Ok David. Here's what you asked me to do.

I'll preface this by saying: I am sure, that different size, and configuration of fletching, as well as maybe even arrow FOC probably has an impact on where the turbulators need to be place, and when using them you need to just play with them to find what positioning is best.

This is the best mixed group (3 with 1/4" forward spacing, and 3 with 3/4" forward spacing) of 4 groups I shot, but all were about the same, with "the same" results.

Shooting from 40 yards at the same fixed spot at the target butt.

You see what I see?

Rick

I do... The o-rings are the ticket for tuning aren't they?

Here's mine from yesterday 1/4" out front, I'm going to move 3 out to 3/4" and repeat for comparison.

Rick, I've got mine ready to try. Did you try any further up like and inch and an inch and a half.

Bowmania

On every group the 3/4" spacing:

(1) impacted higher

(2) had a bit deeper penetration

(3) were straighter in the target

(4) had a tighter group in the target

Rick

Todd... here is what we were talking about.

Todd, no.

Just the 3/4", and I'm happy with them right there since it places them right at the front on my wraps making them easy to keep up with in case they happen to move.

They haven't moved any, so it probably shouldn't be of concern, but one quick glance tells me.

Rick

Mine were from my 25 yard fixed crawl so I'm going from the same spot again.

David, it was only after I got beyond 30 yards that I started seeing any marked difference.

Rick

The o-rings are definitely the way to go. Using tape is a PITA.

Rick

No wind today either, so it's a pretty heads up comparison.

Rick

I shot at 25 and I could see some difference but the snow just melted here and it's too muddy to get back to 40 today. The deer are coming in after dark making a mess of the ground, tomorrow I'll don the muck boots and drop back to 40-45. That buddy of mine at Raytheon was on point with the O-rings :-)

At 25 the 3/4's were on top but there wasn't as much separation from the aiming dot yet. Pretty interesting...

David, What was Raytheon without O-rings?

Bowmania

Hah! A burning pile of scrap on the ground? I have a friend who is an aeronautic design engineer that works in the missile division there and he is also a bowhunter. He schooled me up on the truth about Turbulators the other evening both in his line of work and relating to an arrow in flight. It was pretty enlightening.

That is impressive. Thanks guys. >>>----> Ken

Great thread! Have there been any comparisons to arrows without the o-rings?

Thanks!

Alan

What size O-rings?

Plastic vanes and rubber bands... Saints Preserve Us All!!!

Oh, the Humanity!

LOL

Matt, different size o-rings for different size shafts.

My shafts are 1/4" diameter, and the ones that work on them are the Danco #36's (96750), which are 3/16" ID X 5/16" OD X 1/16" band diameter.

You want to get ones that will fit the shaft pretty tight, and have band size of 1/16".

Alan, I didn't compare the non turbulator shafts in this particular test (didn't want to remove them). I already knew the ones with the turbulators shot better, but I will try to do it soon just for folks to have a better reference.

I can tell you the long distance impacts in height of the non turbulator shafts compared to the shafts with 1/4" forward spaced turbulators was very close as to not really be able to determine any significant difference, but the shafts with the turbulators consistently grouped tighter.

Rick

At my hardware store, they were in a drawer like a tackle box. No sizes listed. Like someone was working on WI's favorite pass time, when he put them out for customers. I just got the smallest and they only had two that size.

I'm off to another hardware store.

Bowmania

What is/are "Turbulators"

Rick, The height of impact is what really caught my attention. It makes some sense to me that consistently triggering a turbulent boundary layer could help arrows group better, but I was surprised to see the possibility that the arrow carry more down range speed depending on where it is placed.

Is there plans for a turbulator Flight shoot? :)

Alan

What is Wisconsin's favorite pass time? Last time I was there it looked like it might be Grain Belt Nordeast Beer.

Alan, here is how I understand it in my country boy way of thinking (I'm no aerodynamics engineer):

(1) The tubulator "slightly" disrupts/turbulates the laminar air flow just before reaching the fletchng.

(2) This disruption of airflow allows the outflow of air to be tighter around the fletching itself.

(3) The tighter air flow around the fletching causes the air flow to collapse just behind the fletching creating a much smaller air flow wake behind it.

(4) All these combined allow the arrow to stabilize much faster without creating more drag.

(5) Quicker stabilization of the arrow means smoother flight, and greater down range speed.

Primarily used to help much smaller than normal fletching do the job, but also helps with larger more standard size fletchings.

I get no difference in speed when shooting through the chronograph at normal distance, but definitely notice better flight, and down range cast, which tells me if I were to shoot through the chrony at say 20 yards, there would definitely be a speed difference with the turbulated shaft being the faster.

I may be way off with that explanation. All I know is - they work.

Rick

This is my turbulator.

O-Ring placed at 3/4" ahead of fletching.

The recommended forward distance is 1/4", but that is for much smaller fletching.

I'm pretty sure the 3/4" placement working better for me is due to my fletching being 4 inch instead of 2 - 2.5 inch.

Rick

That's the great thing about the 0-rings. You can easily move them around to see what difference placement makes.

By the way - these particular little o-rings weigh exactly 0.94 grains each.

The arrow don't even know they are there, except for the change in air flow.

Rick

Rick is pretty much dead on. One of th things that heard commonly repeated is that the Turbulator produces turbulence going into the fletching and I couldn't understand the benefit of that. What I have een told by someone who knows quite a bit abot it is this: The arrow moves through a static air mass rather than a laminar flow moving across he arrow. Fletching further disturbs this mass creating turbulence and drag which impart a stablizing effect by the plume of lower pressure turbulence trailing behind arrow basically dragging it back. When a turbulator is used and properly placed, the air moving along the shaft is kicked up by the front side of the turbulator and immediately whips back down to the shaft surace at a higher speed and pressure. The higher pressure faster air column flows into the low pressure area of turbulence created by the fletching and out the back at a slightly faster rate than the arrow is moving through the air shortening the trailing plume of lower pressure air and reducing drag while supplying a more directed flow through the fletching. That's a lot more typing than it takes to say it, but that's what I was told by a guy that designs missiles and uses Turbulators on his arrows.

From many years of casual study of drag and air flow, I must say there is a fallacy here. The purpose of your O ring is to create turbulence, toward some advantage.

Ignoring the advantage, the airflow over the shaft is already turbulent because of the imperfect surface at the juncture of the field point and the shaft.

With a broadhead in place, the proposition is outrageous, because there is a large swath of turbulent air in the wake of that blade.

Pretty sure we have a case of wishful thinking here.

Well Jim, like I said - I'm no aerodynamics engineer, although I have read studies from those who are, that support this.

All I know is what I can see in my arrow flight when I use them as apposed to when I'm not using them.

I'm the kind of guy who - if it works ( I can see it working) I hang on to it. If it don't I file 13 it, and move on.

Rick

Engineers of any stripe are human (or nearly so 8-)and can overlook some aspect of the question. Ask one of those who support the idea whether they have considered the potential for disturbance of flow at the front of the shaft.

Further, turbulence increases drag. And, the well known study of the laminar-flow wing of the P-51 Mustang concluded that laminar flow could not be sustained at normal flight speeds because it was not possible to make the wing smooth enough. Arrows are in the same fix because of that joint up front.

There is confirmation bias at work. What would go along way toward proof one way or the other is a wind tunnel experiment. And that seems unlikely. So, if you like O rings, use them.

Actually, wind tunnel tests have been done. A lot to wade through here:

dowel-router

Hard data, as opposed to anecdotal observation.

Nuts. That "dowel-router" label was in the form I modified. Should say aerodynamics of arrows.

It will take you to the right place.

What will happen to the fletching on a pass through. Will these things slide over and damage feathers, if for instance you shoot your plastic barrel ?

MP

Hard data, as opposed to anecdotal observation.

Jim, your statement has no meaning on this forum. Just take a look at any topic headered, 'Paradox'.

Jim, like I said - I'm no aerodynamics engineer, but I'm not going to argue with one who actually is, is respected in the field, makes his living designing projectiles directly related to this very subject, AND also uses turbulators on his arrows.

Combine the above with what I see of them from my own experiences, and yeah - I'll continue using them.

Mpdh. They will probably pass right on through with little to no effect. Don't know, and don't really care, since by the time the arrow gets deep enough to reach them it's already done it's job, and done it well on most animals I shoot.

Rick

Jim I don't have your expertise but a commonsense thought is the air flow is much more important at the feathers. Just a thought for your consideration. They do the steering and keep the arrow flying point first. I can see the results with Rick and David's shooting. I am just a common guy but can't see any amount of technical jargon trumping results.>>>>----> Ken

2 bears, I didn't want to get into the effect at the feathers, but in fact, flow over the feather is always going to be turbulent, with or without the "turbulator," and with or without an arrow shaft!

It doesn't take an engineer to know that part.

Took a break, warmed up my shooting, and this is the result.

Same 40 yard spot as yesterday. A little wind today, but not bad.

Rick

There is turbulence no doubt. Is it more or less or just different? It is hard to argue with those results and that shooting. Something is happening. If you can group that well at 40 I would love to see your results. Thanks. >>>----> Ken

OK Rick. Time to move the O rings to the other position on the arrows and see if you get a repeat of which goes high.

What other position Jim?

I've shot them with the o-rings placed at 1/4" forward of the fletching, 3/4" forward of the fletching, and with no o-rings at all.

The differences are quite notable, especially between the 3/4" forward, and the other two.

What will you have me do?

Rick

But did you move them on the same arrow, or just shoot other arrows with the ring in a different place?

For this test it was 3 arrows of each placement, BUT how do you think I found out where I wanted them if not by moving them around on the same arrows?

I actually pretty much exhausted myself one afternoon shooting the same two arrows, and shooting them at different o-ring placements of anywhere from right against the fletching all the way out to 1.25" forward of the fletching.

If it will make you happy, I'll do the test again, with the same arrow, and simply move, or remove the o-ring for each shot. The results will be the same, but I have no doubt there will still be questions. :-)

Rick

No point in repeating what you have already done.

Rick, now there is a bevyof folks who worried over FOC and EFOC than now have to go do that all over again. That rubber ring has blown that all to heck,and we all know arrows flybetter when you know that percentage! Grin ;^)

Neat study and information Rick!

"Rick, now there is a bevyof folks who worried over FOC and EFOC than now have to go do that all over again. That rubber ring has blown that all to heck,and we all know arrows flybetter when you know that percentage! Grin ;^)"

Keeps'em busy ;) DMC

Rick do you own stock in a o ring company?kidding bet there will be lots of rednecks showing up at Ace hardware on sat morning me included lol very interesting stuff

Lowe's plumbing dept. Danco #47 pack of 10 $2.49 fits 5/16 shaft

My last dozen arrows were shot as bare shafts with nock collars for almost 3 weeks before I got around to fletching them. If you shot a mechanical broadhead you might get away with no fletching out to 15-20 yards, but with a real broadhead you'll need something on the back end to keep it looking ahead.

Well, that should solve the Lone Gunman Theory!!! Oswald had tabulators on his gun barrel.

If there wasn't guys like Rick and David around we would have glass on our bows. Thanks Fred, I meant Rick and David.

Who the heck drinks Grain Belt in WI. Somebody, we drink everything.

Bowmania

You at the PBS social today Todd?

I'm going to try this. I will be picking up some O-rings from Harbor Freight tomorrow.

Thanks Rick for taking the extra time to show the comparison to the arrows with no O-rings. I am still trying to understand what is causing this result. It would be fun to try a flight test to see how much separation there is between the three groups. Are the vanes fletched straight, or with some helical? I wasn’t sure from looking at the pictures.

Alan

Alan, the vanes are fletched right offset, but no helical.

Done with a right offset Arizona EZFletch.

Rick

[[[ How do they bare shaft compared to same bare shafts without turbo rings ? ]]]

Haven't done that. May have to.

Only thing is, I intentionally tune my bareshafts slightly to the weak side, so I don't know how it will pan out.

Rick

I'm not buy, but I am going to invest in O rings 8-)

[[[ I am going to invest in O rings 8-) ]]]

I did that already. Right before posting this topic. 8^P

Rick

What type of rest are you using?

Geezzz - shooting 40yrds with groups so small to start many wheelie guys can't do and not being satisfied so your adding "turbulators" -

Damm, all you smart guys are really taking the fun out of shooting making it harder on us normal folks. I guess off to Lowes I must go..

Funny thing about these "turburlators" I just mentioned to my nephew who just started shooting LB I'm lQQking for small rubber O-rings to put on our strings so we can slide up under our metal nocks when we go from woods to carbons without having to adjust the height or has that been talked about already.

Lunch time fun with bareshafts, and turbulators.

Really windy today, so I figured it wouldn't be a real good idea to shoot bare shafts from 40 yards. Shot them instead from 20 yards.

My point on is 32 yards. The green dot shows where I was gaping/holding for my aim.

Rick

One with a turbulator, and one without.

Rick

One with a turbulator, and one without.

Rick

Then I swapped the turbulator to the other shaft.

Rick

Then I swapped the turbulator to the other shaft.

Rick

Then I shot both with turbulators.

Rick

Then I shot both with turbulators.

Rick

Then I shot both without turbulators.

Rick

Then I shot both without turbulators.

Rick

Looks like the turbulators make a little difference even on bareshafts.

Rick

[[[ Geezzz - shooting 40yrds with groups so small to start many wheelie guys can't do ]]]

LOL - I wish.

I guarantee my groups with a good compound, that I set up, I sight in, and am in practice with would be half (if not less than half) the size of these groups.

Been there/done that, and have the teeshirt.

Rick

Leathercutter, I am shooting off the shelf. Oh be it a modified shelf, but shelf none the less.

Rick

Schafer Silvertip off the shelf 40 yards windy. Red nocks =T@3/4" Orange nocks T@1/4" Green nocks no T One bare shaft with T upper right, one bare shaft no T lower left and I plucked the release so I don't put much stock in that one but I wasn't going to re-shoot it.

The "O" ring is is giving it a little guidance enough to straighten out the arrows penetration. Reducing the turbulence on the fletches sure makes more difference.Thanks. >>>>-----> Ken

Side view. Rick is a way better shot so you can probably tell more about his.

So David.

You think you'll be setting them all to 3/4"?

:-)

Hard to believe it makes that much difference, but it sure does.

Rick

Thought I straightened that pic out, oh well

Well, I'm just sitting here thinking about that, my point on at 1/4 is 40 yards which you can see by the orange nocks, and my fixed crawl @ 25 is 1/4". I'd have to redo that. The extra distance on the point on doesn't interest me as much as how much the group tightens, so yea I'll probably redo my set up for 3/4" to get that consistency. I'm going to shoot it a lot more this weekend and average it out. I was satisfied with all of them except for that DOINK bareshaft on the bottom.

Rick, you got me thinking about trying them at 70 meters on my outdoor target arrows. My Olympic Recurve is the closest thing I have to a shooting machine, and I can guarantee you if there is a difference, it will show up at 70 meters.

Will report back here if I ever do.

[[[ Rick, you got me thinking about trying them at 70 meters on my outdoor target arrows. My Olympic Recurve is the closest thing I have to a shooting machine, and I can guarantee you if there is a difference, it will show up at 70 meters.

Will report back here if I ever do. ]]]

Giver a go John. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. :-)

Rick

I couldn't stand it. Just had to take it to another level

{{{ Don't Do This At Home, Boys & Girls }}}

Bareshaft with broadheads with & without turbulators from 20 yards.

I used the same arrow for every shot.

Shot 2 shots "with turbulators"

Shot 3 shots "without turbulators". Wish I had stopped at 2 shots here. LOL

Rick

Shot #1 with "T"

Shot #2 with "T"

Shot #1 without "T"

Shot #2 without "T"

Shot #3 without "T"

I bet if I go to the local hardware store and ask for Turbulators, I’m going to get some funny looks. Why can’t we just call them o-rings?

MP

Like I said, I wish I had stopped at 2 shots without the turbulators, but at least the arrow died for a good cause.

:-)

Rick

"I bet if I go to the local hardware store and ask for Turbulators, I’m going to get some funny looks. Why can’t we just call them o-rings? MP "

O-rings don't turbulate, they stop leaks ;P ;^)

[[[ Not to change the subject , but ...What rig are you shooting Rick ? Doesn't the sleeve on the shafts distract/give a bump on your rest ? ]]]

Ralph, I am Shooting off a modified shelf with a JC Optimus 21" ILF riser / TradTech Medium carbon wood limbs / 64" bow / 69.5# at my 29" draw length.

I get 100% total clearance at pass, so nothing of the wraps, the o-ring, or the fletching ever touch.

Rick

What's the Boss Lady going to say about that broadhead slash on the chair bottom????

[[[ What's the Boss Lady going to say about that broadhead slash on the chair bottom???? ]]]

These little broadhead targets have a section beneath that facing flat side. It actually went through that bottom section, and barely cut the edge of one chair strap underneath it. I don't think she'll ever notice, BUT I did think about that. LOL

Rick

Those woossy little broadhead makes such small holes she'll never notice. LOL.

Well Rick, what's your opinion on bare shaft planing? The directions say the only change is the feathers between the fletched and bare. So I guess you put a turbulator on a bare shaft???? But you started out with a tuned arrow.

That's so drastic with the broadheads especially, without thinking too much, I think I'd tune without turbulators and then put them on after I have a tune.

I have tuned arrows, but I retune every spring. Opinion?

Bowmania

When she sits down and that chair strap breaks, you had best not say a word....

Todd, exactly my thinking, and what I do. Tune the best I can get without the tubulators, then put them on. Seems to work pretty well.

I do bareshaft planning, but I also pay very close attention to the angle of the arrows into the target. Kinda combine the two for the best outcome I can work to.

The thing you have to keep in mind is where I'm concerned is - I intentionally tune for a slightly weak flight. I do this because it helps me to get better fletching clearance with the vanes, and they straighten up just fine & real quick, especially with the turbulators.

Rick

We have just added a whole new layer to arrow tuning. Bare shaft, fletch'um, shoot'em, add turbulators and find the sweet spot comparing groups to the non-T groups. They also might be used to fine tune broadhead flight on individual arrows. Tuning broadhead groups at 40 yards, I like it. ;^)

If feathers correct your mistakes and it looks like turbulators do the same, I'm guessing that it's a good idea to tune with out them?

Well, that's not a question. It's a statement looking for affirmation.

Bowmania

Thanks Rick. Even the most skeptical Kentuckians among us would have to agree those are some pretty conclusive results. I'm going to buy some o-rings and see if they improve my game.

Conclusive? That would require thousands of shots before it would be a statistic.

It does look like the O rings are doing something. How, remains undetermined, as far as I have read.

BTW, I think the formal name is "turboencabulator" and it was coined by Calvin in the hearing of Hobbs.

Yea! definitely impressive results

gives me an idea (might load one of my stumpping arrows up from one end to the other with O rings- a rubberized break proof arrow- just will have to keep a close eye on it as it bonces around through the trees)

:>))

Jim, there have been thousands of shots I do believe.

Read the Ed Ashby studies. The turbulators are in there, and that's where I got the idea to try them.

They concluded, that via the use of the turbulators they were able to use much smaller flectching to stabilize broadhead flight without adding any significant drag back to the arrow.

I'm just kind of picking up where they left off, and doing some things a little different.

Rick

I see they are helping- your results are perty clear that they group tighter with them

doubt my form would allow me to see the difference , but Hafta try just to see?

The Ashby reports is where I saw them the first time and with a 2.25 inch feather. I thought I'd do experiments with both. I was so impressed with the results of a 2 inch feather that I never got back to the tubes. Thanks Rick. I believe the Report was 2008 Report #4. Look for the picture of the feather and the tub.

Rick, last night I was turning and tossing. You tune your arrow slightly weak. I'm thinking of where that broadhead went and how it looked. That's a stiff reaction. Nock left. Yet one another shot it was weak.

I just wonder what would happen it you added 25 - 50 grains. Would it straighten out? Would that make them all kick the same way??? I wouldn't try it. You broke one already. Did you stumble across a new way to tune BH's??? Adjusting weight until you have one shot a weak kick and the next a stiff kick. LOL.

If you added weight I'm guessing everything would go really south.

Bowmania

"Conclusive? That would require thousands of shots before it would be a statistic." It would also require that the shooter not know what arrow was being shot. Or do we believe there is no human element in traditional archery?

Todd, it was very windy yesterday, and with broadheads on bareshafts your release has to be perfect, which mine is not.

Combine my less than perfect release with the wind, and the results will vary a lot from shot to shot, BUT the turbulators were compensating a great deal for both.

I was actually "VERY" surprised by it. :-)

Rick

I'm not sure how I missed this thread, but I think its worth bringing to the top in case someone else did too. Thank you Rick for researching and posting this. I'll definitely be giving it a try.

FWIW, turbulators have been around a while. The dimples on golf balls are actually turbulators. They have been proven to fly farther by reducing that laminar air flow. I used to work with an engineer who put turbulators on his car (yes someone makes them for just that purpose). He swore it increased his mileage. Thanks again - John

So John, Are you saying that a car with hail damage gets better gas mileage than a car without? Or does it just go faster?

It would/may ease some minds about the human error if you tried those shots with a shooting machine. The human condition is that sometimes one gets the conclusion they are looking for by adjusting to get it. Personally I don't think Rick is of that capacity, but would be nice to see the human element removed, and thereby be more conclusive.

Lefty4, you would need to simple your windshield for full effect, let's do it!

[[[ George D. Stout said: "It would/may ease some minds about the human error if you tried those shots with a shooting machine. The human condition is that sometimes one gets the conclusion they are looking for by adjusting to get it. Personally I don't think Rick is of that capacity, but would be nice to see the human element removed, and thereby be more conclusive." ]]]

George, I believe they did use a shooting machine in the Ashby studies, and have it on video.

You're right. Sometimes just wanting something to work is enough to make you think it does. You're also right, that I am not of that capacity. If something don't work for me it gets file 13ed. If it does work (after a lot of shooting, and testing), then I use it, and share it.

I didn't really pay it a lot of credit until I did a lot of shooting at long distances with & without the turbulators. My groups were almost always much tighter with, than without.

Rick

Rick, have you tested with fletched arrows & broadheads?

[[[ "Rick, have you tested with fletched arrows & broadheads?" ]]]

Yep. I'm sold on them. 8^)

Rick

Question for Rick and Dave. What % FOC are you shooting? I saw similar group tightening when jumping up to over 25% and further tightening over 30%. Looking forward to playing around with the O rings.

OK, thanks for the answer Rick.

Signed, Rick :-)

lefty4, You could always say so when you are trying to sell the car!

The turbulators made for cars look like little fins that get stuck along the rear roofline. I've never tried them, but he was a good engineer who routinely worked with fast moving objects (very fast). - John

Well at least it gives an old retired guy something to do !!

I tried shooting with o rings years ago. Was just "tinkering"...I just started thinking "o rings" for some reason and put them in front of my feathers, but unlike Rick, I didn't do significant testing. Then I tried putting little o rings on my bowstring and larger ones on my limbs to see if it would be a good silencer...finally, I got tired of o ring thinking and shifted back to think about ****s.

My congratulations to Rick for one of the most interesting threads I have ever read. Way to go, Rick.

Hope others will post their results...

What about sharkfin-like vanes? Do they address the same questions?

http://bideltavanes.com/products.htm

.

.

.

What the hell is a Turbulator ??

Grumpy, it is when the airflow is affected by an object, in this case an o ring placed in front of the feathers.

JK, many of the vane manufacturers put ridges or other surface alterations on vanes to improve flight characteristics, but good thinking. This is a very interesting subject and I'm sorry to admit I came close to doing research in this direction years ago but I didn't quite realize it could be important.

Again, I congratulate Rick and hope he does a more exhaustive study. I would think target archers would be all over this although it certainly should be of interest to bowhunters in regard to accuracy and penetration.

Appears to me that Rick did a pretty thorough job investigating turbulators. Some of you guys just want to sit in your easy chair and criticize something that you have never tried. It's no wonder so many people stop participating on this website.

David A., I didn't come up with the idea (I'm not that smart).

I'm not sure who did come up with it, but I think it was Ed Ashby (as far as application to arrows is concerned) , because where I first heard about it was while reading his studies, although he wasn't using the O-Rings. He was using 1/8" wide tape, and that's what I used to begin with.

I then discussed it with others, did some testing, then discussed it more with some others, and did some more testing (a lot more).

The O-Ring idea came from David McLendon. He had been discussing turbulators with an aeronautics engineer who is also an archer/bowhunter, and who uses turbulators on his arrows. 8^)

The O-Rings don't work as turbulators any better than the tape, BUT they make it much (MUCH) easier to determine their positioning for best effect. Plus, they are more durable, AND I'll admit it, I think they are cool looking. 8^)

```````````

My final conclusion after lots ("LOTS") of shooting in multiple varying wind conditions (no wind, head wind, tail wind, cross winds, all including very mild to very strong winds) was my groups were quite a bit tighter, and much more consistent at longer distances (40 yards, and beyond) when using the turbulators, than they were when not using them.

At closer distances there is not such a pronounced/noticeable difference when shooting target points, but there was when shooting broadheads. Not near what I could see shooting long distance, but enough to convince me the turbulators are beneficial to arrow flight at any range of shot where the fletching has fully engaged.

```````````

To describe what they do in a simple way - "They alter the air flow around/though the fletching, which allows the fletching to do a better job of stabilizing arrow flight, BUT they do it without increasing the drag on the arrow."

```````````

Here's the funny thing about all this:

I was trying to disprove it when I started using the turbulators. I was "Pleasantly Surprised" by not being able to accomplish that.

I've always been the kind to try to improve things, and if I find something works (even when trying to disprove it), I use it. Within reason of course, but turbulators are such a simple thing. So, why not?

The way I look at it is - "Every Little Bit Helps", and when those little bits are combined they "Help A Lot".

Yes, as Bro George Stout likes to call me, I'm an "Archery Geek". I don't mind that at all, although I would prefer "Traditional Archery Geek". 8^)

Rick

Thanks for all the research Rick (TAG), I'm sure most really appreciate it, I know I do! And I will be tryin' "Turbulators"! Wyatt

I wanted to give this a try, and my shooting with my hunting setup wasn't going to be accurate enough to determine anything. So, I brought out my old Hoyt Pro Medalist. Using the No. 47 O-rings, I did shooting at 40 and 50 yards, with the O-rings at both 3/4" and 1/4" ahead of the vanes. 3 arrows had O-rings and 3 did not. After a brief shooting session, I could not see any difference between my groupings or penetration with or without the O-rings. Not saying they don't help, but at my skill level I wasn't able to see they made a difference.

Above (Dave) I believe you got the sizes wrong on your Post.

Danco # 47 are 11/32 O. D. x 7/32 I. D. x 1/16"

I guess it sounds like it doesn't matter size o rings as long as there tight on the shaft?

I don't think so, but thank you for your concern. I wouldn't trouble much because most don't shoot well enough to realize the benefits anyway.

I've been using turbulators for 10 years. Do they help? Possibly, but they sure don't hurt my shooting. To me they're worth it for the 10 seconds they take to put on. I don't think there is a downside to using them.

Everything I have read says the wall/band thickness/diameter of the turbulator is optimal at 1/16".

So, just get o-rings that fit snug on your arrow shafts, and have a 1/16" wall/band thickness of 1/16"

Rick

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here