Do we really need wings.

[Traditionalist]

Cutcliffe's flies were actually designed for "dragging". They do work on some streams, but poorly or not at all on slower streams, and they catch a lot of small fish.

http://www.archive.org/download/http://archive.org/details/arttroutfishing00cutcgoog

[Fishtales]

As I have said before Mike, I don't drag my flies. I move them yes but only at a speed that I feel suitable for the occasion and that can change from cast to cast never mind from location to location. I do have a retrieve for lochs that works consistently and that is the one I use most of the time. I know when I am doing it wrong, either too fast or too slow, as the takes aren't there. As soon as I concentrate on the retrieve I usually start getting at least offers if not actual fish That is on all three flies on the cast including the dry, but the winged wet only takes consistently when adult duns are about.

[Traditionalist]

As I have said before Mike, I don't drag my flies. I move them yes but only at a speed that I feel suitable for the occasion and that can change from cast to cast never mind from location to location. I do have a retrieve for lochs that works consistently and that is the one I use most of the time. I know when I am doing it wrong, either too fast or too slow, as the takes aren't there. As soon as I concentrate on the retrieve I usually start getting at least offers if not actual fish That is on all three flies on the cast including the dry, but the winged wet only takes consistently when adult duns are about.

That was an answer to the post before yours.

The main point here is that upstream wet fly invariably catches more and better fish than down and across fishing. Also,the vast majority of traditional winged flies ( apart from pure "fancy" creations), were designed and  dressed to imitate drowned adults, and drowned adults can not swim, so winged flies which swim against the current or across it are poor imitations per se. They do work quite often but not nearly as well as when dressed and fished correctly, they also tend to catch a lot of small fish.  I know one or two people who only fish hackled flies, and they catch fish as well also far better upstream.

Obviously the degree of movement is very important with a lot of flies.

A severe problem with a subject like this is that it is extremely complex and full of all sorts of exceptions and variables. You can not generalise about any of it to any appreciable extent, too much is dependent on circumstances.

[Inchlaggan]

On the loch, as the boat drifts towards the cast, the line must be shortened to remain in contact. Get that exactly right and the fly is static in the water, just sinking under its own weight. Air trapped by wings slow this process, and even wet flies remain in sight. Get it wrong and the fly is either being "dragged" towards the boat (and against the wind and the sub-surface current the the wind produces) or the line is slack.
The use of a weighted fly on the point and a dry at the tail and you know where the winged wet sits.
Three depths of water are being "covered".
My meagre catches are pretty much equally spred amongst all three flees. Change to three wets, dries or nymphs on the basis that "that's what caught the last one"  and takes dry up.

[Traditionalist]

On the loch, as the boat drifts towards the cast, the line must be shortened to remain in contact. Get that exactly right and the fly is static in the water, just sinking under its own weight. Air trapped by wings slow this process, and even wet flies remain in sight. Get it wrong and the fly is either being "dragged" towards the boat (and against the wind and the sub-surface current the the wind produces) or the line is slack.
The use of a weighted fly on the point and a dry at the tail and you know where the winged wet sits.
Three depths of water are being "covered".
My meagre catches are pretty much equally spred amongst all three flees. Change to three wets, dries or nymphs on the basis that "that's what caught the last one"  and takes dry up.

A lot of people like to "dibble" the top dropper along the surface, this can be very successful indeed. The rig you describe is a typical "tactical" rig, and it only works well if all the required elements are present. If you remove the "sheet anchor" or the bob fly, or use a team of the same wets instead of the wet you have been using on the dropper, or a team of nymphs etc, the whole rig works differently and invariably far less well. The anchor and the bob are basically control elements.

Comparing still water fishing techniques to stream fishing techniques is also problematic, the conditions are completely different. On still waters it is more or less essential to provide movement to various flies or they wont work very well. On streams providing too much movement is often detrimental.

The question of "Movemnet vs No Movement" and if so how much and under what circumstances has always been a controversial matter, as the literature illustrates.

[Wildfisher]

Sometimes I wish I had wings.

For example, right now, if  I did I'd be flying south for the winter

[Fishtales]

In May of this year my mate and I fished both a river and lochs. We fished the river on two days fishing down stream and then back up. We fished all ways in whatever direction seemed the easiest to cover the river. We didn't see any difference in catch rate between any of the methods and we both caught fish on all types of fly. I had my usual three but George used a big dry on the top dropper, #10 I think, both pulled and dead drift. We went directly onto the loch with the same flies and the same tactics and still consistently caught fish. I consistently caught fish on the winged Iron Blue both as it hit the water, static as I waited for the cast to settle, as I always do, and retrieved using my normal retrieve. It didn't seem to matter whether it was slack pool, rough water, flat calm, ripple or wave. Either the fish we were covering weren't typical or else we were doing something right.

This isn't just a one off. I always fish that way and I taught the mate I was with to fish many years ago and he fishes the same way, although he tends to change flies as he thinks that will help him catch more fish. It doesn't seem to matter what he puts on though, spiders, dries, winged wets or nymphs, as his catch rate never seems to change.

[Traditionalist]

In May of this year my mate and I fished both a river and lochs. We fished the river on two days fishing down stream and then back up. We fished all ways in whatever direction seemed the easiest to cover the river. We didn't see any difference in catch rate between any of the methods and we both caught fish on all types of fly. I had my usual three but George used a big dry on the top dropper, #10 I think, both pulled and dead drift. We went directly onto the loch with the same flies and the same tactics and still consistently caught fish. I consistently caught fish on the winged Iron Blue both as it hit the water, static as I waited for the cast to settle, as I always do, and retrieved using my normal retrieve. It didn't seem to matter whether it was slack pool, rough water, flat calm, ripple or wave. Either the fish we were covering weren't typical or else we were doing something right.

This isn't just a one off. I always fish that way and I taught the mate I was with to fish many years ago and he fishes the same way, although he tends to change flies as he thinks that will help him catch more fish. It doesn't seem to matter what he puts on though, spiders, dries, winged wets or nymphs, as his catch rate never seems to change.

It's not just the flies you use, but how you use them, when you use them, and where you use them. Most beginners have trouble catching anything at all regardless of what they use.  If you don't know how to use them it makes virtually no difference what you use. One can only optimise flies once one knows how and why. This does make a huge difference but it may not be everybody's cup of tea. If what you do works well for you and you are satisfied with your catch rates then there is no reason to do it at all.

[Fishtales]

In much the same way as Halford thought dry fly was superior to Skues nymph fishing so upstream is seen to be superior to down stream. The argument usually put forward is that it A) only catches small fish and B) is un-natural.

[Traditionalist]

the upstream versus downstream this is really puzzling me, there is no logical reason why a winged or wet fly would work better cast upstream and pulled back, and dead drift it becomes a nymph(that looks unlike any nymph or drowned fly)
downstream does work, but because its on the swing drawing a predatory response it is considered a lesser method?

Upstream flies are either dead drifted or on occasion given very little movement. Winged flies can't swim, they always move downstream. The logical argument being that as they can not swim moving them against the current is unnatural.

Upstream flies invariably catch more and better fish, when dressed and fished properly.