Aerodynamic Coefficients and Pressure Distribution of Solid Flat and Ringslot Models in Onedimensional Velocity Gradients

AFFDL-TR-72-113
A E R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS AND PRESSURE

DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID FLAT AND RINGSLOT
MODELS IN ONE-DIMENSIONAL
VELOCITY GRADIENTS
H. G.
HEINRICH
R. A.
NOREEN
J. N.
UNIVERSITY
DALE
OF
MINNESOTA
TECHNICAL REPORT A F F D L - T R - 7 2 - 1 1 3
DECEMBER 1973
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 45433
NOTICES
When Government drawings, specifications, or other
data are used for any purpose other than in connection with
a definitely related Government procurement operation the
United States Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor
any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Government
may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the
said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be
regarded by implication or otherwise as in any manner
licensing the holder or any other person or corporation or
conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use 'or
sell any patented invention that may in any way be related
tnereto.
LINDA HALL LIBRARY

Science Engineering Technology
5109 Cherry Street

Kansas City MO 64110 USA
return is S m H ^ V * 1 1S 8e c ur re i? t r t S h U l d n 0 t b e r e t u r n e d ""less
obligations nr nnt? considerations, contractual
oDiigations, or notice on a specific document.
a i r FORCE/567SO/17 December 1 9 7 3 - 1 5 0
LINDA HALL LIBRARY
3 3690 00568 0862
A E R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS AND PRESSURE

DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID FLAT AND RINGSLOT
MODELS IN ONE-DIMENSIONAL
VELOCITY GRADIENTS
H. G.
HEINRICH
R. A.
NOREEN
J. N.
UNIVERSITY
DALE
OF
MINNESOTA
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
1973
FOREWORD
This report was prepared in the Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics of the University of
Minnesota in compliance with U. S. Air Force Contract No.
F33615-68-C-1227, "Theoretical Deployable Aerodynamic
Decelerator Investigations," Task 606503, "Parachute Aerodynamics and Structures," Project 6065, "Performance and
Design of Deployable Aerodynamic Decelerators." The analysis
presented in this report was performed between 2 February
1970 and 31 July 1972.
The study was sponsored jointly by U. S. Army Natick
Laboratories, Department of the Army, and Air Force Systems
Command, Department of the Air Force, and administered under
the direction of the Recovery and Crew Station Branch, Air
Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, with Mr. James H. DeWeese, AFFDL/FER, as Project
Engineer.
The study was accomplished in cooperation with
Mr. Thomas R. Hektner and several students of Aerospace
Engineering at the University of Minnesota. Mr. Edward J.
Giebutowski, U. S. Army Natick Laboratories, participated
in this study by providing valuable guidance and identification of the principal requirements.
This report was submitted by the authors in
August 1972.
This technical report has been reviewed and is

approved.
RUDI J. BERNDT
Act'g Chief, Recovery & Crew Station Branch
Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
ii
ABSTRACT
_
The results of wind tunnel studies of the aerodynamic _ characteristics of solid flat and ringslot parachute
models in flow with several linear one-dimensional d y 2 c
S e S r s 8 ^ ? ^ are presented. The model! h S d n S i S S
diameters of about 16 in. Gradients of 0%, 107, 207 and
40% of centerline dynamic pressure per foot with centeSine
thetestsS 1 u S J l ' 8 8 6 M d 9 f t / " c W e r e e a t S l l S d f S "
tests
Surface pressure measurements were made on rieid
porous models, and drag coefficients obtained by integration
of the pressure distribution. Aerodynamic force aSd momen?
S S S b S - S j e S " det6rmined
* > . measurements c T '
iii
LINDA HALL LIBRARY

Kirmi G%, M.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
page
I.
Introduction
II.
Dynamic Pressure Gradients .
III.
Pressure Distribution Measurements
12
A.
Pressure Distribution Models
12
B.
Wind Tunnel Tests
12
C.
Results
16
Force Measurements
29
A.
Parachutes Models
29
B.
Wind Tunnel Test Apparatus
29
C.
Coefficients
33
D.
Results
36
IV.
V.
Free Suspension Tests
57
Appendix I - Method of Pressure Integration
58
Appendix II-Tabulated Pressure Coefficients
61
References
71
. . . . .
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
PAGE
Rod Assembly for Production of Velocity
Gradient in a 54 x 38 Inch Wind Tunnel
Test Section
Dynamic Pressure vs Distance at Various

Gradients , Centerline Pressure of
4.0 and 9.0 psf
Side View of Wind Tunnel Test Section

Showing Rake and Parachute Model Locations
used in Pressure Gradient Measurements . . .
Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

G = 0.1, q = 4.0 psf

- U.l, q = 9.0 psf . . . ,

o - 0.2, q = 4.0 psf

0 - U.2, q = 9.0 psf

h
~
q = 4.0 psf
10

G - 0.4, q - 9.0 psf
Pressure Models
Geometry of Pressure Measurement Models
. .
S n S f 1 ? 1 1 ! f P r e s s u r e Tap Locations and

Mode of Presentation .
13.
14.
15.
,0
13
14
15
Pressure Distribution on a Solid Flat

Parachute Model in Uniform Flow

Parachute Model for G = 0.1, q f 4.O psf . .
18

Parachute Model for G = 0.1, q =
psf
19
vi
. .
17
JL /
ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTD.)
FIGURE
PAGE
16.

Parachute Model for G = 0.4, q = 4.0 psf . . 20
17.

18.
Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Parachute Model in Uniform Flow
22
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
Ringslot Model Installed in the Wind Tunnel.
31
24.
Wind Tunnel Apparatus for Parachute

Force Measurements
32
25.
Vent Normal Force Sensor
34
26.
Coordinate System of the Aerodynamic

Coefficients
35
27.
Tangent Force Coefficients for the Solid

Flat Parachute Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
37
Tangent Force Coefficients for the Solid

Flat Parachute Model for G = 0.2
and G = 0.4
38
Normal Force Coefficients for the Solid

Flat Parachute Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
39
Normal Force Coefficients for the Solid

Flat Parachute Model for G = 0.2
and G = 0.4
40
28.
29.
30.
vii
FIGURE
31.
32.
33.
34.
PAGE
Moment Coefficients for the Solid Flat
Parachute Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
Moment Coefficients for the Solid Flat

Parachute Model for G = 0.2 and G = 0.4
43
Tangent Force Coefficients for the

Ringslot Parachute Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
Tangent Force Coefficients for the
Ringslot Parachute Model for G = 0 2
and G = 0.4
\
45
35.
Normal Force Coefficients for the

Ringslot Parachute Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
36.
Normal Force Coefficients for the

Ringslot Parachute Model for G = 0 9
and G = 0.4 . .
47
37.
Moment Coefficients for the Ringslot

Parachute
Model for Uniform Flow
a n d
G
1
-
38.
0-
Moment Coefficients for the Ringslot

Parachute Model for G = 0.2 and G = 0 . 4
Ratio of C T
to C T
40.
at
. . 49
oC = 0 in Gradient Flow
at 0L= 0 in Uniform Flow vs Gradient.
Stable Angles of Attack for the Solid

Flat Parachute Model
41.
Stable Angles of Attack for the Ringslot

s iOC
Parachute Model
42.
Ratio of dC^/d * at ^
51
^
53
in Gradient Flow
to dC^/d c<at
in Uniform Flow for the
Solid Flat Parachute Model
54
viii
RAKE
1.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
o
v
POSITIONS
q + 0.2q x
4.0 p s f
6 0 f ps
0.2
Fig 6
x /w
0.4
Measured and Desired Pressure

Gradient f o r G = 0.2, q =4.0 psf
1.6*
RAKE
POSITIONS
Fig 5 Measured and Desired Pressure

Gradient for 0 = 0.1, q = 9.0psf
Fig 4
Measured and Desired Pressure

Gradient for G = 0.1,q = 4.0psf
vt- C\J
00
O
LUt
^00
< o
q:cl
OJ
<-. m o ^ Q o
o o , o o i
n M II M M M
"D
fTJ
5?
-f-
<D
03 x)
K
CO
OJ ro 'tf If) CO
o < -$-<>[>
g)CD
>
<D
Q-
r"O
-f-
1) 3
f- </,
o
f -'
05
-O -I
c
<d
T3
CO
O
2
<D
E
>
V
< -H
d <D
OJ
ul CL
fifl
CO
g>
LL
-2.0
Fig
-1.0
1.0x(ft)2.0
Dynamic P r e s s u r e vs Distance
at Various Gradients, Centerline
Pressures of 4.0 and 9.0psf
II.
DYNAMIC PRESSURE GRADIENTS
A review of the available literature showed that

the method for producing a velocity gradient presented in
Rexs 5 and 6 was best suited for this study. The referenced
method was to place cylindical rods spanning the flow upstream
of the test area and to vary the spacing between the rods
In order to develop a velocity gradient across the wind tunnel
test section, the spacing would be wide on the high velocity
side and narrow on the low velocity side. References 5 and 6
gave methods to calculate an initial rod spacing then by
means of experiments, the rod spacing could be modified until
the desired gradient was established with satisfactory accuracy.
The details of this process are as follows. A row
of vertical steel rods fastened to aluminum rails was installed
at the upstream edge of the test section (Fig 1)
Slotted
sleeves at each end of the rod fit over the rails and allowed
varying the rod spacing across the wind tunnel. A linear
velocity gradient closely approximating the desired linear
dynamic pressure gradient was selected, and the methods of
Refs 5 and 6 were used to calculate the initial spacings for
this linear velocity gradient. The rods were set at this
initial spacing and the resultant pressure gradient measured
The pressure distribution was measured with a rake which
spanned the test section. The rake had 48 total pressure probes
and four static pressure probes at intervals of one inch.
After this first measurement, the number and spacing of the
rods were changed and the pressure distribution checked. This
process was repeated until the desired dynamic pressure
gradient was established.
r - n n i I l l n t o i Sa " T n 6 ^4 Wtlhteh f o l l o w i n g gradients were established
/ n 'J* L
" '
centerline dynamic pressures of
4.0 psf and 9.0 psf, respectively. Figure 2 illustrates the
numerical form of these gradients.
The arrangement of the rods, the rake, and the position of the parachute, used in the later tests, is shown in
Fig 3. The data points, showing the actually established
gradients, are shown in Figs 4 through 9. The lines through
the data points represent the desired gradients. The data
points shown are only for every third pressure probe on the
rake in the central portion of the test section. Simple observation of the fluid heights in the multitube manometer
showed that the pressures at the other central probe locations
fit the linear pressure gradient requirement. Outside of the
central area the velocities decreased because of wall effects
and boundary layers. The figures show that the agreement
between the desired and the established gradients is satisfactory in the area in which the parachute model will be
located.
INTRODUCTION
. ,.
,Th?;s r e P r t presents the results of wind tunnel
studies of the aerodynamic characteristics of solid flat and
ringslot parachute models in flow with various linear onedimensional dynamic pressure profiles called gradients. The
size o the model parachute and the slope of the gradients
were set so they were comparable to a parachute operating
in the wake of a large aircraft (Refs 1,2). Based on parachute size, the gradients studied were much steeper than a
typical atmospheric wind gradient (Ref 3), and not nearly
?rJ
^ t h e 5 a d i e n t i n the wake of a forebody or payload
(,Ker
The gradients were established by varying the
spacing between many thin rods placed in a subsonic wind
tunnel just upstream of the test section. Calculations gave
an approximate initial rod spacing, and then the gradênfs
were measured and the spacing adjusted until the desired
gradient was obtained. Wind tunnel tests were conducted at
pressureâ^the cent f- 6
ft
J ?eC ?nd
90
"/sec
^Si'd^lc
pressures at the centerline of 4 psf and 9 psf, respectively

pressure1 per S foot? X '
10%
'
M d
% f -nterlfSe^dynlmlc
performancecharacteristicsrin thisgradient f low-pressure

distribution measurements were made on rigid
cloth
covered
Th S
n ? t 8 S t S W 6 r e m a d e i n un iform flow, and at the
smallest and largest gradient for each centerline velocitv
nS W e r e i n t e
forceôefficients^fnr^
^ a t e d and e d u c e d " ? '
f r com aris
measurements?
P
" with the results of force
Aerodynamic force coefficients, r

r
and C
were measured as functions of angle of attack for n
m,
T
f
flexible J S i d l S J ' , ^ - c e L a s u r e ^ f w e ^ ^ a d V w i t ^
Finally? lor a ^ i t a ^ ^ i ^ ^ f ^
J S S f c S J0?1?"
gradient flow, the model? were f r l e ^ ^ e f a n f o ^ r v e d
distance from axis of symmetry to canopy skirt

measured along canopy profile
nominal area
s/ s
max
tangent force
centerline velocity
test section width, 54 in
test section width coordinate
test section height coordinate
parachute angle of attack
trim angle, stable angle of attack, Q, = 0,
dC^/dw < 0
T*
stiffness index (Ref 9)
Other symbols, when used, are defined in the
text.
Unless specifically expressed otherwise the

coefficients indicated are based on nominal area
xii
SYMBOLS
drag coefficient*
moment coefficient*
total normal force coefficient*
pressure coefficient
differential pressure coefficient
external pressure coefficient
internal pressure coefficient
tangent force coefficient*
nominal diameter
gradient parameter,
height of test section,
fin
aerodynamic moment
total normal force
front normal force
vent normal force
freestream static pressure
local external static pressure
local internal static pressure
local dynamic pressure
centerline dynamic pressure
4.0 psf
9.0 psf
gradient
length measured along canopy
xi
profile
TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I.
Drag Coefficients from Integrated

Pressure Distributions . .
II.
Solid Flat and Ringslot Parachute Models
III.
Pressure Coefficients for the Solid Flat

and Ringslot Models, Uniform Flow
IV.
V.

Model, G = 0.1, q = 4.0 psf
Pressure Coefficients for the Solid
Flat Model, G = 0.1, q = 9.0 psf
VI.

Model, G = 0.4, q = 4.0 psf .
VII.

Model, G = 0.4, q = 9.0 psf
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
Pressure Coefficients for the Ringslot

Model, G = 0.1, q = 4.0 psf
. . . . . . .
Model, G = 0.1, q = 9.0 psf . .
Model, G = 0.4, q = 4.0 psf
. . ? . . . .
Model, G = 0.1, q = 9.0 psf . . ?
27
30
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
68
FIGURE
43.
PAGE
Ratio of dCj^/dc*. at cX T in Gradient Flow
to dCM/djX at DC _ in Uniform Flow for the
ix
RAKE
POSITIONS
-0.2
0.2
0.4
/W

Gradient for G = 0.2 , q = 9.0 psf
RAKE
o
2
3
O l
-0.4
POSITIONS
-0.2
02
04~~
x /w
Gradient for G=0.4 , q = 9.0 psf
ii
1.6
1.4
1.2
RAKE
A
0O
v
2
3
4
5
6
1.0
0.8
/
*/
0.6
/s
0.4
0
-0.4
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
POSITIONS
r
3
i
I
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
i
<L
1
I
1
i
-02
q = q + 0.4 q x
q = 9.0 p s f
v = 9 0 fps
02
x/w
0.4

Gradient for G=0.4 ,q = 9 . 0 psf
ii
III.
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS
The main objective of this study is, of course the

establishment of parachute aerodynamic coefficients in gradient
flow. Since no publication on this subject could be found
in the literature, pressure distribution measurements were
made to provide a basis for checking the measured force
coefficients against the fundamental pressure distributions
from which they derive.
A
Pressure Distribution Models
The pressure distributions were made on rigid concave bodies constructed of heavy wire frames with radial
members forming circular arcs. The wire frame was covered with
h / y - ÎL-C-7020
cloth (Ref 7), and the models looked
like hemispheres. Figure 10 shows these models and Fie 11
shows that the models had a diameter of 10 in and a roi of
14 pressure taps along a great circle. One model had internal
pressure taps and the other had external pressure taps Jith
identical tap locations on each model.
eûre c a p s Wlfch
.
. 1 simulate a solid flat circular parachute model
the hemispheres were completely covered with tightly fittld
nylon cloth. For simulation of a ringslot parafhute mJdel
slots were, cut into the cloth at locations shown
inFig11
g
The constant slot width of 0.04 in was set fn
I .
a I
porosity of 4 6% based on the surface arâ of fhe hemfsphê'"
This porosity figure was selected to match the geomJSic
porosity of the flexible ringslot parachute modfl
B*
Wind Tunnel Tests
r
diStribU 0n m dels were
axial
tinra
n r iheld
h f lat
T % zero
^
r u n tstin?
e d on an
axial s
sting
and
angle
of attack. The
and support system were the same as described l a K r f ^ t h e
farc? measurements. The model pressure taps we?e ini?iallv
threetimes
cnree cimes
t l n
With
* * 8taps,
^
J n anH
SmenL
With a row of ^pressure
both
above
center
dllTin
plane, this ? J c e 3 S e gfves pressure
data in 45 increments over the whole Psurface nf thfv, u
For uniform flow, one may assume that the p r e s s u r e d i s S b S t f '
is axisymmetric, and the results nf aii
i
distribution
' T ^ r F I" the gradient flow

iLêSeîKr^Son""
should be symmetric about the horizontal p l a n e t e S
L
1
gsrgsi
s^û^wV?^
"
were tested? S f S ^ S ^ ^ t J ' V ? - ^
12
'
r /
TTrXL
CD
Z
C
CH
Ll
00
Z
o
*
V
O
O
oo
<L
INCREASING q+x
18Q
270
MODE OF PRESENTATION
TAP POSITIONS
0
and
180*
UNIQUE
45*
and
315
AVERAGED
90'
and
270'
AVERAGED
135
and
225
AVERAGED
Fig 12
Rotations of Pressure Tap

Locations and Mode of
Presentation
15
G - 0.4 for both centerline dynamic pressures. Internal and

external pressures were measured using a multitube manometer.
C.
Results
All of the individual pressure coefficients are

shown in Figs 13 through 22 and are tabulated in the Appendix.
The pressure coefficients shown are based on centerline dynamic pressure,
C Pn = C
- C
d
Pi
P
On the figures the +s* direction is into the higher velocity
follow
^ " " V a n d the rotation angles indicated Y
follow Fig 12. These figures show that the primary effect
of the gradient is to reduce the magnitudes of the pressures
This is particularly noticeable in the differentialPprlssure
C
e 1 S m o r e red
pd'
uction with steeper gradients^
m
"rânge i n Pressure distribution from the left

to the right side is quite small. On the solid flat parachute
there appears to be a reoccurring unsymmetry of C
measured
at tap locations of 0 and 180. Other unsymmetries are so
small that they are not traceable with any degree of certainty
On the ringslot parachute no unsymmetries can be detected
One may assume that the canopy slots equalize the S e s s S e s
to the extent that no unsymmetries exist or are L S small to
be recorded by the experimental method used.
The drag coefficients obtained by integrating the
pressures are shown in Table I. For the u n i f o m f l o w E d i t i o n s
the averaged pressure distribution was integrated for " d l t l o n s
gradient flow the individual pressures obtained at the angular
ofSthecircularUf lat
8 h T t h a t t h e âg'coeffSfen?s
and the ringslot parachute are significantly smaller in gradient flow and decrease as the stfenith
of the gradient increases.
strengtn
16
1.6
A
1
Cp
0.8
1D
cPd
cc
Pi
q = 4 , 9 p s f AVERAGED
/i
r\
-0.4
-0. 8
0.4
0.4
-J
s
nU-
.0.8
^Pe
J-0.8
Fig 13 Pressure Distribution on a

Solid R a t Parachute Model
in Uniform Flow
17
R g
14
^rff
u r e
foT
18
Distribution on a
% / p ^ %
M o d e l
I.D
H
a S
0r2
Cp
c
a 2 Pd
6 0
180
A -
0.4
135 ,225
90\270
J a
-04
-0.8
O -
a -
4 5 ,315
a -
9 0 , 270
-HA
-0.8
* 6
CP;
0.8
0.4
a a
a
CPe

for G = 0.1 j q = 9 p s f
19

for G = 0 . 4 , q = 4 p s f
20
1.6
o
8
"
1.2
6 ft
CP
1 Oa
0.8
-XT
RS a 8 a 6
o -
180
o -
0.4
H 8 s
2
c
A
s
a - 4 5 ,315
D -
- 9 0 ,270
OA
-0.8
o o
a i
A - 135 J 2 2 ^
fi
a e>
9Cf ,270
0.4
o o
A Q
ci
n
0.8
2 9 4 O
A *
C Pe
-0.8

for 6 = 0 . 4 j q = 9psf
21
Fig 18 Pressure
D i s t r i b u t i o n on a
Ringslot P a r a c h u t e
in Uniform F l o w
22
Model

Ringslot Parachute M o d e l
for G = 0.1, q" = 4 psf
23
Fig 2 0
Pressure Distribution on a
fR7s,otQiParfhutepMode,
24
&
E a 12
'*
ft
CP
a
D
o c
tft
o -
180
A -
135 , 2 2 5
^0.8
&0.4
ft
C Pd
O c
-
0.4
- 9 0 ,270
-0.4
-0.8
b o A
O
A
b a
3
o -
Cf
a -
45 ,315
9tf,Z70
0.4
CP,
S* 0.8
1 & ft
ft
CPE
-0.8

Ringslot Parachute Mode!
for G = 0.4 , q = 4 psf
25

Ringslot Parachute Mode!
for G = 0 . 4 , q = 9 psf
26
00
_l
LU
D
O
1
o
_J
oo
O
z
or
cr
O
f-
in
Ll
Ld
o
U
to
a
O
a>
n
icr
_j
O
oo
LJ
cr
D
LO
to
u
00
~ _J
< <
lu y
o
CD
o
O)
in
6
% CC
<
LU
y ^
u
U
^ U}
Li_
Q
o
if)
o
a: LU
FLAT
c D
qi
a
<
CD
if)
o
ii
icr
LJ (Z
o
<
>
CL
a f e
z
in
Ld ^
<
2
O
H
co
Q.
o
O)
II
icr
0.54
ERAGE
Id
H
to
Q.
2
LU
in o
in <
o 01
LJ
>
<
O
T'
o
CD
d
m
o
LU I
o
II
CD
o
CD
o
LL
O
<
LU
5 a:<
II
icr
cr
27
" 2
q:
a 5
U oo
As mentioned before, the pressure distribution was

measured and integrated to have a basis for comparing the
results of force measurements in gradient flow. In order to
check the validity of the pressure measurement and integration,
the literature was searched, and drag coefficients based on
projected area of non-porous hollow hemispheres were found to
range from 1.33 to 1.42 (Ref 8). With a C D ~value of 1.15 for
the porous hemispherical model in uniform
flow, the measurements agree very well with literature data, and may be considered a valid basis for comparison of the force measurements
to follow.
28
tfas
to
itlon
Dn
i to
for
surel-
]ents
IV.
FORCE MEASUREMENTS
With the pressure distribution established and

evaluated, tests were conducted to measure the aerodynamic
forces on solid flat circular and ringslot parachute models
in the gradient flow,
A.
Parachute Models
Flexible textile models were used in the force

measurements and in the observations of their dynamic behavior.
The characteristics of both the solid flat circular and
ringslot models are summarized in Table II. The D_, =15.5 in
2
solid flat circular was made of 1 . 1 oz/yd MIL-C-7020 nylon
cloth, with 28 suspension lines 16 in long, and was made to
be as flexible as possible in accordance with Ref 9. The
primary features of this construction are the use of a single
piece of cloth and suspension lines sewn over it with a zigzag stitch to simulate gores. The D Q = 1 4 . 5 6 in ringslot parachute model had 28 gores, was made with seven 1 in wide rings,
and had a measured geometric porosity of 4 . 6 7 .
Each ring
was made of a single piece of ribbon seamed together at the
ends and then darted to form the 28 gores. The seven
separate rings were then connected by sewing the suspension
lines from vent to skirt at the gore edges; there were no
other radial lines or tapes. The free length of the suspension lines was 16 in.
B.
Wind Tunnel Test Apparatus
The sting mount system used for the force

measurements is essentially the same as that described in
Ref 10 and is shown in Fig 23. The downstream end of the
axial sting was supported by a ball bushing in a vertical
strut. The upstream end of the sting was supported by a
ball bushing in a small forebody which was held in place
with a thin strut and fine wires. This entire system was
mounted on a turntable which enabled changing the parachute
angle of attack.
Figure 24 illustrates the functioning of the force
sensors. The model suspension lines were brought to a single
confluence point in order to preserve the canopy shape.
From the confluence point the forces in the suspension lines
were transferred to the upper and lower halves of the strain
gaged cantilever beams of the front force sensor. The deflection of these beams is used to measure the tangent force and
normal forces acting at this point. This seemingly complex
method of sensing these forces was necessitated by the
29
W)
_J
U
Q
I-
13
X
*
5-S
c
I-l
CN
c
H
St
in
<1ii
VO
r-l
c
r-l
I-l
00
csl
1.58
Ld
H
O
H4
CO
O
s
M
tf
cn
C
o
XI
H
ttS
XJ
-
CGO
c
rH
LO
m
r-l
00
CN
1.18
CN
G
iI
16 in
ug
>
4J
i-l
cn
O
M
O
O,
O
I
J-i
U
01
e
o
at
a
o
CO
CO J
Gores
z:
<
uspension
ine Length
Eness Indices
(Ref 7)
b-cn
JJ I1
CO 1
30
c^
CN
0)
60
CO
a
<u
a;
*co
difficulties associated with the fact that the front normal

force is only 1% to 10% of the tangent force. Furthermore,
earlier studies indicated that a device arranged at this
point, which is too large, develops interference effects which
cause faulty force coefficients. Therefore, a design effort
was made to develop a front force sensor as small as possible.
Both sensors were calibrated while installed in the tunnel,
and the small interactions of tangent force upon front normal
force were considered.
The sensor for measuring the normal force at the
parachute vent is shown in Fig 25. The outer ring of the
sensor is clamped to the parachute near the vent, and the
axial sting passes through the inner ring. Two thin strain
gaged beams connect the outer ring to the inner ring, and
are oriented in the wind tunnel so that a normal force at the
parachute vent causes them to deflect. The ring and vent
were restrained from rotating but were free to slide along
the axial sting.
The strain gages on each sensing beam were connected
into a four active gage Wheatstone bridge, the bridge output
amplified, and during a test the output of each sensor was
recorded on an oscillographic recorder.
C.
Coefficients
Figure 26 shows the coordinate system used, indicating the directions of positive forces, angles, and moments;
displacing the parachute to a positive angle of attack tips
the upstream edge of the skirt into the higher velocity
region of the gradient. The aerodynamic force coefficients
for both parachutes were based on nominal area and centerline
dynamic pressure,
M
- T
- N
r
=
Lr
~ c '
N
'
Si
_ _
'
q S
H
Mq S
Hq S D
o
o
o o
As indicated in Fig 26j the moment center is a point on the
axis of symmetry ahea'd of the parachute skirt by a distance
Dq. The normal"forces measured in front and at the rear
were combined to a resultant normal force N.

Measurements were made at dynamic pressures of
q = 4.0 psf and 9.0 psf in uniform flow and at G = 0.1, 0.2,
and 0.4 for both solid flat circular and ringslot model
parachutes. The maximum angle of attack for the solid flat
circular model was 30, the angle where the gore bulges on
the upstream skirt edge just began to collapse. For the
ringslot parachute the maximum angle of attack was 15.
33
Coefficients
35
These separate measurements were made at each angle of attack,

and these results were averaged to obtain the final coefficient
value For uniform flow, the coefficient values at plus and
minus angles of attack were symmetrized by averaging.
D.
Results
For convenient comparison, the results are organized

in sections related to the tangent, normal and moment coefficients with the presentation of the respective coefficient
related to the uniform flow preceding each section. The
results of the measurements with the ringslot parachute are
arranged in the same manner.
No direct comparison of the results is made with
those of Ref 10 because of differences in model construction
and design, and methods of force measurement. There is in
general, broad agreement of the results for the zero gradients.
Any differences can be reasonably attributed to such factors
as longer suspension lines, decreased porosity, and varying
stiffness. These factors, however, have not been analyzed
to the point where a quantitative comparison can be made.
Figure 27A shows the tangent force component of the
solid flat parachute in uniform flow. The data obtained at
q - 4.0 and 9.0 psf did not show significant differences, and
averaging seemed to be justified. The figure shows averaged
data. One notices a C T value of 0.57 at a = 0 whereas Table I
shows as a result of the pressure integration about the simulated hemisphere a C T of 0.55. It is felt that both values
may be somewhat low, because measurements at this angle are
very difficult since solid flat parachutes are highly unstable
at this position. The flexible model pulsated strongly, while
the rigid hemispherical model showed a definite vibration.
Also the front force sensor with its two-component force pickups may cause a noticeable interference at this point.
Figures 27B and 28 show the C T vs a relationships
pertaining to the two different dynamic pressure levels at the
centerline and the three gradients. One notices that there
are no reoccurring or characteristic unsymmetries in the
curves, but a significant change in C T values with increasing
strength of dynamic pressure variation, dq/dx. A further
analysis concerning this observation will follow later.
Figures 29 and 30 show normal force coefficients, C N ,
in uniform and gradient flow. Figure 29A,related to uniform
flow, indicates zero values at a = 0 and 24.5. The (^-values
at a = 1 24.5 are connected with the trim angles of the
paracnuce as defined by C M = 0, and dC^/da < 0.
36
q = 4 . 0 , 9 . 0 psf
AVERAGED
-30
-20
Fig 2 7 A
-10
Uniform Flow
Fig 27 B G = 0.1
F i g 27Tangent Force Coefficients for t h e
Solid Flat Parachute Model for
Uniform Flow and G = 0.1
37
-30
Fig
-20
28A
-30
-20
-10
G = 0.2
O
q = 4.0 psf
-a--
q = 9 . 0 psf
-10
Fig 2 8 B G= 0.4
Fig 28
Tangent Force Coefficients f o r t h e

Solid Flat Parachute Model for G=
0.2 and 0.4
38
Fig 29
Normal Force Coefficients for

the Solid Flat Parachute Model for
Uniform Flow and G = 0.1
Q04
0.C2
_A
s ,
-30X^-20
\
- N
LJ
-10
07
-0.02/'
\
V
Fig 30A
Fig
30
'
/ /- 0 0 4
\\ \ ' //
\ o / -0.06
G =0.2
10
20
^V 3 0
-0.08
q = 4.0 psf
d
q = 9 . 0 psf
Norma! Force Coefficients for the

Solid Flat Parachute Model for
G = 0.2
and G = 0.4
40
The C^-values of this study differ from those shown

in Ref 10. In Ref 10 the front normal force was neglected
whereas in this study, the indicated C^-values are the sum of
front and vent normal force components. The measured data
show that the front normal force is relatively strong near
a = 0, whereas it decreases towards, and becomes zero at the
trim angle. Therefore, the new and the old C^-curves agree
satisfactorily in the trim angle region.
Figures 29B and 30 are related to gradient flow,
and one sees the difference between these curves and the one
for uniform flow. In particular, all gradient flow curves
are unsymmetrical with the trim angle being larger when the
canopy is deflected toward the low velocity side of the flow.
The curves drawn in the figures are interpretations by the
authors of the measured data points. It should be noted that
it is extremely difficult to establish data points on a strongly
pulsating and vibrating model which has been deflected
deeply into the region of instability. However, the facts
of unsymmetry and its dependency on gradient strength as
well as the indicated trim angles are considered to be
firmly established.
From the normal force components on the confluence
point and at the vent, the moment coefficients were calculated
and are shown in Figs 31 and 32. The data indicate the trim
angles as discussed before, the same unsymmetries and the
influence of the gradient strength.
The measured coefficients of the ringslot model
parachute are shown in Figs 33 to 38.
The tangent or drag force coefficient measured in
uniform flow (Fig 33A), C n = 0.53 is lower than the one found
for the solid flat parachute. As shown before, the pressure
measurements and integration provided a C D -value of 0.54 for the
slotted hemispherical model.
The figures illustrating the C T values versus angle
of attack in gradient flow do not show a significant unsymmetry
but a relatively strong influence of the strength of the gradient, dq/dx. This is the same observation made for the solid
flat parachute.
The normal force coefficients, Figs 35 and 36, all
show a region of instability around a = 0. This has to be
expected for a model with a geometric porosity as low as XQ4.6%. Gradient flow causes a noticeable unsymmetry and an
increase of the region of instability. The_deviation of the
C N -a relationship from the one characteristic for uniform flow
seems to increase with the strength of the gradient.
41
Fig 31
M o m e n t Coefficients for the Solid

Flat P a r a c h u t e Model for Uniform
Flow and G = 0.1
q = 4.0 psf
Fig 32 A G = 0.2
q= 9.0psf
-0.08
Fig 32 B G =0.4
Fig 32 Moment Coefficients for the Solid Flat
Parachute Model for G = 0.2 and G =
0.4
43
q = 4.0, 9.0 psf
0.4
-15
Fig 33A
-10
-5
AVERAGED
10
Uniform Flow
OC
CT
0.4.
-15
Fig 33 B
-10
-5
G = 0.1
4.0 psf
q = 9 . 0 psf
10
15:
oi
Fig 33 Tangent Force Coefficients for the

Ringslot Parachute Model for Uniform
Flow and G = 0.1
44
Fig 3 4 A
G=0.2
q = 4 . 0 psf
i
ig 3 4 B
ig 34
= 9 . 0 psf
G = 0,4
Tangent Force Coefficients tor the

Ringslot Parachute Mode! for G =Q2
and G = 0.4
45
4.0,9.0 psf
AVERAGED
Hg 35 A
Uniform
Flow
= 4.0 psf
~ o ~ q = 9.0 psf
Fig 35 B G = 0.1
Fig 35 Normal Force Coefficients for the
Ring slot Parachute Model for Uniform
Flow and G= 0.1
q = 4.0 psf
- - E H -
q = 9.0 psf
Cn
h
ji;j
36 B G = 0.4
3 6 Normal Force Coefficients f o r the
Ringslot Parachute Model for G=0.2
and G =0.4
47
q = 4.0 psf
- o - q = 9.0 p s f
Fig
37B
G = 0.1
Fig
37 M o m e n t Coefficients f o r t h e Ring^c
P a r a c h u t e Model for Uniform Flow
and G = 0.1
Fig 3 8 A
G = 0.2
q = 4 0 psf
-CD--
9 . 0
psf
Fig 3 8 B G = 0 . 4
Fig 3 8 M o m e n t Coefficients for the Ringslot
Parachute Model f o r G = 0.2 and
G=0.4
The moment coefficients for uniform and gradient

flows are given in Figs 37 and 38. In principle they follow
the characteristics of the normal coefficients. For gradient
flow, one notices a small increase of the unstable region,
unsymmetry with respect to a ~ 0, and intensification of the
gradient flow effect with the gradient strength.
In summary the ringslot model parachute showed the
same gradient flow effects as the solid flat parachute,
however, all symptoms were weaker. Since all testing conditions were identical, one may conclude that aerodynamically
ringslot patachutes are less affected by gradient flow than
solid flat parachutes. In view of the low geometric porosity
of the ringslot model parachute, this may seem surprising.
However, the ringslot model was constructed of a tape, MIL-T5608, Class A, with an average nominal porosity of 150 cfm/ft ,
which is slightly more porous than the material used in the
construction of the solid flat model. Thus the ringslot model
had a total porosity, X t , substantially higher than the solid
flat model.
In any case, both parachute types will function in
gradient flow somewhat differently than in uniform flow, since
their stability behavior is determined primarily by the trim
angle, the region of instability, and the slope of the moment
vs angle curve.
In Figs 39 and 43 an attempt is made to present the
variation of tangent force and stability characteristics in
numerical form.
Figure 39 shows for the solid flat and ringslot
models the ratio of C T at a = 0 in gradient flow to the C T
at a = 0 in uniform flow plotted against the dynamic pressure
gradient, dq/dx. The normalizing denominator for the values
obtained through force measurements or by integration is the
respective value of C^ at a = 0 in uniform flow.* The data
shows that in the weaker gradients up to and including dq/dx =
1.6 psf the models are apparently significantly affected by
the area of faster flow in the gradients producing an increase
in the tangent force coefficient in comparison to the zero
gradient results. A step change occurs between dq/dx = 1.6
psf and dq/dx = 1.8 psf. The area of slower flow seems to be
significant in the stronger gradients resulting in lower
tangent coefficients.
It should be remembered that fora=0, C

50
= C
05
<!r
O

TD
24
q = 4.0 psf
Fig 4 0 Stable Angles of Attack for

the Solid Flat Parachute
Model
52
Fig 41 Stable Angles of A t t a c k for

the Ringslot Parachute
Model
o 2.0
ii
o
\
T> 0
T< 0
4 psf
T> 01 -
T
II
(/)
o o o
A V A
t
4-
tb k
/rr
th
p
r
L
05
*
JO
<D
-C
CD
oo
o
o
V
nJ
<L>
u
"O
=3
u
Li. 05
L.
03
Q_
L.
o

o
in
o'
5
05
tr
o
D)
LL
55
1 5
03
L_
CD
.9
If)
U)
Figures 40 and 41 show the stable angles of attack

or trim angles o^, for the solid flat circular and ringslot
models. The normal force and moment data are plotted againsthe_dimensionless gradient G. One notices differences in
positive and negative trim angles with a mild dependency upoi
the gradient. The effect of gradient flow upon trim angle
seems to be stronger for the solid flat parachute.
Figures 42 and 43 present the measured slopes of tr
moment curves at the stable angles for both models. The sol<
flat circular model shows some tendency of decreasing stabili
with increasing gradient. The substantial scatter in the
datafor the solid flat circular may well be caused by diffi
culties in establishing representative curves for the moment
coefficient data points. For the ringslot model representat
curves are easier to establish, and Fig 43 shows much less
scatter. A nearly uniform decrease in dC M /d a of about 20%
due to the gradient seems to occur.
56
tack
)t
FREE SUSPENSION TESTS
tins
For qualitative observation of the free flight beivior of the two models, pendulum tests were made in uniform
upo id gradient flow. For this purpose the horizontal sting
.e id the rear support were removed and the models suspended at
leir line confluence point. Movies of the parachutes were
iken from the downstream wind tunnel diffuser, and the
i ttirachute' s angular deviations from the wind tunnel centerline
soli .re measured,
bili
In uniform flow the ringslot model moved in circular
"i-.-cs about the centerline with angles of deflection of
ant
^proximately 6. The solid flat parachute continuously
ta
ti)ved up and down in circular arcs. Occasionally it crossed
s
:om one side of the centerline to the other, and it looked
' ; if the floor and the ceiling prevented it from a circular
jning motion. The angle of deflection was approximately
i.
Following these tests, the parachutes were exposed
> the gradient flow with q = 4.0 psf and q = 9.0 psf and
radients of G = 0.1 and 0.4, respectively. In both flow
editions the ringslot parachute was very steadily positioned
; an angle of attack of -6. By definition of the system,
le negative angles are located in the region of the lower
?locity. The solid flat parachute performed its motion as
jfore at an angle of 28, but in both gradient flows it
lowed a strong preference for the negative stable angle.
;casionally it crossed over to the positive side for a
lort duration. Thus quite clearly both parachutes showed
definite tendency to move to the lower velocity region.
57
APPENDIX I
Method of Pressure Integration
= radius of hemisphere
= projection of p on XY plane
= angle of r from X axis, 0 s; e <; 2rr
= angle of p from Z axis, 0 <: $ s rr/2
dS
= element of surface area = rde p d$
Coordinate System and Spherical Geometry
58
The total force on the hemisphere in terms of the

differe ntial pressure is
F = q
C p dS
d
or in spherical coordinates
qJCJ L sd/ ^ P ^
F=
(i)
where 0 s 0 s 2n
0
<;
tt/2
r = psin
Since the experimental data was obtained at eight distinct
intervals of 9 = rr/4 the integration operation
8
be reduced to 2n ) and eqn (1) becomes
J S
d0 may
~5~
i=l
8
F =
1 J$
i-l
Pd
(2)
1
We now establish a new variable of integration, r = psin$

dr = pcos$d$
d $ = dr
pcos $
the range of the new variable becomes

at
$ = 0, r = 0
at
5 =
0
tt/2, r = r ^
5 r
eqn (2) becomes
o
F = q f l
i=1
5 r
= p
max
max
Cp
59
rdr
cos $
(3)
Drag, D,
D = "f" V
= Fcosi
\ r \
C Q = D_ = Fcosi
qs
qS
therefore from equ (3) we get an expression for the drag
coefficient in terms of C
o
yL
^si-1
tt
max
Cp
rdr
(4)
d.
J O
If we allow S to equal the surface area of the hemisphere

2
S - 2np
TTD
S =
where D p = the diameter of the hemisphere's projected area

(10 inches) Eqn (4) now becomes, making the parameters
dimensionless,
r
ma x/ D P
I
C
i=1J
D I
r
D
(5)
Eqn (5) was evaluated by making graphs of the eight sets of

pressure data plotting
Cp d r
vs r/D p
and then integrating
TJiTthe area under these curves with a planimeter.
The eight
areas where then added and divided by 2 giving the final

CD
values.
60
ON
<f
o
1
vo
o
o
1
CO
OO
vO
CM
CO
CM
r-l r-l
o
1
o
1
O
1
o
i
vt
CO
CO
ô
vO
CO
r-l r-i CM
vf
o o
o
1 1
i
vO
CO
r-
o o
CO
o-
o
1
CO
-d-
CO CN
CM
r-l r-
r<r
o C_
i i
<t
o
1
<1
O
1
CM
<t
O
1
t-l
o-
o
1
r-l r-l
<1-J"
o
o
1
1
r-l r-l i-H CM CO

o-
<r <1<r
o o o o
o
1
1 i
1
00
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ON
in
ii .-i r-l
T-l r-i r-l
CM
ON
CM
i-i
ON
r-l
r-l
o
i
VO
un CM
u~> <1"
o O
1
62
r^ a.
in vO o
r-H i-i r-i 1-1 CM
r-l r-l r-l 1-1 r-l
r-l
CI
St
o
1
r-l r-l
i-l r-l
LO
o
CM CM r-l r-4
!-t r-l i1 r-l
CO
vD
vt
o
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO 00
CJ
r-l i-H
r-l r-l
<t <t LO
1-o
1 r1 r-l 1-1 r-l
r-l r-l r-l 1-1 r-l
u
ON C
r-i M
r-i r-
0^
<N
O
1
r^- ON
r-l <N
o
O
ON f
J
r-4
o
I
CM
<t
o
LO
o
in
o
O
N .o
<to
o
1
o
in
o
1
00
o
i
o
i
VD
o
i
<f
o
i
C
M rH
<t
o
o
i
o
1
O
N O
N C
M
C
O C
O <r
o
o
o
1
i
C
M C
O <r
-cr <r
o
o o
i
i
i
00
C
O
m
00
00
LO
00
in
00
00
00
CO
00
00
00
C
O yD
00 00
o
o
v}00
<f
00
C
O C
O
00
00
o
o
in
o
1
C
O o
-Jo
o
1
1
M r-l
C
O C
<r <T <r
o
o
o
i
1
i
i i O
N T-l C
O o
O
N
O
N 00 00
O
N O
N 00
o
o
o
o
o
o
C
O C
O
<r
O o
i
i
o
vT
o
1
r-l
C
O m
-C- <r
O o
1
i
00
C
M
o
i
00
r-l
03
00
o
o
o
O C
O
C
O C
M C
M C
I-H
i 1 r-l r-l 1-1
00
C
O
rH
o
O
C
O C
i-i rH
00
C
O
rH
O m
m
C
M O
N O
N V
N
l C
M C
M
M C
M C
C
O C
M C
I-I
i-l
r
H
r-l
,-1 r-H i-l
U~l
oT-l
L
O rH
O
C
O C
1"H I-I
C
M C
O CTvr^
C
O C
M r-l r-l
r-l r-l r-l r-l
C
M
O
N
in
m
o
i
C
O m
<r ^r
o
o
i
o
1
oI
mj
o
1
O
N
<r
o
i
O
I
O
N
<r
o
i
rH
m
o
i
00
in
00
00
00
r-l
00
o
00
o00
C
O o
00
o
o
00
C
O
O
N
m
m
00
e
O
o
00
o
00
O
N
O
N o
-a- <r m
a
o
o
o
i
C
O o
C
O 00 0 0
o
o
o
o
00
vo
<r
o
i
<f
00 o
o
C
M C
M C
O C
O C
O
r-l I-I I-I 1-1 r-l
00
C
O
rH
(TJ
LO
qj ^r
ON
UCL
o
1
o
1
o
1
63
C
M O
N r-C
M r-i
O
o
o
1
i
C
O
C
M
r-l
r-l
O
C
O
00 p^ o
o
o
O
O C
O C
C
O C
M C
M C
i 1
rH rH r-l r-l r-l
M C
C
M C
O C
O C
O
M C
M C
O C
O
C
M C
r-l r-l r-l rH 1-1
<r
rH
C
M m
C
M o- m
O
o
o
C
M |
1
O
ON
VO
vO
O
G)
in
o
i
CO
<
_J
LL
i_Lf>
-t-j
CO
LO
O
I
r-l
m
o
i
r-l
o
1
sr
sr
o
i
o
m
ON
sr
ON
sr
CO
sr
sr
x>
o
m
CO
sr
o
i
ON
-o
o
i
sr
o
m
VO
sr
r-l
m
CO
m
ON
sr
o
m
r-l
u
c
LL
sr
CO
ST
CO
Si"
o
1
o
i
x_
(D
Cl o
CJ O
X) co
m
o
i
CO
sr
CO
sr
00
sr
st
00
sr
00
sr
St
o
in
CM
in
u
u.
CO
St
'O
in
sr
CO
St
r-l
m
St
o
m
LO
ON
ON
Q
co
co
o
00
CM
ON
vO
00
sr
UD
00
o
o
CO
r-.
CO
sf
St
CO
r^
c:
r-l
CO
o
00
o:
cc
tz
CM
CM
<x
c
r-l
ST
sf
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
st
CM
st
CM
CO
co
CM
CN
st
CM
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
00
CM
CO
CO
IN
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CN
CM
r^.
CM
a
sf
ON
CO
CM
r-l
T-l
r-H
in
co
r^
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
rH
r-l
r1
r-l
'
CO
sr
CO
CM
r-l
CO
CM
IN
r-l
CN
CN
CM
CO
CM
Sf
CN
CO
CN
CM
CM
r-l
CO
CM
CO
St
sc
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
i-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
CM
ON
ON
in
m
CM
st
ON
CM
r-l
r-l
ON
CM
CM
Sf
m
m
>
ON
VC
CM
.15
<L>
r
00
c
<x
cl
o
1
CO
o
i
CM
o
1
64
o
i
O
1
o
1
VD
CM
(T-
CNo -
c :
<
_J
LL
Q
_J
o
ui
U
I
Hl~
>
(Z
_o
CQLL
KLO
z a
UJ O
y
LJL
LL
G)
ii
ii
uj o
o: $ u
U
C
5:2
66
ON
in
m CNl
in m

o o
i
i
o
m
o
i
ON
<T
o
o
1
o
i
C^ o
vT m
o o
1
CM
o
in
O
I
o
in
o
i
m
in
o
i
NO
o
"
-J
m
o o o o
o
in
o
i
m
m
<r
o
i
ON on r-l N
O NO r^ in m NO
m m m
vT

o
i
CT\
cn
o
i
o
m m

o o
i
CM 00
00

o
o o
o
1
O
1
o
i
m
<t
o
i
m
-cr
o
i
<r
o
i
CO
m m
-tf
vO r-l CO CO
00 00 00
o
o o o
o
i
CD
o
i
1-1 NO
ON
o
i
vO
o
NO
<f
o- 00 CM
oo !
|
r^ r^

00 o 00
00 00 I
m <r
in NO ô
00 00 ON 1
r-l co >0 <r in 00 o o 00 m <t

N
I
co CM CM O
CM 00 00 CM CM CM
r-l r-l r-l r-i r-l r-l 1-1 r-l i-l ii r-l
NO CO 1-1 1
CM CO 1
r-l 1-1 r-l 1
r- CM
CO CO
r-l r-l r-l
00
O
N m
CM CO
r-l 1-1 r-l
CO <r r-l in IN CM 00 co
ON 00 00 CO 00 00 oo 00

-t-j
C
Q- o
U
O
m
m m
s
o o
i
i
CM ON NO ON
r-l NO
rON ON 00 00 oo

00
o o
OO
.9
CM
<L>
H
"a
a.
u
a
00
r-i 00 ON 00 00
CO CM CM C
M CM CM CM CM

a
r"l r-l r-l r-l r-l r-l r-l T-l
CNl r-l <t

00
m NO CM
CM
<1- CO co CM CM CM CM CM CNl

r
l
r
l
i-l
T
l
r
l
r
l
r
l
r-l r-l 1-1 r-l
NO
in
CM
ON
o
1
ON
NO
o o
1
m
m
o
i
67
CM
o
1
ON
CM
O
1
ON
r-l r-l CMo
o c o
1
CM m
O" m
O o
m
co
ô
o
o* CM
ON
o o
CO
m

r-l r-l r-i
co
1 C5 O
u~> m
O
O 0
CD
1 1
CO
0
00 00 00
<r <r
0 O 0
1 1 1
0
m
0
CO ON
<r <r
0 0
1 1
0
m
0
0 00
u-i in
0 0
1 1
ON
<f
O
1
CM
m
0
1
r-l CO
m m
0 0
1 1
CO
vo
0
O
1
m
m LO
0 O
1 1
ON 00
<1- 0O 0
1
O
1
<r r^
-00 O O
1 1 1
CO
vO
0
1
NO
LO LO
0 O
i
I-l 0
m LO
0 O
1
ON
OO
1
m m
<r vt
0 0 0
1 1 1
VD
<T
O 0
1
sf
rH O
1-1 i-l in
r-l -1 O
m in m
r^.
0 O 0
CO
CO
tin
<D ^ R
+->
X
vD
in vC0 tO
1
0)
CL o
o
_J
1-1 O
LO
O O
1 1
m
0
1
Ul
o
cr
vD m
<f
vo
r^
O
r-l <r
gib
$
r
0)
c
Q- o
U
O
+->
QLL
<'(f)
00
O
^
00
O
vO
m vO
0
O O
00 ON
r^
O 0
co r^ -1 IN
r-^ 00 GO
0 0 O O
00
00
0
00
ON
O
r-l r^ CO
00
CO
0 0 0
vT VD
00 CO
O 0
00
ON
O
NO
ON
O
co
CM
<r
CM CO
1-1 i-i
z Q.
LU O
ii
Ll- icr
Ll
LU
O
U
O
ii
u o
(X
ID
CD
cc
r-l
CO
CM
CO CO CO
CN CM CM
r-l
CM
CM (N
i-H
i-l
r-l
r-l
rH
r-l
r-l
m CO
CM CM
r-l
<N
ON in vO
CM CN
r-l
NO VO
CM CM
r-l
CO
CN
co
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
m
CM
00 CM 00
CM CN CN
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
ON
1-1 CM
O O
r-. CO
(N CM
r-i
i-l
rH
co CO
1-1 r H
r-l
r-l
r-l
r1
ro
0) -vr
"O
Q.
u
a
O
unt
CM 00
CO <N
r-l
I-l
r-l
CM
ON
0
1
ON
r-l
rH
00 m
CM <N
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
O co
CO co
r-l
r-l
<r
1-1
00
NO
O-
r1
VQ
m
r-l
rH
ON
CN '
ON
"
U1 u
in
Ul
CM
<N CM
CO
00
vo
O 0
1 1
m CN
m O0 O
1 1
69
ON
CM
O
1
O
1
CM in
-J- m
O 0
vo
O
CD
ON
CO
Co
Lin
a)
x_
<D
CL o
U o
o
i
CN
lO
<r oo
o
i
o
i
o-
o
i
ON
CO
CN CO
o-
NO
CO
<r
o
i
r-i <N
NO
r^
ON
o
NO r^
NO NO
O o
ON
NO
NO
<D
_ O)
.5
NO
CO ON
<r CO
o o
G)
ON
NO
11 ON
o- CO
o
<t
+(
-D
>
C
Q- o
U
O
"a
Q.
U
NO
<r
NO
o
1
LO
CO
CO
ON
CO
o
1
o
1
o
1
ON ON
CO CO
rH
Ov
CO
NO
NO
o
i
o
1
o
1
r-l I
I ON I
I CO
<r <r 00a <r <r
<t
o
1
NO
VO
NO
LO oe NO
NO
NO
NO
in
o
00
NO
NO
o
NO
o
1
o
1
o
i
o
1
<r
NO
m CO
NO NO
NO
NO
ON
NO o
a
o
i
cz
Csl
yc.
o
1
o
i
CO
NOa NO
o
i
II
o<n
ij
o a
1
00 NO.
o o:
1 i
<N r-i
ON
NO
a NOa NOa NO
o
o
o O:
NO o*
<r <tl
ON 00
CO 00
a
ON ON o
CO CO
a
o o
o
NO
a
<r
00
ON
NOa
o
00 CO
00
00 o
I-I 1-1
a
a
1-1 1-1
m in m
oa oa oa oo
I1 I-I 1-1 rH
CO
H
CNa i-a
r-l I-I
ON NO
CN rH m
CM CM
Oa Oa oa Oa oa oa oa Oa O
I-I r-l r-l i-H i-H rH rH rH rH
ON NO
CM I-I
a a
I-I I-I
i1
<r NO
o O
O 00 11 ON
l o rH o o O 00
I-a
I r-a
a a a a Oa rHa rHa CMa CMa
1-1 I-I r-i rH rH rH I-I 11 rH rH I-I rH
CN ON
ON
a
a
o> o
1
m
NOa m
o o
1 i
00 00
m m m o 00
oa oa Oa oa oa oa rHa rHa
rH rH rH rH i-H rH rH IHi
rH CO
m
oa rHa CMa
rH 11 ^
70
CS| ON
1
CSI rH rH
a
O o o O
1 1
1
ON CM
CM
O O
m
ma NO
o o
ON CM
râ ON
o O
REFERENCES
1.
Goodrick, T. F.: Wind Tunnel Studies of the

Pressure Distribution and the Flow Field in the
Wake of the Lockheed C-141A Starlifter Jet
Transport Aircraft, AFFDL-TR-67-163, May 1968.
2.
Heinrich, H. G. and Noreen, R. A.: Drag and

Dynamics of Single and Clustered Parachutes in
Freestream and with Wake and Ground Effects,
AFFDL-TR-66-104, November, 1966.
3.
Heinrich, H. G. and Nietz, T. C.: Investigation

of Cross Wind Effects on Stable Parachute PointMass Systems, AFFDL-TR-66-105, November, 1966.
4.
Heinrich, H. G. and Eckstrom, D. J.: Velocity

Distribution in the Wake of Bodies of Revolution
Based on Drag Coefficient, ASD-TDR-62-1103,
December, 1963.
5.
Livesey, J. L. and Turner, J. T.: 1964, "The

Generation of Symmetrical Duct Velocity Profiles
of High Uniform Shear," J. Fluid Mech. 20, p. 201-208
6.
Owen, P. R. and Zienkiewicz, K. H.: 1957, "The

Production of Uniform Shear Flow in a Wind Tunnel,11,
J. Fluid Mech. 2, p. 521-531.
7.
Progress Report No. 15, Theoretical Parachute

Investigation, Wright Air Development Center Contract No. AF 33(616)-6372, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering No. 9093, 1 September 1960 to 30 November
1960.
8.
Eshbach, 0. W.: Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals

2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1952, p. 7-103
Hoerner, S. F.: Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Published by
Author, 1965, p. 3-17.
9.
Heinrich, H G. and Hektner, T. R.: Flexibility

as Parameter of Model Parachute Performance Character
istics, AFFDL-TR-70-53, August, 1970.
10.
Heinrich, H. G. and Haak, E. L.: Stability and Drag

of Parachutes with Varying Effective Porosity, AFFDLTR-71-58, February, 1971.
71
REFERENCES (CONT.)
Heinrich, H. G.: The Effective Porosity of Parachute Cloth. AFFDL-TR-65-102, January, 1966.
Heinrich, H G. and Greig, R 0 C: Effective
Porosity of Ribbon Grids. AFFDL-TR-"53^TH)
December, 1965.
'
72
UNCLASSIFIED
Security C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
DOCUMENT
(Security
cits
si
fiction o I t i t l e , body of
IG IN A T ! N G A C T I V I T Y
(Corporate
abstract
CONTROL
and
indexing
DATA
annotation
- R & D
must
be entered
when
12A. R E P O R T
author)
the
overall
S E C U R I T Y
report
Is
classilled)
C L A S S I F I C A T I O N
UNCLASSIFIED
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minn. 55455
26.
G R O U P
erodynamic Coefficients and Pressure Distribution of Solid Flat and Ringslot

odels in One-Dimensional Velocity Gradients
ESCRIPTIVE
N O T E S (Type
ol
report
and
inclusive
dates)
Final Report - Feb 1970 - July 1972

U T H O R ( S ) (First
name,
middle
i n i t i a l , last
H. G. Heinrich;
EPORT
R. A. Noreen;
P R O J E C T
G R A N T
T O T A L
NO.
O F
7b.
P A G E S
NO.
O F
NO.
A.
O R I G I N A T O R ' S
R E F S
12
72
December 1973
T O R
J. N. Dale
7A.
D A T E
CON T R A C
name)
R E P O R T
N U M B E R ( S )
F33615-68-C-1227
6065
NO
9b. O T H E R
this
REPORT
N O ( S ) (Any
other
numbers
that
may
be
assigned
report)
AFFDL-TR-72-113
D I S T R I B U T I O N
S T A T E M E N T
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y
N O T E S
12.
S P O N S O R I N G
M I L I T A R Y
AFFDL/FER
WPAFB, Ohio
A C T I V I T Y
45433
The results of wind tunnel studies of the aerodynamic characteristics of solid

S a t and ringslot parachute models in flow with several linear one-dHnensional
on flexible models.
)D
,1473
UNCLASSIFIED
Security C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

Aerodynamic Coefficients and Pressure Distribution of Solid Flat and Ringslot Models in Onedimensional Velocity Gradients

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aerodynamic Coefficients and Pressure Distribution of Solid Flat and Ringslot Models in Onedimensional Velocity Gradients

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AFFDL-TR-72-113

A E R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS AND PRESSURE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY

LINDA HALL LIBRARY

5109 Cherry Street

LINDA HALL LIBRARY

3 3690 00568 0862

A E R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS AND PRESSURE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

This technical report has been reviewed and is

LINDA HALL LIBRARY

Dynamic Pressure Gradients .

Pressure Distribution Measurements

Pressure Distribution Models

Wind Tunnel Tests

Wind Tunnel Test Apparatus

Free Suspension Tests

Appendix I - Method of Pressure Integration

Appendix II-Tabulated Pressure Coefficients

Dynamic Pressure vs Distance at Various

Side View of Wind Tunnel Test Section

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

Measured and Desired Pressure Gradient for

S n S f 1 ? 1 1 ! f P r e s s u r e Tap Locations and

Pressure Distribution on a Solid Flat

Pressure Distribution on a Solid Flat

Pressure Distribution on a Solid Flat

Pressure Distribution on a Solid Flat

Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Pressure Distribution on a Ringslot

Ringslot Model Installed in the Wind Tunnel.

Wind Tunnel Apparatus for Parachute

Vent Normal Force Sensor

Coordinate System of the Aerodynamic

Tangent Force Coefficients for the Solid

Tangent Force Coefficients for the Solid

Normal Force Coefficients for the Solid

Normal Force Coefficients for the Solid

Moment Coefficients for the Solid Flat

Tangent Force Coefficients for the

Normal Force Coefficients for the

Normal Force Coefficients for the

Moment Coefficients for the Ringslot

Moment Coefficients for the Ringslot

at 0L= 0 in Uniform Flow vs Gradient.

Stable Angles of Attack for the Solid

Stable Angles of Attack for the Ringslot

Measured and Desired Pressure

Fig 5 Measured and Desired Pressure

Measured and Desired Pressure

DYNAMIC PRESSURE GRADIENTS

A review of the available literature showed that

pressures at the centerline of 4 psf and 9 psf, respectively

performancecharacteristicsrin thisgradient f low-pressure

Aerodynamic force coefficients, r

distance from axis of symmetry to canopy skirt