Focus shifting to CDC

[Roadkill]

Thanks Hans!

I have to give that one a try but I will also have to make a few with hot orange thread for those fluids pumping up the wing of some naturals. Sometimes I like those hot spots like the Halo midge and the Usual provide.

With all cdc does it tend to float on it's side like a cripple with that wing on the surface? I have only used dubbed or biot bodies that can submerge with the cdc wing on top or in the air.

[Hans Weilenmann]

With all cdc does it tend to float on it's side like a cripple with that wing on the surface? I have only used dubbed or biot bodies that can submerge with the cdc wing on top or in the air.

It actually floats with the 'wing' sticking straight up as a wind vane, and it is surprisingly visible!

It does mat/slime up - best have a couple ready. Having it slime up has to be a good thing in many ways...

Cheers,
Hans W

[DNicolson]

There is an article on using CDC on spiders in the February "Trout & Salmon" magazine.
I have mislaid it, but the two patterns given use standard brown cdc hackles.
I also have a .pdf file a few years old that is on an article by an angler in Aberdeen,
who tied and fished a whole batch of spider/wet flies.

[Mike Connor]

Well, I think it's fair to say that I gave it a very good trial for various wet flies over a few years and the results were all disappointing, all of the trials being much less successful than I had hoped.

All the flies I tried caught fish, but far fewer than I would catch using my usual flies for these purposes. Fresh from the box and untreated they often caught well on the first couple of drifts while still floating but once they sunk they caught poorly. For this particular purpose I might just as well use a dry fly. The weighted examples I tried, which did not float of course, were also very poor.

I thought a great deal about this and did quite a few experiments, and I came to the conclusion that they were in fact "too mobile". Wet CDC "hackles" in water have zero resilience, the slightest pressure on the fly causes them to bunch up and they will basically stay like that until the pressure is released. All the "usual" soft hackles will move quite a lot under pressure and also try to return to their original shape when the pressure is varied or released, the CDC does not do that. it stays where the water pushes it to as long as there is even very light pressure on the fly. Also, it moves to this position as soon as pressure is applied. This does not happen with other soft hackles. The "movement range" as a result of the resilience of the feathers gives more movement. I think this is why the CDC does not work as well on wet flies.

I tried a few wets with separate CDC wings as well, but they did not work well either, presumably for similar reasons.

There's not much point in using CDC as dubbing on wet flies, as there are no perceptible advantages as far as I can see.

That's basically my take on CDC for wets.

Also only fair to point out that flies only get a "permanent" place in my box if they are better than those already there. This is actually a fairly rare occurrence now as most of my patterns for various things are the result of years of trial and successful use. For some other fly to be better it has to be really really good. None of the CDC flies were good enough.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

Thought I better explain that better. I use very specific methods and flies for a variety of things, that all depends on the conditions and the rig I am using at the time. Here are the notes from my notebook on one such consecutive three day period fishing a single fly upstream, there were iron blues hatching on all three days, mostly towards the afternoon. It was cold and cloudy.

18th April 1996. IB's hatching intermittently and slowly, long time in the film, fish taking the trapped flies. Hatch continued intermittently for five hours. 16 Purple Baillie, ( This is a "Stewart style" spider with purple silk ( unwaxed) and a starling hackle), fished with tippet greased to five inches. Result 63 fish to two and a half pounds 5 over two and 11 over one and a half. Two largest fish kept. Most fish around half a pound.

19th April 1996 As above. Tried the new CDC IB's, same technique. Result 11 fish to one pound, nearly all small fish and 8 of those took while the fly was still floating! Once sunk no interest from the fish.

20th April 1996 As Above, went back to Purple Baillie. Result 51 fish to three pounds. One three pounder 6 fish over 2 pounds, mostly good fish only a couple under half a pound.

I tried this a few times over a few years in various places with various CDC artificials, sometimes switching flies mid hatch, when the appropriate flies were hatching or expected to be, and the results were about the same each time. I concluded the fault lay with the CDC. Since those trials I don't bother using it any more on wet flies.

TL
MC

[DNicolson]

That sounds pretty conclusive to me Mike. I never got round to trying the
Aberdonian CDC spiders, sounds like it was just as well.
I really like the sound of that 'Purple Bailley' spider, must tie up a few.

[Mike Connor]

That sounds pretty conclusive to me Mike. I never got round to trying the
Aberdonian CDC spiders, sounds like it was just as well.
I really like the sound of that 'Purple Bailley' spider, must tie up a few.

Well, I'm always very wary indeed about anything being generally "conclusive" in such regard, although of course it was for me in this case. It may be that somebody else with other flies might get better results, I really don't know. My results for a fairly wide variety of wet flies using CDC, under various conditions, ( very carefully designed and dressed flies as well ), were very poor indeed. My "usual" flies for those conditions beat them hands down. It was enough to put me off bothering with it any more. I was disappointed because I expected it to work a lot better! Oh well, "Blessed be those who expect nothing, for rarely will they be disappointed!"

I do not want to put anybody off trying some things themselves, that is the only absolutely reliable way to see if something works for you. Of course this type of trial needs a lot of time on the water in the right conditions, and the flies have to be as good as you can make them as well, just using any old CDC hackle on various flies is not a real trial at all. I spent a LOT of time on the flies, another reason I was disappointed in the results. For myself, I concluded that CDC just was not suitable for what I wanted to achieve.

TL
MC

[Otter]

I also have a .pdf file a few years old that is on an article by an angler in Aberdeen,
who tied and fished a whole batch of spider/wet flies.

I remember that article Donald, as a strong fan of CDC at the time I remember tying some patterns, I remember trying them in what appeared to be suitable conditions, I remember stripping the hooks the following winter, what I do not recall is catching anything other than a few kamikazee juveniles.

Of course it may not be the CDC but my own abilities, it was not the first nor tenth time I read something and considered myself an idiot when failing miserably in trying it out. Hmmmm , is that why i have stopped buying magazines.

Quick question for Mike, starling or jackdaw throat or a few of each for baillies purple ?

[Hans Weilenmann]

I am a CDC fan, but not a zealot. It is a material as any other, to be applied where it is a good choice for the function, left out where not.

Would this not apply to any material we have available and use?

In sub-surface patterns, as I stated earlier in the thread, it does not offer any advantages I have recognized. In certain dry and damp patterns, I love the stuff.

Cheers,
Hans W

[DUBBN]

I do not love the stuff. Tryed to years ago.