Long fletchings on medieval warbow arrows - why?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 гру 2024
- Medieval Arrows: / medievalarrows
Medieval archery playlist: • Bows, arrows and arche...
The few archaeologically surviving medieval English and Northern European arrows, as well as the period art work, show very long fletchings on arrows. Why are they so long? In comparison, Turkish and Persian fletchings tend to be short, as are modern arrows, because smaller fletchings, or flights, create less drag and maintain higher velocities and therefore attain longer range. But medieval archers must have had a good reason to use such long fletchings - my theory is that it is due to short range flat shooting into enemy ranks.
The shirt! IT'S FULL OF STARS!
Too busy being mesmerized by your penetration expertise to even notice!
Awww
scholagladiatoria you arent monolithic just yet
That's an aliasing issue: if there's a pattern with features smaller than a certain critical thickness relative to the resolution of the compression algorithm used (or the pixels size if uncompressed), the math that determines what colors should go where gets an answer that is some whole number ratio of what it's supposed to be--resulting in weird colors and shifting patterns that are mathematically related to, but not the same as, the colors and patterns that are actually there (called an 'alias' of the original pattern). You can try putting the video through an anti-aliasing (a specially designed low-pass for this purpose) filter before uploading to remove it in the future, or just avoid shirts with such tiny pinstripes for future recordings.
IONATVS It's why politicians never wear this kind of shirt : very bad effect on viewers if you're interviewed on TV news.
I'm an archer since 13 years and i usually use long, low fletching for 2 reasons:
1) The arrow is faster, there is less air resistance due to the volume created by the feathers whyle rotating, it is also more stable.
2) The arrow/fletching are less influenced by the wind and rain.
Even if the arrow didn't have to go around the bow, it would still bend on departure. The bending is caused by the fact that the arrow is exposed to a very high acceleration force, and rests on its butt. This is well enough to create high compressive force on the wood and bend the shaft, which will then unbend and "vibrate" a few times, like a spring. The energy of that oscillation would generally dissipate as heat generated in the molecular bonds. Would fletching help dissipate that energy faster? Well, this would probably best be suited for a technical experiment, but my hypothesis is that it might not. Let's divide the pendulum motion of the shaft through 4 steps. 1) the butt of the arrow bends towards - x, slows down, and reaches the end of its bend. 2) the shaft unbends, accelerating the point towards the center of mass. 3) the butt passes the center of mass and starts to slow down from the elastic resistive forces of the arrow again, this time travelling towards +x and reaching the max amplitude. 4) Identical to step 2 but other direction.
So what if you add fletching? Well, the fletching will generate torque that resists the pendulum swing during step 1 and 3, but it will also add torque to aid the pendulum swing during step 2 and 4. That would be the same as attempting to increase gravity on a pendulum. The effect would be a shorter period, with a faster oscillation, but it would not dramatically increase the speed at which the energy of the pendulum dissipates. Other example, it would be like tightening a guitar string. It would make the note more high pitched, but would it dramatically decrease the duration of the vibration if the string isn't interfered with? Perhaps marginally, but I doubt that the effect would be very significant.
My hypothesis is that fletching probably does aid significantly when the arrow must follow a parabola. Every fraction of second spent with the arrow out of line with its trajectory (during the arc) will greatly dissipate its energy. Fletching everywhere passed the center of gravity would theoretically be helpful in setting the arrow straight, and any source of cross sectional area ahead of the center of mass would be unhelpful. Fletching will however increase the drag when going in a straight line, losing energy per meter traveled, so the optimal fletching would be 1) very unlikely to bend under the effect of the wind, 2) very near the shaft as to reduce the cross-sectional area when in a straight line. 3) as far back of the center of gravity as possible. 4) have a high cross-sectional area when the arrow is not in a straight line.
It seems to me that long fletchings would probably be an elegant compromise between the need to exert a lot of torque but exert little drag. This would be most helpful for long distance shots where the arrow must arc its course. Point blank or direct shots would probably benefit most from having fletching as minimalist as possible (just enough to correct a potential spin to the arrow) to reduce drag.
@ 3:00 I made that same point over a year ago in a forum post as well. If you look at the deployment of archers at Agincourt you can see they were on the sides of the infantry rather than directly behind. If their primary purpose was to shoot up in an arc (which I think is movie bullshit and a huge waste of arrows) there would be no reason for them to be on the flanks rather than directly behind the infantry unless they were expected to shoot into melee.
Then I watched two videos of you and Tobias Capwell discussing the Hounskull Bascinet's design and how it was specifically made to deflect arrows coming forward, and how there were accounts of the French men-at-arms looking downward as they advanced implying the direction of shot was forward, rather than above. Then I remembered when you had said that not all plate armor was equal and how often the sides of the armor and helmets were often made thinner than the front. The pieces of the puzzle fell into place.
I'm no archer, but a straight shaft definitely aids penetration.
needs moar penetration
kajsdf lksdjf well, penetration is not without it's risks.
THAT Is why knights wear protection!
...THAT is why we were punished by the plagues...
I beg to differ....my shaft is curved and almost always achieves full penetration.
Matt, on any "fin stabilized" missile, rocket assisted or string driven a larger fin will stabilize the missile quicker and more effectively. A shorter, wider set of "fins" would increase drag as the arrow passes the bow stave, ergo a smaller and longer "fin" should be more effective. I agree with you on the purpose. Haven't thought about the short range targeting before, but it does make sense. Thank-you, Dante.
I am a warbow archer, though I haven't been actively shooting for a couple of years and am planning to get back into it. My theory concerning the long fletchings is that they exist because of the arrow being incredibly stiff. Shooting a heavy warbow requires an equally heavy arrow that is subsequently not only thicker, but also far stiffer than any regular arrow, to the point where most warbow archers that I'm aware don't even bother to measure the spine of their arrows (which is important in modern sports archery) anymore. Now I am no expert on physics in any way, but it makes sense to me that longer fletchings are simply necessary for stabilizing the more rigid piece of wood, regardless of how far you shoot it.
huh huh he said 'rigid'
I think it's this. The arrows supplied to armies were meant to be shot from all of the bows in the army, and the bows were not all matching, therefor the arrows would be pretty un-tuned to many of the bows. Longer fletchings could help compensate for un-tuned arrows. An un-tuned arrow with smaller fletchings being released from a bow would wobble more, overall decreasing the range of the arrow more than the extra drag you get from longer fletchings. I've actually tested this for real.
Ideally you want to have smaller fletchings and with arrows that are well tuned to the bow. Only way every man in an army could all shoot the same arrows while the arrows also being well tuned to their bows was if their bows were all the same draw weight, the men all had the same draw length, their brace heights were all exactly the same, their nock points were all the same, and the materials of the bows would have to be very consistent, as well as the construction of the bows themselves. Of course the arrows would then all have to be the same!
So I don't think it had so much to do with short range archery, but strangely enough increasing the overall effective range of your archers. Wobble is simply worse for range than the extra drag from longer fletchings.
Yyyyeeeeppp. :)
actuallyt they had their arrows in different stacks for different pountage bows..... i think in mary rose wreck they found stacks for 120, 150-160 and for 160-185lb warbows.
I've been re-enacting Tudor archery and and shooting English longbows for 20 years and I concur with your theory. The conversation you had with Toby Capwell about Agincourt was very interesting. Weren't a small number of lighter (long distance?) arrows found on the Mary Rose? If they show the traces of shorter fletchings that would support your theory. (that the standard heavy war arrow was optimised for closer distances)
Drag depends on both *frontal area* and *"wetted" surface*. Flight arrows have their fletches both short and shallow (not long and shallow, as you said) for lowest drag possible. Longbow arrows could achieve their stabilization by either being tall and short or shallow and long. As it happens, the drag scales better with wetted surface than with frontal area, so by being shallow and long they minimize drag/stabilization ratio. They achieved less drag in the direction of the arrow movement, and more drag right across it, for the best stabilization.
Regarding short-range archery theory - if it was so, the fletches would be both long and tall. Or even long, tall *and* fluffy, like on flu-flu arrows. On short distances there is not much cost to extra drag, since it slows the arrow only down the range.
Very good points.
>if it was so, the fletches would be both long and tall. On short distances there is not much cost to extra drag.
That is assuming they had a level of knowledge about aerodynamics and mathematics that they might not have had in that period. Assuming that people in the past didn't make mistakes is a common mistake.
+Rafaello Fareday - You don't need the deep understanding of math to have a good grasp of what actually works. Just look at Turkish flightshooting. Those guys did stuff which we can't really replicate until this day, and they surely didn't know much math.
Regarding assuming "they didn't make mistakes" is a mistake, I think I disagree. I believe that's a reasonable assumption (broadly speaking), until we are forced to abandon it. Then we should, but not sooner.
in other words its good at all ranges... & likely adds durability as well as the fletchings will not be banged around on as much as they dont stick out as much.
I understood long and shallow as the length of the arrow across which fletches run and shallow as the fletches not standing tall or being fluffy but trimmed hair. When you mean short, what do you mean ? Thanks.
Thank you for keeping this under 5 minutes.
My take on this matter is the following: The heavier the shaft, the more force has to be exercised in order to stabilize it in flight. This can be acquired by increasing the surface area of the fletching. Now funnily, if you compare the"flechettes" on the long/ war bow arrow to plane wings, you will realize that they are more similar to the wings of fighter jets. That deltoid wing shape reduces the amount of drag and is therefore more resistant to high forces/ strain/ speed!
Love the shirt! make a suit of armor out of that shirt material, you could be Sir Psychedelic the Knight
Totally agree. I shoot with long and short fletchings, straight and fluffy feathers, in several diffferent types of cuts with light and heavy wooden arrows... In the long range (>200 feet) , there is little difference, but under 30 feet, there is a huge difference in how straight the arrows fly.
It would be a fairly easy experiment to test your hypothesis.
As a target archer, I used to fletch my arrows with 5" feathers for the indoor winter season, since we were shooting at 20 yards. My outdoor arrows had shorter, plastic fletchings for distances up to 90 yards. That's just what we did, but it does back up your hypothesis.
I've been doing archery for 36 years, and to me the following aspects make sense:
1) Broadheads were not only used for Hunting then, they were also used for war (Intention to hit/wound horses for example). Broadheads create an effect like a wing - the bigger the broadhead the less precise the arrow will fly (this effect starts after approx 20 Yards). Therefore big fletches are necessary to stabilize the arrow. Even in modern archery Hunting Equipment, this Problem is unsolved: that's why mechanical broadheads are widely used, although they are by far more likely to misfunction.
2) War-arrows were - not always, but often I would say - of inferior Quality: mass-products built to achieve one Thing: to wound or kill others on the other side. they weren't as precisely made as arrows for target Shooting. war-arrows were less straight etc., and to compensate These inferiorities you Need big fletches to achieve acceptable arrow flight.
It's common knowledge in sport archery that long fletching straightens flight much more quickly. 18 m indoor target archers often use long (4-5") feathers for the purpose. They are lousy for outdoor longer shots due to windage, but perfect for indoor short range.
You are absolutely right. That's why the contrary is true in world archery competition they use as small a fletching for longer distances.
I think you are right, longer fletchings will increase the surface that will beat laterally on the air to dissipate energy when the arrow is vibrating. And because when seen from the tip, the cross section remains the same, it does not add a lot of drag.
In addition to what is said about shaft response to compression and acceleration. Because arrows trajectory is up into air for distance shots, it is likely simply to reduce the wind planing effect.
"Aiding penetration!...You will get deeper penetration with direct straight shot" :p
Matt Easton 2017
Long fletchings slow down the arrow more due to the larger surface area the fletching covers. However, long fletchings also stabilize the arrow faster, which is why long fletchings are perfect for shorter distances, about 30 yards and under. You want the arrow to stabilize as quickly as possible in that short distance. Plus, the drag won’t be an issue at the short distance.
Diego Martín Lafuente , A longer fletching doesn't automatically create more drag. A shorter fletching that stands out from the sides more may create more drag. Fletching stabilizes the flight path. Longer, more aerodynamically shaped fletching may have been an attempt to balance stabilization with the speed and range.
A test could easily be done, using arrows of uniform make with varied fletching to see what precise effects fletching changes have on the arrow. Thus revealing the desired effect of such fletching.
Also, keep in mind that wide flething is more flexible and will lose a lot of its effective surface, more than a narrower fletching. To make up for the loss of area doe to narrowing, they made it longer, genious.
Not to mention, why waste feather by shortening it, when you can use the most of its length...
As some folks will have stated below already; long fletchings with a low profile move quick and provide a good balance of directional stability. War bows generally shot arrows with quite heavy points. They didn't need massive fletchings because that would create too much drag and reduce the range considerably. They were shot up high to rain down. So they had lots of time to stabilise. Long fletchings with a low profile are a good balance of correction versus keeping speed.
I myself shoot a small war bow at only 130lbs but I also use long medieval style fletchings. For the above reasons and because they just look ace.
I would say you are correct. Even in modern equipment, fletching length varies to stabilize in different bows. Finger vs release shooters on same platform usually require longer fletch to make up for string pluck.
Greetings,
I am really enjoying your videos, but on this point I disagree. Although your point is correct, that the paradox recovery time is typically shorter under a variety of conditions, i think that is a secondary concern to the old fetchers.
I am an archer, and one who has done a lot of shooting with lots of technologies, from Olympic re-curve and carbon arrows, to self-bows and wooden arrows.
One of the things I do regularly is to perform "bare shaft" tuning. this is basically a test to determine if the arrows are as perfect a match to the bow as possible (Spint stiffness match).
When shooting an arrow with no feathers, if everything is correct (spine match, release, form, draw length, etc) there is practically no difference between group size and point of impact fetched arrows, and un-fletched arrows. There is also no difference in paradox recovery time. They fly like darts.
If any of these issues of form and equipment are wrong, then there is a huge difference, up to and including completely missing the bales at 40 yards.
Really big feathers correct for a lot of "sins" in form and spine match.
Also, with medieval arrows, a 2 blade broad head, or a sloppy bodkin can cause the arrow to "plane" in the air, with completely unpredictable results.
I believe the big feathers are just an easy way to correct for lots of battlefield variables to create more consistent grouping for the greatest numbers of archers at all ranges.... 3 feet to 300 feet.
Matt, Aerospace Enginnering here. I know nothing about arrows, but I think that we compare the fletching of a arrow with the fins present in the rockets (to a certain extent rockets are just really big arrows). So the, obvious, function of the fletching is to stabilize the flight of arrow. But it's interrising to note that the total area of the fletching is more important than the lenght. nonetheless, longer fletchings, means, everything else constant bigger area. There are other aerodynamics details to consider, but is kinda hard to explain in a comment. If you want to, I can try to explain it better later.
Am an archer, would agree.
I once started throwing longbow arrows such as this one out of an Atl-Atl. They spun up to a super high RPM and through off a lot of speed, but damn if it wasn't going straight almost as it left the Atl-atl.
Longer flights in a fletching setup are also faster through the air for the same amount of control surface on a shorter fatter flight. Less drag. Smaller crossectional area displacing the air.
For more control surface, longer flights are also easier to source. A standard duck would likely yield manny arrows worth of long style flights as apposed to fewer wide flights.
A few ideas:
- Shooting off the hand. Modern bows use a rest which prevents the fletchings from coming in contact with the hand, so they can be made as tall as you want. Modern fletchings are short and tall (high aspect rato) for reduced drag, but if you're shooting off the hand, tall flights will throw off the shot more (and hurt more, if you're ever tried shooting a modern arrow off the hand). A longer, shorter flight (low aspect ratio) can have the same area and stabilizing effect with less disruption during the shot.
- Durability. High aspect ration flights are quite delicate. If you're storing tens of thousands of arrows packed together in an armoury, or transporting them in crates on the back of a cart on campaign, tall flights are going to get squashed, bent, twisted, and otherwise damaged. Shorter flights are stiffer, and don't take up as much space, so they interfere with each other less, and are less prone to being damaged.
- Spin rate. High aspect ration airfoils allow faster, and more efficient spin than low aspect ratio ones due to the lower moment of inertia. That means you can get the arrow spinning at a faster rate for a given amount of drag. Important for arrows with helical fletching designed to spin (most modern arrows aren't) - and spin is particularly important for arrows that are very tip-heavy with medieval style steel heads on them.
- Bucking the wind. Shorter, longer flights are affected less by crosswind than high aspect ration ones. Medieval arrows, being heavy, are already not bad in the wind, but it may have been an important enough factor to affect the fletching, given that shooting is done at unpredictable ranges and directions in war, as opposed to the fixed ranges experienced in target shooting.
- Materials. Modern fletching is made of plastic, which can be produced in any size. Medieval people used feathers to make theirs. The long fletching could simply be the result of 1 feather = 1 vane, so they just made them the approximate length of the feather. Yes, they could have cut the feather into sections lengthwise, but feathers taper and change in stiffness as you go along the length, so using a whole one for each vane may have just given more consistent performance than making them from different parts of the feather.
You are spot on Matt! English archery is comparable to Manchu archery in the sense both archery styles fired heavy long arrows and with long fletchings. Manchu archery emphasised on shooting at close range. Heavy arrows don't travel as far as lighter arrow archery styles but the stopping power of English/Manchu was superior. Another interesting characteristic both Manchu and English arrows share is that the arrow shafts are tapered like a football in shape (wider in the middle and thinner in the tip and tail ends). I believe tapered shafts helped the arrow recover faster from the archers paradox after release. It also made arrows stiffer and shot out faster it would seem.
I enjoy archery and hunt on a regular basis..The flecthings actually have little to do with the flex of the arrow..That is why they used stiffer, thicker arrow shafts though...The longer fletchings most likely where put on the help keep the arrow head forward during flight because of the extra weight of the arrow
I have to agree with this statement (although open to being convinced otherwise) - but it may still be that the greater drag induced by the longer fletching helps line up with arrowhead with the target better over short distances (i.e. the arrow is still going through significant oscillations by the time it reaches the target, and this is compensating).
Sounds reasonable. More mass with a war arrow, therefore, more inertia and more force required to stabilize. I wonder how the weight of such European arrows compares to those of, say, the Mongols though. If they used equally heavy arrows, then the theory doesn't really work.
zoukatron Every arrow is still in oscilation when it hits the target..The only way to reduce this is to thicken the arrow..Oscilation isn't a bad thing at all though when it comes to arrows..Its absolutely nessecary for accuracy..I use a compound bow with a draw weight of 90 pounds..But it hits with alot of force because of the cams that accelerate the arrow faster on release..I use carbon fiber thin arrows(Easton Carbon Aftermath) at 340 with a 9.6 GPI...This arrow flexes a ton under that draw weight, but flexes consistantly and it lets me consistantly make hits on an asprin size target at 50 meters. ( I could demonstrate that on video if you like, I have a few archery videos on my channel but mostly firearms)..Because I can group so tight with my shots I have to constantly change my tiny fletchings from my following shots passing through the fletchings or ripping them off completely..I still fire these arrows at targets and notice that arrows with one or two missing fletchings like to corkscrew on its way to the target...Now the main reason fletchings are on the back of the arrows is because the rear of your arrow is always wanting to travel faster than the tip because its the last part of the arrow leaving the thing providing the push and velocity, the string. Thats why the arrow flexes in the first place. Its trying to flip around to rear end first..The fletchings are dragging on the air as its attempting to flip around which pushes it back the other way. As the arrow is streamlined with the air there is no drag but there is still momentum from the push so it tries to flip the other way and the cycle repeats. Each time getting less push..While yes the fletchings do have some effect on flex, what they really do is keep the back end from flipping around. Flex is based on shaft thickness or stiffness..But like I said flex is good for accuracy if its consistant...That would be hard to get from wood..So you can lessen that by making it thicker and control how much flex it has in the first place...Im almost positive mongols arrows were alot smaller in diameter than english longbows
I am not an archer, but I am soon an engineer. So in my view, the back of the arrow just wants to travel faster than the tip when its pushed by the string. After that, the heavier tip will retain the momentum and wants to be the fastest element of the arrow. Just like the blade of a throwing knive.
Hector VI Yeah thats basically whats happening and what the purpose of fletchings are..If you ever fired an arrow without fletchings you will notice that the back end spins around and leads the arrow for a second, than the front comes back around because of the field tip or broadhead weight...By the time this all happens though the arrow has lost a ton of velocity and the accuracy will be completely off
Thanks, that's been my thought for many, many years. Actually since I first read the Adventures of Robin Hood as a child.Have a great day.
I like your theory, I also think it is to keep the back of the arrow in line with the very heavy bodkin (and just the heavy arrow in general). It would be an interesting test to try a half inch arrow fleched with normal length flechings compared to 7 3/8
Many types of Manchu war arrows are very long (typically 105 cm or 41.3 inches) and heavy and are basically the size of javelins. These arrows also use long fletching. High poundage Manchu bows are meant to shoot heavy armor-penetrating arrows at closer ranges.
Fletchings on arrows and were usually made from feathers, Flights on crossbow bolts and ballista bolts and were generally made of different materials (wood,leather) depending on the bolt and its use.
your theory fits with what we have learned in SCA group combat. archers are at their most effective standing directly behind the hand hand combat units. if you set up your troops correctly Shields make long-range archery almost ineffective and your average Archer can shoot across several lines of battle and hit their target
It might be good to record arrows, shot from the same bow, some with long, some with short fletchings, ideally gradually increasing in length with a high speed camera. Might be interesting.
I think if you would go to archery talk or AIUK forums you would find a lot of people who already did. No need to reinvent the wheel. Yes, longer or rather bigger fletching means quicker stabilization, slower arrow flight and more prone to be affected by side wind.
Does not subtract from your theory, but is another point to consider:
Long fletchings also make fletchings more resilient. When we are talking about war its not a confortable place where you can safely store your arrows. Resilience of your main weapon is kinda very important too.
For bow hunting, it is recommended to match the "spine" or stiffness to the bow. The way to test for this is to shoot arrows without fletching at a sheet of paper attached to a frame at something like 10 or 20 yards. If the spine is correct for the bow, the arrows will make a small hole the size of the arrowhead and shaft. If the spine is too large or too small you will get "keyholing" because the arrow is not traveling precisely point first. The weight of the arrowhead makes a significance in the spine of the arrow.
In any event, arrows were mass produced and the spine of them could not be matched to any particular bow. The Mary Rose had long bows who's draw weight varied from 90 pounds at the lightest to over 200 pounds at the heaviest. They would have all been using the same generic arrows. I am not sure how much variation there was in the weight of the arrowheads, the diameter of the arrow shafts and the stiffness of the wood used to make the arrows but I am going to guess that there was significant variation in all those factors.
Adding more fletching tends to help compensate for the variations in the spine of the arrows and while they will not be as precise or as long range as arrows that are matched specifically to particular bows, they will be close enough for government work.
Aerodynamics, you need a bigger wing with more surface to start rotating (spiral) the mass of the shaft as rotation stabilizes the arrow from fish tailing. Feathers are also cut to shape , the less work in war time on arrows you shoot once is better
I am a bit skeptical to whether relatively slow rotation does much to stabilize the arrow. Btw. straight feathers will not cause arrow spinning. Only if they are glued helical. And I have to say having over 5 years experience with competitive archery I see no real difference in accuracy between helical and straight vanes or feathers.
I'm afraid I do not follow. If vanes are in line with the direction of arrow flight it will not spin. Same as airplane will not spin in flight unless you change relative position of flaps to flight direction. In order for spinning to really stabilize the flight of arrow I guess it would have to spin much faster. And the point of shooting someone in medieval time is not hitting something because the arrow will not go through armor like knife through butter.
the air passing over the vain or feather creates drag or lift depending on the shape of the wing.the pressure will force the vane down and spin the arrow. hellical feathers will redirect the air stream around the shaft rather then along the nock . the spiral effect helps straiten out the back of the arrow.
no, it doesn't work like that with straight vane. There is nothing in the way of air flowing around the straight vane to help generate the lift. If you ever studied construction of aircraft wing even briefly you know that in order for air generate lift the wing profile cannot be straight. Yes with different shape it will and then the arrow spins but with straight vane there is simply no reason why arrow should start to spin. It is also very same as steering the boat. As far as your rudder is straight your ship will not turn. I don't know how simpler I could explain this.
look at video the arrow is spining. a wing is not flat and creates under and over pressure
I love when he says "the point is" and shows the rear end of the arrow.
Very nice arrow and thanks for sharing your idea.
A major cause of drag in a fletching is flutter and increased fletch height is a major cause of increased flutter. Steerage depends to some degree on sideplate area and so part of the livery shaft compromise is to make the fletch long and low.
Choices in fletching are always a compromise.
Q. The forked tail tends to flutter, so why do you suppose this shape is popular in a war shaft?
A. Because of the sound it makes (and a time saving in the trimming, not much admittedly, but when you have to make tens of thousands...)?
I herd the same thing from the workers at the Bass Pro Shop that longer arrow fletching makes the arrow fly straighter quicker.
Best assertion on the reasoning for why the flechings were so that I have heard as an archer, but the English archer would have had a few flight arrows in his guiver for far away French too one would imagine. smiley face
The psychedelic effect of your shirt took me straight back to the '60s. 😀
One extreme example of this are the arrows of the Qing dynasty (i.e. Manchu archers). They have incredibly heavy and long arrows, often in excess of 36 inches with a really high FOC.
This combined with fletchings of 10 inches or more stabilizes the arrow relatively quickly.
This goes hand in hand with the Qing bows which are neither particularly fast in flight nor have a really long range (compared to f.e. korean warbows). However due to the incredibly strong recurve and the high arrow weight they carry lots of energy making them ideal for shorter range shooting.
To understand how fletchings effect flight of the arrow you need to consider how objects move through fluids and you need to include archers paradox. Archers paradox is a phenomenon when an arrow flexes after leaving the bow. This is called dynamic spin. Wider the fletchings are, more air resistance is created, and less time is needed to correct the path of the arrow but it will lose speed quicker. Longer more narrow fletchings are more aerodynamic so speed preserved for longer time but because it makes less drag it needs more time to straighten the flight of the arrow. Also you need to consider the exit speed of the arrow, faster the arrow more air drag in general so smaller fletchings are needed for the same effect. This could be seen in modern aeroplanes. Faster the plane goes its wings are smaller and longer but they dont provide enough air drag to allow them to glide if the engine breaks down.
very fine video.
thanks for uploading!
I suspect you're correct. Longer, or wider, fletching will overcome archer's paradox sooner than small fletching. You mentioned the tiny fletching on flight arrows. They stabilize the lightweight arrow in a manner that lets the archer get on target at long range but I seem to recall that the arrow is still flexing and unflexing, as an arrow will that must pass around a bow, out to fifty yards. A flight arrow loses forward energy as it oscillates for 40-60 yards but a positive is the lower drag of the smaller fletching. The larger area of the fletching of an English war arrow creates more drag sooner than that of a flight arrow and would shorten the distance traveled by an arrow all else equal. If one's job is to reign down heavy arrow hell on an enemy at distances between 25-200 yards and your arrow of choice is a three foot bolt of heavy ash then choose the war arrow style of fletching for the reasons you stated. Also consider that bows had varying draw weights and arrows had unmatched spines. Larger fletching would work to overcome bows and arrows not carefully matched. If you want to hit a target at 300-500 yards with a thin soda straw of an arrow then use tiny flights and manufacture your arrows to closely match arrow spine and bow poundage. Or said another way, "Yep, you're right."
It's short height wise as well. With a short brace height like most English Longbows have this means less fletching to riser interaction as the arrow paradoxes around the riser which means the fletching can do their job quicker of stabilizing the arrow out of paradox.
Also a long but short fletching creates less drag so the arrow loses less speed and energy at further distances as well.
Matt Easton harnesses the collective consciousness to figure out the fletch, well done.
Possibly the longer fletching straightened the arrow out faster, or perhaps the longer fletching allowed a fletch that was narrower and closer to the shaft, thus reducing some side thrust as the feathers passed the neck, resulting in the arrow straightening out faster. Modern arrows use soft fletching but warbow arrows tended to use hard fletches. Just an idea.
Another reason longer fletchings are beneficial is that it allows you to have shallower fletchings. When the arrow travels around the bow, the two fetching nearest the bow itself move the rear of the arrow sideways. The shallower the fletching, the less this happens and the less oscillation you have to worry about. Also taller fletchings have a higher propensity to become damaged, especially in a combat situation when you are trying to carry as many arrows as possible on your person, in less than ideal conditions.
I agree with the theory on shooting in close range at the backs and flanks of enemies. If you field large amount of archers you need them to do more then just sit behind the lines once the melee has engaged in earnest.
3:38 I believe you mean "resistant materials such as Frenchmen."
Now we know what Saruman of Many Colors' robes were made out of. That's dazzling. Literally.
heavier arrows require larger fletchings to stabilize it in flight than lighter weight arrows. the reason I think they where so long is because it increases the surface area of the fletchings enough to stabilize the arrow while keeping the fletchings cut low to the shaft which would reduce some unnecessary drag that would be caused by fletchings that where cut higher.
I think it's to make the incline more gradual, but ending at the same width as a modern one, making it less likely to get torn off when they slip past the bow.
Perhaps it's to increase sideways drag if the arrow does bend helping it prevent snapping. Orrr, it increases the weight at the back of the arrow to offset the weight of a big heavy point. Orrr, it's a combination of various things.
I agree with this. If you look at many Amazonian cultures using long bows, long arrows with big/long fletchings and shooting at shorter distances, or say the Manchus which did use longbows and more famously their large Manchurian composite bow, the arrows tend to be long, heavy, with long fletchings. I think three archery "cultures" separated by vast distances all came to somewhat similar conclusions regarding the same issue.
The Manchu bow also uses fletchings like this and it was also designed to be a high powered close range bow.
The reason they used heavy shafts was to provide maximum impact on the target. That's why Ascham deplored the use of(lighter wood) poplar shafts rather than (heavier wood) ash. Sure, it will impinge on range, as longer fletchings also do, but they want to get arrowheads into opponents with protection. A heavier arrow uses the energy of the bow more efficiently too.
Packaging, narrow fletching allows tighter packs. As for flight, we could test stuff with high speed cameras if we cared.
You're probably right, Matt... I think the longer fletchings are designed to straighten out the arrow much more quickly from the bow, which would (I would think) improve accuracy but also orient the arrow so that when it hits it has more power, more mass, directly behind the arrowhead. If what you're saying is true about relatively close range combat with arrow shots being more normal than we think then they definitely would want harder hitting arrows. With the arrow you showed, having more surface area to the fletching would create more drag, more drag would keep the tip oriented on a more superior path than an arrow that would travel slightly tipped downward.
if that arrow is any indication the fletching was longer but not as big around as modern arrows use. the surface area might be about the same, but the long thin being less susceptible to damage than short and fat. you can also put more of them in a quiver.
Sounds like a good job for some of those who excel at slow motion videos. Record shots made using both long and short fl etching arrows and compare how quickly they straightened out in flight.
it definitely seems to be similar principle to a weather vein or sharkfin on a formula 1 car. to aid in stability and keep it pointing in the direction of travel
I have been a archer for over ten years and I would agree with your assessment but would like to add a couple of more points. 1) SPINE It was likely much more difficult for them to get large numbers of shafts exactly matched to the bow weight for proper tuning. Also, wooden shafts will change spine as moisture levels increase or decrease which would constantly happen. So the longer fletching could act as an insurance policy against slight differences and fluctuations in arrow spine.2) EFFICIENCY Making arrows in high volumes, the longer fletching may have been much closer to the full length of the actual feather itself making the whole process more efficient due to less trimming being required to produce each shaft. Just a couple of thoughts.
long wooden shafts are also quite flexible, and when shot from bow with 90+ lbs draw load, they're gonna flex much more than they would if shot from shorter bows.
I'm disappointed you didn't say, "A fletcher is someone who fletches."
Your theory might have its points, but if I remember correctly (it's been a few years since I stoped doing archery), there is always a bit of oscillation until the arrow hits. The size of these oscillations is more defined by the arrow's spine-value, and thickness. While long fletching definitely helps, I'm not sure if it doesn't do more for the general direction of the arrow, instead of the angle of penetration.
My first guess would be that the larger area of the fletching helps with the aiming, and making them longer is a more efficient way than making the fletching higher. Especially when they're cut in this triangular shape...
Stability in flight I think is crucial. I think you are missing a crucial point in the shape of the fletchings. You need stability in flight but also minimising air resistances. Shorter fletchings would most likely have to be larger (surface area) to have a stabilising effect. But the long streamlined fletchings are going to minimise drag, and keep the arrow stable in flight.
Why do you do some experiments for a video? Keep the bow the same, but use different arrows with different types of fletching and do some analysis on things like deep penetration at close range and maximum effective range.
He'd have to use some kind of machine to get a consistent draw, that could be why. With enough funds and time, it would be a good test
Alot of the oscillation is caused by the flex in the wood as well.
i wonder if long fletchings are also protective. if you damage one part it the rest can compensate.
You should compare fletching lengths on medieval english arrows and those of arrows used in Manchu bows, which we know for absolute certain were used in the way you theorize the English warbow was. So much so that the Qing found the Manchu bow the best close range missile weapon, particularly of course in the hands of mounted bannermen, where firearms in mass were in their experience overwhelmingly superior at laying effective fire from a greater distance. If Manchu and English arrow fletchings have similar proportions relative to shaft length, that'd be a slam dunk indicating that like the Manchu bow the English warbow was designed maximally around point blank flat-trajectory shooting, at the expense of any other considerations.
Would have been my guess too. Given the thickness of these sort of arrows they would need to bend further to get around the bow and their weight would mean they needed more force to straighten them.
Another possible factor I thought of while watching the video is marketing. If the fletchings are made by a different person to the shaft and head maybe they want the fletchings to be prominent and noticeable to get people talking about them which could drive up sales (provided they still performed well). If one manufacturer decided to do this and was successful it wouldn't take long before others copied them. This might be a little more out there but would be interesting to hear whether you think this is plausible.
What's the total grain weight of that arrow? Heavier arrows (with more momentum) require longer fletching not only to straighten out but also to counteract the loss of accuracy that can occur due to arrow "drop" at longer ranges. The "drag" of the fletching can keep the arrow's point properly oriented towards the target as the arrow drops due to the loss of velocity.
Nice moire pattern you got there on your shirt! :3
Cultures that favor heavier arrows seem to have longer fletching. Chinese war arrows, for example, are often fletched with extremely long, low profile feathers. It's possibly to do more with the overall mass of the arrow rather tying into your theory of it needing to straighten out quicker. Flight arrows tend to be rather thin, light, and barreled. We'd need to do testing of arrow flight using fletching height and length versus arrow mass and diameter.
I suspect heavier arrows are more resistant to the effects of fetching stabilization compared to the thin, light, barreled flight arrows.
I saw the notification on my phone during class. I though you were holding a leek.
This is a question for The Slingshot Channel. Joerg might take it on!
First reason must be in availability of material. That arrow paradox can be fixed by wide flething. But when you use feathers it is deformed after shoot and longer narrow fletching should be more durable
I am only a hobby archer, but I know a thing or two about fluiddynamics.
From a theoretical viewpoint, I think that these long, slim fletchings wont directly straighten the flight faster than shorter, wider fletchings. It is the hindmost part that does most of the work anyways. They could, however, induce the spin(rotation along the axis) of the arrow faster. This would also stabilize the flight better and quicker.
Also, warbow arrows have much more mass than the usual target arrow.
They would naturally need larger stabilizers. The maximum width of the fletching is limited by both the width of available feathers and the sliding along the bowshaft. So making them longer seems the natural conclusion.
Their choice surprises me. I'd assume that the straightening effect correlates with the surface area of the fletching and how much of it is as far back as possible (leverage). I would thus rather make them shorter, but bigger.
I think you're right about the longer fletchings giving the arrow stability quicker and orienting the shaft of the arrow behind the broadhead maximizing the punching power... My question though is did Medieval arrows have those few degrees of angle in the fletchings to promote the spiraling of the arrow? Even still if they were or weren't angled, the tail of the arrow oscillates pretty wildly until it straightens out some distance from the bow which has the exact effect you're talking about... At shorter distances the arrow would tend to strike a bit more obliquely without those longer fletchings to get that arrow oriented to more of a right angle to increase the likelihood of penetration.
I was an English military archer in a past life. We just made 'em that way 'cause we liked the look.
As you mentioned, fletching adds drag. Shot and wide fletching tends to have the same effect as long and narrow fletching such as on medieval arrows. We see this on Native American arrows throughout the Americas. I suspect it is just a cultural thing.
think jets/rockets & the like , the closer in the wings/fletching the less drag the farther out the more drag , also think durability , if its closer in its less likely to break off/get damaged.
Maybe it was just because "that's how grandfather did it". Aerodynamically speaking, the forward third of such fletching doesn't add to much drag, it would be interesting to see if there would be any noticeable difference while shooting arrows with more "normal" fletching out of warbows. If one would need that extra amount of drag though, it could be achieved with shorter fletching also, just more feather surface.
I wonder if war arrows had heavier "heads / tips", and if shorter fletching was used, if they may have a harder time producing the proper amount of drag at the tail to help pull and steady the arrow. More fletching, more drag.
I Think I Have Some Insight Here:
I'm pretty sure that if you could find the Front Of Center percentage of a few English arrow configurations & compare it to the F.O.C. of other region's projectiles the math on everything that's about to follow would check out.
Front Of Center:
The percentage of an arrows weight that concentrates in the front half on an arrow is one of the biggest influences on trajectory.
Put Simply:
How far forward from the midpoint of an arrow does it balance.
Given that longbow arrows have heavy steel or iron broadheads their F.O.C. value is by default very high. With shorter, lighter fletchings you wouldn't change that much. With more mass in the front half of an arrow it will keep a stable path but lose trajectory quicker as the heavy arrowhead drags the missile into a dive much quicker.
Having long & low fletchings brings the center of mass further back resulting in a more stable flight path - a lobbed arrow will follow a more consistent arc while also keeping a more level shot from dropping off early. Being that warbows and English longbows tend to boast very heavy draw weights and they saw use as both direct & indirect fire you'd want the arrow to follow as predictable & stable a path as possible.
The long fletchings also probably helped to put a better spin on the arrow shaft - even if surface area is basically the same as with Ottoman/Persian arrows (I don't have numbers for fletching dimensions of either unfortunately) the added length gives the air hitting them more time to affect a spin & thus imparts more stability.
Another thing to consider is total arrow length & weight. Persian & Ottoman arrows were much lighter and made up for their lack of punch with insane speed. They didn't need large fletchings because their velocity was enough to keep them flying true. English arrows were much heavier overall which left them travelling slower giving them more time to deviate.
You're right in that the higher surface areas are playing into how quickly the arrow stabilizes but that can be achieved with high-profile shorter vanes as well - I'm thinking that your insights are only part of the picture.
Just my two cents on the matter. If you're interested in the math behind finding an arrow's F.O.C. percentage there's a lot of information on archery forums but I sole the following from Easton Hunting's website.
*Stolen from Easton's Hunting Website*
-Divide the arrow’s overall length (distance to the bottom of nock groove to end of shaft by 2).
-Find the balance point. This is where the arrow balances perfectly. Mark the point, and measure from the throat of the nock.
-Subtract center of the arrow measurement (calculated in step 1) from the balance point (calculated in step 2).
-Multiply the resulting number in Step 3 by 100.
-Divide the resulting number from Step 4 by the arrow’s overall length. This number is the F.O.C. of your hunting arrow.
Would medieval people know about the arrow bend phenomena? Or do we mainly know about it today from the use of high speed cameras?
I guess even if they didn't know about the bend they could still have discovered the increase in penetration by trial and error.
I think it might have to do with the size and mass of medieval arrows used in war. An arrow of greater mass than modern target arrows could require greater stabilization surface area. Longer fletching could be one of the more efficient ways to achieve that.
2:20 we call it "achers' paradox"
I would like you to look into the idea that maybe the construction of long low profile feathers may have been less about arrow flight and more about construction of the arrow itself. Much like modern day weapons are a compromise of accuracy, durability and cost. Much like how the much nicer thompson sub machine gun was replaced by the grease gun. Maybe it was just easier to get matching low profile cut feathers. and in being low profile then had to be longer. Just think how many archers? How many arrows? How many feathers? How many birds?
Maybe drag. The longer fletchings look more gradual than tail loaded fletchings. Might the gradual longer fletchings give the arrow more air time and capable of higher speeds due to lessarse end drag and higher stability? Like The British Electric Lightening jet!
i think you are right. Im going to add to your theory though. All of what you said is correct but to add i think the longer the fletching is the less the shaft will oscillate in flight. i think the longer feathers prohibits the oscillation in the feather area and due to more drag over a longer surface area will catch the wind better over a longer length of feather prohibiting it from oscillating and therefore straightening out the shaft faster, while limiting the oscillation to begin with. what do you think?
as far as I'm concerned the length of the shaft and velocity of the arrow determine vane/fletching length. slow/heavy arrow=long vane. faster/lighter=short vane. That's how it works best for me, myself, and I with my recurve. only thing I'm not getting is why are compound crossbows shooting faster than compound bow, yet usually have longer vanes?
Where's the link to the Agincourt documentary he was talking about?
I like the theory, but I'm not really sure if I believe it. With heavy bows spine matters very little, so they arrows should be flying fairly true anyway. Plus, it really doesn't take very long for arrows to straighten up. Though, if they were shooting under 10 yards it may be useful. Another thing to note is that most medieval arrow depictions also show very low cut fletchings like the one in the video. So there isn't as much surface area as the length would indicate.
Figuring this out sounds like a job for Thrand. Or Skall, but I'm not sure if his shoulder can hold up to a lot archery these days.