Walter & Group.........
Feedback from Jim Penrod on the advice I gave to MCCI candidates:
DO HEED THE ABOVE ADVICE. It indeed is worth the drive and you learn a lot as well as building your confidence. I am speaking from my experience with Gordy and Tom White and on more than one occasion.
Jim Penrod, MCI
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
This is Troy Miller's answer to Al Crise's request for info on the analogy of the traveling bullet with respect to that of a fly line loop (You will recall that Bruce Richards called attention to the idea that there were, "very few similarities" between the two ):-
Hi Allen. Of course I’ll comment.
“very few similarities” is certainly a relative statement. I would prefer to say that there are a number of similarities between how rifle bullets and flyline loops travel, but there are also some big differences. Because there ARE some very valid similarities if you think about it. First off, let’s think about mass in general. If I can get a 90 grain bullet going 4000 fps, or I could get a 180 grain bullet (of the exact same ballistic coefficient) going that same speed, then the heavier bullet will retain more of its initial energy measured downrange at 200 yards. Now think flycasting. If we have 50 feet of a 2 weight line out of the rod and make a cast that moves the loop at 100 fps, or we have a 10 weight in the same situation, which do you think will be the higher energy system? Remember that energy is the ability to do work. Whether it’s a bullet hydrostatically shocking flesh, or flyline delivering a fly to a fish. Work needs to be done in both cases, and at some distance from the original energy source. So there’s a similarity.
Also, how much energy is retained while a bullet travels is largely a function of the aerodynamic shape of the bullet (wrapped up in something called the “ballistic coefficient”). So if you have two bullets fired from the exact same gun, with the exact same muzzle velocity – will they both have the same velocity profile as they fly? Depends on their BC. If one is a flat nose bullet with an abruptly curved ogive and square base, it would have a much worse BC than the other bullet with a sharp point, long smooth ogive and a boat tail. The first bullet would slow down much more rapidly and not be capable of the same work at any given distance from the muzzle, as compared to the “faster” bullet. Our loops are the same. If I cast a rod/line as perfectly as I can, and then Bruce casts it right afterward using all the same gear, his loop would carry further and be able to do more work – even if we had the exact same muzzle velocity (which we probably wouldn’t…). My loops would not have as perfect a loop face, and would have some parasitic wiggles in both the top and bottom legs that would affect energy retention. So there’s another similarity.
Another similarity is that all kinetic energy is imparted to the static bullet at the outset, and unless you do something like a triple haul, it’s the same with our flyline loop. Loops don’t have afterburners that kick in as they run out of steam either…
Aiming is done during the “guidance/acceleration” phase of a flycast or a rifle shot. Environmental factors can act on the objects as they travel, requiring the shooter to compensate if they want to hit the target. This is true in terms of windage AND elevation.
Finally, something important that loops and bullets have in common is that it takes more gunpowder to get heavier ones up to a useful speed. 45 grain bullets and 0-weight lines can be launched at blazing speeds with very little input energy. Cannonballs and 14-weights… well you get the picture.
Macrophysics govern how all moving bodies must behave on this planet. The main difference is, as Bruce pointed out, that our flyline changes shape and mass as it travels through the air, whereas a bullet (hopefully) does not.
I still like using a bullet analogy with a lot of my students, since many students have some fundamental grasp of how ballistics work (even if they don’t know the jargon). Analogies by definition are not expected to be identical. They just need to have some working similarities that you can use to illustrate a legitimate point.
Regards -- TAM
---______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tom Zacoi on eye protection on the stream:-