Vanes vs feathers

From           mattson@be0968.be.ford.com (Timothy L. Mattson)
Date           22 Jan 1996 16:51:04 GMT


How much lighter are feathers compared to plastic veins? 30 percent ?
-- 


     Timothy L. Mattson         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           abqkelly@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly )
Date           22 Jan 1996 21:19:55 GMT


In <4e0f9o$84c@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> mattson@be0968.be.ford.com (Timothy
L. Mattson) writes: 
>
>How much lighter are feathers compared to plastic veins? 30 percent ?
>-- 
>
I just weighed some 5" vanes (note spelling) and feathers.
3 feathers weighed about 15gr, 3 vanes weighed about 75gr.

In other words, vanes weighed 500% of what feathers weighed. FIVE TIMES
AS MUCH. Significantly more heavy, in my book. Maybe those skinnier and
more rigid target vanes are lighter. Don't know. Mine are some sort of
soft plastic...Bohning or PSE.

Suprised? Check it out & confirm. My scale is one of those crude
postage gizmos.

The common wisdom is that feathers are much faster out the chute, but
slow down at a distance, vs vanes. The allegation is that the feathers
flatten down initially, then rise up. When they rise up (say at 30yds),
the roughness of the feather's sides, vs the smoothness of the vanes,
supposedly becomes important to aerodynamics. I don't know if this is
any more than folklore, if anybody has filmed this and chronographed at
multiple distances. Maybe. But I don't personally think feathers DO
flatten like that, since they are demonstrably much better at
stabalizing arrows at SHORT distances than are vanes, at least with
recurves and longbows. How could they do that, if they were flattened
down?

Maybe the story is different with 300fps compounds vs 200fps recurves.
Maybe the compound's greater energy DOES flatten the feathers. I've
never heard any compound shooters worrying about short distance
stability the way my traditional pals and I do!

JK 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: vanes vs feathers 
From           ap941@yfn.ysu.edu (Mark W. Thurm)
Date           23 Jan 1996 15:13:30 GMT


>The common wisdom is that feathers are much faster out the chute, but
>slow down at a distance, vs vanes. The allegation is that the feathers
>flatten down initially, then rise up. When they rise up (say at 30yds),
>the roughness of the feather's sides, vs the smoothness of the vanes,
>supposedly becomes important to aerodynamics. I don't know if this is
>any more than folklore, if anybody has filmed this and chronographed at
>multiple distances. Maybe. But I don't personally think feathers DO
>flatten like that, since they are demonstrably much better at
>stabalizing arrows at SHORT distances than are vanes, at least with
>recurves and longbows. How could they do that, if they were flattened
>down?

 It's my understanding that feathers are faster initially because
they are lighter than vanes but they slow down faster because
of a much greater surface area (the ridges from the individual barbules (sp)
vs. the flat sides of the vanes). The only feather that "flattens down"
is the one that makes contact with the bow's shelf/rest.

 I believe that Easton did testing on this subject a number of years
ago and their conclusion was that the feather fletched arrow was faster
out to 30-40 yds but then the vane fletched arrow would pass it and retain
more velocity down field. The feather fletched arrow would stabilize
quicker from the "archers'paradox" again due to the greater surface area.

MT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           Perry Ratcliff <ratcliff@mailsrv1.trw.com>
Date           Tue, 23 Jan 96 20:56:55 PDT


I've also heard that feathers flatten on release and brought 
the subject up with Don Rabska at Easton.  He said Easton has a 
video that shows feathers do not flatten out on release.  

In fact five inch feathers are the only fletching that starts 
an arrow rotating before that arrow completely clears the bow.

Most other fletching takes from five to eight feet to start the 
arrow rotating.  

The fact that many top shooters use feathers indoors with 
consistent success supports this point.

If anyone is interested I can call Don again and obtain the 
title of this video.

Good Shooting!

Perry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           abqkelly@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly )
Date           25 Jan 1996 03:12:56 GMT


In <4e2tuq$jaq@news.ysu.edu> ap941@yfn.ysu.edu (Mark W. Thurm) writes: 
>
>
>
>>The common wisdom is that feathers are much faster out the chute, but
>>slow down at a distance, vs vanes. The allegation is that the
feathers
>>flatten down initially, then rise up. When they rise up (say at
30yds),
>>the roughness of the feather's sides, vs the smoothness of the vanes,
>>supposedly becomes important to aerodynamics. I don't know if this is
>>any more than folklore, if anybody has filmed this and chronographed
at
>>multiple distances. Maybe. But I don't personally think feathers DO
>>flatten like that, since they are demonstrably much better at
>>stabalizing arrows at SHORT distances than are vanes, at least with
>>recurves and longbows. How could they do that, if they were flattened
>>down?
>
> It's my understanding that feathers are faster initially because
>they are lighter than vanes but they slow down faster because
>of a much greater surface area (the ridges from the individual
barbules (sp)
>vs. the flat sides of the vanes). The only feather that "flattens
down"
>is the one that makes contact with the bow's shelf/rest.
>
> I believe that Easton did testing on this subject a number of years
>ago and their conclusion was that the feather fletched arrow was
faster
>out to 30-40 yds but then the vane fletched arrow would pass it and
retain
>more velocity down field. The feather fletched arrow would stabilize
>quicker from the "archers'paradox" again due to the greater surface
area.
>
>
>MT
>

Yes, I've heard about Easton's reputed studies, but I have not seen
them. I don't think I can substantiate their results from my own
recurve experience, but maybe somebody else can. As to feather surface
area vs the fantasy of them flattening, as I said, I share your
beliefs, at least tentatively. But I'd like to smoke out somebody who
has a different perspective!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           100302.3513@compuserve.com (John Mason)
Date           Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:09:19 GMT


abqkelly@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly ) wrote:

>Yes, I've heard about Easton's reputed studies, but I have not seen
>them. I don't think I can substantiate their results from my own
>recurve experience, but maybe somebody else can. As to feather surface
>area vs the fantasy of them flattening, as I said, I share your
>beliefs, at least tentatively. But I'd like to smoke out somebody who
>has a different perspective!

I think that Don Rabska is the man at Easton.  I gather that Easton's
experiments do not demonstrate any 'flattening' but may be "Big
Brother" will post............................I think that there is an
Easton Video commercially available. 

John Walsh at Traditional Archery Supplies Ltd in the UK told me in
the Autumn about his slow motion video where his experiment showed
that his feather fletching folded (not flattened]  by about one fifth
along its length.  A left hand feather to the left and vice versa.  It
unfolded between 20 and 25 yards.  I have no other details but it was
probably shot from a longbow at 150/160fps.  But I wonder if the fold
was induced as it passed the bow? But wouldn't it have unfolded
quicker? John was clear in his opinion that it folded under 'wind
pressure'.

Where is John's video?  In the flood at his premises so I can point to
no proof until John has another go. 

John Mason

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           "David R. Watson" <crossbow@moontower.com>
Date           27 Jan 1996 16:55:59 GMT


  I usually use bodily tissue for veins.  When I affix steering and spin 
elements to arrows, I usually use VANES, made of feathers or plastic.  
DRW (Not to be picky about spelling, it just struck me as a bit 
humorous)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Hagstrom <afc@millcomm.com>
Subject: Re: vanes vs feathers
Date: 29 Jan 1996 20:22:03 GMT

abqkelly@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly ) wrote:
>In <4e2tuq$jaq@news.ysu.edu> ap941@yfn.ysu.edu (Mark W. Thurm) writes: 
>>
>>
>>
>>>The common wisdom is that feathers are much faster out the chute, but
>>>slow down at a distance, vs vanes. The allegation is that the
>feathers
>>>flatten down initially, then rise up. When they rise up (say at
>30yds),
>>>the roughness of the feather's sides, vs the smoothness of the vanes,
>>>supposedly becomes important to aerodynamics. I don't know if this is
>>>any more than folklore, if anybody has filmed this and chronographed
>at
>>>multiple distances. Maybe. But I don't personally think feathers DO
>>>flatten like that, since they are demonstrably much better at
>>>stabalizing arrows at SHORT distances than are vanes, at least with
>>>recurves and longbows. How could they do that, if they were flattened
>>>down?
>>
>> It's my understanding that feathers are faster initially because
>>they are lighter than vanes but they slow down faster because
>>of a much greater surface area (the ridges from the individual
>barbules (sp)
>>vs. the flat sides of the vanes). The only feather that "flattens
>down"
>>is the one that makes contact with the bow's shelf/rest.
>>
>> I believe that Easton did testing on this subject a number of years
>>ago and their conclusion was that the feather fletched arrow was
>faster
>>out to 30-40 yds but then the vane fletched arrow would pass it and
>retain
>>more velocity down field. The feather fletched arrow would stabilize
>>quicker from the "archers'paradox" again due to the greater surface
>area.
>>
>>
>>MT
>>
>
>Yes, I've heard about Easton's reputed studies, but I have not seen
>them. I don't think I can substantiate their results from my own
>recurve experience, but maybe somebody else can. As to feather surface
>area vs the fantasy of them flattening, as I said, I share your
>beliefs, at least tentatively. But I'd like to smoke out somebody who
>has a different perspective!


I've shot vanes and feathers out of a shooting machine in comparison.  
I've not done speed tests, but I've found a noticable difference in 
grouping.  The feathers grouped much better than the vanes.  Not sure 
why, but from what I saw..... I'm going to shoot with feathers.



HomeUsenetArticlesArticles