WF, DT, LT, Level or it just doesn't matter ??

[krayfish2]

I'm curious as to what you use and why you use it. Years back, level was the ticket but mostly because it was just the only game in town. I had some and thought it cast great. Tip got jacked up, no problem, trim and get back to business. I don't know that it's even available any longer.

Double taper seemed to be the industry offered replacement which gave you the benefit of flipping the line to the unused end effectively doubling the life of the line. Some lines had such bad memory issues flipping lines over meant you were fishing with a kinky phone cord looking fly line.

As rod material advanced and actions sped up, line companies started marketing different weight forward tapers. The idea was to swell the front casting portion, shorten the head/body length and follow up with running line. Tapers ran from standard weight, half a weight over and a full weight over AFFTA standards. This 'overlining' helped slow or soften some of the modern fast rods. It also allowed casters to get more distance by making shooting the line further. With the additional weight moving forward in the taper, delicate presentation suffered as well as changing the performance of more moderate action rods.....cue the WF / LT.... weight forward with a longer front taper for a more delicate presentation.

When I started fly fishing in the early 80's, it was Cortland level line for me. By 1986, I had switched to 444SL rocket taper which I used until 1999. The 444SL lines I had needed replaced often due to lots of fishing, poor care and less than good finishes that seemed to peel off way to quickly. I was fishing and the line broke at the tip so I had to replace it. The shop only carried Rio gold so I had no choice. Bought it in a WF and really enjoyed it. Again, stuck with a product/brand for quite some time. In 2009-2010, tried a sharkskin and loved it. Over the last 10 years, I've been much more open to trying different line brands, textures and tapers.

As a general rule, 60-70% of my lines are WF. In the last couple of years, I've mixed in longer heads/bodies for various reasons.
Lines I've used and REALLY liked, Textured GPX, Sharkwave GPX and Trout tapers, Rio Gold, Airflo River and Stream, Airflo Distance Pro

So....what do use and why?


Lastly, I know there are guys who blast of $5.99 fly lines or $8 fly lines. That's great but I am 1000% sure that there is no fly line for $8 that casts as well, lasts as long or floats anywhere near as good as a $39 or $79 line. I've used both and there's no comparison. If you are casting 10' -15' which is done a lot in PA, an $8 line might get the job done. If you are casting 20' - 50' and are using an $8, you are doing yourself a disservice IMHO. Changing a line can make a rod you don't care for become your favorite rod. Premium emphasis is put on the rod and lines are often overlooked. It can make all the difference in the world.

 

[Bamboozle]

Although I am a relatively recent convert for my trout fishing, I voted DT because I like getting two for the price of one. However, because I have more than a few outfits and I take care of my lines, I have yet to flip one over.

The other reason I prefer regular, true to weight, (meaning no hybrid taper) DT's is all of my trout rods are medium action and they really shine with a DT. The only problem is there aren't many to choose from that have the other features I prefer like a limpness, a light color and the SAME LIGHT color on both ends, the SAME taper on both ends and I like welded loops on BOTH ends.

For those reasons and because they are great lines, I've settled on the Sci Angler Mastery DT and I also use real silk lines on my bamboo rods.

I am not inclined to change products on a whim if I am satisfied with the results so unless Rio starts making their Classic Lumilux line again (which was limp, white, glowed in the dark and cast like a dream)...

...I'm sticking with the Mastery DT.

FWIW - I ONLY use WF's (and specialty taper WF's at that) on my warmwater outfits because I like faster rods for that kind of fishing and I shoot a lot of line.

 

[Swattie87]

It’s all about shooting distance. I triple haul my Gemmie rods. (Which are 3 or 4 weights over lined.) If you have to ask what triple hauling is, you probably won’t be able to do it.

The Euro/Tightliners have this thread in the bag though...”Fly Line = Really Expensive Backing. I don’t use fly line at all and use the money saved on my hat collection and PBR.”

Serious portion of post...I’m not a good enough technical caster to notice much of a difference. For small streams I mostly have DT’s...two for one. For bigger water and WW I mostly have WF’s.

 

[troutbert]

I started fly fishing around 1970 and as I recall I used double taper lines right from the beginning. I don't think I've ever used a level line.

I still use double taper lines for everything, from brookie fishing up to smallmouth bass and steelhead.

I've tried forward taper, but it seemed "lumpy" to me, i.e. the loop didn't seem to unroll smoothly like the double taper.

 

[ColdBore]

krayfish2 wrote:

If you are casting 10' -15' which is done a lot in PA, ...

That used to describe me (and still does on some days), until I started tight line nymphing, which is even shorter.

I've always been a nympher, not a dry fly artist, so casting distance was never a priority.

So I could probably use a spool of nylon masons string from the hardware store and not be too far behind as opposed to having a premium line on my reel. :-D

 

[moon1284]

Double taper for dries for loop control and mending. I used 444 peach, now I use 444sl because I got a ton of it very cheap. I also got some sa mastery dt cheap, that is better than 444sl.

I bought one spool of amplitude dt this winter that will see a lot of use next season. I got a decent deal on it and I want to try it because I like textured lines and havent been able to find a dt textured line with the exception of airflo ridge line which I dont like because it doesnt float very high.

I have high expectations for the amplitude line. If I cant dump the whole thing with 3 false casts I wont be happy.

 

[Acristickid]

Royal Wulff triangle taper. Roll on

 

[MKern]

I currently use mostly WF because that's what I got on sale many years ago.

 

[redietz]

I answered DT because it's what I use, and clicked the mending/stable loop button, but I think several of the other possible answers deserve comment.

With 30 feet of line out, a DT and a WF weigh exactly the same. With less than that out, if you're talking about a particular line that's available in both DT and WF, then they're exactly the same taper. (Yes there are now some specialized WF tapers that don't have DT equivalents.) Add in the length of your leader and the length of your rod, and you're out to at least 45 feet from your fly. If all of your fishing is done within this distance, then it really doesn't matter which you choose. You might as well use DT; you can either cut it in half and get two line, or turn it around when one end wears out.

Silk line also comes in DT, WF and level. Why would a silk line user not want to answer the question?

I used a level line when I first started paying for my own tackle (as opposed to being gifted from my parents) because it was all I could afford. It works just fine, except that it doesn't make for a particularly delicate presentation. Sometimes I wish it were more widely available.

And there's also the "horses for courses" aspect. What I would choose if I were fishing not-flowing water with a need to cast a long way, (bonefish on the flats) then WF would likely be a better choice.

Many people overline their rods nowadays without even realizing it. I recently read that the Rio Grand line is now a full 2 weights heavier than that what it says on the box. (Even if what I read is incorrect, it's been at least a full weight heavier for years.)

All in all, DT vs WF L may matter less than people think. Pick a line that works, and stick with it.

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,
you tossed 2 different airflo lines on that method when we floated together. Thought you liked them ?!? I think their river and stream taper is kinda like a royal wulff triangle taper and the distance pro is very similar to SA Trout profile.

I do want to try TT one of these days

redeitz,
Your post freaked me out so I got on Rio website. They still have grande listed as "1 full weight over standard"

Somebody mentioned same taper and color on DT lines. Thought that was automatically done until I started looking at them over the winter. Some have a presentation end and a more powerful end..... different colors! Had no idea

I also urge you to read my last post in the sink tip thread. Not as informative as my first one but it's magical in it's own way LMAO

 

[moon1284]

I did like those airflo lines (yours, especially the super long one). I had airflo ridgeline dt maybe 9 or 10 years ago and it didnt float very high, (this line)

http://www.stillwaterflyshop.com/airflo-ridge-supple-tactical-trout-closeout?gclid=CjwKCAiA98TxBRBtEiwAVRLqu0IcN5WqXoXyv005Q5xaw2izXRKpiu2Xcg2KQjBcVHZr6dk8YKdJpBoC5u4QAvD_BwE

I'd be open to trying any dt textured line, I've been looking for a couple years I think amplitude is the only one available. Although textured lines are loud I do think they shoot very well.

 

[redietz]

krayfish2 wrote:

Your post freaked me out so I got on Rio website. They still have grande listed as "1 full weight over standard"

Glad to hear that. I only read the 2x heavy yesterday (on a different forum) and hadn't had time to check it out yet. Thanks.

 

[tomgamber]

Always used a weight forward line until lI started fishing lakes at altitude in Idaho. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a pine tree or a cliff or a slide up htere. Needed a new line and someone told me to get a DT. Had just bought my first "decent" rod and it was an LLBean 9ft 5/6. The 6wt DT roll cast ridiculously easily and far. Never bought anything but Cortland 333 and one of those lasted my over a decade, fishing over 200 days a year for its first 4 years.

When I moved to back to Pa I won a Sharkskin WF line (retail 99 bucks) and man did that thing cast far. Noisy as all get out but I used it until it cracked. Never would have paid that much for any line let alone that one.

I got a SA wf5 somewhere for free (maybe with a magazine subscription?) and I use that now. I don't fish enough these days for it to matter but if I had to get one line for the biggest variety of situations I'd get another DT. And I wouldn't spend much more than 40 bucks at most.

 

[afishinado]

redietz wrote:
I answered DT because it's what I use, and clicked the mending/stable loop button, but I think several of the other possible answers deserve comment.

With 30 feet of line out, a DT and a WF weigh exactly the same. With less than that out, if you're talking about a particular line that's available in both DT and WF, then they're exactly the same taper. (Yes there are now some specialized WF tapers that don't have DT equivalents.) Add in the length of your leader and the length of your rod, and you're out to at least 45 feet from your fly. If all of your fishing is done within this distance, then it really doesn't matter which you choose. You might as well use DT; you can either cut it in half and get two line, or turn it around when one end wears out.

+1

DT and WF are pretty much the same in the front end on the line. ( diagram below)

WF tapers down to running line for shooting.

I like to have the option of shooting line, so I choose WF most often.

For small streams and short casts DT works well and as stated above DT ends up being two lines in one when reversed or cut in half.

 

[RLeep2]

I didn't vote in the poll. I couldn't find a choice that seemed to fit me...

I started out in the early 60's with Cortland and (I think it was..) Gladding level lines. But I was mostly drowning salamanders and live caddis larvae. There is no instrument superior to a fly rod for fishing bait on streams up to 25' wide or so.

I moved on to DT lines in the late 60's and used them almost exclusively for all my PA trout fishing for the next 30 years. I go into a trance when fishing a small stream and usually end up walking on my line. So, I went through a line every 1.5 seasons or so. I mostly fished peach 444's. They seemed to last a little longer than the stiffer brands like the SA lines of the day.

When we moved out to the Midwest and I had to start making a lot of casts in the 40 foot-plus range, I primarily fished mid-point SA WF lines like the Supra and later, Frequency. I also went through a number of Cortland Spring Creek 444's. But I preferred the SA lines at least a little.

For bass and pike, I fish all WF's. Brand doesn't matter that much to me with these lines. I fish AirFlo's, Cabelas (whoever makes them..) and even the economy Aquanova Canadian lines.

So long as I can still buy Green Mucilin, I don't plan on ever paying more than 50-60 bucks for a fly line. It makes even the 20 dollar Aquanovas shoot like poop through a goose.

The sweetest and best casting fly line I ever owned was one of the first generation Wulff TT's. But the way I use lines, it checked, cracked and was useless in a half season. So, I've only ever owned one.

 

[redietz]

RLeep2 wrote:
I go into a trance when fishing a small stream and usually end up walking on my line.

That's why I don't fish silk.

 

[dryflyguy]

I started FF around the same time as crayfish.
And always used DT lines. They were the most popular thing to use then. And supposed to be best for dry fly fishing. Plus - as already mentioned - you could turn them around and get twice the use

Then WF lines became the in thing. And DT's became harder to find.
It got to the point where I either had to buy a line I really didn't want, to stay with DT
Or switch to WF to buy something I really wanted to try.

So, I started using WF's. And am happy with them too.
No problems with the less delicate presentation that's supposed to go along with using them.

As for brands - I wanted to try a textured line. And on the advice of affishinado on this site, I bought an Orvis Hydros HD two years ago. And have been quite impressed by it's castability and floatation.

I recently bought an Orvis Pro line - their latest textured product - and will be trying it out this spring

 

[BrookieChaser]

When I started fly fishing DT was all the rage. I still have it on my 580 DS2, for nostalgia more than anything. Now I've switched to WF on most of my rods, and they're faster rods as well. I like to shoot line on my casts and I think I can do that better with WF lines.

All my lines, both floating and sinking are SA.

 

[krayfish2]

I have no experience with Orvis line unfortunately. I can say that 444sl used to have a very hard and slick finish that flew out the guides.... lots of memory too. When I changed to gold, the finish seemed almost sticky. It floated fine, was supple but didn't seem to shoot through the guys very well. I found that the scientific angler lines seemed to shoot as good or better than anything I'd ever used and the airflo products are right there with them.

Anyone else have that kind of experience or was it just bad luck on the 4-5 of rio golds that I bought?

 

[afishinado]

krayfish2 wrote:
I have no experience with Orvis line unfortunately. I can say that 444sl used to have a very hard and slick finish that flew out the guides.... lots of memory too. When I changed to gold, the finish seemed almost sticky. It floated fine, was supple but didn't seem to shoot through the guys very well. I found that the scientific angler lines seemed to shoot as good or better than anything I'd ever used and the airflo products are right there with them.

Anyone else have that kind of experience or was it just bad luck on the 4-5 of rio golds that I bought?

As you probably know Orvis owns SA, so if you tried SA lines, you tried Orvis lines.

For shooting, I recommend the textured lines by SA & Orvis, they float well and have very little memory.

I can't really make any judgement about other lines since it's been a while since I've used any of them.