Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So we have great talks and and threads going hear about properly weighting crank baits which usually means something with a lip that dives even if its very little... but what about properly weighting glide baits? Now I am guessing that not allot of people fish with them and if you don't you are missing out because I have had some experience now with some and believe them to be a very great lure especially in the fall which is now coming on strong in the northern part of north america anyway... and the thing I don't see about them or ever talked about is size. I've used plenty of musky sized ones now because that is what's made the most but really how about some bass/ northern size ones that fall in the 3-4 inch range or less all the predatory species in North America would destroy these things in the fall feeding... I've just recently purchased some 1/4 thick aspen wood and some balsa of same size and am going to try my hand at making some smaller and larger gliders and would love to hear some input on everyone's thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Griffond

 

Probably this is going to be an interesting thread !

 

For about two decades now these glidebaits(over here in Europe we refer to them as jerkbaits) have really shook up pike fishing over here .

 

During the early 1990's some tackleshops and probably also a handful of fishermen brought a few of those big and heavyy muskie gliders across the great pond to Europe , though nobody really knew what to do with these baits and how to fish them .

 

Not even the essential heavy , short and stiffish casting rods were available over here , approbiate casting reels were also hard to find , especially not the ones sporting a left hand wind , which is most common over here .

 

In the local angling press there were a few enthusiasts around intensively promoting these "new" baits , and bit by bit they have made their way into the lureboxes of European pike anglers , ......to fulfill the spreading demand , suitable gear and tackle was thrown on the local market as well through the following years .

 

Soon also European lurecarvers discovered the potential of such baits , and because flat sided gliders are quite easy to make at home , many , many folks started out making their own , ..up until present days .

 

Just utilize the search function of "YouTube" typing in "jerkbait" or a similar term , there are heaps of glidebait test videos and also tutorial videos around .

 

Also people soon realized , that it was not really neccessary getting their arms sore throwing those heavy 8" baits made after American muskie lures , and a process of downsizing these glidebaits began , both for the home tinkeres , but also within the tackle industry . 

 

 

Smaller glidebaits could also be worked with more ordinary rods and reels , one could carry along one rod for all types of lures , no matter what glidebaits , plastics , spoons , spinners or crankbaits , .......as a good share of European anglers do fish from the bank only (boats are often restricted), therefore are unable to carry a big selection of lures and rods with them .

 

And also not only pike would strike smaller glidebaits , but also zander(walleye) , perch and asp :

 

 

As far as I'm concerned , the smallest glidebait available on the local market today is only 2" in length , the "Salmo Slider" , both in a sinking and floating version , ......has already eraned a first class reputation to be a proven catcher .

 

Since many years I've been through the proccess of building glidebaits as well , .....I also like them smaller to be able to work them with an average spinning rod , ...but I've found , that the smaller they get , the harder they are to trim to perform well , .......but I must admit , that I haven't tried making 2" gliders for too often , 3" baits always came along fine , though .

 

I have learned , that if making smaller gliders , one needs to use more buoyant material compared to the "ordinary" 5" to 7" gliders , ...this is simply because the lure has to carry a sufficient amount of ballast , which virtually is the "engine" of the bait , bringing it into the desired glide mode .

 

If the lurebody is already minor buoyant , and also the hardware adds weight to it , off course , one might not be able to place enough ballast anymore without having the lure sink like a brick , ...which is most likely not of advantage , because it looks unnatural and also the bait would vanish out of sight for the predator too fast , ........this desired slow sinkrate is also refered to as "hang time" amongst muskie anglers , I've read somewhere .

 

My personal fastest sinkrate is about 1 1/2 feet per second , but which surely would be too fast for many glidebait anglers , ...but often I fish waters up to 45 feet deep , ...and I don't feel like waiting 'til eternity , before the bait would have descended all the way down to work it along the bottom !

 

If you're new to glidebaits and you'd be looking for some input , ..check out this site , ...quite a bit of instructions and templates to be found there :

 

http://www.lurebuilding.nl/indexeng.html

 

For a newbie I can highly recommend the model "The Roach" , aka "Heiddy" , ....the successful bait in my little video above , .....it is easy to fish and also easy to build , as it requires only ONE ballast location , ...has a lively , random and pronounced gliding action , not only left/right , but also darting up, -or downward on occassion .

 

........and it can also be made in various sizes keeping the general dimension relations .

 

Good luck , Dieter :yay:

Edited by diemai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some discussions about "bass sized" gliders not too very long ago. I've built several of these "bass sized" gliders with a few different shapes, but none of them had the long glide that is associated with larger baits such as those used for musky and pike. I can't give you the why's and wherefore's, but I think it has a lot to do with the baits being much heavier than what would be appropriate for smaller species such as largemouth. A heavier bait is naturally going to have more inertia than a lighter one. A bait that can be well upwards of 12" in some cases will float a lot more ballast than a bait that is only 3" or 4" long. It's my belief that this greater weight has a lot to do with how far a bait will glide. The gliders I've built have more of an underwater "walk the dog" action although a couple of them will "glide" 6" to 10" if given a slight hesitation after the initial twitch of the rod. The way the rod is worked is pretty much the same as if you were walking a top water bait. You just hesitate between rod twitches to allow the bait enough time to glide.

 

The picture below is of a glider I built to resemble a threadfin shad. It's a tad over 3" long and was built with sort of fat body so I could add a bit more weight to enhance the gliding action.

 

Ben

 

http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/index.php?/gallery/image/9153-one-more-for-falcon/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Griffond,

 

1/4'' is not thick enough in my opinion.  I would suggest 1/2'' or 5/8'' thick. You have to consider your hook hangers wether it's screw eyes anchored in hardwood dowels like Spoonplugger Gino does or wire thru.  For the woods you mentioned, I would use the hardwood dowel method. 

 

I build 9'', 11'' and 13'' drop belly gliders out of hardwoods.  If you're looking for a long glide action build a more cylindrical type glider similar to a Manta.

 

s56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right Ben.  You need weight/mass to get enough inertia to overcome the resistance of the water, so the bigger/heavier the bait, the bigger the glide.  Topwater baits are similar.  It's tough to get a 2 1/2" popper that walks the dog to glide, but make it longer and you have a shot, like the Gunfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I am getting out of all this is weight + mass gets better glide which makes sense kind like a big bullet has allot of energy but so does a really long one of a smaller diameter... so maybe we are going about smaller jerk baits the wrong way... what if we were to take weight into account first over mass which makes things sink for example then add the mass to make it float... so my hair brained idea would be something along the lines of perhaps a lexan or brass body with a small dowel or foam top to make it float... almost like a backwards of those metal minnows that are weighted with lead on the bottom I can't think of the name of them you can buy molds to make your own... we use them for ice fishing more then anything in MN... anyone's thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Griffond

 

Don't think , that such would work out to a glide , ...been into some experiments about two years ago :

 

 

My opinion is , that all neccessary ballast has to be concentrated at only one or two locations of the the lureblank , these locations do depend on outer shape and general design  , .....the goal should be a horizontal sink level , thus the amount of weight on each location would most likely vary and has to be determined individually .

 

Virtually the buoyant lureblank kinda pivots around the concentrated ballast accelerated by the initial jerk of the rod , thus the bait glides to the sides .

 

Greetz , Dieter :yay:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In topwater walking baits, the center of gravity is always towards the rear of the bait, to give the tail more inertia so it passes the head on the pause.

I'm not sure about glide baits, since a horizontal fall seems critical and that would dictate where the ballast goes.  Dieter's baits, and the ones on the site he posted, seem to have the ballast mostly centrally located, and Dieter says he adds a little fore and aft, too.  Maybe the actual shape of the bait, head to tail, is what controls the glide.  A thicker section would have more resistance, and slow faster, so maybe making the bait slightly thicker toward the head would promote the glide action.

I "V" my swimbaits so there is less buoyant material toward the bottom, which helps them not to roll when burned back to the boat.  Maybe that kind of a modification would help a glide bait turn without rolling, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first thing I have to do is make a glider/jerkbait so I think I will go with deiters idea first but I have a question for ya Deiter on that 11cm roach how much weight do you think goes in that hole at the rear of the bait? I'm using aspen for this I figured like a 1/2 once of lead?

Edited by Griffond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ mark poulson

 

Mark , ...it is not quite correct , that he desired horizontal sink level dictates the ballast location , ..if so , the entire belly ballast could be placed at the lengthwise center of gravity  , for example at the deepest part of the belly . 

 

But if it comes to sit somewhere about centered between nose and tail end , it would not do much to enhance a sideward glide there .

 

But this really depends on the particular shape of the bait , ....I have designed sinking glidebaits with a fatter rear end , thus the rear carries more ballast than the front , still maintaining a horizontal sink level , ....the principle is the same like the topwater walking bait , that you've mentioned .

 

The inertia of the heavier rear Ballast PUSHES the bait forward(the lighter front ballast is just for the horizontal sink level , without the bait would blow out soon) , and since there is not much of a guidance in the water , it darts to one side ,.....on the following jerk the bait is forced back on the straight track towards the rodtip and as soon as the line falls slack again after a splitsecond , it darts to the opposite side , ....and so forth .

 

Other gliders , like the "Heiddy"(aka "the Roach")in my video above or a "Zig-Zag" glider work different .

 

(lower bait is a "Zig-Zag" glider)

 

http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/index.php?/gallery/image/4329-4-sinking-gliders/

 

 Here the main ballast sits in the front , right below the chin , ...the rear ballast is lighter , just serves to level the lure , ....even the "Heiddy" does not require any rear ballast at all .

 

With these baits the principle goes that the heavier front weight is PULLED forward by the rod tip's jerk , but the bigger or higher nose portion of the lure shoulders into the water guiding the lure sideward , ..in case of the "Zig-Zag" also randomly up or downward , ........next step is the same like above mentioned rear weighted baits , ....the next jerk forces the bait back into the line pull and when the line falls slack , it darts into the opposite direction .

 

It's a bit difficult to explain , ..I'm not a physicain , ..but this is my personal explanation !

 

@ griffond

 

I can't tell about the exact amount of weight , ....wood is a natural product , even within a single wood dowel you may have different densities , .......I always seal my readily carved blanks to prevent water sepage and test them individually for their sink rate and sink level in a waterbucket  , taping on different weights at possibly different locations , until I'm satisfied , ......off course hardware , hooks and a wire leader should be pre-assembled , too .

 

But bear in mind , that the sink rate of your lateron finished bait would be somewhat higher than determined in this waterbucket test , as you would drill away buoyant material to embed your weight into the lure , also paint and topcaot add a tad of weight to the lure .

 

Greetz , Dieter :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread so far. I'm looking to make some 4" or so jerkbaits/gliders for the Muskie & pike around here. I'd go bigger but my heaviest rod will only throw up to about 1 1/4 oz.

 

Dieter,

Those last 4" gliders you posted have got me tempted to use some of my prop bait blanks & weight them.

 

bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little hint I will give to those of you who are considering building gliders. I would first become familiar with the Archimedes principle of water displacement  that has been discussed quite often here at TU. It will save you a lot of time and make figuring out the amount of ballast much, much easier.

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never made gliders that small but ive made a boat load of small musky 4 1/2" to regular sized gliders. I like making dropp belly gliders and in my opinion neutral buoyancy makes the best gliders. Mass determines weight to find this , weight being wood, paint, epoxy, hooks, ballast, and leaders if used. What ever the mass of the bait you will need to find the proper weight to achieve what I call hang time in the water. Using less dense wood likecedar require more balast to in the belly , while oak baits needs less ballast to atchieve hang time. When using more dense woods like oak or maple the weight of the bait is distributed more evenly throughout the whole bait and ballast is used for stability not for the drive of the bait. Its not the lead that drives the action but the total weight of the bait. If you take the cedar bait with the same mass as the oak bait , the weight of the bait is the same but one bait will overweighted in the belly region the bait. As we all here know that if youover weight any bait you kill action, now your just pulling a stick through the water. If you take a balsa crankbait and over weight the plug you just taken away the balsas action. Wood has a natural action in water and over balasting baits in my opinion kills the woods action.lve made glider s that will walk the dog under water with just reel movements not sweeping the rod. Im not saying that you cant make gliders out of less dense woods but in my opinion theres more work useing them and there is a greater room for error. You can turn a glider into a pullbait fast by improper weighting. Also length of the bait will determine width of the bait. Longer the bait the wider the bait needs to be. I dont know if this made any sense, because I tend to ramble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding this to be an interesting read, been interested in glide baits ever since I came across the rebel cat'r crawler. This is more of a sinking lure, but still has similar properties of a glider.

 

I have been interested in building my own for trout fishing, from what I noticed they tend to run rather large and are made for pike like Dieter said. I'm looking to make a sleeker shape like Big River's Pup (walk the dog lure) because I like the simplicity of the shape. Probably going to take Dieters advice and build the roach lure so that I can see and understand the dynamics for myself. Very curious to see where this thread goes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see , obviously some different opinions in here , at least about what really causes a bait to glide .

 

But I do agree with jamie about buoyant and less buoyant materials , I try choosing the materials accordingly to the intended size of a glidebait , ...the smaller the bait , the more buoyant the material .

 

For example , a big glider out of balsa would requires to be hopelessly overloaded with lead before even reaching neutral buoancy , most likely the lureblank would not be large enough to drill all the leadholes neccessary :lol: , ...on the other hand a 2 1/2" or 3" flat bodied glider of heavier hardwood would surely require a certain amount of belly ballast to have it leveled upright , but would descend too fast with that ballast , ..not to talk of a possibly insufficient glide action .

 

I think , that the truthful crankbait rule-of-thumb about too much ballast weight killing the action does not count as much for glidebaits , ...simply because they do not wobble , but just dart and glide ,.... at the most there are some models , that sport a certain tremble or belly shake at the descend , with the latter these ballast issues could possibly play their part , I reckon .

 

But when a glidebait tends to sink like a brick due to being overweighted , it surely would not have any chance to glide very far , that's what I'm sure of , too .

 

MeFoWobbler.JPG

 

These lures here do look like glidebaits , but they are approx. 3 1/4" so called Seatrout Wobblers used at the local German Baltic Sea beaches to hunt after seatrout early in the year .

 

I've made these recently on request of an angler living further up north of my home state , his paramount demand was a quiver or belly shake on descend , as seatrout love this lure action and it most often triggers strikes , as the retrieve is paused and the lure quivers downward .

 

Also these lures have to be heavy enough to be able to cast behind the first breaking waves , ..their action on a straight retrieve is quite poor , they just come back sporting a subtle wave pattern .

 

My lures do fullfil both of these essentials perfectly , that guy was very happy with them .

 

I had weighted these tru-wired lures by simply putting a piece of 1,0 mm leadsheet to fill up the entire belly slot underneath the wireform , ...this way these lures sink at about 15" per second or even a tad more , so a lot faster than any good glidebait would .

 

You cannot impart any kind of gliding action to them , ....first they are too heavily weighted , second the ballast is spread all over their entire length , not concentrated at one or two locations fore and aft , ....just like the two PVC experimentals in my video above , these do not glide as well , though descending a lot slower than these Seatrout Wobblers .

 

Greetz , Dieter :yay:

 

 

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

MeFoWobbler.JPG

post-17895-0-38654900-1379426999_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey by the way guys I found this handy calculator for figuring weight out I punched in the mm dimensions for the lure design Deiter showed me and ended up with 5.7 grams or .0126 pounds and just use google to change either one to onces... turns out really close to 1/4 once as a starting reference!  Handy sight I would say especially if you are using the templates that don't give weight just dimension of holes size to fill here is the site if you want to check it out.

 

http://www.matweb.com/tools/weightcalculator.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well got the first one carved out anyway... gotta get some wire in it and sealed up but its coming along

 

IMG_20130919_145905.jpg

Edited by Griffond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Griffond

 

I would try the ballast amount and location before finally drilling the ballast hole to glue the weight in , ....I do this by taping it onto the preassembled and sealed bait , also connect a leader or a piece of wire as a substitute to achive accurate , horizontal sink level .

 

Looks promising , ...cheers , Dieter :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after sealing it and goofing around in the sink for a half hour trying different things it seems like about a half ounce of lead is needed right about where the stencil has it to get a nice sinking glide without just sinking straight to the bottom actually 7/16 of lead would be better but I don't have a scale so will have to work with 1/2oz  is gonna have to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just file off a little of the 1/2 oz, until it's the right weight.

Jep , ...exactly , ..........I do not have any scales as well , ........just doing the trimming by trial and error , until I'd be satisfied with the action of the lure .

 

 

Good luck , ...Dieter :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what Jamie had to say on the subject. It matches my experience in many ways.

Making a glide bait isn't hard. Making one that catches fish is the trick. I've seen a good number of baits on various forums that actually show the action via video and many of them have what is essentially the wrong action or poor action, in my opinion. Bear in mind, I'm talking about they musky baits I've seen when I say that.

There is a somewhat delicate balance to a glide bait that actually produces fish with regularity.

They are a lot of fun to build and learning about what works and what doesn't is a time-consuming process. It is the essence of lire building and you can learn a lot about building all kinds of baits along the way.

I have made a few that have caught several dozen fish and I made even more that would "run" but caught only a few or none at all.

Edited by fatfingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ fatfingers

 

  This thread has inspired my first attempt at a glide bait.  Right now I have 2 3/4 in long and 1/2 in wide bait that is a little heavy. Very little hang time. It turns too easy when twitched and a very short glide if any. What is does do well is walk the dog under water as slowly reeled.   

Problem there too; it also blows out easily if reeled too fast. Still much to learn on these style baits. 

 

I wondered if you had a link to a video of the action you consider good for fish catching?

Edited by littleriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...
Top