Vodkaman

What about the foam? Not sure I would trust it with screw eyes, anyone have any experience? But my hangars are going to be multi purpose by holding and positioning the ballast.

Mr Hoo'. That's pretty much it. When you drop the wire in, do you coat it with flux or any cleaning agent or any other process? You've got the pics nailed now.

The lures look great, what a fantastic weekend, I'm jealous! Dave

I haven't made any hangars yet, but the above method is exactly what I have planned. I would expect to be able to achieve good repeatability after a dozen tries, getting the feel for over bend and spring back. With locators in the lead mould to hold the hangar in the same place every time and in the final mould, should achieve consistancy. Am I being naive?

I follow the series also, excellent job. I would send one to him, I'm sure it would bring in a grin.

Mister ESO! I think you have come to the wrong web site. This site is to help those who wish to build and paint their own lures. I suggest you go down to your local fishing shop and buy some new ones and get back to the river.

I first place the weight where I think it goes. I then swim the lure and make a note of the line angle when the bait is swimming horizontal. I then mount the weight at a position actually sitting on this line axis. If you read my article on death roll, this is actually a line of instability. It is also the line of maximum action. SO, to fine tune the final weight position, I build the second lure with 10mm eye extension, so that the eye can be adjusted up and down to get the best stable swim action. On the third and hopefully final lure, I re-position the eye to my new tested position. But at the end of the day, it depends on what action you are looking for.

Birdy. As long as you don't talk about cricket, you are most welcome. As for all the terminology, I'm still struggling with that, so I'll leave that to everyone else. I'm sure there will be a lot of interest in your mould making activities. I hope you stick around a while and teach us a thing or three. Cheers mate Dave (pommy barstuard)

Really sorry to read about your families troubles, thinking about you and wishing for a better future for you all. Dave

A method that I have been playing with recently, is to cut the shape out of a balsa sheet (type of wood not important). I then jam the pattern into the hole half way. The cutout does not need to be a perfect fit, just tight in two or three places. This then forms the bottom of the mold box. When the POP is poured, with a little agitation, the bubbles rise away from the pattern, leaving a perfect mold, no bubble craters and a flat surface. There is a little flash where the pattern did not fit the balsa perfectly, but once the mold has been fully dried, this sands off very easily, leaving good edges to the mold. Is anyone else doing similar? If not, I think it is worth an experiment. Another advantage is that you can control precicely, how much of the pattern is molded.

I agree with David, I have been around this site since the beginning of the year and I'll need at least another five to clear my todo list. The thought of taking on soft baits at the same time is overwhealming. Not to say it cannot be done. Welcome and good luck with it, keep us all posted.

Yes Jed, but the problem is that the molded material inevitably will have a diferent density to the original wooden lure, hense the tweaking to get it to swim the same, also the ballast will have to change to achieve the same buoyancy, if that is important to you. Personally, I perform this buoyancy calc for all my lures. I like about 10 to 15 percent of the final weight as buoyancy. It's really down to what feels right and how the lure behaves during a pause. This subject was covered well by Skeeter some time ago and has stuck in my mind. But, by this calculation method, I can determine the amount of ballast without any tank testing. As long as you are not going for a neutral buoyancy, I find the method more than adequate for reproduction of swim properties. As mentioned earlier today, KEEP NOTES.

My thoughts are to cook the plaster mold in the oven for 20 mins before use, to eliminate any moisture. Keeping the mold in an airing cupboard or on a radiator when not in use would probably do the trick. This subject has been through my mind a lot recently, as I plan to mold the lead onto the hangar wire, for consistancy of manufacture.

16lb foam is what a lot of lure designers are using. The foam comes in various weights, 2lb, 4lb, 8lb and 16lb. This refers to how much a cubic foot of the cured foam weighs in pounds. The higher the pounds the higher the strength and hardness. Most on this web site reccomend 16lb. A cubic foot of water, if my calcs are correct is around 62lbs. So the density of the 16lb is roughly one quarter of water, this makes it similar to balsa wood, only much stronger! Good stuff indeed.

For consistancy, molding would be the way to go. But as you hinted, you may have to tweak the design to get it running as you want it. To replicate the buoyancy is not too dificult. If you fill a narrow jar to the absolute max, completely submerge the bait and collect the displaced water. Weigh the water and weigh the bait. The difference between the two measurements is the buoyancy. Repeat with the new lure and adjust the ballast until you match the buoyancy value. You may have to invest is a 0.1 gram scales. If you do not want to invest, I have a scales design made from paper and plastic cups that is good for 1% accuracy or 0.2 gram for a 20 gram bait.

I find my best days are when the barometer reading is high. This may have only been a coincidence as I have not fished much recently. Would be interested in other opinions or research.

Sorry, I've had a re-think. The position of the ballast controls the centre of the 'X'ing action. So if the ballast is closer to the centre of the front segment, this will hold the centre of the 'waggle' action forward. The tail segment will then follow like a flag, resulting in an aparent 'S' motion. This will be aided by the vortices from the lip travelling down stream, adding to the tail action. Definately no ballast in the tail (for me).

TJ. I have no experience of two part lures, but thinking about the theories of what is going on, I think the weight placement is causing you problems. My main concern is the weight in the rear segment. This is severely damping out the action. If I was designing the lure, I would first try all the weight in the front segment, just in front of the hinge and no weight in the rear segment. Or, if you really want weight in the rear, group it all around the hinge on both segments. It is the same as grouping the ballast on a one piece body. If you spread the ballast too much, you kill the action. This, in my humble opinion should increase the action, but it does have a down side, I would expect to have more casting problems as the rear segment flops around as it leads through the air. So, it depends on what you are looking for, lure design like design of anything is generaly a compromise of some sorts. I would be very interested in other opinions, this is a learning opportunity for me too.

I agree with everything BobP discusses. If the only reason you are using the dense cherry is with a view to getting depth, then this is not necessary. The depth is determined by the lip/ballast/line eye geometry combination. It is possible to get a buoyant lure right down there and make soggy lignum body float, by controlling your geometry. Obviously, if the lure is ballasted close to neutral, the lure will not have to fight the upward float loads. You mention a tight wobble, if by that you mean reduced action as opposed to a wide 45deg action, then the cherry is a good chioce.

Fair point Wolfcreek, I'll have to check it out. specific gravity resin = 1.17 Hardener = 0.97 So, weighing is probably not a very good idea.

Confused you then didn't I. I replied to the wrong post, should have been fatfingers, appologies!

Those are MAN's hands. Great work

The more I think about this subject, the more negative I become. The shape of the bend is really starting to give me doubts regarding reliability of data. A technique that I regularly employ in engineering research is, if I am not sure of an effect a particular element has on the overall, for example, a particular lip shape. In my mind I totally exaggerate the size or shape or whatever the property is that I am interested in. usually the effect then becomes obvious. In this case it is the effect of the shape of the hook bend. If the hook bend sharpens or tightens up before the hook point, does it affect the bending performance? Although in my mind this question has been gnawing away at my brain, I have chosen to ignore it, but I no longer can. It is my opinion that the tightening of the bend will increase the resistance to bending over that part of the hook and the rest of the bend will take the entire load. This means that the hook and tight part of the bend maintains its shape, which is good from a fishhook point of view, but the rest of the hook bend will fail (straighten) more rapidly. If the hook was to snap, my guess is that it would snap at the start of the tight bend. The question is, does it all even out or is one design inherently stronger. Using the exaggeration idea, imagine that the bend was a very large shape, looping back to the original hook point. This would bend very easily, so this analogy leads me to think that things do not even out and we have a testing problem. Each hook shape is presumably for a reason, higher hook up percentage or strength or easier to get the worm on etc. So to decry one shaped hook for one particular property, in our case, resistance to bending, when the hook was primarily designed for threading worms would be an injustice to the hook designer. If all you are interested in is bending strength, then I guess that our test is valid. It would be extremely interesting to get a hook designers input on this thread around about now, before we get too deep. (This guy really waffles on!!!)

Rocky, I am far, sooo far from masterdom, I too am new to this sport. I was really hoping some of the more experiernced would chip in here. I think it is fibreglass resin, but I bought it in a art shop, it is used for casting chess pieces and stuff like that. You add 15 drops from a small bottle to 25g of the resin and it goes off in about 20 mins. It stays a bit tacky, but after 24 hrs it is fine. I think it would make a good mold material. The filler I use is car filler, I have only seen bondo on this site, so bondo is car filler? I wish someone had mentioned that before, now I need to cancel my gallon order from detroit! I had considered car filler as a mold material, now I don't need to try the resin. You Americans love your trade names!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do realise that my method is overkill, but to produce a master for a hunter is a long and tedious process, as I want to cast and not have to fine tune each lure. Yes, Pete we're on the same page. Keep us posted. Nice one Matt, just read your post after posting mine.

Mattlures, 100% right on the button. Rocky, I understand your problem, I have just been down the same road myself, trying to create a master that I was happy with. Carving balsa is a good start, but it is dificult to achieve the symmetry etc. Car filler can be added, but the problem is that when you sand it, the wood tends to be removed in preference to the filler. Solution 1. completely cover the rough balsa master with the filler and continue to shape that until you are completely happy. Solution 2. (my method) I took a latex splash from the balsa master (the rough master can them be kept incase needed in the future). From the latex, I cast a resin master#2. I continue to add filler to this and shape. The advantage of this is that the latex splash can always be re-visited. The lure that I am designing is going to be tweeked to death until I get it absolutely right, so I am happy with the overkill with the masters. Note, the resin cast will lose size from the balsa, so you must allow some. Experience will guide you. I would be interested how others go about creating masters.