Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Spine consideration for war arrows
Rod:
A lot of folks seems to be making the lighter "flighting" war shafts, bearing in mind that the famous "quarter pound shaft" would be more like 1750 grains, not around 1000 grains.
As has been remarked, at different times a variety of different woods have been used for shafting, with ash being most common for a heavier shaft and asp (poplar, probably for alighter shaft. black poplar if we are being specific) for a lighter shaft.
But I have no doubts about the suitability of hornbeam for a heavy shaft giving a greater stripe than the lighter ash.
As for spine, with artillery shafts so long as they shoot cleanly and make the distance, precise spine does not seem to be as problematic as with a shorter shaft which is shot with precise and critical alignment.
In my experience as long as the shaft is stiff enough, there seems to be quite some tolerance until the shaft is so stiff that it just lurches off to the left like a telegraph pole.
What you definitely do not want is a weak shaft, though I nurture the thought that given their method of shooting, that oriental bowmen probably shot a slightly "weak" shaft since they usually aimed the other side of the bow, rather than the shaft.
Peculiar system....
As Jaroslav says where he quotes my advice to him, in the old days an empirical test based on an assumption relating density or shaft weight to stiffness (and then diameter) generally served well enough.
When you read about the sporting shafts of the early gentleman archers being a certain fletcher's five shilling and sixpence shafts, they do not refer to the cost, but the weight equivalence in a specific combination of coin.
Ash is very common here, "as common as weeds" as one old boy said, and usually quite straight grained, but hornbeam was also in common use and is listed as a useful alternative for the heavy shaft.
In the states I reckon hop hornbeam or indeed any "ironwood" could make a heavy shaft, but if talking about shoot shafts, you would not come up light using dogwood or anything similar.
Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts from straight grained wood when you are set up for it.
Rod.
duffontap:
--- Quote from: Rod on August 14, 2007, 12:46:22 pm ---Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts when you are set up for it.
Rod.
--- End quote ---
Do we have any idea of what kind of planes they used? Native American's painstakingly scraped beautiful barreled arrows that had bulbous self-blunts from Hickory billets with scrapers, so it doesn't take much technology to do. But, that being said, I wonder if the English didn't come up with something more controlled, like a board with a v-groove to hold the billet, or even a Strunk-type round-blade track plane? Do we have any historical documentation?
Also, you are right that the arrows would be very heavy most of the time. Standard arrows are probable equivilant to 'harrassing arrows.' My initial speculation on speed was based on distances they were required to shoot. An arrow needs a significant muzzel velocity to reach 220-240 yards, let alone 300 yards +. If at the HEIGHT of the warbow they were shooting 3 oz. arrows 300+ yards, then they were coming out of the bow very, very fast. That speed contributed to stability like the length and FOC balance did.
J. D. Duff
Badger:
JD, it would have likely taken at least an extremely well made bow of 160# to cast 3 oz 300 yards. I would doubt that was the norm although they may have done it. Thats a lot of energy! Steve
duffontap:
Steve,
Historical records seem to suggest that there was a period of time in which bowyers and archers were really pushing the limits of the longbow. With all the talk about how amazing this time period was in comparison to latter days or weaker archers and bows (the MR bows would have fallen into this weaker category), it seems reasonable to think that highly trainded archers could be getting the most out of 160+ # bows.
My endless speculation isn't worth much though. :P
J. D.
Badger:
I do believe their bows were likely very well designed and likely at their peak in quality. Hard to imagine how strong they might be if trained from childhood. Howard hill was not a weightlifter and he could draw over 160#'s so if they had an archery culture it may not be unthinkable. I have a hard time imagining an army that could avergae bows of 120#'s, but It is also hard to relate to the lifestyle they had , anything is posssible. Steve
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version