Glide Bait Talk

[diemai]

@ scrubs

 

Bill , I see , that the lower lure has some kinda of front edge protection on it , .......I find such very senseful and I was thinking to install such to this kind of lures as well , if I should even make some again in future , .......the sheer timber just becomes bruised pretty fast , if the lure is worked over shallow gravel bottoms .

 

Also that tinsel is a great Idea , ......i might try one with a silicone EZ skirt , ...should look great , when pulsating with each jerk ?

 

Thanks for input , ........greetz , Dieter

[scrubs]

Littleriver,

Haven't swum either yet except in the tub. Club I fish with cancelled our Muskie trip for tomorrow. Rats.

 

Dieter,

I dinged the lip on the bottom one while installing the screw eye. So I installed some copper shim stock. I think I oriented the grain wrong. It seems more sensitive to chips vertically.

 

A silicone skirt would be neat. I was going to do a flap tail like yours on both lures. But then I saw some Muskie lures where the rear hook had a hank of flash sticking out in both directions and I thought why not. Will still do a flap tail on the top one.

 

http://ricksmuskybaitbuilding.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&max-results=8

 

bill

Edited October 16, 2013 by scrubs

[ArdentAngler]

Just curious but essentially a glide bait needs enough ballast to cause it to slowly descend, this ballast should be located at the lures center of mass or essentially close to the first hook hanger? Does this sum it up or am I still missing something?

 

I'm guessing the biggest challenge is finding an appropriate amount of weight for each lure, now would this be easier or harder for smaller gliders? I wish to build small gliders for trout if that helps

 

 

Can anyone provide some x-rays of commercial gliders or some pictures of ballast placement on some skinny gliders?

 

Thanks

[diemai]

@ ArdentAngler

 

Some general info on weight placement at the beginning of this thread , Charles , .....but basically I'd say , ...the smaller a glider , the harder the job getting it to perform .

 

Here is the X-ray of a "Salmo Slider" , .....guess , I had mentioned this bait before being one of the smallest commercially available :

 

 

Did some brief googling , ...can't find more right now , gotta go for my first weekend shift right now .

 

Cheers , Dieter

 

 

 

 

[ArdentAngler]

Thanks Dieter...now why couldn't I find this on Google? Must be word choice I guess, but "x-ray glide baits" seems pretty clear to me?

 

So it wouldn't be as simple as carving out the desired size and shape then tank testing it by hanging some weights? Figure the weight of the hooks and paint shouldn't add too much. Hope this isn't a myopic way of thinking, I'm open to suggestions if you got em'.

[RayburnGuy]

I've built some gliders in the 4" to 41/2" range for bass and had the best results when the bait was balanced to sit level as it sank. The Archimedes theory  of water displacement proved invaluable when ballasting these gliders. It is much faster, and a lot less hassle, than trying to add weight to hooks or taping ballast to the bottom of the lure to try and figure out how much ballast is needed.

 

Ben

[littleriver]

@ Ben

 

Which scale do you use? Brand and model.  I have one but it does not read on a scale that is effective. The scale of the meter your measuring with is critical I think. 

[diemai]

Thanks Dieter...now why couldn't I find this on Google? Must be word choice I guess, but "x-ray glide baits" seems pretty clear to me?

 

So it wouldn't be as simple as carving out the desired size and shape then tank testing it by hanging some weights? Figure the weight of the hooks and paint shouldn't add too much. Hope this isn't a myopic way of thinking, I'm open to suggestions if you got em'.

Just used the German term "Jerkbait Röntgenbilder" , ...but really not much to be found , just some links showing some crankbaits X-rays :

 

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/cjbur/a_xray.htm

 

http://derholg.twoday.net/stories/1208425/

 

Especially with smaller glidebaits you need to add hooks , when trimming the blanks , .....do not underestimate the influence of hardware and topcoat , ....not only in terms of the sinkrate , but also the sink level of a lure !

 

F. e. if you want a 4" bait to sink real slow , it requires to stick out of the surface just a little bit whilst trimming with ballast taped to the belly .

 

When embedding the ballast chunk later , you'd also drill away buoyant material !

 

I find slow sinkers and slow risers harder to achieve than fast sinking gliders .

 

Greetz , Dieter

[RayburnGuy]

@ Ben

 

Which scale do you use? Brand and model.  I have one but it does not read on a scale that is effective. The scale of the meter your measuring with is critical I think. 

 

The scale I have is a Digiweigh Vic. Didn't see a model number, but it weighs in both grams and ounces. When set to weigh in grams it will weigh down to 1/10'th of a gram and in ounces it weighs down to 0.001 or thousandths of an ounce. I think the scale at the link below is the exact same one I have. And it's less than $10. I paid around $20 for mine. I've been had. 

 

If you plan on buying one to do the "dunk test" you'll need to be sure to get one that weighs in grams because the formula won't work in ounces.

 

Ben

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Digiweigh-Digital-Scale-Pocket-600-x0-1-grams-g-oz-ozt-dwt-Jewelry-Gold-Balance-/161014224851?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item257d3217d3

Edited November 2, 2013 by RayburnGuy

[littleriver]

@ Ben 

 

Thank you!! I will do. 

 

@ Dieter

 

I think you make a most excellent point . I concur       

 

 

 

"When embedding the ballast chunk later , you'd also drill away buoyant material !

 

I find slow sinkers and slow risers harder to achieve than fast sinking gliders ."

Edited November 2, 2013 by littleriver

[scrubs]

Thanks for posting those Dieter. I've wanted to make some floating and sinking Rapalas for trout for awhile. I had seen x-rays a while back but couldn't find them lately. I've tried lots of other plugs but it seems those are the two most productive. The two have different actions, the floater is a wide wobble and the sinker is much tighter.

 

bill

[RayburnGuy]

I've posted this info about slow rise versus slow sink before, but in case you haven't read it here it is again.

 

I was experimenting with the ballast on a bait to make it a slow sinker. If it sank faster than what I wanted I would go back and drill out a small amount of ballast. The difference between being a sinking bait versus one that floated was such a small amount that it wouldn't register on a digital scale set to thousandth's of an ounce. Using the "dunk test" got me extremely close to the final weight. It was less than 1/10'th of a gram off. Of I want something closer than that then it's just a matter of drilling out small amounts and then filling the hole with epoxy and sanding it smooth once it cures.

 

Ben

[mark poulson]

I just made my first glide bait, and it sinks faster than I want.  It was fine before I foiled and top coated it.

I'll be drilling out some ballast today, to get to just barely sink again, so I can vary the sink rate by changing either the size of the hooks, or by using either mono or fluoro.

[Seeking 56]

Mark,

 

I found that on some gliders I've made, drilling out stock out of the top of the bait and filling with packing foam made the lure more buoyant.  Drilling out ballast for me has changed the action on my gliders. 

 

Something to consider.

 

s56

[mark poulson]

Mark,

 

I found that on some gliders I've made, drilling out stock out of the top of the bait and filling with packing foam made the lure more buoyant.  Drilling out ballast for me has changed the action on my gliders. 

 

Something to consider.

 

s56

 

Thanks for the tip.  

I haven't made a glide bait before, so I used the Roach (thank you Dieter) as a starting point, and added my ballast from the bottom, first with a 3 gram belly hook hanger, and then another 7 grams in two inline 1/4" holes moving forward from the belly hanger.  I was trying to keep the ballast center, and low in the belly.  I am going to drill out the centermost ballast until the bait just barely sinks.  Then I think I can adjust the rate of fall with different size trebles, split rings, and line types and sizes.

But this is my first bait like this, so it may not even glide!   I am taking it up to a local pond with very clear water to test it this afternoon.  

If it won't swim, I'm back to starting from scratch again.

Fingers crossed.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

Edited November 3, 2013 by mark poulson

[mark poulson]

Well, I tested my silver Roach, and it worked!  What a relief, since, in my usual impatient way, I went ahead and foiled it and finished it without swim testing it.  

Removing 3/4 gram from the ballast (30.9 grams down to 30.2) turned it from a fast sink to a just barely sink.  

I test swam it on 12lb fluoro.  On long casts it sinks as it's walked back.  I'm guessing it's something to do with the sloping forehead.  I think a flatter back would keep it from going down on each twitch.  I imagine it will stay up closer to the surface if I use nylon mono, too.

I want it to fish for largemouth, so I made it small, like a mature threadfin shad.  The don't get much bigger than 3 1/2" out here.  I'm sure they're bigger than that in Texas, Ben.  Hahaha

It's 3 1/2" long, and, because it's so short it will turn 180 degrees+ on a hard pull, but it fouls itself if I use that hard a retrieve.  So I walk it like a spook, with short twitches and reeling as I go, and it works just fine.  I'm sure a longer bait would not foul itself as easily on longer pulls.

I posted two pictures and more details in the Hard Baits gallery.

I'm going to make one and paint it as a black crappie, and another as a bluegill, just for fun.

[RayburnGuy]

That's about the size we have here Mark. For the threadfin anyway. The gizzard shad get pretty big though. Big enough that bass rarely eat the larger ones.

 

If the hook fouling becomes a major concern don't forget how I solved that on a couple of baits I built that did the same thing. One of the small "super magnets" embedded in the body behind the hook kept it pulled up tight against the body. Another benefit of holding the hook this way is that it practically eliminates hook rash.

 

On another note, did you read the article about glide baits in B.A.S.S. Times? (or was it Bassmaster ) Anyway they interviewed Mike Long and he said he has become a devoted user of gliders. He goes on to say that moving the bait with your rod is not the best way to fish a glider as it moves the lure too far. Instead he moves the bait with quick turns of his high speed reel. He'll give his reel a quick revolution and then pause it for a second. This supposedly makes the bait dart to one side and rise a bit before sinking back. Another quick turn of the reel makes the bait dart back in the opposite direction followed by another pause. I haven't been fishing since reading the article, but plan on giving it a try when I get back on the lake.

 

Ben

[diemai]

@ mark poulson

 

Mark , ....I know that such is not essential for bass fishing like it would be fishing for pike or muskie , but still you should use a one strand rigid wire leader for working those glidebaits , your hooks won't foul with the line that much this way , ........1 1/2 times the lure length should be OK , .......the company "American Fishing Wire" makes some fine leader wire , also available in bronzed camou finish .

 

But maybe some stiffish fluocarbon or hard mono would do as well .

 

Some glidebaits tend to foul more than others , much depends on the action , body shape and also on the distance of the belly hook to the tow eye .

 

Even a one strand wire leader fouls on occassion , but this also depends on the way , that you attach it to the tow eye , ......most fellas use a DuoLock or CrossLock snap of approbiate strength , ....but this joint also provides a good portion of loose play(nevertheless play is essential for best lure action) , .....a splitring instead would be the best solution , but this would be just to darn inconvinient . 

 

I would have been pretty much surprised , if I heard , that "the Roach"(aka "Heiddy")would not have worked for you , ...it's a great design , easy to build and easy to fish .

 

If your lure is darting downward to much , it could be nose heavy(does it descend at horizontal level ?) or also your tow eye may sit just a tad too high , I reckon .

 

For working a glider just below the surface , make it to sink real slow , maybe 1/2" or 1" per second or so  , ....also there are floating glidebait models , that would dive down a foot or two , when jerked , ....slowly rise up again , when paused , ....the above mentioned "Salmo Slider" pops into my mind , available in floating AND sinking versions , ...check this out :

 

 

@ scrubs

 

Glad if I could provide some assistance , Bill .

 

good luck , Dieter

Edited November 4, 2013 by diemai

[mark poulson]

That's about the size we have here Mark. For the threadfin anyway. The gizzard shad get pretty big though. Big enough that bass rarely eat the larger ones.

 

If the hook fouling becomes a major concern don't forget how I solved that on a couple of baits I built that did the same thing. One of the small "super magnets" embedded in the body behind the hook kept it pulled up tight against the body. Another benefit of holding the hook this way is that it practically eliminates hook rash.

 

On another note, did you read the article about glide baits in B.A.S.S. Times? (or was it Bassmaster ) Anyway they interviewed Mike Long and he said he has become a devoted user of gliders. He goes on to say that moving the bait with your rod is not the best way to fish a glider as it moves the lure too far. Instead he moves the bait with quick turns of his high speed reel. He'll give his reel a quick revolution and then pause it for a second. This supposedly makes the bait dart to one side and rise a bit before sinking back. Another quick turn of the reel makes the bait dart back in the opposite direction followed by another pause. I haven't been fishing since reading the article, but plan on giving it a try when I get back on the lake.

 

Ben

 

Ben,

I was just pulling your tail about the size of Texas threadfins. 

I usually solve the fouling by going to a stiffer (20 lb+) line.  I just had 12 lb on my deep diver crankbait setup, so that's what I used for testing.  I'll switch to stiffer line when I fish it, and the bluegill glider you sent me (thanks again).

I think I'll try your magnet idea.  It sounds like a good plan.  Since this lure is ballasted "just right", I'll try it on the next one, if I remember!

I have some magnets hanging over my work bench, clearing the air of those deadly charged particles that come streaming in from CME's on the Sun.  Hahaha

I'll probably see Mike Long at the Anglers Marine Bass-A-Thon later this month, and I'll ask him about how he fishes his gliders, and what size he uses.  

[mark poulson]

Dieter,

I agree, a stiffer line will cut down on the fouling.  I typically use 20 lb braid for my topwater lures, with a 20 lb mono leader, to avoid fouling.  Using a stiffer line with the glider, either fluoro or mono, will almost certainly help.

I plan to try heavy mono to see if the thicker, more buoyant line helps keep it up on the glide.

My Roach copy (thanks for the link) sinks level, very slowly.  I think the sloped forehead acts as a diving bill on the pull.  I'll probably make one that has a more or less flat back, to see if that helps it to glide without diving.  

Thanks for the Salmo video.  I'll play around with a floater, but one that sits just barely at the surface, so it dives a little on the pull.  The traditional Roach shape should work perfectly for that.

I made this one with flat sides, tapered from the shoulders down, to make the belly less buoyant so it needed less ballast.  It doesn't roll on the pull, but it is just as erratic as the Salmo on the video if I work it fast.

I'll post more after I've incorporated all these new ideas in my next glider.

[diemai]

@ mark poulson

 

Just had a look at your gallery picture , ...missed it out for my last post , .....surely the flat back of your lure plays it's part in letting the lure dart downward .

 

Years ago I had received a couple of gliders with flat back and belly portions through lure swaps , ......IMO their action is somewhat less lively compared to gliders with fully rounded circumferrences .

 

They still perform , but rounded ones just kinda "slice" better into the water resulting into more fluent and more versatile movements , when working the lure .

 

But I see , that you had put much thought into your lure , ......the V-belly is a good idea to actually get more momentum into a forward glide rather than wasting it for a roll .

 

Now the first 4 pounders are in order , Mark  , ...........greetz , Dieter

[mark poulson]

"Now the first 4 pounders are in order , Mark  :wink:"

From your lips to God's ear....

I made my glider with the same flat surfaces as the Roach.  I did want a lure that didn't roll as much.  Your point about the flat back surface leading to more diving makes sense.

It looks to me like the Salmo has a rounded back section. 

So maybe some roll, along with the side to side action, wouldn't be a bad thing.  Hmmm....  

Edited November 4, 2013 by mark poulson

[scrubs]

Ok, so Mark's Roach shamed me into getting going on my Divani VGII glider again. It's a smaller 3 1/2" version of the one here:

 

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

 

under jerkbaits/hybrids. I tried calculating the weight but I was way off. My calculated weight was 15 gms but it ends up at 24 to float properly. Anyway that 24 gms is sealed with all hardware but no paint or Devcon 2T. It floats just like the illustration on the webpage. So I'm thinking I need to take a little ballast out. But how much and will it change the float seeing as the ballast is way forward in the bait. It has an even fatter front end than the Roach. Ideas appreciated.

 

beginner bill

[littleriver]

Bill 

 

The one thing that made making these baits so hard was getting the ballast right so the bait sank at the rate I wanted. Even though everything looked ok with a piece of tape, when I filled those holes with putty or glue everything was out of wack again. On a bigger bait I think the subtle difference is not so noticeable but on a small it it is magnified. My solution was to fill the holes with playdough during float testing. The playdough was not the best choice (messy when wet) but it was all that I had at the time. Any puddy would do that could be removed easily after testing. The puddy simulates the finished product best and give a more accurate float than the tape or hang method. 

[scrubs]

Good idea Vic. Because I'm clueless on this I may just remove just a hair of weight. I can always drill out like Mark later I guess. Or add heavier trebles. Time to start keeping a notebook.