f'

-
:r
:r
:r
-
<(
0
<(
DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF
8-INCH EXTENDED RANGE AMMUNITION
Sabot Technology Study
DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF
8-INCH EXTENDED RANGE AMMUNITION
Sabot Technology Study
SABER INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED
North Troy, Vermont 05859
December 1979
Final Report for Period September 1976 - December 1979
U.S. Army
ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND
Dover, New Jersey 07801
FOREWORD
This final report was prepared by Saber Industries, Incorporated
(formerly Space Research Corporation), North Troy, Vermont and
documents work completed under Contract Number DAAA21-76-C-0543 with
the U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command (ARRADCOM),
Dover, New Jersey.
1
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
INTRODUCTION
l .1 Background
1.2 Extended Range System Criteria
1.3 Objectives
1.4 Projectile Requirements
1.5 Approach
CANDIDATE SABOT DESIGN CONCEPTS
2.1 Base Pusher Plate Sabot System
2.2 Center Sabot System
2.3 Split Sabot System
2.4 Sabot Latching Concepts
2.5 Obturation Concepts
SABOT DESIGN AND EVALUATION
3.1 Preliminary Evaluation of Sabot Design
Concepts
3.2 Test Slug Design
3.3 Test Propelling Charge Design
3.4 Internal Ballistics Test
3.5 Sabot Design
3. 5.1 Front Sabot Loads
3.5.2 Rear Sabot Loads
3.6 Evaluation of Retention and Release Loads
for the Front and Rear Sabots
3.7 Prototype Sabot Tests
TEST VEHICLE CONFIGURATION
Page
9
9
11
11
12
14
15
15
18
20
22
27
31
31
34
42
43
48
53
56
59
68
78
4.1 Proposed Projectile Design Description 79
4.2 8-inch Subcaliber Cargo Shell Test Vehicle
Design 83
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
5.0
6.0
7.0
4.3 Finite Element Stress Analysis 87
4.4 Propelling Charge Requirements 104
4.5 Test Propelling Charge 108
4.6. Stability and Performance Analysis 110
4.7 Stabilizer Design 114
4.8 8-inch Subcaliber Test Vehicle Design and
Test Results
4.8.1 Introduction
4.8.2 Test Instrumentation and
Measurements
4.8.3 Structural Test Results
4.8.4 Structural Fin Test Results
4.8.4.1 Fin Welding
116
116
117
130
132
132
4.8.4.2 Fin Design Structural Tests 132
4.8.5 Testing of Sabot Performance
4.9 Final Design Configuration Test
INITIAL FLIGHT TEST
5.1 Hardware Fabrication
5.2 Proving Ground Flight Test Results
FLIGHT TEST VEHICLE FINAL CONFIGURATION
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A 8-inch Subcaliber Test Slug Design
3
133
136
152
152
154
163
184
187
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Base Pusher Plate Sabot Concepts
Center Sabot Concepts
Split Sabot Concepts
Front Sabot Latch
Latching System for Center or Rear Sabots
Pre-engraved Obturator Concept
Engravable Obturator Concept
Test Slug Type C
Test Slug Type D
Test Slug Type B
Test Slug Type A
8-inch Test Propelling Charge
13 Breech Pressure vs Charge Weight Internal Ballistic
Test Results
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Velocity vs Breech Pressure Internal Ballistic Test
Results
Photographic Results for a Type C Test Slug of Shot
Number 467
Photographic Results for a Type D Test Slug of Shot
Number 472
Photographic Results for a Type A Test Slug of Shot
t4umber 476
Photographic Results for a Type B Test Slug of Shot
number 478
Loads on Front Sabot while in Muzzle Brake
Loads on Rear Sabot while in Muzzle Brake
Retention and Relase Loads for Front Sabot vs Latch
Angle (a. = 90)
Retention and Release Loads for Front Sabot vs Latch
Angle (a. =60)
4
Page
16
19
21
24
26
28
29
36
37
38
39
44
46
47
49
50
51
52
55
57
63
64
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (tontinued)
Figure Title
23 Retention and Release Loads for Rear Sabot vs
Latch Angle
24
25
. 26
27
28
29
Dummy t1uzzl e Brake
Rear Sabot Designs of Shots 486, 487 and_489
Rear Sabot Designs of Shots 491 and 492
Smear Photographs of the Front Sabot Discard Test
of Shot Number 491
Smear Photographs showing Rear Sabot Discard of
Shot Number 501
Smear Photographs showing Front and Rear Sabot
Discard of Shot Number 504
30 Proposed 8-inch Subcaliber Fin Stabt1ized Extended
Range Projecti 1 e
31 8-inch Subcaliber Fin Stabilized Test Vehicle
32 Photograph of 8-inch Test Vehicle used in Design
Development Testing
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Finite Element Analysis Grid of the 8-inch Cargo
Shell Mod 4 Test Vehicle
Equivalent Stress vs Axial Location Plot
Axial Stress vs Axial Location Plot
Radial Stress vs Axial Location Plot
Tangential Stress vs Axial Location Plot
Shear Stress vs Axial Location Plot
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section 2
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section 3
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section 4
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section 5
Equivalent Stress Contours of Section 6
Velocity vs Shot Weight for Optimum Charge
Determination
5
Page
65
70
71
72
75
76
77
80
84
85
90
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
106
Figure
46
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Title
Optimum Charge Ballistic Solution for Charge
Weight, Velocity and Web Size
47 Velocity vs Shot Weight for Optimum Charge
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Determination of M30Al .085 inch Web Propellant
Optimum Charge Ballistic Solution for M30Al .085
\:Jeb Prope 11 ant
M106 Warming Round Smear Photographs for Shot'506
Test Vehicle Shot Number 507 Smear Photograph
Sequence
Test Vehicle Shot Number 508 Smear Photograph
Sequence
Photograph of Test Vehicle Number 6 in Breech
Ml06 Round Framing Camera Film of Shot
Number 506
Framing Camera Photographs of Test Vehicles of
Shot Numbers 507 and 508
Smear Photograph Sequence of Shot Number 521
Smear Camera Photographs of Shot Number 536
Smear Camera Photographs of Test Vehicle of Shot
Number 538
Smear Camera Photographs of Shot Number 542
Smear Camera Photographs of Shot Number 543
Smear Camera Photographs of Shot Number 544
Framing Camera Photographs of Shot Number 542, 543,
and 544
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 539
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 540
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 541
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 542
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 543
Oscilloscope Output for Shot 544
Flight Test Hardware at Yuma Proving Ground
6
Page
107
109
111
121
122
123
126
128
129
131
134
135
138
139
140
142
144
145
146
147
148
149
155
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Title Page
69 Typical Results from Two Smear Cameras at Yuma
Proving Ground
158
70 Peak Chamber Pressure vs t1uzzle Velocity (YPG
Firing 5 July 1979)
160
71 Muzzle Velocity vs Range with r ~ t Corrected
Computer Simulations
161
72 Velocity vs Time of Flight Data from Selected
Tests
162
73 Mod 5 Test Vehicle Photograph
164
74 8-inch Subcaliber Cargo Shell Mod 5
166
75 Hindshield
167
76 Dummy Payload
168
77 Payload Ba 11 as t
169
78 Body Spacer
170
79 Body
171
80 Fin Boom Weldment
172
81 Fin
173
82 Fin Boom
174
83 Front Sabot Assembly
175
84 Front Sabot Carrier
176
85 Front Sabot
177
86 Retaining Ring
178
87 Rear Sabot Assembly
179
88 Rear Sabot Carrier
180
89 Rear Sabot
181
90 Obturator Band
182
91 Secondary Obturator
183
7
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LIST OF TABLES
Title
8-inch Test Slug Physical Properties
8-inch Internal Ballistics Firings
Parameters for Calculation of Retention and
Release Loads of Front and Rear Sabots
Values of Loads acting on Front and Rear Sabots
for Two Spin Rates
Sabot Discard Tests using Test Slugs
8-inch Cargo Shell Component Summary
Finite Element Analysts Loading Conditions for the
8-inch Cargo Shell Mod 4 Test Vehicle
8 Aerodynamic Properties of the 8-inch Subcaliber
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Projectile
Table of Test Results
Fin Design Designation
Comparison of Muzzle Velocity Measurement Data
Pressure Measurements for Shots 539 to 544
8-inch Subcaliber Cargo Shell Mod 4 Test Vehicle
r1ass Properties
July 1979 8-inch Subcaliber Cargo Shell Mod 4 Test
Vehicle Flight Characteristics Test at Yuma Proving
Ground
Flight Test Vehicle Final Configuration
8
Page
41
45
60
67
73
88
89
113
118
119
124
143
153
157
165
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The doctrine of Soviet artillery usage calls for massed fire
from heavy deployments of artillery pieces. The quantities of weapons
and rate of ammunition expenditure far exceed those employed by NATO
allies. Factors of 6:1 have been quoted in open literature. The
widely deployed Soviet 130mm M46 field gun is reported to have a
maximum range of 27,500 meters, ~ x e e d e d among currently deployed
modern artillery weapons only by the 175mm M107 SP. Thus the artillery
of the Nato allies is not only outnumbered but also outranged.
Because NATO artillery is typically more sophisticated and hence
more expensive on a per unit basis than Soviet artillery weapons, cor-
rection of the numerical inferiority poses a difficult and costly
problem. However, the range disadvantage can be corrected at modest
cost, and if the artillery of NATO countries can be provided with a
range advantage, then this can, to some extent, offset the present
numeri ca 1 deficiencies.
The use of extended range artillery gives the following advantages:
a) An increased range capability allows fewer guns to cover a
wider front. More efficient operation is thus possible,
since each battery is now capable of responding to more
fire missions.
b) Targets deeper in enemy territory can be engaged. While
some of these long range targets have larger target loca-
tion errors, improved payloads can make up for this problem.
Further, many target locations such as choke points, are
accurately known, and others are area in nature and provide
9
target rich environments where delivery precision is not so
critical for improved payloads. Many area targets are well
defended against air attack and are positioned sufficiently
rearward from the FEBA so as to be inaccessible to e0isting
arti 11 ery.
c) A range advantage over enemy \'Jeapons permits suppresive,
neutralization and counterbattery fire to be delivered
with minimum exposure to return fire.
d) In the modern concept of fluid FEBAs, an improved range
?llows weapons to be positioned further rearward, giving
an added measure of safety against fast breaking incursions.
Several methods of achieving extended range are possible using
existing demonstrated technology. Boosted (rocket assisted) projectiles
have been developed. Base bleed, a process o.f base drag reduction,
has been demonstrated. Unboosted,purely ballistic projectiles using
low drag techniques are a promising low cost alternative to boosted
rounds. Spin stabilized subcaliber projectiles have shown range
increases in excess of 40% (175rrrn Ml07 SP), \'Jhile analyses of fin-
stabilized projectiles indicate even larger increases (greater than 50%)
can be achieved in the 8-inch MllOE2 SP weapon.
The 8-inch MllOE2 is planned to replace the 175mm Ml07 as the
principal heavy artillery piece in the U.S. Army inventory. For this
reason, the exploratory development program reported on herein was
chosen to focus on the MllOE2 weapon system, and to examine and defini-
tize the potential which exists for the defeat of various selected
targets at extreme ranges. The program was structured to concentrate
on subcaliber projectiles as offering the most promise for success.
10
1.2 EXTENDED RANGE SYSTEM CRITERIA
e v e ~ a l system criteria were esiablished to guide in evaluation
of extended range projectiles. It was decided early on that the
payload would be some type or types of submunitions. These might be
lethal types, such as AP or AM submunitions or mines, or non-lethal
such as electronic packages for communications jammers. As a point
of departure, a payload similar to the 155mm t1483 submunition cargo
was used.
The selected extended range round should be compatible with
existing weapons. Battlefield operations may vary for special rounds,
so as to allow for a safe sabot discard area, and minor changes in the
handling and ramming may be required. However, the basic weapon should
be capable of firing either extended range or standard ammunition with-
out change. This includes firing through tubes equipped with muzzle
brakes.
An upper performance bound is established by the weapon operating
limits. Maximum operational breech pressure must not exceed 40,000 psi
and velocity is constrained by muzzle momentum considerations.
In view of the great possible disparity betvJeen shot vJeights and
chamber volumes of ERA and standard rounds, special propelling charges
are permissible. Although design of a propelling charge was not a
part of the scope of work for this effort, some work of necessity was
required in order to conduct the test program.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The primary goal of the effort discussed in this report was the
design of an 8-inch extended range subcaliber projectile to carry a
target effective payload to a range of greater than forty kilometers
when fired from an MllOE2 SP howitzer. The design effort included
11
concepts for the sabot, vehicle, and fins. Following the design and
component development phases, it was required to demonstrate the
vehicle performance in a flight test.
1.4 PROJECTILE REQUIREMENTS
As previously stated, the selected payload for the 8-inch extended
range round was one similar to the 155mm M483. This established the
basic size for the projectile. Initial designs made use of concepts
for sabotted projectiles previously demonstrated by the Department of
Defense as well as the contractor. Earlier demonstrations of dramatic
increases in range using sabotted projectile concepts provided the
justification for this subcaliber sabot technology study.
Firing a subcaliber projectile requires the use of a sabot, which
is a system of structural members affixed around the periphery of the
projectile to:
a) Position and structurally support the projectile during the
high axial acceleration of a gun launch;
b) Seal or obturate the propellant gases within the launch tube;
c) Minimize balloting of the projectile;
d) Impart rotational acceleration to a spin-stabilized projectile
or isolate to a repeatable degree the rotational acceleration
transmitted to a fin-stabilized projectile;
e) Discharge from the launch tube and separate from the projec-
tile without disturbing the launch tube or the projectile in
its flight.
12
The basic concept of using a sabot-projectile combination is to
result in a total weight less than that of a full caliber round, thus
making it possible to obtain a higher muzzle velocity. By then separ-
ating and discarding the sabots from the projectile after it emerges
from the launch tube, the resultant high velocity, relatively low drag
projectile achieves longer ranges and has greater target accessibility.
Range increases of greater than 50% can be readily achieved with pay-
loads which are a significant fraction of standard projectile weight.
Required in the development of this round was the compatibility
of the projectile to 8-inch weapons including the MllOE2 which is
fitted with a muzzle brake. Thus, although the gun tube walls limit
the n&tural tendency for the sabot petals to move radially away from
the projectile due to spin induced centrifugal forces, there is no
such restraint as the sabots pass through the muzzle brake. This radial
displacement must then be limited in another manner until the shell exits
the muzzle brake. This company has developed for this application a
number of techniques which are, in general, dependent upon the geometry
of the, interface betv1een the petals of the sabot and the projectile, and
the spin rate of the sabot and projectile. These techniques are
applicable to both high spin rate, spin stabilized and low spin rate,
fin stabilized projectiles.
In designing subcaliber projectiles about a chosen payload, there
are basic guiding principles to aid in the conceptualization of the
sabot-projectile design to attain the most efficient use of the sabots
and the longest range from the flight vehicle. For instance the
in-bore supports and/or sabots should be placed sufficiently far apart
to provide a good wheelbase to reduce the lateral in-bore accelerations
of balloting. Also the ratio of total sabot mass to total projectile
shot mass should be minimized since this parameter largely determines
the amount of kinetic energy lost upon launch due to sabot discard.
Additionally, with respect to the vehicle, the shot weight should be
as light as possible to attain the highest permissible muzzle velocity.
13
The cross-sectional area of the vehicle should be reduced as
much as possible and combined with a good aerodynamic profile to mini-
mize the rate of velocity retardation due to drag and hence result in
a longer range. These basic guidelines were integrated early in the
conceptual development of the projectile to produce a vehicle design
with long range capabilities.
1 .!1 APPROACH
The initial endeavor in this program was to evaluate previous
as well as nevJ sabot designs which offered the potential of success-
fully launching a subcaliber projectile to extended ranges. Concepts
offering hope were evaluated by firing test slugs and recording sabot
functioning parameters. The selected concept was then test fired
using prototype flight vehicles. Throughout this effort a design
program for the basic vehicle was conducted. Although spin stabilized
concepts were considered, the main payoff in range appeared to be
fin-stabilized rounds and most of the effort was related to such
designs. Thus fin design represented a significant portion of the
vehicle configuration work. During the test program a satisfactory
propelling charge was also developed. After demonstrating component
performance, ten rounds were fabricated and flight tested, demonstrating
extended range performance. Finally, twenty additional rounds were
fabricated and delivered to the Army for further testing.
Specific details of the program are discussed in the following
sections of this report. Flight test data supplied by Yuma Proving
Ground are presented to validate extended range performance. Finally,
recommendations for additional work are outlined, accomplishment of
which could complete development of the extended range projectile
system and provide the Army with a means to deliver highly effective
payloads to ranges significantly beyond 40 kilometers with the existing
MllOE2 weapon.
14
2.0 CANDIDATE SABOT DESIGN CONCEPTS
In the conceptual development of the extended range projectile,
three basic geometric sabot configurations were considered:
1) Base Pusher Plate Sabot System
2) Center Sabot System
3) Split sabot system
These design concepts are described in the following sections, along
with latching and obturation techniques.
2.1 BASE PUSHER PLATE SABOT SYSTEM
In the base pusher plate sabot concept, three examples of which
are shown in Figure 1, a thick base plate is utilized to obturate the
propelling gas and support the projectile mass ahead of it during
acceleration. Additional support, to align the projectile with the
axis of the gun tube bore, can be provided at the projectiles mid
section, as shown in Figure lA, or in the region of the nose, as
shown in Figure lB and lC.
In the concept of Figure lA, the base pusher plate serves to
transmit accelerating forces to the projectile base, creating high
stresses in this location, and requires a heavy tail section. However,
the base pusher plate shelters the fins from the blast of high pres-
sure propelling gas and unburned propellant grains, providing greater
latitude in the fin design.
The center sabot, which provides lateral support and in-bore
alignment, is itself supported by the base pusher plate and therefore
no grooved connection between the projectile body and the center sabot
is necessary. The elimination of the need for these grooves allows
for a lighter, thinner body wall design free from groove associated
stress concentrations.
15
A. Base Pusher Plate with Center Sabot
B. Base Pusher Plate with Front Bore Riding Sabot
C. Base Pusher Plate and Ram with Front Bore Riding Sabot
Figure 1. Base Pusher Plate Sabot Concepts
16
The concept of Figure lB is somewhat of an improvement to the
previous case, primarily in that it has a lighter sabot mass. This
reduction in weight of the sabot has two effects; it reduces the
shot weight of the projectile, allowing higher muzzle velocities, and
it reduces the ratio of sabot mass to projectile shot mass, a factor
related to the loss of kinetic energy upon projection due to sabot dis-
card. Additionally, the greater axial distance between the base
pusher plate and.the front sabot gives the projectile a longer wheel-
base which is instrumental in reducing in-bore balloting and unwanted
projectile dynamics upon muzzle exit.
The concept of Figure lC not only retains the benefits of the
previous two designs but adds one additional improvement. The
previous two concepts each requires a massive tail section to support
the forward accelerated masses of the body, paylaod and nose. This
heavy tail section contributes to a center of gravity position more to
the rear, having an adverse effect upon the projectile's stability
during flight. In this concept the projectile is supported at the
fortified base of its payload section by a shaft extending from the
base pusher plate. This adaption to the base pusher plate concept
allows the use of a light weight tail section and hence gives the most
forward possible position of the center of gravity of the projectile
flight configuration.
The principal advantage of the base pusher plate sabot concept
is that it has an affinity for conventional ramming with a positive
ram stop and shot start pressure. The capability for conventional
ramming allows for retention of the projectile at its rammed location
at high gun elevation and allows for conventional means of obturation
by positioning the obturator at the origin of the rifling.
17
2.2 CENTER SABOT SYSTEM
Two concepts relating to the center sabot system are illustrated
in Figure 2. In this sabot system obturation is maintained behind
the center sabot and the loads of acceleration are transmitted to the
center sabot by grooves in the projectile body. In-bore alignment
can be maintained by either fin-attached bore riders as s_hown in
Figure 2A or by a bore riding front sabot as shown in Figure 28.
The center sabot configuration of Figure 2A, with bore riding
fins, is similar to that used in the 105mm APFSDS-T M735 tank gun
kinetic energy ammunition in service and also in the U.S. Navy "Gun-
fighter" 8-inch HE projectile. It is characteristic of this concept
that a relatively thick body wall is necessary to resist the high
chamber pressures behind the center sabot and to accommodate the
the required grooved interface between the sabot and projectile. For
a specified payload this results in a larger projectile body diameter,
a greater shot weight, and a greater frontal cross-sectional area, the
results of which are a lov1er attainable muzzle velocity and a higher
drag coefficient, each having an adverse effect on the projectile range
of flight.
This configuration, as mentioned earlier, utilizes bore riding
fins to ensure bore alignment. To avoid any possibility of the fin tips
engaging with the rifling, bore riding tabs spanning two lands of the
rifling must be used. These tabs can be either permanently attached,
causing added drag during flight,or may be temporarily attached and
restrained during muzzle exit from striking the muzzle brake. 1\naddi-
tional design consideration in the use of fin bore riding tabs is that
they are the lightest means of achieving bore alignment but require the
frailest of all components, the fins, to provide this support.
The means of obturation with the center sabot sys tern has become
more complicated than the base pusher plate system previously discussed.
18
A. Center Sabot with Fin Attached Bore Riders
B. Center Sabot with Front Bore Riding Sabot
Figure 2. Center Sabot Concepts
19
This is so because, for instance, if the center sabotwererammed to
engage the rifling at its origin there would not be sufficient chamber.
volume to attain any reasonable internal ballistic solution. This then
means that the center sabot with its obturator must be able to be slid
far into the bore of the gun and yet still obturate the propelling
gas upon functioning of the gun. The design options to accomplish this
will be left to be discussed later.
The concept of Figure 28 relieves the fins of the requirement
to provide in-bore lateral support in. favor of a much more sturdy system,
a front bore rider. This is the principal achievement of this design
concept, but it must be recognized that a corresponding increase in
the projectile shot weight results. This o ~ e p t must also use a complex
obturation system and just as in the previous center sabot configuration
provision for good ramming and shot start pressure characteristics are
not inherent features. The promising aspects of these center sabot con-
cepts, however, include a lighter tail section, promoting in-flight
'
stability, and a lighter sabot weight. The lighter sabot 1t1eight reduces
the shot weight,making available higher muzzle velocities,and reduces
the ratio of sabot mass to projectile shot mass. giving prospects of
greater ranges than the base pusher p l ~ t e system.
2.3 SPLIT SABOT SYSTEM
The split sabot system, shown in Figure 3, utilizes a rear sabot
mounted behind the body with in-bore alignment maintained by a front
bore riding sabot. This effectively combines the weight advantages
of both the base pusher plate sabot system and the center sabot system,
tl1at is, the thin body of the base pusher plate system, and the lighter
tail and sabot weight of the center sabot system.
Because the rear sabot is not interfaced to the body, as shown
in Figure 3A, a light weight thin walled body design may be utilized to
reduce the weight of adjacent projectile components such as the tail
20
A. , Sp 1 it Sabot Sys tern
B. Split Sabot System with Ventilated Tail
Figure 3. Split Sabot Concepts
21
and nose assemblies and to reduce the drag of the flight vehicle. The
sabot weight of the split sabot system is much lighter than the base
pusher plate system but not as light as the center sabot system with
bore riding fins. However, in this case, as in the case of the center
sabot system with the front bore riding sabot the fins are not required
to provide lateral support.
Again, as in the case of the center sabot system, the massive
tail assembly required of the base pusher plate system is not required
here, keeping the flight configuration center of gravity more forv1ard and
thus improving prospects for stability. In fact, as illustrated in
Figure 3B, the tail section ~ y be ventilated to allow the equalization
of the pressure created by the propellant gas in the interior of the
tail section. This then allows for a substantial reduction of this
component's weight, further reducing the shot weight and improving
stability.
The disadvantage with the split sabot system, like the center
sabot system, is that these design concepts are not readily ameanable
to conventional ramming and thus the means of obtaining obturation
becomes complicated,as will be discussed later.
Also, in comparison with the center sabot of the center sabot
system, the rear sabot is both closer to the central axis of the pro-
jectile and in closer proximity to the fins. This means that in order
for the rear sabot to avoid contact with the fins during discard, the
discard characteristics of the rear sabot must be attenuated over the
center sabot.
2.4 SABOT LATCHING CONCEPTS
The application of sabotry to finned projectiles poses special
problems. It is essential that the fin stabilized projectile be
launched with low residual spin rates. Successful previous designs have
used spin rates of between 10 and 50 rps at muzzle exit. Ideally the
22
muzzle spin rate should be identical with the steady state spin rate
induced by fin cant or similar means. This condition implies no
tendency either for spin-up or spin-down and produces minimum induced
drag losses. However, no matter what muzzle spin rate results, that
spin rate must be repeatable from round to round. If large spin rate
deviations occur, the accuracy of the projectile will be severely
degraded.
The partial spin rates required by fin stabilized projectiles
necessitate a decoupling between the projectile and the tube rifling.
This decoupling may occur either at the sabot-obturator interface or
the sabot-projectile interface. When spin isolation occurs by spin
decoupling at the sabot-obturation interface, the resultant advantages
will be more control of spin rate, better force transmittal and a low
inertia of spinning parts, with the disadvantage that sabot discard
Will be more difficult because of little centrifugal force. On the
other hand, the advantages of spin isolation occuring at the sabot-
projectile interface are better obturation, easier sabot to projectile
latching and improved sabot discard which is enhanced by spin. Disadvan-
tages of this technique are that the sabot-projectile interface is a
bearing surface, making it more difficult to transmit acceleration, and
closer tolerances and surface finish control of sabot and projectile
parts are required. The approach considered best is to decouple
principally at the obturator-sabot interface because although full spin
sabots (sabot-projectile interface spin decoupling) are easier to design
for clean discard, the sabot-projectile interface must be a bearing
surface capable of transmitting accelerating forces but decouple the
torque. This is difficult to do without transmitting excessive spin
rates to the projectiles.
In the case of the base pusher plate the means of discard
are self-evident. But in order that the sabot ~ e t l s of the center and
split sabot systems be restrained against lateral movement during
handling and in-bore motion, while discarding freely after passing
through the muzzle brake, special provisions must be made. For the front
bore riding sabot of each sabot system, a simple inertial latch may be
23
face
Figure 4A.
F aero
Fcent
Diagram showing the Inertia1 Latch of the Front
Bore Riding Sabot and Loads durin'] In-bore Trave1
Fcent
Figure 4B.
Diagram showing the Inertial Latch of the Front Bore Riding
Sabot and Loads during Deceleration after Huzz1e Exit.
24
employed. The operation of this concept may be visualized by reference
to Figure 4. During in-bore travel, inertial loads (Face) cause the
rider to set back against the angled groove in the body. The angle of
this groove () is usually selected so that the component of set-back
force (Face) overcomes the component of centrifugal force (Fcent). The
front rider is thus restrained during the firing cycle. The projectile
will continue to accelerate until the obturation seal formed by the rear
sabot is broken. Shortly after this time, the projectile will begin to
decelerate. Three principal forces shown in Figure 48 are now acting
on the rider petals:
a) Centrifugal forces, tending to force the petal forwards
and outwards along the anqled surface.
b) Deceleration forces, driving the petals forward.
c) Aerodynamic forces acting to maintain the rider in a
rearward position.
The latch angle of the rider-projectile interface is chosen so
that in this situation, centrifugal forces will cause the radial motion
of the sabot petals out of contact with the groove and away from the
projectile, thus achieving discard. In low spin projectiles this tech-
nique may need to be augmented by aerodynamic forces.
For sabot systems involving a center sabot or the rear portion of
the split sabot system shown in Figures 2 and 3, a modified buttress
groove has been found suitable, as shown in Figure 5. The principal of
operation is similar to that for the front rider, except that the latch
is directed in the opposite direction. For this sabot, gun gas pressure
(P) provides the dominant force. The latch rake angle (e) is chosen so
that the component of gun gas pressure provides a net inward force,
overcoming the centrifugal force tending to drive the petals outward.
The critical design condition for the latch angle is that existing during
traverse of the muzzle brake. It is necessary to hold the sabot
latch even under the low base pressures which exist at muzzle brake
25

e
p

Projectile

Figure 5. Latching System for Center or Rear Sabots
26



exit. Depending on the design of the brake and its efficiency, the
pressure is estimated to be betv1een about 15 percent and 50 percent
of true muzzle pressure, i.e., between about 2000 and 5000 psi.
Discard in this case is effected by centrifugal and aerodynamic forces.
2.5 OBTURATION CONCEPTS
The self-evident means of attaining obturation with the base
pusher plate is sharply contrasted by the complex means of achieving
obturation in the center and split sabot systems. In fact the suc-
cessful implementation of the center and split sabot concepts is
dependent upon the formulation of a successful obturator design to
meet special requirements.
First, since the rearmost sabot is positioned far into the bore
of the gun, provision must be made to allow the obturator to slide
past the origin of rifling and yet still provide obturation upon
exposure to the propelling gas. Second, the obturator must discard
upon muzzle exit to allow the separation of the sabots.
To satisfy these requirements, two obturator configurations
can be considered. The first is the use of a pre-engraved obturator,
shown in Figure 6, such as was used in the U.S. Navy "Gunfighter"
8-inch HE projectile. In this concept a rubber obturator is pre-
engraved which allows the obturator to interface with the rifling upon
insertion into the bore. Upon exposure to the high pressure chamber
gas the rubber obturator is forced to expand over the sabot and engage
the rifling with force to obturate the gas. An obturator of this
material would have to be cut into segments to allow separation. But
to maintain obturation these cuts must take the shape'of a labyrinth, as
shown.
Another obturator design is an engravable ring obturator, shown
in i g u r ~ 7 and similar to that employed on the 152mm APFSDS M579 KE
27



Secondary
Obturator
Pre-engraved
Blocks
Sabot
Projectile
Labyrinth Sea 1
Secondary
Obturator
Figure 6.
Sabot
Pre-engraving
Pre-engraved Obturator showing Gas
Sealing Labyrinth cut to allow Discard
28



Gun Tube
Obturator
Pressure
Barrier
Sabot
Figure 7 .
Projectile
Gun Tube
Project i 1 e
Engravable Ring Obturator shown in the Top Diagram
with the Obturator recessed away from the Gun Tube
Wall. The lower Diagram shows the Obturator expanded
over the Sabot under Breech Pressure to contact with
the Gun VJa 11
29



projectile, which under the action of the high gas pressure is driven
forward over a conical surface of the sabot and expanded outward to
be engraved by the rifling of the tube and thus achieve obturation.
The discard of this obturator is achieved by fracturing upon muzzle
exit.
The pre-engraved obturator has the advantage that nbturation
is assured at all gas pressures, whereas in the engravable obturator
some finite delay occurs before a gas tight seal is achieved. The
engraved obturator, however, is more complex and costly and requires
additional handling, incorporating a method of indexing to match the
obturator grooves with the lands of the gun tube rifling to prevent
binding during insertion of the round. This is a major disadvantage
of the pre-engraved obturator concept .
30
3.0 . SABOT DESIGN AND EVALUATION


The sabot concepts described and illustrated in the previous
section were studied to determine which configurations were most contri-
butory to the design goals of an extended range projectile. From these
concepts several configurations were selected for an internal ballistic
test. To accomplish this test a versatile subcaliber t s ~ slug was
designed to be used as a test bed for these concepts. Non discarding
sabots were used in this test because the purpose of this test was to
collect internal ballistic measurements and the discard of the sabots is
characteristic to the external ballistic regime. With the data collected
in this test a discarding sabot was designed and applied to a preferred
sabot configuration for further testing and development with the test
slug. Testing was done in a step-by-step process to evaluate the
discarding characteristics of the sabots first with the gun without the
muzzle brake and then with the gun fitted with a muzzle brake. For these
tests, a non-functional or dummy muzzle brake was designed to represent
the internal contour of the functional or
11
Standard
11
muzzle brake supplied
by the U.S. Army. The purpose of the dummy muzzle brake \'las to avoid
unnecessary damage to the standard muzzle brake while developing the
discarding sabot design for use on the extended range projectile and further
testing described in latter sections.
3.1 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF SABOT DESIGN CONCEPTS
Each of the configurations of the three basic sabot systems- base
pusherplatesabot, center sabot, and split sabot-described earlier were
evaluated for application to the extended range projectile.
Essenti0l in the stability of a spin or fin stabilized projectile
is the relative position of the center of gravity to its aerodynamic
center of pressure. In a fin stabilized projectile stability is achieved
if the center of gravity is located more forward, toward the nose, than
the center of pressure. The axial location of the center of pressure
varies with mach number, being most forward at the highest mach number in
31



the supersonic regime. This means that upon muzzle exit, where the pro-
jectile has its highest velocity, stability will be least at this time in
its supersonic flight and most susceptable to disturbances due to sabot
discard. Because the muzzle of the gun is the origin of the projectile's
exterior ballistic trajectory, any variation at this point will cause a
large deviation between the target and impact.
The position of the aerodynamic center of pressure is constant
(for equal mach numbers) for two projectiles if the aerodynamic profile
is unchanged. If stability is to be improved it may be accomplished by
either moving the center of pressure backwards away from the center of
gravity or the center of gravity may be moved forward away from the
center of pressure. But to move the center of pressure backwards for a
gain in stability would require the aerodynamic profile to be modified
with the addition of high drag appendages (in addition to the fins) at
the base of the vehicle. This approach however does not provide a sound
basis for a long range projectile design. Thus the approach taken here
is to maintain the least drag possible and to increase stability by moving
the center of gravity a.s far forward as possible. The position of the
center of gravity, in fact, was a very important consideration in the
evaluation of the sabot design concepts.
Both base pusher plate sabot versions shown in Figure lA and lB
requiring heavy steel tail sections to transmit high launch accelerations
were immediately rejected. These two configurations were rejected not
only because of the high projectile shot weight resulting from the steel
pusher plate and steel tail sections but also because the massive tail
sections moved the center of gravity too far back.
The inability of these t\'10 sabot configurations to meet stability
requirements v1as the impetus tovJard the conceptua 1 i zati on of the confi gur-
ation shovm in Figure lC. The result of the preliminary analysis of this
configuration indicated that this base plate and ram would weigh approxi-
mately 45lbs. and requireanultra high strength steel with a 250,000 psi
32
~ yield strength to project a 125 lb. flight vehicle at a breech pressure of
40 kpsi. Considering the base sabot alone without regard to the front
sabot, the ratio of sabot mass to shot mass wciuld be 0.25, in other words
one-fourth of the total kinetic energy imparted to the projectile during
launch would be lost upon the inflight discard of this pusher sabot part
and decreasing the flight weight of the projectile does not significantly
reduce the weight of the sabot part. Thus although stability of the
~
~
-
flight vehicle is not jeopardized by this design, the low maximum allowed
muzzle velocity (due to the high shot weight) and the poor efficiency in
the use of available energy were not desired for consideration in an
extended range projectile.
The four configurations of the center sabot and split sabot systems
shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively were considered as viable concepts
contributory to the goal of an extended range.projectile. It will be

noted here, however, that preference was accorded to the split sabot system
shown in Figure 3A for eventual use on the extended range projectile.
Preference was given to the split sabot system over the center sabot system
because it afforded the use of a thin-walled, light weight body.
There was, however, a concern associated at this time with the use
of the split sabot system because of the close proximity of the rear sabot
to the fins. When compared with the center sabot system the rear sabot
of the split sabot system is only a short distance ahead of the fins and
also a bit closer in radial distance to the longitudinal axis of the
projectile. The closer proximity of the rear sabot to the fins in these
two ways are disadvantageous to the discard of the sabot without striking
the fins. The center sabot on the other hand with its greater distance
from the fins is in a better position for discard without fin interference
and for this reason was maintained as an alternate design consideration.
The ventilated tail boom, shown in the split sabot configuration
of Figure 38, is generally applicable to all configurations although it
is more difficult to ~ p p y to the center sabot configuration utilizing
33
fin bore riders shown in Figure 2A. The purpose of this concept was to
lighten the tail section to gain stability and its use was considered only
when necessary due to the uncertain aerodynamics of the ventilating holes.


Thus to prepare for the design of the extended range projectile
although the split sabot configuration of Figure 3A was favored the
center sabot system and the ventilated tail boom were designated for
internal testing.
With regard to the obturator design, the engravable ring obturator
of Figure 7 was considered to be the better choice for application than
the pre-engraved obturator of Figure 6. The engravable obturator was
preferred because of its freedom from the extra handling upon insertion
necessary for the pre-engraved obturator and because of its simplicity
of manufacture.
3.2 TEST SLUG DESIGN
Before any testing could be done some means of evaluating these
concepts in actual gun firings was required. To meet this need, a test
slug was designed giving an early internal ballistic representation of
the expected properties of the final vehicle. This test slug was not
designed to be a structural or aerodynamic representation of the expected
configuration. Instead, it was designed with sufficiently massive parts
(having a total weight expected of the final projectile) such that the
structural adequacy of this test slug was ensured and would not be a
variable from test to test. This approach was taken because it was
intended to use this basic test slug design not only as a model for inter-
nal ballistic studies of different sabot configurations but also as a
test bed for the development of the sabot design as well as several other
design concepts. This decoupling of vehicle strucure considerations from
the mechanisms intimate with in-bore operations simplified the isolation
of cause and effect in tests of these parts .
34



Another consideration in the design of the test slug was economy.
In order to reduce the cost of the test slug no attempt was made to
simulate the aerodynamics of the expected final projectile. This then
eliminated the cost of machining aerodynamic noses and fins.
One further economic consideration in the design of the test slug
was its versatility to fulfill the needs of many tests without the need
of major redesigns of the organization or materials of its structure. To
meet this need interchangeability of many of its main components was
required.
Thus the design philosophy encompassed the following ideals:
a)
b)
c)
Provide an internal ballistic model representing the
expected characteristics of the final projectile design.
Decouple the structural adequacy of the test slug from the
development of other design concepts .
Provide an inexpensive test platform for the development
of design concepts.
The test slug design was comprised of a conical finless tail
assembly, a cylindrical body assembly, and a blunt nose. With this
design, there was the capability of giving an internal ballistic repre-
sentation of each of the four sabot configurations of Figures 2 and 3 as
shown in Figures 8 through 10 plus a representation of the center sabot
system combined with the ventilated tail boom as shown in Figure 11.
As mentioned earlier, the ventilated tail boom represents the
concept of improving stability by reducing the tail weight. By allowing
the gas pressure to equalize on the interior with the exterior, the
need for the thick walls required of the closed tail boom pressure
vessels is eliminated and the aft weight of the vehicle as well as the
total weight is significantly reduced. As an example a weight reduction
35
w

(
J
'
)

'1
1
1
'
)

1


l
I i.H
r

)
A
T

i
"
r
,
o
r

";
f
l
:

[
')
'(
[

.-
,;-
r

"
',
;

..
:
L
.

1

1

.
,-,..
r

"
f
"
f
.
.::;

Q
'

:

-
r

:
T
[

.t
,
:
>
':
:
;
:l
:J

I
'
1
)
:
.1. _

-
L
A
:
':

.,..
.
j
;

{
;-::
S

..
l
"

;

:
..

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
':"
fD
'
r
o
;
)

1
-
:
-

"
'
?


.. : 'i -:-r
)
o
;
J
:l

!
.,
'.
r
4
L

-
L
J

:-

:>
-.
.'
,

'}
;

J

:
-
r

..

-1
1

i!_
P
P
'-

!
.., ::;
,.1..

"

v
::
Q

i
r

r
..
r1

:
l
f

.....
r

(
I
)

\

'
\
\
\
\
\
'
'

c
=
3

F
i
g
u
r
e

8
.

T
e
s
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

T
y
p
e

C

0

r
-
r
r

\

I

-
-
-
-
._
_
_
_
,._
_

\

\

(
4
'
)

(

-
-
l
l
j

)

T
E
S
T

F
I
N
A
L

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

"

.
...-

h
\

u

O
f

O
F

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

\

-
I
U
"
l

0

=
=
r

t

I
-
_
(
7
"
'
)
2
;
-
-
:
0
)

L
-
_
j

C
:
c
2
S
7
4

4

I
D
2
2
9
7
3

S

,c
.,
E
.

c
,

T

3

z
.

C
2
.
2
3
S
3

2
.
.
-
:
:
:
:
.
D
y

I

D
2
.
2
S
:
:
:
.
B

=
c
u
u

,
,
;
,

\
T
E
r
-
1
1

P
A
R
T

T

I
T
L
C
:

1
\
V
.
J

1
'
-
J
C
.

P
A
R
T
S

L
I
S
T

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

O
A

I
E

O
I
M
(
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R

T
O
L
l
R
A
N
C
l
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

.
.

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
.

V
(
R
...
O
N
T

/
-
(

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

_
.:;;:

-
l
;
,
p
R

1
1

M
A
T
(
R
I
A
L

C
H
I
'(

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

f
\
S
S

'
r

(
N
G
R

k

\
J
!
.
.
.
.

0

L
l

D

.
F
.

I

N

-
R

[
A
R

S
A

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
.

S
U
B
M
i
n
E
O

S
I
Z
E

I

C
O
D
E

!
D
E
N
T

N
O
.

f
i
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

f
i
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
5

C
2
2
9
7
7

S
C
!


E

-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
.
.
.

-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.._
,.
-
.n
r
r
-
:
.
w

-
.....J

.l

'
:
'
;
A
T
!
'
t
r
,

1
'\f

-
.

"
'J
i
.
.

f
l

',

;
r


[
..
'

:
'\
',
':
'.
I
.
L
-
i
..'
:
-
:
'
1
'
1
,
:
r
:

S
.

r

r

:

l
a
"
1


:

,-;
......

:1

f

""!
'
"
'

1
1
'
.. :
'I
(

D
O
[

"
lg

;.;)

:
't<
.
'! !
l
.

!
"
'

'
l
,

:


j
.!
:
-
:"
f
"
'
S

P

Y

"
'G

'

"
c
l

,:_

"

r
,
r

.1. :1
,
:
.C
t

.

0
\
\

\

\

\

\

\
\

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.

T
e
s
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

T
y
p
e

D

\

\

I

(
.
L
l
r

1

_
.
)
.

(
'"::".:-
T
E
S
T

:
i
L
U
G

F
t
N
A
L

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

C
)
D

I
j,...
":.
I

A

'-
-
-
-
-
-
'
\

N

O
F

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

\

(

'
"
"
"
'

\
J

3
5
7
'
1
-
'
)

_
l

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

O
A
T
[

D
"
H
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

O
A
A
'
"
I
N
G

I
O
L
l
P
A
t
.
C
E
S

O
N

u
E
C
t

.
.

U
S

:

'
/

L
-
'

-
A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

.
.
A
I
(
R
I
A
L

C
H
A

E
N
G
R

.
.
.
.
.

L

........a
k

H
l
A
T

S
U
B
M
I
I

!
[
0

f
i
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

f
i
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
(
)
V
(
D

.

-
-
-

-
-

-
.
-

-
-

-
-
.
':
:
)

I
"

-
-
.

"
'
-
.

I
"
"

0
A
N
D

_
_
_

0
7
3

1

I '
(

c
>

.
.
.
,

C
.

-
;;:>

I
',

<
'

,
-
.
.
_
.
(
_
.
.
:
.

:
.
.
J
.
-

1
o

-
:
-
"
7

:
:
:
:
.
7

1

1
;
:
:
.

'
\
D
Y

-
-

1
._
.1

'-
"

,
:
:
.

'
u

L

'
-

"

'
N

I

1
E
f
v
1
1

P
A
?
T

,
.
,
,
,
-
:
:
;
.

.

0
.

I

T
l

T

L
E

P
A
r
z
T
'
S

L
l

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
.

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y

V
E
R

.
.
O
N
T

0

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

A
'
S
S
.
Y

;

...

'
I

(
S
O

L
1

D

F

I

1
\
J

-
C

N

T

R

S

A

E

S
l
l
f
.
,
C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
!

N
O
.
,

C

3
0
4
7
6

C
C
:
2

9
7
6

S
C
!
L
'
.
:

w

O
J

'1
'1
7
[

'
'
'
'
r
'
>

l
'
:
'
'
:
"
l

f,,:lf
.t.
[
.
l

.
.
:
I
'

"

'
.

-....,

,;H

O
:

'
f

I
H

I
'
,

'

:
-
...
o
l.
::>
-;tt
':;>

'
;

:

1
:


1


:

't
,

r

r

...
c

.., t
J.

f

..
;,
I '1

1
'1


:
't
.
"'
.\
:-i

r
1
a

!
"

r
-..
:

_,
.
.
:
.,
'
i

.
o
,
D

!
',
:
1

.

..

:
i
'

,
l
t
>
P

:
'
I
r
,

.1.

i':
"
',

!
l
'
:
[

'
-
-
-
'
/

I

'
,

'

(

z
.

)

'
-
<
'
\

!.[

:
_
4
_
3
_
A
_
l
_
_
_

I,
:
.
R
.
'
r

L

-

r
_

i!
M
A
J
U
n
:

-
'
>
.
A
i
'
-
O
R

-
0

,

\
.
\

'

-

-
'
1

\

i
i

I

I

C
4
1
'

I

I

i
l
l

<
.

(
7

-
-
-
+
-
-
r
-
I

I

L
.
_
j

t

I

\
\

/

-
-
U
N
L
E
S
S

O
l
H
l
R
W
I
S
[

S
P
[
C
i
f
i
[
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

O
I
M
[
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

F
i
g
u
r
e

l

0
.

T
e
s
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

l
u
l
l
R
A
N
C
E
S

U
N

D
l
C
>
M
A
L
S

/
1
'
"
1

!
}
1

I
C
2
2
.
?
-
:
o
5

E
.

.

.
:
.
.
N
D

:_
_

_

_
;

4
-
!
'
:
:
:
c
2
3
7
3

S
r
.

B
O
T

3

j
(
:
.
2
2
9
7
-
:
:
.
_

1
'
\
i
'
)

s
:
:
:

I

I
(
'

r
'

(
"
)

s

'
3
1

B

s

D

y

I

V

E

t
J

T
.

F

I

N

:
;
:

i
T
E
M

1

e
r
.
R
T

"
J
C
.

i
'
.
J
O
.

T
I
T
L
E

P
/
\
R
T

S

L
I
S
T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
F

.

,_

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y

V
f
q
M
Q
I
<
l

T
y
p
e

B

A
N
G
l
E
S

P
R
E
P

'

..... -
-
....-
._
.
.
:
,
\
P
i
<
.
7
7

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

A

c
.
:
:
:
:
.
.
.
.
.
,

M
A
J
[
R
I
A
L

C
H
K

[
N
G
R

-
.

.

I
.

1

A
r

...
'1

(
V
e
N
T

R
E
A
R

S
.
A

7
f
S
T

H
l
A
J

J
R
l
A
T
M
l
N
T

)
U
t
l
M
I
T

J
E
D

f
C
I
N
A
L

e
-
1
5
5
"
'
'
"
"

S
I
Z
E

t
C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

f
i
N
A
L

P
R
O
l
l
C
I
I
Y
[

F
I
N
I
S
H

c

J
o
4
7
e

c

2

2

C
:
:
l

7

r
:
:

-
-
A
P
P
[
!
C
i
l

T
I
O
N

'S
C
A
L
E

1
/
4

I
S
H
E
E

V
J

-
-
0

... 1
r
r

J.
L
!
'1
-
'

....

<
,
[
U
'
:
"
h
(

... O
f
V
,
[

"
:
l
-
'

l
l
'
:
>
.
J

'.:.:: q
r
:
:

-
r

:
-
:
:
..
.1
.
:>
o


'
0

:
<
;
',
:

,
I
f

; ';
'
,.

"
f

:
.. :

..
'.
:
'

3
:
1
:
.
.
!

.. r,
..
4

p

..

-
1

l
'o

[
,
.
.

'I

!::O
:>
o

...

.\
P

r
:
S

"
!

l
J

r
.
t
.
c
:
,

C
D

\

L

/
4
-
:
:
,
_
7
S

I
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
.

T
e
s
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

T
y
p
e

A

G
)

----------
!
F
I
N
A
L

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

;:.'
':')
'
C
H

t
i

i
1
1
1
1
1
'1
"

'w
,O
A

4

3
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
J
O
R

-
M
I
N
O
R

\
\

0

\

\

\

I

(
7
?
;
-
:
:
:
.
,
7
Z
,
)

\
I

I

e
'
U
I
<
L
[
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
H
I
G
I
N
A
L

O
A
T
[

O
I
M
f
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
l

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
I
'<
G

l
(
)
L
l
R
A
N
C
l
5

O
N

D
l
C
I
M
A
L
5

;
'
/
2
-
,
.
.
_
(

---.

';/
l
l
'
l
:
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

C
'
l
l
P

r
I
C
_
l "
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
?
:
,

!
C
2
2
3
:
:
;
G

C
l
-
O
S
U
P
-
E

c
:

S

2
?
.

3

7

4

i

B

S
A
B
O
T
.

3

I
C
2
2
3
7
2

f
-
j

0

s
:
:
:
:

2
_

C
2
2
5
7
1

B
O
D
Y

I

D
2
2
9
'
:
l
L

'J

E
:
f
'J

I
_

;-:
1
1
'-
J

,

I
T
E
M

Q

'
-
-
.

r
"
\
r
-
,

,
I

T
I
T
L
E

1
\
.
l
(
)

?
A
R
T
S

L
\

S
T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
.

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

A
N
G
L
(
S

P
R
E
P

..

T
E
'
:
)
T

S
L
U
G

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

C
H
K

[
N
G
P

:

t
:

.
,
.
.
.
I
(

(
V
E
N
T
.

F
I
N

-
I
!

4

..
l
;
/
C

N
T
R

5
;

T
E
S
T

S
i
.
.
u
4

H
t
A
!

!
R
[
A
!
M
[
N
l

S
U
S
I
.
I
I
!
!
E
D

'

.

S
l
l
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O
.

.

U
S
E
D

O
N

f
i
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
l

f
i
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
H
Q
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
8

C
Z
2

3
7
'

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
-
.

I

/
4

1

-
-
..
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
of nearly eight pounds \'laS realized in the test slug and two to five
pounds in later utilizations. This weight reduction in addition to the
gain in stability makes available a higher maximum muzzle velocity and
hence a greater range.


Initially the front bore rider sabot was modeled as flange
integral with the blunt nose. This was done to allow the_interior bal-
listics testing to begin because discarding sabots are unnecessary in
these tests and information which evolves from these tests is useful in
their design. Also in later testing it would simplify the identification
of the results during the development of the rear discarding sabots. The
flange was later replaced by a discarding front sabot during tests
concentrating upon that aspect of the sabot design development. It should
be noted here that the use of the front bore rider sabot in the center
sabot system configuration did not eliminate the consideration of using
bore riding fins for support but instead it duplicated their function in
the finless test slug configuration .
Similarly, the rear sabot of the split sabot system and the center
sabot \'Jere initially modeled as collars screwed into place. Again,
during tests involving concentration on rear sabot separation dynamics,
these non-discarding collars were replaced hy discarding sabots.
Both of these sabot systems were designed to utilize the engravable
obturator design rather than a pre-engraved obturator.
The design of the test slug in the split sabot, closed boom con-
figuration is such as to match the weight and axial moment of inertia
expected of the final projectile as closely as possible while the center
of gravity was matched to a lesser degree. In this configuration the
nominal physical properties of the test slug are given in Table 1.
The location of the center of gravity has much more influence in
the external ballistic trajectory than the internal ballistic trajectory.
Variations in the weight of projectiles alter measurements pertaining
to interior ballistics to a much greater degree. The significance of the
axial moment of intertia is great in this application for spin rate
40

TABLE 1. 8- IllCH /l55MM TEST SLUG PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
ITEM UNITS VALUE
Total weight (w/sabots) 1 bm 140.0
Tail section weight lbm 21.5
Body weight lbm 80.0
Nose weight lbm 25.0
Rear sabot weight lbm 10.0
Front sabot weight lbm 3.5
Axial moment of inertia lbm-in
2
700.0

(wjout sabots)
Maximum diameter in. 5.8
Overal length in. 42.0
CG position from base in. 27.9
(w/out sabots)

41
measurements required for the design of the sabotry.


Variations in the physical properties of the different test slug
designs were expected to correspondingly match the changes in the physical
properties between the same differences of design in the final projectile.
A stress analysis was done for the test slug of both the split
sabot and center sabot configurations during gun launch. The highest
load for either configuration resulted at the interface between the body
and tail section of the center sabot configuration. A Von Mises equiva-
lent stress of 125 kpsi was calculated for this projectile with a weight
of 140 lbs. accelerated by a breech pressure of 40 kpsi to 11,800 gs.
The split sabot configurations highest equivalent stress was also at
this same location but was calculated to be 105 kpsi at the same conditions.
Making an all6wance for localized yielding and for the dynamic nature of
the loading, normalized AISI 4140 steel, with a yield strength of 85 kpsi
and a tensile strength of 155 kpsi was considered adequate for the body .
Also, because of the direct contact, stresses in the area of contact
with the body in the tail should be similar. However, the state of stress
for the tail in this area is approximately triaxial (i.e. hydrostatic pres-
sure) and 7075-T6 aluminum with a yield strength of 70 kpsi and a tensile
strength of 80 kpsi was used. Mild steel was used for the blunt nose and
7075-T6 aluminum was used for all discarding sabot designs, to resist the
shear involved, aswell as all non-discarding collars.
Drawings of the various components used with the test slug are
contained in Appendix A for reference.
3.3 TEST PROPELLING CHARGE DESIGN
A propelling charge was also designed for use in the Internal
Ballistic Test and subsequent testing. The physical size of the charge
was limited by the dimensions of the XM201 cannon chamber. The diameter
of the chamber measured 8.485 inches with the origin of the rifling located
42
51.0 inches from the breech face. With the closing of the breech, the
mushroom protrudes into the chamber 11.0 inches (including an attached
piezoelectric gage).


To make available the largest volume possible for the test charge,
the test slugs and ensuing test vehicles in all tests were rammed to a
measured dis ta nee of 51. 0 inches from the breech face thus a 11 owing a
maximum charge length of 40.0 inches. The maximum allowed charge dimensions,
held in all tests, were a length of 40.0 inches and a circumference of 25.0
inches (8.0 inch diameter). Within these dimensions the largest amount of
propellant that could be utilized was 62.0 pounds.
A charge and its components are shown in the sectional diagram of
Figure 12. The propelling charge used an easily adjustable cloth bag to
accomodate various charge weights. The charge incorporates a cardboard
liner to provide shaping and rigidity. Let it be noted here that initially
the charge comprised 62.0 lbs. of M30A1 0.085 inch multiperforated triple
base propellant and a 1.0 ounce black powder based pad igniter until a
high pressure was recorded in Shot Number 512 when the propellant weight
was generally reduced to 58.0 lbs., and the base pad was increased in
weight to 3.0 ounces of black powder. The core igniter of 5.0 ounces of
black powder supported by a 28.0 inch long nitrocellulose igniter tube was
used consistently throughout.
3.4 INTERNAL BALLISTICS TEST
Each of the four test slug configurations were tested with various
propelling charge weights to measure ballistic performance and for the
determination of the charge. The pertinent results of this test are
summarized in Table 2.
The resulting breech pressures from the various charge weights are
plotted for each test slug as shown in Figure 13. Similarly the muzzle
velocity and breech pressure data were correlated to give the curves in
Figure 14.
43
.
p
.

.
p
.

3
.
0

o
u
n
c
e

B
l
a
c
k

P
o
v
1
d
e
r

B
a
s
e

P
a
d

I
g
n
i
t
e
r

N
i
t
r
o
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
e

I
g
n
i
t
e
r

T
u
b
e

A
u
y
l
i
c

V
i
s
c
o
s
e

R
a
y
o
n

C
l
o
t
h

C
h
a
r
g
e

B
a
g

.
0
0
4

i
n
c
h

T
h
i
c
k

C
a
r
d
b
o
a
r
d

W
a
l
l

L
i
n
e
r

5
.
0

o
u
n
c
e

B
l
a
c
k

P
o
w
d
e
r

C
o
r
e

I
g
n
i
t
e
r

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
2
.

8
-
i
n
c
h

T
e
s
t

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
i
n
g

C
h
a
r
g
e

L
e
n
g
t
h

4
0
.
0

i
n
.
;

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

8
.
0

i
n
.

.
0
0
4

i
n
c
h

T
h
i
c
k

C
a
r
d
b
o
a
r

E
n
d

L
i
n
e
r

M
3
0
A
l

.
0
8
5

i
n
c
h

W
e
b

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
a
n
t



TABLE 2. 8
11
/155 INTERNAL BALLISTICS FIRINGS
VEHICLE
1
VEHICLE CHARGE
2
BREECH
MUZZLE VELOCITY
SPIN
DATE
SHOT
TYPE & WEIGHT HEIGHT PRESSURE
( fps)
RATE
NO.
SERIAL NO. ( 1 bs) ( 1 bs) (kpsi)
(RPS)
Smear 1 Smear 2
-
9 June 462
C-3 129,96 30 >10 1591 1585
-
463
C-2 130.04 35 >10 1772 1775
-
464 C-5 129.90 40 >10 1926 1942
-
465
C-1 129.42 45 14.8 2224 2224 -
466
C-4 130.2 50 18.3 2413 2409 10.5
467
C-6 129.91 55 21.5 2620 2605 10.5
468
C-7 129.97
. 60
27.0 2879 2877 11.8
469
C-8 129.86 62 31.2 .
3043 3047 10.8
16 June 470 0-5 137.69 50 22.5 2640 2641
-
471 0-7 138.18 55 28.4 2860 2857 8.7
472 D-2 137.62 60 32.7 3022 3006 9.6
473 D-3 137.62 62 38.7 3179 3178 -
474 A-4 136.75 50 20.2 2481 2460
-
475 A-7 136.9 5 55 26.2 2769 2785 -
476 A-5 136.87 60 33.4 3109 3052 9.4
477 A-1 136.7 5 62 34.4 3059 3047
-
20 June 478
\
B-7 128.69 50 20.6 2600 2581 7.5
479
l
B-1 128.94 55 22.7 2707 2700 8.6
480
I B-2 129.00
I
60 28.5 2981 2973 -
481
l
B-3 128.7 5 62 29.0 2977 2966 -
l
NOTES 1 Type 0- Split Sabot, Closed Boom- Chamber Volume- 2635 in.3
Type C - Split Sabot, Open Boom- Chamber Volume - 2885 in.3
Type B - Center Sabot, t1osed Boom - Chamber Volume - 3110 in.
3
Type A - Center Sabot, Open Boom- Chamber Volume - 3360 in.
3
2
Shot No
1
s 462-469 - Propellant ~ B O A .091 vJEB
Shot No
1
s 470-481 - Propellant M30A1 .085 WEB
3 Ram Depth - 51 inches
45

. i ..
, ' I !
' ! I 1 I t ' I
1 ! I 1 .. c
I 1 t I
... : ' . i ; '
: ' : . I : : : : ; : I .
40
.. . . . . - -------
o Test Slug Type\ A: Center Sabot-Vented;Boom . ; . i ; : : , .
1

0 Test Slug TypeiB: Center Sabot-Closed: Boom:: : '
. I ' ...
Slug Type!C: Split Boom
El Slug Type
1
D: Split s1bot-Closed Boom.:.:.
. : .. - - . --1 ---- 1------- ---- . . . : .. -- ---------
' . I
: ' .
: ' '
.......
35
Vl
Q_
::><::
w
0::
:;:)
Vl
Vl
30
w
0::
Q_
:r:

u
w
w
0::
o::r
25
20
... : ---
. : I :
15
I
. - I --
1
!
i
I
I
... - . ---
. . .
1 t I
.. I
10
'
I I I
40
45
50
55
60 65
CHARGE WEIGHT - LB

Figure 13. Breech Pressure vs Charge Weight
Results for Internal Ballistic Test
46



(_)
w
Vl
-
::0:::
>-
!--
(_)
0
_j
w
>
3250
3000
2750
3500
2250
2000
I .
I
' '
. .
' '
. ' . :
j .
I ...
I . :
' .
l .
i
. -. -- I ,
1 1 1 1
10
BREECH PRESSURE - KPSI
Figure 14. Velocity vs Breech Pressure Results
For Internal Ballistic Test
47
'I ' ' 1 : ; '
I , ' '
I ' ' '
' l ' .
. ' '
: .. ; ; .....
I
, I ,
' I 0
I
' .. ' ' ' ..
I
' .. : : .
. . . .
I I
40



ltJhile obturation during this test v.ras not vie\-Jed as satisfactory
for the final version, the resultant spin rates, given in Table 2, were
within the desired range and obturation performance exhibited in Shot
Number 467 shown in Figure 15 showed good results for a first effort.
Figure 15 shows some gas escaping from the muzzle ahead of the vehicle
as may be expected from this obturation design. In operation some breech
gas will pass by the obturator as it is forced to slide and expand over
the conical ramp of the sabot until it engages with the r1fling and seals.
Examples of photographic results of the other configurations are shown
for Shot Number 472 in Figure 16, Shot Number 476 in Figure 17, and Shot
Number 478 in Figure 18.
In the sabot development tests to come, it was desired to operate
at pressures at least equivalent to the 40 kpsi working pressure of the
XM201 gun tube. The required charge, determined from this test, was
the maximum possible charge weight of 62.01 lbs. of M30Al multiperforated
.085 inch web triple base propellant when used with the split sabot
system and closed tail boom.
As shown in Table 2 the spin rates were fairly constant between
designs. This is not surprising in view of the fact that each design
tested used the same obturator and means of spin isolation, namely
obturator-sabot interface decoupling. These measurements however gave
the required data for sabot-projectile latching design.
3.5 SABOT DESIGN
During launch, a sabot design must; position and structurally
support the projectile, obturate the breech gas, minimize balloting,
transmit acceleration and spin, pass through a muzzle brake (in this
design), and discard from the projectile without disturbance. In this
design then the sabots must properly interact with the three different
environments of the; launch tube, muzzle brake, and free atmosphere
where in each case the nature of the loads change. Additionally, in
a split sabot design, the loads upon the front bore riding sabot are
different from those acting on the obturating rear sabot. The main
48

. ~ -- -:- -- . ~

obturating center sabot of the center sabot configuration is intrinsically
the same in analysis as the obturating rear sabot of the split sabot
configuration. For this reason the approach of this analysis is toward
the more general split sabot configuration as it considers the front
sabot and is applicable to the center sabot configuration.
3.5.1 Front Sabot Loads
During acceleration in the gun tube the front sabot is subjected
to an inertia load directed opposite to the direction of travel and a
centrifugal load directed radially away from the projectile axis. The
.,.inertial load is easily restrained by a front sabot latch \'Jhile the
centrifugal force is opposed by the walls of the gun tube.
It is important that good obturation of the propellant gas behind
the rear sabot be achieved. In the event that imperfect obturation is
experienced, the gun gas pressure on the rear of the front sabot c6uld
tend to dislodge the front sabot in the barrel or muzzle brake. Venti-
lation of the front sabot by drilled holes was considered necessary in
order to prevent the build up of gas pressure between the front and rear
sabots. The drilled holes also lighten the front sabot, reducing the
ration of sabot mass to projectile shot mass.

The distance b e t ~ t e e n the front sabot and rear sabot is approxi-
mately 24 inches in the test slugs and 22.88 inches in the final design.
This is greater than the distance between the gun tube muzzle and the
end of the muzzle brake (15 in.) so the front sabot is clear of the muz-
zle brake before the rear sabot exits the gun tube. Thus, as the front
sabot enters the muzzle brake it is still being accelerated by the
obturated propellant gas and has developed its maximum spin-generated
centrifugal force. Also neglecting the initial gas which passes by the
obturator as it seals, the front sabot is not exposed to any back
pressure of the propellant gas but at this time begins to come under the
influence of an aerodynamic pressure .
53



After the projectile has exited from the muzzle brake, the loads
acting on the front sabot are the same as those given above except that
the load of acceleration is removed and replaced by deceleration due to
the termination of obturation. The centrifugal force and aerodynamic
pressure continue to act on the front sabot. The load on the front sabot
due to the muzzle blast and efflux is not considered here but it is
realized the effect of this load would be to beneficially speed the
separation of the front sabot after muzzle brake exit.
Expressions for the various loads which are assumed to act on the
front sabot while it is in the muzzle brake are as follows:
Fe
=
Mf rf wf2jg
Fa
=
Mf D
2
Fd
v
Af
= l/2 p
The load due to the dynamic pressure is assumed to be equal to
the dynamic pressure times the frontal area of the sabot (as projected on
a plane perpendicular to the projectile axis).
The above loads can be resolved into components normal to and
parallel to the thrust flange(s) of the sabot-projectile interface (the
flange which is shown in Figure 19 to be oriented at an angle to the
projectile axis). The parallel component of the force is oriented out-
wards and therefore tends to cause release of the front sabot.
Where S = a -
2
1/2 pV ;
144
Af sin s
54
J
1

J
1

a

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
9
.

L
o
a
d
s

o
n

F
r
o
n
t

S
a
b
o
t

W
h
i
l
e

i
n

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

Friction exists on the thrust flange of the sabot-projectile inter-
face due to the normal force between the parts. The retention force is
defined as the difference between the friction force which resists release
and the force parallel to the thrust flange which tries to cause release
of the front sabot.
After the projectile is clear of the muzzle brake the load on the
front sabot due to acceleration of the projectile is removed. The
normal and parallel components of the forces are then:
2
sin a - 1/2 pV ;
144
Af sin B
The release force is defined as the difference between the parallel
force and the friction force.
B =
f
For a particular set of operating conditions, a satisfactory design
is one for which Af and Bf are both positive.
3.5.2 Rear Sabot Loads
Figure 20 shows the loads that act on the rear sabot while it is
in the muzzle brake. In addition to the loads due to acceleration of
the projectile and due to centrifugal force, which act on the front sabot,
the rear sabot is exposed to the residual gun gas pressure which exists
while the rear sabot is in the muzzle brake. This pressure tends to
push the rear sabot forward; hence the latching orientation of the rear
sabot-projectile interface or
11
teeth
11
is opposite to that of the front
sabot-projectile interface. The pressure on the front face of the rear
56

....... ;."

M
D

r

r

r

r

r

g

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
0
.

L
o
a
d
s

o
n

R
e
a
r

S
a
b
o
t

W
h
i
l
e

i
n

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

J

8

., sabot due to the impingement of the free stream is neglected in the ana ly-
sis. While the rear sabot is in the muzzle brake, the gun gas pressure is
much greater than the aerodynamic pressure and so it is reasonable to
neglect the latter. After exit from the muzzle brake, the neglect of the
aerodynamic pressure results in a conservative calculation of the release
loads.


It is noted that the complex dynamic nature of the gas flow in the
muzzle brake is not considered in the analysis. A single value of the
pressure acting on the base of the rear sabot is assumed.
The expressions for the loads that are considered to act on the
rear sabot are:
Rc
=
Mrrrw/lg
R
=
Pr
A
p
Ra
=
Mr Dr
As in the case of the front sabot, the above loads are resolved into
components normal to and parallel to the thrust flange(s) of the sabot-
projectile interface.
Again following the approach used for the front sabot, the retention
force is defined as:
58
After the rear sabot is clear of the muzzle brake, the centrifugal
load is the only one that is assumed to act. The normal and parallel
components of this force are:
The release force is defined as:
3.6 EVALUATION OF RETENTION AND RELEASE LOADS FOR THE FRONT AND REAR
SABOTS
The calculation of the retention and release loads for the sabotry
requires a knowledge of the internal ballistic conditions that pertain at
the muzzle. A preliminary internal ballistic trajectory for an assumed
proj ec ti 1 e configuration was determined using the method of Baer-Franke 11.
The assumed conditions were a shot weight of 140 lbm., a charge weight

of 65 lb. of M30 .085 web and a shot start pressure of 0 psi. The appro-
priate chamber volume for the two piece sabot, closed boom configuration
was used. The calculation estimates a maximum breech pressure of 43,171
psi and a muzzle velocity of 3,437 ft/sec. The internal ballistic
parameters required for calculation of the sabot loads are included in
Table 3. Other parameters required for the calculations are also included
in Table 3 .. Parameters which have no set value through the calculations
are defined; however, no values for these parameters appear in the tabu-
lation.
-------------
P.G. Baer and J. M. Frankel, "The Simulation of the Interior
Ballistic Performance of Guns by Digital Computer Program,"
Ballistic Research Laboratories Report No. 1183; December, 1962
59

I


PARAMETER
p
0
v
g
a
N .-
f
p .-
f
~
TABLE 3. PARAMETERS FOR CALCULATION OF RETENTION AND
RELEASE LOADS OF FRONT AND REAR SABOTS
DESCRIPTION
Base Pressure at Muzzle
Acceleration at Muzzle
Muzzle Velocity
Angular Velocity, Front Sabot
C.G. Radius, Front Sabot Segment
Mass of Front Sabot
Acceleration due to Gravity
Density of Air
Frontal Area, Front Sabot
Centrifugal Force, Front Sabot
Acceleration Force, Front Sabot
Dynamic Force, Front Sabot
Front Latch Angle from Horizontal
Front Surface Angle from Horizontal
Normal Force, Front Sabot, in Muzzle
brake
Parallel Force, Front Sabot, in
Muzzle Brake
Normal force, Front Sabot, Free
Flight
Parallel Force, Front Sabot, Free
Flight
Coefficient of Friction, Front
Sabot - Body
Retention Force, Front
60
UNITS
psi
g's
ft/sec
rad/sec
in.
lbn.
1 bm - in.
lb. - sec
2
s1ugs/in.
3
in.
2
lb.
lb.
lb.
degrees
degrees
1 b.
lb.
1 b.
lb.
lb.
VALUE
12 '179.
3,470.
3,437.
3.0
2.7
386.04
.002377
30.6
. 61



PARAfv1ETER
Bf
TABLE 3. PARAMETERS FOR CALCULATION OF RETNETION AND
RELEASE LOADS OF FRONT AND REAR SABOTS
(CONT'D)
DESCRIPTION
Release Force, Front Sabot
Angular Velocity, Rear Velocity
C.G. Radius, Rear Sabot Segment
Mass of Rear Sabot
Acceleration, Rear Sabot in Muzzle
Brake
Area of Rear of Rear Sabot
Pressure, Rear Sabot in Muzzle Brake
Centrifugal Force, Rear Sabot
Base Pressure Force, Rear Sabot
Acceleration Force, Rear Sabot
Rear Latch Angle from Horizontal
UN'ITS
lb.
rad/sec
in.
lbm.
9 IS
in
2
psi
lb .
lb.
1 b.
1
degrees
Nr Normal Force, Rear Sabot in Muzzle
N
r
p ~
r
brake
Parallel Force, Rear Sabot in Muzzle
brake
Normal Force, Rear Sabot, Free Flight
Parallel Force, Rear Sabot, Free
Flight
~ Coefficient of Friction, Rear Sabot -
r
w
Body
Retention Force, Rear Sabot
Release Force, Rear Sabot
Gun Bore Radius
Shot Weight
61
lb.
1 b.
1 b.
1 b.
1 b.
1 b.
in.
lbm.
VALUE
2.8
7.7
359
30.6
1000
.61
.4
140.
The values of several of the parameters listed in Table 3 require


discussion. The values of the coefficients of friction bet\-1een the
sabots (front and rear) and the body of the projectile have been assigned
assuming an interface of aluminum on steel. According to Marks and
Baumister
2
a value of .61 is appropriate for the coefficient of static
friction between unlubricated aluminum and steel. The pressure which
is maintained behind the rear sabot up until it exits the_muzzle brake
is not well known. A value of 1,000 psi, which is believed to be
conservative, is therefore assigned to this parameter. The acceleration
of the projectile at this time is determined from:
As this projectile is to be a low spin rate the calcu-
lations of the retention and release forces for the sabots has been made
assuming partial spin up. The full spin rate for a muzzle velocity of
3,437 ft/sec. for a rifling twist of 1 in. 20 is 1,620 rad/sec. (258 rps).
Figures 21 and 22 are plots of the retention and release loads for
the front sabot. In each of the graphs, the loads are plotted versus the
latch angle of the interface betvJeen the front sabot and the boyd. For
Figure 21, the front face of the front sabot has been taken to be
perpendicular to the projectile axis. For Figure 22, the front face of
the front sabot has been taken to be inclined at 60 to the projectile
axis. Figure 23 is a plot of the retention and release loads for the
rear sabot. The loads are plotted versus the latch angle of the rear
sabot - body interface
2 L. S. Marks and T. Baumi s ter, "Standard Handbook for Mechanic a 1
Engineers," Seventh Edition, McGra\'l Hill; 1967
62

--..

(Y)
0
X
..Cl
Vl
'"0
ro
0
__J

Figure 21:
Retention and Release Loads I
l
r-------- ------------ ---------- ----t- for Front Sabot vs Latch Ang1 e -
for Two Spin Rates = 90)
L--- -- --------+----+-- -- ------ ----------- ..
I -Retention Load
i
l ---Re Tease Load
[ _____
16
14
12
, I

10
8
/
L ..... rSpin Rate= 20 rps
I
6
4

i
l ___ --------------- --------------------------- ----+- ------ ----''1------;
Rate = 50 rps
- ...... - ----- ...... ----------+----+
2
----
-
-
---+-----+-----t----4---l------.,.,..- ... ----: ... :::-:-__ --:__ ----f---t
-r---
2
4
- -f-- - - -f- -
-1- - -t- .

--r----
1---- --:--
J Spin Jate = rps
'--------- --------'-----J.-------------..J.-----ll.-__ .__ __ ..__ _ ___.
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Latch Angle, rp (degrees) hl

14
12

..-..
(Y)
0
10
X
..0
Ul
8
-o
Ill
0
_J
6
4
2
2

I
I
I
I
I I
t------f-- ! Fjgure 22.
Retention
and Release Loads
for Front Sabot vs
Latch Angle
for Two SpinRRates
(a = 60)
--Retention Load
- ---- -----+--t----- I I
---Release Load
t----4------ -----1---+----t-------- ------- ------+---t
;--------- ..... . ... ________ -------- ----------- .... ........ ..

........ , ... ,._, ---t

-- ---... .. - - - ...... _______
I
r--------- Rate = 20

r----1 --- -- -------+---+----- r--
I
1-----+------+--'
1
I
I
I
-
--- - ,-
.......... --+---- ----- .... --- ----- -:::=-:::---r-------
--- -r-----
--- 1=Spi:-R--at-e-+-=-2_0_r_p-is
f- - - '- ------ --- l l J
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Latch Angle, (degrees)

26
24
22
---Release Load
20
18
16
r--
14
""

0
..-
X
12
..r.::l
..-
..._,.
til
-o
<'0
10
0
....J
Spin Rate = 50 rps
8
6
4
2
't .... . . - -- ----- -------- ~ ~ . - ~ ~ - ~ - . -i ---
---- r---1\-
1 -----
-
---
-- - .:. :- ;;;..,....... . ---- ----- ------! \
.... r Spin Rate = 20 rps
- --- ---- ---- ----- ------ j- --------
- r- - -r- - - t-- - -r- - -r- - -
r--- -- -

60 65 70 75 80 85
90 95
100 105
Latch Angle, ~ (degrees)
From Figure 21, it can be seen that for the case of a perpendicular


front face the release loads for the front sabot are low for all angles
of the latch, even for angles above 90. In fact, for a spin rate of 20
rps, the release load is in all cases negative. In order to achieve
positive values of the release loads for a spin rate of 20 rps, it is
necessary to do either of two things:
a) reduce the coefficinet of friction on the front sabot-projectile
interface.
b) utilize a portion of the aerodynamic load for separation (i.e.
incline the front face of the front sabot).
The values of the loads on the front and rear sabots due to
centrifugal force, acceleration and dynamic and gun gas pressure are
shown in Table 4 for the t'.'Jo cases of spin rate considered .
From Table 4, it can be seen that the value of the aerodynamic force
on the front sabot is higher than that of the centrifugal force, particu-
larly so for the lower spin rate case. This causes the normal force on
the front sabot-projectile interface to be high. Correspondingly, the
resistance to separation due to friction is also high. Reduction of the
coefficient of friction between the front sabot and projectile body could
alleviate this.
In Figure 22, the effect of inclining the front face of the front
sabot at an angle of 60 from the projectile axis is considered. It can
be seen that the values of the release loads are increased over those
calculated for the case of a perpendicular front face. The values of the
retention loads are reduced somewhat also. Based on the results presented
in Figure 22, it is considered that a good starting point for the design
of the front sabot would be with an unl ubricated interface between the
front sabot and body, a latch angle between 90 and 100 and an angle of
inclination of the front face of 60 .
66
LOAD
PARAt1ETER
Fe
Fa
Fd

R
c
R
p
R
a

TABLE 4. VALUES OF LOADS ACTING ON FRONT AND
REAR SABOTS FOR THO SPIN RATES
LOAD - ( l bs . )
(Spin Rate = 50 rps) Spin Rate = 20 rps
2,069. 333.
ll '799. ll '799.
2,983. 2,983.
5,506 887.
30,600. 30,600.
2,764.
2 '764.'
67



In Figure 23, it can be seen that both the retention arid release
loads for the rear sabot are positive for all latch angles between 60
and 105. For latch angles of greater than 90, however, there is no
increase in the release force although the retention force continues to
decrease. This is due to the fact that the normal force on the latch
(after exit from the muzzle brake) is zero for latch angles of 90 and
greater. For this reason it is not considered appropriate to utilize a
latch angle for the rear sabot of greater than 90. From-the results
shown in Figure 23, it is considered that a good starting point in the
design of the rear sabot latch would.be with an unlubricated interface
and a latch angle of between 70 and 80.
Due to the uncertainty in the va 1 ues of some of the parameters
that were used in the analysis and due to the simplifying assumptions
that were made, it is to be emphasized that the above are simply
starting points in what was an iterative sequence of firing trials and
design improvements .
3.7 PROTOTYPE SABOT TESTS
With the establishment of the sabot prototype design, testing began
to determine their performance and verify the designs. The test procedure
of the sabot structure and discard performance was based upon a principle
of isolation. That is, tests were planned to focus upon one advancement
at a time toward verifying the design of the sabot system.
The test plan was to develop the front sabot and rear sabot designs
independently from each other by the use of non-discarding sabots. These
tests were to be done without a muzzle brake.
Later each sabot was introduced to the muzzle brake independently
from each other and then finally combined. For use in these tests a
dummy muzzle brake was designed to avoid any unnecessary damage to the
Army supplied muzzle brake (Dwg. No. HTV-F26323) .
68



The dummy muzzle brake was designed to duplicate the internal
contour of the Watervliet muzzle brake which must be avoided by the
discarding sabot petals. The dummy muzzle brake is shown in Figure 24.
The first sabot test explored the capability of the front sabot.
The test was conducted utilizing a test slug fitted with a non-discarding
rear sabot collar and a discarding front sabot assembly. The front
sabot (see Dwg. C2411g of Appendix A) had a latch angle of goo and a
front face inclination of 60. The bore riding surface was gilding metal
swaged onto .the sabot and segmented to coincide with the splits in the
sabot. To retain the sabot on the vehicle during handling and loading,
a narrow polypropylene ring is sweated onto the sabot. The total weight
of the front sabot for test slug use was 4.26 lbs. Photographic data
of this test showed the front sabot petals to separate from the test slug.
The test results are given in Table 5.
The rear sabot tests utilized a test slug assembly with a non-
discarding front bore rider and discarding rear sabots. Again, a
self-engraving slip obturator was used rather than a pre-engraved driving
band. A total of five test slugs were fired encompassing four iterations
in the rear sabot design as shown in Figures 25 and 26. The final con-
figuration is sketched in Figure 26A and pertinent test results are
included in Table 5.
This rear sabot design composed of four segmented petals had a
goo latch angle to its grooves. It made use of an inclined forward face
to increase aerodynamic loads for separation. Obturation was accomplished
with a high density polypropylene secondary obturator weakened by eight
sa\v cuts. The driving band was high density polypropylene engravable
slip obturator.
The next test series investigated the sabotry discard characteris-
tics within the region of the muzzle brake. The dummy muzzle brake was
used during these tests for the three test slug configurations. These
69


Figure 24- Dummy ~ ~ u z z l e Brake

70


Figure 25A. Sabot Design used in Shots 486 and 487.
The sabot has 15 latching teeth and the
secondary obturator is 1atched to the
sabot .
Figure 258. Sabot Design used in Shot 489.
The sabot has 15 1atching teeth and a
forward airdam. The secondary obturator
is 7atched to the sabot and was weakened
by four cuts.
71
J
e ::: 80



Figure 26A. Sabot Design used in Shot 491.
The sabot has 13 latching teeth and a
forward airdam. The secondary obturation
is secured to the projectile and weakened
by eight cuts .
Figure 26B. Sabot Design used in Shot 492.
The sabot has 13 latching teeth and a
forward airdam. The secondary obturation
is latched to the projectile and is weakened
by eight cuts. This design shows a block
included under the secondary obturator to
help fracture the secondary obturator .
72
f
J
e = 90
-
....!

w

i I

T
A
B
L
E

5
.

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T
S

U
S
I
N
G

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G
S

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

B
R
E
E
C
H
1

M
U
Z
Z
L
E
2

S
P
I
N

S
H
O
T

D
A
T
E

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y

R
A
T
E

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

N
O
.

v
1
t

(
k
p
s
i
)

(
f
p
s
)

(
r
p
s
)

(
1
b
s
)

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T

W
I
T
H
O
U
T

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

B
R
A
K
E

4
8
3

8
/
7
7

1
A

1
3
7
.

1
3

3
4
.
2

3
1
1
4

1
9

F
r
o
n
t

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

4
8
3

8
/
7
7

6
A

1
3
7
.

1
3

3
4
.
3

3
1
3
3

2
2

F
r
o
n
t

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T

W
I
T
H
O
U
T

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

B
R
A
K
E

4
8
6

1
0
/
7
7

D
6

1
3
6
.
4
4

3
1
.
4

-
-
N
o

R
e
s
u

1
t
s

4
8
7

1
0
/
7
7

D
8

1
3
6
.
3
8

2
9
.
6

2
9
6
5

-
N
o

R
e
a
r

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

4
8
9

1
0
/
7
7

C
5

1
3
6
.
0

3
3
.
7

3
0
9
8

-
N
o

R
e
a
r

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

4
9
1

1
1
/
7
7

D
2

1
3
5
.
1
9

3
2
.
5

3
0
8
3

-
R
e
a
r

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

4
9
2

1
1
/
7
7

D
3

1
3
6
.
0

3
3
.
5

3
0
7
7

-
R
e
a
r

S
a
b
o
t

D
i
s
c
a
r
d

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T

H
I
T
H

D
U
M
M
Y

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

B
R
A
K
E

4
9
4

1
2
/
7
7

A
4

1
3
6
.
8
7

3
4
.
7

3
0
4
7

-
L
o
s
s
'
o
f

O
b
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

4
9
7

-
-
1
/
7
8

A
8

1
3
7
.
2
5

3
6
.
8

3
1
7
4

-
N
o

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

' I
R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T

W
I
T
H

D
U
M
M
Y

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

B
R
A
K
E

5
0
0

2
/
7
8

4

1
3
6
.
0

3
5
.
9

3
0
1
4

-
N
o

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

5
0
1

2
/
7
8

6

1
3
6
.
0

3
3
.
7

3
0
7
0

-
N
o

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
N
T

&
R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

D
I
S
C
A
R
D

T
E
S
T

W
I
T
H

D
U
M
M
Y

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

B
R
A
K
E

5
0
3

2
/
7
8

!

7

1
3
5
.
2
5

3
8
.
1

3
2
0
8

-
N
o

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

5
0
4

2
/
7
8

i

8

1
3
5
.
2
5

3
6
.
9

3
2
1
7

-
N
o

M
u
z
z
l
e

B
r
a
k
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

-
-
-
-

1

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

b
y

T
h
r
e
e

M
-
1
1

G
a
g
e
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
l
e

R
a
m
:

5
1

i
n
c
h
e
s

_

2

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

b
y

S
m
e
a
r

C
a
m
e
r
a

F
i
l
m
s

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
i
n
g

C
h
a
r
g
e
:

6
2
.
0

l
b
s
.

M
3
0
A
l

.
0
8
5

i
n
c
h

L
o
t

K
A
U

7
/
7
6




configurations listed in the order of testing, utilized a discarding
front sabot only, then a discarding rear sabot only, and finally in the
last tests of this series, combined front and rear discarding sabots.
The tests were satisfactory in each category even though poor
obturation was seen in most tests. The tabulated data is shown in
Table 5. Figures 27 through 29 shm'l sample smear camera results for
the front sabot discard, rear sabot discard, and front and rear sabot
discard, respectively. The three smear cameras in each figure were
located 15, 30, and 50 feet down range from the muzzle. The extent of
the obturation can be noted from the first smear camera at the top of
each figure .
74



: : : : ' ' : : : : : . ~ v .
....... !'-...<ri; Front .Sabot Dlsca
or -cne
497
75



2 8 ~ Pho-:::graphs
R e a ~ Sabot 501
76



Cauera
scard
7
ront and Rear Sabots 504
77



4.0 TEST VEHICLE CONFIGURATION
Upon the successful conclusion of the initial sabot design tests
the next operation. in this development project was the design of an
efficient extended range cargo carrying projectile and the incorporation
of the sabot design therein. Necessarily, then, decisions were made
to give direction to the impetus of the work to be done, particularly
with regard to the sabot configuration and the method of obturation.
Of the three basic sabot configurations (base pusher sabot,
center sabot, and split sabot) the split sabot system was felt to offer
more to the primary goal of an extended range vehicle. The base
pusher sabot as pointed out earlier was clearly too heavy and thus was
eliminated as an option. The additional weight of this design restricts
the maximum muzzle velocity of the round by the muzzle momentum limit
of the gun recoil system to lower values .
The center sabot configuration, using fin attached bore-riders
has the lightest total sabot weight of the three configurations. This
design, however, requires a larger diameter body with a thicker wall
not only to accommodate the sabot latching grooves and resulting stress
concentrations but also to give strength while under the influence of
the rearward high breech pressure. The center sabot configuration, in
comparison to the split sabot configuration gives a l o ~ r sabot mass
but higher shot mass and hence lower muzzle velocities. This configura-
tion also results in a shorter in-bore travel reducing the momentum
transfer of the expanding propellant gas to the projectile.
With respect to balloting, the split sabot system is better for
two reasons. First it has a greater wheel base for better in-bore
alignment and second its wheelbase brackets the projectile
1
S center of
gravity promoting better in-bore projectile stability without in-bore
support by the fins. In the center sabot configuration-where both
support points are located behind the projectile
1
S center of gravity
the balloting loads are supported by the fins requiring them to be
stronger and hence heavier, having an adverse effect on projectile
78



total drag and center of gravity location. Thus the selected design
approach was the split sabot system.
It was also deduced that the engravable sliding obturator as
used in the test slug design presented greater benefits than the pre-
engraved obturator. The concern in the use of the pre-engraved
obturator was the additional handling of the round required during
ramming to interface the gun tube rifling with the obturator engraving.
The sliding self-engraving obturator on the other hand eliminates this
additional complexity because it does not interfere with the rifling
and is simply slid into place.
It was then decided that the extended range vehicle concept would make
use of a split sabot system with a self-engraving obturator.
Several design iterations were made where the intentions of
each design was to increase the maximum range capability by reducing
the total shot weight and place the center of gravity generally far
forward to maintain a good margin of stability. The design developed
here represents a successful balance between the choice of shot \IJeight,
center of gravity and margin of stability.
4.1 PROPOSED PROJECTILE DESIGN DESCRIPTION
The design of this extended range subcaliber fin-stabilized
cargo shell is shown in the sketch of Figure 30. This shell is designed
to carry a payload similar to the 155mm M483Al projectile already
developed and in operation. The principal feature of this extended
range design other than the use of sabots is the use of an ultra-high
strength 4140 steel body having a thin skin and permitting a small body
diameter of only 5.478 inches (139mm). This not only reduces the
weight of the vehicle but gives the minimum projected frontal area of
the shell possible for lower drag .
79

P
A
R
T
S

L
l

S
T

I
.

F
I
N
S

6
.

S
P
A
C
E
R
,

B
O
D
Y

2
.

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

C
A
R
R
I
E
R

7
.

P
A
Y
L
O
A
D

3
.

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

4
.

B
O
D
Y

5
.

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

g
g

t

7
.

9
0

t

8
.

P
U
S
H
E
R

P
L
A
T
E

9
.

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

C
A
R
R
I
E
R

I

0
.

F
U
Z
E

W
/
E
X
P
U
L
S

I
O
N

C
H
A
R
G
E

I
I
.

W
I
N
D
S
H
I
E
L
D

5
7
.
4
2

5
.

0
5
3

I
.

D
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

3
0
.

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

8
-
i
n
c
h

S
u
b
c
a
l
i
b
e
r

F
i
n

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d

E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d

R
a
n
g
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
n

w
i
t
h

S
u
b
m
u
n
i
t
i
o
n

P
a
y
l
o
a
d

The design of the cargo shell is divided into four major
functional sections. These are;
1) The aft section comprised of the fins, a tail boom, a rear
sabot carrier and a body spacer. The rear sabot carrier is
that part of the aft section which is grooved to interface
with the rear sabot petals.
2) The body section which includes not only the thin-skin
body but all payload components and ejection plate.
3) The forebody section having as its components; the front
sabot carrier, the fuze and expulsion charge, and the
windshield. The front sabot carrier is grooved to accept
the front sabot, petals, and it also accepts the fuze and
expulsion charge, and provides the expansion cavity for the
expulsion charge .
4) Sabots including front and rear which are broken down as
follows:
a. The rear sabot is comprised of the sabot petals, a pres-
sure barrier or secondary obturator, and a main obturator.
b. The front sabot which includes the sabot petals, a bore
riding surface, and a retaining ring.
The aft section utilizes a 6061 aluminum welded fin assembly with
six fins having a root chord length of 9.0 inches and a tip chord length
of 4.5 inches. The fins have a 0.5 degree angle of cant to vehicle axis
to retain projectile spin and minimize fin drag upon launch. The fins
have a total diametral span of 7.90 inches. The fins are welded to a
6061 aluminum truncated conical fin boom having a 5.19 degree taper which
is threaded for mating to the rear sabot carrier .
81



The 7075-T6 Aluminum rear sabot carrier is located just forward
of the fin weldment and has thirteen grooves which latch the rear
sabot petals. Because of the high bearing loads upon launch a hardened
4140 steel (HRC 48 minimum) bearing washer or body spacer is threaded
onto the rear sabot c r r ~ e r as an interface to the thin body. This
body spacer distributes the high loads of the forward supported members
during launch over a larger area of the rear sabot carrier to give a
much more sound foundation. With this body spacer the launch load at
50 kpsi breech pressure is 93.5 kpsi on the rear sabot carrier.
The body, which starts at 18.0 inches from the base, is made
of 4140 hardened steel (HRC 56) and tapers on the outside from 5.478
inches (139mm) to 5.346 inches over a length of 21.67 inches. The body
provides a cylindrical payload cavity having a diameter of 5.053 inches
and a length of 19.67 inches. The 0.17 degree taper of the body
exterior was implemented to reduce the weight of the body and to produce
a constant stress design during launch. This body design however does
not have the longitudinal groove as on the M483 body because of the low
launch spin. An ejection plate is located in the front of the payload
section for payload expulsion.
Threaded to the front of the body is the front sabot carrier
which is made from 1018 mild steel. The front sabot carrier provides
the latching groove of the front sabot. It also receives the fuze and
expulsion charge and forms the expansion cavity for the expulsion charge.
Upon assembling the fuze to the front sabot carrier a mild steel
(1018) windshield is threaded onto the front sabot carrier covering the
fuze. The windshield completes the aerodynamic shape and provides
ballast for proper center of gravity placement.
The aerodynamic shape of the nose is a 3/4 power curve extending
over the entire length (17.75 inches) of the windshield and front sabot
82


The rear sabot is segmented into four 7075-T6 sabot
petals located 13.79 inches from the base and latched to the rear
sabot carrier with thirteen parallel buttress teeth. A weakened
polypropylene pressure barrier or secondary obturator is sweated
about the sabot petals. Over this a polypropylene slip driving band
is sweated into place for obturation of the breech gas.
The front sabot is likewise constructed of four hardcoat anno-
dized 7075-T6 Aluminum sabot petals held in place by a thin narrow
polypropylene retaining ring during handling. The front sabots are
latched by a groove in the front sabot located 41.67 inches
from the base. Each front sabot petal has five 5/16 inch holes
drilled through it to lighten its weight and prevent gas pressure
build up between the front and rear sabots.
The capabilities of this design have been demonstrated in tests
of representative vehicles. It is upon these tests that the represen-
tation of this vehicle design capabilities are made.
4.2 8-INCH SUBCALIBER CARGO SHELL TEST VEHICLE DESIGN
A test vehicle was designed to perform in a similar manner as
the proposed design in both the internal and external ballistic domains.
The design of this test vehicle shown is in the schematic drawing of
Figure 31 and the photograph of Figure 32. The particular ways in
which this test vehicle models the proposed vehicle are discussed
bel ov1.
This test vehicle represents the proposed vehicle design by
making use of many of the actual components intended for use in the
proposed vehicle. Those components which have been designed to model
components of the proposed vehicle are the test vehicle body and
payload. All other components are accurately represented by the des-
cription given in the previous sections dealing with the proposed design .
83
c
o

+
:
>

.
R
T
S

L
I
S
T

I
.

F
I
N
S

2
.

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

C
A
R
R
I
E
R

3
.

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

4
.

B
O
D
Y

5
.

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

6
.

W
I
N

D

S

H
I
E

L
D

,
_

l

7
.

9
0

+

7
.

S
P
A
C
E
R

B
O
D
Y

8
.

D
U
M
M
Y

P
A
Y
L
O
A
D

9
.

P
A
Y
L
O
A
D

B
A
L
L
A
S
T

.
I

0
.

H
E
X

H
D

B
O
L
T

I

I
.

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

C
A
R
R
I
E
R

1
2
.

I
N
E
R
T

F
U
Z
E

5
7
.
4
2

F
i
g
u
r
e

3
1
.

8
-
i
n
c
h

S
u
b
c
a
l
i
b
e
r

F
i
n

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d

T
e
s
t

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

7
.

M



Figure 32. Photograph of 8-inch Test Vehicle
used in Design Development Testing
85



The test vehicle makes of a lower strength 4140
steel body which by its increased weight over the thin body of the
proposed vehicle is made to simulate the weight of a fraction of the
payload. A dummy payload assembly is also included in the test
vehicle which represents the weight of the remaining fraction of the
payload and adjusts the center of gravity. These components repre-
sent the major differences between the two designs.
As shown in Figure 31, the test vehicle body has several
i nterna 1 tapers. This has been done to prevent the body wa 11 from
exceeding the weight and center of gravity requirements of the body
and payload components of the proposed vehicle design. The specific
tapers shown produce a fairly uniformly stressed body wall under the
acceleration of the breech gases. This principle applied as
in the case of the proposed vehicle design, prevents the over loading
at the base of the body wall, makes efficient use of the components
material and effectively demonstrates this principle to be used in
the proposed vehicle design .
In the proposed vehicles body design, constant stress over the
length of the body is achieved by the external taper, while its
internal payload cavity must be straight to allow payload ejection.
The test vehicle on the other hand has the same external taper for
reasons of modeling but makes use of additional internal tapers to
present a constant stress design.
The aft section including the rear sabot is similar. Two minor
differences exist here however. First, the test vehicle uses a hard-
ened steel body spacer, as the proposed vehicle, but in the test
vehicle this body spacer is threaded to the body, where in the proposed
vehicle it would be press fitted to the thin body and pinned in place.
Second, because of the thicker and heavier body wall of the test vehicle
its body spacer must distribute a larger load upon launch and thus has
a larger bearing area. The body spacer of the test vehicle is threaded
to the rear sabot carrier with a 3.5 inch diameter thread rather than
the 4.25 inch diameter thread of the proposed vehicle.
86


The nose assembly is the same as intended for the proposed
vehicle including the front sabot and is described by the description
of the proposed vehicle components presented earlier.
The mass properties of the test vehicle are shown in Table 6.
In this table the nominal weights of the components are given as
calculated along with the pertinent nominal flight and shot properties.
4.3 FINITE ELEMENT STRESS ANALYSIS
The stresses in the test vehicle were investigated with the use
of a computer aided finite element stress analysis .. In this analysis
the loading parameters as given in Table 7 were placed upon the finite
element grid of Figure 33.
To keep the size of the stiffness matrix with the bounds of the
program, the fins, rear sabot of payload assembly, front sabot, wind-
shield, and fuze were all modeled simply as masses mathematically
attached to the appropriate element nodes. That is, although the
internal stresses of these components were not calculated the inertial
effects of these components on the main frame of the test vehicle were
not neglected. These components are therefore listed in Table 7 as
inertial loads supported by the test vehicle structure.
In this analysis, the test vehicle design was evaluated with a
breech pressure of 50,358 psi. The test vehicle was evaluated to an
overpressure of more than 10 kpsi to reveal the most extreme loads
that this design would be exposed to in the event of a mishap in the
chamber of the gun during launch .
87


TABLE 6. 8''-155MM CARGO SHELL COMPONENT SUMMARY
COMPONENT
Fuze
Front Sabot Carrier and Windshield
Body
Dummy Payload
Body Spacer
Rear Sabot Carrier
Fin Boom
Fins (Est.)
Flight Properties
ght ( 1 bs)
C.G. in from base
Ixx about C.G. (lb-in
2
)
Iyy about C.G. {1b-in2)
Shot Properties
Sabot Weight
Shot
88
( 1 bs)
1. 7408
31.390
50.565
14.080
3.271
11.844
7.0274
3. 2286 .
123.15
29.694
499.842
21930
13.292
136.44


TABLE 7. FINITE ELH1ENT ANALYSIS LOADING CONDIT!Of6
FOR THE 8 INCH-155MM CARGO SHELL MOD-4
Total Shell Wt. (lbs.)
Breech Pressure (psi)
Base Pressure (psi)
(from LeDucs equation)
Acceleration (g)
89
136.58
50,358
41,359
15,287

u
0
. i '
u
u
u


I
......
DRAW 1 t\JG
C'RS f 0,
<::T
4--o
0 0
::z
.-
l!l 0
>,01
.--S-
rtl f1J
cu
.:J::
E
+-'E
c
<lJ 1..()
El.()
(1).--
.-- I
w ..c
u
<lJ c
+-' .-
COJ
Ll...(l)
..c
+-'
(Y')
(Y')
ClJ
S-
::::::1
Ol
Ll...
F)lj)Q(l
-(l
(
,.
r---- .------ r----- r---
QQ ?f. Q:) b? :J:
1 1
;; l'(l JG.
i SbXC'l

(
,----
l0 ? 1 en h
+
u
+
-i'
u
:::rt.
nf-1-

rtr"'
rf;
"E rr '
., J
., .....
:::t

-:r.

.r
:
,,.
t
...
u ...
rt' r J
:t
...

. ,..
r' rt'
I
' '\
u
( )
I ;.1

(_J
C)


"
CJ
u
,,c

c.n
rr.
nr.
.....

r
n:u
-u
-
:'J
,;;!!'itlp
f.... .
u

u

...... ; : ... .::

r 1 1
rr, . ., .

... n:
+1-t"'
r'r
<ll;'\1t"'
C) ( .......... "':'"
!t1T'
u


r,:
,, 1'
r-rp..l
',,...

"''
r\trt-4
4 ...,_....
'7nn-r ....
LJ

r:


(J
'ffi
I,,
r--
n "
ag
:-1.\.< u
u
M'tl
(_)



A breech pressure (Pb) of50,358 psi exerts a pressure on the
base (Pbase) of the accelerating projectile of 41,359 psi as determined
by Leducs formula given as;
pbreech
cw
2 ~
s
where Cw is the charge weight and Ws is the shot weight of the vehicle.
The accleration (a) is determined to be 15,287 gs by Newtons Law;
a =
Figure 34 shows the plot of the maximum equivalent stress in
the cross section of the shell versus its axial location. The largest
component of the equivalent stress is the axial stress, a direct result
of the acceleration, shown in Figure 35. Other components are the
radial, tangential and shear stresses similarly plotted in Figures 36,
37 and 38 respectively. The highest equivalent stress of 226,000 psi
as shown in Figure 34 has an axial location of 17.9 inches placing that
stress within the body spacer at the body interface.
Figures 39 to 44 show enlarged views of sections of the shell
with the equivalent stress contours plotted. From these figures it is
evident that the highest stresses occur at the rear sabot carrier-body
interface shown in Figure 41. As a note to the reader the body is made
of 4140 steel heat treated to a yield strength of 140 kpsi and an
ultimate strength of 156 kpsi. The body spacer is also of 4140 steel
heat treated to a hardness of 48 to 50 Rockwell C with a yield strength
of 220,000 psi and an ultimate strength of 257,000 psi. The rear sabot
carrier is machined from 7075-T6 Aluminum with a yield strength of 73
kpsi and an ultimate strength of 83 kpsi.
Although the stresses on the shoulder of the rear sabot carrier
are high, the loading upon these elements are nearly hydrostatic and
91

,_,
.
0
::i'
N
.
0
.
0
co
(f)
n_O



l-N

t-
z
w
_ _j
a:
>.
,_,o

0
Lu
.
0
CD
.
0
0)
0.0
-..J-- - '-J.lJ't .l....J.._)JJ;I '-llJ,UU '-!JJL.L-L- JJUlJ .;.
8.0
MAR. 30 1979
DRAWl NG F24760
CASE NEL 34-0
j
!II'
16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0


i
I

.
D
.
0
(Y)
1
.
0
CD
J
.
,_,o
lf)OJ
(Ll
~
.
(J")o
(J")N
w,_.,
~ ]
1-
lf)
_J
a:: .
,_,_,o
.xLD
cr..-.
. 1
.
0
co
..-;
I
.
0
.-.
(\J
J
.
D
::r
N
I
0.0 8.0
... _ _., . ...,.._....._, ~ '-''''"'__,_ ---- -.-- ...
M A R ~ 30 E179
DRAWl NG f24760
CASE NeL 34-0
16.0 24.0 32.0
n Y r CJ, ' n r ' n 1\' c <
40.0
48. r



.
0
CD
.
0
.:::t'
.
0
N

(,f)
o_:O

(.f),
t0o
WN

(,f)
__j
a:
,.._, .
oo
a:.:::t'
ocl
.
0
CD
1
.
0
co
.. 1
.
0
0
n.n
::!"'' '- vv U l !'l-J..J.;_)Jlrl ..JJ ll.LL J IUU, '"1
30 1979 .
ORAWJNG f24760
CASE NtL 34-0
s.n 16.0 24.0
,,..... \I ,.
,- ,,
L! [1. [)
48.



.
0
N
-___,
.
0
m
.
0
(D
([)
Q_,
~ c
(Y)
I
([)
(f)
w
~
~
mo
_ _j
a:
,...:.-,
~
z.
we
c..:JM
zl
IT
1-
.
0
(D
J
.
0
m
J
.
0
N
.--,
I
o.n
:J ........ _. _.. 4....-J .J. J ~ .! .._;..._;J Jl I. VJ JJ"-.UU VJ JLL-l- l IULJ '
r:L o
M A R ~ 30 1979
DRAWING F24760
CASE NtL 34-0
16.0 24.0 32.0 LJO.O

~

.
0
.::t'
.
0
N
0
,__,o
UJN
(LI
~
lf)
.
cno
w.:::t'
DLI
!--
lf)
OL
a::
w.
ro
cnw
I
.
c
co
I
.
0
0
.... ..,
1
.
0
(\.]
~
I
r
n.n R.n
~ 1 R R . 30 ~ '379
. fJRRW J NG
CASE NO .
1G.o 24.n l2.n
:. .. :--/ :-::1 ' 'W::. ; ( ~ 96
40.0 4f



Ff.B. 2G
nRRWINC
CRSf NO.
c QJ
G S-
:::l
.;..J V1
u V1
QJ QJ
(/)$...
c...
o...r:
u
QJ
QJ
ln !-
c.ro

V1
V1 D..
$...-'-.:
:::l
0<::!"
.;..J
cc.
0 L.'l
u
(/)
t11E
CJ 0
$... $...
.;..J 4-
l/)
01
.;..JC

QJ.;..J
ru :::l
> (/)
r- QJ
:::l s...
c;
w
.,....
w...
19}9
F2l1'7GO
3Ll -(l
lJl} . s

lJ(I ::.
. ' t.
'-
'
.J L t .! U! 'I
0
---
LIU. ;:-:
97
LJ";
..
0 0
Ln
I
o:- en
. r-
uu. l
u
N
1
()(} L)
0
0
CD
0
0
0
c
c
c
Ln
c
c
(Y)
0
c
0
0
c
c
c
,
,
.
.
.
.

c

c

c

L
r
:

c

c

v

.
.
_
...
;
-
-
-
-

-
-
1

-
!
.
.
.
-
(
1

:

Q
/

c

r
-

I

I

c
o

r
-

..._
_
.
c

2
0

2
0

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0
.

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

S
t
r
e
s
s

C
o
n
t
o
u
r
s

(
k
p
s
i
)

o
f

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

a

5
0
.
4

k
p
s
i

B
r
e
e
c
h

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

3
0

4
0

j

c
:
1

3
0


:
...;


:..:.o

.
"
:
"
'

5
0

6
0

7
0

:
!
8
d

2
:
:

\

9
0

8
0

7
0

6
0

5
0

5
0

6
0

7
0

8
0

8
0

7
0

.
c
c

:
2
:
:

:
:
3
"
2

3
.
0
0

9
.
0
0

}
0
.
0
0

1

}

J

.

0
0

1

J
2
.
0
0

Z

R
>
<
l
S

I

I

J
L
!
.
O
O

1

i
S

o
n

.
.

L
;

n
0

T
J
C

:
D

7
0

:
r
l
'
"

U
)
:
D
O
J
:
.
.
;

!
'
l

.
L
:

'

1
-
i

u
J

.
,
c
.
:
:

"
T
]

8

!
\
.
.
:

.......:,
C
)

8

C
D

.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
r

,
,
.
.
.
.

u
.
J

/

r

'

r

'
-

;
:

;
-
I

-
c

-'
-
.
.
;

r

'-
-
"
"

j
\




u .t! -.-- l L!lf"l;U !"lUI JLl
FEB. 2G 1
fJRRW I NG F2LUGO
CASE NO. 3L1 -C1
M
c (J)
0
,_
;::)
-+-' Vl
u Vl
(J) (J)
V1
,_
n..
4--
0.>::::
u
..-.. (J)
r- (J)
Vl
,_
o.cc


Vl
Vl
o_
1-.:L
;::)
O<:t'
-+-'
co
0 L'J
u
rtl
Vl
Vl E
(J)
0
5-
-+-' 4--
V1
cr:
-+-' c
C.--
GJ+->
rtl ;::)
> Vl
.-- (J)
;::)
,_
G'
LJ_J
r-
<::j-
(J)
s..
:::l
en
.,...
LJ_
lH1. Q

0
N
L()
0
N
0
M
0
'' ll
U

LJ'
u ...
0
; ...
Ul
,_,
(.J
ll)
r:..J
w
Lr
rf'-
'' lJ'
0
CJJ
. ,--------- r
,,
!I
LJ
c.
--
c.
'-.
,,
'
'-
L
"' (.J
tJ
"
,,,
u:
[H)'?
I I I l-i (1 'I(L
00
0

0
,')
--- .. ()
tr:- c-<-
('\,J ....
.\
uu. l
""

: r
uuu
C)
c
(I)
('\J
c
c
('\]
('\]
0
c
0
c
0
('\]
([')
0
c
CD

0
c
c
c



0 l l ::J::J!TI v-P\l;U :): !Cl.L !v!LJI Jl! [ l . I ! U
FfB. dG }q;q
flRRW INC
CRSF NO. 1Li -0
<::t
c: Q)
0 1-
:::l
+-' lf)
u
lf)
Q) Q)
Vl
'--
0....
4-
o...c:
u
.......... Q)
.- Q)
Vl 1-
D.. CD
..:,:
Vl
Vl 0..
1-..:.:
:::l
O"C!"
+-'
co
0 L'i
u
<tl
Vl
lllE
Q) 0
1- 1-
+-' 4-
Vl
01
+-' c:
C:.-
<l!+-'
<tl :::l
> Vl
.- Q)
:::l 1-
c-
w
N
'<;j-
QJ
s...
:::l
CJ)
r-
l.J....
()[) .
I
uu.
tl"J (. .
..
Ll t.,
" ...
t..:J
.>
(..)
w
o;
Lr.
'"
y;
u.
' .
....
ll
If
>IJ J
(..) l]
lJ: L(.
u
<r.
'' a
:r

0'
.:r
Lr.
<1.
: r


0.
"'
cl
ll
u;
{
\
0:
: r
: J
00
'
"
r
,,
"'
CJ
._,.
'
)
(....
a
(.J.
"
b:
o:
tJ)
...
D.
v:

.,.,
"'
l.l
...
"
L'i
0
...:..l 1---..- r....__ __ . u j
If
r------- r-------.r----
LJ l) . l J l ) . l)l) . l
nn

url u
c
c
Cl)
C..)
c
u
(T")
c
r..:.
m
(\J
c
c
en
('\J
c
c
LJl
('\J
c
c
c.n


\

FFB. 2G lq/9
rJRRWINC
CPS'- NO
. I C ...
LD
c ClJ
0 >...
::l
+J V1
u V1
ClJ ClJ
V)
>...
0...
4-
o..c
u
...--. ClJ
r-
ClJ
V1 >...
0.. CD
.:L
-....-
V1
V1 0..
- ~
::l
O<:::t
+J
co
0 L()
u
<0
V1
V1 c
ClJ 0
>... >...
+J 4-
V)
0>
+J c
Cr-
C!J+J
<0 ::l
> V1
r-
ClJ
::l >...
u
w
.
M
.:;:r
ClJ
s....
::l
0>
r-
LJ....
F2L!/GO
lli-n
0
1..0
J
,.
l:J
<. .>
'' (,,
"' U'c
~ )
L;
c:
,J
I:
u
Q.
r
"'
"'
i..l
:'.!
t.: .
u
;f'
w
"
,.,
u
r
':'"J
(,;
.'l
C..>
: ~ Lr.
N ~ 'I
w w
:" CJ
('/
,,
L.l '-
..
" N
w (..>
~ - - - - - - - - - ~ - : - -
uu:; Ul)c:
l.i
I.J
~ ) 1 > H 2J 101
uu. l
C)
c
m
('f)
c
c
c
c
LJ
(I)
0
c
0
c
(Y)
(Y)
c
c.
('\J
(Y)
c

I

_
_
.
,

-
i

u
-
-
:

c

I

....
/
.
-
-
,

0
!

c
l

.
.
.
.
.
.

I

0

N

I

c

,
-
-
-
-
.

.._
_
_
..
.

'
:
'
/
,

/
C
C

3
0

I

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
4
.

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

S
t
r
e
s
s

C
o
n
t
o
u
r
s

(
l
:
p
s
i
)

o
f

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

a

k
p
s
i

B
r
e
e
c
h

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

4
0

.
.
s

3
0

j

-

o
-
:

I
'

'
}
:
.
C
.

'
"
"

I
'
S
S

1

-
1

1
5

j
;
.
.
o

L
L
L
L
L

'
j

I

"
'
t
'
>
l

/
.
'

I

3
9
.
0
0

L
!
O
.
O
O

l

0
0

J
3

n
o

-
C
:..

;

-
.

L
J

_
,
l

R
X
J
S

I

L
!
S
.
O
O

n

:
:
:
J

:
.
.
D

7
0
!

(
.
f
)

:
.
D

t.:
i
'
l

.
L
.
.
:
.

,_
_
_
,
:
Z
:
Z
:
f
"

0
0

c

u
J

'
-
'
T
]

8
1
'
0

'

C
)

-
;
:
:
:
:
)




the design has been confirmed through actual firings. It may be useful
here to show a comparison of the level of bearing stresses upon this
shoulder between the test vehicle design and the prototype design.
This shoulder provides a support foundation to the forward sup-
ported inertial loads of the body spacer, body wall, front sabot carrier,
front sabot, fuze and windshield. The total mass of these components
when multiplied by the maximum acceleration will give the maximum iner-
tial load on the shoulder. The payload weight in both the test vehicle
and the proposed design are not supported by this shoulder. This load
when divided by the annular bearing area of the shoulder will give the
maximum average bearing pressure on that bearing area. This is repre-
sented by the equation
where ob is the bearing pressure (psi), Hf is the forward supported
weight (lbs.), a is the maximum accelerntion (g), and Do and Di represent
the outer and inner diameters of the area (in.).
Then from Table 6 the sum of the forward supported weights is
86.97 lbs. and from Table 7 the acceleration can be 15,290 gs. The
test vehicle has a body spacer with outer and inner diameters of 5.478
and 3.50 inches respectively. The pressure on the rear sabot
carrier is then calculated to be 95,340 psi.
The proposed vehicle design has a body weight of 18.19 lbs. and
uses a body spacer having a weight of 2.99 lbs. The body spacer threads
onto the rear sabot carrier with a 4.25 inch thread and thus the annular
bearing area of rear sabot carrier shoulder has an outer diameter of
5.478 inches and an inner diameter of 4.25 inches.
Making the appropriate substitutions into Table 6 the forward
supported weight is found to be 54.31 lbs. At the same acceleration
103
the bearing pressure is found to be 88,500 p,si. This essentially
that the load upon the rear sabot carrier shoulder of the proposed
design will be less than the load carried in the test vehicle design.


4.4 PROPELLING CHARGE REQUIREMENTS
An internal ballistic study was done to determine an optimized
propelling charge for the 8-inch subcaliber fin stabilized cargo shell.
Specifically, the objective of this study was to define an optimized
propelling charge for this projectile (having a fixed aerodynamic shape),
to maximize the range as the shot weight is allowed to vary. If the
aerodynamic shape of the projectile is fixed then the external ballistic
characteristics are constant even though the shot weight may vary. This
means that under these conditions, the projectile range will be directly
related to the attained muzzle velocity and for this reason comparisons
will be made of muzzle velocities rather than ranges. In the solution
of this problem certaih conditions and constrainis were imposed as
follows to bound the possible solutions;
Conditions: l) MllOE2 Gun
2) M30Al Multiperforated Propellant
3) Volume 2635 in
3

Constraints: 1 ) Charge Weight 2 62 lbs.
2)
<
Breech Pressure - 40,000 psi
3)
<
Muzzle Momentum - 22,090 lb./sec.
4) 130 lb. 2 shot weight 2 170 lb.
For each projectile shot weight there exists a unique propelling
charge as defined by its charge weight web size which will result
in the highest possible muzzle velocity without exceeding the muzzle
momentum limit. These solutions are obtained from the governing inter-
nal ballistic equations. Three constraints limit the number of possible
solutions which are the maximum permissible charge weight, a breech
pressure of 40,000 psi, and a specific range of projectile shot weights.
104



These internal ballistic solutions for several charge weights are graphed
in Figure 3 (light solid curves).
By the internal ballistic solution alone the optimized propelling
charge would consist of 62 pounds of propellant of the appropriate
web size, but there is one additional constraint upon the solutions that
must be considered. This is that the maximum allowable muzzle momentum
(MM) is determined according to the equation.
MM. = WsVo + 4700 Cw
g
where W is.the projectile shot weight, V is the muzzle velocity, C
s 0 . w
is the charge weight and g is the gravitational constant. Note that
this equation is independent of the propellant web size.
The solutions to this equation are plotted (dashed curves) in
Figure 45 for various charge weights where the muzzle momentum is set
to the maximum allowable.
The locus of points formed by the intercept of the two sets of
curves represents the upper limit on the velocity (i.e. range) potential
when the governing internal ballistic equations and the muzzle o ~ n t u
limit are simultaneously imposed.
Figure 46 indicates the resulting optimum propelling charge
solution from Figure 45 as defined by the charge weight and web size
for a projectile of varying shot weight.
Figure 45 shows that not until the shot weight is reduced to about
122.5 lbs. does the charge weight reach the constraint of the maximum
allowable 62 lbs. Thus is is not possible to utilize the full ballistic
potential of the gun due to the muzzle momentum limitation until the
projectile shot weight is reduced to 122.5 lbs. or below. Figure 45
also shows that as the shot weight of the projectile decreases the muzzle
velocity and hence the maximum range increases.
105

1050
1000
950
u
w
(/)
........
::;::::
>-
900
f-

u
0
_J
w
>
850
800
750
700
120

i '
130 140 150 160
SHOT WEIGHT - LB
Figure 45. Velocity vs Shot Weight for
Optimum Charge Determination
106
~ j ;
.. , '
; i !
I ' '
. '
.1 i l
. -.l
I . I
i i .
. ~ I
'"' 6 >b . I I
I I '
: ! ~ ! l '
1 t ! t
\ I ! ' .
! :
170

1050
ro
_J
u
w
I-
V)
:r:
......... (.!) ..,....
"'- ..-.<
w
1000
z:
>- w
I-
0
.......


u

0
:c
_J
u
w
>
950 -6
900 .55
850 50
800

i
Gun: I '.r111 OE2
' i
M30A1
I '
'
I
I
i
i
j
'
I
' '
' .
I I
' '
'
Breech-Pressure:- _:40,00 psi
2635 in.
-- --
'l ! '
t1uzz1 e t1omentum ;
Ll:i!Tli t=;_:
. 1 :
22090
.. I .... ---- -----
i
' i
! ;
i ; i ! I
' i
t l I : f
I j j
I
. '
.. ; ;
I \ 1
i
' ' ! .
1b-sec
I
I
'
I
'
;
:
I ; I
'
;
i I
' I
! . I
I ! ,.
: I
' !
'
'
I
I
i
I t ' I .
i !
I
' '
l . . I
: i .
I '
I
I. i
f
' i
I'
. ' :c

I
I
w
N
I
t-1
! .
V)

.. . . . r .
! '
130
I ' iV
1
elocicy: 1
' I
'
'
i !
I I
I J
' I
:
' I
' I
'
' '
I.
- --------- ........
I '
140
' I
' I
i '
1 I
150
SHOT WEIGHT - LB
: I
I ,
160
!
I '
' '
I : i i
' : l
I I
Figure 46. Optimum Charge Ballistic Solution for
Charge Weight, Velocity, and Web Size
107
! !
i '
I i
' I I i
! :
170
I I
. '
'
I
i I
' i
I f
I
' I
i
.075
.070
.065
.060



Figure 46 indicates that optimum web sizes lie between .074 and
.063 for the range of projectile shot weights.
4.5 TEST PROPELLING CHARGE
In this contract a propelling charge design was not a requirement,
however in order to accomplish the testing required, a propelling
charge was designed solely for test.purposes. An effort was made to
obtain a supply of M30Al multiperforated propellant with a web size
close to the values specified in the previous such as 0.078 inch
which was being produced in great quantities for the 155mm XM203 propel-
ling charge, but none could be had. Then because of the unavailability
of a propellant of a closer web size and because of the immediate supply
of a sufficient quantity of M30Al MP propellant with a 0.085 inch web,
an internal ballistic study similar to that of the previous section was
conducted to study the prospects of its use in a test propelling charge .
The objective of this study then was to define a propelling charge
for this projectile to maximize the muzzle velocity as the shot weight
of the projectile was allowed to vary. Conditions and constraints
imposed upon the solution of this problem were as follows:
Conditions: 1) MllOE2 Gun
2) M30Al .085 Web Multiperforated Propellant
3) Chamber Volume 2635
Constraints: 1)
2)
3)
4)
Charge 62 lbs.
. <
Breech Pressure - 40,000 psi
<
Muzzle Momentum - 22,090 lb./sec.
130 lb. Shot Weight : 170 lb.
In this case a propelling charge was defined with respect to its
charge weight which would give the highest possible muzzle velocity
without exceeding the muzzle momentum limit. The internal ballistic
solutions (solid curves) are plotted in Figure 47 for various charge
weights. Here the propellant web size has been fixed and the breech
108

1000
950
900
u
w
V1
:::
>-
850
I-
,__.

u
O
.....1
w
>
800
750

62
60- 1b
55 1 b.
50 1 b
Charge
Height
. '
I
I
' I
: '
'-I
' I
-- ---- .L-.;,- .... --
I I
!
'. I
' '
,_: '
' I
I I i I
- --: -:-:.r
. I I I I I !
--; -:
! I
' ; ' .
I
1 I
I '
: I
I
'
I
I I l
'
I
i
I,
I
I 1
I : ! II I
I t L
I l
I
I '
! .I '
I
Inte'rna .Ball :sy;
.... ---- I.-.. . . . .... I .. -----
-- e of -
__.;__..,. ___ : .. -Lr-
. i I
__,....
. 22090 lb-sec : I . ;
I
, .I
i '
o I
i ;
l
I
i I
I
: ! I
! !
130 140 150 160
SHOT WEIGHT - LB
Figure 47. Velocity vs Shot Height for Optimum Charge
Determination of M30Al .085 inch Web Propellant
109
170
: I
I



pressure is the independent variable although it is limited to a
maximum of 40,000 psi. The curves defining the maximum muzzle momentum
for various charge weights (see previous section) are also plotted as
dashed curves in Figure 47.
The locus of points formed by the interception of these curves
describes the maximum attainable muzzle velocity for charges of various
weights of the 0.085 inch web propellant as the projectile shot weight
varies.
Figure 48 defines the propelling charge .with respect to charge,
weight and the expected breech pressure for a projectile of various shot
weights.
From Figure 47 it is determined that for a projectile with a
shot weight of 135 lbs., the highest possible muzzle velocity attainable
without exceeding the muzzle momentum limit is achieved with a charge of
62 lbs. of propellant. Figure 48 also shows that the breech pressures
are lower than the full potential )f the gun.
This study verifed the test charge design described in Section 3.3
which resulted from the Internal Ballistic tests of the test slugs.
4.6 STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
An aerodynamic stability and performance analysis was conducted
for the 8-inch subcaliber projectile. The results of this analysis
applies to both the proposed design and the test vehicle design. The
analysis was based upon the following projectile configuration;
1) Forebody 3/4 power law body of 3.341 calibers
length of 17.75 inches and a diameter
that varies from 0.4 to 5.48 inches .
110

1000

950
u
w
Vl
.........
:::::
900
>-
1-
>-<
u
0
_J
w
>
850
800


. '
' I
j i
: .
\ I
' I
--, --:-- _____ ..... -- ------
' '
t t- i
! ; ( ;
: I
' :
I I I !
\ I
I '
I
I
!
.j ...
I '
i j!
I f 1
II I
I I
I
i I ' !
'
' !

-H f '''I
'TI l i:
I r
1
t ; I
'IJ !
i-1
I I t
I
!
I '
I
[::
:':
.. ----- r .. -; . . --;32-:- w
. I I ' ' l i ' 0:::
. ; : : l i l
I
'
'
'
.
i
I
' I
,,
I
i. I \ ; i t:j
J. I
! '
c.::
0...
I
: _____ ;_
1
t j , ' ' I I ' I r l l T ' I : i ' r

! I I I
l I : ;
l-1 i
I ' L
I , . 1
f I I '
130
Figure 48.
140
i . ! '
, I '
150
I '
' '
SHOT WEIGHT - LB
I !
160
Optimum Charge Ballistic Solution
for M30Al .085 Web Propellant
111
' '
' ' I
j I
I
170
!
I :
f I .
i
I '
! '
f!
60
co
55 -I



2) Body
3) Afterbody
4) Stabilizer
5) Shell Dimen-
sions
Cylindrical
length 22.17 inches having a reference
diameter of 5.48 inches.
Boattail of angle 5.19
length of 17.50 inches with a diameter
that varies between 5.48 to 2.30 inches.
6 fins at the base of the boattail
root chord length (Cr) is 9.0 inches
tip chord length (Ct) is 4.5 inches
Total span (b) is 7.9 inches.
Length (L) = 57.42 inches, diameter (D)
= 5.48 inches.
The fineness ratio of the forebody affects both the static margin
(i.e., the distance between the center of pressure, X cp, and the center
of gravity, Xcg) and the drag, c
00
. A calculation was made for two
forebody length of 3.341 calibers, as specified in the projectile
description above, and 4.5 calibers. The increase in fineness ratio,
40, from 3.341 calibers to 4.5 calibers represents a change in the actual
length of the fore.body from 17.75 inches to 23.91 inches and a correspond-
ing reduction of the cylindrical body.
Based upon these two configurations the stability and zero lift
drag (C
0
) calculations give the results of Table 8. These results
0
were obtained using the 2nd-order shock expansion method for the fore-
body (vJith afterbody effect) and the Royal Aeronautical Society
11
Data
Sheets
11
, as well as the U.S. Stability and Control DATCOM for the
boattail with the stabilizer.
These results show not only the aerodynamic properties for the
vehicle configuration of the proposed vehicle and test vehicle designs
but also show that the center of pressure moves backward by about 2.5
inches, with the stabilizing movement increasing by roughly 50 percent,
112

TABLE 8
FOREBODY ~ A C H NUMBER
LENGTH
(CALIBER) 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
eN
3.341 4.746 4.984 5.024 4.951
a 4.5 4.626 4.828 4.849 4.766
X'cr
1
3.341 25.3 25.7 25.7 26.1
4.5 22.9 23.1 23.1 23.5
CD
3.341 0.315 0.261 0.233 0.195
0 4.5 0.279 0.230 0.195 0.168

eM v
3.341
22. 3.1
21.43 21 .60 19.31
acg
X 4.5 32.84 33.31 33.46 30.98
'
-
X'cr is measured in inches from the projectile base

113



whereas the drag has been reduced by approximately 11 to 14 percent,
in the case of an increase of the forebody length by 6.16 inches but
keeping the same vehicle overall length of 57.42 inches.
This change is not possible, however in the present configura-
tion because of the already thin wall at. the front of the body without
altering the payload configuration.
Calculations have been made to check the optimum size of the
fins. Assuming a ration of tip chord to root chord (Ct:Cr) of 0.5,
the tip chord has been varied from 2 to 7 inches over the range of
Mach 1.5 to 3.0. The location of the center of pressure (X 'cp) for the
shell indicates an optimum fin configuration is obtained for tip chords
between 4 and 5 inches in length.
Similarly a reduction of the boattail length with total body
length and base diameter unchanged does not improve stability or perfor-
mance.
In conclusion, with regard to this study, the present configuration
with a 3/4 power law forebody of 17.75 inches gives a center of pressure
position of 25 to 26 inches from the projectile base for Mach numbers
over the range of 1.5 to 3.0. It has been determined that the present
fin configuration (having a tip chord length of 4.5 inches and a root
chord length of 9.0 inches) and boattail configuration represent an
optimum regarding Also it has been determined that a
possibility exists to reduce the drag by about 11 to 14 percent if the
payload configuration could be altered, but this has hot been pursued
here.
4.7 STABILIZER DESIGN
This 8-inch subcaliber projectile makes use of a stabilizer
composed of six fins machined from one-half inch thick 6061 Aluminum
plate and welded to a 6061 Aluminum fin boom .
114

/

\

In welding the fins to the boom, the weld area is abrasively
cleaned with a stainless steel wire brush and the assembly is then
preheated to a temperature no greater than 300 degress Fahrenheit.
The fin assembly is secured in a fixture to maintain the position of
the .fins and TlG welded using an inert gas shield composed of 75 per-
cent Helium and 25 percent Argon at an efflux rate of 30 to 40 cubic
feet perminute. A two percent thoriated l/8 inch diameter tungsten
.
electrode is used to apply 200 to 220 amps of current. A 3/32 inch
diameter 5356 aluminum weld rod is used, applying very slowly to
allow a well e v ~ l o p e puddle. The temperature of the mid section
of the fin is not allowed to exceed 400 degrees Fahrenheit so as not
to reduce the aluminum temper below the T4 conditi.on.
In finned projectile designs, ranging from a simple arrow to
large rockets, it is most often advantageous to have some amount of
inherent spin in its trajectory to average out any asymetrics it
may have and so reduce their affect upon the trajectory. Thus it is
so in this case, but there is one additional consideration to be made
as the specific rate of spin to be chosen.
In the internal ballistic regime of its trajectory, the motion
of a projectile with regard to its spin is unaffected by its fins except
for the inertial loads they cause. Thus the initial rate of spin of
the projectile is for the most part independent of fin design ... The fins
begin to do.work only after the projectile has entered the external
ballistic regime of its trajectory. It is at this time that the fins
will begin to show their effect upon the projectile spin rate. If a
fin design causes the projectile spin rate to change either faster o ~
slo\':eritdoes so because it has generated lift. In any wing or fin
design when there is lift there is drag. So the best approach to reduce
the drag of the fins is design them in such a way that they conform to
the spin of the projectile and have a minimum effect upon the projectile
spin as it exits the gun tube .
115



The fins in this design have a zero-lift aerodynamic shape, and
are canted with respect to the longitudinal shell axis to conform to
the projectile spin rate upon muzzle exit. This angular offset has
been calculated from the following equation which relates the angular
offset to the equilibrium roll rate:
=
360
rP degrees
a -,--z V 0
Here, the radial distance to the fins aerodynamic center (r), is
equated to 2.60 inches, the radial distance to the fins geometric
center because of its zero-lift profile. The equilibrium spin rate
(P) has been measured as 20 rps and the muzzle velocity can be repre-
sented as 3200 fps. The angular offset is then calculated to be
approximately 0.5 degrees. At this offset angle to the projectile
axis the zero-lift fin should have an angle of attach of zero to the
free airstream and cause no lift generated drag .
4.8 8-INCH SUBCALIBER TEST VEHICLE DESIGN TESTS AND RESULTS
4.8.1 INTRODUCTION
Previous testing chiefly concerned the development of a sabot
design using an internal ballistically representation blunt-nosed test
slug. Although the test bed function of the test slug was again called
upon during the final fin structural tests, the structural testing here
was accomplished with the test vehicle, an aerodynamically shaped
structural representation of the proposed cargo shell design. The terms
test slug and test vehicle are not used interchangeably.
Throughout much of the testing of the test vehicle design that
follows, test objectives were consolidated rather than isolated as in
the sabot development test phase. This consolidation was an inherent
feature to the overall goal of testing the test vehicle, wholly like
the proposed design. The objectives of this test phase v1ere;
116



1) Measurement of pertinent vehicle characteristics
2) Structural testing of the test vehicle design
3) Structural testing and development of a fin design
4) Testing of sabot separation performance with regard
to interaction with the muzzle brake and fins
5) Testing of general design changes and innovations
Because of the continuous interdependency of the test objectives,
the of the test results of this phase of testing will be
to present a complete compilation of the tests and make reference to
that compilation, along with pointing out additional highlights, how
each of the test objectives were satisfied. This will give a better
organized presentatfon than a chronologically oriented study as was
possible in the sabot development test phase. A complete tabulation
of the conditions and the 1 esults of all tests conducted within the
premise of the above objectives is presented in Table 9.
As indicated in Table 9 seven different fin designs were tested.
To aid in the presentation of the reaults associated with the testing
of these designs, each is referred to with a design letter identification
as shown in Table 10. This table also tabulated a basic description of
each fin type.
4.8.2 TEST INSTRUMENTATION & MEASUREMENTS
To examine how the first objective, the measurement of pertinent
vehicle characteristics, was achieved it will be necessary to explain
the general test set-up and instrumentation.
The tests were conducted using an 8-inch MllOE2 self-propelled
howitzer (fitted with an XM201 tube, Serial Number 8). Of all tests
three muzzle fixtures were used; a thrust collar Dwg. WTV-F26789 here
117
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

(
X
)

T
A
B
L
E

9
.

C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
r
1
E
N
T

T
E
S
T

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

,
-
-
-
1

-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
;
O
;
[
L
L
A
N
T
-
-
-
_

-
-
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
L
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

:
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
S
H
O
T

f
-
-
-
-
.
.

-
;

,

'

I

_

I

R
A
M

:

-
:
U
Z
Z
L
E

,

R
F
C
O
I
L


n
P
[
S
S
L
J
P
.
E

:

V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y

R
A
T
E

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1

_
_
_

-
I

,
.

:

.

8
P
.C
E
C
H

i

M
U
Z
Z
L
E

S
P
j
:
,

I

'

e
b

I
:
l
'
e
i
g
h
t

i

T

1
4

d

!

f
i
e
i
g
h
t

F
l
n

'
(
i
n
)
.
I.
f
I
X
T
U
R
E

i

(

l
n
)

!
<
p
s
i

I

.

i
f
p
s
)

j
r
p
s
j

I

I'
T
y
p
e

i

!

l
o
t

:

(
1
b
s
)

I

y
p
e

_
_
_
i
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
L

_
j

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
:_
_
_

I

,

I

I

I

'

'

I

5
')
5

I

7
/
7
3

I

.
0
3
5

'

:A
U

7
/
7
6

!

3
5
.
0

M
1
0
6

\

1
Q
5
.
8

1

-
i

4
5

1
/
4

!


r
i
n
q

I

-
2
5
.
9

1

-

-
1
5
0
6

I

7
/
7
8

!

.
0
2
.
5

Y
"
\U

1
/
7
6

i

3
5
.
0

II
M
1
0
6

i

-
l

i
9
4
.
3
j

-
I

4
5

1
/
4

:

n
n
g

'
6
2

1
/
4

2
6
.
0

:

2
2
3
3

!

-
I

5
0
7

7
/
7
8

/

.
0
8
5

1
:A
U

7
/
7
6

:

6
2
.
0

T
.
V
.
<
S

j

2

i

1
3
5
.
0

A

5
1

i

d
u
m
m
y

i

6
2

3
/
4

4
1
.
0

'
3
2
3
7

,

1
7
.
5

i
s
o
s

1
1
3
0
A
1

.
0
8
5

_
I
:A
U

7
/
7
6

.

6
2
.
0

i

T
.
V
.
P
6

j

2

j

1
3
5
.
0

_
_
_

A

_
_

.
.
-
-
-
1
5
0
;
-
-
,

l
-
;
:
;
)
o
A
J

'
.
0
8
5

Y
.A
U

7
/
7
6

i

3
5
.
0

I

M
1
0
6

i

-
I

1
9
6
.
0

I

:

4
5

3
/
8

I

s
t
;
,
n
d
a
r
d

i

6
1

1
/
2

!

2
5
.
2

!

-
!

'
:

M
3
0
A
l

\

.
0
8
5

I

K
A
U

7
/
7
6

1

6
2
.
0

I

T
.
V
.
h
2

[

2
/
3

B

[

5
1

_
_
_

_
_
/
_
_

j

5
1
1

I

1
0
/
7
1
3

'I
t
'.J
O
A
1

'
.
0
9
1

1

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

I

3
6
.
0

I

I

-
I

1
9
8
.
5
1
1

4
5

1
/
8

!

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I

6
4

II
2
1
.
9
1

I

-
[

!

5
1
2

1
0
/
7
8

M
3
0
A
1

I

.
0
8
5

I

K
A
U

7
/
7
6

6
2
.
0

T
.
V
.
#
4

2
/
3

1
3
4
.
5

C

5
1

1
/
1
6

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1

6
7

5
0
.
7

3
3
9
4
1

'
\
5
1
3

1
0
/
7
8

t
-
:
3
0
A
1

.
c
a
s

I

K
A
U

7
/
7
6

I

5
5
.
0

1

T
.
V
.
#
1

I

3

I

1
3
7
.
4

D

5
1

I

d
u
m
m
y

J

1
/
4

I

2
8
.
4

1

2
9
0
5

I

1
7
.
7

:

5
1
4

1
0
/
7
8

M
3
0
A
1

.
0
9
1

1

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

3
6
.
0

j

M
1
0
6

j
-
:
1
9
5
.
0

-
1

4
5

1
/
4

d
u
m
m
y

-
-
r
-
:
-
4

3
/
4

,

2
2
.
7

1

-
-
1

1
5
1
7

1
/
7
9

1
1
1
3
0
A
1

.
0
9
1

I

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

3
6
.
0
-
,

f
1
1
0
6

i

-
I

2
0
0
.
5

-
4
5

I

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1

6
;

1
/
4

li
2
2
.
6

II
-
\

5
1
8

1
/
7
9

M
3
0
A
1

.
0
9
1

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

3
6
.
0

,

M
1
0
6

-
1
9
9
.
8

4
5

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
2

1
/
2

2
0
.
9

-
I

11

5
1
9

1
/
7
9

M
3
0
A
1

.
0
8
5

,

Y
.A
U

7
/
7
6

5
8
.
0

1

T
.
V
.
F
J
A

I

3

I
1
3
2
.
6

D

I

5
1

1 1

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

/

6
7

1
/
2

.

3
6
.
7

,

3
2
1
6

1 .

3
1
.
0

5
2
0

1
/
7
9

I

I
-
1
3
0
A
1

.
0
9
1

i

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

3
6
.
0

I

1
1
1
0
6

-
,

2
0
0
.
3

-

4
5

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1

6
1

1
/
2

:

2
0
.
3

I

-
-
!
3
2
1

1

1
/
7
9
-
-
-
1

H
3
0
A
l
_

I

.
0
8
5

Y
v
\U

7
/
7
6

5
8
.
0

T
.
V
.
#
4
A

3

:

1
3
2
.
4

C

!

5
1
_
_
_
.
_

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
7

1
/
2

i

3
9
.
2

3
2
3
9

2
4
.
4

5
2
2

'
2
/
7
9

!

:
:
:
<
u
A
1

j

.
0
9
1

i

I
:
A
U

8
/
7
G

I

3
6
.
0

1
\
1
0
6

-
1
9
9
.
5

-
1

4
5

1

s
t
u
n
1
o
r
d
l
:

G
Z

3
/
4

'
2
2
.
5

I

5
2
3

I

2
/
7
9

1

f
\
3
v
A
1

i

.
0
9
1

I
:
J
,
u

8
/
7
G

I

3
6
.
0

1
1
1
0
6

z
o
o
.
o

-
A
S

1
/
3

'
s
t
a
n
1
a
r
d

6
3

1
/
2

2
2
.
1

5
2
4

2
/
7
9

;

M
3
D
A
1

.
0
8
5

II
K
A
U

7
/
7
6

I

5
8
.
0

T
.
V
.
h
1
3
A

4

1
3
1
.
0

N
o
n
e

5
1

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
7

4
3
.
5

5
2
5

2
/
7
9

I

.
0
9
1

,

Y
.A
U

8
/
7
6

3
6
.
0

M
l
0
6

-
1

1
9
9
.
8

-
4
5

3
/
8

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
3

3
/
4

2
4
.
1

"
'

2
n
s

1

"
"
"

"
'

;

"
"

1
;
_
;
:
_
j

'
"

'

r
.
'
-
'
"
'

1

1

n
1
.
s

'
"
"
'

I
"

I
"
'
"
"
'
"
'

1

.
,

J

,
.
1

j

m
s

;

3
5
.
1

I

5
2
7

I

3
/
7
9
i
l

IO
G
:-1

1

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

I

2
0
.
5

j

f
l
1
0
6

I

-
I

1
9
9
.
8

-
I

4
5

1
/
2

r
i
n
g

I

5
1

1
/
2

!

2
3
.
1

i

3
1
9
8

'
i
5
2
l
l

3
/
7
9

:
;
o
M

i

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

J

2
5
.
0

I

M
1
0
6

-
1

2
0
0
.
0

-
4
5

r
i
n
g

5
8

1
/
2

1

3
1
.
9

/

5
2
9

1

3
/
7
9

'
J
,:)
M

.
0
4
4

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

2
9
.
0

M
1
0
6

-
1
9
9
.
8

-

4
5

1
/
2

r
i
n
g

5
8

1
/
2

4
1
.
7

1
3
4
.
0

I

B

/
_
.
:
2
_
_
_
_
_
_

I

5
3
1

1 1

3
/
7
9

i

:;Q
M

I

.
0
4
4

f
C
A
D

7
1
3
5

i

2
0
.
5

M
1
0
6

I

-
1
9
9
.
8

-
1

4
5

1
/
4

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

4
9

1
/
2

I

2
3
.
9

I

-
I

-
!

I
5
3
2

3
/
7
?

tiQ
M

.
0
4
4

1

C
A
l
l

7
1
3
5

'
4
9
.
0

1
.
5
.
#
1

1

-
1
3
2
.
1

N
o
n
e

5
1

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
1

1
/
2

I

5
0
.
8

3
1
9
0

!

-
:

1

5
3
3

I

3
!
7
9

,\Q
M

1

.
0
4
4

1

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

I

-
'
5
.
5

T
.
S
.
#
2

-
1
3
5
.
5

F

5
1

s
t
o
n
d
a
r
d

I

6
1

1
/
2

J

4
4
.
3

j'
_
3
0
0
3

1

;

1
5
3
4

I

3
/
7
9

f
i
Q
,'l

i
.
0
4
4

i

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

4
5
.
0

T
.
$
.
!
3

-
1
3
5
.
4

F

5
1

1
/
8

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I

6
0

1
/
2

1

4
4
.
0

2
9
5
8

1 ,

5
3
5

I

3
/
7
9

I<
Q
M

!

.
0
4
4

.

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

2
0
.
5

,

M
1
0
6

-
2
0
0
.
3

-
-

1
/
8

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

4
9

1
/
4

,

2
3
.
5

,

-
5
3
6

!

3
/
7
9

1
1
0
:1

1

.
0
4
4

I

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

\

4
5
.
0

I

T
.
S
.
#
4

l

1
3
4
.
5

.

E

5
1

I

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
0

1
/
Z

1

4
3
.
7

I

2
3
7
4

i

I

5
3
7

3
/
7
9

I

.
Q

A

!

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

4
5
.
0

I

T
.
S
.
#
5

-
.
'
1
3
4
.
6

1

E

5
1

l

5
8

1
/
2

!

4
0
.
1

:

2
(
;
7
0

i

J
/
7
9

1

r.Q
t-1

.
0
4
4

i

C
A
D

7
1
3
5

:

4
5
.
0

T
.
V
.
m
A

4

I

1
3
5
.
0

!

G

I

5
1

l
_
_
_
s
_
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
0

i

4
2
.
9

I

2
9
6
8

!

I

5
3
9

5
/
7
9

!

I

.
0
9
1

K
A
U

8
/
7
6

1

3
6
.
0

I

1
-
1
1
0
6

-
I

1
9
9
.
9

-
4
5

1
/
8

i

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I

6
2

l

2
3
.
1

;

1
4
0

5
/
7
9

i

.
0
8
5

Y
.A
U

7
/
7
6

1

3
6
.
0

I

M
1
0
6

-
'
1
9
9
.
8

-
4
5

1
/
8

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1

6
4

2
8
.
2

5
4
1

i

5
/
7
'1

M
3
0
A
1

.
0
8
5

R
A
O
-
E
-
7

I

3
6
.
0

1
1
1
0
6

1
9
9
.
8

-
4
5

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
3

1
/
4

2
4
.
7

S
"
-
'
1

5
/
1
9

n
J
O
A
1

I

.
0
8
5

R
A
D
-

-
7

/

5
8
.
0

T
.
V
.
#
8
A

4

1
3
4
.
5

F

5
1

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

6
6

1
/
4

1 1

3
2
.
0

j

3
0
9
6

5
4
3

1
5
/
1
9

."
.3
0
A
1

.
0
8
5

R
A
D
-
E
-
7

1

6
0
.
0

I

T
.
V
.
f
9
A

4

1
3
4
.
6

F

5
1

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I

6
6

1
/
2

3
3
.
3

1

3
1
3
8

5
1
7
9

_
_
:
_
_
_
_
_
_

1
6
5

l
.

3
5
.
3

1

3
1
5
8

1
9
.
1

1
4
.
5

!

1
6
.
5

j
_
-

TABLE 10. FIN DESIGN DESIGNATION
LEADING EDGE
FIN TIP FIN ROOT
DESIGN DRAWING
ANGLE THICKNESS
THICKNESS THICKNESS
A 824701
oo
0.250
11
0.250
11
0.250
11
B D24735 2 45' 0.024
11
0.147" 0.250
11
c D24755
40
0.075
11
0.250
11
0.250"

D D24756 3 30' 0 .065'' 0.200
11
0.250"
-
E 024761
40
0.075" 0.250
11
0.250"
F D24762 6 8' 0.075" 0.350" 0.400"
G D24763
so
0.075" 0.450
11
0.500"

119



called muzzle ring, a dummy muzzle brake (described previously) and what
will be referred to as the ''standard
11
muzzle brake, supplied by Water-
vliet Arsenal (Dwg. WTV-F26323).
In all cases the breech pressure was measured with three Mll
copper crusher gages and the test vehicles muzzle exit condition was
recorded by three smear cameras, located 15, 30, an.d 50 feet down the
gun line from the muzzle.
The film from the smear cameras was used to supply the following
information:
1) t1uzzle Velocity
2) Vehicle Spin Rate
3) Structural Integrity
4) Sabot Discard Performance
The results of the first test vehicle structural test (Shots 506
to ~ H will be presented here to aid in the discussion of how the test
measurements were derived from the instrumentation results. Figure 49
to 51 shov1 the smear camera results for Shot Numbers 506, 507, and 508.
The muzzle velocity (V
0
) was determined from the smear film to
an accuracy generally of 15 feet per second by the equation
L
vo = I vfm
where L is the actual vehicle length, f is the vehicle film image length
and Vfm is the film speed. A doppler radar vJas used during the first
test in an attempt to accurately measure the muzzle velocity. A linear
regression analysis of the resulting data showed high standard errors
when compared with the velocity measurement of an Ml06 shell, as presented
in Table 11. Because of these high standard errors, the velocity measure-
ments were not accepted as representative of the test vehicle and its
use was discontinued. The cause for these poor results was the inability
120


121
tos
.._, 506
for



Figure Test Vehicle Shot No. 507 Smear Photo ~ e q u e n e
122


Figure 51 . Test Vehicle Shot No. 508 Smear Photo Sequence

123

TABLE 11. COMPARISON OF ~ U Z Z L E VELOCITY MEASUREMENT DATA
DOPPLER DATA SMEAR PHOTO DATA
Muzzle Standard
Sl S2 S3
Shot
Projectile
Velocity Error
fps fps fps
No. fp$ fps
506 Ml06 2233 0.29 2263 2250 2240
507
Test
2932 175.
- 3286 3288
Vehicle
508
Test
. 2754 158 . 3265 3269 3265
Vehicle


124


\

of the doppler radar to distinguish the test vehicle from the
11
cloud
11
of decelerating sabot petals.
Test vehicles were painted with a sequence of unique stripes on
the body exterior as shown fn the smear photos. Together, with these
stripes and the averaged velocity results, obtained from the smear
camera films, the spin rate (e) was determined from the equation
e = M v
cr
where ~ represents the number of revolutions o v ~ r the interval of dis-
tanced for which V represents the average velocity.
The smear film also presented valuable photographic evidence of
the structural conditions of the shell and its components as well as the
motion of the discarding sabot petals relative to the fins. For instance
in Figures 50 and 51 the discarding of the sabot petals is very regular
and clean without disturbing the projectile or interfering with the fins.
Close examination of Figure 50 shows no structural impairment of t ~ ~
components as a result of the gun launch. Upon examination of Figure 51,
however, tvJO structural deficiencies can be seen. First a guilding
metal bore rider, S\'Jaged to the front sabot petals has separated from
a front sabot petal shown in the third smear photo as a dark rectangular
shape about one-half inch behind the fins. Second, again in the third
smear camera photograph the horizontal fin is shown to be slightly bent.
The guilding metal front bore riders were used in a majority of
the tests but were later replaced by a hard coat anodized surface
applied to the front sabot petal.
Also, the bent fin of test vehicle number 6 (Shot No. 508) was
shown to exist upon loading the vehicle into the breech by Figure 52.
The vehicle can be identified by the number 6 marked on the shell and
located in the photograph just to the right of the witness mark .
Figure 52 also gives a vie\'J of the
11
A
11
design fins used in this test.
125

.,

...c
u
Q)
Q)
$.....
CD
>:::
0
z
Q)
r-
u
.,.....
...c
Q)
>
0
+->
0
...c
0....
r-
LL..


Thus it was found through the photographic data collected that this
test was structurally successful.
A high speed framing camera was used to record the muzzle gas
efflux sequence relative to the moment of vehicle muzzle exit as an
indication of the quality of propellant gas obturation. Again supplying
the results of this first structural test, Figure 53 and 54 show the
framing camera photographs of Shots 506, 507, and 508. A sign of good
obturation is that the nose of the projectile is seen to exit the muz-
zle before an efflux of gas. Figure 53 shows the obturation performance
of a Ml06 (Shot 506), where is is seen that a small amount of gas efflux
occurs before the projectile's nose is visible. Using the obturation
quality of the ~ 1 1 6 as a standard, the quality of obturation of the
test vehicles, shown in Figure 54, is very good. The results of Shots
507 and 508 show the vehicle nose exits the muzzle ahead_ of the gas
efflux. The dummy muzzle brake is shown in place for Shot 507 and for
508 the standard muzzle brake is seen.
The dumm'' 'lluzzle brake, described earlier, was used to avoid any
unnecessary damaye to the standard muzzle brake during sabot develop-
ment. Likewise, it was also used during this phase of testing at any
time that it was felt sabot-muzzle brake strikes may occur. But
because the gas dynamics and thus the pressure distribution differ
altogether between the dummy and standard muzzle brakes, as shovm in
Figure 54, it v1as unavoidable that the sabot performance needed to be
qualified with the standard muzzle brake. The.smear photographs give
a strong indication that no sabot-muzzle brake impacts occurred. This,
however was confirmed here, as in all tests, by an examination of the
muzzle brake after each shot.
The breech pressure measurements, as mentioned earlier were
measured with three Mll copper crusher gages, and ram distance and
recoil distance were measured for all shots and are recorded in Table 9.
The shot weights of all vehicles were also measured and are given in
Table 9 .
127


0
:z:

0
.s::::.
(./)
4--
0
E
.,....
E
rv
s...
Ll_
v

:::;
0
CL
0)

.,....
E
s...
rv
3
M
l.()
(J)
s...
:::;
en
LL

-
.
...

Figure 54. Framing Photos of Test Vehicles of Shot Nos. 507 and 508
129
-

4.8.3 Structural Test Results
Structural testing of the test vehicle design was an inherent
objective to all shots involving a test vehicle. A fault in the early
test vehicle design was revealed by two structural failures occuring
in Shots 512 and 521. This failure was located at the body rear sabot
carrier interface. Figure 55 presents the smear camera results showing
the rear sabot carrier failure of Shot 521.
The test vehicle at this time did include the hardened
body spacer. After the implementation of this design modification to
'
the test vehicle design no further structural failures were recorded
which would show any design inadequacies in this area. A stress analysis
has been presented showing the stresses in this area with the inclusion
of the body spacers.
This structural failure is attributable to the fact that in this
test vehicle design a thicker, heavier body wall has been used which
1'Models not only the wei:;_:ft" of the proposed design body wall but also
a large fraction of its payload weight. This accumulation of additional
weight in the body wall, particular to the test vehicle design, requires
greater support by the rear sabot carrier. In the proposed design the
weight to be supported by this area of the rear sabot carrier is greatly
reduced and lower stresses prove to result as pointed out in the stress
analysis discussion.
Through this phase of testing no other structural modifications
\'Jere necessary and the overall design, with this modification, has
been found to be sound.
Front and rear sabot petals recovered after testing throughout
all phases of testing have shown no deformation in the latching areas .
130


Figure 55 .
Smear Photograph Sequence of Shot 521 showing Structural Failure
131


4.8.4 Structural Fin Test Results
4.8.4.1 Fin Welding
Throughoutthesetests the loss of fins due to fin v1eld fractures
"did not present itself as a problem in the test vehicle design. How-
ever, many welding techniques were used to improve the weld quality and
to reduce the effect of welding on the temper of the aluminum fins and
fin boom.
A goal in the development of the welding procedure was to reduce
the preheat conditioning as low as possible, without giving
rise to weld cracks, to prevent the heat added during welding from
seriously impairing the temper of the aluminum.
The final welding procedure, as described previously had a
preheat temperature of no greater than 300 degrees Fahrenheit and during
the welding the temperature was not allowed to exceed 450 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. "J tns this welding procedure the 6061 fins and fin boom
maintained a T4 temper (Postweld hardness was measured to be HRF 35-77),
the threaded connection maintained a strength nearly equal to
the T6 temper (Postweld hardness was measured to be HRF 72.,.86).
4.8.4.2 Fin Design Structural Tests
During this phase of testing seven fin designs were tested and
are identified by letter designations as given in Table 10. Table 9
indicates all tests involving these fin designs. It can be noted that
at least one structural failure of each fin design occurred in Shot
Number 505 to 530 involving fin designs A to D.
The test of Shot Numbers 531 to 538 was designed to be strictly
a fin structural test of designs E to G. In this test a test slug
design similar to the test slug used in the sabot development tests,
was used to isolate the fin structural test from-a test vehicle struc-
tural test. This test slug, as in previuos sabot development tests,
132


had front and rear non-discarding sabots. Also during this test, because
of a short supply of the M30Al propellant a double-base NQM propellant
was used. A short internal ballistic test of the NQM propellant charac-
teriestics is evident in Shots 527 to 530 of Table 9.
Although during this test no fin failures occurred among the
fin designs E, F, and G, the F fin design was selected as the final fin
design because of its added safety factor in design strength over the E
design. "As a sample, the smear camera results of Shot 536 are shown in
Figure 56. Shot 538 of this structural fin test series was combined with
a test vehicle fitted with fins of design G as shown in the smear photo-
graphs of Figure 57.
4.8.5 Testing of Sabot Performance
The performance of the sabots has been very good. In the
figures supplied with this report so far the sabots have separated cleanly
in a uniform fashion without causing instability or disturbance to the
vehicle. In all cases the sabots have a very good radial displacement to
sufficiently clear the fins. In all cases where the vehicle projection
has not been complicated by a rear sabot carrier structural failure the
sabots have discarded consistently exterior to the muzzle brake domain
without any contact to the brake. In fact, with regard to these charac-
teristics, the sabots have performed very consistently.
A design change was enacted at the beginning of this test
vehicle test phase to improve the obturation of the projectile over the
results obtained in the sabot development phase. To.prevent the occurance
of poor obturation evident in some shots of the sabot development tests
(see Figure 29) a design change was made to the rear sabot components.
These changes included a thicker main obturation, a steeper incline to
the sabot-obturator ramp, and an intra-sabot pressure barrier.
A thicker main obturator (sliding plastic driving band) was
used to prevent the obturator from fracturing early, within the bore
133


Figure 56.
Smear Camera Photographs of Shot Number 536 showing
Representative Results for the Structural Fin Tests
134


Figure 57. Test Vehicle of Shot No. 538 of the Structural Fin Test fitted with "G
11
Fins
135


of the gun tube. Also to improve the engraving and obturation quality
of the main obturator, a steeper slope was given to the ramp of the
rear sabot over which the main obturator slides. The steeper ramp
insures that the obturator will not reach the end of the ramp and break
obturation due to the abrasion of the obturator by the gun tube.
An intra-sabot pressure barrier was added as shown in Figure 31.
This pressure barrier consists of a drilled passage at the inter-section
Of the sabot petal which is then filled Vtith a room temperature VUlcan-
izing silicone rubber. This then forms a silicone gasket betvJeen the
sabot petals which effectively seals against any gas flow in this area.
A significant improvement has been found in the quality of obturation
since these changes were first tested in Shot 507. The obturation can
be compared between Figures 15 to 18 and 54.
Another design change involved the front sabot and its guilding
metal bore rider. As shown in Figure 51, during some shots the guilding
meta 1 front bore rider, sv1aged onto the front sabot peta 1, would separ-
ate.from the petal either from aerodynamic forces or sabot-sabot impacts.
\1/hile not serious, this proble.m was eliminated by a less expensive bore
rider surface. The guilding metal bore rider was replaced by an appro-
priate change in the profile of the front sabot and a hardcoat anodized
finish over the whole front sabot.
This design change was first tested in Shot 526 and again in
Shots 538, and 542 to 544. Recovered front sabot petals showed the
hardcoat anodized finish successfully resisted the abrasion of the gun
tube.
4.9 FINAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION TEST
The last test (Shots 539 to 544) in this phase of testing had
the objective of accepting the projectile design for subsequent tests
at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground under similar test conditions.
This test involved three 8-inch subcaliber test vehicles .
136


The test was conducted with a M110E2 self-propelled howitzer,
fitted with the standard muzzle brake, and test charges constructed
from M30A1 MP .085 inch web propellant. This propellant was supplied
through the ARRADCOM Project Engineer since this propellant was to
be used during subsequent tests at YPG.
Various instrumentation were used in this test to obtain the
data summarized in Table 9 and the following text. The breech pressure
measurement was obtained from the average of three M-11 gages. Two
piezoelectric gages were utilized (one being placed at the breech as
shown in Figure 52 and one at the origin of rifling) to receive the breech
and chamber pressure curve profiles. Photography instrumentation included
a framing camera to record obturation results and three smear cameras,
located 15, 35, and 55 feet down the gun line, to record the sabot dis-
card sequence.
The test began with a M106 warming round and proceeded with a
propellant safety check. In this propellant safety check a comparison
was made between equal charge weights of propellant lot KAU 7/76, used
in the past, and the newly supplied l o t ~ <IJ-t 7, used for the first time
here. The results of these shots (540 and 541) showed the RAD-E-7 lot to
give a lower breech pressure than the KAU 7/76 lot, thus giving an indication
of safe conditions to use equivalent quantities of the RAD-E-7 lot as used
previously for the KAU 7/76 lot.
During this test the charge weights wer increased, and some
KAU 7/76 lot propellant ~ s mixed with the RAD-E-7 lot to boost the
breech pressures closer to 40 kpsi.
The smear camera results for the three test vehicles are shown
in Figure 58 to 60 for Shots 542 to 544 respectively.
Figure 58 shows the first occurance of a sabot-fin impact in the
third smear camera photograph. This impact has been caused by a sabot-sabot
impact developing as shown in the second smear camera photograph. Other-
wise Figures 58 to 60 show clean uniform sabot discard and indicate excellent
structural performance.
137


Figure 58. Smear Camera Photographs of Shot No. 542
138


' ...
:.;
.-

Figure 59. Smear Camera Photographs of Shot No. 543
139

- - - -
- - -
-

Figure 60. Smear Camera Photographs of Shot No.544
140


The framing camera Figure 61 show that in all .
cases the nose of the projectile emerges first from the muzzle ahead
of the gas, indicating good obturation.
In this test additional instrumentation was used to satisfy
three objectives; to accurately measure the breech and chamber pres-
sures, to measure the time difference between the two pressures, and
to show the pressure-time curves for the breech and chamber locations.
To meet these objectives the gun was instrumented with two PCB piezo-
electronics Model 109A2 piezoelectric gages; one mounted on themushroom,
shown in Figure 52, and one mounted at the start of the rifling to
measure the breech and chamber pressures, respectively.
The piezoelectric gage outputs were linked to a dual-trace
oscilliscope with a Polaroid camera for hard copy output of the peak
pressures of the breech and chamber. The peak pressures of each curve
were directly measured by a PCB Piezoelectronics Model 451A04 digital
peak meter. The pressure curve profiles and the time interval between
the curves were obtained by a second dual-trace scope with a Polaroid
camerct 2. ..;tachment. The time i nterva 1 between the two curves was
directly measured by a Hewel ett-Packard t1odel HP5304A Time Counter with
a Model HP5300A Measuring System. This instrument physically measures
the interval of time which passes between the occurance of a specified
triggering voltage associated with the positive slope of the first
arriving curve and the occurance of the same specified triggering voltage
associated with the positive slope of the last arriving curve. The
digital data obtained from these instruments for Shots 539 to 544 are
recorded in Table 12 and the photographs of the oscilloscope outputs
are shown in Figures 62 to 67 respectively. The photograph at the
top of each figure is the comparison of peak pressures where the breech
pressure (A) is the lower trace and the chamber pressure (B) is shown
inverted in the upper trace. The photograph in the lower half of each
figure is the output for the comparison of pressure curve profiles and
time interval measurement. It may be noted here that the vertical
scale (voltage) sensitivity, of the oscilloscope, and the horizontal
141


s
14.2
~ i .
~
'TABLE 12. PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS FOR SHOTS 539 to 544
SHOT
BREECH BREECH CHAMBER TIME
t'1- 11
. PIEZO
PIEZO INTERVAL
NO.
( kpsi) (kpsi) (kpsi) (Sec x 10-
6
)
539 23.1 22.5 27.3 -
540 28.2 27.4
- -
541 24.7 23.4 27.6 392
542 32.0 31.6 40.3 -
543 33.3 33.0 40.1 246
544 35 .. 3 35.6 40.2 -
143

/ .

Figure 62. Oscilloscope Output for Shot 539 of the Breech Pressure (A) and
Chamber Pressure (B) for Comparison of Peak Pressures (Top) and
Profile-Time Correlation (Bottom). Top photo scale; 1 v/div.,
50 ms/div. Bottom photo scale; .5v/div., 1 ms/div.
14-4
~
Figure 63. Oscilloscope Output for Shot 540
145

Figure 64. Oscilloscope Output for Shot 541. Scales for Top
Photo; l v/div. for A, 2 v/div. for B., 50 ms/div.
146

Oscilloscope Output for Shot ree
Chamber Pressure (B) for Comparison of Peak
Profile-Time Correlation (Bottom).
147

Comparison of Peak
(Bottom).
148

Figure 67. Oscilloscope Output for Shot 544 of the Breech Pressure (A) and
Chamber Pressure (B) for Comparison of Peak Pressures (Top) and
Profile-Time Correlation(Bottom).
149



scale (time) sensitivity are in most cases displayed within the bound-
aries of each photograph (see Figure 65). Here, the voltage sensitivity
of the upper trace is shown in the upper left hand corner of each
photograph, the voltage sensitivity of the lower trace is given in the
lower left hand corner and the time sensitivity is given in the upper
mid-section of each photograph .
150

(BLANK PAGE)


151



5.0
INITIAL FLIGHT TEST
5.1 FABRICATION
Fabrication of ten (10) 8-inch subcaliber test vehicles got under-
way early in since the basic vehicle design had been completed.
Manufacture of the fin assembly was done after fin structural tests were
completed and the final fin design was selected.
At the time the first ten flight vehicles were manufactured
there existed a difference of opinion as to the best welding procedure
for the fins. Two procedures had been recommended for welding the fins
to the fin differing primarily in the preheat temperature. The
fin assemblies of test vehicles 2, and 3 were welded using a higher
preheat temperature. Subsequently the concern that the higher preheat
would soften the aluminum excessively althour.h the weld
penetration would be and the remainirig seven vehicles were
welded according to the finalized welding procedun ou;
1
ined earlier in
this report. The test vehicles were identified according to welding
procedure so that any differences in performance could be correlated with
manufacturing process.
Twelve test charges composed of 62.0 lbs. of M30Al MP .085 inch
web propellant were supplied by this contractor during the summer of
1978 for this test. These charges had been delivered to Yuma Proving
Ground so as to be available as soon as the test date was
established, enabling the expedient conduct of the tests.
During (10) 8-inch subcaliber cargo shell test
vehicles were completed. Physical measurements were made of the
in-flight condition of the ten test vehicles at the Army Materials and
Mechanics Research Center (AMMRC), Watertown, Massachusetts. The
results of the measurements of the ten vehicles without sabots are
given in Table 13. In-flight condition physical measurements were
also taken on two vehicles fitted with spotting noses .
152



TABLE 13. 8-INCH SUBCALIBER CARGO SHELL MOD 4
TEST VEHICLE MASS PROPERTIES2
VEHICLE v!GT
NO. ( 1 bs)
122.1
2 122.1
3 121 . 9
4 122.1
5 122.0
6 122.1
7 121 .8
8 122.9
9 123.0
10 122.7
Avg. 122.3 .
HITH SPOTTING
NOSE
7
9
. 124.5
125.4
Xcgl
(in)
29.83
29.72
29.75
29.72
29.73
29.72
29.69
29.68
29.59
29.72
29.71
29.81
29.81
Iyy
(lbs-in
2
)
29,071
28,992
28,614
29,229
28,637
29,260
28,529
29,520
29,135
29,124
29,011
23,173
23,497
1
Xcg is measured from the base of the projectile.
2 Measurements made by AMMRC
153
Ixx
(lbs-in
2
)
494.7
495.0
494.1
494.0
494.6
495.0
492 .. 7
498.3
497.6
498.0
495.4
504.5
508.8



On 29 May 1979 ten (10) 8-inch cargo shell Mod 4 test vehicles
were shipped by GBL to Yuma Proving Ground with accessories consisting
of eleven (il) spotting noses (Dwg. 024752) and ten (10) M51Al inert
fuzes. Twelve (12) retainers were provided to prevent the shell from
falling back on the charge. The equipment listed above is shown in
Figure 63. The retainer used to prevent shell fall back, shown in the
foreground of Figure 68, was plywood, one-quarter inch thick, cut to a
width of 1 inch and a length of 41 l/8 inches. The shell in the fore-
ground of Figure 63 is a Mod 4 test vehicle (S/N 09) fitted with a
spotting nose, a spin desensitized M54 fuze (Lot UST 1-157) supplied
by ARRADCOM, and containing a T2 supplementary charge to produce a
more visible signature upon impact for observers. The shell toward
the rear of Figure 68 (S/N 01) is one of the prototype test vehicles
with a standard nose. The charge in the background of Figure 68 is
the 8-inch experimental charge used during the test. It is composed
of 62.0 lbs. of M30Al .085 inch web propellant of Lot KAU 7/76 and
a 1 oz. Class A black powder base pad igniter and 5 oz. Class A black
powder central core igniter. The charge measured 25 inches in cir-
cumference and 40 inches in length.
5.2 PROVING GROUND FLIGHT TEST RESULTS
The test date was established by the Army as 5 July 1979.
Contractor personnel arrived at YPG in advance to prepare the hardware
and assist with test coordination. Two test vehicles were converted
to spotting rounds by removing the front sabot carrier-windshield
nose with the enclosed M51Al inert fuze and adding in its place a
spotting nose with an exposed spin desensitized M564 fuze and T2 sup-
plementary charge. Two of the tvJelve 8-inch experimental charges were
reduced in weight from the original charge weight of 62.0 lbs. of M30A1
.085 inch web propellant (Lot KAU 7/76) to 58.0 lbs. in c s ~ the
reduced charges would be needed. The remaining ten charges were
unaltered .
154
.,

\ .
~
155
. '
'\
..,.
~
,<
..
\
'
,;,.
l
!
-!-)
n::s
Q)
S-
n::s
3
"'0
S-
n::s
::c
-!-)
(/)
Q)
1-
-1-)
..s::::
O'l
co
\0
Q)
S-
::s
O'l
.,....
u..



The test began with three Ml06 warming rounds and during the
test it was decided to fire one Ml06 warming round prior to each test
vehicle. The results of the Ml06 warming rounds are not reported
upon here as they have no significance to the objective of this test.
All tests were fired at a QE of 51.
Test data and results are included in Table 14. These data
were collected by YPG personnel, evaluated by ARRADCOM, and supplied
to the contractor
3
Test vehicles 7 and 9 were converted to spotting
rounds as denoted by the post script "s" in the table and thus have
a different external configuration than the 8-inch subcaliber cargo
shell t1od 4 test vehicle fired in the remainder of the test. The
three rounds having suspected fin welding deficiencies were held until
near the end of the series in case a problem developed. Figure 69
presents typical results from the two smear cameras located 25 and
50 feet from the muzzle. Shown in Figure 69 is test vehicle 8, Shot
Number 871 .
As can be noted by reference to the test results and smear
photographs of vehicle numbers 4, 5, 6, 10, and 8, the ranges achieved
\'Jere all in excess of 40 km, the test goal. Thus the capability of the
new round ~ this initial flight test was well demonstrated. Rounds
7s and 9s, equipped with spotting noses and therefore having slightly
different aerodynamic characteristics, produced nearly the same range
as the standard rounds.
Test vehicles 1 and 2, havin9 the higher preheat fin welds,
were tested with the full charge of 62 lbs. When these vehicles were
fired, flight characteristics were not observed by the radar nor were
impacts sighted by observers. Information supplied by the framing
camera shows an unusual flash of gases at the muzzle for each of these
3 Letter from ARRADCOM received 14 September 1979 .
156
.
.
.
_
.

<
.
n

"
-
-
-
1

T
A
B
L
E

1
4
.

J
U
L
Y

1
9
7
9

8
-
I
N
C
H

S
U
B
C
A
L
I
B
E
R

C
A
R
G
O

S
H
E
L
L

M
O
D

4

T
E
S
T

V
E
H
I
C
L
E

F
L
I
G
H
T

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S

T
E
S
T

A
T

Y
U
M
A

P
R
O
V
I
N
G

G
R
O
U
N
D

T
E
S
T

C
H
A
R
G
E

1

B
R
E
E
C
H
2

T
U
B
E

T
E
S
T

V
E
H
I
C
L
E

H
E
I
G
H
T

P
R
F
.
:
S
S
U
R
f
_

R
O
U
N
D

V
E
H
I
C
L
E

S
H
O
T

N
O
.

N
O
.

W
E
I
G
H
T

(
1
b
s
)

(
1
b
s
)

(

k
p
s

i

)

8
5
6

7
s

1
3
8
.
1

6
2

3
2
.
6

8
5
7

9
s

1
3
9
.
1

6
2

3
7
.
6

8
5
9

4

1
3
5
.
2

6
2

3
9
.
4

8
6
1

5

1
3
5
.
2

6
2

3
4
.
1

8
6
3

6

1
3
5
.
4

6
2

3
5
.
4

8
6
5

1
0

1
3
6
.
1

6
2

4
0
.
4

8
6
7

2

1
3
5
.
3

6
2

3
6
.
2

8
6
9

1

1
3
5
.
4

6
2

4
0
.
3

8
7
1

8

1
3
6
.
2

6
2

4
0
.
6

8
7
2

3

1
3
5
.
3

5
8

2
9
.
8

1

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
a
n
t
:

M
3
0
A
1

.
0
8
5

I
n
c
h

\

J
e
b

L
o
t

K
A
U

7
/
7
6

2

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

t
w
o

M
l
l

C
r
u
s
h
e
r

G
a
g
e
s

3

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

f
r
o
m

S
m
e
a
r

C
a
m
e
r
a

F
i
l
m
s

(

1
5

f
p
s
)

4

Y
P
G

R
a
d
a
r

D
a
t
a

.
D
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
O
r
J

V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y
.

R
A
N
G
E

L
E
F
T

R
a
d
a
r
4

S
m
e
a
r
s
3

(
m
)

(
m
)

(
m
p
s
)

(
f
p
s
)

(
m
p
s
)

9
7
4

3
1
9
8

9
7
5

4
0
5
2
5

3
6
8

9
1
7

3
0
0
0

9
1
4

3
8
1
2
5
.

3
5
4

9
9
1

3
2
6
4

9
9
5

4
4
7
2
8

5
2
2

9
4
1

3
0
7
5

9
3
7

4
0
3
2
1

4
9
5

9
4
7

3
1
0
7

9
4
7

4
0
5
0
6

4
2
5

9
9
3

3
2
4
7

9
9
0

4
5
2
1
4

5
0
9

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
9
4

3
2
6
9

9
9
6

4
5
2
2
9

4
3
0

8
9
7

2
9
4
1

8
9
6

3
0
6
6
0

5
4
7

-
-

-
-
-
-

T
I
M
E

O
F

F
L
I
G
H
T

(
s
e
c
)

1
0
7
.
4

-
1
2
0
.
3

-
1
1
5
.
5

----
1
0
3
.
6

Figure 69.

Typical results from the two smear cameras.
8 (tube round No. 871).
158
Shown here is test vehicle



two shots. The smear camera record of Shot 867, test vehicle 2, shows
the complete fin assembly removed from therest of the shell, indicating
the threads of the fin boom weldment had failed. In order to evaluate
this problem further with the remaining shell from this lot, test
vehicle 3 was fired using a reduced charge of 58.0 lbs. At the resul-
. tant reduced pressure, test vehicle 3 stayed structurally intact,
although it achieved a shorter range, as would be expected. From the
test results and observations, the correct procedure for welding the
fins was verified and specified for use in fabricating the remaining
lot of 20 projectiles.
The test results show a reasonable correlation between the breech
pressures and the resulting ranges, and thus, even in this first flight
test, show consistency in the performance of the round. Data tapes
from the YPG tests were returned to ARRADCOt1 for reduction and evalua-
tion, and the graphs in Figures 70-72 contain data generated from
these tapes by Figure 70 demonstrates the relationship of
peak chamber pressure (measured with piezoelectric gages) to muzzle
velocity, showing excellent correlation. Figures 71 and 72 muzzle
velocity vs. range and velocity vs. time of flight, respectively, in
comparison with computer simulation data. Agreement is generally good
in all cases. The range data supplied in Table 14 are significant,
for not only on the first effort do the measured ranges far exceed
the range capabilities of present 8-inch ammunition in that gun system
but also are substantially greater than the contract goal of 40 kilo-
meters .
159
PAGE 160 IS MISSING FROM THE MASTER COPY
PAGE 161 IS MISSING FROM THE MASTER COPY

I
-
-
'

0
"
1

N

t
l
)

C
L

:
:
E

n

>
-
1
-
.......
u

0

_
J

w

>

1
0
0
0

9
0
0

8
0
0
1

'
b

7
0
0

6
0
0

5
0
0

R
O
U
N
D

N
O
.

I

8
5
9

I

8
7
2

I

~

~
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

r
-
-
-
-
6
~

~

.
.
.

6
.

~
.

-
-
-
6

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_

6

6

~

6

~

8

H
A
H
K

c
o
M
P
U
T
E
R

D
A
T
A

S
I
M
U
L
A
T
I
O
N

0

6
.

-
-

-
.
.

-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~

i

4
0
0
1

1

I

r

I

8

I

~

r

I

I

6

5

l

0

1
5

2
0

2
5

3
0

3
5

4
0

T
I
M
E

O
F

F
L
I
G
H
T
,

S
E
C
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
2
.

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
-
T
i
m
e

o
f

F
l
i
g
h
t

D
a
t
a

f
r
o
m

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

T
e
s
t
s
,

R
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

(
Y
P
G

F
i
r
i
n
g
,

5

J
u
l
y

1
9
7
9
)

,




6.0 FLIGHT TEST VEHICLE FINAL CONFIGURATION
Following the initial flight tests at YPG, it was possible to
complete the final twenty (20) test vehicles required under this
program. Figure 73 shows one of the ~ ~ o 5 vehicles prior to shipment
to YPG. Only one minor change in configuration, relative to the
Mod 4 vehicles tested at YPG, was required for the Mod 5 final config-
uration vehicles. This change 1:1as made to reflect the use of a hard
anodize coating, rather than copper, for the front bore rider (this
change was validated in gun testing prior to the YPG tests). The
only design impact from the YPG tests was in regard to fin welding.
The proven process, used on the successful flight test vehicles, has
been carefully documented and included on the appropriate drawings
for the Mod 5 test vehicle. One addi tiona l drawing note change v:as
made to more accurately define the assembly procedure for the rear
sabot. Table 15 contains a list of drawings for the final design.
Reproducible drawings of this projectile have been supplied separately
to the Army, and reduced prints of these drawings are shown in Figures
7 4-91.
The twenty (20) Mod 5 test vehicles described in this section
have been delivered to YPG for further test and evaluation by the
Army. These tests are not within the contractor's scope of work of
the current contract. Early completion of these tests by the Army
will provide significant additional data which will be useful in
further development of the 8-inch Subcaliber Extended Range Cargo
VehiclP.. Additional recommendations for further work are discussed
in the following section .
163
PAGE 1641S MISSING FROM THE MASTER COPY

TABLE 15. FLIGHT TEST VEHICLE FINAL CONFIGURATION
PART DRAvJI NG NUMBER REV DATE
811
Cargo Shell, Mod 5 F24776 4 Oct 79
Windshield D24733 A 9 Aug 78
Dummy Payload C24737 A 9 Aug 78
Payload Ballast C24738 A 9 Aug 78
Spacer, Body B24758 A 30 Jan 79
Body F24759 A 30 Jan 79
Fin Boom (\'Jeldment) D24777 4 Oct 79
Fin D24762 5 Feb 79
Fin Boom D24764 A 5 Feb 79

Front ~ b o t Ass'y 824778 4 Oct 79
Front Sabot Carrier D24732 B 9 Aug 78
Front Sabot D24775 4 Oct 79
Retaining Ring A24115 A 26. Jul 77
Rear Sabot Ass'y 824779 4 Oct 79
Rear Sabot Carrier D24757 A 30 Jan 79
Sabot, Rear 024708 B 21 June 78
Band, Obturator 024710 A 21 June 73
Obturator, Secondary C24709 A 21 June 78
165

1
-
'

(
)
"
)

(
)
"
)

t
i
l

l
j

I

0

1

'3

.;:,
c
.

.
.

't
U
H
\
.

T
it
O
t:S
.C
:Itif'T
IO
M

,
.
.
.
.

E

.
.
.
:

.
.

-
t
l
t
\
l
l
'1
l
.
\
-
1
)

A
Z
.
.
.
l
A
,
.
P
l
'l

l
.

f
l
f
(
U
O
I

!
.
U
I
I
A
(
l

O
f
A
U
I
M
I
U
,

I
I
C
l

l

f
t
O
I
I
t
l

II
U
A
I

\
A
J
O
l
S

1111

t
J
H

l
l
l
l
o
l
\
1
4

'-
0
.
l
o
l
.l

I
A
l
l

2
0
.1
1

O
f
M
l
l
-
\
H
H
I
I

C
O
l
O
l

\
H
A
t
l

I
I

O
ll1
1
'l
O
U
t

N
IO
.
U
.O
U

O
f
H
D

\
1
0
-
U
\
,

l
'l
O
H

I
H
A
I

I
H
I

P
I
'M
I
I
t
U
I
I
O
I
I
I

O
f

I
H
I

'
"
l
i
l
t

\
r
i
l
l
l

C
\I
.. U
I
I
t

1110
l
t
A
O
I
.
A

C
O
A
llltC
O

f
t
U
C
i
l
i
U
B

O
f
:
l.

!
0

I
\

T
ltiH
.
1
\

(
H
(

(
O
A
I
I
I
U
i.
t
U
I
U
(
I
A
I
C
t
t
l
t
U

\
H
A
l
L

*
l
f
H
-
C
,!
A
"
'O

A

$
4

H
O
U
I

(
J
.
P
O
\
U
i
l

1
0

\
'\

:!
.A
ll
\
P
I
A
W

l
i
'U

A
\
l
l
l
l

I
I
l
l

.
:
)
I

.c
..:
-
.:
o

"
-
-
T

:;c
A
T

0
0

N
O
T

C
.O
A
l
I
!

/
/

'
-

l
i
!

!:
1
(
\
f
-

.

.
[
I

.

1
\1

!
I

I

-
-
-
-
=
3
1

_
_

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

',

-
-
-
-
.
:

_
_
_

.

.

.
.
.

-
=
2
:
=
:
:

.
'
-
e

,

_
.,-
.

I

.

I

.

-
,

a

I

.
/
.

.

:
c

,:
;
,,.r

:
J

,

-
-

-
-
c

I

I

I

0

Q

1
;

.
-
-
F
i
o
u
r
e

7
4

_
_
!.,
'
V

'-
.
.

3

8

u

U
S
S
O
t
K
l
i
'W
i
s
l
S
H
C
i
f
l
l
O

O
I.(
IIIS
IO
.S
A
II
lllllttC
H
la

jiO
U
U
iid
iO
J
I
6
iC
U
li1
l
.t.M
U
S

.
.
.
ih
!
A
t.;
.;
.E
E

O
lf
.T
A
.I
I
..S
,

i:A
f
liti:A
T

T
:
"
'U
T

A
S
S
Y
r
u
-
S
f
[
)
c
5
i
f
J
i
l
i
'4
l

h
o
n
t
r
M

, .
.
tiM
:
A
P
'liC
A
H
O
M

.... E
.ll
t-"C

=
.-
:
, .. :
...
.

8
2
4
7
?
'
J

#
';
."
:,.T

B
i
.
4
7
7
B

:_
p
.b
Q
T

..

1

4

I

l
J

i

I
;

:io
'A
Y
L
C
A
L
..

I

Z
,
f

1

(
.
2
.
.
4
7
3
/

:io
.J
......,M
v

P
.ro
.../I..O
A
C

...

c
.o
..t=
....-.:,
.:
:
.T

o
iO
ilA
W
I
M

S
P
A
C

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
.
C
O
R
P
O
R
A

f
!
;
,

,
)

'
'
l

,
.
,
.

)
.. ,

.-
'
"
"
'

.
-
m
o

.
.
.
.

_
.1
-<
:J
"

.
.
.

a

-
1
s
s

'
"
'
M

C
A
R
G
O

S
H
F
.
.
U


M
O
D

c
;

[
1
j
t
o
6
t
.
W
i
f
i
i
O
I
F
2
4
1
1
h
.

S
C
A
t,(
:
I

t
U
t

1

>
-
-
'
m

'
-
1

.
.

0

I
0

C
:.
1

'C
O
l
t

'l
A
N
.'i
l

'(
1
4
.
')

A
2
D
t
)

l

A
P
P
l
Y
.

!
!
\

.

._

A
l
l

'-
'A
C
H
H
d
D

S
U
I
H
A
C

S

U
"
l
l
S
'
i

O
(
H
U
W
I
S
[

S
f
(
C
I
J
I
(
D
.

')
1
.1

O
f

M
H

S
I
D
-
1
1
1
.

P
l
t
t
'l
l
'
A
l
l

'\
U
i
H
.
\
C
i
S

l
H
l
P
T

W
I
N
D
S
H
i
h
O

C
A
'i
'I
T
V

'
't
U
I

0

\
U
I
U
A
O
S

W
I
I
H

l
i
N
(

(
f
H
I
:
O
M
.
l
l
f
.

l
U
'I
f

M
)
I
S
I
U
I
H

}
l
"
i
-
.
I
I
I
Y
I
I
'f

P
l
l
l
:

T
!

I
I
H

C
O
l
O
R

Y
H
I
.O
W

J
l
f
i
"
'D
\
t
H
H
O

C
A
V
I
T
Y
,

i
.
'l
C
E
P
I

I
H
U
A
D
S
.

W
I
I
H

f
;
.
-
.
t

S
H

.
'.
I

0

O
F

"
'
l
l

\
T
0
-
1
1
1
.

,
I

.
L

,

.
-
)
'
-
-
.
:
;
;

M

...
W
A
.IC
H
I
-
M
I
N
O
f
t

-
:0

.
.
.

-
-
-

-
-
T

/
'

.
.
.

/
(

\
,
,

.


.

'
.
\
(
'
-
'"
'?

"
')
'
..
_
_
t_

........

.. ,_
,.:i2
o
<
. .
_
_
:
:
;
u

M
t
"
J

,
,
.
J
,
.
.
,

-
-
-
t

t
t
r

H

.

.
.
.
-
.
X
d
1

....

r

.. :----1

I
.
,

J

_
,
_

J

'
-
.
}

w
:
:
:
;
R
.
(
m
z

r
:'f
R

,N
r
;,...

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

.. D

R

\

_
_
_

A
L
L

A
'<
O
U
I
\
i.
D

?
2
.
4
1
7

6

t
A
f
'Q

M
C
C

4

.. )
0

-
-

C
K
)
O
\

-
-
-
-
-
-
.

.
.
_
_

1
.
5
2
4

?
;)

U
N
U
'S
S

O
T
H
U
*
I
S
[

S
l
'l
C
i
f
i
(
O

O
I
M
(
N
S
I
O
N
$

U
t
(

IN

I
N
C
H
E
S

T
o
tE
t
u
N
e
d

6
1
1

o
t
c
t
M
A
L
S

.
X
)
{
!
.
0
1

!
;
.
0
0
'
5

A
N
G
L
E
S

M
A
T
E
R
IA
L
:
!'A
IL
D

S
n
.
'
U
.

l
O
I
S

T
f
llA
T
M
[
N
T
:

.
.
.
.

C
H
K

"
"
'
"

S
i
i
i
i
t
f
f
i
o

t
t
E
V
lS
I
O
N
S

L
T
R

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

..... c-
"
"
"

,tA
.,,u

..:.

...:....:....1
,.._
_
_
_

:."
'M

.
' '()
1
.
o

.. "
"

;
:
-
:

.J
"
!(l

'>("()
.

'
.

.,.
).'i)o
')

;
:
-
.
;
;

:.J
t)
O

1
1
. -....

.v
o
e

'I"(!

1
1
.0
(.1
1

1
1
,',0
0

;!
.I
.O
f
!
r
t,'K
(
.
Y
-:'
,,
.
.

'

:
.
-
'
1

'

',>
:
;..

-
,
;
,

-
"
'
'"
1

:
'

..

-
/
;
:

.
.

:
1
-
.
!
,

'
'
/
l

.
.
.

ll,r
o
;c
_
_

-
-
''"
"

I>
A
IIl'
1110
:
>
2
4
7
C
:
.
;
!
:
,

S
P
A
C
E

lt
f
'S
I
:
A
a
c
N

('X
)M
'()IItA
.T
tO
IIII
1
<
1
1

T
i
;
O
y

W
I
N
D
S
!
-
l
i
{
:
.
L
D

i


.
.

.-
..,..::,-
.,.::-
, _
,
;
-
+
.
-
:
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
=
"
'

"
'

-
-
-
-
-
-
1

D

D
2
4
7

3

'
A
P
P

I
A
T
I
N

"
J
O
T
E

3

H

..

-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

-
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
5

f
.
-
'

0
'
1

O
J

N
O
T

S
:

C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S

L
T
R

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

A

J
1
,

A
G
O
E
"
-
0

N
O
T
E

(
_

D
A
T
E

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

"

{

.

1
-
.';G
,_
/
(
/
,
_
:

l

A
N
S
I

Y
l
t

!
>
-
7
3

&
A
2
0
0
6
2

A
P
I
'l

Y
.
M
A
J
O
R

-
Z
.
!
Z

A
L
L

S
U
R
f
A
C

5

U
N
l
E
S
S

O
T
O
O
I
W
I
S

S
P

C
i
f
i

D
.

M
I
N
O
R

-
1

F
I
N
I
S
H

7
.
Z
.
I

M
l
l
-
S
T
I
H
7
l

-
-
,
r

-
-
-
-
-
i!

/
'
_

l
i
.
o
i
J
N
-
2
.
S

1

,

l
e
:
.
s
o
.
:
o
(
/
>
1

-
:
-
o
R
o
o
T
<
Z
J

:

P
\
T
c
.
.
.
.
,
,
z
,
:

.
.

.
5
e
4
+
-
.
o
o
(
o
s

I

(
c
.
'
1
0
0

Z
>
)

_
.

_

M
I
N

L
V
C
U
T

-
-
-
,
1

/

M
A
,
:
O
R

,
.
(
o

2
.
.
5
0

1
\
/
\
\
N

1

.
,

/

i

.!
_

,
)
'
1
5

<
l

-
.
0
0
5
!

1
.
5
0

L

_
_

_

I

i
-
A
-
;

:::...._
:.

-
,

\

I

r

-
(

2
.
1
.
:
:
:
:
.
o
o

(
/
J
)

-
.
__
,
_

.
\
.
.

-
,
"
'

I

_
_
_
_
_
_
f

.
.
<
;

-
.
.
.
.

-
,
,
_

-
I

.
.
.

-
.
.

-
.
.
.
_
:

-
.
_
'
'

"

'
.
'

"
"

"

'
,
"

\
"
-
'

.
.

U

\

\
I
\

-
-
;
.

.
:
:
,
)

-
I

'
'
1
.
0
0

P
A
R
T

N
O

!
_

C
4

""-,'
3
J

U
N
L
I
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

l

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
_
A
W
IN
G

.

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

-

-
N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
,

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

0
5
8
5
9

P
R
E
P

I

.

-
I

.
.
.

c
"

I

F
Z
<
l

1
7
"
:

'-
"

M
A
T
E
R
I
A

.

"

_

C
H
K

I
'

-

;
,

1
-
j
'
-
/
_
'
-
/
T
'
:

,
,
q
,
"
<
>

'
'

.

,
_
,

"
-
'

I

L
'

'
-
j

,
_
.
-
2
4
'l
.
:
.
.
G

'
-
,
1
-
,
.

E
N
G
R
'

_
,

_
u

1
-
/
1

M

\
'

'P
f
:
.
.
'/

L
C
)
A
D

'"

v
-
)

,
_
-
,
_

H
E
A
T

T
>
:
:
-
.
o
i
E
N
T
:

S
U
B
M
I
T
I
E
D

I

L

I
C
S

'

'

S
I
Z
E

I
C
O
D
E

!
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
,
(

'
-
-
.

1
'-
':
....
I

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
.

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

C
.
4

l

)

.

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
l
i
O
N

,
,
,
;
>
-
;
-
"
-
:::
S
C
A
L
E
:

:
f

j
S
H
E
E
T

I

0

I

F
i
0
u
r
e

7
6

.......
0
"
1

\
.
0

N
O
T
I
S
:

C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
l

S
T
I
C
S

(
W
R

4
3
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
L

A
N
S
I

Y
l
4
.
S

n

&

A
.
.
"
'0
6
2

A
P
P
L
Y
.
M
A
J
O
R

-
Z
.
1
2
5

A
l
l

M
A
C
H
I
N

0

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

U
N
U
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
.

M
I
N
O
R

-
l
.

f
i
N
I
S
H
S
.
l
l
2
0
R
S
.
.
l
!
2
0
f
M
I
L
-
S
T
D
-
1
7
l

1
-
3
.
4
2
.

1
.
1
2
.
.
0

-
-
;

I
;
.
-
.
.

s
a

-
I
1
.
0
0

r

'
-
'

!

I

I

i
-
-
-
-
I

I

'

i

1

;

4
0

I

I

-
-
h
-
-
-
-
I

I
.,
'
I

I

I

I

-
-
-
.

I

.
:
:
;
r
.
r

3
.
4

2
.

-,2
:'
-
.
Q

I

,
,

/
A
"

I
A

I

.

.
)

k
)

z
;

4
.
2
.
'
5
-
1
2
.
.
U
N
-
2
.
A

M
,
)
.
0
C
:
i
=
l
.

-
J
J
:

4
.

?
.
.
+
o
O

-
.
C
I

1
4
-
p
.
-
;
-
o
_
,
.
.

.
t
:

.
.
.
.

1
-
'\

-
.
0
0
(
,
5

.
'
y
'
"

1
'
\
!
0
K

1
.
;

-
.

1
4
5
3

N
I
A
i
'
.
.

.
?
\
_
;
N
-
:

r
-
1
\
A

.
)
:
.
.
.
;
K
_
.
:
;
:

-
.
...::-
-
=
:-
-
..+

:
:
:
.
r
T
C
r
l

:
b
:

,
_
5
.
:
3
2
.
3

-
.
c
c
;
;
.
:
:
.

\
J
\
1
t

J
O
R

i
t
;
:

M
A
X

/
-
A
-
/

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S

L
T
R
I

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

A
.
1
(
1
)

A
O
O
E
.
O

2
..
i

i

p

I

@
/

.
:
_
_
.
5
0
-
i
:
O
c
.
N
C
.
-
2
.
3

I

P
A
R
T

N
O
.

C

2

.
_
j:

l

3

5

D
A
T
E

I

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

,
,

.
i

0
-
"

I
M
I
J
/

,
;

1
.:_
,
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

f

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

.

-
.

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

f

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

1
q

.
r

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
,

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

0
5
8
5
9

.
-
I

P
R
E
P

r

.
.
.
r
.
.
_

.
1

1

,
"
"

,

I

>
L
4
7

7
b

,
.
_
.

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:

C
H
K

I

I

-
.
-
.

t
l

I
"
'
t
i
:
l
/
7
2

;
;
_
4
.
,
h
0

T

-
.

l

"
'
'
I
.

I
'
L

-
1

::',
E
N
G
R

l
:
/
7
/
l
'
r
'

J
I
\
.
\
A
,
.
t

P
A
V
L
O
A

D

8
.
!
-
>
.
.
L
L
.
w
.
-
:
:

T

l\,._

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:

S
U
B
M
IT
T
E
D

I

i
j
'
-
I
S
S

M
i
l
<
\

I

S
I
Z
E

1
C
O
D
E

!
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
I

_

.
.
,

I
P
<
v

I

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

I

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

l

c
.
J

I
L

c
:
.

4
1

;
)

t
)

A

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

0

_
l

S
C
A
L
E
:

1
/
l

-
J
S
H
E
E
T

I

O
F

I

F
i
g
u
r
e

T
l

f
-
'

-
-
.
J

0

.
.
.
-

N
O
T
E
S
:

1
.
A
N
S
I

Y
i
4
.

5
-
7
3

&
A
2
0
0
6
2

"
P
?
L
Y
.

2
.

.
\
\
I
N
i
i
\
\
U
M

Y
I
E
L
D

2
0
0

K
P
S
I
.

3
.

!
2
5

A
L
L

,
\
\
A
C
H
I
N
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
.

4
.

A
.

F
I
N
I
S
H
S
.
I
.
I
O
F
M
I
L
-
S
T
D
-
1
7
1
.

o
.

P
R
i
i
\
\
E

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

O
N
L
Y

W
I
T
H

Z
I
N
C

C
H
R
O
M
A
T
E

L
O
W

S
T
U
R
E

S
E
N
S
I
T
I
V
I
T
Y
,

P
E
R

T
I
-
P
-
1
7
5
7
,

C
O
L
O
R

Y
E
L
L
O
W
.

,
.

R
F
V
I
S
I
O
N
S

U
E
S
.C
R
IP
T
IO
N

1

I

:
,;
.. p
!
,(
o

T
=
l
j
.
.
L
_
;
.
.
_
-
:
_
:
.
_

'
L
.

-
1

I

'

-

-
-
:
-
-
,1

-
/

"
"

-
-
-
(

-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-

-
-
"

-

-
-

-
.

-
"
"
-

(
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\

,',
-
-
0
\

-

'

.
.
.
)

l

r

'

'
-
.

:
_
.
4
/
S
C
/
J

-
.
:
,

.
5
.
.
.
)
-
2
_

-
:
:
.

-
l
-
-

-
-
"

\
u

....._
..J
-
...._
,..
-
:
.
p
i
-
;
-
c
.
.

.
-
:

;
;

.

>
;
\
I

i
'
.
:
C
I
-
'

t

.....

-

_
_
.
-
-
-
-
.._
,
_

_
,

'

/
=

-
c
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
:
,
_
_
':
:
.
.
.
.

'

.

-

-
-
l

,
=
:

.
'
\
)

'-
-

.

::.-
:-
/"
"
'\
_
_

_
,

-
.
'

.
:
:

'
-
'

-
-
-
-

P
A
R
T

N
O

._
......;:
-

O
T
H
E
R
W
IS
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
O
,
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

IN

IN
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
A
W
IN
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

..

.
.

:
-
:
;
{

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

U
N

U
t
.I ..... IIV
!ti'IL
':)
..-

.

_

-

'
,

:
.

.

...,
-

-
-
M
A
T
f
R
I
A
L

'

;
.

-
-
-
-
.

.

E
N
G
R

I

'
1

-
'
-
-
H
E
A
T
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

s
u
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

s
t
z
E

'
C
O
D
E

t
D
E
N
T

N
o
l
,
_
,

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

B

1
-

F
I
N
A
L

P
P
O
T
E
C
T
I
V

F
I
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

S
C
A
L
E

'
:::_

I

P
R
E
P

0
0
1

,
.
,

r

-
-
(

'

-
-
-
r

-
'...J
.
1
-
-

_
}

I
S
H
E
E
T

O
F

-
,
_
'
.

,
.

.
.

,

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
8




:: ~ ; ..
; .J ... ""
I.
~
-
.
4
-
. --
l
<).
'
"
.,;
171
'" >
"
"
'
~
0 ,_,
...j
I
I
. ;_j
-----] _ J ~ ~ ~
<t "' - Ll
----
---
---- "l
l
I
~
' ~
r
"-'
I
I
I
i
i
_j ___ ,
f
-
'

'

N
'

l
r
t
O
f
l
\
I
.
A
-
.
S
I

t
l4
,

r
t
'

.1
.2
'(
)
0

1

.
,
,
L
Y

l
.

W
H
O
U
I
G

'I
O
C
l
D
U
i
U
S
:

C
U
A
!
t

I
I
U
l
D

A
l
t
(
A

W
l
f
H

\
I
A
I
"
l
l
S
S

S
H
(
L

.
.
,
I
I
U

I
I
I
:
U
S
H

a

>
'U
t
i
.

l
i
Q
U
I
D

P
l
l
l
H
O
I

I
I
(

A
lt

O
V
(
N

T
O

A

J
l
l
l
t
P
l
i
A
I
U
I
I
(

.. 0

(
,
i
t
U
H
i
t

.
.

H
O
O
F
.

.lo
G
A
')

'M
IW
.
T
L
!Id
.
(
.
f

1
\
...
H
(

2
!1
'1
.
A
ll
A
t

"

;
u
,
f
i
.

u
J

n

A
G

C
f
M
.

1
1
,
;

'l
l
l
l
l
O

u
S
I
'-
G

1
.
a

O
I
A
"
"
l
H
I
I

T
U
"
t
G
S
l
l
'
t
l
t
(
T
I
I
O
J
(

l
'
\

I
H
0
1
U
I
I
l
0

IIIIIT
H

J
-
1
1

O
I
A
-

A
I
o
d
.L
D

llO
D

U
J
I
I
I
)
(
I
I

1
1
.
1

1
1
0

"
"
"
'

4
;.>
1
'1
."
1

l
i
l
l
(
l
Q

Y
E
i
.
f

\
L
O
W
L
Y

T
O

A
l
l
O
W

A

o
H
l
l

O
f
\
I
H
O
P

0

;
u
O
O
l
(

'
.

A
T

!
H
f

'1
1
1
1
0

'.
l
f
C
J
I
O
i
t

O
f

l
M
l

1

!
\
'
t
O
T

h

t

C
U
O

A
J

q
J
f

4
S

:
'I
O
l
t
.
:
A
l
(
l
)

I
Y

.
'
\

o
l.ll

')
U
I
H
A
.
C
E
'i

U
"
t
l
l
>
S

!
't
t
l
)
H

1
.
!
.

I
I
)
J

.\4
l
l

'; T
0
-
I 1
I
l
l
'l
l
l
'o
l
(

A
l
l

\
L
!
I
t
H
C
[
')

O
:
C
l
P
T

.
.
0
1

...
l
f
w

l
l
'\
I
C

(
H
o
t
O

.
l
T
E

,
1
)
"

I U
R
(

'
i
t
"
tS

I
T
I
'
/
I
r
Y

?
[
I
I

'
I

P

!
I
'
/
.

C
:
ilO
K

H
l
L
O
W

.. :
_

I

p

J

-
-
-

l
W

A
-
A

C
o
(
A
l
l

'
-
/
1

C
L
.
.
I
I
,I
C
A
T
I
O
f
r
ll
0
#

t
H
A
I
I
A
C
T
(
I
t
l
S
T
I
C
S

1

4
U
t

C
I
H
T
.C
A
.L
-
:a
u
J
O
A
-
..
lll't
iO
A

-

.:..
r
+
.
l
.
.

l
.
.
J
.
.

;
"

,
I

L
T
O

_
,
z
.

C
._
N
-
2
...:.._
1

R
[
V
I
S
I
O
H
S

Q
A
T

.
l
o
\
P

'v
1
A
'll
-
-
.
:
:
c
-
-

'"
:7
'C

;,
:

.
.

U
N
L

5
5

O
T
H
U
W
I
S

S
l
'f
:
C
i
f
l
f
O

0
1
1
1
1
1
fN
S
IO
N
S

A
ll(

IN

IN
C
H
(
$

1

O
N

6
E
C
L
I
I
A
L
S

A
I
U
O
U
$

I
U
T
U
I
A
l

-
"
i
<
-
.
f
H
U
I

T
A
U
.
T
I
I

l

.:.

.:. ...
'
7
'
-
-.....:...-'
"
.:1
-.:.

-
;

-
-
-
-
"

-
-
=

O
IIIC
O
IN
A
L

O
A
T
(
O
f

O
IIA
W
IN
G

"


'._
...
"
"
'

,<
c
._

fN
G
II
I

,.1
_

s
u
tllttT
T

0

P
A
I
I
I
!
t
\
.
.
':
.
1

S
l"
o
t.C

M
S
f
:
A
it
C
H

:J

I

.
c
o

...
T
"
R
O
'f
'

N
E
X
T
A
S
S
V

U
S

.0

O
H

F
IN
A
L

,.I
I
O
J
f
C
l
i
Y
f

f
i
N
I
S
H
.
A
P
P
ttC
IY
(D

A
P
P
l
i
C
A
T
I
O
H

_
:
-
:.-
:
'
o
n
:
:

4

F
i
g
u
r
e

8
0

1
-
'

'
-
1

w

1

A
.. S
I

l
A
2
0
0
U

A
P
f
t
l
Y
.

l
.

U
N
U

S
S

,
.
t

.
,

-
......
-
.
:
:
.
.
:
:
:
:

n

I

,
;
:
.
:
t
'
l

2
.
p
._

"

.....

>

'
:
!
'

-
.:.

I;
r

1

i
I

!
I

i
U

-

2
.
0
0

!

5
"
5

-
'
)
I
:
)

C
L
A
I
I
"
I
C
.
l
T
I
O
N

O
f
'
C
H
A
.
A
C
T
(
J
t
i
!
T
I
C
S

(
_
,
.
4
U
I

C
llt
iT
I
C
A
L
-
W
A
.I
O
it
-
M
tN
O
J
I

-:
.
:
s

-

L
T
R

3
.
0
:
>

.
-
4
:
:
:
'
5
-
.
0
t
O

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
.

3
'3
1

-
-
-
-
1
.
2
.
5

-
1
.
8
0
;
:
(
1
-
.
4
0

i

A
-
.
.
.
J

I

I !

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
=
=
=
=
=
=
-
-
-
-
=
-
_
_
.
,

-
-
-
-
=
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
\

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
.
1

-
.
0
9
8
0

;A
;;o
liL
=
?

J
C
H

:;:)f"

-
E
N
G
,
7
.
.
.
1

R

Y
I
S
I
(
)
t
lll,

-
"
-
5

e
n

_
_
_
j

.:;:;.:;:-
-
_
:
-
c

P
A
J
t'f
N
O
.
(
,
.
2
.
4
.
7
.
.
:
,
?

,
.

D
A
T
E

(
A
P
P
R

I
'
'

!
r

.
_

U
N
U
S
S

O
T
H
U
W
I
$
(

$
P
'(
C
i
f
i
(
D

O
U
I
O
tS
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

IN

I
N
C
H
(
$

t
0
U
i
A
N
C
[
S

O
N

D
E
C
IM
A
L
S

.
u

!
.
,
,
;
.
,

O
IU
G
tN
A
L

D
A
T
E

O
f

O
lltA
W
IN
G

I
P
I
'C

l
t
f
S
E
M
C
H

C
(
)
lt
f
"
Q
t
A
l1
0
f
il
F
i
9
u
r
e

8
1

-
4
-
J
1
i

'
"
"
)
,
;
;

A
H
G
U
S

W
'i'ii"
A
L
;

(
D
Q
(
,
\

T
'
-
-

"
C
o
i1
1
;L
L
J
tiU
T

t
a

4
n
i
i
i
t
1
:

::'-5

,..,,.,
N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

I

U
S
E
D

O
N

f
m

A
L

P
1
t
0
t

C
t
1
Y
t
"
i
u
u
s
H

A
P
P
ltC
A
T
J
Q
_
N

5

'
7
f

N
O
R
T
H

/
(
R
t
1
'.
'N
l

H
I
:
(
!
',
....
C
K
K

t

E
N
G
IIt
'
1,1

r

'r
7
t
F
l

N

S
I
J
8
M
in

D

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.

g
t
,
c
o
o

i
l

;::
2
.
4
7
c
;
;
2
.

S
C
A
L
E
:
2
.
/

I



~
0
z
0
0
r
.
~
~
~
.
0
-
!
X
0
~
" 0
u
~
~
0
0
"
''
.f
I
'-
'
"'
., '
-1-
1
I
_L. -----
I'
.,1
. 'i' l
I'
- _____ .,..-
--
,, ~ \ .
z - ~
II
,/
/
+
L
/
___ I
I
,- -- rr
, I'
.I
:--,. ---.---t
174
z
0
~
f
-
'

-
.....!

(
5
1

.
-
R

V
I
S
l
O
N
S

N
O
T
E
S
:

l
O
N
t
:

I

L
T
A

I

D

S
C
R
tP
T
I
O
N

I

D
A
T
E

I

A
P
!
'R
O
V
E

I
.

A
N
S
I

Y
1
4
.

5
-
7
3

&

A
2
0
0
6
2

A
P
P
l
Y
.

I

I

I

!

2
.

1
2
5

A
l
l

M
A
C
H
I
N
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
.

0

3
.

F
I
N
I
S
H

S
A
B
O
T

O
N
L
Y
,

I
T
E
M
2
.
W
I
T
H

7
.
5
.
1

O
F

M
l
l
-
S
T
D
-
1
7
L

H
A
R
D
C
O
A
T

T
O

B
E
.

0
0
3

T
H
I
C
K
.

I

1

J
.

I

r
-
-
-
1
_

7
.

9
S
C

:

/

A
-

3
l
.
'
J
8
S

[

I

-
[
8
1

l
f
l

'

7
.

9
8
C
:
,

C
Z
J

-
.
0
0
5

i
.
_
_
_
_
_

"

)
J
f
j
A
-
B

)
.
o
o
s

I

/
/

B
E
.
F
O
R
E
.

A
N
N
O
D
t
L
.
\
N
G

/

\

.

':
:
l
E
E
.

N
O
T
E
.

-
-
-
-
-
'
f
-
-
'

.

,
-
'

-
,

7

I

A
2
4
1
\
S

R
E
.
T
A
I
N
I
N
&

;
:
z
i
N
&

0

.
-
I

0
2
.
4

7
7
5

F
R
O
N
T

:
r
.
3
0
T

\
...._
_
../
'
I

I

0
2
.
.
4
-
7
3
2
.

;
:
:
-
K
.
O
N

I

5
A
2
0
1

C
A
R
R
I
E
R

i
T
-
=

'
I
I

!

O
T
Y

i

P
,
A
.
F
\
.

r

O
:
:
.
S
C
.
=
<
.
I
P
T
I
O
N

P
A
R
T
S

L
.i
5

T

U
N
l

5
5

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

-
-
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

i
.
.
i
:
,

7

N
O
R
T
H

\
!
:
<
0
-
.
'

J
i

-
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S
O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

F
R
O
t
-
J
T

S
A
B
O
T

A
S
S
'
Y

-
A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

I

'V
1

S

j
l
.
.
.

:
4

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
C
H
K

.:
-
t
.

;

-
,
.

F
.
:
0
4
7
7
b

M
C
C

5

<

'

E
N
G
R

-
,
-
:
;
s

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
,

B
2
.

4

7
7

8

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

A
P
P
liC
A
T
I
O
N

s
;
,
;
:
,

O
t
f
A
I
\
_
:
0
,

S
C
A
L
E
:

I

!
S
H
E
E
T

O
F

!

F
i
9
u
r
e

8
3

.......
'-
.
1

(
J
)

N
O
I

[

S
:

Y
1
4
.
S

l
l
'

A
2
0
0
U

A
P
P
l
Y
.

1
:!,)
A
.l
l

M
A
C
H
l
t
f
O

S
U
I
H
A
C
B

U
T
r
H
i
h
'I
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
.

'i
.
1
.
1

O
F

M
t
l
-
S
T
0
-
1
1
1
.

P
R
I
'-
'(

A
l
l

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

(
X
C
(
P
T

I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R

C
A
V
I
T
Y
,
T
I
1
1
H
A
D
S

'
k
O
T
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
,
R
l
f
H

C
H
R
O
M
A
T

,
t
O
W

M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

S
l
'&
S
l
f
i
i
i
i
T
Y

P
E
R

r
T

P
-
I
I
H

C
O
L
O
R

V
U
t
i
)
W

C
.
f
'q
l
M
.E

l
k
T
E
R
I
O
R

C
A
V
I
T
Y
,

E
X
C
E
P
T

T
t
i
R
[
A
O
S
,

'N
i
l
H

f
i
'I
I
I
S
H

H
.
6

O
F

M
l
t

S
T
D
-
1
1
1
.

-
:;,-

.

/
,
:
.
.

0

-
=
-
-
"
-
j
.
2
5
.
?
5
j

... i=
>
t
l{

:),...
-
;
J

t->
h
o
<
.
,r-...._
._
.
0
:

_
:
;
.
:.

.....

.
'
"
"

..

-
)

0::

:
;

C
L
.
I
I
I
P
'I
C
A
T
I
O
f
r
f

M

C
K
.
&
I
t
A
C
T
l
l
t
i
S
T
I
C
S

(
-

U
A
,

C
.
.
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
,j(
)
lt

-
.
.
.
.
.
a
.

-
7
,
0
'

.
t
S

+
.
O
c

-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
_

!
.
1
o

L
>
u
5

I

:
;
:
C
T

'
-
-
"
-
'
=
'
'
0

'
)
'
:
,
o

r
-
-
-
-
(
.
S
?
:
:
l
)

,

,
-
z
.
.

.
;
-
)

/
'

]
'

;
..::...
_
:;(_
)_
:..
1
.1
1

.:.:,
"
:'o
-4

Z
>

:

'
3

M
l
t
\
1
0
1
<
.
;
!
)
.

-
.
-
.
)
d

r

-
-
-
-
y
_
,
.
U
/
(
V
T

d

.
/

i
;
,
'
,
"
L
'

.

-
I

I
/

i
r
/

"

1
I
-
-
/

-
/

I
!

/

I

t
)

I
:

I
.

_

.

_

-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
:
-
-
-
J
,

:

1
.
l
9
.
2
l
t
0
1

(
4
.
0
7
4

i
'l
)

(
4
.
2
D
'
l

<
'5
)

,
lj

.
/

I

I

I

-
-
'
f

-
-
-
-
.

l
f

;

'

"
"
i
/
-
J
L
.
O
'
c
)

1
-
-
I

I

l

I

,
,

I

_
_
_
_
t

;
'1
'

.
-
-
-
-

_
.
L
_

-
"
"
'

I

.

.

.

.

;

;
/

I

I
.

j
_
_
_
_

-
-
,
-
-

.A
'-
I
o
:..:;_
,t

.,-
:

}
.l..,

p
s

:
'
J

...

r .
0
1
)
<
)

.'.:
,..)
(
)

'3

.:;,1
.
.
<1.
..-
.

:
.
.
.
.
v
o
o

_
!,.:X
..-..o

__
i

i
-
0
-
0

j

:

!

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
L
.....
:

C
O
N
O
T
)
-

i
.
)
t
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
:
.
:
:
;

-
1
..2
.'3
-
1
2
.
U
l
\
i
-
2
A

,._"'

-
,
)
1
,
4
.

_
,

-
.
:
'.
:
4
>
5

.. _
:
.
4
-
-
2
:
]

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
!
.
'

-
_
,:,.
,_
.._
_
.T

_
..........
j
e
x
.:
:
:
:
-
m

'<

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
2
0

_
l

'
-
-
-
-
2
.
.
5
0
-

2
.
.

..J
N
-
2
...:
..

D
1
T
C
b
l
z
:

2
.
.
4
4
:
X
:
0
-
:

-:
.
J
.Q
.::.

M
A
J
(

-
L
.
J
j

.i.{
O
o
...
!"...\...)
R
f
V
t
S
t
O
N
'J

L
f
R
I

:
>
2
4
7
3
2
.

-

O
A
T

I
A
P
P
J

U
M
U
S
$

O
l
H
U
W
I
S
(

S
P
E
C
if
iE
D

O
IIIIIIU
I$
1
0
M
$

A
tii:E

IN

!ItC
H

$

f
0
L
E
U
M
C
d

O
fl
O
lC
lM
A
L
S
.
O
I
I
I
G
t
N
A
C
O
i
.t
(

O
F

O
IIA
W
IN
G

I

S
H
t
a
:

':...4:
'J
.
.
u
.
o
.
\
J
.
.
j
)

\
J
O
R
T
l
-
o
l

:
R
O
Y

v
I

.
-
.
c
:

\
,

-
.
.
:
:
;
;
;
-
F
i
a
u
r
e

8
4

i5
(
.
Q
.
l'8

:
:
)

M
<
Q

'":>

-
;
;
;
;
;
-
-
;
;
-
,}
I. X
.:.
.
0
1

.
X
X
)
l

:
.
.
C
O
S

A
N
IO
L
U

Y
'
W
'

I
U
T
E
iit.\L
:
"
'
I
L
O

,
1
0
1
8

(
H
U
T

T
I
U
A
f
M
E
N
T
:
l'ti:E
I"

1
)
1
1

C
H
K

;
-
.
,
.
.
,
'f

j
,
;
,
;
t
;
>
.
J

F
R
O
N
T

S
A
B
O
T

C
A
R
R
I

.
R
.

S
U
IM
IT
T
E
O

f
iN
I
S
H
:
A
H
1
tO
V

:
)
2
4
.
7
3
?

f
-
'

'
-
l

'
-
l

"
!
O
f

5
,

A
,
_
'i
l

f
\
4
.

4
.
A
l
O
O
b
l

A
P
P
l
Y
.

A
l
l

S
U
i
i
J
A
C
l
S

U
N
l
(
S
S

S
P
t
C
I
F
H
O
.

"
'

,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
,
.
.
-
-
'

I
-
.

:
4

. -

-
.
.
.

'

'
.

"
'
.

,

'
. (
_
,

/

t

..
r
-
.-J

,
r
J
J

.
.
.
.
.
'
:

.
-
4

I
!

Q

:
'

I

O
o
5
t

.

I

C
I
.
A
i
t
W
t
C
A
T
I
O
t
l

(
#

C
N
A
i
i
U
C
T
t

t
S
T
I
C
S

1
.
.
4
J
.
l
l

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
W
A
J
D
A

-
IIN
N
O
II
-
L
T
R

-
.
l
J
I

K

.
.
.
O
I

'
-
-

\

A

V
I
S
I
O
N
S

'

=
l

..
4
-.
P
L
'-
C
.
E
'S

\
'
"
"
'
'

.

r
-

e
>
<

-
i
"

.

.
.
.

.
;
,
.

.

.

.

j
,
,
,
,
;

l
,
;
_
:
;
;
.
5
J
J
)

I

-
-
-
-
.

.
<
c
w
C
-
.
,

'1
.
0
4

'.
/
J

.
u
a

r
i
.C
'I
.-
-
.._. ...
.
:
'
1
0

_
s

t
)

L
_
j

.
C
1
.

-
l

.

_.
,
_
;

.
.
.
o
o
5

:
:
:
:
:
J

;
.
\
P
E
R

2
N

!J

t
i-_
R

\
t
J

-.);::
L
0

j
"
'-
Y
1

.
S
-
J
)

..

I
/

')1
1
_
::
,
6
)

/

-
I
I
.
.

o
.
,
,
i
_

-
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
(
.
l
,
C
[
'
S

/

-
-
-
-
=
-
)

_
,
_

t
0
,
\

_
,
r

-
:....r-1

4
/
'

/
,
'
(

!!
!

/

/
.

/

I

\
Q

\
-
\
0

\
\
\

'
\
,

/
/

I

i
/

v
'

u

_
.
.
.
.

r
,

'
-
'

r
;

-
-
-
,

;
.
/

-

l
'
-
.

.
u
i
5

t
v

_

_
_
...:_
!_
;
::.:..::
H
C
L
E
s

-
-
t
.
S
O
'
l

-
-
-
l

L
-
-
.


:

-
.
'
.
I
!
')
,

V
I
E
w
'
(

.
-
C
.
"
l
E

:

..:
1
1

M
A
T
(
I
I
I
A
l
7
U
1
5

T
"

,t,.l_
I
J
M
I

N
l.J
tw
'\
H
U
1
1
1
1
(
A
T
M
U
H

N
(
)
(
J

A
S
S
Y

J

U
S

0

O
N

I F
I
N
A
l

F
I
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
U
C
A
T
IO
N

"
'(
"
)
T
I;_

2
.
F
i
c
:
u
r
e

8
5

O
I
I
I
G
I
N
o
\l
O
A
T
(

O
F

O
IIA
... IN
G

.
.
.
.

<

....
.
.
m
E
o

A
H
1
t0
\1
:1
5

IIC
O

"
'

v
s
e

F
R
O
N
T

'
"
A
B
u
T

1
-
;
'

5




N!Xl ASSY D!';UdP!IUN DA![ APPROVED
1-" I' ). __
I -1 I I ) 'I
MOl! S
NOTES:
I. ANSI Yl4. 5-73 & A20062 APPLY.
2. 125/ All MACHINED SURFACES UNLESS ,--- .\ \-.oz_
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. .
72.------ -
..
7. B/.l rjl - ,(){_
---
, I
,,

SPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION tJP\11 f <,c) OTH{ SPE (IF If f)
l:l\4fN',IONS M<( IN INC>if'>
Jill t HA"''( E S FRA(TIOP.r) f\lr"'Pfl! r \IT 05P,
1
;9
/'1."'4Gl ( <)
I f'l ACl 0[(1MALS t
,' f'l A(f (lt CIMAl 'i t
MATE.Rlf.\L
1-'0LY
PROPYLENE
C H K Dt3"'ht ,. J z,,J'Jl '( 11
R E_T A I N I t'J G PI t'J G
ENGR - I \. I I 1/
SIZE CODE !DENT NO DRAWING NO r, 1_:-, 1
A A2.411S
A
SCALE; I /2. r SHEET 1 oF",
Figure 86
178
f
-
'

"
'-
.1

<
.
D

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S

N
O
T
E
S
:

l
O
N
E

I

L
T
R

I

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

l
"

D
A
T
E

I

I
.

A
N
S
I

Y
1
4
.

5
-
1
3

&

A
2
0
0
6
2

A
P
P
L
Y
.

I

I

I

I

2
.

S
A
W

C
U
T
S

O
N

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

O
B
T
U
R
A
T
O
R

A
N
D

R
E
A
R

S
A
B
O
T

A
R
E

t
i
l
T

T
O

A
L
I
G
N

A
T

A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
.

3
.

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

B
A
R
R
I
E
R

C
A
V
I
T
Y

S
H
O
U
L
D

B
E

F
I
L
L
E
D

W
I
T
H

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C

R
T
V

I
I

W
I
T
H

N
U
O
C
U
R
E

7
3
.
.

I

r

r
1

-
-

I

I
I
'

:
:
.

:...
=

-
.

=

:
:
:
-

l

,

;
:
.
.
.
.
:
:
;
:

I
.

-
r
-
-
/

\

I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r

I
'

I

'

-
-

-
'

:

I
i

"

.

I

I
J
-
B
-
j

\
"
"

-
-
-

;

-
I

"

i

I
L
_

-
-

I
;

I

_
_
_
_
]

7
.
9
9
0
.
0
-
.
0
0
5

I

/

/

-
/

/

I
_
,
(

i
A

B

i
.
o
o
s

I

.
.

.'
.

,

/
.

/
.

I
'
_
!

-
-
-

.-
-
"
'
'
'

',
'-
,
.

>
7

.

,

/

/

i

C
-
2
.
4
-
7
0
9

1

O
B
-
:
"
u
R
A
.
T
O
R

S
E
.
C
.
.
O
t
'
-
J
0
A
K
Y

G
)

.
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
/

;

.
.

4

I

i

I
3
A
N
D

0
3
T
U
R
A
T
O
R
.

'
-
-
/

,
3

I

0
2
.
4
7
1
0

(

-

.

\
:

"
'
\
\
;
.
:
:
:
.

A

'

2

I'
2

I

0
2
.
4
7
0

6

I

C
.
A
r
:
:
.
O
T

R
;
:
-
A
K
.

-
-
J

-
-
-
-
.
-

I

0
2
.
.
4
7
5
7

I
R
E
t
:
>
-
.
R
.

S
A
I
3
0
T

I

4
.

A
P
P
L
Y

A

T
H
I
N

C
O
A
T

O
F

S
I
L
I
C
O
N
E

G
R
E
A
S
E

O
N

T
H
E

I
N
S
I
D
E

i
'
J
Q
T
E
_

3

-
i
T
:
:
M
.

Q
.
T
'
{

;

P
A
R
T

N
O
.

I

D
E
.
S
C
R
!
P
T
I
Q
N

D
I
A

O
F

O
B
T
U
R
A
T
O
R

B
A
N
D
,

I
T
E
M

3
,
P
R
I
O
R

T
O

A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
.

!

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
I
'
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
f

IN

I
N
C
H

$

O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

i
N
O
R
T
H

\
R
o
1

\
]
T

'
-
'
;

J

,
q

G
s
:
=
.
.
s
:

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C

5

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

'
-
J

.
T
'
l
l

4
l
i
9

S
A
B
O
T

I
A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
f
P

A
S

C
.
:
Y

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

C
H
K

I
f
)

1
3

t
"
o
C
T

-
;
:
;
.
:
.
.
.
.
-
-
b

"
"

c

s

E
N
G
R

t

I
-
"
"
f
;

.
:

"
'
-

...
,
,
_
o

.
5
-
:
:
:

S
U
B
M
i
f
f
i
D

S
B

I
C
O
D
E
I
D
E
N
T
N
O
l

6
2
.
.

4

7

7

9

r

-
!
:

...:.
...... _

.. ....,
H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

A
P
P
l
i
C
A
T
I
O
N

S
C
A
L
E
:

T

I

S
H
E
E
T

'
.

O
F

f
:
.
,
u
r
e

8
7

f
-
'

c
o

0

.
.

')

A
'-
S
I

A
P
P
l
Y

l
.

A
L
L

'-
!
.A
C
Y
P
H
O

'S
U
i
H
A
C
E
S

U
l
n
l

J
tV
IIIC
O
(
S
r>
E
C

IF

1

0
.

1
.
A
.
f
I
\I i
S
H

1
.
:
.

I

O
f

"
"
I
L

S
T
D

I
I
I
.

-
-
-
1
.

C
L
A
S
I
I
,
t
C
A
T
I
O
N

M

C
K
A
i
t
&
C
T
(
I
t
i
S
T
I
C
S

t
w
t
i
4
)
.
A
J

C
I
'I
T
I
C
A
L
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
1
1

-
M
I

O
R

-
-

..
,.I
.,,._
(
.
.
.
.

J
.

-
O
A
H

I
V

-
'

-
-
'
!
.

_
I

8
.

P
l
l
l
'd
(

A
U

S
U
iiiF
A
C
(
S

E
X
C
L
P
T

J
H
I
U
A
O
S
'

S
I.H
I.F
A
C
E
S

\I
I
!
I
I
H

C
H
i
i
i
O
M
A
l
(

t
O
W

\
i
S
I
I
I
V
I
f
Y
.

P
E
R

T
I
-
P
-
1
1
H
.

C
l
.l
l
O
i
f

Y
l
l
l
l
l
W

-
t
i
l

/
J

_
.-
D
O

N
O
T

P
R

M
<
-
-
r
-
'
'

I

.
'
.

/
'1
-
"
>
:
J

:
.:
.
:'
.
.
.

:

l
,
t
t
.
.
;
.
>

-'

u
"

r
:
-
:
.,t

J

_
.,:
-
....
:;
'
....
-
::.:

-
.. .
.::
'

I
l
.
.

>
'\
0

;
/
)
(
)

-
'
!
(
)
!
:

-
-
-
'
c
r

.
._

4

't
O

_
_
,
_
'
)
!
)
-
-

,
-
-
'
'

_

1

/
'-
"
'ti;
1
!
-
J
lH

S
f

L
G

.
t
S
d
4
;

_



,
-
-
:
.

-.

'
-
-
-
-
'
.
P
(
R

i),J
t..H

;_
.
(
,
;

.
.
.
.
-::

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
\

-
-
r

}
_
_
_
_
_


.
o
u
:
:
:
:
J

J
_

I

I

I

C
-
0
1
-
-

"
'

<
I
P
L
A
.c
.E
C
.:.

'.
_

'

'

'

t
-
+
-
-
1
-
-

"
"
"
"

'

,

'

'

(
'
,

t
C
O
-

-
-
-
-
I

u
;

,

l

3
1
0
-
2
.
J

-
-
-
-
.
,

J
>
f
N

A

_

_
/

-
-
I

I

,
-
-
-

:.

(
"
:
>
S
v
!
,

5
.
-
-
...

..

'

._
, _
_
,_

I

'

-
-
=

\

'
L
-

I

T
A
Y
(
"
-

j
i
J

/
J

f
'
E
K

N
'
-
'
F
L
C
,

H

j
.
o
u
S

J

A
U
.

A
R
.
.
;
U
N
D

.
.

o
a

.
.
.

_
.
,
T
f


\

1
.-
T
S

_
J

:
)
O

5

I

E

w

A
,

r
0
/
1

'1

'W
>
.,)
1

U
0
0
4

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'

.
-
.
.
-
-:_

Z
A

t

=
....

-
1
-
.
O
n
4

...
-
-
...
f
!
l
'

\A

'

:
:
'P

Z

-
:
A
]

'.
4
.
.
.
0

)
-
.
0
0
i
i
>
-
+

".

.
:
,
1
:
;
.
'1

U
A
X

U
H
U
S
S

O
T
H
U
W
I
S
(

S
J
>
t
C
l
f
l

0

0
1
W
(
It$
1
0
N
S

U
(

IN

IN
C
H
[S

o
t
h
.
u

c
t
i
O
N

O
t
c
n
u
t
s

O
R
I
G
I
I
lA
L

O
A
f
(

O
f

O
ftA
W
ifiiiG

A
N
G
lE
S

m
..

I
U
T
(
I
I
A
L
:

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
.

'
1
0
'
1
5
-
T
(
.

C
H
II
I

.t
:

.
.
.
.
.

H
U
T

T
I
I
I
U
T
M
U
U
:

S
U
IM
IT
T

0

I"
A
IT

N
O

0

2
.
4
,

_-_
-
-

'J
O
R
' .
.
.
""'
... .
;
(
)
"

.
-
R
E
A
'R
.

S
A
B
O
T

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

f
i
N
A
l

J
>
lt0
1

C
T
I
Y
(

J
U
U
S
H
:
A
P
f'1
tO
V
lO

A
P
P
L
IC
A
T
IO
N

-
F
i
g
u
r
e

8
8

"
-1
0
T
f:..
3

C
o
p
y

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
o

D
T
I
C

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t

f
u
l
l
y

l
e
g
i
b
l
e

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

0
0

't
O
l
E

S

A
't
'i
l

t
i
4
.

l

;
}

'
.
t
.
:
0
0
6
1

A
t
'P
l
Y
.

fl
t
l
i
H
[
S

8
E

P
A
U
,
[
L
E
L

r
o

1
... \
1
0
1

G
I
<
0
0
\
1
[

S
.
J
.
::-
...
)
.
L
l

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

U
1
r
l!
l(
5
'5

lH
>
1
E

R
'it
I
'i.i
\
P
E
C

I
f
1

0

;
I

1

2
.
I

O
f

'w
i
l
l

S
T
D
-
1
1
1

.
.

!
.

'"

-:___--____'::-

t
:

->

-
:

s

,:;
+

.
.
.
.

_
_

.
.
.
.
.
J

r
"

)
f
,
\
l
_

'

\
,

.
\
\
.

\
\
\

'
/

\
\
.
'

\

>
\
'
'

.

:

\

'

.

!
-
*

,
.
\
\
\

)
;
,
l
i
:

\
'
'

.

I

.
.

'
,

'
,

-
/

/
_
/
!

.

/
/
/
/
J
I

'
,

:
:
:
.
,
<
:
:
:
-
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
7

/

'
.
/

.. /
/
/
/
/

t
)

z
_
:

I
"
'
"

-
-

'
\
:
l

'--:--"
0
1

....

,
-

-
-
L

'
l

-
:
.
.
:
3
J
-
'

/
.

C
\
.
A
I
I
I
,
I
C
A
T
I
O
.

0
#

C
N
A
I
U
C
T
U
I
I
!
T
I
C
S

(
.
.
4
J
A
)

C
ltt:T
IC
A
L
.
.

I
I
I
A
.
I
O
t
t

-
M
IN
O
R

-

....

,
0
2
.
-

-
,
,

"
"
"

i

L

1

I

I
/
1

..... ,

,
-
-

-
-
;
-

r

I

,

I

(
5

t
)

"
'
"

.
lJ

I

i

-
-

-
4

-
I

,
.

.:
..-
<
.t
-
,'
.

.:
.
t
)

_
i
_

.
;
)
3
.
:

"
I

.

j
.

.
'

J

'
t

i

i

\
i

l
i

'

\

-
-
_

_
_
[

=

_
.
:
o

.r
.
"
"
"
.
J

.
L

-
-

\

I

-
+
-
-
-
r
-
-
t
:
:
:
:
'


-
-
I

J
_

-
-
-
I

-
-
-
,

-
.

'
L
A
C
e
.
-
'

-
=
-
0
.

.
:

;
.
_
,

z
:

.

l
'

I

--.._

'-
.

,

-

.
.
.

s
e
c
t
,

-
>
.
o
,
-

......
-
'
-
-
-
.
.
.
(
:
;
s
3
1

"

.
:
c

,

:
-
A
t
'
E
R

O
E
f
'-
;
N

O
F

.
.
l
.
.
.

:1

-
;
,
)

.... .
4

{
y
:
,
,

J

1

-
-
-
-
-
-
'

I
"
A
i
t
f
i
i
O

.::o
i
f
l
\
r
'

1
<

J
N

(/J

P
E
"
.
I
N
.
O
F
L
G

'
.
.
/
I
E
.
W

'
J
C
A
L
E
:

!
-
l
/
1

F
i
g
u
r
e

8
9

"
'
[

.
....
f
';-
1
1
,..
J
"
"

:
0

l..
.
.
.

,J
"
;o
t<
(
l,.
..::
...
,
,

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

J

U
S
E
D

O
N

A
P
P
U
C
A
.T
IO
M

U
N
U
S
S

O
T
H
U
tW
tS
(

S
I
"
(
C
i
f
l

0

O
IIIG
tfiiA
L

O
A
T

O
f

O
IIIA
W
IIIG

'
'
"
'

; .
.

T
b

A
.
t
U
M
I
N
V
M

I

t

-
j

H
E
A
T

llt
U
T
M
f
.
N
f

f
i
N
A
l

l
"
l
t
O
U
C
l
i
V
(

f
t
N
t
S
H

'
I
O
T
E

4

S
U
I
M
t
n

o

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.

f
\
1
0
P
....
_
.
-
..._
C
''I
'
:
'
:
.
A
t
.
O
T
,

F
<
E
A
k

I
-
'

'H
l
i
E
S

"
t
i
o
l
.'J

i
1
"

A
l
0
0
6
1

A
P
P
l
Y
.

\
,
A
(
H
I
"
'E
D

S
U
A
f
A
C
l
'S
.
U
N
l
E
S
S

O
l
H
[
A
W
I
S
E

)

"
!
C

!
f

1
l

0

."
"
,_
:_

....
-
:..-.-.....,_

\
-
-
.

t

I

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,._

/
-

-
;
s
;
-

1

'

:
I

......_
_
......_
_

'
J

v

'
.
c
H
J
F

I

_
I

O
l
.
.

:
.
_
.

-
-

f
./
I
A
'-

t
[
W

A

o
<
.
A
L
E
:

L
b

.
.
.

C
L
A
S
S
t
,
+
C
A
T
t
O
N

O
r

C
t
.
U
.
I
t
.
t
.
';
T
[
R
I
,
T
t
e
!

{
w
tlto
&
S
A
I

L
T
R

R
E
\"
1
5
1
0
H
5

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E

h

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
l
..-
,
,
-
W
lJ
O
III!
W
I
N
O
"

-
,
,


t

:
.
-
-
"
'"
-
...
-"
"
"
::::::0

-
'

-
+
-
-
-
-
-
1

I

I

-
-
-
-
-
r

-
-
I

.
.
.
.
'
0
4
-
'

c

...

I

i

I

\
1
1
'\
l

I
i

L

_
_
__

,
I
E
w
A
-
J

I

-
-
-
r
-
.

'

(

.
<
4
;

"
'

_
_

;
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
!

I

1
,

o

:

"
l

J
.
c
.
e
>

'
<

-
-
-
_
_
j
_

l

d
%
=

-
/
/

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
0

1
"
5

t
-
J
#
I
A

.
.
.
.

f
.
:

.
-
t
4
'
Y
i
-
.
Q
t
'
I
C
.

,
.
:

.
:
:
.

:
:
:
s
-
.
:

!
:

:

.
C
"
-
4
5

.... A

,
_
.
,

.... -
.(
.
.:l

U
k
l
[
S
$

O
T
H
E
itW
I
$
[

S
P
(
C
i
f
i
(
Q

O
IM
E
N
S
IO
N
S

A
ll(

Ifill
lk
C
H
[
S

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
$

O
N

O
E
C
L
tU
t$

_
.l.t...
:
.

.
:
.
1
.

:
.
.
o
o
s

A
N
G
l[
$

M
U
[
I
I
t
i
A
l

',)
-
2
.1

... 1
,:.

I
f
...

H
U
T

T
lf
.A
T
M

N
T

.
.
.
,
.
o

0
2
4

I
I
C

O
J
I
I
G
U
U
l
O
A
T

O
f

..
'
4

1

:
,

J
"
"
:
'P

H
E
P

I

..
,4
-... -
:
:
:
l
J
,.._

:

::::1

o
A
N
D

f
.
"
"
"

S
i:M
iii'ffi'o

:
-
i


I

C
O
O

N
E
X
T

.
u
s
E
o

o
N

n
N
A
L

,
.
o
t

c
t

F
u
u
$
H

,..,.R
C
N

o

D

1

D

2
4
1

I
0

S
C
A
L
E

:
I

S
H
E

'
C
o
p
y

a
:
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
o

D
1
'
I
C

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t

h
J
l
y

l
e
g
i
b
l
e

r
s
p
w
d
u
c
i
i
o
n

.......
(
)
:
)

w

N
O
T

S
:

L

A
N
S
I
Y
1
4
.
H
3
&
A
2
0
0
b
2
A
P
P
l
Y
.

,
.

C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S

I
W
R
4
3
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
J
O
R

-

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S

L
T
R
I

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E

I

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

-
I
.'
A
:
,
.
j
f
,
Q

t
J
O
T
E

2
.
u

i

"
'

I

/

2
.

1
2
$

A
l
l

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S

U
N
I
.
S
S

O
T
H

R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
.

M
I
N
O
R

-

_
,

-
.
)
.
.
,

_
_
_
,

I

i

_
,
_
_

I
i

[

.
:
:
.
_
;

l

i

1
.
2
.
.
4

r
-
J
.
s
"

i
-
'
f
-
'
L

'
I

.

I

_
_
_
_
_

T

-
-

r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
E
W

(

1
4
.
'
7
1
'
1

0
)

'

;
1
\
J

<
;
,

,
.
,
;
;
,
_
.. .
.
,
.

.
v
,
_

.. 0

K

-
,
)
I

a
.
o
t
3
,
D
-
.
O
I
J

1

-

=
=
=
l
j

8
P
L

E
Q

'=
>
P

t

O
N

J
J

!
.

I

Q

\
"
-
-
.
:
:
3
:
5

'
-
"
!

G

.
6

\
,
j

:
z
.
!

-
t
.
Y
J
.

1
/J

-
.
o
c
.

I
,
.
t

i


!
6

c

i
J

-
.
-

-
.
J
I
J

'

=
=
=
l
-

j
E
'
;
V

:
;

-
-
-
-
-
.
_

.
!
l
O
U
i
:
-
u
J

1
-
A

-
I

(
l

2
.
.
4
8
,
b
)

,
r

.
,
.

-

;

4
,
.

(
.
:
,
.
_
:
_
1
3
-
b
)

-

'
-
-
!

;,
.....:.

.
..

}
,

I
_
_
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
.

i

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\

'
-
-
'
-
-
1
-
-
-
-

_
_
'
y
:
:
:
_
y
_

.

'

-
_
;
:
:
,
:
.
.

-
-
.
.
:
3
5
;
;
.
:

.
-
:
'
)
i
0

-
-
-
-
-
-
/
i

-
-
-
'
-
_
_
_
_

-
-
/

T
A
.
P
E
R

O
N
(
]
)

-

.
t
\
4
.
-
.
0
4

P
E
.
R
\
N
C
F
L
G
,
C
.
P
L
A
C
.
t
.
S

'
J
t
E
W

:
:
.
:
.
:
-
\
L
\
:
:

1
0
/
1

2
..
P
L
-
:
:
:
.
-
=
:

S

1

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

I
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

l

-
c
o
.

Y
X
o

-
-1

I
P
A
R
T

N
O
.

C

2
4
1
0
9

S
P
A
C
E

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
lO
N

:
J
p
-
_
_
,

-
"
'
-
0
"

.. ,
-
r
-
C
.
S
3
S

9

-
"
5

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

I

.
.
:
.
,

.
.
d
f

.
)
>
'J
>
i
'/

0

B
T

l
j

R
J
\
I

0

R

I

::,
C
:
::_

0
1
'
-
J

\
.
)

A
.
K
Y

I
"

'-
4

'
l
-
-
0

I
'

'
'
,
)

4

'
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

.-
l
l
j
/
:
-
t
;
'
(
"
Q

.
J

\
)
-

1
0
(
.
,
.

1
-
0
\
.
Y
'
"
"
'
I
-
l
O
P
Y
L
i
.
.
N
E

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

C
H
K

.
I

\

I

E
N
G
R

,
,
_
.

' .
._
'
I

-
I

I

"
'
'
-
'
C

"
'
'
'

I
H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
.

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

A

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
1

T
(
;
.
"
'J
<
:
j

d
.
L
H
?
S

,
.
I
?
.
C

t




7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
,; The 8-inch subcal iber ammunition development program described
. -,., .
in this report culminated in the successful flight tests at Yuma i ,:1
,.- <":::--
'Proving-Greund_,; during which the greatly enhanced range capability of
the prototype hardware was demonstrated. The range goal of 40 km
was exceeded, thereby doubling the range capability of the
weapon firing the standard M106 round with zone eight Addi-
tional prototype rounds have been fabricated and delivered to the Army
for further test and evaluation. Completion of this effort has.
resulted in several
1
,recommendations for future work..,_ as outlined in
'-

,) !
this section.
(1)
a) Charge Development- Propelling charges used so far in testing
prototype hardware vJere quickly assembled from available
materials, since the contract scope of work did not include
charge development and no other charges were available. They
performed reasonably well but are not optimized for this
application. Specific effort should be expended to develop
an optimized charge for propelling the
cargo ammunition.
b) Frangible Sabot goal of the current program was develop.:.
ment of a sabot system which would permit effective and
repeatable gun launch of the round and
"
also cleanly discard without causing tipoff or fin interference.
/This goal was evidenced during the flight test
program. However::the s-abot system contains 'metal parts
which brings up the question of a safety zone requirement in
front of the gun. relatively large discarding parts,

current employment doctrine would require the 8-inch subcaliber
round be listed as a special purpose item .. Since work has
been ongoing to develop a frangible sabot system, these efforts
should be applied to the 8-inch subcaliber round .
184


c) The 8-inch subcaliber round is designed to
be used for delivery of various cargoes, including submuni-
tions and which must be base ejected during projectile
flight. Much experience is available from other programs
using base eject and should be utilized in configuring the
base eject concept for this round. The effort would include
payload packaging, base design, ejection charge configuration,
and delivery parameters.
d)-''Thin BodyShells-:-, Prototype shells tested to date have
/ utilized standard steels with relatively thick skins. It
has been previously suggested that high strength steels be
evaluated for the body. Successful employment of these high
strength steels would result in reduced round weight and
greater payload volume due to thinner skin. Manufacturing
techniques using this new design would also require investi-
gation .
/ /
er Shot .Slart andJ'all .Back "?'.The fin stabilized prototype
'
projectile tested under this program is seated without inter-
ference in the tube for firing. Since the shell is not rammed,
small variations have been observed in pressure data to due to
lack of shot start. Further, at high QE, some external means
(not part of the projectile) is required to prevent fall back
of the shell prior to firing. These problem areas should be
addressed to improve the performance of the projectile.
,. /
f)'"
1
FieldJ.l-clndling2) Since by design the 8-inch subcaliber shell
has exposed fins and sabotry, it requires different handling
to prevent damage-prior to-firing. Techniques for proper
field handling must be devised to assure acceptance and
resultant performance of the ammunition.
)1 /' '/ ".1'
185



g) Fin Manufacture - For the prototype hardware fabricated so
far, the fins have been welded to the tail boom. Although
performance has been excellent, this technique is not
considered best for production due to cost, potential
welding induced structural problems, and delivery inaccur-
acies due to weld bead surface variation. Manufacturing
methods should be investigated for fin fabrication in volume
production. These methods would include impact extrusion,
forging and casting.
h) Aerodynamic Data - During the initial flight tests of Yuma
Proving Ground, Hawk radar data were collected which provide
trajectory data for the test vehicle firings. These data
should be analyzed to provide detailed 'projectile flight
characteristics, such as drag, as well as other information
useful in predicting trajectory and range data for future
tests .
Completion of the above ~ m s tf work, coupled with the demon-
strated capability of the prototype hardware, will result in an 8-.inch
subcaliber cargo round that will meet performance requirements and
provide the Army with an extended range cargo delivery vehicle which
will greatly enhance its artillery inventory and capability .
186



APPENDIX A
This appendix presents the design drawings of the four test slug
configurations used during this study. Table Al presents the combina-
tion and drawing numbers of parts used to construct the four test slug
configurations. The drawings are presented in Figures Al to Al5 .
187

TABLE Al.
8-INCH SUBCALIBER TEST SLUG
PARTS LIST
Drawing Number
Title
C22975
Test Slug Assembly
(Vent Fin-Rear Sabot)
022954
Vent Fin Boom
C22959
Body
C22972
Nose
022973
Sabot
022974
Band
C22955
Closure
C22976
Test Slug Assembly
(Vent Fin-Center Sabot)
022954
Ven,t Fin Boom
C2297l
Body
C22972
Nose
022973
Sabot
022974
Band

C22956
Closure
C22977
Test Slug Assembly
(Solid Fin-Rear Sabot)
022958
.Solid Fin Boom
C22959
Body
C22972
Nose
022973
Sabot
022974
Band
C22978
Test Slug Assembly
(Solid Fin-Center Sabot)
022957
Solid Fin Boom
022971
Body
C22972
Nose
022973
Sabot
022974
Band

188
.
.
.
.
.
.

e
x
:>

l
D

"
'
'
)
T
f
)

Y

,.
.,H
T

C
O
A
T
I
"
'f.
0
r

'
i
!
L
:
C
':
J
i(

;
,>
'
f
A
.)
{

.
.
.

L
-
C
-
.
:
'
1
)
6
1
,

"
r
t

"
!
'
i
P
f
P
(
J

"

.
t
,

:
>
Q
!
(
)
P

T
Q

/
'
!
S
T
A
L
-
l.I
.T
I

J

I
;:::"
"

S
.
..

'"
'
n
!
u
v
;

1
'"!

?
"

"
'P
W
-:"
(
;
;
g
!
'
)
O

T
"

L
J
':
"
!
M

:
"
'
c
l
!
J
l

'i
H

A
P
P
I
.

..\

i
i

[
'
1
T
[
P
f

A
P

r
.
1
c
:
.

(
/
)

'
-
.
-
-
/

\

\

\

\

r
=
=
-
=
\

i

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
l

0

-
:
5
)

(
4
)

(
)

t

-
=
-
;

C
L
A
S
S
:
J
I

C
H
A

R
A

C
T

E

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
J
O
R

M
I
N
O
R

C
D

I
O
N

O
F

S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

t

-
_
\
7
<
:
J
e
7
0
)

I

I I

_
j

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
K
(
R
W
t
S
l

S
P
l
C
I
F
\
U
)

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

O
A
T
(

0
1
'
-
4

N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

/
-
.
.

C
2
2
S
7
4

E

P
.

D

4
-
I
D
2
2
9
7
3

S
f
.
\
E
.
S
,

3

c
z
z
=
-
7
2

2
.
.

C
2
.
2
3
S
3

G

'
"
)
D
Y

I

D
2
.
2
3
S
B

:
.
C
L
\
D

:
:
:
-
1
;
j

\

T
E

1
'1
1

P
A
P
T

T
I
T
L
e

1
\
J
(
J

f
\
J
C
.

P
A
R
T
S

L
I
S
T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
F

N
O
R
T
K

T
R
O
Y
,

Y
f
P
M
O
N
T

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

_
....._

............ .........._

!
.
;
P
I
\

'
l

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

A
S
S
1

M
A
T
[

R
I
A
L

C
H
K

E
N
G
R

I<

l
.
.
.
t
l

\..,l4
.
....
<

..,
..

f
.
J
N
-
R
E
A
R

S
A

T
E
S
T

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

S
U
8
M
I
T
1
E
O

F

I

9
"
-
I
S
S

"
"
W
I

S
I
Z
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
t
H

N
O
.

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

f
i
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
B

C
2
2
9
7
7

A
P
P
L
i
C
A
T
I
O
N

S
C
A
L
E

!

I
.
.
.
:
.
.

j
S
H
E
E
1

-
-
-

f
.
-
'

i
.
O

0

p
o
:
_

.t

W
f
l
-
C
-
.
'
1
5
.
(
]
,

,
,

!
"
:"
f
.
.

i.
.
' 7
:

"
t
t
.

;
r

;

c
..

f
A
r

,
,
.
.
r
..

!
'1

.
;
,
H
(
:
l

r
"
R

'
l

"
"
'

r


'l
l
!
t
"
-
:
.

;
.
J

:
<
t
<
;
!
!
.
L
.

':
''
"
''
: '1
S
7
!
L
L

:

:'"
f
.
.

S

r1
1

r


.. ;:.

r
"
P
:
':

:
7
',

C
D

\

r

l

-
-
-
'

'

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
2

-

\
\

,
/
"
;
\

\

j
)

'
-
-
-
-
.
/

'
\

\
,
2
)

-
0

\ \
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

I
C
S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

\

\

,
-
-
'
-
-
(
J

3
S
7
'
l
J
)

_
j

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A

I
E

s

D

!
u
c
c
.
:
.

,
"
+

.
u
A
N

.

"
"
-
I
D


=


7

3

I

:
:
)

-
\

b

I
_
)

i

"
"
'
I
C
2
2
9
"
7
2

:
)

-
-

D
Z
.
2
.
9
S
7

S
C
u
D

;::
:

:
'-
J

I

1
E
i
'
v
1

P
A
?
T

I

T
i
T
L
E

.
t
'
\
J
O
.

P
A
R
T
:
'
:
,

L
l

'
S

T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P

I

I

I
v

-
c
"

"
V
"
O

.
.
.
,
"
'

"
'
L
n
u

I
O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

T
f"
'1

R
A
N
r
r
<
.
:
:
.

(
)
N

i
H
"
r
i
M
A
.
l
S

:

-

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

T
E

S
L
U
G

A
:
S
:

I

I

I

I

c
o

I

-

-
.

D

-
\
J

T
C

-
.
_
,

"

o

.
.

/

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

I

v
U
L
!

,
-
J
j

-
C
N
T
R
.
.
:
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

I
-
'

<
.
0

I
-
'
'
l
"
J
T
[
)

.
-
;
:
l
f
i
i
'
E
.

-
.
l

:.\
r
1
1
r

'"
't
!

.-l}>
o
c
(
.
_
'I
',..,J

.
...,..

o
:

!"


:

4

,
o
::1
!
'>
1

"')
: j

A
[
.

.1
.7

:

,
. r

:

(

.. f
"
;

1
...
...

:
'i
;
n
:


:
"i .-.
..-
.\ :
r

o

r
1
1
o

1
"
'
r
"

:
"
'

!
l
o
t
.
;
a

.. L
-

'"
j

:
r
:
:

..
<;,
3
1

':
'V
f
o

.:
;
t
.u
r

r
A
c
E

8

(
2
:
)

'-
_
_
.
;
'
I
-
H

C
H
A
I

H
'

I

-
-
-
-
-
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
J
O
R

M
I
N
O
R

G
)

T
I
O
N

O
F

S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

,
,

'

.
.
.
-
-
:

\

"
'
\

;

"
'

I

I

'
I
I
1

;
.

I

.
J

J

/

L
J

I

I

.

I

.

\

.

'

I
'

\
2
)

.....

_
_
l

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

I
O
L
l
R
A
N
l
E
S

U
N

O
l
(
I
M
A
L
,

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
3

.
,

:
L
T
R
I

,
r
z
e
;
;
o
;
;
,

-
-
-
-
.
.
.

I
C

2
.

2
?

s

5

I
(
_

L

0

s
u
p

[

5

B
.
:
.
.

N
D

4
-
i
D
2
2
3
7
3
J

S
r
B
O
T

-::)
I
c

'O

;
.
,

9

7

;
:
'
I

r
'o
.i
f
'

c
.

-
L
.
.
_

-
-
-
'
.......

I

c
.

f
t

-
"
1
5
-
:
:
:
o
.
I
B
'

r
"

t
-

:

I
D
2
.
2
'
3
:
:
4
i

V
E
N
T
.

i
T
E
M

j

e
A
R
T

r
.
.
J
c

"
'
o
.

l

T
i
T
L
E

P
/
\
R
T
S

L
i
S
T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
I

.
I
,

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y

V
f
R
M
O
N
T

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

A
P
R

7
7

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

'
\

<
:
:
:
.
:
:
:
:
.
.
'
M
A
T
[
R
I
A
L

C
H
K

I

E
N
G
P

-
.

.
.

\
.

!
;
..........
!
l

(
V
E
N
T

F
I
N
-
R
E
A
R

5
?

T
f
S
T

S
L
U
C
.
.

H
l
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
l
N
I

S
U
H
M
I
I

T
E
D

.

F
'
I
N
A
L

e
-
1
s
s
"
"
"
"

S
I
Z
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O

I


-
N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

f
i
N
A
L

P
R
O
!
(
C
T
I
V
[

f
i
N
I
S
H
.

A
P
P
R
O
V
l
D

C

3
0

4

7

B

l
.

2

2

':
:
.
)

,

r
:

A
P
P
L

I
C
A

T
!
O
N

S
C
A
L
E

1
/
4

I
S
H
E
E

}
(

I

I

'

'

!

.

f
-
-
'

\
.
0

N

I

I

'

A
P
P
L
Y

1

r"
lF

C
:
!
L
lC
O
t
t
[

'"
,P
f
A
.<
.,(
,
..

A
C

..
j
.
P
o
t
'1
A

Y
IJ

1
'
i
)
T
l
t
.

-:r

')
.

"
'[
4
T

'.
!
'
i

.. A
:
-
f
t
l
c
l"
\o

1
'1

:;-8

:
J

.. l
'
i
V
7

;
'i')
T
.\:
_
:
_

..
s

,
,

r
"
o
:

'W
E
R

-
.T
:
f
;
l

P

A
O
J

n
.
c

.

C
D

\

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
4

\

(
0

/
4
S
.

7
S
,

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

O
F

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
M
A
J
O
R

M
I
N
O
R

0
\

\

\

\

\

e

- -

-
-
-
-
-
-

\
\

\

-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
j

'
'

-
-
-
U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

I
Q
L
[
R
A
N
C
[
5

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

;
/
:
_
,
,
,
_
_
{

G

!
C
Z
2
3
:
:
o
6

C

L
0
5
U
R
E

c
::

4

I
D
2
2
3
7
-
3

S
A
B
O
T

3

j
C
2
2
9
7
2

f

J
O
S

E

2

C
2
2
3
7
1

B
O
D
Y

I

D
2
2
9
S
4
.

V
E
:
N
i
.

,
-
:
I
N

3

I
T
E
M

P
A
.
?
-
.

T

T
I
T
L
E

/
'

"
"
-
\

:
)

.
=
>
A
R
1
S

L
l

S
T

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

0

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

....

..

7
7

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
G

M
A
T
[

R
I
A
L

C
H
K

E
N
G
R

:..;
C
-
"
'.A
..J
<
:

(
V
E
N
T

F
I
N
-
I
!

k

:
I

C

N
T
R

5
;
-
\
1

T
E
S
T

S
L
U
/
4

S
U
8
M
I
T
1

0

'

.

H
E
A
T

T
'

A

'
M
E
N
!

F
I
N
A
L

1
5
'
5

,
.
.
,
"
"

S
l
l
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
,

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

f
i
N
A
l

P
R
O
T

C
l
1
V
l

f
i
N
I
S
H
.

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
6

C
2
2
9
7
f
>

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

S
C
A
L
E

1
/
4

f
S
H
E
E
T

-
_
,
0

c

8

8

N
O
T
E
:
'
>
:

1
.
A
N
:
'
>
I

Y
l
4
.
5

-
7
3

A
2
.
0
0
<
0
2
.

,
A
P
P
c
_
Y

Z
.

A
L
L

H
O
L
E
'
S

T
O

B
E

P
E
R
P
E
N
D
I
C
U
L
A
R

T
O

E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
.

7

6

t
O

Z

'3

8

S
O
b

-
-
<
0
.
7
1
8

i

-
s
.
o
z
s

f
-
.
-
-
3
.
4
8
7

I

!
'i

C
L
A
5
5
1
f
i
C
A
T
I
0
k

O
f

C
H
A
I
U
C
T
[
R
r
S
T
I
C
S

(
W
R
.
l
A
J

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
W
A
J
C
>
f"

!
2

:
:
e
,
J

...... I

4

3

'
3
'
=
!
5

...
0
1
0

l
i
3

M
A
X
.

2

R

\
I
I
,
I
O
H
,

L
T

O
E

-
4
.
2
.
5

-
!
Z
u
N
-
Z
A

L
E
F
T

H
A
N
D

4

2
4
e
O
-
.
0
1
1
4

M
A
J
O
R

D
I
A

4
.
l
'
l
3
'
:
)
-
.
0
0
.
0
5

P
i
T
C
H

D
l
i
'

4

1
4

5
8

M
A
X

l
v
1
!
N
O
R

D
I
A

"
o

-
.

'

'

\

j

O
A
'
.
7
8
7

i

I

,
.

,
,

+
-
-

(
2
.
4
0
0

l

2
.
.
0
0
0
1
/
J

H
O
L
E

C
H
A
R
T

L
T
R
I
G
T
Y
I

D
l
.
A

!
.
0
1

s

A

.
,

8
7
5

B

"

1
.
0
0
0

c

"

1
.
1
2
.
5

D

.
c
.

1
.
2
.
5
0

E

(
S
E
E

N
O
T
E

2
.
)

-
-
-
-

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
5

c
o
o

(
4

'l
Z
<
O

;:>
)

I

I

J

I

/

I

T
A
P
E
R

C
N

D
J
A

P

P

r
-
-
1
.
.

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

.
)
1
;
,
8
2

"
-
.
0
0
3
0

T
A
P
E
R

G
N

D
I
A
P
E
R

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

I
'

1
8
"
3
-
0
5
1

L

-
(
4
4
8
,
:
,
)
-
-
-
-

i

i

-
j

4
.
!
4
'
2
>
-
.
o
z
.

A
A

i

!
4

0
2

-
.
0
4

-
-
1

"

"
"
N
O

0

2

z
.

9
5

4

U
"
l.{
'!
iS

Q
I
H
I
I
I
W
>
S
(

S
l
"
f
C
i
f
i
(
O

O

W
t
f
iiiS
IO
IIS

U
f

'
"

1
1
1
1
1
(1
"1
{1

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R

'0
L
[
I
I
A
M
C
.
I
S

0
,
.

O
l
C
r
l
l
l
i
l
l
S

J
I;
Q
.lH

T
lt
Q
Y

Y
t
lt
llf
O
H
T

A
H
(
O
L
lS

t
.
o

)
0
')
1
.
.

;._
,..
!

"
0
3
0

I

I

I
"
'
"
"
"
'

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
:
:
>
7
5
T
b

I

I

I

I

C
L
l
.
<
=
,
-
,
.
'
)

;.._
....-C
,
!
t
H
A
I

i
i
i
U
U
I
(
I
i
t
t

L

l
l
_

-
l
1
h

.'3

N
t
:
O

I

\J
S
E
D

O
H

\
f

l
"
l
f
.
l

P
l
t
(
I
I
(
C
1
1
\
j
(

A
P
P
t
t
C
A
l
t
O
N

4

3

S
.U
I
I
I
I
fT
H
O

"
"
"

o
v
t
o

2

V
E
N
T
I
L
A
T
E
D

F
I
N

B

D
Z
Z
5

D

c

,
_
.

'-
.
0

_
.
,
.

B

A

8

N
O
T
(
S

I
.

A
N
S
I

Y
l
4

5
-
/
3

A
Z
O
O
(
.
Z
.

A
P
P
c
.
Y

Z
.

A
L
L

H
O
L
E
'
S

T
O

B
E

P
f
R
P
E
N
D
I
C
l
J
L
A
P

T
O

t
X
T
E
R
N
A
L

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
.

7

6

1
0

z

'3

5

S
O
b

<
0
.
7
1
8

5
.
0
2
5

-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,

3
.
4
6
7

5

4

3

1
2

c
o
1

..... I

..
0
1
0

/
/
/
/
'

1
8

I
\
1
A
"
'

I

I

:

I

I

'

_

_
_
_
_
.
L
_
_
_
_
_

.
G

S
-
4

-
.
1
1
9

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
6

I
I
'
/

l
i

I
i

-
r
-
-
1
"
8
2

"
.
0
0
3
0

T
A
P
E
R

C
N

D
I
A

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

l

.
,

.
4

7
0
0

'
l
l
l

r

I

.
1
.
,
4
.
.
,
:

.
0
0
3
0

T
A
P
E
R

O
N

D
t
A

P
E
P

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

I

i

l
i
B
"
:
t
-
C
S
I

-
(
4

4
8
.
;
)

-
-
-
-
1
I

-
-
1
4

0
2
-
.
0
4

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,

.

4
_
1
4
1
)
-
o
z
.

U
J
I
I
d
\
S

Q
I
H
I
I
I

t
!
)
(

!
)
P
.
\
(
l
f
l
(
t
)

0

1
1
1
1
1
"
$
1
0
)1
1
\
l
l
l

I
ll
I
H
(
H
(
\

0
(
C
.I
I

U
t
\

.
"
'
"
"

0
)
0

U
(
;
l
(
S

t
.
0

)
0
'

I
I
U
I
(
I
I
L
.
I
t
l

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
?
7
5
T
b

H
(
A
I

lllf
o
\1
1
1
1
(
J
llf
I
!
l
U
I

I
"
I
I
Q
I
(
(
I
a
(

t

f
iii!
,H

.
-
4
.
Z
S

-
1
2
.
U
N
-
2
A

L
E
F
T

H
i
'
<
N
D

4

Z
4
e
O
-
O
t
t
4

M
A
J
O
R

D
I
A

4
.
1
"
:
1
3
9
-
o
o
.
;
,
S
P
I
T
C
H
D
I
A

4

1
4

5
6

M
A
:
:
<
-

D
I
A

.
,
.

\

\

"
-
C
"

-
.

1
0
0
"

A
A

"
'
'

o

0

2

2
.

'
3

5

4
-
0
i
h
t
;
.
I
I
U
l

O
A
f
(

o

"
"

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
F

(
J
r
.

.
.

/

'

t

J

)
I
I
O
I
I
H

fill O
f

'f'( II IIIQ
I'O
if

.
.
,
!

, .
.
c
;
.
V
E
N
T
I
L
A
T
E
D

F
I
N
(
)
(

S
.U
I
!I
to
H
I
I
lO

.lii'II'IIO
v
fO

,
,

D

-
c

>
-
-
'
<
..0

(
J
1

-
-
+

B

-
A
:
I

I

.

I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

8

I

N
O
T
E
S

A
N

S

I

Y

S

-
7

3

A

2
_
0
0
1
0
2
.

-
"
P
P
L
Y

C
.
M
A
C
H
I
N

N
T
(
R

.
3
0

U
A
l

D
E
E
P
.

7

I

6

I

!
5

J
.

C
L
A
1
S
I
F
I
C
.
l
f
i
0
N

O
F

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
[
R
i
'
!
T
!
C
S

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
l
-

-
III.IM
O
fil
-
1
8

'
:
.
C
.
-
r
:
:
4

4

I

3

I

2

I

I
H
V
1
5
1
0
H
'$

l.T
f
l:
l

(

o
.t.
..l

lo
O
.J
:
-

.
'
3
'
3
5
"
t
-
0
1
0

.
I
t
,
)

/'v
1

A

X

i

i

I .

.

-
-
;
_
:
4
]
.
:

C
.
C
.
3
.
)

-
-
-
.
1
4
0
0

!
;
.
0
0
3
0

:
_
:
N

D

A

P
E
R

I T

A

p

E

R

C

N

D

I

A

p

c

H

.:::;
,
-
'
-
E

r
<

:
:
.

T

H

N
C

H

(
)
F

c

R

L
E
N
G
T
H

.
5
1
0
1
0
-
1
0
3
-
.
.

i

i
l

.
.

.

-
/
<
-
?
/

.

/
/
_
.
/

/
/
1
/
/

/
/
/
_
'
/
/

.
.

--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

'

(
w
o
o
<
f
)
J

j
'

!

-
-
-
_

l
"
o
o
o
l

!

'
<

-
m

!

'

!

i

<
9

"
'

I

'

I
"
'
0

'
"
'

:

I

'

i

I

I

I

I

I

r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'

-
-
-
-
.

.
s
.
o
o
J
)
-
-
-
-
-
1
.
0
5
-
.
1
0

-
-
-
-
'
7

.
0
4

3

....
2

8
(
:
,

U
J
H
(
5
,5

Q
I
H
(
I
I
Y
I
'I
S
(

V
l
(
!
I
I
(
Q

0
1
W
f
,
.
!
.
I
0
"
'S

A
llf

1
0

I
I
I
I
(
H
(
5

I
O
l
f
l
t
A
N
C
I
S

Q
N

0
(
(
1
W
A
L
5

A
H
G
l
l


IIIA
I(
A
I.I.L

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
7

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
0
7
5
T
b

[
'
T

1..
v
t
.
.

M
l.1
.1

l
S
t
i
.l
o
l
'
l
t
f
;
"
\

C
Z
Z
?
J
7
M

1
9

1
5
5
M
"
"
'

M
D
T

A
S
s
v

1

u
s
r
o

O
M

''"
'4
L

P
lt
O
f
E
C
I
I
Y
f

f
1
I
U
S
"

A
P
P
t
i
(
.
I
.
I
I
O
N

.
.

A

T

7

,

_
r

Q
ltiC
.I
M
"
'l
0
A
I
(

O
f

Q
ltA
III'IN
C
.
-
-
4

Z
5
-
I
C
.
U
N
-
2
A

L
E
F
T

H
A
r
-
.

4
.
2
.
4
8
(
;
-
0
1
1
4
-
M
A
J
O
R

D
l

4

_
1
'
3
3
-
;
,
-
.
0
0
<
.
5

P
I
T
C
H

D
1
1

4
.
1
4
5
5

M
A
X

M
I
N
Q
R

D
l

"
"

o

D

2
.
2

"
3

'S

7

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R

:

f
"
{
/
_
,
.
.
_
j

J
,
J

7
;

I
'I
Q
I
U
H

H
t
O
f

Y
f
U
I
I
O
I
'f

P

t
"

.
.
.

l,............

...... ...,}

S
O
L
I
D

F
I
N

B
C

'
"
'

P
H
:; II
'
L

...J
<

'
:
4

(
"
)
1

(
C
[
N
T
E
R

S
A
E

w

n
f
o

A
J
'P
it
0
Y
(
0

S
l
l

I

C
O
D
E

I
O
E
N
I

N
O

I

D

3
0
4
7
8

D
Z
2
'
3

S
C
A
L
l
I

/
1

T

..,
I

O
F

,
_
f
V
I
1
1
0
N
1

N
O
T
E
S

!
w
R
4
l
A
I

v
r
11
M
s
c
1111
,
.
r
1o
,
.

O
J

1

Y
l
4
.
5
-
7
3

C
llt
iT
I
C
A
L
-
.
.

A
Z
O
O
b
Z

A
P
P
L
Y
.

I
I
I
A
J
O
it

-
A
t>
tlC
C
)
2
..
t
.
I
A
L
H

I
W
[

(
(
>
J
T
E
P
.
..:"
';;;"
:.:"
"
::;_
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

0

.
:
>
a

"
"
A
l
.

D
H
P

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

t
B

5
2
.
-
0
4

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-
,

2
4
5

Z
::>
E
>

-
-
-
5
.
5
1
-
O
Z
.

i

'

I

'

i

-
.
5
1
-
0

2
.

-
-
<
-
-
-
-
-
Z
7

M
A
l
'
-
-
-

1
/
3

M
A
X

0
0
3
0

1

.

I
'

,

\

T
A
P
F
R

O
N

D
I
A
P
E
R

;

l

I

:

i

:

'
\
\
I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

.
O
Z
.
,

C
4

!

l

:
1


i
l
l

i

_
j
_

.
0
7

+
.
O
t

f

I

\

t

'

J

/

/
-
-
-

/
-

.
-
/
j

I

-
-
,
-
l

-
-
-
-
-
r
l

:

!

;
/

.

/
/
:
>
'

/

-
I

.

.

.

/

!

I

t
c
;

f

.

/
/

.
/

/

/
.

I

I

.

I

5
.

g

z
c
p

-
0

2
.
m

1

1

i
4
.
1
4
<
1
l
-
O
Z

,

,

1

r

l
z

s
o
o
!
,
l
)
l

1

i

l
.
-
.
U
R
-
.
0
4

,
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
I

-
'
&
.
7
4
(
1
)
-
.
o
z
.
i

J

-
"
'
.

.'<
-
;-
'
\

I
.
,
.

j

/

L

/

.
,

;

;

;
1
4

B
l
o
t
!

(
1
.
0
0
0

J

I
1
.!
r

i

5
E
E
>
J
O
T
E
Z
.

I

A

,
j

;
_
/

-
-
-
\

'

1

I
'
I

I

I
i

'
L
-
.
1
4
0
0
!
.
0
d
3
0

-
n

i
1
.
0
5
-
.
1
0

T
A
P
E
R

O
t
'
J

D
I
A

D
E
R

2
7
P

u
Z
.
.

I

9
:
J
5
t
-
O
I
O

-
4

2
5
-
1
2
U
.
N
_
-
2
A

R
!
G
H
T

H
A

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

.

4

2
4
8
0
-
0
1
1
4

M
A
J
O
R

D

.
/

f

4

1
9

3
9
-
O
O
G
5

P
I
T
C
H

:
1
1

/
.
/
'

(
5
.
0
0
0
)

4
.
1
4
5
8
M
A
X
M
I
N
0
R
D
I

S

9
1
3
-
F
O
U
N

-
2
A

L
E
t
T

H
A
N
D
-

5
.
9
7
7
3
-
0
1
5
0

I
\
1
A
J
O
R

O
I
A

-
-
-
-
.
;
,
_
.
,
4
3

t
z
e
"
'

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
j

C
,
.
8
9
(
,
1
-
.
0
Q
9
1

P
I
T
c
H

D
I
A

5
.
8
2
.
3
'
:
:
)

f
\
.
.
-
1
A
X

M
I
N
O
R

D
I
A

.
.
,

o

D
Z
Z

3

5

B

O
h

t
l
t
W
l
s
.
(

S
f
{
(
t
f
l
(
O

O
R

H
A
l
O
"
A
T
(

,
U
(

lit
I
I
I
I
(
H
f
S

O
f

O
I
U
W
I
.
.
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

G
O
F

1
0
l
l
l
t
A
1
t
l
{
S

Q
h

C
(
(
U
U
l
S

;
}
p
.

.,_
./

/
t
1
1

N
O
i
t
i
H

T
I
I
O
f

1
1
'(
1
1

0
"
1

o
\ltC
.l(
S

.. -

"
"
'
"
"

'
"
'

S
O

I
D

"
'
I
N

B
1

i

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
S

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
o
7
s
T
6

,
.
G
.

<

.
.
.
,

.
.

L

I


.
,
.
t
'"
S
T

S
L
V

H
(
o
\1

T
R
(
A
t
(
P
O
IT

s
o
t

T
l
t
O

I
(

t.

7

R

J
5

M

$
t
i
E

I
C
O
D
E

1
D
(
N
l
N
O

I

I

H
O
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
(
D

O
N

'
'
"
"
l

f
l
t
O
I
(
C
i
t
V
(

f
l
l
t
l
S
H

.
,
.
,
.
O
V
l
O

D

I

3
0
4
7
8

I
D

2

2

S
C
A
l
l

,
1

-

.
.
.

A

?

-.
.
.
.

-
N
c
:
n
:
:
.

4

c
::
-
7
3

y

.

-
1

A
N
:
:
,
,

I

.
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
,

l

0

N

-
-
-
-
-

M
A
J
O
R

-

A
P
P
L
Y
.

i
M
I
N
O
R

-

!

F

-
-

-
-
-
-
-
I

-
3

-
'
,

C
)

I

-
.
U
i
"
.

5
1
-
......
'
2
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
2
7

M
A
;
<
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
.
(
,
2

-
t
-

1

'
I

-
-
'
:
-
_
_
1
_

.

II
f
i

:
I
'

-

+
-
.

-
.

-
-
f

!

1

I

I
I

-
-
-
-
-
-

!

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-

.

l

_

_
:
r

_
.
I

I
I

I

i

I

I
I

!

I

I

l
-
T
-
4
.
2
b
.
;
t
:
-
0
2

:
J
7

t

(
j
2
.

-
-
r

4
.
t
4
1
-
-
.
o
z
.

S

.

'
J

8

-
6

u

N

-
2

A

L

E
.

F

T

h

t"
'-
5

'
j
7
7
3
-
.
0
t
5
0

M
A
J
O
R
[
;

5
.
8
3
1
6
1
-
.
0
0
9
1

5
8
2
.
3
.
.
7
M
P
.
X

P
I

I
C
H

G

M
I
N
C
R

D

5
.
'
:
)
8
(
2
)
-
.
0
2
.

I

I

.
7

7

R
-

)
4

-
........
1
.
0

-
....)

3
.
0
1
'
/
;
-
.
0
2

I

r

I

.
L
l.

.
.

-
-
-

-
-
/
-
-
+

!

r
;
-
_
:
,
_
)

-
-
-
-
-

-
.

!

5
.
8
2

0
-
.
0
2

T

-
-
.
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
_
,

I

4
.
2
5
-
I
Z
.
U
N
-
Z
A

R
I
G
H
T

H

4

.
;
:

4

8
0

-
.

0

I

1
4

f
\
,
l

A

J

0

R

D

I

4
.
1
3
3
9
-
.
0
Q
G
S

P
I
T
C
H

D
l
/
'

4
.
1
4
5
8

M
A
'
A

'
\
!
1
1
N
O
P
.

D
I
P

4

2
.
5
-
1
2
.
t
J
N
-
2
.
B

L
E
F
T

I
I
A
\
'
.
l
f
j

L
j

2
.
5
0
c
)

i
v
'
l
i
N

D
I
A

L
l
.

I

3

5
3

-
t

0
0

3

5

P
I
T

C

1
-
1

D

I

A

4
.
J
f
,
0
0

-
t
-
.
:
:
)
1
8
0

M
I
N
S
R

D
I
A

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
9

i

!

-
-
-
-
-
.

I

f
3

f
v
l

f
,

'A

I
'
I

_
_
_
_
_
_
.
_

I
.

0

I

-
t

0

I

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
.
'
)
3
t
.
0
4
-
-
'

.
/
.
'-
:
:
,

M

f
,

/
.

.
C
J
C
J
S
-
.
0
1
0

P
A
R
T

N
O
.

C

2

2

9

5

5

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

;
7

.

,
1

1

'
,

I

'

7

1

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

J
->
<
:::'.

r
H
K

!
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
.

-

I

I

!
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
0
7
5
T
f
.
l

E
N
G
R

I

.
.
.
.
k

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
,

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

C

C
L
O
S
U
R
E
.

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:

c
o
b
E
T
D
E
N
T

N
o
.

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

3
0
4
7

8

c

2
_

2

3

5
5

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

S
C
A
L
E
:

I

/
I

S
H
E
E
T

3

A

1
-
'

N
O
T
.

/
\
N
S
I

Y
l
4
.
5
-
7
3

t

.
-
'\

:
:
:
:
:
o
o
c
,
z

A
P
P
L
Y
.

I
.

I

T
A
P
E
P
.

O
N

D
I
A

P
E
P

l
l
'
l
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

r

T

+

I

[
5
.
0
0
0

1
5
]

4
.
2
C
(
j
.
.
+
:
.
;
z
.

j
s
.

7
o
o

1

(
4
.
3
2
6

7
>
)

J
0
1
:
Z
,
-
.
o
z
.

.

'

t
_

-
-
-
4
.

2
.

5

-
I

2

U

N

-
2

t
:
,

L

E

F

T

f

1
/
\

i

j

D

-
4
.
2
.
5
0
0

M
I
N

M
A
J
(
)
R

C
l
i
-
4
.
1
3
5
3
-
r
.
O
C
S
S

P
I
T
C
H
[
,
,
/
:
.
,

4
.

I

G

0

0

+
.

0

I

8

0

/
v
'
l

I

f
'.
l

G

P

0

I

A

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
l
O

'
I

I
'

I
O
N

O
F

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
i
L
T
R
I

..
-

-
-

-
-
-
M
A
J
O
R

-
M
I
N
O
R

-
I

1
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
l

I

l

-
-
-
1

;
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

5
.

S

I

-
.
0
2

I
4

-
.
I
G
3

'
3
9
$
+

0
1
0

r

I
.

1

.
5

1
0

-
.

I

0

.
,

-
r
-
-
-
j

.
-
-
r
-
-

.

I

8

l'v
1

A

X

1
'
-
,

I

!

I

I

"
.
,

i

I
"
'

-
r
-
-
-

-
-
.
7
7

R

-
.
0
4

-
=
-
=
-
-
=
-
/
r

/

'

I /
1

........ -
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
(
s
.

8
0
0

r
z
)
)

4
.
1
4
0
-
o
z
.
.

I
\
.

L

'
\

-
.
1
5

M
!
\
j
.
.

-
-
-
-
.
0
1

+

G
i

-
-
-
-
-
3
.
3
8

+
-
.
0
4

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
.
E
R
W
I
S
[

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

_
IN

I
N
C
H

$

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

A
N
G
L
E
S

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

\
-
4
.
2
5
-
1
2
U
N
:
-
2
A

L
[
F
T

H
A
N
D

4
.
Z
.
4
8
0
-
.
0
1
1
4

M
i
\
J
O
R

D
I
A

4
.
J
"
j
3
'
3
-
.
0
0
f
>
5

P
I
T
C
H

D
I
A

4
.
1
4
5
8

M
A
X

M
I
N
O
R
.

D
I
A

P
A
R
T

N
O
.

c

2

2
.

'
3

s

G

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

O
f

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
C

-
4

'
1
2
-
t

t
..f
:
.
/

"
l

7

7

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
.

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

P
R
E
P

O
J

C
L
O
S
U
.
R
E

C
H
K

A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M

7
0
7
5
T
6

E
N
G
R

>

.
.
\
,

-
:

1
\

..
n

(
C
E
N
T
E
R

S
A
B
O
T

T
E
.
S
/

S
L
U
G
,

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:

S
U
B
M
t
n
E
D

C
2
C
.
'
?
J
7
6

8
'
-
I
S
S
M
"
-
1

S
I
Z
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E

N
T

N
O
.
I

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
8

C
c
Z
'
:
J
S
(
:

S
C
A
L
E
:

I

I

I

!
S
H
E

3

A

i

'
,
i

I
l
-
-
,
_
.

l
D

l
D

I
.

f
\
.

1
-
.J

":_
_

'
(

I

4

.

5

-
7

3

.
$
.

A

2
0
0
G
Z
.

A
P
P
L
Y
.

l
-
1

i

I

I

S
.
B
t

-
.
0
2

4
.
0
'
3

+
.
0
2
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

A

1
1

/

_
_
.
.
,
,
.
_

'"

.......
.

I

C
L
A
S
S
'

-
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E

S

(
W
R
4
3
A
)

.
_
-
-
r
-
-
-
-

.

-

.
.
.

L
T
R

D
l

;(
:1
1

I
'

'
I
(

N

C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
-
'
-
4
A
J
O
R

-
M
I
N
O
R

-
1
.
0
2

-
t
-
.
0
2

2
.

P
L
A
C
E
S

i

.
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
.
1
8

M
A
X
-
-
-
-
2

P
L
A
C
E
"
:
:
l

_
_
.
,
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
r

.

0

5

-
t

.

0

I

I

I

2

P
L
A
C
E
S

_
\

l
_
j
d

t

i

4
.
Z
.
f
>
I
J
;
;
-
.
0
2
.

2

P
L
A
C
E
'
:
:
,

r
-
L
,
-
-
-
j

\

/
/
.

/
.
.
.
.

I

/

/

,
.

!

4
.
2
5

-
I
Z
.
U
N

-
2
B

P
-
I
G
H
T

H

2

P
L
A
C
E
S

I
'I

.
.
.
.
.
.

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
1
.

5
3
-
.
0

G

M
I
N

M
A
J
O
R

D
l

4
.
1
3
5
'
:
?
-
+
.
0
0
8
5

P
I
T
C
H

C

4
.
1
1
6
0
0

-
t
-
.
0
1
8
0

M
l
t
'
-
.
I
O
R

[

P
A
R
T

N
O
.

c

2

z

'
3

5

9

U
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
i
f
i
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

O
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
F

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
I

T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

'
;
.
'
a
t

.
_
(

.
.
.
;
-
,
7

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
.

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

)
I

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:

C
H
K

B
O
D
Y

S
T
E
E
L

A
I
S
I

4
1
4
0

E
N
G
R

.;:

.
.
.
.
k

I

c

2

2
.
<
)
7
5

l
E
S
T

S
'
L
U
C
.
,

H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:

S
U
B
M
I
T
I
E
D

c

2

2
'
?
'
!
7
7

B
"
-
1
5
5
M
M

N
O
R
M
A
L
I
Z
E
D

S
I
Z
E

I

C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
,

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

C

3
0
4
7
8

A
P
D
c
i
C
.
A
T
I
(
l
N

S
O
L
E

.

:

I
S
H
E
E

.

-
-
-
D

-
I

I
C

r

B

-
i

A
I

i
l

N

0

0

8

I

N
O
T
(
5

I
A
N
S
I

Y
l
-
4
.
5
-
'
'
3

e

A
Z
O
O
<
O
Z
.

A
P
P
L
Y
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
l
2

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1

.
.

7

I

6

I

-
-
-
-
s
.
o
o
.
:
.
.
o
z
.
.

4

S
1
-
.
.
,
:
)
2

'
j

j
-
0
?
.

2

7

1
'.
.
.
1
;
\

,
(

-
.:
;
;
-
I

l

c

5

J
.

C
L
A
S
S
t
F
t
C
.
t
.
T
I
O
H

O
F

C
H
.
t
.
I
U
C
T

R
t
S
T
I
C
S

l
W
l
t
4
3
A
)

4

C
o
l
t
t
T
K
:
A
L
-
1
1
6
.t
.J
o
-
.
.
.
.
.
0

-
2
1
5
3
-
0
b

0
7

t
o
z

'
-
5
.
'
)
8
-
g
u
N
-
Z
A

"
.
-
E
F
T

H
A
N
D

5

9
7
7
"
3
-

:
l
1
S
O

M
A
"
O
P
.

D
I
A

5

8
'
l
<
O
I
-
:
:
;
0
'
3
1

P
I
T
C
H

D
I
A

5
.
B
2
.
3
9

L
-
1
A
J
-
.

M

N
G
8

U
I
A

I

3

I

1
.
0
2

0
2

2

P
L
A
C
E
S

U
N
l
t
s
S

O
T
W
(
I
I
.,I
S
l

S
r
[
C
t
f
t
(
O

O
I
I
U
'i
"
U
.l

O
A
I
(

A
llf

IJO
I
"
'C
t
t
f
S

O
f

O
I
I
'A
W
I
N
(
;
!
O
l
(
I
I
A
,
.
.
C
B

O
N

O
(
(
t
t
U
t
S

/
J
y
-
,
d

-
N
G
l
l
S

P
liO
'
k
:
"
'
'?
"
'-
...-

'
"
'

!
"
-
G
il

c

l

7
.
;
,

"
"
(
t
T

;
;
.
_
v

l
i
i
{
A
t
M
{
"
1

..:
.:
:
'
"
)
7
R

f3

.
,
,


-
-
N
O
R
M
,
I
i
>
.
.
L
i
r
.
E
D

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
H

f
t
N
.
t
l

jO
I
I
'Q
T
(
C
T
I
Y
(

f
i
N
I
S
H

A
,.P
1
1
0
V
l0

4

d

I

r

2

L
T

i

I

I

III:(
'V
'tS
IO
H
1

[
)
(
I
C
I
I
't
.
.
H
O
.
.

4
.
2
b
<
;
Z
)
-
.
0
2
.

2
.

P
L
A
C
E
'
:
>

0
A
1

.
.
.
.

O

D

2

2

9
7
1

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R

I
q

7
/

N
O
I
I
tf
M

f
ltO
Y
.
Y
f
iiiiiO
I
I
J

"
"
"
A
o
l
l
1
}

B
O
D
Y

:

... -.-.
.
.

(
C
E
N
T
E
R

j
S
i

[
r
O
O

l
D
l
l
f

H
O
l

D

3
0
4
7
8

D
2
.
Z
9

S
C
A
L

I
I
I
,.,
T

i
.. I
I

I

I

I

I

N

0

1
-
'

N
O
T
E
S
.

I

A

r
-
1

_

Y

I

4
.

5

-
7

3

C
H
A
I

,
.
(
;
1

I

1
'1

1
1
"
'

I

w
,
;

4
3
.
A
)

C
R
I
T
I
C
'
A
"
L
'
=
'
"

-
-
-
-
-
-

M
A
J
O
R

-

:
M
I
N
O
R

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<

-
-
.

.

.
.

-
-
-
-
-

A
c
-
:
:
:
:
:
0
0
2
.

A
P
P
L
Y

-
-
-

2
.

7
7
-
.
0
4

l

T
-
,

4

J
4
'
f
)
-
0
2
.

4
.
Z
S
-
1
2
_
U
N
-
2
A

P
.
I
G
H
T

H
A
N
D

4

Z
"
'
!
B
0
-
.
0
1
1
4

M
A
J
O
R

[
)
l
A

4

1
'
3
3
3
-
.
0
0
6
5

P
i
T
C
H

D
I
A

/
1

_
_
/
I

-
'
L
1
4
5
B

l
'
v
1
A
X
.

M
I
N
:
:
J
P
,

D
I
A

I

I

.
1
8

f
V
l
A
X

.

.
.
.
_
.
.
_

1
.
0
1

-
.
o
z
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
l
3

C
2
2
9
7
"
"
)

C
Z
2
.
c
:
J
7
f
,

(

T
e
s
T

>
c
u
e
.
.

C
Z
2
.
'
?
1
7
\

8
'
'
-
1
5
'
5
"
1
1
\
1
1

c

2
.
2
.
9

7
8
)

N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

U
S
E
D

O
N

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

T

'
3
'
3
0
'
P

-
.
o
o
s

r

i
l
-
_
.
_
!
1

I

.
0
5
-
t
-
.
0
2
.

Z
.
.

P
L
A
C
E
S

P
A
R
T

N
O

c

Z

Z

3

7

2
_

!
J
N
L
E
S
S

O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E

S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D

O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L

D
A
T
E

D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

I
N

I
N
C
H
E
S

O
f

O
R
.
I
.
W
I
N
G

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
P
O
R
A

I

T
O
L
E
R
"
-
N
C
E
S

O
N

D
E
C
I
M
A
L
S

:
:
)

_
f
-
:
1
,
(

i

I

7
7

N
O
R
T
H

T
R
O
Y
.

V
E
R
M
O
N
T

o
s
a

A
N
G
L
E
S

P
R
E
P

)
I

M
A
R
7
7

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:

C
H
K

N
O
S
E

M
I
L
D

S
T
E
.
E
L

E
N
G
R

"

.

L
.
,
_
.
,
,
J
.
.

r
.;
A
.
t
"
-

r

-,
H
E
A
T

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
:

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

S
J
Z
E
l
C
O
D
E

I
D
E
N
T

N
O
.
I

F
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

F
I
N
I
S
H
:

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

c

3
0
4
7
6

c

2
2
3
7
2
.
.

S
C
A
L
E
:

I
/

I

!
S
H
E
E
T

I

'
',
.
.
.

.

8

1

7

I
.

A
N
S
I

Y
l
"
\

"
:
)
-
7
3

i
!

A
Z
O
O
<
O
Z

A
P
P
c
.
Y
.

0

-
c

-
+

B

-
A


N

0

N

(
7
.
1
8
"
-

)

1
.
.

.
.
.
.

R

.
Q
Z
R

+
.
0
1

z

P
L
A
C
E
'
S

V
I
E
W

A

S
C
A
L
E
:

1
0
/

I

0
3
5
P
-
0
1

2

P
L
A
C
E
S

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
l
4

I

7

I

1

6

I

+

C
L
A
!
!
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
f
'
C
H
A
,
I
U
C
T

R
t
!
T
I
C
S
!

W
R
4
3
A
.I

C
l
t
!
T
I
C
A
L
-
4

I
M
A
"
"
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i

a
.. .. (
W
t

-

-

-
-
-
I

-
.
-
z

o
z

-
-
-
j

2
.
.
0
4
0
-
t
-
o
z
o

.

I

-
'

I


1

I

H
S
Q

+

o
z
o

-
-
-
-
I

.

l

I

i

'

li
I

'

-
-

.
-
-
/

.
.
.

r

l

1

1

j
I
t

.
;

i

I
;
(
7
s
o
o
a
l
)

I

!

7

z
s
r
;
;
-
.
o
l

1
7

.
,
L

1

I

!
1
1

i

I

I

.

l

i

l


j
_
_

V
I
E
W

A
-
'

I

-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
/

/

/

"

L
j
.
Z
.
I
G
Z
\

T
A
P
E
P

O
N

D
I
A

P
E
R

I
N
(
I
-
1

0
F

t
-
E
N
G
T
H

\

0
5
.

0
2
.

I
!

i

I

3

7
.
9
'
3
0
0

-
.
0
0
5

I

u

-
5
.
9
8

-
B
U
N

-
2
5

L
E
F
T

H
A
N
D

5
.
9
8
0

M
I
N

M
A
J
O
R

D
I
A

+

0
1
1
'
3

P
I
T
C
H

:
)
l
A
.

5
.
8
4
5

+
.
0
2
5

M
I
N
O
R

D
I
A

\.l'l"
l i
S
S

0
1
'1
'\ II W
I
S
t

S
l't
:
C
if
1
{ 0

O
W
I

N
S
J
O
N
\
A
l
i
i

I"
'
I
"
C
M

!
.

0
N
0
I
e
o
l
l
l
4
l
:
O

Q
lllG
.II'O
I&
.l
0
A
l
(

0
1

O
ltA
W
tlio
iG

2

J

.
I
I
'
(
Y
I
!
I
O
H
!

.
.
.
,

o

D
Z

Z

3

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R
I

N
O
I
I
I
M

I
I
I
Q
Y

W
f
iiW
Q
N
I

A
H
C
l
(
'
i

.. 1.
P
l
l
!
l
'

.
,
,
,
,
.
.
'
f
!
7

S
A
B
O
T

'
"
'

.
.
.

7
0
7
(
,

'
"
'
I
..I
J
f
V
1
1
1
"
U
I
'

l
l
t
(
A
I
I
I
I
(
,
.
I

N
(
X
T

A
S
S
T

U
S

0

O
N

f
i
P
U
l

r
iiiO
U
C
T
J
Y
l
f
i
,.I
S
H

A
P
P
t
1
(
.. ,

h

l

5

-
+

4

T

3

T

2

I

D

-
c

.
.
.

B

-
A
i

!

8

7

6

3

2

N
O
T
f
:
"
S
:

/
.

Y
l
-
4
5

7
:
3

A
P
"
'
L
Y
.

N

0

w

l

r

3
0
+
.
0
2
.

.
0
7
R
-
.
O
Z
.

l
_

/
'

/

.

.

0
7
-
.
0
,
r
l
J

L

.
4
3
+
.
0
2
.

.
1
8

M
A
X

8

V
I
E
W

A

S
C
A
L
E
:

2
.
/
1

F
i
g
u
r
e

A
1
5

T

r

c
::
-
1
1
tf:'Y
1
,1
0
1
o
1
S

C
>

L
f
.
.

0
[
S
C
o
lttl"
fiO
IIII
c
n
r
K
:
A
L

1
1
1
1
.4
-J
()jlt
-
lllllllifo
.t
-

2

3
1
-
o
z
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
_
I

0
2
.

-
,

I
5
'
:
/
2
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
)
4
0

i

-

I
'

:

I

i

!

)

3

I

3

.t-
G
4
0

r

f
F
R
l

'

r

:

,

I

I

I
I

I

!

I

I

(
7
.

'
"
"

)

I

7
.
8
"
1
(
1
)
-
.
o
z

/

/
7

i

!

7
.
2
.
G
f
/
>

0
2
.

V
I
E
W

A
.
.
.
.
.
/

:

'
I
i

I
I

F
5
Q
O
P
J

I
(
7
S
7
0
0
)

O
N

D
I
A

P
E
R

I
N
C
H

O
F

L
E
N
G
T
H

D
I
A

D
I
A

7

8
4

5
7

f
'v
l
A
J
I
.
.
.

M
I
N
O
P

D
I
A

"
'
'

o

0

2

Z

'3

7

4

o
.

S
P
A
C
E

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

C
O
R

A

t
o
l
l
a
.
u
.
c
u
,

O
N

'...:
,
,

,
u
o
G
l
f
S

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,

j
'
"
'

I

I

I

P

__
O
L
Y
P
P
O
P
Y
L
E
N
E

I
H
G
R

.
.
.
.
.

u
k

,
h
,
.
.
,
,

r
U

"
"

-
S
U
&
.
.
I
n
(
O

H
(
A
I

f
J
I
(
A
I
.
.
(
N
I

c
.
2

2
"

1
. .
,
-
N
E
X
T

A
S
S
Y

I
I
I
!
I
A
l
I
'R
Q
i
l
C
T
I
\
1
(

f
i
N
I
S
"

A
P
fi'II!O
V
lO

f
ltO
Y

'I
f
I
U
I
Q
N
T

D
R
.
I
V
J
I
'
J
(
,

B
A
r