Vodkaman

Robert, I am in a similar position to you, in that What ever I do for a spray booth, it will have to be temporary. My solution is going to be plumbers plastic drain tubing, to make a frame, with a cheap material, throw-over. The beauty of the plumbers pipe is that all the joints, corners, TEE's etc are plug-in and readily available. All I have to do is cut the tubes to length and plug in. I suspect that I read this idea here on TU, I'm sure it's not an original idea. It might work with your solution, to tidy it up for the boss. She may even let you keep it there on a semi-permanent basis. Depends on your smooth talkin' skills. The lures look great.

Naw, probbly realised the engine was flooded.

Sorry Mossy, forgot to mention that the bait looks the business. I hope you get it sorted out soon.

Mrs Redg8r, I think they all look splendid. I hope you bring a few extra with you, to the meet.

The lip does not look excessively wide. Looking at the area of lip in front of the eye and the body size, it could be getting a bit close to the long lip instability, for want of a better description. Unless anyone comes up with a non-evasive solution to try first, my answer is to snip a millimeter at a time off the end of the lip. TEST the lure after each cut. The rounded lip is not helping your case (a humble opinion of mine). I think the lure would be more stable with a flat lip. Try it next time around and compare the two. It would be interesting to hear other opinions. It is a relevant subject, as it affects stability of the lure (or not!).

Bending the eye to the side should help correct any symmetry and alignment problems, but I notice that you haven't got much eye to play with. I don't really want to commit to saying which side of the lip should be shaved, but my guess would be the right. Much information is missing to totally understand what is going on. The pic is clipped, not showing the full length. Also a plan view of the lip would help a lot. If the lure is rolling over this easily, it is obviously very close to instability. There are two instabilities that could play. The first is when the lip length below the eye is too long. The lure will swim very nose down but will not dive much. The solution would be to move the eye closer to the end of the lip or shorten the lip by a millimeter or two. The second instability is concerned with width. If you fall foul of this condition, the lure will rotate onto its side and swim at an angle to the retrieve. In this case the lip is too wide, shaving the sides will solve this problem. Looking at the length of the lip, it is more likely to be the first problem, so shaving a 30 thou' off the length should show improvement. I am currently exploring both these instabilities with lots of prototypes, each slightly wider or longer, to find the limits. But I am using a steep 60deg angled lip, as opposed to your diving lip. Post a pic of the lip shape, more people will then be able to give an opinion.

Dean. Happy birthday. Hope you have a day to remember.

http://www.tackleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12206&highlight=decking This thread is only a couple of weeks old and might help. I do remember a post from months ago, but cannot think of the right search words to find it, as the search function requires at least four characters for the search.

When you made the mold, did you place the masters at the bottom of the pour box, or float the masters? The bottom mounting seems like a better idea, as all the bubbles rise away from the master. My last plaster mix was too stiff and despite lots of tray shaking, I was plagued by a whole herd of bubbles. A thinner mix allows the bubbles to escape easier. As with most things, it is a compromise, the stiffer mix gives a stronger mold. Weigh the water and plaster and keep notes. When you find the perfect mix, you will be able to repeat it (wish I had done this!).

I don't know for sure, but because of the oils and acids in your skin, it is possible that the print may remain visible, but probably only to you. My suggestion is that you sign your masterpiece, over the thumb print. If anyone does see the print, you could say that it is for authentication.

Problematic yes, but just look at how much you and I and just about everyone who reads this thread have learned. Can't wait for the next one! Because the best solution was to remove the fins, this leads me to believe that IF vortices are in play, they are only active at the nose. If the vortices were active as they travelled along the body, then the fins would have helped, not hindered the movement.

Welcome to TU Anders. This has been discussed a few times in the last couple of months. If you use the search function and type in a few choice words like tungsten, zinc (zink) , metal etc. This reading will let you catch up to were we are. My thoughts are that it seems pointless going to the trouble of messing around with zinc if you are already using the tungsten powder. Why not bind the tungsten with resin or epoxy, in a suitable shaped mold. Tungsten is a great idea. It is an advantage to keep the volume of the ballast as small and concentrated as possible and green issues always deserve a frequent airing.

You nailed it. Great post.

I think this project is excellent. A lot of lures are described as 'wounded fish' immitations, but none really catch the action right. The wounded fish that I have seen, swim on the side, struggling to get vertical. This is exactly what you are talking about. I have a lip that will swim the bait on its side. PM me with a brief description of the general body shape and length and I will e-mail you a PDF of the lip, ready for printing out.

Snax, that was a very interesting observation about the fin angles. Now I've got to work out why!

Smallie, I have not done any small stuff, just a few difficult leggy molds to prove the system. If you or anyone would like to send me a picture with a few key dimensions of a small pattern that you consider unpourable. I would be happy to do one more mold for testing the system.

From the above, I assume that small patterns are difficult. This is probably because the plastic was not deep enough to 'push' the plastic into the legs or fine detail. A perfect application for vacu-venting.

Pete. I too finally bought a set of digi scales. Essential equipment to design. But the first six months of my lure quest was done on the above beam scales.

Better late than never. Welcome. Come sit by the fire, it must be cold out there.

Luretrekker, I think your vortex theory is spot on. The thing about an aerodynamic or smooth flowing nose section, is that, like a wing, it promotes laminar flow and we need the vortices for the action. SO, before trying all the invasive solutions mentioned above, all of which are sound advice, try the silly puddy! Create a blunt nose, then increase the ventral depth and then try both. Try molding a blunt or flat above the eye location. All these trials are for free, no damage to the lure. But only change and test one parameter at a time, or you won't know which one worked. Once these tests have been exhausted with no result, then you can start cutting. If you really want to keep the fins, then as suggested above, you may have to introduce a lip. Lots of good advice above. Don't forget to report back with your findings. More can be learned about lure design from the failures than from the successes. Don't bin the failures, send them to me!

I think the lure looks great, I really hope you get it to work. What material did you use for the body?

You could experiment with the front section by molding some plasticine on the front and try swimming it. Messy, but non-invasive.

I was trying to give advice that fitted the budget, I assumed a budget of a couple of thousand as that is the price that CNC starts. Of course, with a 5 axis machine, you can make just about anything. But 5 axis and laser digitizers are just not feasible for this project. 1 - 2K will get you a desk top operation, 3 axis machine. They will cut an area of roughly an A4 sheet of paper (12x8). For cutting lips and bodies 4 at a time, a machine of this proportions should be adequate. The cheaper machines are based around a dremel type motor, but if you pay just a little extra, a more powerful, dedicated motor can be provided. A 15K budget will get you a very descent machine, probably upto A3 or even A2 size. It may be a good idea to contact suppliers of such machines in your area and see if they can put you intouch with other small machine operators in your area. You can then get a first hand appreciation of what is involved. The Smithy1240 looks good. You should have no trouble finding a user of this machine in your area. You can cut a lot of bodies on a 22” x 13” bed. Good luck, should you decide to persue this option.

Jerry, what rotation speeds did you try?

A week before and a week after.