Bows built by these two NASA scientists were marketed as being "Computer Designed" which I presume was a positive sales and marketing move in the 1960s when no one was even predicting how the personal computer would alter our lives as they have.

Well I'm just finishing up the re-build of what was an awfully beat up Spartan Hunter for a customer. This is the first T&W I've had in hand for a long time, and thought I'd share my opinion.

Short version: Great bow! It has those little enhancements only the better production bows possessed such as tapered laminations and a cut past center sight window to allow the arrow to sit as close to center-shot as possible (adds both forgiveness and some speed). The bow also has very thick rosewood tip overlays, well ovaled.

That last is unlike any other vintage bow I can think of, and since these guys were engineers, makes me wonder if they were supplying their creations with dacron strings of fewer strands than normal for the times. It would have been elementary for them to know that a single strand of B-50 has a break strength of about 50# so an 8-10 strand string would then (and still does) add speed. That alone would have made it a faster bow than the competition at the time.

BUT! I do not believe "computer designed" means exactly what it suggests as the grip shape and limb profile matches most all the other "best bows" contemporaries.

Many know my stance that set up equally, (mostly string and strikeplate position) there is no arrow speed difference worth arguing over among quality bows. Well, the limb profile and amount of deflex is such that if the labels were covered, the bow's limb shape is identical to so many other "best bows", an ID would be impossible.

I asked a computer expert what technology would have been available in the 1960s that could have been used. Afterall, a new bow designed from scratch would take years if not decades to develop. His answer was that yes NASA would have had scanners costing 1/2 a million bucks that could have been used to map the profile of an existing "thing" such as a bow. By profiling the shape of top shelf bows of the times, it would be possible to choose and blend specific details into a single bow.

So...What I think is this bow was designed by copying the better details from bows already built. I was calling the bow a copycat with swiped details, but my computer friend said we could just as easily call the bow a refinement/enhancement of the recurve.

Well, ok. But the end result is that as fast and archer friendly as this bow is, any similar profile bow of the times (most of them) when fitted with a performance string and a cut past center sight window will show NO difference in performance.

Great bow? Yes. Pretty as well with a tiger wood riser. Faster than other bows of the times? Maybe, but if so, mostly because of a better string. Better/faster if those old Wings, Brownings and Howatts get a string upgrade? Nope.

Rick

Oops. forgot a photo

Beautiful bows and sweet shooters. Here's one I'm redoing for myself.

Sent you a PM. Spook

Is that your hi-end finish Phil? Sweet.

Rick

It is but it needs to be wet sanded and polished.

Nice looking bows.

back in the 70s, Tink tested the Spartan Hunter and found it to be a great performer. I still believe there are differences in bow performance, setup being equal. Sometimes, the difference can be large. I have to get a chronograph to prove the speed difference.

Joe

Joe, chronograph's have batteries and digital readouts making them too complicated for guys from Northern Minnesota.

I moved over the river to Wisconsin where cheese curds are brain food, so I can speak with authority on these matters.

First off, we have to separate the efficiency of the bow (arrow speed) from the archer-subjective preferences that make one bow do better for a specific archer than another. Define "performance" to include archer preferences and no, not all bows are equal. But define performance only on efficiency by measuring arrow speeds, and the differences are so small as to fit within a statistician's margin of error.

After testing roughly 75 bows and eliminating ALL the variables as practical (and the list is long to get to true(er) apples to apples), I stopped bothering. No, the speed difference is NOT large, in truth the maximum spread from slower to faster was either side of 5fps depending on the gpp of the arrow/bow combo. More with lighter arrow, less with heavier.

Said differently, I can get about a 20% swing in arrow speed with the very same bow based on string details, brace height and strikeplate position. Those are the ONLY significant items (not construction) that affect arrow speed-bow performance.

Yes, your Drakes, Deathmasters and this T&W are great bows and would tend to be on the plus side of the 5fps in my tests, but das ist alles.

Rick

great thread. thanks for the info guys!

Yorktown, you have slapped the legend with the proverbial white glove. It only goes downhill from here. 8^).

Ok. Houston, we have a problem. Explain this Mr. Cheesehead:

I've stated before, I took two bows known for their speed and compared them side by side. A guy named Green made the strings. They were identical except for length and color. One bow was a Howatt Hunter 1995 model. The other was a Deathmaster. Both came in at 54 pounds. Both felt identical on the draw. Crookedstix believes the Deathmaster feels lighter than the hunter, but he has a 30" draw. When shot into new foam, with identical arrows, the Deathmaster punched the arrow 1" farther through the foam than the Hunter. I must have had a consistent anchor and release, because the same result occurred, over and over. It seems to me it takes a fair amount of additional speed to push an arrow that much deeper into hard blue foam. Again, a chronograph will confirm or deny my observations. Arrow flight seemed good with both bows. This would have to be re-checked.

Joe

I'll not argue speed because I've never touched a chronograph in my life but as far as limb design I have to disagree with your assessment that the limbs are shaped like any other popular bow of the times. If you look at the shape of the limbs of the top two Tice and Watts bows you will see a pronounced difference in the reflex and deflex of the limbs compared with the two Bear Kodiaks and the DH Monterey underneath. I think this is where the computer designing took place. As yes you can soup these old bows up by putting on modern strings and shooting light arrows to give great chronograph results but these bows were renown back then by everyone who shot them, including me, to be superior performers. And sometimes performance is not speed alone but smoothness of draw, etc.

But I agree, maybe just a tad faster than the competition but exceptional shooters none the less.

Here's another which shows the design a little better.

I like mine.

I've had two, and I did chronograph the last one against a couple of other classic recurves. Unfortunately, I did not save the data, but there was no need to. The T & W was not faster than Wilson Bros Black Widows or my '60 Kodiak-when fitted with the same string and arrow. As for the limb profile being special, I could lay that 58" bow on top of my '64 Red Wing Hunters, and they were twin sisters. It was not a poor performer, by any measure, but I did not find it lived up to the hype I remember when it was introduced.

I heard it was nothing special in spite of Tink's testing. I'll read his test and see if he chronograph tested his Spartan Hunter.

Joe

Try to find tests by Emory Loiselle since he used a balanced approach to his tests. Don't know if he ever did the Tice and Watts though. Looking at the design visually doesn't tell you much....pretty much looks like a lot of other bows of that ilk.

Like today, hype sold bows, and few companies challenged others claims back then. The only computer I saw in the 60's was about the size of a clothes closet, and none were in basic manufacturing. The NASA folks would have had access to them but they weren't available commercially. "Computer Designed" caught the eye, as did "World's Fastest Bow" that was used by another bowyer of the day.

Fastest of not, all of those old bows are beautiful in their own right, and all shoot pretty darn well.

Frisky

Ok, it is VERY difficult if not impossible to create a perfect test. I have said so repeatedly. But here's a quick checklist of details needing consideration.

String must have identical construction INCLUDING THE SAME NUMBER OF TWISTS, same amount of center serving, same size loops & taper.

You cannot use the marked bow weight but must measure to the specific draw being used and then build an arrow to the specific same gpp for each bow and the arrow must also be of otherwise identical construction, including nock tension and amount of fletching. If for example you have two bows that measure the same, say 45# @ 28" but one is stacking, you are flirting with an inconsistency because at the test draw the stacking bow is no longer firing the same gpp arrow as the non-stacking one.

Next we have to address the release method, different gloves or tabs or mechanical release and archer style all can change the results.

Then we come to brace height; probably the least controllable test variable. Some like lower brace, some higher and that alone changes the speed results as lower brace adds speed.

So...my method is to tune the bow for best (most quiet dead-in-the-hand) release wherever that ends up, and I don't use an arm guard which necessitates a higher brace.

Only then can I apply the other equalizing factors.

When I apply all the equalizing components, THEN my results have never shown any significant speed difference between similarly design bows.

But recall I also have written that just changing one or several of the above setup components and I can make the very same bow blazing fast or dog slow.

I am willing to be wrong, but I have yet to perform or hear of an as-fair-as-practical comparison that reveals ANY top shelf bow as significantly quicker than any other, new-old-expensive or low cost.

Cheesehead Rick

I was just looking at those hooks on the T&W and thinking "Looks just like a Wing to me..."; I'm glad to see Tom saying the same thing. This is not to belittle the T&W by any means; but as LW's unofficial mayor George D. is always saying, there ain't much new under the sun.

(Hey Tom, tell Joan that I just finished off her jar of peanut butter this morning, back at my house in Maine-- and thanks!!)

Kerry

Come to think of it, those T&W's look a lot like a Groves Spitfire I used to have...check out this photo comparing them! I'm guessing that NASA computer had a function called "COPY"! ;-)

Yorktown- However, you never tested the fastest of the fast! Crookedstix had it in his hands but was obviously outclassed.

Joe

Another good old oldie crookedstix.

Here are Tink's comments, from 74', on a Spartan Hunter at 45 pounds:

"Tice found that his bow at 45 pounds would store 42.2 pounds of energy for an energy stored/draw weight factor of .939. The next best bow's efficiency score was 37.2 pounds of stored energy for an energy stored/draw weight factor of .827. A compound at 45 pounds stores 47.2 pounds."

From the above, it's clear the bow, if the data is correct, is efficient but not up to compound standards of the time. Well, in 79', five years after this article was written, Steve Gorr said he had never seen a compound that could beat a Deathmaster or Gamemaster Jet in flight shooting competition, provided heavy arrows were used. I think these two bows would beat the Spartan Hunter and I know my Deathmaster will beat ANY bow put up against it or I'm not the Mighty Legend of the North!

Joe

Dear MLOTNorth,

Try as I might, I can't come up with a Tink's Stinks play on words that would read funny, ah well.

Notice he's only quoting the designer, and we have no details of test parameters.

Movie quote quiz time. Name the movie.

"When the legend and the truth differ, print the legend."

A contributor to this thread has just sent me another Spartan Hunter with the instructions to "Make her pretty." When the package arrived, the owner of the bow above was still here and I had a chance to compare the two...they are not the same exact bow. This one is 62" which I didn't know existed. Tips and grip shape are different.

We then took the finished Spartan to the range, and the grin on the face of the owner just might be permanent. No chrono, but we shot it against my 2 bespoke customs out to 50 yds. and I could detect zero trajectory dif while he shot the best ever he says.

19th century quote: "A bow full drawn is 7/8 broken." Oldtimers report Tice and Watts bows were so close to the edge that field archery's toll could wear them out and some failures were rumored.

I also have had a couple Drake Hunter-Flights and 2 more Howards. Stand by for some comments after I play with this Watts.

Last, Crooked's observation is very interesting. We have the rumors of Oppenheimer's involvement with Groves; the Legend of Harold Groves using his Spitfire to launch a tow rope across the Grand Canyon, and Oppenheimer at Los Alamos + Tice and Watts at NASA? The bows are dead ringers for one another.

Rick

I had two T&W hunters. One was62" and the other 64", if my memory is correct. The longer one was my father's but he gave it to me when it got to be too much for him in later life. Unfortunately some low-life stole both from the camper shell on my little pickup many years ago. Few things make me as angry as a thief. Losing my bow was bad enough, but losing my father's bow was terrible. I only had two physical possessions to remind me of him - his bow and the Stanley thermos he bought for me when I started working construction full time. I still have the thermos, now going on 45 years.

My T&W accounted for the first mulie and the first two bull elk I got. It was 67 lbs @ 28" and I never failed to get pass-throughs with Gordon glass arrows (heavy - for those unfamiliar with them) and tipped with 4 blade Copperhead slicers - still the best broadhead ever made IMHO. Come to think of it that was Ashby's opinion too.

My T&Ws were unique because I corresponded with the factory and convinced them to sell us two "bow blanks" laminated and tillered but otherwise rough as a 4x4. We then finished them to our satisfaction. We had done this with Herter's bow blanks for our first real hunting bows (they only cost $20 back in the day), but they produced first rate bows. Likewise for the T&W. I do not remember what they cost, but it was substantially less than the retail finished bows. They always performed superbly and helped to make many memories.

Kerry, You come by anytime you want, and I'll guarantee you a supply of peanut butter that will last a VERY long time!

Tink(ugh!)and his opinion notwithstanding, I was not dis'ing the T&W. My Master Hunter was a real good bow. I just did not find it better than my mid-sixties RWHs....also 58", with the same string and arrow. Say what you will, I couldn't see any difference in those designs. But, in a lot of years of collecting, I've had a lot of RWHs and only kept two....the '64-65s, because they were the best. And, if speed is the measure, I remember equivalent WB widows beating the T & W as well. But, as many of you say, it's certainly not a bow to take lightly.(well, not exactly true: my Spartan hunter did not impress me at all, but the Master Hunter was far better. I didn't own them at the same time and they were not the same specs, so I don't have a good reference on them.)

I agree with Crookedstix Kerry and Tom. The limbs look like the Wing T- bird I had.

I had a T & W Spartan Hunter for awhile, 62"-- 55#. I bought it because of the hype in the Kittredge Bowhut's Archer's Bible. De-lammed on me but I wasn't broken-hearted over it. I think the Wing T-bird was better.

Here's a bow that will challenge anything out there...take note, Legend of the North. It's purty.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Drake-Hunter-Flite-55-lb-draw-beautiful- woodwork-original-Lakeside-bow-/221587870649? pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3397aa93b9

I just shot the yet-to-be-finished 62" Spartan Hunter Mark-I now in the shop.

Different details than the 58" I began this post with. Grip is higher and taller, tip overlays are shaped like most other bows vs. the thick rosewood on the bow above; and the laminations show the vertical "plywood" strips ala Bear's Fascore. Leads me to believe this is a newer vintage T&W.

Owner didn't ask for me to build a FF performance string and all I had handy was an old 18 strand endless loop dacron. The arrow used was 520 grains; the bow is marked 46# @28 and actual measurement at my draw was 49# (no stacking either).

That makes the arrow more than 10 gpp. I've done most all of my past tests "after" performance enhancements (string, strikeplate position and brace tuning) and with arrows usually closer to 9gpp than 10, so expected somewhere around 160 plus fps. I got a 4 shot average just shy of 170.

Impressive. The result confirms my belief just looking over the bow's design that the T&W was a speed bow. If I apply the average increase experienced with string improvements, and include a smidge of speed loss with a well centered strikeplate, that puts the bow at the very top end (speed wise) of all tested bows. Not faster really, but top end results.

Rick

Thanks George! Let me know what I owe you for plugging my Hunter-Flite, heheh... but of course I wouldn't sell it to Frisky anyway, after his abusive treatment when I tried to visit him.

You would have given anything to walk away with my Hunter-Flite. It would be about 51 pounds at your draw and is superior to your bow. Probably a good idea to dump it.

So now Mr. Vintage Recurve has to admit the Spartan Hunter is fast!! No Deathmaster though.

Joe

Rick, It would be fun to have all three bows in hand-- the RWH, the Groves, and the T&W-- and really compare the limbs in every detail. I know there's a whole lot more to limb design than just curvature. Maybe when we die we'll get to sit in at a table where Drake and Groves and George Birnie and a few others are holding forth on how to make a fast bow-- now that would be a treat!

Re: The Tice and Watts Recurve: I, too, own a Spartan Hunter. It is a fine bow and one that's fairly hard to come by. But, for my money, the 1970s-era Wing Thunderbirds were a superior bow. Shot ever bit as smooth and were a bit faster/flatter (I own eight of them). Not knocking the Spartan Hunter, but the Tice and Watts didn't quite live up to the hype.... Shoot Straight, rare breed

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here