Main Discussion Area > Flight Bows
Flight Arrows
DC:
I've decided to start this thread to track my making of flight arrows. This has been a sticky point for me and maybe if I write down what I'm doing people that know better can stop me before I waste a lot of time. I made two old growth Western Hemlock arrows a while back and they flew OK but I never got a chance to test them for distance. They were 28" long and spined at 50#. They were heavy compared to the weights I hear about at about 350 grains. I took them out to the backyard this morning and shot them at 10yds. They are fletched. They hit the target straight but I could see that they were nock right mid flight so I sanded one of them down. Tested it again and it looked better so I sanded more and this time it flew straight all the way to the target. I moved back to 15 yds and it was fine there. I measured the spine and it was 35#. There is no tip weight. Now it weighs 290 grains, much better. I thought I would try an Ocean Spray arrow in hopes of getting the same weight with a smaller diameter. I got it down to 43# spine and it was getting so skinny that the pith was starting to show at the ends(barrelled) and it still weighed 429 grains. I decided to assemble an arrow with 11" of OS in the middle and 7" and 10" of Hemlock front and back. I "V" jointed it together. This afternoon I sanded it down to 38#spine and barrelled it. It weighed 300 grains. The diameter was the same as the 290 gr Hemlock so I don't think it was worth the effort. It flew very well though so maybe it was recovering better. I decided to see how fast it was. I got 220fps but the arrow broke when it hit the target. So, don't test flight arrows on the shooting machine. I'll just assume that anything below 300gr is faster than anything above 300. Might not go as far but I haven't really got to that point yet.
And that's where I'm at. I think I learned some things but I'm a bit confused as to why the OS arrow didn't do better. How thin do you think I could make front and back if I drilled and filled the pith? Even if I did get it down to 35# spine I think it would still be way heavier than the Hemlock. OS is rather extreme so maybe I should try something more in the .7-.8 SG range?
mmattockx:
--- Quote from: DC on October 10, 2020, 06:31:39 pm ---They were 28" long and spined at 50#.
--- End quote ---
Excuse a dumb question. I understand how modern composite arrows are spined, but exactly how does one define a 50# spine? What weight of bow the arrow will work for also involves the arrow length and tip weight, so it seems inaccurate to me to define a spine rating by bow weight?
--- Quote from: DC on October 10, 2020, 06:31:39 pm ---It flew very well though so maybe it was recovering better.
--- End quote ---
The Easton X10 arrow is used by a lot of high level Olympic competitors because it is barrel shaped and the rear part of the shaft is spined more softly than the rest of the arrow shaft. This makes it more forgiving of bad shots by the archer, leading to higher scores. If your composite arrow shaft was also less stiff in the back portion that would explain it recovering better off the string.
--- Quote from: DC on October 10, 2020, 06:31:39 pm ---I got 220fps but the arrow broke when it hit the target. So, don't test flight arrows on the shooting machine.
--- End quote ---
How do competitors test their arrows without breaking them? Only flight shoot them in an open field or use a backstop of loose straw or what?
Mark
willie:
Mark
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=57378.0
--- Quote ---so I sanded one of them down. Tested it again and it looked better so I sanded more and this time it flew straight all the way to the target. I moved back to 15 yds and it was fine there. I measured the spine and it was 35#. There is no tip weight. Now it weighs 290 grains,
--- End quote ---
Don, did you reduce the spine by sanding at the center third? before or after any barrelling?
in a nutshell, if you want to reduce spine, remove materiel in the center third, if you want to remove mass, reduce the outer thirds.
that said, if you barrel a parallel shaft with a known spine, it will static test less when you get done barreling, but the dynamic spine may not be reduced as much as the static test would indicate. Typically, the static testing charts assumes a parallel shaft.
you can certainly use static testing on barreled shafts for your own estimation purposes.
bownarra:
You should be going a lot thinner on the front end. :)
Read this - http://www.turkishculture.org/lifestyles/turkish-culture-portal/turkish-flight-arrows-554.htm
Try making some shafts that copy the dimensions.
In Saracen Archery there is a short section about a flight arrows made with 3? different materials. Strong dense center section and lighter ends.
I think that stuff about the X10's softer rear section is marketing :) Have you seen the price of those suckers! I'd rather make my own haha.
mmattockx:
--- Quote from: willie on October 10, 2020, 09:28:00 pm ---http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=57378.0
--- End quote ---
Thanks for that. So it appears the ATA # reading is arbitrary and you still need to figure out what spine you need once you have arrow length and tip weight factored in, which makes sense to me.
--- Quote from: bownarra on October 11, 2020, 01:27:42 am ---I think that stuff about the X10's softer rear section is marketing :) Have you seen the price of those suckers! I'd rather make my own haha.
--- End quote ---
It is very possible it is marketing hype, but that is what I have heard non-sponsored archers say about them. They are crushingly expensive. If I shot so well that I needed that level of arrow I would probably be sponsored and not concerned about the cost, but fortunately I suck so I can get by with cheap arrows and not know the difference.
Mark
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version