recurves on english warbows?

[Far East Archer]

Far east archer, I was clearly talking about recuirves here. And indeed, I was referring to more or less static recurves. these will have very little advantages in string angle, but it WILL compensate some stress.

Explain compensate stresses.....
In my opinion from building, you would only increase stress by reflexng, it does not reduce stress. This is how is stores more energy, but only benefits this store of extra energy if the wood cells do not deform by set or chrysal.....

'' If reflex, Maybe it just look like straight limb at full draw ". Maybe you're referring to a exaggerated R/D ? Even reflex won't make the bow look different at full draw. It just adds some stress, and early drawweight, resulting in a better F/D curve.

I refer to paintings when I write these to cancel out reflex being used...
Recurves lose most of their benefit only because of extra mass needed to keep them 'static'
If tips already bend before recurving, they will pull out later if bow is not reduce somewhat or reinforced....
Siyahs seem to hold the key in making light recurves being narrow and deep, modification in cross section as well.

If it was me doing this, I would steam long sharp recurves first, then cut the recurve short so only tip is recurved. This seems to be how the paintings are, the tips curve up with the horn nocks, making it appear to look recurved more....
It is really just too much extra work for if any benefit, maybe only personal bows brought from home or custom made would seem to be made this way.

[skerm]

Daniel, I'm steamng the 2nd recurve in a ash warbow, right at the moment. But I didn't glue any additional weight on. Why would I do so?
there ain't no need for it, imo. Why  would the mass raise?
'Besides, stiff limb ends are the modern way of making them'
...so the limbs won't move after recurving either

Nick

Usually recurves are wider than straight ends because it is otherwise difficult to make them stable. More width means more weight. If you can make them with the same dimensions as the straight ends, then you're fine.

Regarding the additional weight, I was proposing a test for your assumption that the weight of the tips is less important when shooting heavy arrows. You can measure the distance you achieve, then add some weight and test for distance. Then you'll see the influence of tip mass on the distance achieved with heavy arrows. If you feel like doing it you could then remove the additional weights, steam in recurves, and retiller to the same draw weight. Then you'll also know the benefit of recurves, if any.

Cheers,
Daniel

[mike-dy]

Recurve or reflex? Its big differ in my opinion.
A working recurve does not really last in a wood bow, maybe laminated though it will pull out on selfbow.
For selfbow, only static will work for warbow. In this case, we can see only advantage is favorable string angle, but this make no sense since bow is already over man tall......

If reflex, it show some benefit, but I doubt there will be enough to make clear difference at the full draw to paint it. Maybe it just look like straight limb at full draw. Though, it will give benefit, more so performance wise than recurve.  I think it would change if recurve bow was made shorter however.

Finally read some sense about reflex and recurve!!! You got right there!
Cheers,
       Mike

[nickf]

Far East archer, sorry for confusing you. I actually ment set, should have seen it.
Daniel, no need. Tim baker has done many tests on them, and you can find more proof in Tbb4. 2 bows shot a smiliar distance with normal arrows, but the one with the ligher outter limbs shot a lightweight arrow much further. This also counts for warbows.

mike, you might be impressed by f.e.a., but read the topic's name again. It's 'recurves on warbows' not 'reflex or recurves in warbows?'

if he's right, explain why a reflexed bow looks straight at full draw?

Nick

[bow-toxo]

we now know that arrows were issued in canvas cases.  Similarly most illustrations show archers in action shooting large hunting broadheads rather than bodkins - bodkins have better penetration, greater range, take up less storage space and crucially can be made at a fraction of the cost of broadheads so it is unlikely that braodheads were much issued to archer on service.  One theory I've heard is that the people who painted the manuscripts were mostly monks and would only ever have seen civilian archery where archers only carried one or two hunting arrrows.  Is it possible that lighter hunting bows were recurved - the wood being able to stand this sort of stress at those weights - whilst heavy warbows were generally straight?

I guess we will never really know.

Stan

 Edward III did order inch wide broadheads at the beginning of the Hundred Years War but I think it"s safe to assume that the arrow bags with leather discs were for bodkin arrows exclusively. I can't imagine an aecher pulling his precious fletching through those holes. Of course actual leather and wood quivers were used as well. In the illustrations I have seen, heat bent curvatures of various styles seem nearly all to be on smallbows, the shorter hunting bows as you say, rather than longbows. Maybe Tudor archers,like Howard Hill, just felt that they could shoot more accurately with a straight end longbow.

[Rod]

"Working" recurves in self bows are in any case something of  a canard. If we look at all the published examples of "so-called" working recurves in self bows (vide Jim Hamm's photo comparisons in TTBB) the "working" recurves are usually just larger static recurves, not "working" at all in the true sense.

We generally only find true working recurves in some of the quite sophisticated laminated bows, such as the Wilcox Duoflex.

There are some cultural variations perhaps, where small static recurves are not unknown and it is not illogical that these might also appear with some benefit in stacking characteristics on some shorter hunting bows.

But actual firm evidence is another question.
On the other hand, there was no rule against small static recurves and they do occurr sufficiently often in illustration to raise the question as to how common they might be.

Rod.

[nickf]

On the other hand, there was no rule against small static recurves and they do occurr sufficiently often in illustration to raise the question as to how common they might be.''

that's my main question, actually :p
thanks for your input!

Nick