# Straight, helical or spin wings?



## Inukshuk (Aug 21, 2005)

For long range shooting I've been told to go with straight because there is less drag on the arrow,so it goes faster and farther. Helicals put a lot of spin on the arrow which is more accurate, but slows the arrow down , so not for long range.
Spin-wings put a lot more spin on an arrow for accurracy and a lot of people use them for long range. 
What is right (or is it "what works for you"). Why are spin wings used so much for long range if a lot of helical slows down your arrow and diminishes range; or do they?(are spin wings different from other helical fletches?)


----------



## hwjchan (Oct 24, 2011)

From my understanding, the advantage in spin wings is that they are significantly lighter than standard vanes like Plastifletch vanes and that they have a much smaller front profile. This allows for a few things to happen. The reduced vane weight can help tune stiff arrows and allow longer ranges to be reached than with standard vanes. The reduced frontal cross-section also causes less drag than standard vanes. 

As far as the difference between straight and helical, I'm not quite sure. I haven't seen anyone with helical fletched target shafts, but neither have I seen many plain old straight fletched. I think a lot of people, myself included, use a slight offset when fletching to impart spin, without the higher drag associated with the larger front cross-section of a helical fletch. 

Granted, I might be wrong.


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

Inukshuk said:


> For long range shooting I've been told to go with straight because there is less drag on the arrow,so it goes faster and farther. Helicals put a lot of spin on the arrow which is more accurate, but slows the arrow down , so not for long range.
> Spin-wings put a lot more spin on an arrow for accurracy and a lot of people use them for long range.
> What is right (or is it "what works for you"). Why are spin wings used so much for long range if a lot of helical slows down your arrow and diminishes range; or do they?(are spin wings different from other helical fletches?)


Not for long range? Guess what, I group about 25% better at 90m with helical on my vanes.

Spin wings put a lot more spin on? Do you have data to support this? How important is that after a certain extent? I went from spinwings to FF 187's with helical and had very little change in sight markings, and no discernible change in grouping. The FF187's are much more durable, however.

Both spinwings and small vanes with some helical shoot well. I'm sure limbwalker can attest to this. Vanes are simply more economical (spinwings get damaged very easily- eg. if your club has a soft spot in their target, you'll strip the arrow). Spinwings offer a small weight advantage. This could be used in tuning, but if you need to go as far as spending $25 on a pack of spinwings to save 7 grains your arrows are probably too stiff as it is.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

Spin wings for recurve shot at distance and plastic vains for compound seems to be the rule for archers shooting at the highest level. 

easy to fit and replace so they give you more time to shoot which is where the real improvements come from


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

DWAA Archer said:


> Spin wings for recurve shot at distance and plastic vains for compound seems to be the rule for archers shooting at the highest level.
> 
> easy to fit and replace so they give you more time to shoot which is where the real improvements come from


The rule? Plenty of talented recurve archers shoot vanes with goddamned good results. I'm sure limbwalker will chime in, but I know he's tried both extensively, and hasn't found an advantage to either (asides from vanes in ease of use).

Easy to fit and replace?

To fletch a dozen arrows I:
Use a fletching jig sitting next to my laptop and occupy myself while I wait

To fletch a dozen spinwings I:
Use a fletching jig to mark 3 lines with a paint pen
Clean every wing and shaft with methylated spirit
Apply 36 pieces of double sided tape, taking care to align them properly
Apply 36 spinwings, again taking great care to do it right, first time
Use a scalpel to carefully trim excess double sided tape (36 times)
Apply black tape carefully (24 times)
Use superglue or fletchtite to seal the end of the black tape to prevent it from lifting (24 times)
Dust arrow in talc to prevent them sticking together (12 times)
Clean talc off (12 times)
Check that wings are applied straight and consistently (12 times)

OK... well how about replacing them?

To replace a spinwing I:
Remove 2 pieces of black tape
Remove offending wings
Apply new double sided tape
Apply new wings
Trim
Apply new black tape
Push the black tape down again every few ends because it isn't glued down

To replace a vane:
I don't, because they don't fall off or tear when you look at them funny, unlike spinwings


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

According to Dick Tone (for the uninitiated, one of the top coaches in the world and previous owner and designer of many AAE and Cavalier products), Plastifletch Max vanes will give greater downrange speed, when applied straight, with a helical clamp than Spin Wings. My own testing proved this to be correct, the vanes yielding better sight marks at both 90 and 70m. Sight marks were about the same at 50m and better with the Spin Wings at 30m. Grouping was about the same at 90 and 70m, but I found the Spin Wings to be slightly better at 50m and significantly better at 30m. Realize, that at greater distances, the extra weight to the vanes, on the rear end of the arrow, will keep the point end up longer.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Spin wings are $14/50pak.

Speaking for myself, I prefer installing/repairing spin wings versus more traditional vanes - I dislike the 'glue factor' (both installation and removal) of traditional vanes. My method of installation is a little less involved than some methods described - although I readily admit the process requires more steps than traditional vanes. Most of the time, though, I actually like chasing the precision required to apply spin wings perfectly (after all, it seems like such a good metaphor for 'target archery' itself). On the occasions when I'm not that appreciative of the metaphor, I watch tv or listen to music while I'm applying the spin wings, so the time goes by pleasantly in any case.

Of course, if I was suffering frequent pass throughs - and unable to fix the offending soft target - I would probably feel compelled to overcome my 'glue aversion' (which, anyway, is probably mostly a statement about my own messiness with glue) and go with traditional vanes. 

My spin wings stay on, even when I look at them funny (a huge plus for me!  ) 

Virtually all (if not all) world/Olympic medals over the last 20 years have been won with spin wings. That suggests that DWAA Archer is 'spot on' to suggest that spin wings are indeed the defacto ("in practice or actuality, but not officially established) 'rule' rather than the 'exception' at higher levels of competition.

I'm happy that the rules permit different options and solutions to putting the arrows in the middle of the target. Makes tournaments (and this forum) much more interesting. How boring if - like Indy cars these days with their 'all the same engines' and 'soon to be all the same chassis/body' - archers were all required to use the same bow, same arrow, same vanes, etc.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Engtee,

"Realize, that at greater distances, the extra weight to the vanes, on the rear end of the arrow, will keep the point end up longer."

That's a cool observation. Have you tried testing/comparing the performance difference between a longer/heavier spin wings (say, 2-13/16") versus a smaller traditional vane (say 1-7/8") to mitigate the weight difference and just try to isolate the difference (if any) in grouping ability at long distances?


----------



## DBrewer (Jul 17, 2010)

lksseven said:


> Spin wings are $14/50pak.
> 
> My spin wings stay on, even when I look at them funny (a huge plus for me!  )


Mine too...I can count on one hand how many times I've had a SW actually come off. No question, SWs require more maintenance and constant inspection, but I've never been bothered by that. I prefer being able to hand fletch my arrows rather than using a jig and glue. To each his own...

And yes, if you look up and down the shooting line in London this summer, you'll be hard pressed to find any archers not using mylar vanes (SW, Eli, Kurley, etc.)...


----------



## hwjchan (Oct 24, 2011)

On the topic of extra weight of the vanes keeping the arrow up longer, I'm not sure the physics of that make sense. It might be more appropriate to say that because normal vanes do not impart as much spin on the arrow, less energy is lost to angular momentum via rotation, and the arrow retains a slightly higher kinetic energy, resulting in greater speed down range. I've heard that spin wings have a tendency to start "parachuting" at longer ranges, possibly because of the opposite of this effect, the great amount of spin imparted by the spin wing makes a sort of drag net which keeps the tail end aloft longer. 

And I'm pretty sure applying traditional vanes is not quite as easy as "using my fletching jig". There's the whole process of cleaning the arrow, applying the glue, getting the arrow to sit right in the jig, etc etc. And if you ever have to remove a vane, it's a lot harder than with a spin wing. Plus with spin wings, you can make on the field repairs.


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

I'm new to spinwings, just shot my first 900 using them, and yes I did loose a couple probably due to a poor orientation/rotation direction about the rest, but I figure that's part of learning how to use them. I'm guessing that once I get them figured out they will be more helpful at shooting long distances. btw, I didn't find it difficult at all to replace/repair them, just different.

Todd


----------



## skunklover (Aug 4, 2011)

I prefer the spinwing process as well. There's no glue involved, and I don't have too much of an issue with them falling off/breaking.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Engtee,
> 
> "Realize, that at greater distances, the extra weight to the vanes, on the rear end of the arrow, will keep the point end up longer."
> 
> That's a cool observation. *Have you tried testing/comparing *the performance difference between a longer/heavier spin wings (say, 2-13/16") versus a smaller traditional vane (say 1-7/8") to mitigate the weight difference and just try to isolate the difference (if any) in grouping ability at long distances?


I have and I got better sight marks with smaller vanes at 90m. We forget perhaps that the arrow is also traveling horizontally while it arcs and the larger (albeit heavier) vanes kick the rear end up, leveling the arrow's flight, faster than the smaller vanes. My experience anyway fwiw.


----------



## larcher90 (Dec 8, 2010)

hwjchan, fletching with a jig isn't that hard, once you get the hang of it, and especially if you've got a 6-arrow jig. You clean the shafts, let them dry, and apply the fletchings. There's a reasonable amount of down time while waiting for the glue to dry, but just do something else while fletching. I've fletched during practice, where I'd apply vanes, shoot two ends, and go apply more vanes, or while at home stretchbanding or something. I won't deny that it is a little bit of a pain that I need a jig to apply my vanes (unless I'm really in dire straits), but even if I don't have one I can go find a shop or club that will allow me to use theirs.

I really enjoy the fact that my vanes are pretty indestructible. Got my first dozen arrows more than two years ago, fletched with vanetec 1.75" FITA vanes, and since then I've had no more than 6 or so vanes fall off, and often they're in fine shape and could just be glued back on. I've probably lost more nocks (shot off or kicked off when an arrow hit a rock) than I have vanes in the last two years.


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

lksseven,
I never have tried longer than 1-3/4 (I have tried 1-9/16) because I simply am not pulling enough poundage (43) to utilize them, effectively. I used to shoot with Vic Wunderle and he sometimes used the longer Spin Wings, including the Elites, but I am reasonably sure that he was pulling more weight than I was. Most of the low profile vanes being utilized are about 3gr each. Even the long, Elite Spin Wings are only about half of that. If you like the idea of adding weight to the rear, to keep the point up, just use pin nocks and maybe a wrap. Just remember, you will be lowering the FOC and FOC conquers the wind.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

Bean Burrito said:


> The rule? Plenty of talented recurve archers shoot vanes with goddamned good results. I'm sure limbwalker will chime in, but I know he's tried both extensively, and hasn't found an advantage to either (asides from vanes in ease of use).
> 
> Easy to fit and replace?
> 
> ...


Interesting description of spin-wing installation as always there is more then one way to do things and there are more efficient ways to install them less steps required when using over fit nocks. Putting talc on the spin-wings is optional it will make no difference to how the arrow behaves. 

I'm not keen on vanes I've wasted too much time messing around with all that glue.

As for how spin wings affect arrow flight I don't worry too much about that I've found limb poundage and arrow selection to be more important 49# on the fingers and an arrow speed of 214fps seems to fix most arrow flight issues that occur at distance. I use spin wings because you can fix them in the field.


----------



## skunklover (Aug 4, 2011)

Actually the biggest reason I don't like vanes is stripping off the glue residue. It's so easy with spinwings.


----------



## thare1774 (Dec 13, 2010)

Spin wings fly nice, but vanes can take some punishment. Plus I've never busted so many vanes that I needed to repair them in the field, I have 12 ACE's setup with spins and 12 ACE's set up with vanes. They group together without much issue. I guess it really comes down to which one you like best after constructing and shooting both.


----------



## Inukshuk (Aug 21, 2005)

Quite the debate.
Okay, what I'm getting out of this is that straight fletch is essentially for compound (and why would anyone want straight). Helical fletches do slow down your arrow, but are worth it because of better accuracy and Spin Wings do impart a lot of spin, are more accurate, fly okay at long range, may or may not be a pain to put on and maintain and most if not all world and olympic records are held with the likes of Spin Wings. 
Seems like Spin Wings would be the way to go if you want more accuracy.
Back to the original question or part of; why don't spin type fletches slow arrows down so much that people loose range? Is it something in the design? I'm just currious.


----------



## thare1774 (Dec 13, 2010)

It may not be that spin wings are better, maybe the pros win more with them because that's all they shoot. If everyone is shooting spinny's then of course they're going to be on top no matter who wins. So you can't say spin wings are better because pros use them. 

Now as for offset and helical, there is a point where you have too much and there will be a noticeable difference in your shots. It's something you have to get just right, too much though at longer range can be worse than none in my experiences. Bust out your jig or make some different lines and experiment with it. I personally like a bit of offset because I feel the spin created makes for a more stable arrow, but I'm not into extreme helical.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

thare1774,

you wrote "It may not be that spin wings are better, maybe the pros win more with them because that's all they shoot. If everyone is shooting spinny's then of course they're going to be on top no matter who wins. So you can't say spin wings are better because pros use them. "

The following two threads might be of interest to you (and will likely alter your above opinion). Lots of heated discussion about the merits of spin wings versus traditional vanes, with input from former world champions. The nut of it is that the elite athletes test everything, and so what they end up shooting is what won out in exhaustive personal testing.


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1474677&highlight=spin

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1466859&highlight=spin+test


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ahhh, I see the age-old "to spin wing or not to spin wing" debate has made it's annual appearance once again... 

Here's what I know from my own testing...

I've shot numerous 330+ scores at 70 meters, in competition, with plastic vanes. My favorite plastic vanes for quite some time now have been the AAE Plastifletch Max sheild cut. I think they are 2" IIRC. They can take a beating and they adhere to the shaft better than any vane I've ever used.

For those that want good performance and zero maintenance, that is the way to go.

However, for the trials I was testing spin wings, vanes and the new Elivanes from Italy. In my testing, the S3 Elivanes won out over time, when shot at 70 meters vs. vanes and spin wings. Competition scores proved this out, with me shooting a 341 over my first 36 arrows on day two. 

However, my arrows are quite heavy compared to most (385 grains) and S3 Elivanes aren't going to be the best option for everyone. They also create enough drag that at 90 meters, I may have to consider something else. But at 70 and in, they are the best grouping fletch I've ever used, and, unlike spin-wings, they can take a beating.

So, to me, the Elivanes provide the best combination of durability, light weight, and excellent performance.

But I won't hesitate to use the AAE vanes if I need to increase nock end weight of an arrow to give it a stiffer dynamic reaction for tuning, or if I'm setting up arrows that I know will take a beating (JOAD, Indoors, Etc.)

John


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

John, just out of curiosity, why do you think the shield cut Plastifletch out performed the standard parabolic shape?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Never said that. I haven't tried the standard parabolic shape AAE vanes. Just the sheilds. 'cause they look cooler... 

So, in order of preference, I use 1) Elivane S3 or P3, 2) AAE Plastifletch Max 2.0 vanes, 3) spin wings


----------



## Inukshuk (Aug 21, 2005)

Thank you all for your contributions and insight.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just for the records, in Anatlya World Cup Mauro Nespoli, third with 689, and my son, seventh with 682, were both using Elivanes P3. For sure, all other 6 in the top 8 (from 696 down to 682) were all using Spin Wing. And for sure nowdays recurve archers have a different choice than Spin Wing, only, that was the only one possibility until now. All other solutions up to now have not been proven to be at same level for top level recurve.

For compound, more and more archers in Europe are also switching to Elivanes S2 and P2, including Dragoni in the Italian team in Antalya and Dussot in the French team in the same competition. 
Compound archers at <700 level may have difficulties in testing real differencies between straight plastic vanes and Elivanes, anyhow. Initial accelleration and short distance (50 mt) are great equalizers.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

engtee said:


> Realize, that at greater distances, the extra weight to the vanes, on the rear end of the arrow, will keep the point end up longer.


Arrows constantly attempt to balance the forces that are generated by their center of mass's relationship to airflow. 
They do this by aligning to the direction of travel. 

Moving the center of mass towards the rear by increasing the weight of the vanes only makes the arrow slightly more unstable and reduces the forces involved in seeking and keeping alignment to the airflow during travel. 

Simple extrapolation of the "more weight to the back keeps the point up theory" will demonstrate that this is not supported by the current observations of the laws of physics.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

whiz-Oz said:


> Arrows constantly attempt to balance the forces that are generated by their center of mass's relationship to airflow.
> They do this by aligning to the direction of travel.
> 
> Moving the center of mass towards the rear by increasing the weight of the vanes only makes the arrow slightly more unstable and reduces the forces involved in seeking and keeping alignment to the airflow during travel.
> ...


You can also move the center of mass towards the rear by decreasing pt wt. Do you lose sight marks in this case (the OP was about shooting long distances) according to the laws of physics?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Anything you lose or gain will not be affected by the positional change in center of mass. It will be affected by the change in weight. Velocity, weight and drag form an interesting compromise situation which can be optimised for individual situation if you're prepared to punch the figures into the software. (Which isn't publically available yet)

Yes, the OP was talking about shooting distances. That's cool if you're shooting flight. 
Shooting for points is about consistency, regardless of how far or fast the arrow arrives on the target. 
If you want to hit something at a distance, spin your arrow at least at a moderate rate. The drag differences between offset, helical and straight fletched conventional target arrows have been worked out and tested. It's nowhere near as bad as most people make out.


----------



## Aix (Oct 21, 2009)

Only from my reference on this, I put spin vanes on my hunting arrows (just curious) and two things happened. 1) my grouping out to 50 yards (45m) improved significantly. and 2) my arrow speed on the graph gained 5 fps. Call it what you want, but I don't argue with improvement.


----------

