USD Hackle *

[Traditionalist]

There are a couple of interesting points to be considered here.  First of all, one has to try and think "outside the box".  If one has the "image" of a "normal" conventional fly in one?s mind, then it is difficult to "see" anything else.  I know this is difficult to do. I don?t know why I did not think of using flies like this many years ago.

One must try and visualise a real fly, and not the conventional imitations one is used to seeing! Most anglers never bother looking much at real flies, but they spend untold hours looking at artificials. This tends to "program" them to see a particular image or scheme.

These things are simple with hindsight.

I just dressed a dozen different flies with the USD "V" wing, and various combinations of hackle.  If you wish to experiment, then please go ahead, but I have no idea how some of these things might behave. Most of the experiments I just tried resulted in poor flies!  This is obvious even without trying them! I tried lots of experiments when I first thought of trying such a design, but I have not experimented with them for quite a while, there was no need,  they work very well indeed as they are!

Also, remember that the primary purpose of dry fly hackle is to float the fly!  The secondary purpose is to imitate the "footprint" of the legs in the meniscus. 

These flies don?t need any hackle to float!  They float like corks!  So there is no point in adding hackle except for improved imitation purposes. Normally a bit of dubbing picked out suffices to imitate the legs, and the footprint. Feather hackle just makes them look clumsy, and doubtless less effective as well! If you wish to add a hackle, then it must be extremely sparse, ( purely to represent the legs of the fly), and it must not affect the aerodynamics of the fly. It should also not affect the fly?s position or attitude in the meniscus. One CAN use a single wing, but this does not ENSURE!!!! that the fly will land right every time. Only the "V" wing does this. You can try this quite easily, just drop the flies in the bath, or better still throw them in from a distance away.

I just had a hard think about this, and the final fly I came up with is this one. I did a series of photos, as it is difficult to see with just one pic. Also, one must try and see these things from the trout?s point of view. there may be a case for this:



As you can see, I have added a very small bunch of hair on the body.  I will post the rest of the pics without comment.  Please weigh in with any comments or ideas. This is an extra bit of faffing on, and it is only sensible if it makes the flies more effective, and I don?t really see this happening. They are extremely effective as they are, and no matter how good a fly may be, one will never find one that is absolutely 100% in terms of catching every fish you throw it to.

Hmmm... The Image shack server keeps timing out. Probably too busy. taking ages to upload the photos as well, even when I get through!  I will keep trying, but it may take a while.













When you look at these pictures, "squint" at them, and try to visualise how a real fly appears.

TL
MC

[Wildfisher]

That certainly makes them look even more buggy but just  picking / brushing out some of the dubbed fur might, as you say,  do the same job. To my "squinted" eye the 2nd photo down looks more like a real bug than any other  suggestive artificial I have seen.  Is it just the photo angle? The V-wing seems to be further up the hook bend than the last USD you photographed, or is this deliberate?

[Traditionalist]

That certainly makes them look even more buggy but just  picking / brushing out some of the dubbed fur might, as you say,  do the same job. To my "squinted" eye the 2nd photo down looks more like a real bug than any other  suggestive artificial I have seen.  Is it just the photo angle? The V-wing seems to be further up the hook bend than the last USD you photographed, or is this deliberate?

The photos are all of the same fly Fred, I merely turned the tweezers I was holding it with. 

Where the wings actually are on various flies, depends quite a lot of the hook bend, and how it is formed. I aim for the same tie-in point on most flies of course, although one can alter this to suit one?s own preferences to some degree.  One may even tie the wings in completely flat on the shank, and then one also has a very good  spent spinner. However, doing this may make the fly spin a little, because the weight distribution and aerodynamics are then changed.

I have never felt the need to add "hackle" of any type. I just brush some dubbing out to represent legs.  Of course, on e may add a tiny bunch of fibres as shown on this fly, if one wishes. I have never fished a fly with such a bunch though. I don?t KNOW what difference it will make, ( if any).  Sometimes, very minor adjustments can have major effects!

One can also make various changes in the fly of course, as with other patterns. Dub more sparsely, wing more heavily, etc etc etc . This is all still personal choice and "style". But the "V" wing has to stay to get the effects described.

I have tried "single" wings tied in in the same manner, and this also works quite well, but not as consistently.  The "V" wing flies land right every time, the "single" wing flies only about 90% of the time.   Incidentally, many "conventional" flies land right less than 60% of the time.  Some years ago now, a couple of friends and I spent a total of 15 Man-days  testing various flies.  The "hackled" flies were just as poor as the winged flies, and often worse.

TL
MC

[Wildfisher]

Incidentally, many "conventional" flies land right less than 60% of the time. 

Indeed.   A complaint one often  hears about Bob Wyat's DHE is that it lands on its side too often. As far as I know  this is usually down to the wing being too long or floatant getting on the abdomen. It needs to be prepared carefully, abdomen soaked, wing ginked etc  before fishing and does not seem to like false casting as this dries out the abdomen and encourages it to float on its side. There should be no such problems with  these designs

[Traditionalist]

Incidentally, many "conventional" flies land right less than 60% of the time.

Indeed.   A complaint one often  hears about Bob Wyat's DHE is that it lands on its side too often. As far as I know  this is usually down to the wing being too long or floatant getting on the abdomen. It needs to be prepared carefully, abdomen soaked, wing ginked etc  before fishing and does not seem to like false casting as this dries out the abdomen and encourages it to float on its side. There should be no such problems with  these designs

I think you will find that this design solves those problems, and a couple more besides!   One other point which is not obvious at first, is that the tippet actually supports the abdomen of the fly.  On "front winged" flies, the reverse is the case!

This is actually also removing, or at least disguising, a third negative trigger, which is the tippet coming off the fly at an unnatural angle, and also "glinting" etc  This is often a severe problem on bright days, and causes many refusals.

The tippet coming off the rear, may be seen as a "shuck", or a "tail" or whatever, but it is at least far less conspicuous and more "natural" than a bloody great rope sticking out of a fly?s face!

This particular design really does solve a large number of problems, easily and quickly, and it also does not produce any more! Which some other "solutions" are wont to do.

The only single disadvantage, as far as it may be considered one, is that the wings sit slightly forward of the body, which is not "exactly"
like the natural. But there are plenty of flies which use such wings successfully.  Actually, these flies were basically inspired by Lee Wullff?s   series.  But dressing them on the hook bend was a "flash" which came to me one night while I was lying in bed. I jumped up ( frightening my wife half to death!) and rushed into my fly-dressing room to try it out.  I still have the first fly I dressed in this manner.

Since then these flies have proven to be the most successful dry pattern I have ever used.  I am sure you will enjoy using them.

TL
MC