I'm a casual Mitchell collector located in Australia and I've been wondering for many years about Mitchell's use of planamatic gears. Could anyone explain to me the rationale behind Mitchell using this gearing? I understand how it works, but what are the benefits over the alternate cross-wind line lay? And why did they use it, after developing the brilliant line lay of the 300/301? Was it an engineering decision or perhaps to keep the 300/301 different?
Many thanks - Roger
Mitchell Planamatic gearing questions
I'm sorry, but your question reads a bit confused. Mitchell's Planamatic gearing produces the unique cross wind. When you say you understand how it works & ask what the benefits are in the same sentence, the confusion escalates. Then to top it off you ask why they used it after developing the brilliant 'line lay' of the 300!
To respond; Mitchell did not develop anything unusual in regard to line lay in the 300. The 300 might have unique internals, however the result is the same line lay as every other spinning reel of the day. Brilliant or not, the line lays exactly the same as on Penn Spinfishers & a host of other reels popular at the time.
When the Mitchell Saltwater (302) came out around 1950, it introduced the development of Planamatic gears. To my knowledge no other manufacturer offered anything like it. The idea is to increase the cross wrapping of line on take up in a way that will reduce mono's tendency to dig in, resulting in lower friction upon the next cast as the line flows more freely off the spool. The phenomenon of mono digging in is of course exascerbated by fighting fish, or even just retrieving heavy weights, lures, & baits. The introduction of the 302 SaltWater was all about surf casting, where maximum casting distance is desirable.
Other Mitchells got the Planamatic gears, 308/408, 306/406 while many models did not 302N, 386, 488, etc. Obviously Mitchell was willing to go both ways on this. In fact among the variants of Mitchell's 1st 3 models, the 300, 302, & 304, the 304 appeared in both normal & Planamatic gearing.
It is curious why Mitchell never offered a 300 variant w/Planamatic gears, there are so very many models based on this frame. The unique internals of 300s changed little after the early versions. Mitchell might not have wanted to mess with their extraordinarily successful original. Mitchell's rationale behind Planamatic gears was to increase casting distance. If that is in doubt today, nobody doubts that the unique action of a 302 still gets attention these 50+ years later.
PS: I got to live & work in Australia, put a small dinosaur together for Melbourne & traveled extensively.
To respond; Mitchell did not develop anything unusual in regard to line lay in the 300. The 300 might have unique internals, however the result is the same line lay as every other spinning reel of the day. Brilliant or not, the line lays exactly the same as on Penn Spinfishers & a host of other reels popular at the time.
When the Mitchell Saltwater (302) came out around 1950, it introduced the development of Planamatic gears. To my knowledge no other manufacturer offered anything like it. The idea is to increase the cross wrapping of line on take up in a way that will reduce mono's tendency to dig in, resulting in lower friction upon the next cast as the line flows more freely off the spool. The phenomenon of mono digging in is of course exascerbated by fighting fish, or even just retrieving heavy weights, lures, & baits. The introduction of the 302 SaltWater was all about surf casting, where maximum casting distance is desirable.
Other Mitchells got the Planamatic gears, 308/408, 306/406 while many models did not 302N, 386, 488, etc. Obviously Mitchell was willing to go both ways on this. In fact among the variants of Mitchell's 1st 3 models, the 300, 302, & 304, the 304 appeared in both normal & Planamatic gearing.
It is curious why Mitchell never offered a 300 variant w/Planamatic gears, there are so very many models based on this frame. The unique internals of 300s changed little after the early versions. Mitchell might not have wanted to mess with their extraordinarily successful original. Mitchell's rationale behind Planamatic gears was to increase casting distance. If that is in doubt today, nobody doubts that the unique action of a 302 still gets attention these 50+ years later.
PS: I got to live & work in Australia, put a small dinosaur together for Melbourne & traveled extensively.
-
Dodgemeister
Thanks Araye50: As an English-born Australian (living in Melbourne) asking a question on an American forum about French reels, I was trying to avoid terminology mix-ups, so I used the Mitchell description from their schematics ( “Part XXXX replaces YYYY and ZZZZ to convert Planamatic gearing to Crosswind”) for my question, to differentiate between Planamatic gearing and Crosswind gearing for the oscillation of the spool.
So the Planamatic gearing is all for casting distance, which stuffs up my thinking that it was for extra line capacity – but which begs the question why use it on the 308/408?
As for other manufacturers, I know that the English spinning reel Intrepid Surfcast has a “Camatic” set-up which is somewhat similar but only works on the up-stroke, I think.
I did believe that the 300’s slow and relatively long stroke spool oscillation to be very different to the norm, but I haven’t owned or used many other brands to compare against, as you said.
Regards - Roger
So the Planamatic gearing is all for casting distance, which stuffs up my thinking that it was for extra line capacity – but which begs the question why use it on the 308/408?
As for other manufacturers, I know that the English spinning reel Intrepid Surfcast has a “Camatic” set-up which is somewhat similar but only works on the up-stroke, I think.
I did believe that the 300’s slow and relatively long stroke spool oscillation to be very different to the norm, but I haven’t owned or used many other brands to compare against, as you said.
Regards - Roger
Mitchell Planamatic
The only possible mix up that concerned me was the idea that the Mitchell 300 had introduced something really unique in the crosswind department. Incidently early half bail 300 reels had different gearing that resulted in even slower oscillation of the spool, an important distinction. Later, high speed versions of this model line retained what had become their standard oscillation speed, but wrapped line on much faster. The later Mitchell surf reels like 386 & 488 had a simple, completely different, mechanism to oscillate the spool at a much faster rate. Each turn of the handle moves the spool in & out on these. For comparison the early 300 required 10 turns to cycle the spool & a later 300 just 3. A 302 takes 4 turns. Penn Spinfisher & DAM Quick reels of the era oscillate 1:1 like the 386 & 488.
I've always thought the Planamatic gear set up, as introduced on the SaltWater reel, was unique & revolutionary. Technically, both designs 'crosswind' the line on take up, its just that the Planamatic tries to triple the crosswind effect. Hence the plain gearing is more a level wind, while the Planamatic accomplishes something extra. IMO, if the theory works & casting distance increases, it would be a no brainer why Mitchell would use it on other reels. Besides it looks special.
I doubt Mitchell would ever claim Planamatic reels boost line capacity. Presumably they reduced mono's tendancy to dig in at the expense of maximum capacity. However, in their day 302s were popular for their large line capacity, so it was never an issue.
PS: Have you been to the Museum of Victoria to see my little dinosaur? I put together Deinonychus for them as part of a traveling exhibit in Launceston & never got to see it in Melbourne.
I've always thought the Planamatic gear set up, as introduced on the SaltWater reel, was unique & revolutionary. Technically, both designs 'crosswind' the line on take up, its just that the Planamatic tries to triple the crosswind effect. Hence the plain gearing is more a level wind, while the Planamatic accomplishes something extra. IMO, if the theory works & casting distance increases, it would be a no brainer why Mitchell would use it on other reels. Besides it looks special.
I doubt Mitchell would ever claim Planamatic reels boost line capacity. Presumably they reduced mono's tendancy to dig in at the expense of maximum capacity. However, in their day 302s were popular for their large line capacity, so it was never an issue.
PS: Have you been to the Museum of Victoria to see my little dinosaur? I put together Deinonychus for them as part of a traveling exhibit in Launceston & never got to see it in Melbourne.
-
Guest