. 

Result:  It was easy to make these faux "casts" with dramatic rod bends including counterflex and rebound.  The rebound always returned at least to RSP and more often beyond even when "casting" with very little power.

 

2. Now, I did the same thing making these "casts" with 30' of a WF 7 F fly line out of the rod tip.

Result:  With the use of just enough power to form a loop and have it unroll fully, counterflex was a bit greater than in 1., but rebound less.  I had to use more force to get the rebound to result in the rod tip going past RSP.

 

3. Then:  I tried the same thing with,  40' of the same fly line and, finally, with 40' of a full sink WF 7 S fly line.

Result:  Even when overpowering the "cast" I noted increased counterflex, but I couldn't get the rod tip back up to RSP on rebound.  Same with both lines.

This caused my to go back and read Chapter 9 of Don Phillips' THE TECHNOLOGY OF FLY RODS, pp. 79-91.  This gave me a better appreciation of the inertial forces and their damping effects which explained what I had observed with my crude experiment.  The line was producing sufficient vibration damping forces roughly in proportion to the amount of line and its weight acting on the fly rod. 

These "casts" were purposely made with a horizontal rod plane so that I could see the result more easily.  The results would probably have been quantitively different if I had used a vertical rod plane, but I doubt if this would have been significant.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Stephan Siikaavara :

Hi Gordy!

 

Fredrik, a friend of mine raised an interesting question regarding tailing loops. We are having it up for discussion on the board here:

 

http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin/theboard_07/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=11826

 

"...BUT A TAIL WHICH RESULTS FROM ACTION DURING THE CASTING STROKE THUS ALTERING THE FLY LEG OF THE LOOP OCCURS CLOSER TO THE CASTER WHEN THE FAULT IS MADE EARLIER AND FARTHER FROM THE CASTER WHEN IT OCCURS LATER."

Is this how it works?

 

Best Regards

Stefan

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Stefan :

 

Rather than going by the opinions of others, go out and purposely make those tails the way Tom White and I did by placing the inappropriate spike of power very early and then late.  Then come to your own conclusion.

 

Also:  Go back to our prior message attachments and look again at the photo-overlay of Bruce Richards' cast with a purposely made tailing loop.  The spike of power was made early, during the cast so it affected mainly the fly leg of the loop.  Note the tailing crossover close to the caster .... way before the loop the loop completed its unfurling.

 

This is exactly opposite what happens when a mend is made, because that is done after the cast thus affecting mainly the rod leg of the loop.  A mend made early ends up out at a distance.  One made late, ends up near the rod tip.

 

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~