Read somewhere recently that as trout can't see wings on dry flies from below, then there is no point in having them. Can someone shed any light on this and also does the same apply to wet flies.

according to quite a few sources the wing is a trigger point
having said that i think id chose a spider over a winged wet....
but thats not dry flies
i think the wing must be a trigger, on a traditional non-winged dries i reckon the trout see the top half of the hackle as a wing- after all its not like the insects legs point to the sky

Other than a bunch of feather fibres wet at the correct angle on dry flies, I have not bothered winging in the traditional sense for many years.

It's nice to see the beautifully tied split wing and matching wing slips tied in traditional dry and wet fly patterns. Many anglers obviously appreciate the skills involved in producing such wings.

But I fear that the trout couldn't care less, and these days, well quite frankly I couldn't care less either.

A white coloured wing might help you see the fly though.

__________________
Where the wandering water gushes
From the hills above Glen-Car,
In pools among the rushes
That scarce could bathe a star,
We seek for slumbering trout
And whispering in their ears
Give them unquiet dreams;
Leaning softly out
From ferns that drop their tears
Over the young streams.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

Of course they can see them and several authors have gone to a lot of trouble to photograph various dressings from underwater and from different angles. With very interesting results - depending on the light there were some great suggestions for wing-colour and materials.




Well that's that then.


Spinner patterns, such as my namesake, dressed with hackle tip wings tied 'spent' or with cream poly yarn are very effective when there is a spinner fall.

According to theory, the first parts of a drifting upwinged fly seen by a trout, as it nears the compass of the trout's window, are the wing tips, then the lengthening wing, down to the thorax, by which time salmo trutta is ready to tip his nose up, rise, intercept the fly and swim back to his 'on-the-fin' lie.
Said trout will also see the footprint of the fly, as little lights on the surface, beyond the perimeter of the window. So, the angler has a choice, it seems to me -- go for wings, double-split or sight-post, or opt for the footprint approach. You should get both in one with a winged dry fly.
Sadly, double-split-wing dry flies often have opaque wings, not very natural, easily messed up by the trout, and add no buoyncy to the fly; but production of good ones is the hallmark of the expert fly tyer, so they used to say. a ppersonal choice is the plain, hackled dry-- simple to tie, fair flotation and fairly robust.
If the fish are taking small stoneflies, or hawthorns, there won't be a lot of wing on show, as the wings are stacked or folded flat, respectively. You fish what you want to fish!! TC
PS you could try fishing the fastest water in which you can keep in contact with your fly. In the turbulence, you occasionally get away with murder!! It's why some of us fish fast little streams.

By the way, don't get me wrong, I still use wings for certain dries and wets. It's that I don't bother making neat split and paired wings any more. All I do is set some feather fibre at the right angle, tie it in, and them get on with the rest of the dressing.

Even fancy wings become shapeless bits of feather fibre when the fly has been cast a few times or has caught a few trout. So why not tie bits of shapeless feather fibre in in the first place.

I might never win any fly dressing competitions, but as I tie flies to catch fish, this worries me not.

OK - I'll go with that.

It also gets to be quite expensive tying on a new split wing dry for each new rising fish.


Yes indeed - bright pink even, useful for 'sillhouette' conditions or when foam bubbles are a problem.