Turkish style arrows

One last picture, my horn point compared to Jarek's hardwood point.

Hi JoseDom,

Considering being new on forum, i should introduce myself. I am a Turkish archer studying aeronautics engineering and currently preparing a thesis about arrow aerodynamics. I also possess some practical knowledge about arrows, especially on the subject "endam". ("barreling" word is not qualified to represent "endam" in my opinion. endam has types and they all have specific definitions.)

It seems "Eamarrows" did well as you said, according to their webpage and the photos you sent. I liked their craft. They also announce that shafts are made from wood which seasoned 10 years. This is good.

I observed many real pishrev arrows and found the chance to measure them. I am afraid i have to say it seems those arrows does not match the measurements even they say production is based on Kani's (Klopsteg) book.

Let me share a photograph from my research. (Arrows belong to a friend who let me measure them.) Notice that how SLENDER real pishrev arrow should be. I think Eamarrows had to make those arrows that thick because of spine requirements. It is a real challange to get proper wood for flight arrow shafts.

-----
About the nocks:

If the "composite nock" terminology is not settled yet in English, i propose "reinforced nock" for bakkam nocks. (My research contains many suggestions about terminology of Turkish Arrows)

And for your question: Yes, bakkam nocks are defined as sinew wrapped. And as you said, it is a requirement for mechanics and safety.
-----

Hope this helps a bit.

Hi Mstk,

Thanks for the info and picture. You're right, I requested these arrows heavier and bigger diameter than his "pishrev replicas". I don't want to break flight records, and also I'm afraid to shoot too light arrows risking an expensive bow. For example, the feathers are longer and the profile is different of pishrev arrows. I don't know how he would make real light and thin flight arrows. My arrows are around 360 grains matched for a 65 pounds bow. Also, these are full length: I don't feel qualified enough for using a siper or any other device.
Let's say I want to practice a conservative flight shooting :wink:

mstk, great............

almost nobody is caring to much on arrows.
There are many theories discussed, most bowyers think that the bow is doing the job.
But since I? ve begun to make some deeper experience with arrows I?ve to realize that you can shoot much further if the arrow is really balanced with the bow.
I?ve just begun to make my trials with flight- arrows, so I?m glad to see you here, sharing your experience.

Michael

JoseDom,

I hear your concern but shafts with endam endure more than you predict. Somehow (i dont know why yet) shafts with endam outputs more dynamic spine than unbarreled arrows with same max.diameter. I will look into this after i finish the current aerodynamic work.

Average mass of the measured arrows is 12gram (185grain).

Considering siper was invented at 17th century and records were higher in 16th century, siper is a technological advancement in order to keep up with the ancestors. In short, siper is not a must for flight shooting but high skill and moderate strenght is. You can shoot with arrows that have full draw lenght.

And a last note, (I think Adam could point out this better.) reflex and recurve bows (lets say like Turkish Bows) tends to show better performance after ~320N (70-75lb) draw force. ("draw weight" is inaccurate, in my opinion) And most of the Turkish bows are ~450N+ (100lb+) according to Adam's expertise and research. It is related to compensating the mass of the bow limbs. So, everyone interested in traditional flight shooting should increase his/her draw force.

-----

Hi Micheal,

Nobody is caring because manufacturers do all the caring about arrows today in my opinion. And also bow seems more deep and complex. However, it is written that 3 term is required for a good shot. Archer, bow, arrow. As you said, getting experience makes you feel none of them is more important than other two. It is a solid trilogy. :)

I am glad too, for finding people to share. However, as i learn stuff, i sense that i am not experinced but only a beginner. Thank you for the compliment.

Will share more after compiling results and translation.

Mstk

mstk wrote:

Somehow (i dont know why yet) shafts with endam outputs more dynamic spine than unbarreled arrows with same max.diameter.

Maybe inertial effects are reduced because of the smaller weight?

Daniel

Daniel T. wrote:

Maybe inertial effects are reduced because of the smaller weight?

Yes Daniel, you pointed out the expected mechanics. As you, I think the dominant factor is the mass reduction at ends. Less mass, less inertia. But it needs to be proven before any statement.

Mstk

mstk wrote:

However, it is written that 3 term is required for a good shot. Archer, bow, arrow.

May I add another factor that is often neglected too? The string. ;-)

Would be nice to have the measurements of those flight arrows, esp. the greatest diameter. Are there not those flight arrows which have the bulge pushed back toward the fletchings more?

An experienced arrow maker told me at the archery range the other day that he considered the area just in front of the fletchings the most stressed part of the arrow; the place most likely to break from spine problems.

Any comments?

Hartung wrote:

May I add another factor that is often neglected too? The string.

I think it is considered within the bow. Of course, it makes no sense without the string.
-----

jack farrell wrote:

Would be nice to have the measurements of those flight arrows, esp. the greatest diameter.

I will share the measurements when i publish my work. There is much more data than you want.
-----

jack farrell wrote:

Are there not those flight arrows which have the bulge pushed back toward the fletchings more?

Actually, "bulge" of entire endam is towards nock end. In other words, shafts with endam (with no point) have negative FOC. However there is no localized "bulge" that you want to address. Endam has already bigger diameter at nock end section than point end section, if this is what you are wondering.
-----

jack farrell wrote:

An experienced arrow maker ..... considered the area just in front of the fletchings the most stressed part of the arrow; the place most likely to break from spine problems

I can not say anything about this before further analysis. For an unbarreled shaft? It sounds right, because nock end section is directly effected from strings force and movement. For shafts with endam? No comment yet. Experience should be heared. I will take this point into account.
-----

As we get into sections of the arrow i should point out, arrow shafts divided into sections and named anthropologically in Turkish Archery. You can simply imagine that when you hold arrow vertically point looking to ground, arrow is like a human standing. So, point end is named foot, progressing towards to nock end; calf, belly, chest, neck and head. With these terms, i think endam is more clear to express.

Arrow maker that jack quoted means neck section.

I will use these terms for further discussion.

Mstk.

Mstk; Does the arrow not stand with its foot on the point, no arms and wears the nock as a hat?

This is also the general configuration of a Siberian (Turkic) wood oracle also used for divination (as was an arrow).

jack farrell wrote:

Mstk; Does the arrow not stand with its foot on the point, no arms and wears the nock as a hat?

This is also the general configuration of a Siberian (Turkic) wood oracle also used for divination (as was an arrow).

I did not know anything about Siberian oracle. Interesting relation.
However, it is well known that bow and arrow was sacred for Turkic people and used in rituals by shamans. So, origins of anthropological terminology may be at Central Asia.

This subject is historical/cultural and unrelated to this topics intention. In addition, i dont know much about history to discuss it. My focus is on physics and properties.

Mstk.

This thread turns out to be one of my favourite threads ever!

So I?ll add another point of view.
Some of you know that I?ve had the oppurtunity to study a lot of Siberian bow and arrow findings. About 65% of the Siberians bows were designed asymetrically, my following researches and reconstructions brought the Golden ratio in my mind. I made some selfbows in the Golden Ratio design:
lower limb: upper limb= 0.61. These bows store usually more energy, up to 0.9- 1.12, that?s incredibly high. But these bows are not able to transfer to much of this energy to the arrow: efficiency 0.55- 0.73.

But again I didn?t take to much care on the arrows. Yesterday I studied the pics of the arrows again: arrow length 26", every shaft barreled. Distance: thickest spot of the cross- section till the nock is 10", till the top is 16", 10:16 = 0.62.

Maybe I?m suffering from the "asymmetrical bow- design- desease", but the numbers are an interesting fact.

Jack, did you know some more about the shamanic use of bow and arrow in Siberia or the Asian Steppe.

Michael

It?s me again.
What is known about the tools the Turkish arrow- makers have used for to do such a delicious job?

Michael

Michael; I should really get after this. Meanwhile; TB magazine published 4000 words on the subject in your native German language translated by our able atarnite Jan Sachers, # 43 and 45.

redhawk wrote:

Golden Ratio

Adam reports that ratio of (Turkish and alike) bow lenght to arrow lenght is approximately 1,6.
This info will be a real delight for you. :)

redhawk wrote:

asymmetrical bow design

I am not qualified to discuss this yet. Performance improvement is possibly because nocking position gets to middle (symmetry point) of the string (which is the acceleration source for arrow), while bow appears to be asymmetrical. But its just a comment.

redhawk wrote:

What is known about the tools the Turkish arrow- makers have used for to do such a delicious job?

I have the most sad and simple answer to this. Freakish skill. They simply used grooved graters with rounded blades for shaping. They were strong in the force indeed. :)

(I did not see any of their tools for real but there is explanations and blurry pictures. Attaching some pictures. Miyane is the term for graters, pistahta is the term for stand. But i dont suggest them for terminology, those words are old.)

mstk, thanks a lot, tomorrow I?ll try to make arrows like that.
In our farmhouse there are some very old pine logs, I?ll check them.
Michael

A comment on the endam shape of flight arrows: I recal an engineering text describing the buckling of free standing beams under applied force at one of the ends (basically as for arrows). The buckling was less and the beam was less likely to fail when the stiffness of the beam was greater close to pressured end. I think it had something to do with the position of nodes in the flexing beam. It means the arrow with the greatest diameter closer to the nock will act more stiff.

I hope to be forgiven my scepticism as to the mysteries of the assymetrical bows. In my opinion the reason for building such bows is much more practical - one can utilize all available material to make a bow long enough to be less stressed and therefore more durable. Two un-equal limbs can be spliced to the grip for a longer bow, instead of cutting one to make them symmetrical and the bow shorter, more stressed/stacking etc.

Adam

Adam's comment on beam buckling really gets to the point. There is one other consideration. An arrow bends through the impulse of the string interacting with the inertia of the shaft. So the arrow is at first compressed when the string tries to accelerate it and the mass of the arrow resists moving. The arrow buckles to a degree dependent on the how stiff it is compared to how massive it is.

In a way this is different to a beam supported at one end, which is the standard engineering example. Since the resistance of the arrow comes from its inertia, the notional "support" might be concentrated around its centre of gravity rather than its ends. Therefore the different types of barrelling would be changing both the centre of gravity and the relative stiffness of the shaft at that point.

Jack, thanks for to remind me that German magazine. But sorry, I don?t take care to much of it anymore, since it serves more and more the mainstream. If traditon is nothing but a matter of shape, we could very soon close the ATARNET.

Adam, in front of such a big number of asymmetrical bow- findings one of my first thoughts was the same like yours. But not any finding was spliced.
I?ll check this design again: higher drawweights, much better fitting arrows.
I?ll update the ATARNET. Anyway these bows are real eyecatchers.

I?m just checking out my own "freakish" style of making arrows as beautiful as the posted ones here. I guess, you need some years of experience to get it.

Michael

In this case the beam's stiffness is the same as the center of gravity. Anyway, look up "buckling", not "bending".

I wonder if the Turkish planes were pulled or pushed. It seems pulling might be easier.

I have always thought the pistahta worked on a similar principle to the Korean clamping device (used by the bowyer to clamp horn strips for grooving). It would then need a cord put over the lath and the shaft. It could be the round top of the block is actually the cord.

Adam

Adam Karpowicz wrote:

A comment on the endam shape of flight arrows: I recal an engineering text describing the buckling of free standing beams under applied force at one of the ends (basically as for arrows). The buckling was less and the beam was less likely to fail when the stiffness of the beam was greater close to pressured end. I think it had something to do with the position of nodes in the flexing beam. It means the arrow with the greatest diameter closer to the nock will act more stiff.

All of these are true. However, "beam" is mostly defined as constant cross-section. Shafts with endam fall apart from this definition. You need to make calculation or simulation (FEA) before saying something about stress distribution. Thats why i am cautious about giving any statement.
-----

Bede wrote:

Adam's comment on beam buckling really gets to the point. There is one other consideration. An arrow bends through the impulse of the string interacting with the inertia of the shaft. So the arrow is at first compressed when the string tries to accelerate it and the mass of the arrow resists moving. The arrow buckles to a degree dependent on the how stiff it is compared to how massive it is.

In a way this is different to a beam supported at one end, which is the standard engineering example. Since the resistance of the arrow comes from its inertia, the notional "support" might be concentrated around its centre of gravity rather than its ends. Therefore the different types of barrelling would be changing both the centre of gravity and the relative stiffness of the shaft at that point.

Another point about string and arrow interaction. String (at nocking point) does not follow a linear path. Deviation is mainly related to release type. (if the bow limbs are considered with no twist or flaws) 3-finger, thumbring or a release.

And yes, arrow has 2 resistance to strings acceleration. Arrows mass and friction at grip.

Centre of gravity acts like a "notional" support as you said but it is not enough to express the relation between spine and endam because tip mass also changes COG. As Adam pointed out, arrow with more diameter at neck would act more stiff, dynamicly.

About adjusting spine with endam: I observed endam differs within the type. I think arrow-makers somehow adjusted the diameters to get proper spine for the bow. And again, analysis is required for further statement.
-----

Adam Karpowicz wrote:

I wonder if the Turkish planes were pulled or pushed. It seems pulling might be easier.

I have always thought the pistahta worked on a similar principle to the Korean clamping device (used by the bowyer to clamp horn strips for grooving). It would then need a cord put over the lath and the shaft. It could be the round top of the block is actually the cord.

Unfortunately, i dont have enough knowledge about it. I wish some ancestor rise up and tell us: "Stop fooling around my child, come here, this is it and how its done."
-----

redhawk wrote:

If traditon is nothing but a matter of shape, we could very soon close the ATARNET

Thats it Micheal. I hear you.

more info as i promised...

Information about ENDAM:

There are three types of "endam" for Turkish arrows. These are "kiriş" endam, "tarz-ı has" endam, "şem" endam which is described in detail and are used in different purposes. Most conventional and widely used type is "tarz-ı has" ranging from training, demonstration, penetration, war to even flight shooting arrows and more. "kiriş" endam is relatively simple and is used for training arrows and "şem" endam is used for flight shooting arrows. You can see a simple drawing about endams in attachment.
( These terms are my suggestions in Turkish > [ narin = şem ] [ has = tarz-ı has ] )
( They can be translated as: Narin = Slender , Has = Typical , Kiriş = String )

Although "tarz-ı has" is the most conventional type, i mostly came across to "şem" endam samples to measure. We measured samples from Harbiye Military Museum with Dr. Murat ?zveri. I measured a personal collection of arrows which belongs to a friend i owe my thanks (Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan). I also found the article of Fred Isles named "Turkish Flight Arrows" which published in JSAA in 1961 volume 4. When all of these data are gathered and became statistically valid, i decided to express a function of "şem" endam. While doing this, i observed samples are very similar within each data set. So that, i think each arrow-maker has his own type of endam. This is an interesting note about endam.

"narin endam function.xls" contains the final result of the work. You can find the function of narin (slender) endam. You can also input a shaft lenght and calculate the corresponding endam automatically for practical use.

And a last note (as i pointed out earlier); Turkish arrows (shaft) are described in 24 sections and these sections are named anthropologicly. Top (nock) to down (point) it represents human body as head to feet. These terms are included in the file as well.

This research is not published yet. I plan to include in my thesis. I hope it helps practically about arrow geometry for everyone. However being statistically valid, this function is not the absolute reference to narin (slender) endam because sample quantity is limited and must be improved in my opinion.

Adam,
Judging from the shape of the planes and the similarity to the Chinese planes in the Chengdu book, the planes were pushed. The Japanese, who use "pull-planes", extend the plane in front of the blade to give the hand somewhere to rest.

The illustrations in Von Hammer-Purgstall show planes humped at the rear with a low extension to the front (ince meyane). The exception is the plane with the semi-circular body (beden sığaması) and the throat plane ( boğaz meyanesi), which is foreshortened so the blade can approach the nock.

Considering how the arrow maker sat with the lathe (in this case a strip of wood with a hole towards one end) supporting the arrow in his thigh and the other end on the block, I think the peg on the block was used as a stop for the arrow shaft. In that case he would plane away from himself.

In a modern setting, you could plane either way and when making barrelled shafts I sometime go one way and other times the other depending on how tired I am getting.

Getting back to Turkish literature, I wonder whether the kiriş form could be translated as cord form, since in English this term is sometimes used for an arrow with parallel sides. It depends on how much of the front portion of the arrow is tapered. If the taper is for more than a fifth of the length of the shaft, then the term would be misleading in English. Klopsteg uses "cord from" probably because "string form" in English sounds as though it is very thin.

Klopsteg calls the other forms "special" for a standard barrelled shaft and "candle" form for the type that tapers mainly towards the tip. This has its own problems because in English and Turkish the part closest to the tip is called the "foot" so, if the arrow is standing on its foot, then candle form would be upside down.

Bede, in my language (Bulgarian) remained the Turkish word kiriş, which translates to a string of musical instrument - for example, fiddle, and even in the sense wire, cable, and more similar meanings.

Bede wrote:

Getting back to Turkish literature, I wonder whether the kiriş form could be translated as cord form, since in English this term is sometimes used for an arrow with parallel sides. It depends on how much of the front portion of the arrow is tapered. If the taper is for more than a fifth of the length of the shaft, then the term would be misleading in English. Klopsteg uses "cord from" probably because "string form" in English sounds as though it is very thin.

Klopsteg calls the other forms "special" for a standard barrelled shaft and "candle" form for the type that tapers mainly towards the tip. This has its own problems because in English and Turkish the part closest to the tip is called the "foot" so, if the arrow is standing on its foot, then candle form would be upside down.

Cord, string, and such words all sound thin. Kiriş also means beam in Turkish in addition to string. So it fits very well in Turkish. English terminology is up to whose mother language is English. So its up to community to decide.

"şem" means "candle",
"has" means "special", "typical", "specific", "particular"
which both originated from Arabic. Klopsteg did translate it right if you look at etymology. I propose "slender" for "şem" and "typical" for "has" which represents the profile best in my opinion.

"kiriş" is Turkish already and i could not find a proper word in English for that.

In English there is a progression of words for twisted fibre materials.
1. Thread: very thin like sewing thread.
2. String: thicker up to several millimetres.
3. Cord: even thicker than string, up to 10 mm.
4. Rope: anything thicker than cords.

Usually each thicker type is built up by combining components of the next smaller type. English isn't precise about these things. However, when I read Klopsteg, "cord" suggested something between 6 to 10 mm when I saw it.

I understand your choice and the reasons for it, but in English it sounds different. For instance, if you want to criticise a girl for being skinny you could say she was thin. If you wanted to complement her you would say she was slender. Neither means she tapers from top to bottom. Thin is purely descriptive, slender is complementary (thin in an attractive or elegant way).

Ultimately, it is your choice. I am sure that the result will be good either way.

Bede wrote:

I understand your choice and the reasons for it, but in English it sounds different...
Ultimately, it is your choice. I am sure that the result will be good either way.

Well, then this leads to usage of original terms or Turkish propositions to represent endam types. As long as we can understand each other, English terminology is not my concern at all. So, i will use narin for şem, has for tarz-ı has, kirish for kiriş for further posts.

I think this thread turned out very well. Lets move on to other issues about arrows, such as fletchings.

And a last note:
Narin (slender) is already a term in aerodynamics. Slenderness is the ratio of lenght to thickness. So slender objects are thin with respect to their lenghts. Dimensionless expressions are usually better for engineering perspective.

Mstk; The Narrowed Barreled shaft appears to have its largest diameter in the middle; whereas the Typical Barreled shaft looks to have its bulge about 2/5 from the point as does the Heavy Barreled shaft.

Am I seeing your illustration correctly? Jack

jack farrell wrote:

about largest diameter position

Hi again Jack,
Illustrations may be misleading for being simple drawings. Use them to get the picture, not to construct on.
You can see the shaft sections below. Belly (and around) is the thickest section of the Turkish arrows regardless of the type of endam that shaft has.

Inspired by the work of some Atarnos, I tried to do some artistic painting on arrows. I think they look good as basic Indo-Persian or Turkish style look though they look crude compared to Reto and M??a's arrows.
I used old shafts with plastic nocks for practice painting and then fletched them. It sure takes time to complete one from scratch.

Itś a pity to use on this beautifull arrows plastic nocks and brass target points. Some nocks made from ivory, horn etc. were simmilar as plastic nocks but looks much better. For instance there are "ba?pare" nocks from Hofburg:
[external image]

Some examples from Harbiye Military Museum in Istanbul.
(attachment description edited, thanks to Daniels warning)

I think you did very good Jose. Where did you get an idea for the pattern?
Mysa, thank you for the picture. Apart from the decoration it is very interesting to see how the baspare nock would have been attached. I'm particularly surprised by the look of the tenon: it's tapered, not parallel
:roll:

Aaahhh ??stop it, I start drooling again!

Jos?, I think you did right ??one step at a time! Your pictures are not very detailed, but that looks to me like a very fine and regular pattern. Go on like that, and the best of luck!
Jan

Thanks for the words. Also thanks for the pictures, M??a and mstk. Those ivory nocks are great. I admit and agree, plastic nocks are not a good choice for realistic arrows but that's what I have at hand for now. I'll get much better arrows soon! :D

I would like to hear another opinion on the purpose of the blue arrows. The grain is not ideal on some. In fact I would have rejected many and several are clearly dangerous.

jack farrell wrote:

I would like to hear another opinion on the purpose of the blue arrows. The grain is not ideal on some. In fact I would have rejected many and several are clearly dangerous.

I think image has created delusion. I have not encountered any crooked grain on Turkish arrows. I am pretty sure about that. Even if there are any, it is probably tolerable.

And for the purpose: Even if those arrows were intented to be a gift or decorative, i can assure you they were also quite fit and useful. I know that because functionality is a basic requirement in many Turkish arts, in general. Do not let excessive decoration mislead you. It seems like their obsession. People who encountered Turkish gear at museums would hear me. At least i see that way. I still can not imagine how they had managed to produce such beauties in such numbers.

Anyway, my concern is not the shape.
In short, those arrows are ok.

Maybe this is an reason, why is possible to see this set in muzeum. I should throw away those shafts :lol:

Perhaps grain orientation isn't as important in such highly barreled shafts, as it is on parallell shafts mostly used today? I too would hesitate to use arrows with as bad grain orientation, but I am really not sure if my hesitation would be grounded in reality :)

Those arrows are really impressive though. Thank's a lot for sharing, mstk! How old are they?


What a cool thread, guys! Keep the good stuff coming. This is really inspiring!

Probably Jack is thinking about the way the nock opening is placed in relation to the wood grain. I noticed too that some arrows have the nock opening parallel to the wood grain.

Daniel, in fact I painted these shafts in color and style similar to my own bow to match bow and arrow. That?s the idea.

Edit: What Kviljo said.

The angle of the nock slot vs. the grain is not terribly important for non-self nocks, although there may also be a difference in breaking strength. The spine is measured assuming this orientation, so when spined wood arrows are used, the should always be properly aligned.
I agree with Jack on the arrows. I would not buy such shafts, let alone shoot them. There must not be any of those severe grain violations, they are dangerous weak spots. If the arrow breaks the crack will run along the violations and form a jagged sharp point that can pierce your hand.

Jack Farrell wrote:
? The grain is not ideal on some. In fact I would have rejected many and several are clearly dangerous.?

Jack, I think mstk is right saying the arrows are meant to be functional, consider that the angle at which the picture was taken may be deceiving here, I?m pretty sure the deviation of growth-rings orientation in the shafts is not really such severe as you may suppose, look at the rift side (<<<<<>>>>>) of the most off-looking shafts, if only we could have a chance to look at the arrows directly from above, the number of ?v? is in fact not such big, I dare say. I know this comparison may be frowned upon, but the modern wooden shaft-dowelling has pretty similar range of the growth ring deviation (Of course we should be choosy and careful!). I?ve noticed on some other pictures of Turkish arrow artifacts the deviation is similar.
Don?t forget, the look of the rift side doesn?t tell us everything, we should also consider the reed side, and count the number of the actual growth-rings preserved in the shaft, what is important here is how many of this growth-rings actually run all the length of the shaft (are not cut through), as this is also important to the shaft?s strength. Some modern wood-fletchers would say that two intact rings is enough, but this is being said considering today?s recreational standards so perhaps for higher draw weights we should be more careful. What do you think?

Looking carefully at the top picture it?s clear that, maybe apart from two or three arrows, all of the nock slots are placed more or less at the right angle in relation to the growth rings, which is the common way, at least with self nocks.

Jos?, I?m glad you got your order safely. How are those Eamarrows work for you, have you shot with them? I see now they are not pishrev as I thought. Did he wrap the bakkam nocks with sinew as you requested? I hope you are happy with them. As I wrote you before, I?ve heard rather bad opinion about his work, but maybe he has improved, his arrows look tolerable now, but judging from the pictures and the description on his website I really would expect better for the price he quotes.

Ashbow wrote:

Jack Farrell wrote:
? The grain is not ideal on some. In fact I would have rejected many and several are clearly dangerous.?

Jack, I think mstk is right saying the arrows are meant to be functional, consider that the angle at which the picture was taken may be deceiving here, I?m pretty sure the deviation of growth-rings orientation in the shafts is not really such severe as you may suppose, look at the rift side (<<<<<>>>>>) of the most off-looking shafts, if only we could have a chance to look at the arrows directly from above, the number of ?v? is in fact not such big, I dare say. I know this comparison may be frowned upon, but the modern wooden shaft-dowelling has pretty similar range of the growth ring deviation (Of course we should be choosy and careful!). I?ve noticed on some other pictures of Turkish arrow artifacts the deviation is similar.
Don?t forget, the look of the rift side doesn?t tell us everything, we should also consider the reed side, and count the number of the actual growth-rings preserved in the shaft, what is important here is how many of this growth-rings actually run all the length of the shaft (are not cut through), as this is also important to the shaft?s strength. Some modern wood-fletchers would say that two intact rings is enough, but this is being said considering today?s recreational standards so perhaps for higher draw weights we should be more careful. What do you think?

Looking carefully at the top picture it?s clear that, maybe apart from two or three arrows, all of the nock slots are placed more or less at the right angle in relation to the growth rings, which is the common way, at least with self nocks.

Jos?, I?m glad you got your order safely. How are those Eamarrows work for you, have you shot with them? I see now they are not pishrev as I thought. Did he wrap the bakkam nocks with sinew as you requested? I hope you are happy with them. As I wrote you before, I?ve heard rather bad opinion about his work, but maybe he has improved, his arrows look tolerable now, but judging from the pictures and the description on his website I really would expect better for the price he quotes.

Thank you very much Ashbow, you made my point.
Here is an exaggrated rough illustration of what you meant.

Kviljo wrote:

Those arrows are really impressive though. Thank's a lot for sharing, mstk! How old are they?

Your welcome Kviljo :)
Unfortunately i can not give an exact date. However they cant be more than 300-400 years old because they have mean lenght of 610-630mm which means they are intented to be used with "siper" (overdraw). Siper was invented in 17th century. I dont have any knowledge about how fast wood decays so this is what i can offer. Considering archery was popular and supported until the second half of 19th century in Turkiye, it is appropriate to think they are probably 150 years old or more.

Hello mstk, I was actually only referring to the case of a parallel dowel (shaft). Good that you have pointed out that here we are dealing with barrelled shafts, in which case the phenomenon of growth-rings 'running off' the shaft will be of course more pronuonced, and impossible to avoid.

Thank you for the clear diagram.

PS. Putting woodworking aside, I think we should be aware that the wood terms 'growth rings' and 'grain' doesn't mean exactly the same thing.

Thanks for the replys. I would side with Mysa's opinion. These arrows are practically unshot and in my opinion are mostly unshootable because of grain violations. I have seen many Turkish and Turkic arrows and these do not compare except in form and decoration.

My thought is that they are theatrical or used for parades or the like. Is it typical to decorate a flight arrow in this manner? To make such a large set? Of such a heavy center? without points? and such long fletchings?

The quiver may also be a clue.

Nevertheless they are important and valuable. -j-

Guys,
Are you sure those are flight arrows? They look more like puta ones.
Kiris Endam shaft, quite long, parabolic feathers, baspare nock...

The description on mstk's picture says flight arrows, but those rather look like some kind of target arrows to me too. I'm not really much experienced in the field though.
As to their lenght, I recall siper was also used with some target arrows too?

Daniel wrote:

Guys,
Are you sure those are flight arrows? They look more like puta ones.
Kiris Endam shaft, quite long, parabolic feathers, baspare nock...

You are right Daniel, my mistake. Editing the earlier post now.
Thanks for warning and sharp eye.

Isn?t it possibly, that not all Turkish arrows were supperior quality?? I know, that baspare nock were often sign of representative arrows, but especialy this set isn?t high decorated, only crested.
I saw number of "war" arrows of horrible quality. Aren?t this set low guality arrows for practicing??
Orientation of nock as we know is very dangerous for archer in case this shafts and at second, barreled arrows with tin point works as arrows with much lower spine. Is it way to make arrow little softer?? I never see this graining on arrow, only in case of cheap child&#347; arrows. I?m curious :shock:

M??a wrote:

Isn?t it possibly, that not all Turkish arrows were supperior quality?? I know, that baspare nock were often sign of representative arrows, but especialy this set isn?t high decorated, only crested.
I saw number of "war" arrows of horrible quality. Aren?t this set low guality arrows for practicing??
Orientation of nock as we know is very dangerous for archer in case this shafts and at second, barreled arrows with tin point works as arrows with much lower spine. Is it way to make arrow little softer?? I never see this graining on arrow, only in case of cheap child&#347; arrows. I?m curious :shock:

Of course they are not all superior. There were villages which are responsible of making arrows for the army. "war" arrows (with horrible quality) you have seen are possibly products of ordinary villagers. I observed inferior samples too. But all of them were bamboo. I did not encounter any inferior wooden arrow in that manner. If your observation is also for bamboo war arrows, then it is logical.

However, it is not likely those arrows (on display) are flawed or cheap, because of being product of a craftsmen. I wish i had detailed picture of them. I will try to spare some time to go to museum and observe again.

If they are practice arrows (which means inferior quality with respect to other types), decoration tells us they were for a high-ranked person which means they were intented to be qualified.

Anyway, I think it is enough discussion with limited knowledge (only one image) about those arrows. Digging narrow wont help anyone. I put that image to give some idea, not to start a conflict.

-----

I am not sure i did understand these subjects properly: nock orientation, grain. Can someone explain it further? (with some supportive visual if possible)

Jos?Dom wrote:

http://www.stickbow.com/FEATURES/ARROWM ... gnment.cfm

Thank you Jose, i got the terms now.

Mstk; If you have pictures of those inferior bamboo arrows I would appreciate if you would post one or two. This jives with my theory that river cane (phragmites) arrows were pressed into service when necessary. They have been used around the world.

I think that Bob Kooi wrote about them, that they appear not to be strong and yet are sufficiently so.

What towns in Turkey would make those arrows? Chime in anyone with info. -j-

I am sorry jack, i dont have any photos right now. I need to go to museum again.

(my previous harddrive failed, so i lost most of my visual source and data. in fact, this is the very reason why i settled with feeding this thread with mediocre media.)

Will share when i have.
(unfortunately not soon enough)

Nowadays, i am focused on compiling and writing down the research, so excuse me for a while. Although, i am happy to say useful and consistent datas/results are acquired.

My Turkish style arrows (bamboo arrows from split bamboo)

Beautiful discussion, I made the following arrows (Turkish style):

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 4355590754

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 2874754530

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 3761680866

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 4178412018

I used split bamboo (15 cm diameter, wall thickness from 12 to 13 mm):

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 9472987554

I make it but as universal:

Length 30"
6 mm diameter points (40 grains)
The largest diameter of 7.5 mm (to 8 mm)
6 mm narrowing of nocks, nocks 7 mm
Arrows for the bows 30 to 50lb
Feathers 4.5"

There are less than 28 "long arrows and 30" long arrows:

http://picasaweb.google.com/jchocz/Sipy ... 6754185282

jaroslaw, it seems you made a lot of arrows. impressive. my humble advice is to reduce point weight and get higher spine. let fletchings stabilise the arrow. (of course it seems pointless unless you want to increase draw force or initial velocity)

jack, i dont know any detail about fletcher villages. i think someone else should inform us on this one.

please remind me if i missed any point.

anyway, i am happy to say my current research is finished. i will share the results in detail (probably in an other topic) but while we are still discussing "endam" (barreling), i should say that results show "&#351;em endam" geometry has %20~25 less drag than cylindirical shaft geometry (with same max. diameter).

mstk wrote:

jaroslaw, it seems you made a lot of arrows. impressive. my humble advice is to reduce point weight and get higher spine. let fletchings stabilise the arrow. (of course it seems pointless unless you want to increase draw force or initial velocity).

I did not put the weight arrows. Arrows have a weight of 22 grams. Point 40 grain equivalent weight arrows.

I emphasize - the arrows are universal. I do not do it just for long-distance shooting but for target shooting. They are resistant to shoot arrows. These are not the arrows for the exhibition.

jchocz wrote:

I emphasize - the arrows are universal. I do not do it just for long-distance shooting but for target shooting. They are resistant to shoot arrows. These are not the arrows for the exhibition.

Yes, i realized that they were not intented for flight shooting after i posted.
So you can ignore what i said. Those arrows seem very good.

Jchocz; Nice looking arrows. The only others i have seen of this construction are from Indonesia. Those are for very light bows. How do these stand up? Do they require special grain orientation? And where did you get the idea? Good luck and nice to have you on the forum. -j-

jack farrell wrote:

How do these stand up? Do they require special grain orientation? And where did you get the idea?

Yes, I sought inspiration in the construction of arrows from Indonesia, Malaysia and the shape of the Turkish arrows. M??a says - Turkish inspiration ... (they are not exact copies of the Turkish arrows!). Arrows for the bows 30 to 50lb (tested). Stronger bows = larger diameter shafts. Some time ago a similar procedure described for the other shaft:

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... rrows.html

Bamboo is actually a very durable material. I use a normal split bamboo (fibers are in the direction of arrow)

I have one of Alan Case's arrows and have seen them shot in Utah in the flight shooting tournament. They are beautifully made, very small diameter and extremely stiff.

I don't know of any wooden arrows made traditionally that are as stiff as these by diameter. This is a great advantage in flight shooting because you can reduce the drag in proportion to the reduction of the diameter. The one I have has a sinew wrapped nock and a small brass point. It is almost impossible to see the glue lines.

Alan is a meticulous bowyer and fletcher as well as being a good flight shooter. In discussion of these arrows, he pointed out that they really take a long time to make. Judging from the ones in the Topkapi Museum, the Turkish fletchers were very advanced. Eventually this type of arrow was superseded in Turkish flight archery, possibly because it was shorter lived than solid arrows.

I made a set of arrows (split bamboo - Turkish inspiration):

[external image]

[external image]


30 ", 22 grams

These are the arrows for normal shooting. Are not just decorative.

Great arrows! Very sophisticated :) Nice desings.

But They are plastic nocks?

Jakub wrote:

But They are plastic nocks?

':oops:' Yes, they are plastic nocks. I had it and wanted to use ...':oops:'

Great excuse for advocates traditions .... Next will bakam nocks.':idea:' I have 20 rods with plastic nocks. When I use it, I will make new arrows.

Here you can see some arrows finished or in the making. Finally I made bakkam gez nocks. They are inspired by the Turkish nocks but made to my needs.

I used double sinew wraps for safety. I tested them and they feel a lot better than plastic nocks.

If you look closely at the first picture, and if you ignore the golden nocks of the originals, you'll notice I tried to copy the floral painting style of the Crimean arrows from the Grayson Collection:

[external image]

Thanks for the inspiration and guidelines to people like Jaap Koppedrayer and fellow ATARNOS who post their nice arrows (too many to name) but specially to Michal Sodja, first for making some for me and more important for showing me the way. I'm your beginner student :)

One last picture. Two arrows made by me, one by Michal (you'll find it because it's the one with perfect decoration, not like mine) and the other is a Baspare camel bone nock so well made by Daniel from Ireland.

One last thing, on the solid bone nock shaft, I tried (in a poor way) to copy the decoration of these museum arrows:

Great arrows!
Mysa make bamboos?
I didt notice that.
I knew only his turkish wooden arrows, the finest I have seen.

I extraordinary to see here on atarn howmany peoples makes such high quality arrows.

Great jobs here.
Is any of these wonderful arrows hollow and made as lamination?
I guess if you want to make light and stable arrows you need to make them hollow.
My first trials in making hollow shafts are telling me that you can reduce weigth at about 35%, stability is increasing due to the gluelines and the hollow cross- section.

Michael

All of these arrows are barreled solid wood shafts as in the Turkish arrows.

Hi Ginni.
Still I never used bamboo, because bamboo from gardeners shops has very different quality . Maybe now I will try it from Chinese source.
But with my limited possibilities to read in Turkish, I thing that for Turkish arrows was used reed, not bamboo and for "low level arrows". But it is question for Murat :)
I?m student of mechanical property of barreled arrows and each week I have new suprize. But I?m not "orthodox" and I?m not afraid to try new ways how to make bareled arows. It&#347; better to underestanding than making copies.
For instance I dont like Turkish style of flething and I have big respect to Jose and his courage to glue feathers to nock.
But Turkish shape of feathers is much better than modern European and soft feathers too. I have problem to find good quality of this and for "competition" arrows I?m using comercial parabolic- but it isn?t as good and Image of arrow is worse.
http://nasralnahrob.rajce.idnes.cz/Ture ... rske_sipy/

Very fine work Gentleman.
Mysa, where do you get those arrowheads from?

I?m blacksmith

T?rkish tarz-&#305; has style 14 gr selfnock arrow , made by cedar.
Cem

Cem,
I have seen self nocks with only sinew binding before. I was sent a picture of several old Turkish nocks by Edward McEwen last year and he pointed out this self nock where the sinew binding had detached itself from the surface and partially slid down the arrow.

Some people may remember from Korea that the self-nocked Port Orford cedar arrows shot well from my 80 pound bow. The binding I used was only cotton in glue. With fine sinew I am sure that they would have worked on heavier bows.

With a solid shaft it is not possible to shot as far, as the Turkish flightarchers were capable of.
I never believed these 850yards shots, till I?ve begun to gain every possible info about Turkish flightarrows. Finally it was Alan Case who posted recently in the PALEOPLANET the info about hollow shafts. Additionally a friend of mine has bought a laminated hollow wooden shaft made by a former aircraft- engineer. According to Bede Dwyers statement about flightarrows the bestTurkish flightarrows have to be hollow.

I?ve done some trials to make hollow shafts with hand- tools, I never believed that it could be done exactly with handtools. It is a delicious job, but not to hard, it is possible to do very good hollow shafts with hand- tools.
By hollowing and barreling a shaft it is possible to reduce weight at about 50% while the spine remains about the same. I?ll update you and post pics.

Michael

Perhaps, I was not clear. The best flight arrows are not necessarily hollow. The Turks stopped making hollow flight arrows after centuries of popularity. Perhaps it was because they gained access to better wood or the reed or bamboo supply changed.

The advantage of hollow construction is that with a constant strength material you can make it lighter by hollowing it while retaining the strength. However, there is a point of diminishing returns. If the arrow becomes too light, its drag coefficient may mean that loses velocity too quickly to be effective. In that case, by reducing the overall diameter you can reduce the drag coefficient and increase the distance shot. However, reducing the diameter of a cylinder, all other things being equal, reduces its stiffness.

It is a balancing act to make a light, stiff, low resistance arrow.

Dr Grayson made hollow snow berry shafts. Snow berry bushes had hard shoots with a softer core. He drilled them out by hand with drill bits he made by welding ordinary bits onto metal rods. The arrows were barrelled on the outside. The narrowest portions were reinforced by the inserts of the nocks and the points.

Major issues with flight arrows aside from these are making nocks that don't break and using just enough fletching to stabilise them arrow in the first section of the flight. You don't really care what happens after the arrow is travelling in a straight line. You are not shooting at a target and you have set up you flight range to minimise cross winds.

My first target footed arrows (little in turkish inspiration ):

[external image]

[external image]

Peto- nice work. Long foot- how wood is it?

I am interested in nocks - is it bone, right? Fine, but I wonder if it is not too thin...

And pretty nice cresting painting.

Regards.

Thanks Jakub,
foot wood is pear, but I give something heavier in future. Noks is ivory, I have much little pieces ivory relics from friend - violin bow maker, and thats reason, why is so thin. But working good... :)

My best flying arrows...

[external image]

Very interesting thread and fine arrows too :-)

I'm not sure if this is more suited for a new thread but I have been speculating about the dynamics of this type of arrows.
Anyway - here it goes.
My thesis is that when we look into why they withstand more force than expected and seem to have a higher spine, the reasom might be found in the world of music.
Imagine an arrow is a tuning fork. When it is released, it will start vibrating in a frequency given by its properties.
Now I belive that an arrow with a shape like the turkish types will behave quite different from a strait shaft:
1) The point of center of the vibrations will be close to or in the thickest part near the middle of the shaft
2) The two ends, point and nock, will have different frequency from each other
3) Since there is less mass in the ends of the shaft, the vibrations will die out faster and the arrow stabilizes faster and more energy is left for arrow velocity - hence it flies longer

I must emphasize that this is only a thesis based on observations and my limited knowlege on physics. I have no high-speed recordings to back it up and no mathematical or theoretical knowlege to materialize any evidence for this.
I do have a gut feeling that this is part of the ansver, but more skilled people might get closer to an ansver (or totally dismiss the direction I'm taking here).and skilled calculations might get close to a tool to find the "near perfect" measures for flight arrows for any given bow?