But, but, butt...
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:24 pm
Does anyone know what the specific density of an intermediate saltwater line is?
The specific density of nylon monofilament is around 1.15, while the sd of fluorocarbon is somewhere near 1.75.
Bruce Richard's recent article in the Loop suggests matching the nylon monofilament butt section to a floating flyline by applying a factor of 0.7 to the diameter of the tip of the flyline. Which I infer to mean he suspects the specific density of the flyline to be somewhere around 0.8. It has to be less than 1 or it would not float. If you divide 0.8 by 1.15 you get approximately 0.7.
What Bruce does not address is what the leader butt diameter should be if you were to use fluorocarbon leader material. If you were to use fluoro on a floating line, then by using the above rationale, the diameter of the butt should be somewhere near 0.8 / 1.75 or 0.45% of the flyline tip diameter.
Why might you do such a thing? Maybe to fish as deep as possible while still using a floating flyline… and hoping to get the best (smoothest) transfer of energy through the flyline into the leader and hence a more elegant turnover of the fly.
OK then, what if you are going to use, say, an intermediate tip flyline, but you still want to get as smooth a turnover as possible? In that case, the specific gravity of the flyline is greater than one. But, how much greater than one is hard (for me) to determine. I'm not going to cut off a foot and weigh it. The only data I could find on-line was that an old fashioned Cortland intermediate line had a specific density of 1.05. So, if you take a wild guess and use 1.1 for the sd of an imaginary intermediate flyline, then the ratio of fluorocarbon tippet diameter to the flyline would be somewhere around 1.1/ 1.75 or we are now around 0.63 as a multiplication factor.
Does that make sense to y'all?
Thanks.
The specific density of nylon monofilament is around 1.15, while the sd of fluorocarbon is somewhere near 1.75.
Bruce Richard's recent article in the Loop suggests matching the nylon monofilament butt section to a floating flyline by applying a factor of 0.7 to the diameter of the tip of the flyline. Which I infer to mean he suspects the specific density of the flyline to be somewhere around 0.8. It has to be less than 1 or it would not float. If you divide 0.8 by 1.15 you get approximately 0.7.
What Bruce does not address is what the leader butt diameter should be if you were to use fluorocarbon leader material. If you were to use fluoro on a floating line, then by using the above rationale, the diameter of the butt should be somewhere near 0.8 / 1.75 or 0.45% of the flyline tip diameter.
Why might you do such a thing? Maybe to fish as deep as possible while still using a floating flyline… and hoping to get the best (smoothest) transfer of energy through the flyline into the leader and hence a more elegant turnover of the fly.
OK then, what if you are going to use, say, an intermediate tip flyline, but you still want to get as smooth a turnover as possible? In that case, the specific gravity of the flyline is greater than one. But, how much greater than one is hard (for me) to determine. I'm not going to cut off a foot and weigh it. The only data I could find on-line was that an old fashioned Cortland intermediate line had a specific density of 1.05. So, if you take a wild guess and use 1.1 for the sd of an imaginary intermediate flyline, then the ratio of fluorocarbon tippet diameter to the flyline would be somewhere around 1.1/ 1.75 or we are now around 0.63 as a multiplication factor.
Does that make sense to y'all?
Thanks.