Dry Flies

[RoyalWulff 0]

Does anyone where tie dry flies without wings? Say an adams or a grey fox or even a royal wulff? For the life of me I cannot see why they would not catch fish just as well as ones with wings.

 

Possibly can someone shine some light on this for me?

 

Thanks!!!

 

Phil

[FISHN247IFmYkIDsLeTmE 0]

I`m pretty sure it wouldn't make much difference to the fish but would make them a little harder to fish as a dry fly mainly cause the wings are there as a little something extra to make them float and stay higher on the water

 

Randy

[smallieFanatic 0]

Read the Al and Gretchen Beatty article called 'winging it.' It might help! If I remember correctly it is because a dun Mayfly holds its wings at an angle to dry them, thus making the wings visible the fish. One without wings probably would catch fish as well, just not as many. Don't quote me on this though.

 

 

 

Jan

[angler by choice 0]

call me crazy but the wings are on to fool the fish thinking it is a mayfly, help the over all look of the fly. personely i like parachutes there easier to tie, fall smother, and sit better on the water,

[FISHN247IFmYkIDsLeTmE 0]

yeah I`d say that wings are there to fool a fish but that really doesn't make it that it wouldn't work as good for fishing ,just fishing as a dry

really without wings it would sit lower in the water which would imitate something hatching a emerging pattern

And depending on when it s fished could even produce more fish than a dry that s right on the top of the water

that s all from my understanding

 

Randy

[Val Schmaus 0]

In Vince Marinaro's book,A Modern Dry Fly Code,he states that a mayfly's wing is the first part of the natural to enter the trout's window,suggesting that the wing is one of the triggering mechinism's causing the trout to accept it as a natural inscet.It would make sense to me that on some of the heavily fished waters that a winged imitation would probably outfish one without wings.Based on my expierence fishing water's like the WB Deleware,where wild trout can be very fussy due to the angling pressure it gets,I find that to be true.For that reason,most all of my mayfly pattern's are winged.Also,they just look better to me than one's without.Good Fishing.

[FISHN247IFmYkIDsLeTmE 0]

In Vince Marinaro's book,A Modern Dry Fly Code,he states that a mayfly's wing is the first part of the natural to enter the trout's window,suggesting that the wing is one of the triggering mechinism's causing the trout to accept it as a natural inscet.It would make sense to me that on some of the heavily fished waters that a winged imitation would probably outfish one without wings.Based on my expierence fishing water's like the WB Deleware,where wild trout can be very fussy due to the angling pressure it gets,I find that to be true.For that reason,most all of my mayfly pattern's are winged.Also,they just look better to me than one's without.Good Fishing.

 

Don`t get me wrong I agree with that wing not only make it more real which if imitates what the fish are feeding on will provoke more strikes

All i was pointing out is the answer could be yes cause as long as you have a good hackle it would still float maybe not as good as with wings but there is patterns that incorporate the hackle as the wings fluttering

And depending on how the hackle is tied inn really sets it apart as either a dry or soft hackle fly which do work and don't have wings just a collar

I`m sure some of the more experienced guys could elaborate a lot more

 

Randy

[Guest]

I have been fishing unwinged Adams, humpys, and Cahills for years....they do fine. But, leaving the contrasting white wings off a royal coachman, or coachman trude is unthinkable. Contrasting wings are a definite trigger, but wings that tend to blend in with the hackle are totally optional. And on hairwing flys such as the EHC, CDC and Elk, or Harrop hairwing dun... the head formed by the wing butts are more important than the wing itself.

[Crackleback 0]

I've always figured that wings on mayfly dries are like legs on nymphs. The bigger the fly the more important. No wings on a big drake would stick out like a sore thumb while a wingless #20 bwo would be hardly noticeable.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[redietz 0]

I've left the wings off dry flies and haven't noticed any real difference in catch rate. I've had tremendously good days during sulfur or bwo hatches with flies that are just tail, tying thread and good dry fly hackle. I think of several standard flies without wings (Griffith's Gnat, Bivisible) that do well everywhere, although I'll grant these don't represent mayflies.

 

I have noticed a difference in visibility (to me) however, and so usually wing dries. I also think that whoever made the point above about size may be correct, but I've done pretty well during isonychia hatches with a dun variant.

 

I've always thought Marinaro was full of it for insisting that wings are the first thing the trout sees, therefore flies need wings. What did he think the hackle above shaft of the hook represented?

[Firetiger 0]

My opinion (nobody can know for sure what is inside a trout head) is that trout don't really care about mayfly wings. The only stage when the wings pointing upwards are truly apparent is the dun, and she takes flight quite soon after emerging.

 

In my humble opinion much more important are the emergers (especially failed emergers), stillborns and other instances when the critter almost makes it through the film (it is no small task) but not quite so. Trout are lazy/smart/economic and prefer protein that is not about to fly away.

 

Exception from this would be attractor patterns, when white wings create required color contrast.

 

So I would freely omit wing on an Adams, but never on a Royal Wulff.

[flytire 0]

if the wings are on top of the fly and never touch water, i cannot agree on the reasoning that they help to float the fly except for a spinner.

 

good article on dry flies

 

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytying/b...ners/part15.php

[FISHN247IFmYkIDsLeTmE 0]

I know the wings don't float directly in the water but the wings are tied onto the body of the fly what does give extra float ability cause a dry stays up on the body and tail of the fly or that how they are supposed to sit from what Ive read inn several books

really it depends what material your using I`m kinda referring t hair wings rather than feathers

 

 

[redietz 0]

if the wings are on top of the fly and never touch water, i cannot agree on the reasoning that they help to float the fly except for a spinner.

 

Yes and no. Anything floats for one of two reasons: 1) it displaces a volume of water which weighs more than the object or 2) the ratio of the weight of the object to the surface area in contact with the water isn't enough to penetrate the surface tension -- much the way you can float a spoon on a cup of coffee if you're careful. (Surface tension doesn't work quite like that, but close enough)

 

Dry flies (mostly) float for the second reason. They're not displacing enough volume to equal the weight of the fly. The wings, not being part of the surface area in contact with water surface, play no part in flotation.

 

However, add some turbulence to this and things change. If you're fishing pocket water, for example, the fly can get dragged under -- the surface tension is no longer floating the fly. Hair wings, being lighter than the water they displace (until they're water-logged) will help pop the fly back up to the top, where it can float again on the surface tension.

 

Which is going to float better in broken water - a Royal Wolf or a Griffith's gnat?

 

If you're fishing fast, broken water, then a hair wing fly is going to float better. If you're not, then you're right - the wing does nothing but add weight, which hardly helps flotation.