Anglinarcher

Also, the original post was old and a lot of the sellers either were no longer selling or had different contact information.

Sorry I am late responding, even more sorry I am responding. UGGGGGG! You are taking on a big challenge with that type of action to match the River2Sea S-Waver or the Huddle Jack action. It is an action that has taken me years to understand, and predict, depending on the changes to it. I guess, after over 10 years tinkering with the options and applying engineering principles to it, I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on that type of action, at least for a hobbyist. Mark is correct when he says about the action ..... Vodkaman once drew a diagram of the water flow of what we can best call Hydrodynamic Flutter. You should be able to do a search by hovering over activity at the top right of the screen, then going to search at the bottom of the drop down. He was showing the water that causes the side to side motion of multi joint hard swim baits, but the principle is the same. I will not steal his thunder on that, so either PM him or do the search on it. It is not entirely true that the action is caused by the rigidity of the front of the bait, in fact, I have a soft bait I have been working on that swims the same way and the entire bait is plastisol, definitely not entirely rigid. But, there is a critical point at which the joints must be. Additionally, you will see that the bait swims left to right on the Huddle Jack, or S-Waver, with the profile of the lure with the depth perpendicular to the swim, and the thickness is parallel to the swim. I know, lots of fancy words, hard to explain, and I don't have CAD right now. I guess what I am saying is that to make the frog you made swim, the front of the bait would need to be at a specific length range of the bait, the joint needs to stop the water from flowing through as freely, and .......................... Well, how do I put this, the bait, as shaped, as a frog is shaped, would try to swim up and down while the first joints are trying to swim left and right. Mark is probably right on this one. I don't want you to stop trying to innovate, and the shape and work is nice, very nice, but in this case, the physics are working against you. Additionally, I just don't think I can provide enough information, shy of writing a book on it. LOL Good luck, but the current plan of getting a side to side action with the joint alone will not likely work.

Got to mist the first coat, thin, thin.

Bob, I understand your concern, and I totally agree to a point. When I see a review on say Cabela's, I first look to see how many stars it has, 1 to 5. If it has at least 3 stars (and enough reviews to be valid), I then look at the one and two star reviews. Almost all the time you can tell when the reviewer has no knowledge of the product they bought and had no business even owning it. LOL I remember one review where the person complained because the instructions did not say of the "spinning reel" was to be held below the rod or above it. I have seen a lot of those review boards where the product representative could respond as well. Often the review was "contact me", sometimes it is clarification, etc. I propose we follow the mold already cast (pun intended) and go with a 5 star system, a reason for the rating, and the ability for the product representative to respond. One response from the buyer, one from the product representative. BUT, I agree with Bob, we do not want TU to become an arbitrator.

I think Baitjunkys got caught in the trap we all have. He is such an expert injector that I think he has forgotten that some of us still open pour on occasion. ROFLOL I got caught the other way, I make my molds out of silicone and I was just thinking I could cut more air gates to allow the air to escape. LOL IF you do decide to go injection s Baitjunkys was suggesting, then PM him and he can work you through the angle adjust to allow the air to escape better.

This is such a tough problem, and sometimes we are inclined to be a bit too politically correct. Years ago I got a bunch of small plastic cranks to work on my airbrush painting skills, figuring I would hand them out to the kids. They looked awesome, but the factory ballast was completely off. With the suggested hooks they would roll right out of the water, but with one size heavier they would dive but would not swim or "wiggle" at all at anything less than hyper speed retrieve. I do regret not at least complaining to the company, but I just wrote it off as my stupidity. I have not purchased "blanks" again. We do need a product review thread. I will "report" Super Ron's post, and as an explanation I will state that I agree we need this option. Perhaps Kurt or Nathan will see it and agree. After all, you get product reviews from Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops. Something set up like that would be useful. PS, if I did buy blanks again, I for sure would be asking for advice from this site. I am not going to toss money into the toilet again with the last company I used, even though that was many years ago.

Yep, have some at Lake Powell in Southern Utah this week. The problem is that they will be fishing Strippers and if they are hitting/boiling on the shad, anything will work, including a chewing gum wrapper hung off a hook. ROFLOL I hope I get some action video to at least evaluate the action.

Ya, I second the after hours. I live at an apartment complex, with a pool, and they let me test during the summer. I often go out when no one is there and within minutes there is a dozen people, kids to old timers like me, all wanting to see what that crazy guy is doing "fishing in the pool". Ugggggg

I feel your pain. Good responses above, and the indoor pool idea might work, but lots of pools get crazy when they discover you have "hooks attached". I suggest you don't even bother with the 4 star hotels. LOL Personally, I prefer to do my design work during the "off season", when I have more time. I don't need to test every lure I make because I have a tried and true method on my "production" models, but new designs or modified designs need that open water. I have just as much of a problem during the summer when the water gets cloudy. I know that some that are testing non-divers use a long trough or tank in their basements. I don't have that option either. And if I did, my wife would prohibit it! Vodkaman use to have one of those and his videos were the stuff of legend.

Mark, it is hard not to have that perception. We live in a tough world. I use to think, as a kid, that I had created this wonderful fly or that wonderful popper, just to see it "stolen" by some big company. It was hard to accept that I was wrong, even when I would see it in a book that was printed before I was born. It seemed like every available option has been tried..............but it has not. I think that innovation right now is in materials and methods, not as much in shape, actions, or colors. We all try to make our lures look like food, and prey species are the obvious ones to target. But, in the last 20 years we have slowly developed photo transfer methods verses airbrush only. We have advanced paints, clear coats, etc., so much, but we have a ways to go (see Chrome). In the last 20 years, we have advanced hard swimbait technology as well, and again, I think that there is more to do. I think the biggest mistake is to assume that the next advance must be earth shattering, when in reality advancement is usually a slow, incremental thing. Sure, there has in the past been breakthroughs that, looking back, look like they were fast, but they were not. Lauri Rapala did not invent the shape, even though he popularized it. He actually my not have invented the materials (depends on which company story is being told over the years, and I think I have heard/read two or three). But, he did combine existing materials, shape, and finish that already existed into something that became an industry giant. When I first read Travis' work, I was taken aback. I consider Vodkaman, and myself, as hobby builders. I sure don't think that anyone here would consider Vodkaman as not understanding what he was doing just because he is a hobby builder, and an automotive engineer, instead of a "professional lure maker". I believe that "most" hobby builders get into this activity because they do put a lot of time on the water, do have at least an idea of what makes a lure do what it does. That does not mean that some are not as talented or experienced, but I would need some supporting evidence to believe that the word "most" is accurate. Nevertheless, I do actually understand what Travis is saying. I have been frustrated by the new posters that seem to want shortcuts to expertise. I have been a little less than charitable on at least one occasion. Now I try to at least point them to the search feature. I wonder if in fact Travis is experiencing the same as Mark was, just in a different area. A lot of innovation comes from those that are not experts in a specific field, but have the experience and skill set from other areas that lead them in the right direction. My wife once said you should not allow an engineer to fish, let alone make fishing lure, it is an unfair advantage to the fisherman. LOL Perhaps I am wrong, and I often am, but ..... but ..... 1) I see this website as advancing the incremental changes, not the breakthroughs. 2) I see the friendship and willingness to help others as the biggest advancement in lure making that has happened in a long time. 3) I see this website as a repository of knowledge, a library, for the use of the lure "scholars" of the future, as well as today. 4) I see it amazing that we are discussing this topic. Perhaps it was good that ROD W gave us a kick on the backside. It won't make me do anything different, but it will make be think differently when I am doing it.

Captain Ron. I think this is to be posted in the top thread, CRANK BAIT SUPPLIERS. To my knowledge, that is the only thread Kurt allows us to post this type of information. Check it out. PS, they look good.

It should work fine, but you might need to just do a little trial and error testing to get it perfect. There are a few minor changes I would make, but I see no reason that your idea, as shown, cannot be made to work. I would suggest getting a medium plastisol, and then add hardener if necessary. I think it is large enough that a soft plastic might not be best. This is my thinking on it. The tail is long and lean enough for good action, but the tail seems relatively small. The two combined should still give good action, but to adjust how much/little, tweak the plastic hardness. As for brand of plastisol, well that in itself will get an argument (not really) going. We all have our preferences, but I like the Alumisol Plastisol myself, and they sell the medium and the hardener as well.

http://www.lurepartsonline.com/Online-Store/Propellers/Chopper-Prop.html

I think that Bob is on track there. I love to tinker, to develop the next lure, but not for acclaim, profit, sell, etc., but to fill a specific need I have if I want to catch more fish. Personally, I feel all my lures are a failure, but my fishing partners, friends, and family don't agree. My wife sold some of my lures for $50 a piece recently, and I have never ever even tried to sell a lure before. Not only was it an eye opener, but each one of them gave me anxiety attacks thinking that maybe there was something wrong. My parents love to talk about my first successful lures from 50 years ago. I MAKE LURE TO DO WHAT I CANNOT BUY. LOL Still, Rod has a point. But I think that there are a lot of people still experimenting with the next great lure. I suspect more want to make the next big money maker, not invent for the sake of inventing, and that is not a bad thing. I just wish they would test them first and not sell "Helicopter Lures or Flying Lures". Capitalism is a good thing, but it has downsides also. LOL In the case of my lures, if they add to the "body of knowledge" as Larry Dahlberg puts it, it will be family and friends that give my lures after I am dead. I won't have the will to take a chance and submit them myself. uggggg

We don't seem to like the phrase "trial and error", but in reality that is what we do. The fact is that each of us has our own Best Way and I don't think any two of us do it the same. I have primed with an airbrush a lot, and it works, but it is not always easy. If I was priming pre-fabricated plastic baits, and I use to buy a lot of them, I would roughen the surface with fine sandpaper, clean with an alcohol wipe, then prime with an airbrush using a hi hide white, water based. I found that to work best. If I was priming wood baits, and I have done my share in the last 50 years, I would seal the wood first (sealer has changed a lot over the years), then again sand with fine paper to roughen, then clean with Alcohol wipe, then prime again with water based hi hide white with an airbrush. If I am molding my own with resin, then I have to deal with the lead or tungsten at the surface of the bait that I used for ballast. This is when I need to be creative. Sometimes I spray the inside of my mold with the Krylon and then mold the lure. The resin takes on the "primer" and makes it a lot easier, but I need to clean the overspray from the silicone mold (pretty easy). If I don't pour within about an hour or priming the mold then sometimes the primer does not transfer well and it is splotchy, so again, a little different method. But, most of the time I am not in PRODUCTION MODE so don't do it that way. That is when I go to the spray methods, and the rattle cans cover so much faster than the airbrush water or solvent based......they simply have more solids in the spray. If I am molding them myself, I don't have issues with the solvent damaging the baits. So, as you can see, lots of different ways. So, at the risk of saying again, it really is "trial and error". Wow, hope this helps, did not mean to make it so long.

LOL, I should have refrained from answering this question. BUT, I am not Catholic so I don't think the Vatican will come down on me if I seem to Pontificate about the subject. Just because you can smell something does not make it dangerous, at least to most of us. You smell perfume, air freshener, hand lotions, etc., etc., and they don't hurt you. Now, on the other hand, it gives my wife an allergic reaction and she has a rescue inhaler for church and when she flies, and it is soooooo fun getting on an airplane with the 3M half face mask for organic vapors. Yes, you can do it, but the looks are unreal. A doctor's prescription/note sure does help. On the other hand, my wife has no issues at all with my plastisol in the microwave. Get the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) for the plastisol you use, learn what PEL (permissible exposure limit) is. After all, inhale too much water and you will drown, inhale too little and you dehydrate and die, just right and you have a humidifier. Some, and they are on this site, will preach ultra safety, and if I was doing commercial amounts I would sure have a sniffer and monitor the PEL levels. I do believe in safety, but I have learned to know what safety really is, and I attempt to not overreact. Check out the attached SDS from Alumisol and their Plastisol. I have highlighted the applicable sections in yellow. Other brands might not be the same, but all are similar. Ultimately you must decide for yourself. BUT, while you can never be too safe, you can be safer then you need to be. "Just saying" I think is the in phrase now. Good luck on your research, but I advise that you do not take what we say as though we are lawyers; WE ARE NOT! Alumisol SDS -1.pdf

PS, I usually use brass when I do it. It is easier to tune and easier to make.

Nope, never done LOL, but have done hardbaits. Keep the coats, usually keep them as thin as possible, close together, about 30 minutes apart, then mist them with the airbrush paint about 30 minutes after the last coat. Then you must let it dry the full 24 hours before doing the regular AB methods.

LOL, basecoats are not easy, and the items you basecoat can make it harder. I pour resins a lot, and the white resins help some, but the lead ballast I pour into it can migrate to the surface and makes it tough to coat. The options given above are pretty good. I also base coat with Krylon spray paint, the fusion was my favorite, but it is hard to find now. I still have issues getting it to cover the lead shot on the surface. I started doing something weird, something very weird. I rattle can a metallic Rustoleum on first, then rattle can the white Krylon over it. It takes far fewer coats now. Tell us something about what you are based coating and it will be easier.

Also, call Lurepartsonline. I do remember the blades being available, just cannot find them. This is the closest I can find. http://www.jannsnetcraft.com/propeller-spinner-blades/312179.aspx

My best suggestion is to hover your mouse over activity at the top right of the screen, then go to search at the bottom. Click on it and enter several options. I entered home made wire eyes and got the following. http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/search/?&q=home made wire eyes As for what you mean by "Barrel twist", I am not sure. But, I home twist my eyes by using a small round nose pliers, often called a jeweler's pliers, to make the round eye, then a pair of pliers to twist the rest. But, is that what you are after?

Just thinking, I saw a patent application from the 60s that would seem to prevent every 3D eye we put on a hard bait. But, seems we don't have an issue so far. I have been doing that style of weed guard for 45 years on my bass flies, just tied the monofilament instead of using a slip piece of rubber. Patents applied for don't seem to protect, as indicated by CNC, and enforcing patents seems pretty hard as well. I am glad that for the most part I am a hobbyist. I suspect that there is a patent for how I breath air, and a lawyer willing to sue me over it. I know that someone has a patent application for just about everything else, including time travel (search it out). ROFLOL

Travis has a point. Engineering controls, like first not using dangerous products, is always the first option. 2nd is venting the material so you don't exceed the PEL, permissible exposure limit, for the toxin. 3rd of course is using the appropriate respirator, and using one that fits and gives you sufficient protection is best. The best supplied air is useless if you don't use it, the best half mask is useless if it does not fit or the filters are incorrect. The supplied air unit I used was bulky, impacted vision, but for the high radiation and chemical levels at the DOE site I was at, it was the only option. Half mask simply did not provide sufficient protection. Just don't think a hood is sufficient if the PEL is exceeded. A sniffer may be necessary if the toxin is bad enough.

Ditto. All plastisol products settle, some even hard pack, so you need to mix the material really well before you cook it to the turn over point. Now, some settle much slower, and some don't hard pack as much, but given enough time, all do that I have ever tried.

Did a quick search http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/search/?&q=woodchopper blades Seems like these are going to be pretty difficult to buy, may need to make them.