Jump to content
14 replies to this topic
Posted 26 January 2012 - 10:52 PM
I have made several topwater plugs in the past on the lathe. My lathe is down right now, so I thought I would make some muskie cranks and gliders this winter. I am going to try different woods for the cranks. I also have some plans from a guy in Europe I think that he sent me 10-15 years ago back when there was a tacklemaking .com forums. I have several plans for gliders, weighting and everything. I figured I would start with these as a baseline. and go from there. the problem is that they all call for beech wood. I do no have any beech wood or access to any at this time.
Is there a wood that is similiar to beech that I could use and the plans would still work as a good starting point.
I also do not have any way of melting lead right now. Is there a formula that would tell how much lead is in a Xcm hole X cm deep. and I can use lead weights and a scale?
Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:29 PM
poplur is about the same as beech beech is a little harder but not much
Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:54 PM
Do a search for "dunk test" or "archimedes formula". This will explain how to find the needed ballast for any diving plug no matter what type of wood it is.
Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:56 PM
I would agree with Crankpaint. Lowes and Home Depot usually stock poplar in different dimensions. There is a light weight maple that might work, but I don't know the correct name or a source. Musky Glenn
Posted 28 January 2012 - 07:54 PM
Didn't he invent the Arkie Jig, too? Hahaha
Posted 28 January 2012 - 10:25 PM
The answer to your original question about finding how much lead is in a given size hole the answer is yes. You can use the formula for finding the volume of a cylinder. Which is what the hole in your lure will be. What it boils down to is that you are finding the area of a circle times the height.
To find the volume of a cylider you mutiply Pi (approximately 3.142) times the radius squared times the height. This will give you the volume of the drilled hole. If you figured in inches then lead weighs 6.55609194538 per cubic inch. If you used metric figures then lead weighs 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter.
This process still doesn't give you the amount of ballast needed for a particular size crankbat. For that you will have to either use the Archimedes principle or by trial and error using different amounts of weight hung, or taped to, the lure while resting in water. Hanging weight on a bait will get you close, but doing it this way doesn't take into account the difference of the lead being transferred inside the lure while being tested with the weight on the outside of the lure. It's all about water displacement and this process doesn't allow for the displacement of water while the lead is outside the bait. That's why I chose to use the Archimedes principle. Or dunk test as it's called here at TU. I can do the test, drill ballast holes, install the weight and glue it in without ever having to get up from the workbench.
Others choose to do things differently for their own reasons and there is not a thing wrong with that. You just have to find out what works best for you.
Posted 28 January 2012 - 10:48 PM
Boy that Rayburn guy must of paid attention in geometry class. His teacher would be proud. Little did we know back in school that this math stuff would come in handy later on when building lures.
I like do the dunk test to find out about how much ballast is needed. I also add the extra hardware ( hooks, clevis or what ever I might use in the build) for the dunk test. It can make a little difference especially if I'm try for neutral bouyancy. However I don't try to get exact with the weight as the water temp and line type will impact how far the lure will sink or float. Mono size/ wt is different from flurocarbon lines how deep a lure will go. Then there is body shape, bill size and angle. The factors go on and on. I get it close and go from there. Once I get the weight needed and do a followup dunk test after installing the ballast to check that the lure does what I want it too. Sometimes to get the right lure attituted (nose up, down, level) I will drill more than one hole.
Edited by EdL, 28 January 2012 - 10:52 PM.
Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:35 PM
I was just like a lot of other folks who didn't pay attention in math class EdL. Matter of fact I absolutely hated school and all I wanted was OUT. Only later in life did I find there was actually a use for that stuff and given the profession I chose ended up learning it the hard way. You end up using quite a bit of geometry and trigonometry fitting both structural steel and pipe. And having to go back and try to learn all that stuff ain't easy when you don't have a teacher helping you. But I always did remember things I learned the hard way a lot better. Momma always said I was hardheaded, but she never said anything about being stupid.
Your definitely right about ballasting a lure. There are so many more things to consider than just ballast weight. And trying to achieve a truly suspending lure is almost as hard as catching your shadow. A bait I built recently had me about ready to pull my hair out and it wasn't even intended to be a suspending lure. I just wanted it to be a really slow sinking bait that sank with a very slight head down position. I ended up working in tenth's of a gram. Drill out a tenth here and add it there. I needed a stiff drink before it was over and I gave up drinking over 10 years ago.
About the best we can do is to try to get as close to possible to what we're trying for. Even the Archimedes test isn't perfect because it doesn't allow for the wood removed when drilling the ballast hole. But for me it's been the closest thing to being exact out of the several different methods I've tried. I'd be willing to bet that out of all the lure builders on this site there are no two people who build lures the exact same way. Like I said in the last post you just have to find a method that works for you. That's one thing that makes this stuff so much fun.
Posted 29 January 2012 - 02:05 AM
Thanks for the information, I have read the dunk test posts now, and will try that as a starting point for the gliders. I think I just test the big cranks and twitch baits from no weight floaters to near suspending... to see which ones I like the best...
Thanks again, great info...
Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:18 PM
Beech has a hardness of 1300 lbs-f. You would be better off with either Red Oak @ 1290lbs-f or Ash @ 1320 lbs-f.
Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:37 PM
Hand carving and shaping Western Red Cedar is a breeze. Orientation of the grain in the board can make a difference though to ease of carving. If you have specialist timber store near you also try Jutalong, relative of rubber tree I think.
Posted 01 February 2012 - 08:23 AM
Don't forget to give AZEK PVC decking and trimboard a look. Hard, strong, buoyant, totally waterproof, and you can work it just like wood.
Places like Lowes and Home Depot should carry it, or be able to order you a sample, if you tell them you're interested in using it for your deck. Their sales reps. have 6" samples they carry with them.