Basics of proportions in the construction of artificial flies

 Basics of proportions in the construction of artificial flies

 photo, text, flies Jaroslaw Zych

 

                      The subject of proportions is doubly paradoxical. First of all, it is material for a separate book, although when we think well about the issue of proportions, it turns out that they are a quandary of principles, which uniform principles ... do not exist. Secondly, in a great many flytier books, the subject is treated negligently, as if the whole art of fly tying is based solely on technology. And yet the sense of proportion is of capital importance, not only for the aesthetics of our flies, but also for their functional qualities.

Setting rigid rules for proportions is impossible, due to the multiplicity of designs, multiplied by the „variants” of performances, by the specific requirements in a given fishery and, finally, licentia poetica applies here and each author also gives his own specific feature to the flies he makes. General outlines emerge from many studies, but every creator is a slightly different approach and this is understandable: - The variability of the conditions in which fly fishing is practiced affects the trends in the area. In addition, there are patterns that in the description have recommended some specific guidelines for proportions, and wishing to respect the author's guidance we must submit to them.

Although, as I wrote above, there is no single perfect rule, a skewed fly will quickly be unmasked by the eye of a skilled fly fisherman. So if we bend proportions let's do it with the intention of achieving a particular characteristic of our lure, while maintaining the canons of flytier aesthetics. Let's not delude ourselves that a fly built according to randomly chosen proportions will be considered an aesthetic revelation. If the fly looks „because it came out that way,” „because we tied it that way,” „because that was the material,” we won't fool anyone, well, except maybe some desperately hungry trout.

Imagine, for example: that on the river „x” in place „y” trout intensively, confidently feeding on a clearly floating imago, collecting insects from the surface. A sizable wave with foam, the sun low, the shape of the bottom forces you to position yourself facing the sun - what follows from this: our fly should swim well and be clearly visible (so already a suggestion, for example: a richer blackberry) and let's make the wings definitely longer - they will make it easier to observe the fly.

And there could be a lot of similar variables. So establishing one rigid canon would render us helpless on the water. Although let's not delude ourselves, even hundreds of formulas may not do anything when graylings just happen to be stubborn. And to me, they once persisted:

Some time ago, on the San River, I was fishing in the company of very experienced fly fishers: Mark and Robert. We were armed with the knowledge of the currently catchiest patterns. In my boxes, a collection of hundreds of flies that always accompanies me and a battalion prepared especially for this particular trip. In the evening, over a glass, we were still fine-tuning the key patterns. Robert and Marek supported me as much as they could taking care that the glass did not dry out. In a word, the facilities were perfect.

 Reviews / Dabbler , Hubert Janeczek

The fish were feeding intensely. The mayflies swarmed beautifully and I could see exactly what flies were being collected from the surface. I was convinced that I was choosing patterns perfectly, corresponding to the originals: size, color, the way they swim. I tied dozens of flies, from faithful copies of the flowing mayfly, to patterns that were completely different. And what? Well, time and again the fish took off beautifully to the fly, only that to the live one, and none of my poor imitations wanted to fetch. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating, every now and then some absentminded grayling gave a temptation, but these were accidental bites and, as for the number of fish showing up, sporadic. I did not establish an understanding with intensely feeding grayling. And so for three days !!! It was fortunate that I was with my colleagues, because their results softened my self-esteem somewhat. Only Marek was satisfied, although this is a feature of his optimism and cheerful nature, not an objective assessment of the situation. Such adventures also have to be included in the beauty of fly fishing. 

Back to the topic: I would like the suggestions here to help you choose the right solutions, so that no new design comes as a surprise, but that our conscious decision affects what kind of fly we create and for what. I will also try to convey universal principles that will help choose the best solutions for most typical designs.

To find a reference point one would have to start with the classics of dry and wet fly. But here, too, we come across such a number of varieties that I am forced to make another selection. So, the starting point will be the typical design of an ash fly, that is, the Blue Dun, I will treat it as a standard in the following.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Read : History flytying / Further oldest records in Polish literature on artificial fly fishing

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Now it's time for „textbook” safe proportions, at which our flies will look and behave correctly (not to be confused with perfectly). Here an important note for beginners: the length of the shank is not the same as the length of the hook !

(PHOTO 1), (PHOTO 2), (PHOTO 3)

 

Dry Flies:

Tail - equal to the length of the hook shaft, 3-10 hairs

Thorax - about 2/3 of the length of the hook shank

Wings - equal to the length of the hook shank ( can be equal to the length of the whole hook) , width ½ to 1 of the hook dilation ( safely 2/3)

Hedgehog - 1 1/3 to 1 3/4 of the opening of the hook ( the safest is 1 ½), 3 to 4 windings

 

Wet Flies 

Tail - equal to or ¾ of the length of the hook shank, 3-10 hairs

Thorax - about 2/3 to ¾ of the length of the hook shank

Wings - equal to 1 1/4 of the length of the hook shank, width ½ to 1 of the hook opening ( safely 2/3)

Hedgehog - 1 1/3 to 1 3/4 of the opening of the hook ( the safest is 1 ½), 2- 4 windings

 

Nymphs

Tail - about ¼ to 1/2 the length of the hook shaft, 3-5 hairs.

Thorax - about 2/3 to ¾ of the length of the hook shank

Sheath - 1/2 to 1/4 of the length of the hook shaft, width = diameter of the trunk under the sheath

Blackberry - 1/2 to 1 dilation of the hook, 2- 4 windings

 

Streamers

Tail - ¼ to 1/3 of the length of the hook shank

Thorax - about 5/6 of the length of the hook shank

Wings - equal to 1 1/2 the length of the hook shank

Blackberry - 1 1/3 to 2 of the hook's dilation ( the safest is 1 ½)  

 

On this one should stop reading, otherwise I am obliged to warn:

Anyone who does not want to become obsessed with the search for perfect proportions should stop at the above. In most situations flies constructed in this way will do well on the water, and will not bring shame in the boxes. You can read the rest at your own risk, reckoning with the syndrome of the recurring, manic question: then how should it actually be? Unfortunately, it will not be satisfied with an answer.

 

So, I give my personal preferences and developed/improved solutions, which, as it is fashionable to say, will allow to target the fly more accurately. Because the point is to construct flies that will be nice (will please us) and good - which does not always go hand in hand. By the way, I highly recommend browsing through albums, publications, websites ... with flies to dress and develop an eye. After a while, we will notice for ourselves which patterns suit us, which seem not to our taste, and then it's our own way of searching. I will now describe only those elements that I change from the standard. I will focus mainly on the dry due to the fact that the scope of news is too extensive for one short article.

 

I personally prefer dry flies with poor yet slightly longer (up to: much longer) tails. First of all, over water, the tail, if necessary, I can always trim or get rid of it altogether (according to the proverb: „It's easier to bruise a stick than to thicken it later”). Yes I know, it's not elegant, but in a situation of necessity, trimming the tail allows you to visually shrink the fly or to match the current swarm of flies with vestigial tail bristles. The long tail adequately stabilizes the fly on the water, moreover, in my opinion, it gives the structure elegance and lightness. I make the wings rachitic, shorter and more delicate than the „standard” would require (less tendency to twist the line, more delicate construction). Thorax of standard length yet delicate. Hedgehog poor max 3 windings (in large sizes I allow myself richer). The head is visible (except for the short version). In general, my dry flies are, except for the torso, a bit like the „low water” version. Of course I make exceptions to these rules in case of specific needs, but mostly dry flies for myself I construct according to these rules.

(PHOTO 4), (PHOTO 5)

I leave the compact curly flies to fans of the Humpy Dry Fly series preparing for big trout in the USA. Here I will hint that tails and wings made of fur, due to the nature of the flies and their purpose, are made in a much richer version. It is traditionally assumed that American patterns (or those adapted by Americans) are exaggeratedly rich - the blackberry can occupy up to ½ of the hook shank, and the tail resembles a stocky brush. The flies of the old continent are mostly characterized by delicacy of construction and economy of materials. Such tendencies can be seen in all types of flies.

(PHOT 6)

The braggarts in dry Red Tags (etc.) should not be too long, (they drink water unnecessarily), preferably when you cut them flush with the arc of the hook's elbow, well, maybe minimally longer - when you go for chub. In wet flies, the tangs can be up to ½ the length of the shank especially when building „aggressors” for trout.

When it comes to the hackles, I make the hackles in the caddisflies of the length equal or shorter (!) in relation to the dilation of the hook - thanks to this, the fly flows parallel to the surface of the water. In addition, the whole structure of the caddisfly takes on a slender, elongated shape. The traditional length of the hackle causes the front of the fly to rise strongly. By the way, I would like to suggest to all young fly-fishermen addicted to cdc that quite a few patterns of caddisflies have blackberry ! I apply a similar rule to Bivisible and Palmer type flies. Here I try to make the blackberry extend only slightly beyond the hook's opening (of course, the front white single-twin blackberry in the Bivisible can be much longer).

(PHOTO 7) (PHOTO 8)

In the larger flies ( No. 10, 8, 6...) I am not afraid to use larger blackberries - even up to 2 x the dilation of the hook). The smaller the fly, the more visible the disproportion is, so with smaller flies you need to maintain a larger proportion regime. Simply put, with tiny flies, every tenth of a millimeter can determine a serious imbalance in proportions - since such a tiny deviation is a large percentage of the total - hence the optical impression of dimensional disturbance. In a large fly 1 mm to the left or right will not affect the appearance of the fly. Also, an increase in the size of the blackberry somehow gets lost in the overall design without disturbing the overall proportions. In a hook size of eg: 32 a single mm will be half the size of the fly! This, by the way, applies to all elements of the fly, not just the scissor.

Wings - if I have a choice I make shorter than the standard. Although sometimes it seems that longer wings are better seen by fish - from a greater distance (in light of the theory of fish vision and refraction of rays at the edge of centers of different density - refraction - described in the literature). So when a fish approaches a fly from a greater distance longer wings can get its attention faster. We should also remember that the insects we are interested in often have wings longer than their bodies. However, it is practically impossible to reproduce their delicate structure with fly materials in such a way as to preserve their usefulness - if only the possibility of observation while rendering the aforementioned delicacy of construction. Thus, fly materials that are definitely more massive should be used more sparingly - because they visually change the size of the artificial fly. Even CDC, if on be visible and well floating, at the base forms a rather noodly compact mass. Long stiff wings will also lead to the twisting of the line more quickly - so with very thin leaders, give delicate, shorter wings that yield to air resistance. Again, however, in a sharp current, in the evening, in difficult observation conditions, I choose flies with longer wings for my own convenience. In the case of caddisflies, I make the wings about the length of the hook's shank which, with the addition of the blackberry and head, makes their tips protrude beyond the hook's elbow arch. In unguided crinkles I usually make the wings so that 1/4-1/3 of their length protrudes beyond the elbow arch. In ruffles that are a development of the Elk Caddis and Goddard pattern, the fur extends beyond the elbow arch by about 1/3 d by 1/2 the length of the hook shank. Wings made of fur can usually be slightly longer and this is because the ends of bunches of fur, split into individual hairs, optically appear „lighter” and more transparent than the compact wing tips made of strands of aileron, foil or, for example, undercoat.

(PHOT 9)

Another general digression comes to mind, in my opinion an insanely important one, - if my fly is to imitate a real insect that fish are currently feeding on, I try to make the size of the artificial fly a quarter of a number smaller than the live original. I feel that the massiveness of the hook and fly materials make up for this missing part, and as a result, fish perceive my fly as a suitably consumable size.

The torso - to paraphrase Jozef Jelenski: the fewer threads the better the fly. In general, I make shaggy, sheared and fibrous bodies (made of fibers arranged along the stem) more crackly (although again, there are exceptions), „slippery” bodies ( silk, floss, quill, etc.) and from the rays of, for example, condor, heron I prefer in a delicate version. The exception is the peacock and ostrich because here the material itself imposes more curvaceous proportions.

 

And some more general advice for particular types of flies:

In Parachute

The thorax can be almost equal to the length of the hook shank (in some designs, the head is dispensed with altogether - it is covered by the dubbing). The blackberry can be longer even - 2 to 2 ½ of the hook's dilation and can be moved closer to the elbow to stabilize the descending flight of the fly. 

 

In wet flies, I give the tail shorter than the standard - up to ½ of the trunk. I usually make the torso slightly shorter in relation to the wings. Once that I often use designs on short hooks (more on this below), in addition, fishing with a wet fly is sometimes „less finesse” (numerous hooks, strikes on stones, vigorous strikes, etc.) - more of the exposed hook elbow prolongs the life of the fly. Wings in such flies look a bit oversized so purists are advised against this path - too avant-garde. Usually the blackberry touches the sting of the hook, (in longs it does not give so long).

 

In nymphs I give the tail very short 1/4 of the length of the shank. Now I would like to write that I try to make the rest so that it is harmonious and settle the description of the nymphs, but it is known that this does not explain anything. So, most often the trunk is ½ - 2/3 of the length of the shank - desirable dorsoventral flattening ( not applicable to gudgeons), the material under the sheath slightly thicker than the trunk. Hedgehog very short 1/3-1/2 of the opening of the blade. Head distinct.

(Thick noodles have no proportions at all, so I don't dwell on them).

In mosquito and ochre designs, the thorax may be unnaturally thin in relation to the thickening at the head.

Pups - (depending on the stage of development they imitate) are something intermediate between nymphs and wet flies and either have more of the wet fly ( e.g. longer wing ovaries or closer to nymphs then the ovaries will be shorter) 

Nymphs in general is a separate story, a separate article - in fact, every pattern is a different prod. It would be necessary to define the groups: mayflies in the stage ..., domestic caddisflies, homeless caddisflies, terrestrial organisms ( glaives), gudgeons, forkbeards, etc. and to these groups set proportions.

 

In Streamers I don't like wings longer than 1 ½ hook shank lengths, I usually make flies with wings 1 or 1 1/3 shank lengths. Long wings may tangle moreover if trout take gently they may grab the very tip of the feather when it is too long. In pike and steelhead flies I am not afraid to give a feather as long as I have (except maybe Hofman saddles). Hedgehogs in my streamers are usually 1 - 2 hook dilation.

In muddlers I do not use as long hooks as in classic streamers or mats. They are more curly designs. Shot heads are usually 1/3 - 1/5 the length of the shank.

 

I would also like to point out my favorite geometry of the barbless hook has a colossal effect on the proportions and shape of the fly. I prefer it ... well, not at all only for nymphs, as it would seem at first glance, but for dry flies, both classic, thorax-type (another favorite blackberry variant of mine - but that's a separate article on blackberry making techniques) and parachute/paradun, and even crinkle flies - especially the unhooked ones. I also use these hooks, of course, for nymphs and even wet flies ! It is not a typical gudgeon rather a „pup”. I value these barbless hooks for their grip and certainty of holding, in spite of the shape ransomed by the crooked silhouette of the fly. I do not specify here the manufacturer of the hooks because we can find this model in almost all brands.

(PHOT 10)

Speaking of hooks, the next proportion issues to face will be any variants of the mainly short-/long-shank.

And so roughly: most flies usually look nicer on longs, x1-x2. Streamers, of course, even x5. If I was making flies as box decorations I would proceed like this:

Dry with wings: normal or long x1

Dry without wings: normal

Crunchy, Palmer, Bivisible: long x1 to x3, (especially in crunchy, decency and tradition dictates longs)

Wet with wings: long x1

Wet without wings: normal or long x1

Nymphs: long x1 to x3

Sreamer: long x2 to x4  

           

But for myself I make flies according to other laws. In dry flies and wet flies, those for fishing, short shanks work very well. Clipping and towing on them seems definitely more reliable. I, personally, even typically long constructions (all varieties of crunchers, Bivisible, Palmers,...) for my own use, I make just on short shanks - because of their functional qualities.

With short type shanks, I would recommend a tail slightly longer than the hook shank by 1/3, wings the length of the shank, the hackle as standard - 1 1/4 opening, I can safely dispense with the head. That is, except for the trunk, I keep similar proportions as if I were constructing a fly on a standard hook. 

(PHOT 11)

Longs in addition to streamers and nymphs I use in large dry flies such as the largest crinoids, mayfly (but not extended body) or large palmers. I give the tail the length of the shank (+1/3 to 1/4), the wings the length of the shank (at x2 the length of the body) , I give the hackle longer: 1 3/4 - 2 of the hook's dilation, Here we can afford a beautifully shaped head which is an unnecessary luxury with shorts.

The thickness of the hook wire is also important. But fortunately, these choices seem trivial to me - the smaller and lighter visually the fly is to be, the finer the hook. I will not give here the wire diameters in the metric system, I recommend to go to the manufacturer's website and compare two models of hook (or to the fishing store to look at one model of hook for another ...) and certainly everyone will know what to do next. Of course, the hook for dry will definitely be thinner than the one for wet and nymphs. I give the hook in Muddlers much thicker than in classic streamers or mats.

            Finally, I would like to share this observation - there are times when fly patterns come out definitely better for others than for us, even if we have a lot of flytier experience. Simply put: everyone has a „different hand”. One of the companions of my fishing escapades, Hubert Brągiel, a well-known and highly respected flytier, once gave me, before an expedition, some nymphs of considerable size, No. 8,6 on longs. The nymphs were in shades of beige with yellow elements, sheath, biots, long badger mustache on the torso .... - well, in short, an elaborate pattern, even very much, as for the standard of the Polish nymph. In addition, it was a fly, I think, largely the author's - invented by Hubert - I had not encountered such a pattern before. And on these very nymphs we caught respectable trout of 60 - 70 cm. What a day it was ... This fly was a kind of contradiction of „proper proportions” if only because of the length of the moustache. Opinions about its non-accidental very high catchability were confirmed by other fly fishers testing this pattern on different waters. 

I made myself some imitations of this model. But just imitations - I have not been able to fake the Hubert pattern well. I always had reservations, something in the construction of my fly did not suit me. I used to laugh that I was getting the length and thickness of the whiskers wrong. As a result, when necessary I used the originals. Because I believed in them, and I treated my own ones as a poultice for my conscience - I have them just in case - I will use them when I get rid of the „real” ones. Although, knowing life, I'll call Hubert and tell him:

- Listen, these nymphs of yours.... I don't have a dubbing for them, their mustaches are so peculiar, and in general, maybe you could coax a few of them for me, just in case those seventies move again.

            Consider this one of the key fly tying tips: it's good to have good colleagues tying good flies ... 

            ` Speaking of the basics of proportions in the construction of artificial flies - so much for the introduction.

 

A sad epilogue for the lost who have reached this point.

To connoisseurs of more sophisticated designs I will say that salmon flies, sea flies, hairwings, foulies, spaye.... are governed by completely different laws - although this is a truism, because connoisseurs know it perfectly well !

 

 

Other recommended articles:

History flytying / Flytying board, Choynowski, 1939

Flytying in practice / March Brown in 7 scenes