The 50# Firedrake that I acquired a few weeks ago has been getting lot of use lately, and it has been outshooting everything I can find find to throw up against it. For instance, here's how the "computer-designed" 1970 Tice and Watts did against it a couple of weeks ago. Despite having the weight advantage, the T&W couldn't quite match the Drake.

But, I have other bows--so the other day, I grabbed a 1959 Grizzly off the rack. That bow has a rated weight of 60#, and at my 29.5" draw it tipped the scale at 64#. Surely it could outshoot the 50# Drake?

Actually, it couldn't. In zero-degree air and into a 10 mph headwind, both bows averaged about 194 yards, shooting the same 73# and 75#-spined cedars. So despite the 14-pound deficit, the Drake matched the Bear, yard for yard.

But I still had one more bow to try against it--a 1997 Cari-Bow Tuktu.

Here are today's contestants, as we enter the Field of Glory. Skies were partly cloudy, wind was about 7-8 mph crosswind, but pretty steady. Temp was about 35º--a pleasant respite from the severe cold of late.

As you can see, the Tuktu is 33 years newer, and sports a 7.5# advantage in draw weight...and has a Fast-Flight string to boot.

Surely...surely, this time, the Drake will have to settle for second place! Once again, I'm shooting those same 73# and 75#-spined cedars from each bow. Let the games begin!

Here's what happened in the first round. I always drop the shortest shot from each bow when taking my averages, figuring that I flubbed the release a bit more than usual...so that's what those empty circles are indicating; shots that I didn't count.

Looks pretty even to me...and when I did the math, the Drake had a six-inch advantage!

Had to be a fluke...let's see what happens in Round 2...

Whoops...not a fluke. Dead even again.

At this point, I'm out of bows to throw against this Drake. I don't doubt that some of the very modern big-hooked recurves could outdo it...but for a 54-year-old recurve with maple cores, this thing will sling an arrow like nobody's business.

Of course, Frisky has been pointing out for years that nothing can compare to Drake with turquoise limbs. I guess I should have listened to him!

Some of you will notice that the Drake arrows are all standing upright; I did that so I would know how to color-code the photos once I got them on my computer. But that's where they really landed--no monkey business going on here.

Cool thread. Can't go wrong with David's arrows either. Best POC's ever made.

Very interesting experiment. Wish I had a place where I could shoot this far. What do the bows unstrung profiles look like?

MP

Interesting, thanks for posting. Is the Drake a "pleasant" shooting bow?

Nice quiver Kerry. Might even start a fire! Also glad you're having fun with the Grizzly. I bet Skookum is one happy man seeing these results too! Lance.

My Grail, a much shorter bow, would easily outshoot that Firedrake.

Joe

Mpdh--here are the unstrung bows. The Drake's tip nocks are 5-5/8" forward of the pivot point...way out there! But there's no hand shock when you shoot it; perhaps because the limbs are so skinny and the tips so small.

When I was shooting them this morning, the Tuktu felt really strong and solid. I'd release a shot and think to myself "Man, that one's got be be ten yards past the Drake's best!" It was very easy to feel the draw weight difference, and the natural assumption is that is just has to be shooting farther. Yet lo and behold, when I would walk downrange, there the arrows would be; all right together. So somehow the Drake is just pouring every ounce of its stored energy into the arrow's flight. I don't really know how it does it!

Unlike Frisky's bow, the glass is still holding together on this one; it should be fine for years to come!

In the left background you can see a 54" Pearson "Golden Crusader" from 1961. I'm pretty sure that's the bow that Joe's Grail is modeled on, LOL.

How could it be? They were making the Hunter-Flight in the late 50s.

Heheh, just seeing if you were paying attention. Yes, I'm afraid that both the Pearson "Arabian" in 1959, and then this bow in 1961, were pretty much direct rip-offs of the 54" Hunter-Flight.

I guess that Mr. Drake knew a few things about BOW BUILDING?? wonder did HE have some kind of magic or secret recipe??

interesting thread....thx for posting

Batman- Yes, really thin, narrow limbs with tiny tips, stiffened in all the right places.

Joe

What was the arrow weight and feather size?

Very interesting. Did you notice much if any difference in the noise level or hand shock of the bows?

Kerry, You dawg! You keep finding these excellent Drakes and then proving what they are(unlike a certain "Big Wind from the Frozen North" whose bows' mythical performance seem rooted in self-delusion and fantasy!)

I think I probably forgot to tell you I shot that Firedrake I got from you in the Flight Nationals last September. The bow performed beautifully but the archer's inexperience showed up in that venue. I think blowing salt got in my eyes, and affected my launch trajectory! Obviously, a lot more practice-and maybe a pair of goggles-are in order for future events!

Keep up the good work.

I feel a little insulted. First Skookum hurts my feelings and now this. My new Super Bear TD will change everything!

Joe

KyPhil--the arrows are all fletched 5" x 5/8" at widest point. The 73# spines weigh around 565 grains (counting the 125-gr. point), and the 75# spines weigh about 535 grains. My limited experience indicates that spine matters more than weight; i.e., the longest flights come from arrows that leave the bow cleanly and stabilize quickly, and that matters more than a few grains of weight plus or minus. WalnutBill--I always brace high enough so that there's no string slap, and both of these bows are very pleasant to shoot. I couldn't feel any hand shock from either one. The Tuktu might be just a hair quieter, but I don't say that with any real certainty.

As I noted earlier, you can certainly feel a difference between the two bows. At 66" and only 50# draw, the Drake felt much looser and lighter, and at 60" and almost 58#, the Tuktu felt much more solid--crisp and and tight, in a good way. If you shot shot both bows blindfolded, you would swear that the Tuktu must be shooting a lot farther...but you'd be wrong.

And Tom--without guys like you and Skookum to tell me about Drakes and how good they are, and in your case actually let me shoot them and even sell me one, I'd be a lot farther back on my learning curve.

There's so much knowledge on this forum, and it's so freely shared, that you can hardly help but learn stuff here. Even from Frisky, occasionally.

It not just the shorty Drake bows that go the distance. My 37# Firedrake will outshoot any and all of my bows with equal gpp.

I was just gifted a 43# Skookum recurve fashioned after a mid- 50's Howatt Mamba, but constructed with modern materials, including a bias-ply carbon core. While it is a spectacularly built and beautiful bow, it's no match for the Drake in terms of cast.

Jaz,

I had the same experience with my first Firedrake; a 44# bow that Tom Baldwin was kind enough to sell me. That bow would routinely out-cast bows that were 5 to 10 pounds heavier. Then I found a 62" Firedrake at 51#, and that one was another rocket launcher. I sent that one to Tom, because it filled a nice slot in his Drake collection...but I've been waiting and watching for the next one ever since. I think this one will stay here!

You guys are just afraid to compare those rattle sticks with the true Holy Grail of all recurves, the Mighty Groves Spitfire Magnum.

Great thread Kerry! And boy am I envious! I was just out shooting my 31# 1958 Firedrake today and just DIGGIN’ it! However ive always wanted the larger riser of the 1964 Firedrake, like my ‘64 Hunterflight which may be my favorite bow. LOVE the grip on it! Need to keep searchin for that bow!!!

This reminds me of the “Fakedrake” flight test I posted here a few years ago with my 1962 Kodiak Magnum VS my 1964 Hunterflight. I was surprised how well the K Mag did but, if memory serves, didn’t beat the Hunterflight.

Thanks for the cool thread! :-)

J.

Dean,

I actually have a 1969 Spitfire Magnum, that draws 51# for me...and I have lots of flight data with cedars for it. It's a fine bow for sure, but the farthest it has ever shot for me, in warmer air with no wind, is 197 yards. I can just about guarantee you that it wouldn't have been within 8-10 yards of the bows I was shooting today, which were averaging 203, and fighting a pretty tough cross-wind as they flew.

Jason,

Here's a couple of Drakes to drool over. They are both 62" long, which is a very rare length for a Drake. The one on the right is the 51# bow Tom Baldwin was talking about taking to the Flight Shooting Nationals last fall. The one on the left is probably the prettiest bow I've ever owned, and it's doubly rare because it has a 60# draw weight. Tom has owned a bunch of FireDrakes and looked at many more, and only knows of two others with a draw weight heavier than 50#.

I enjoyed them both while they lived with me, but ultimately I felt that they both belonged in Tom's collection of Drakes, which really showcases the full range of Harry's bowmaking skill and inventiveness.

Would like to see both limb tips next to each other to compare how wide/ narrow they are.

Here are those tips, side-by-side. The Drake is noticeably narrower, but it's not as narrow as other bows that I have.

It can't be just about the tips, because the 1959 Grizzly has noticeably smaller and narrower tips than the Drake. For that matter, I've had Wilson White and Dick Green bows (both of them now in the prestigious Pdiddly collection!) with tips that were literally half the size of this Drake's.

I think Batman is probably on the right track; there's magic involved here. Drake, and the guys at FASCO as well, may have been sorcerers.

This is some really interesting information.

Thanks for posting it.

Nice tests. I'm kinda curious as to the length comparesons to the other bows tested.

GLF,

Last year about this time I held a "Six-Bow Smackdown," to actually address that matter by shooting them all on the same day, same time, same arrows,same strings, etc.. I can tell that another such event is needed!

If I had to predict an outcome based on individual results, my guess is that the order among all my 50-51# bows would be 1964 Drake, 1970 Tice & Watts, 1960 Monterey and 1963 Swift Wing right together, then the 1969 Groves Spitfire, a 1964 Browning Safari 2, and a 2003 Chek-Mate right together, with the 1965 Hoyt Pro Medalist and the 1967 Kaibab together just behind them.

If it was 70º weather and calm, I would expect the Drake to be at about 215 yards at the front of the group, and the Hoyt/Kaibab to be between 190 and 195 yards at the back of the group. A 1960 White Wing that I traded to Knifeguy would have been just about even with the Tice & Watts, and so would the 1968 FASCO Model 55 that broke on me earlier this fall; a 1970-ish Red Wing Slimline Pro that I recently traded would have been right with the last four, or maybe even farther back.

If I included heavier bows, I believe that the 58# Tuktu, a 54# 1966 Ocala, 1959 Grizzly at 64#, and 1995 St. Joe River recurve would all be right beside the Drake at about 215 yards. A 1967 Pearson Mustang that draws 53# would be at about 197 yards.

I look forward to getting the right kind of day sometime in late Feb. or early March to put these estimates to the acid test, with perhaps a Ten-Bow Smackdown. Stay tuned.

Magic is likely the reason Drakes are so great. Same with the Deathmaster. It should be a dog, yet it's great! However, later today I'll be posting about the most magical of bows, a sinister dominator of all bows! The Svengali of Bows!

Joe

Kerry You must have found a good T & W. I've only owned two, and my takeaway was that the bow-or those two particular bows-were way overrated. One was the top of the line model, and the seller had modified the grip to what I thought was just about perfect for me. But, even that was not enough to make me fall in love with it. Not a bad bow, by any means, but I felt the performance just wasn't extraordinary.

Joe, you just keep at it....someday this archery thing will make sense to you. You can do it, if you try. Remember now, the slotty end of the arrow goes on the string....lol.

Thanks for posting the pic . Would like to shoot the Drake myself.Even with todays torsional stiff materials limb tips are fairly wide compared to the Drake.

I agree with Tom about the T & W. I bought one after being convinced by the ads in the Kittredge Bowhut Archer's Bible. Sold my sweet Howatt Hunter to my BroLaw. My T & W was the Spartan Hunter, came witha zebrawood riser. Rather plain and crudely finished, I thought. Performance no better and probably not as good as the Howatt, and the grip was clunky.

It eventually blew up in the middle of the night as it hung in the basement ceiling joists, probably too close to a hot air duct. Made a helluva bang, too! Scared me and upstairs roommate pretty bad. Guess it was a mercy killing.

I've had two exemplary Tice & Watts, but they both needed a lot of material removed from their tips and grips. The first one, at a 60# draw, I decided to leave as it was, and I sold it to Robert (in AZ) on this forum, and he seemed thrilled with it.

The second one got a thorough re-working with the rasp, both on the tips and in the grip, and its performance improved noticeably. Knifeguy and Pdiddly got to see it in action in Colorado this fall; it sends an arrow out in a big hurry.

I have an Excel spreadsheet that has my assorted flight shooting results from the past couple of years; if anyone would like to see it, just PM me your email and I'll send it along to you. About two dozen different bows represented.

This is for Joe: out of sympathy for the Vikes, I apologize for ragging on you. With my two teams out of it for this year, the Vikings were my pick.(anyone BUT New England!) I hope everyone else goes easy on you too-at least for a while!

But, it was not to be, so now there's only one team I can root for!

From November 1961 Archery magazine.

Thanks for pics Kerry!

What year you think the 51#er was? Was it a FASCO bow?

Ive got 2 FASCOS -a 750, with beautiful aqua glass and a Decathlon Supreme 850. They are almost identical except for extra riser material on palm heel with the 850, like the 1964, 60#er has. I like that extra material much better.

Some day, if really lucky, I’ll find a 62” Firedrake in my 35-45# range. Maybe.

J.

Did someone mention the Vikings? Who are they?

Joe

Be looking forward to that smackdown!

Did they ever make those Drakes in LH?

Back then, lefties were not considered archers. They were discouraged from participating in this sport, so you won't see many leftie Drakes.

Joe

Probably a dumb question, but does Cast = Speed?

Lowcountry,

It sort of does, but I like to think of cast as a bit more than just speed, because it's also telling you things about how any given arrow is performing. If you just shoot through a chrono, you may be getting high speeds, but that arrow might be porpoising and fishtailing all the way to the target. When you shoot a group of five arrows and they all fly quiet and straight and land close together 200 (or however many) yards away, then you know you have a good setup.

However, speed and cast are only useful (to me at least) in a relative way; so I can compare one bow to another. I care about other stuff too--grip, looks, history, and so on--when it comes to the bows I keep.

Thanks Kerry. I was just curious. I like your flight shooting posts and can see where the info can be useful when comparing bows.

I've seen only one LH drake, a Firedrake. I gave it to a special lefty last September. Darn few of them around!

Cast goes hand in hand with speed...more or less but as I understand are not mutually exclusive. Cast is how far a projectile/arrow flies off a given bow. Speed is normally rated in fps off the bow at very short range.

Have you looked at design versus cast. What I mean is many of those old bows had the riser behind the limbs a bit, more on the archer side of the limbs, so if other things were equal, you would be pulling the limbs further. Quillian's Canebrake was like that, and some others look like they are designed that way as well. Wondering if those bows are coming out on top.

The first 20 yards out of the bow is really important, they can loose a lot of speed getting straightened out. I took some bows out a couple of months ago and one bow that I know as the fastest only scored mediocre in cast I am assuming because the arrows may have been a tad weak in spine. I have been meaning to make some arrows up for that bow and try again.

This chronograph speed versus cast and its importance has always baffled me a little. Of all of my longbows and a few r/d obs as well, the speeds varied some, but for all of my bows, when shooting around 9.5 to 10 gpp, my point on has had only slight variations of just a few of yards, 54 to 58 yards.

A lot of cast, as badger alluded to, is won or lost on initial arrow flight. You have any wobble, you lose energy, so apples to apples need to be considered.

An extreme example would be one of our flight shooters Allen case. he is an engineer and good with numbers, drag co-efficient s and things like that. He has been chasing Harry Drakes long standing footbow record of about 2200 yards. He says for the life of him he can't crunch the numbers that would give that distance. I think Allen has gotten them out to about 1500 yards already maybe a bit further. But these foot bows will have shots that range from 500 yards out to 1500 yards depending on how cleanly they come out of the bow.

Now, for the record, I say the bow with the best cast is the fastest. Cast equals speed! Obviously, an untuned arrow will wobble more as it flies and slow down, but that's an arrow problem and has nothing to do with the efficiency of the bow. The fastest bow casts an arrow the farthest.

Joe

Frisky, without a well tuned match between bow and arrow no bow will reach it's potential. If the tuning is equal then the faster bow will have better cast. With hunting weight arrows like crooked stix is using it is not quite as critical but still makes enough difference to off set results.

Agreed. Arrow and bow must be matched. Once done, better cast equals higher speed.

Joe

George,

I definitely have noticed a correlation...I would say strong, but not universal, that the old tip-forward designs seem to do very well compared to bows with more deflex.

I will also say that the chance for hand shock is much greater on those designs...but somehow, at least two bows I've owned (1960 White Wing 60" long, and this current 66" FireDrake) manage to have their tips 5" forward or more, yet don't give me any noticeable hand shock.

I just acquired a 1956-vintage White Special, 60" long, and I notice that its nocks are about 5-1/2" forward as well. Sadly, its shooting days are over, so I won't be able to report on how it feels to shoot.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here