sabot technology study · 8-inch extended range ammunition sabot technology study . design and...
TRANSCRIPT
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 \~arming 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 t·1uzzle Velocity (YPG Firing 5 July 1979) 160
71 Muzzle Velocity vs Range with r~et 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, ~xceeded 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, correction 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 location 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 FEBA•s, 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 finstabilized 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
Seve~al 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 t·1483 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 without 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 projectile 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 separating 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 payloads 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 project(~d 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 successfully 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 projectile•s 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 pressure 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 discard. Additionally, the greater axial distance between the base pusher plate and.the front sabot gives the projectile a longer wheelbase 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 "Gunfighter" 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\nadditional 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 ac·complish 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 co~cept 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 concepts, 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 pl~te 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 ~ay 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 projectile 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. Disadvantages 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 ~etals 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 technique 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 successful 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 preengraved 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 Figur~ 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 contributory 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 tes~ 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 guration shovm in Figure lC. The result of the preliminary analysis of this configuration indicated that this base plate and ram would weigh approximately 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 ~pply 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 ball~stic 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 internal 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 representation 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')
'11
1'£
)
• ,l
:ll)
~ 1
• l
I i.
H r
·)AT
i "r,
or
"; f
l: [
')'(
[ .-,;
-r "',
; .. :
L .
· 1 ~5 1
.
,-,.
. r •
"f
"f.
.::;
~:
Q'
• : £
-r
: T
[ .t
, :>
'::; :
l ~
:J I '
1):
.1. _
-
LA
:':
.,..
. j;
{
;-::
S
.. £l
"
;·:
.. ~
...
n~v,-..
.. ':"f
D'
ro;)
1-:
-·"'
?
~ ..
: 'i •
·-:-r
) o; J
:l ~"
! ., '
. r 4L
-L
J :-
~ :>
-. .' ,
'} ;
J ~
: -r
.. ~
-1 1
i!_P
P '-
• ! .
., ::;
,.1..
•" :1:~
v:: Q
i r
r .. r1
:lf
~
....
. r .
1:~
(I) \ ' \\
\ \\ '
'
c=3
Fig
ure
8.
Tes
t V
ehic
le
Type
C
0
r-rr
· \
I ----
.____,
.__
~ \
\
(~
(4')
( --llj 7~ )
TE
ST
~LU4
FIN
AL
8---I~SM"'\
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
~D:•1 ·"
·• .
...-'"
'•~
h\
u
Of•
O
F
(WR
43
A)
\
-I
U"l
0 ~~~
-~;,
==r
t I
-_
(7"'
)2;-
-:0
)
L-
_j
~
C:c
2S
74
Er~JD
4 ID
22
97
3
S ,c.,
E. c
, T
3 C2.2~7
2.
_j,j!J~ ~
z. C
2.2
3S
3
2..-:
:::.D
y I
D2
.2S
:::.
B =
cu
u ,
,;, ~
\ TEr
-11
PA
RT
T
IT
LC
: 1\
V.J
1'
-JC
.
PA
RT
S
LIS
T
UNL~SS
OT
HE
RW
ISE
S
PE
Cif
iED
ORIGIN~l
OA
IE
OIM
(NS
ION
S
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
Of
DR
AW
ING
S
PA
CE
RE
SE
AR
CH
C
OR
PO
R
TO
LlR
AN
ClS
O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
..
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
. V
(R ..
. ON
T
/-
(
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P
_.:;;:
~'"'--'-
-l ;,
pR
11
MA
T(R
IAL
C
HI'
( T
ES
T
SL
UG
f\
SS
'r
(NG
R
~
k \J
!....
I~~..,<.,..,
( ~ 0
Ll D
.F. I
N -
R [A
R S
A
HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
. S
UB
Min
EO
SIZ
E I CO
DE
!D
EN
T N
O.
fiN
AL
P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
fi
NIS
H
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
3
04
75
C
22
97
7
S C
! ~
E
-·-
--------
~ ~ ~J
i_~ ~
-...
~~-
----~----
----
---
----
--
-
.._,.
-.nrr-
:.
w
-.....J
.A.:
>P~•
.l ~!?-!
':';
AT
!'tr
, 1'
\f '.:t:~"'N(
-. .:
-~J.
'.(.
"'
Ji..
· -~
'lSI
-7.
fl r.lP£~0
',• ::
ir,~
: ;r
~
[ ..
'· ?~!~g ~0
:'\'
,':'
.I.L
i..':-
:'1'1
, :r
: £"
'~
S.
r ~~. r
: ~f..
~ l
a" 1
~ : ·
,·-;
......
~£ :
1 f
"::~
""!
'"'
11
' ..
: 'I
(•
DO
[ "l
g
;.;)
:
't<.
'! !l.
! "'
'l,
: "'~ ~
j .!
: -:"
f"'
S P
Y '''"~'I
"'G
' · "c
l ~
,:_ "
r,
r P~
~\ .1
. :1
, :.C
t .
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Fig
ure
9.
Tes
t V
ehic
le
Type
D
®
\
\ I ®\~
(.L
lr ~-
1 _
.).
( '":
:".:-
TE
ST
:i
LU
G
FtN
AL
5-155~~
NE
XT
A
SS
Y
US
ED
ON
~ C
) D
I
j,..
. ":.
I ""-~
A
'------
' \
N
OF
(W
R4
3A
)
\
( '"""
' \J
35
7'1
-')
_l
UN
LE
SS
O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
ifiE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
O
AT
[
D"H
NS
ION
S
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
Of
OA
A'"
ING
IOL
lPA
t.C
ES
O
N
uE
Ct ..
US
:
'/·
L-'
· -
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P
,..;.-:A~..-...
.. A
I(R
IAL
C
HA
EN
GR
..
...
L
........
ak
HlA
T IA(Af~oj(NT
SU
BM
I I 
w
OJ
'1'1
7[ ~
••-····-·•·''''r'>
·l':
'':"l
f,,:
lf
.t.·
[ .l
.. :I
'•"·
'.
-....,
· •,
;H
O: ~
'f•IH
I',
~(
'·:-
...
ol.
::>
-;tt
':;
> ';
: ~·.: 1
:
~ 1
• :
~ 't
,
• r
• • r
...
c
.., t
J. •
: • f
.. ;,
I '1
1'1
~ :
't •.
"' .\
:-i >
~ r
1 a
! "
r-..
: _,
.. : .
, 'i ~
•. o
, ·~
D
~-:
! "~ ',
: 1
· •.
~··:..
''1~~~~~
T~ .
. ~
:i'
,lt>
P••
:'Ir
,
.1. t!
',::
~.:
;~:~
i':"'
, ~~:~
~f-.10
!l':
[
(~
'---
'/
I ',
'
-~
( z. )
'-
<' \
!.[ CH
~: Z(
'~·!~~
~l·l· ~
'~ ~
:_4_
3_A
_l _
_ _
I, :.R.' r
~c~~
L -•
r_
i! MA
JU
n:
-
'>.A
i'-O
R
-
0 ·,
\. \ '
-·-
'1
\
~-,~~==1
i i I
I -~-=~
C41'
I
03<r
3608
~ I i
ll <
.• ·~
= ·~ =-==il~
(7 ~erZ)
---+
--r-
I I
L._
j
t I
\\
/
--
UN
LE
SS
O
lHlR
WIS
[ S
P[C
ifi[
D
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
OIM
[NS
ION
S
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
Of
DR
AW
ING
Fig
ure
l 0.
Tes
t V
ehic
le
lull
RA
NC
ES
U
N
DlC
>M
AL
S
/
1'"1
o'.:~';i
OCiC,
!}1
~
IC2
2.?
-:o
5 CLOSUP~
s jC"'?~--
E. .
.:..
ND
:_
_ _
_; ~
4-
!'::
:c2
37
3
Sr.
BO
T
3 j(
:.22
97-:
:._
1'\
i') s:
:: I
~
I(' r'
(")
s '3
1 B
s D
y
I ID~Z3=4
V E
t•J
T.
F I N
:;:
iTE
M 1
er.
RT
"J
C.
i'.JO
. T
ITL
E
P/\
RT
S
LIS
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OF
. ,
_ N
OR
TH
T
RO
Y
Vfq
MQ
I<l
Type
B
A
NG
lES
P
RE
P
' ~ ...
.. --....-.
_. .:
,\P
i<.7
7 T
ES
T
SL
UG
A
c.::::
.....,
MA
J[R
IAL
C
HK
~~
[NG
R
-. .•
I.
1 ~
Ar
...
'1 (V
eN
T ~IN-
RE
AR
S.A
7
fST
~LUG.
HlA
J JR
lAT
MlN
T
)Utl
MIT
JE
D
fCIN
AL
e
-1
55
"''"
" S
IZE
t CO
DE
IDEN
T N
O
NEX
T A
SSY
U
SED
ON
fi
NA
L
PR
Oll
CII
Y[
FIN
ISH
A~PROYlD
c Jo
47
e
c 2
2 C::
l 7 r:
: --
AP
P[!
Cil
TIO
N
'SC
ALE
1
/4
IS
HE
E
VJ
--0
... 1rr
·.
• A""'~~
J. L
!'1-'
• .:~ ..
.. ~!
'If,
.i
~ <
,[U
':"h
( ...
OfV
,[
":l
-'·l
l':>
.J
'"~
Tl"~P!J
'.:.
·:: q
r::
-r
:-::
..
.1.
:>o
I""·-'
~ '0
: <
;',: '
'~
:..A~;'),
, If
; ';
'£,.
~.
"f ~
: .
. : ..
'. :'
3:1:
..! ..
r, ..
4 ·p
~"
101
i·l
~ :~
.. ~'I."':~J
:>::
~!-~
·-1
1"1
·,T~
~
~~·
l'o
:'I',;J_~
: •[
,..
'I ·~
!::O
:>o
~: .
.. ~ •
.\ P
>~'
.:,~
'-'I
~~
r:S
(<;T!P~
"! l
J
r.t.c
:,
CD
\
L /4
-::,
_7
S
I
Fig
ure
11.
Tes
t V
ehic
le
Type
A
G)
--------
--
!
FIN
AL
NE
XT
AS
SY
~
;:.' ':
')'
C H
A~; t
i i 11111
'1" ~ISO
~ 'w,O
A 4
3A
)
CR
ITIC
AL
MA
JO
R
-
MIN
OR
~ \\
0 \
\ \ I
(7?;
-:::
.,7
Z,)
\
I I
® e
'
UI<
L[S
S O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
IFIE
D
OH
IGIN
AL
O
AT
[
OIM
fNS
ION
S
AR
l IN
IN
CH
ES
O
f D
RA
WII'
<G
l()L
lRA
NC
l5 O
N
DlC
IMA
L5
;'
/2-
,.._
( ---.
~
';/
ll'l:o
----
----
--,--
----
-• C
'll
P r
I C_l
"'-
-------
?:,
!C2
23
::;G
C
l-O
SU
P-E
c:
S
2?.
3 7
4
i B ~
. :--
~ D
~
4 1Dc2~73
SA
BO
T.
3 IC
22
37
2
f-j
0 s::
:: 2_
C
22
57
1
BO
DY
I
D2
29
':lL
'J
E: f
'J I
_ ;-:
11'-J
,
ITE
M
Q
' --.
• r"
\r-,
,I
TIT
LE
~.
J·~
1\.
l()
?AR
TS
L
\ S
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
O
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
. V
ER
MO
NT
AN
GL
(S
PR
EP
~.-:·
,...:..,
~ .. ~-
5<
0~77
TE
':)T
S
LU
G AS~
MA
TE
RIA
L
CH
K
[NG
P
·: t:
., ...
I(
(VE
NT
. F
IN -
I !
4 ..
l ;
/ C
NT
R 5
; T
ES
T
Si.
.u4
H
tA!
!R[A
!M[N
l S
US
I.II
!!E
D
' .
~,ISS""""
SllE
I CODE
ID
EN
T N
O.
.
US
ED
ON
fi
NA
L
PR
OT
EC
TIV
l fi
NIS
H
AP
PH
QV
ED
C
3
04
78
C
Z2
37
' ...
... ...-
. <;C~LE
I /4
1 S
H£~
--..
--·
·---
--··
---
----
-
• 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 configuration 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-in2 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 equivalent 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 g•s. The split sabot configuration•s 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 pressure) 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 ou
nce
Bla
ck
Pov1
der
Bas
e Pa
d Ig
nit
er
Nit
roce
llu
lose
Ig
nit
er T
ube
Au
yli
c V
isco
se
Ray
on
Clo
th
Cha
rge
Bag
• .0
04
inch
Thi
ck
Car
dboa
rd
Wal
l L
iner
5.0
ounc
e B
lack
Po
wde
r C
ore
Ign
iter
Fig
ure
12.
8-in
ch T
est
Pro
pell
ing
Cha
rge
Len
gth
40.0
in
.;
Dia
met
er 8
.0 i
n.
• .0
04
inch
T
hick
C
ardb
oar
End
Lin
er
M30
Al
.085
in
ch
Web
P
rop
ella
nt
•
•
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 ~BOA1 .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
.. . . . . - ·----·--·-·· f---·--~---·· o Test Slug Type\ A: Center Sabot-Vented;Boom . ; . i • • ; : : , .
1 -~
0 Test Slug TypeiB: ·Center Sabot-Closed: Boom:: : · · '· • . I ' ...
~Test Slug Type!C: Split S~bot-Vented Boom
El Te~t Slug Type1
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 ... : ··~·· ·l~ ---. : 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. Ventilation 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 bet~tJeen the front sabot and rear sabot is approximately 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 muzzle 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 outwards and therefore tends to cause release of the front sabot.
Where S = a - ¢
2 1/2 pV ; 144 Af sin s
54
J1
J1
• •
'-~?;~
~~~;~}
:~k~t.
_:-r-:
~:~-t2
~it~?;
~:tz_]
i;~fis
~o-
a
Fig
ure
19.
Load
s on
F
ront
Sab
ot W
hile
in
Muz
zle
Bra
ke
•
•
•
•
Friction exists on the thrust flange of the sabot-projectile interface 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
•
~~
~~~
..:.
'!~·
l'-1
;-~~
;~~ .....
.. ;."
•
MD
~-Mrw2
r r
r r
r g
Fig
ure
20.
· Lo
ads
on
Rea
r Sa
bot
Whi
le
in M
uzzl
e B
rake
• J 8
., sabot due to the impingement of the free stream is neglected in the ana lysis. 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 appropriate 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 tabulation.
-------·------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
~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
~r 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 Baumister2 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 projectile~ the calculations 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 [ _____ ------~---l---+----+----+---+----t-----.-----+----1
16
14
12
, I
~t~~t---c-----10
8
/ ~ ~ ~---+------+----+-------i
L ..... ~-:----~~- ·rSpin Rate= 20 rps
I ,~~
6
4
L-~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~ i I~~ l ___ ·--------------- --------------------------·-··· ----+- -·-·--·-·-· ···----''1------;
~pin Rate = 50 rps ~
- ...... -··· ----- ...... ----------+----+ 2
---- - ----+-----+-----t----4---l------±.,.,..-... ----: ... :::-:-__ --:__· ----f---t
-r---
2
4
- -f-- - - -f- --1- - -t- .
~~-------+~------+---~~~~~-----~-~~\1-~ --r----1---- --:--
J Spin Jate = 2~ 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--------- ---·--+-----+~---~~Spin Rate = 20 rp~
~ ~ r----1· --·- -- -------+---+----- r-- --~·----......~:---+------t-------t
I 1-----+------+--' ----+-----j-~-------
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, particularly 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 nondiscarding 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 configuration 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 ~~1uzzl 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
• •
TABL
E 5.
SA
BOT
DISC
ARD
TEST
S US
ING
TEST
SLU
GS
TEST
SLU
G BR
EECH
1 M
UZZL
E2
SPIN
SH
OT
DATE
PR
ESSU
RE
VELO
CITY
RA
TE
COM
MEN
TS
NO.
1~0.
v1
t (k
psi)
( f
ps)
(rps
) (1
bs)
FRON
T SA
BOT
DISC
ARD
TEST
WIT
HOUT
MUZ
ZLE
BRAK
E
483
8/77
1A
13
7. 1
3 34
.2
3114
19
F
ront
Sab
ot D
isca
rd
483
8/77
6A
13
7. 1
3 34
.3
3133
22
F
ront
Sab
ot D
isca
rd
REAR
SAB
OT D
ISCA
RD T
EST
WIT
HOUT
MUZ
ZLE
BRAK
E
486
10/7
7 D6
13
6.44
31
.4
--
No
Res
u 1 t
s 48
7 10
/77
D8
136.
38
29.6
29
65
-No
R
ear
Sabo
t D
isca
rd
489
10/7
7 C5
13
6.0
33.7
30
98
-No
R
ear
Sabo
t D
isca
rd
491
11/7
7 D2
13
5.19
32
.5
3083
-
Rea
r Sa
bot
Dis
card
49
2 11
/77
D3
136.
0 33
.5
3077
-
Rea
r Sa
bot
Dis
card
FRON
T SA
BOT
DISC
ARD
TEST
HIT
H DU
MMY
MUZ
ZLE
BRAK
E
494
12/7
7 A4
13
6.87
34
.7
3047
-
Los
s'of
Obt
urat
ion,
M
uzzl
e B
rake
Im
pact
s 49
7 --1
/78
A8
137.
25
36.8
31
74
-No
Muz
zle
Bra
ke
Impa
cts
' I
REAR
SAB
OT
DISC
ARD
TEST
WIT
H DU
MMY
MUZ
ZLE
BRAK
E
500
2/78
4
136.
0 35
.9
3014
-
No M
uzzl
e B
rake
Im
pact
s 50
1 2/
78
6 13
6.0
33.7
30
70
-No
Muz
zle
Bra
ke
Impa
cts
COM
BINE
D FR
ONT
& RE
AR S
ABOT
DI
SCAR
D TE
ST W
ITH
DUMM
Y M
UZZL
E BR
AKE
503
2/78
!
7 13
5.25
38
.1
3208
-
No M
uzzl
e B
rake
Im
pact
s 50
4 2/
78 i
8 13
5.25
36
.9
3217
-
No M
uzzl
e B
rake
Im
pact
s --
--~-
--
1 M
easu
rem
ent
by T
hree
M-1
1 G
ages
P
roje
ctil
e Ra
m:
51
inch
es _
2
Mea
sure
men
t by
Sm
ear
Cam
era
Film
s P
rope
llin
g C
harg
e:
62.0
lb
s. M
30Al
.0
85
inch
t~
eb,
Lot
KAU
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
•
•
• 28~ Pho-:::graphs Rea~, Sabot 501
76
•
•
• S;;;ear~ Cauera scard 7 ront and Rear Sabots ~lc.. 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 lo~er sabot mass but higher shot mass and hence lower muzzle velocities. This configuration 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
• PAR
TS L
l ST
I. FI
NS
• 6.
SPAC
ER,
BOD
Y 2.
REAR
SAB
OT
CAR
RIE
R
7. PA
YLO
AD
3.
REAR
SAB
OT
4. BO
DY
5.
FRO
NT S
ABO
T
gg t
7. 90
t
8. PU
SHER
PLA
TE
9. FR
ONT
SAB
OT
CAR
RIE
R
I 0.
FUZE
W/E
XPUL
S IO
N C
HARG
E II.
W
IND
SH
IELD
57.4
2
5. 0
53 I
. D.
Fig
ure
30.
Prop
osed
8-i
nch
Sub
cali
ber
Fin
Sta
bil
ized
Ext
ende
d
Ran
ge
Pro
ject
ile
show
n w
ith
Subm
uniti
on
Payl
oad
•
•
•
•
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 pressure 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 carr~er 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 Alu~inum 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 annodized 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 c~rrier 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 representation 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 description given in the previous sections dealing with the proposed design .
83
co
+:>
.RT
S L
IST
I. FI
NS
2. RE
AR S
ABO
T C
ARR
IER
3.
REAR
SAB
OT
4. BO
DY
5. FR
ONT
SAB
OT
6. W
I N D
S H
IE L
D
,_
l 7. 90
+
• 7.
SPAC
ER B
ODY
8.
DU
MM
Y PA
YLO
AD
9. PA
YLO
AD B
ALLA
ST
.I 0.
HEX
HD B
OLT
I
I. FR
ONT
SAB
OT
CAR
RIE
R
12.
INER
T FU
ZE
57.4
2
Fig
ure
31.
8-in
ch S
ubca
libe
r Fi
n S
tab
iliz
ed T
est
Veh
icle
• 7. M
•
• Figure 32. Photograph of 8-inch Test Vehicle used in Design Development Testing
85
•
•
•
The test vehicle makes ~se of a thicke~ 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 here~ 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 component•s material and effectively demonstrates this principle to be used in the proposed vehicle design .
In the proposed vehicle•s 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 hardened 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, windshield, 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 ~~lei 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 \~eight
88
\~EIGHT ( 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 ~l 0,
<::T
4--o 0 0
::z
·.-l!l 0 >,01
.--Srtl 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~ -(l
(
,.
r---- .------· r-----· r--·-QQ ?f. Q:) · b? :J:1 1 ;; l'(l ~F' JG. ~ ~
i SbXC'l
.,~~.:.
(
,----· l0 ·? 1 en· h
+ u + -i' :~'!:. u :::rt. nf-1-
~~ rtr"' rf;•
"E rr ' ., J ., ..... :::t rl•~ -·:r.
~u S!~ .r ·: ;:-1~ ,,. t ... u ... rt' r J :t ...
,~ . ,..
r' rt'
I ' '\
u ( ) I ;.1
~- (_J C)
~~ ~--J
"
CJ u
,,c ~-
~.
c.n rr. nr. .....
~r; 2~~ r n:u -u ~w - :'J ,;;!!'itlp •• :j~... f.... .
ibt;~( u "::::.~.~-~- u e::;~-r~ ...... ; : ~ ... ·.::
~~ r 1 1 ~ • rr, . ., .•
~r' ... n: •+1-t"' r'•r <ll;'\1t"'
• C) ( .......... "':'" !t1T' u r11~ ~~1-'
r,: ,, 1' r-rp..l ',,... ~~rJ-+: "'' r•\trt-4 4 ••• ...,_ .... '7nn-r .... LJ r~\~
r: ~w.
~~ (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 g•s by Newton•s 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 ~li) ~
4~ l-N (f)~
t-z w _ _j
a: >. ,_,o ~m 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
... _ _., . ...,.._....._, ·~· '-''''"'__,_ -··--- ··-.-- ...
MAR~ 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.;_)J•lrl Ln~lJU ..JJ ll.LL J IUU, '"1
MAR~ 30 1979 . ORAWJNG f24760 CASE NtL 34-0
s.n 16.0 24.0 32~0 ,,..... \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
MAR~ 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
~1RR. 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 c-~ QJ.;..J
ru :::l > (/)
•r- QJ :::l s... c;· w
.,.... w...
19}9 F2l1'7GO
3Ll -(l
lJl} . s -~-
lJ(I ·::. . ' t. '-
' ·~
.J L .l~ t .! U! 'I
0
--- ~--
LIU. ;:-: 97
LJ"; ..
0 0 ('~ Ln
I
o:- en
. ruu. 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 Lr:
c c
v ~
.._
... ;-
--
'-/~
--1
-!
...-
(1
:
Q/
c r<.0~
I I
co
·-
~\~
r-•
...__. c
• 20
20
• F
igur
e 40
. E
quiv
alen
t S
tres
s C
onto
urs
(kp
si)
of S
ecti
on 2
re
sult
ing
fro
m
a 50
.4
kpsi
B
reec
h P
ress
ure
30
40
;~o
j c:1
30
·~
:.·..;
·~ :..:
.o ."
:"'
50
60
70
:!
8d
2::
\ ~:[
' \
~:::·,
~--r-
90
80
70
60
50
50
60 7
0 80
8
0
70
·.cc
~cs
~·.c
:2
:: ::3
"2
3.0
0
9.0
0
}0.0
0
1 }
J . 0
0 1 J2.0
0
Z R
><lS
I ~3.00
I JL!.O
O
1 iS
on
.. •
L;
~·£:
c 1 ~G.OO
•• n0
TJC
:D
70
:rl
'"
U):
DO
J:..
; !'
l .L
: '
1-i
ZZf'V~
onn·~
uJ
.,c.::
"T]
8 !\.
.:
.......:,
C)
8
-~
CD
....
..:.r
,,....
u
.J
/ r ' r '- ~ ;: ;- I ·- c - '- ..; r '-- "" j\
•
•
•
u .t! -.-- l ,J,JI·I~-1 L!lf"l·;U ~)!-lr.LL !"lUI JLl
FEB. 2G 1 ~l)q 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 uu·~
0 N
L()
0 N
0 M
0
''· •ll U•
a~ LJ'
u ...
0 ;· ... Ul
,_, (.J ll)
r:..J w Lr
rf'·-
''· lJ'
0 CJJ
. ,--------- r
,, •!I LJ
c. --c·.
'-. ,, '·
'-'-~ L
"' (.J tJ
"· ,,, u:
l):l·~~ [H)'? I • I I l-i (1 'I(L
00
0 r~
0
,')
--- .. () tr:- c-<-('\,J ....
.\ uu. l
"" ~)
: r
uu·u
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 I'~ FfB. dG }q;q flRRW INC ~2L!'/GO 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 (. .•
~,OJ .. 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
~l
?~
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 C·r-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 ~.:;
c ~l
§I
__ .,
·-
i
u--: c
I
~ ~
~'
.... /
. --,
-=-~
C"I'
0!
cl
~l
......
I 0 N
I c ,--
--.
..___.. . ~·l §j
• ':'/
, cs~
/CC
30
I
• F
igur
e 44
. E
quiv
alen
t S
tres
s C
onto
urs
(l:p
si)
of
Sec
tion
6
resu
ltin
g
from
a
5~.1
kpsi
B
reec
h P
ress
ure
40
·/· .. s
30
-;:~
j ·-·o-
: I'
'~
'}:.C
.
'""
"j·..;~
I'SS
I':..·~
1 -1
)':-
-~ 1
5 j;
..o
l~.J
~=:i
l]
LL
LL
L
'j ·~=-
I
"'t
'>l
/.' I
39
.00
L!
O.O
O
l ~]
.[)[
) J~
00
J3
no
-C:.
. •
; -.
•
L J
_,
l R
XJS
I
~·-L
on
L!S.
OO
~G.OO
• n ::
:J
:..D
70
! (.
f) :
.D t.:
i'l
.L..:
. ,__
_,
:Z:Z
:f"
00
c
uJ
'-
'T]
81
'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 supported 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 inertial 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 represented 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 ..:.o~nular 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 g•s. The test vehicle has a body spacer with outer and inner diameters of 5.478
and 3.50 inches respectively. The beari~g 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 sho~tJS 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) Chamb~r 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 ~nd web size which will result in the highest possible muzzle velocity without exceeding the muzzle momentum limit. These solutions are obtained from the governing internal 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 mom~ntum 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 '.r·111 OE2 ' i
Prope~lant:· M30A1 I '
' I I
i i
j ' I
' '
' .
I· I
' ' '
Breech-Pressure:- _:40,00 psi Chamb~r-Volume: · 2635 in.·
-- -- ~~--~-H-.,.-.~....;_'--•--1
'l ! ' t·1uzz1 e t·1omentum ;
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 '
II. ~ i
f ' i
I·'
. ' :c ~~--:·
I I
w N
I t-1
! . V) .:~--~~--~~i-~. ~ .. . . . r . ! '
130
I ' · iV1elocicy: 1 · •
' I ' ' i !
I I
I J
' I :
' I
' I
' ' '
I.
- ------··-·-- ---,-~....._..---:-,_- --~- ........ ·---~-:-•--t-r-
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 ~ection such as 0.078 inch which was being produced in great quantities for the 155mm XM203 propelling 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 in~.
Constraints: 1)
2)
3)
4)
Charge Weight~ 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;· C~rves: .... ---- I.-.. . . . .... I .. ···-"--~---- ·----·--- · t~uzzl e ~1omentum of · · - · ·
__ .;__..,. ___ ~r-----~- ~-- : .. -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 ' !
' ' !
·~++-~-i-"33~ -H f ' ''I 'TI l i: I· r 1 t ; I 'IJ ! I~
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
: _____ ;_ --r-~--- ~-~~-+----~---- -.,...-~-+-t: ·~-1'--
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 Dimensions
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 corresponding 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 ~1ACH 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 performance.
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 stabili~'· 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 percent 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 dev~loped 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 represented 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 p~esentation 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)
• •
TABL
E 9
. CO
MPO
NENT
DEV
ELO
Pr1E
NT T
EST
RESU
LTS
SUM
MAR
Y
,---1
----r--
----
P;O
;[L
LA
NT
--
-_ --
PR
OJE
CT
IL;-
---
--
1 :
--
----~-
---r·--------~~------
-----_-
SHO
T f-
---..
-;
, '
I _
I RA
M
: -:U
ZZLE
,
RFC
OIL
~ n
P[SS
LJP.
E :
VEL
OC
ITY
RA
TE
____
____
____
____
__ 1
___
____
___ 1
__
_ -
I ,.
: .
8P.C
ECH
i
MU
ZZLE
S
Pj:,
~~NO.
OAT~
E I
' •e
b
I :
l'e
igh
t i
T
14
d !
fiei
gh
t F
ln
' (in
). I.
fIXT
UR
E
i ( l
n)
!<p
si
I .
ifp
s)
jrp
sj
I I'
Typ
e i r
~~)
! lo
t :
(1b
s)
I yp
e ~~-(~~-~-ej _
__
i__ __
___ L
_j
____
___ _
:_ __
---~--~-
I ,
I I
I '
' I
5')5
I
7/7
3
I ~.3
0A1
.03
5
' •:A
U 7
/76
!
35
.0
M10
6 \
1Q5.
8 1
-i
45
1/4
! ·
ri
nq
I
-2
5.9
1
-•
-
15
06
I
7/7
8
! ''3
~A1
.02.
5 Y"
\U
1/7
6
i 3
5.0
II
M10
6 i
-l
i94
.3j
-I
45
1/4
:
nn
g
' 62
1
/4
26
.0
: 22
33
! -
I 50
7 7
/78
/
M3~A
1 .0
85
1:A
U 7
/76
:
62
.0
T.V
.<S
j
2 i
13
5.0
A
51
i
dum
my
i 62
3
/4
· 4
1.0
'
3237
,
17
.5
isos
~~~ 1
130A
1 .0
85
_I:
AU
7/7
6
. 6
2.0
i
T.V
.P6
j 2
j 1
35
.0 _
__
A __
I_~1---~--~~~-~~-~-~--3~~--:_1_!:~
..---
150;
--,
~/78
l-
;:;)
oAJ
' .0
85
Y.
AU
7/7
6 i
35
.0
I M
106
i -I 1
96
.0 I
: 45
3/8
I s
t;,n
dar
d i 6
1 1
/2
! 2
5.2
!
-!
' :
C,_L~
M30
Al
\ .0
85
I
KAU
7/7
6
1 6
2.0
I
T.V
.h2
[ 2
/3
134.
~ B
[
51
i_standar_:J____J~9 _
__
1~:_
_2 __
/ __
~~~4__
_-f___
2_3__:
__4_:
j 511
I 1
0/71
3 'I
t'.JO
A1
' .0
91
1 KA
U 8
/76
I
36
.0
I ~11
06 I
-I
19
8.5
11
45
1/8
!
stan
dar
d
I 64
II
21
.91 I
-[
! 51
2 1
0/7
8
M30
A1
I .0
85
I
KAU
7/7
6
62
.0
T.V
.#4
2/3
1
34
.5
C
51
1/16
st
an
dard
1
67
50
.7
3394
1 '
\51
3
10
/78
t-:
30A
1 .c
as
I KA
U 7
/76
I
55
.0
1 T
.V.#
1 I
3 I
13
7.4
D
51
I
dum
my
J ~8
1/4
I
28
.4
1 29
05
I 17
.7
: 51
4 1
0/7
8
M30
A1
.091
1
KAU
8/7
6
36
.0
j M
106
j -
: 1
95
.0
-1
45
1/4
du
mm
y --
r-:-
4
3/4
,
22
.7
1 -
-1
151
7 1
/79
11
130A
1 .0
91
I KA
U 8
/76
3
6.0
-,
f110
6 i
-I
20
0.5
-
45
I st
and
ard
1
6;
1/4
li
22
.6
II -
\ 51
8 1
/79
M
30A1
.0
91
KAU
8/7
6
36
.0
, M
106
-1
99
.8
45
stan
dar
d
62
1/2
2
0.9
-
I 1 1
519
1/7
9
M30
A1
.08
5
, Y.
AU
7/7
6
58
.0
1 T
.V.F
JA
I 3
I 1
32
.6
D
I 51
11 st
an
dard
/
67
1/2
.
36
.7
, 32
16
1. 3
1.0
52
0 1
/79
I
I-130
A1
.091
i
KAU
8/7
6
36
.0
I 11
106
-,
20
0.3
-
· 45
st
and
ard
1
61
1/2
:
20
.3
I -
-! 3
21
1 1/
79--
-1
H30
Al_
I
.08
5
Yv\U
7
/76
5
8.0
T
.V.#
4A
3 :
13
2.4
C
!
51
__
_._
st
an
dard
~
67
1/2
i
39
.2
3239
2
4.4
522
' 2
/79
!
:::<u
A1
j .0
91
i I:A
U 8/
7G I
36
.0
1\10
6 -
19
9.5
-
1 45
1
stu
n1
ord
l:
GZ
3/4
'
22
.5
I 52
3 I
2/79
1
f\3vA
1 i
.091
I:J
,u
8/7G
I
36.0
11
106
zoo.
o -
AS
1/3
'
stan
1ard
63
1
/2
22.1
52
4 2
/79
;
M3D
A1
.08
5
II KA
U 7
/76
I
58
.0
T.V
.h13
A
4 1
31
.0
Non
e 51
st
an
dard
67
4
3.5
52
5 2
/79
I
~,JO
A1
.091
,
Y.AU
8/7
6
36
.0
Ml0
6 -
1 1
99
.8
-45
3
/8
stan
dard
63
3
/4
24.1
"'
2n
s 1
"""
·"'
; "" 1
;_;:_j
'"·'
r. '-
'"'
1 •
1 n1
.s
'""'
I "
I "'
""'"' 1
.,
J ,
.1
j m
s
; 35
.1
I 527
I
3/7
9il
IOG
:-1
.0~4
1 CA
D 71
35 I
20
.5
·j fl
106
I -I
1
99
.8
-I 4
5 1
/2
rin
g
I 51
1/2
!
23.1
i
3198
'i52l
l 3
/79
:;o
M
.01 -~
i CA
D 71
35
J 2
5.0
I
M10
6 -
1 2
00
.0
-45
·
rin
g
58
1/2
1
31
.9
/·
529
1 3/
79
' J,
:)M
.044
CA
D 71
35
29
.0
M10
6 -
19
9.8
-
· 45
1
/2
rin
g
58
1/2
4
1.7
~~~~~~~~~~!2__l2/31
13
4.0
I
B
/_.:2_
____
_ ring--~~~~~--l-~-4-~--------:
I 53
1 11
3/7
9
i :;Q
M I .0
44
f
CAD
7135
i
20
.5
M10
6 I
-1
99
.8
-1
45
1/4
st
and
ard
49
1
/2
I 2
3.9
I
-I
-!
I 532
3
/7?
tiQM
.0
44
1 CA
ll 71
35
' 4
9.0
1
.5.#
1
1 -
13
2.1
N
one
51
stan
dard
61
1
/2
I 5
0.8
31
90
! -
: 1
533
I 3!
79
,\QM
1
.04
4
1 CA
D 71
35 I
-'5
.5
T.S
.#2
-
13
5.5
F
51
st
on
dar
d
I 61
1
/2
J 4
4.3
j'
_300
3 1
;
1
534
I 3
/79
fiQ
,'l i
.04
4
i CA
D 71
35
45
.0
T.$
.!3
-
13
5.4
F
51
1/8
st
and
ard
I 60
1
/2
1 4
4.0
29
58
· 1, 53
5 I
3/7
9
I<QM
! .0
44
.
CAD
7135
2
0.5
,
M10
6 -
20
0.3
--
~5 1
/8
stan
dard
49
1
/4
, 2
3.5
,
-53
6 !
3/7
9
110:1
1
.04
4
I CA
D 71
35
\ 4
5.0
I
T.S
.#4
· l
13
4.5
.
E
51
I st
an
dard
60
1
/Z
1 4
3.7
I
2374
i
I 53
7 3/
79
~10'1
I .Q
•A
! CA
D 71
35
45
.0
I T
.S.#
5
-.'
13
4.6
1
E
51
s~andard l 5
8 1
/2
! 40
.1
: 2(
;70
i ~
J/7
9
1 r.Q
t-1
.04
4 i C
AD
7135
:
45
.0
· T
.V.m
A
4 I
13
5.0
!
G
I 51
l_
__s_
tand
ard
60
i 4
2.9
I
2968
!
I 539
5/
79
! l~3
0A1 I .
091
KAU
8/7
6
1 3
6.0
I
1-11
06
-I
19
9.9
-
45
1/8
i
stan
dard
I 6
2 l 2
3.1
; 14
0 5/
79
i ~.3
0A1
.08
5
Y.AU
7
/76
1
36
.0 I
M10
6 -
' 1
99
.8
-45
1
/8
stan
dar
d
1
64
28
.2
541
i 5/
7'1
M30
A1
.08
5
RA
O-E
-7
I 3
6.0
11
106
19
9.8
-
45
stan
dard
63
1
/4
24
.7
S"-'
1 5/
19
nJO
A1 I .0
85
R
AD
-£-7
/
58
.0
T.V
.#8A
4
13
4.5
F
51
stan
dar
d
66
1/4
11
32
.0
j 30
96
543
·1 5/
19
.".30
A1
.08
5
RA
D-E
-7
1 6
0.0
I
T.V
.f9A
4
13
4.6
F
51
st
and
ard
I
66
1/2
3
3.3
1
3138
54~i
51
79 ~-~
-~~oA~
L~a-5_
1_~~-~
~~6 f
4~:t
j_~~
:~lo
A_ ~
~-~~
~-_:
_L~-
--__:___
___ sta
nd~d
16
5
l. 35
.3
1 31
58
19
.1
14
.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 vehicle•s 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 5~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 (V0
) 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 measurements 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
Snear~ tos .._, ~ 506 for ~no,_
•
•
• Figure Test Vehicle Shot No. 507 Smear Photo ~equence
122
•
•
Figure 51 . Test Vehicle Shot No. 508 Smear Photo Sequence
• 123
• TABLE 11. COMPARISON OF ~1UZZLE 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 ~e represents the number of revolutions ov~r the interval of distanced 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 A11 design fins used in this test.
125
•
.,
•
...c u Q) Q) $.....
CD
>:::
0 z Q) ru .,.....
...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 muzzle 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 ~1106 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 development. 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 desi~n at this time did ~ot 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. However, 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 temperatur~ 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), 1~hile 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 structural 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 photographs 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 characteristics, 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 separate.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 appropriate 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 discard 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 lot~ <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 ~as 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. Otherwise 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 photo~raphs_of 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 pressures, 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 piezoelectronics 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 camer·ct 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 boundaries 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 HA~DWARE FABRICATION
Fabrication of ten (10) 8-inch subcaliber test vehicles got under-· way early in 1979~ 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 boom~ differing primarily in the preheat temperature. The fin assemblies of test vehicles 1~ 2, and 3 were welded using a higher
preheat temperature. Subsequently the concern that the higher preheat
would soften the aluminum excessively prevailed~ althour.h the weld
penetration would be improved~ 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 earlier~ so as to be available as soon as the test date was established, enabling the expedient conduct of the tests.
During May~ 1979~ te~ (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-in2 )
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 foreground 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 circumference 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 supplementary 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 cas~ the reduced charges would be needed. The remaining ten charges were
unaltered .
154
.,
• \ .•
~ 155
. ' '\ .. ,. ~l·
,<• ..
\ '
,;,.
l !
-!-) n::s Q) Sn::s 3
"'0 Sn::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 i~ 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
• •
TABL
E 14
. JU
LY
1979
8-
INCH
SUB
CALI
BER
CARG
O SH
ELL
MOD
4 TE
ST
VEHI
CLE
FLIG
HT C
HARA
CTER
ISTI
CS
TEST
AT
YUMA
PR
OVIN
G GR
OUND
TEST
CH
ARGE
1 BR
EECH
2 TU
BE
TEST
VE
HICL
E HE
IGHT
PR
F.:SS
URf_
ROUN
D VE
HICL
E SH
OT
NO.
NO.
WEI
GHT
( 1 bs
) ( 1
bs)
( kps
i )
856
7s
138.
1 62
32
.6
857
9s
139.
1 62
37
.6
859
4 13
5.2
62
39.4
861
5 13
5.2
62
34.1
863
6 13
5.4
62
35.4
865
10
136.
1 62
40
.4
867
2 13
5.3
62
36.2
869
1 13
5.4
62
40.3
871
8 13
6.2
62
40.6
872
3 13
5.3
58
29.8
1 P
rope
llan
t:
M30
A1
.085
In
ch
\·Jeb
L
ot
KAU
7/76
2 A
vera
ge
from
tw
o M
ll C
rush
er G
ages
3 M
easu
red
from
Sm
ear
Cam
era
Film
s (±
15
fps)
4 YP
G R
adar
Dat
a
~1UZZLE
·. DE
FLEC
TIOr
J VE
LOCI
TY.
RANG
E LE
FT
Rad
ar4
Smea
rs3
(m)
(m)
(mps
) ( f
ps)
(mps
)
974
3198
97
5 40
525
368
917
3000
91
4 38
125.
35
4 99
1 32
64
995
4472
8 52
2 94
1 30
75
937
4032
1 49
5 94
7 31
07
947
4050
6 42
5 99
3 32
47
990
4521
4 50
9 -
--
--
--
--
-99
4 32
69
996
4522
9 43
0 89
7 29
41
896
3066
0 54
7 '·-~-
--·
-------~·----·-~
• TIM
E OF
FL
IGHT
(sec
)
107.
4
-12
0.3
-11
5.5
- - - -10
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 evaluation, and the graphs in Figures 70-72 contain data generated from these tapes by ARRADC0~1. Figure 70 demonstrates the relationship of peak chamber pressure (measured with piezoelectric gages) to muzzle velocity, showing excellent correlation. Figures 71 and 72 "~-.v,~ 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 kilometers .
159
PAGE 160 IS MISSING FROM THE MASTER COPY
PAGE 161 IS MISSING FROM THE MASTER COPY
•
I--'
0"
1 N
tl)
C
L
::E
n
>-
1- .......
u 0 _J
w
>
1000
900
8001
'b
700
600
500
•
ROUN
D NO
. I
859
I
872
I
~ -·~-~.
-----
-----------t-
---------·r
----
6~
~ ...
6. ~.
---
6 .....
....___
6 6 ~
6 ~
8
•
HAHK
·co
MPU
TER
DATA
SI
MUL
ATIO
N
0 6.
--··
-..
-
-· --
---
--
---~----
----
··
-----
----
----
~
i
4001
1
I r
I 8
I ~ r
I
I 6
5 l 0
15
20
25
30
35
40
TIM
E OF
FLI
GHT,
SE
C.
Fig
ure
72.
Vel
ocity
-Tim
e of
Fli
ght
Dat
a fr
om S
elec
ted
Tes
ts,
Rel
ated
to
Sim
ulat
ion
Res
ults
(Y
PG F
irin
g, 5
Jul
y 19
79)
,
•
•
•
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 ~~od 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 ~abot 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-'
()")
()
")
• •
• ti
l lj
I 0
1 '3
.;:,
c.
•
.. 't
UH
\.
Tit
O
t:S.C
:Itif
'TIO
M
CA.T~
,...
.
E ... :
~ ..
-tl
t\ll
'1l.
\-1
)
• A
Z ... lA
,.P
l'l
l.
~041 fl
f(U
OI
!.U
IIA
(l
Of
AU
IMIU
, II
Cl•
l ft
OII
tl
II
UA
I \A
JOlS
111
1 J.C~
COIOA~C(
•tJ
H
llll
ol\
14
'-
0.
lol.
l IA
ll
20
.11
O
f M
ll-\
HH
II
CO
lOl
\HA
tl
II
Oll
11'l
OU
t NI
O.
U.O
U
Of
HD
·\1
0-U
\,
l'lO
H
IHA
I IH
I P
I'M
IItU
IIO
III
Of
IHI
'·"lil
t \r
illl
C
\I ..
UII
t 11
10
ltA
OI.
A
CO
All
ltC
O
ftU
CiliU
B
Of
:l.•
!0 I\ T
ltiH.
1\
A~'f
\\Ol
'f.
(H(
(OA
IIIU
i.
tUIU
(IA
ICtt
ltU
\H
AlL
*
lfH
C
,!A
"'O
A
$
4
HO
UI
(J.P
O\U
il
10
\'
\ :!
.All
\P
IAW
li
'U
A\l
lll
I Il
l
.:)I
.c..:
-.:o
"--
T :
;cA
T
r-~..,.----:--
00
NO
T
C.O
Al
I ! //
~-~-,~
. ~j
!
'-·
·li!
!:1 (\
f--~~~"'~----=
:::
. . [I
·~
. 1 \1 !I
I --
--=
31
~-
-~.~
_:-i
_ __
~-
--~·
.· ·.
-~
-t:
;:;~
.~ • ...
...... ~i
'.~.
·-· ..
', --
--.: __
_ -~-/
~-~-c:=--L w~~
~-7~'
. ·.
. ... -=
2:=::
. '-e
, ~ _.
,-· .
I .
I .
-,
a I
. /
. -"'---;,---~
~~---
. :c
~.c~
•,:;
,,.r
:J
, -~
-l
• --·
--c
I ®
-~.-
I I
0 Q
1
; . --Fi
oure
74
__!.,
'V ~
'-..
· 3
8
u•U
SS
OtK
li'W
islS
HC
ifll
O
OI.
(III
SIO
.SA
II l
lllltt
CH
la
jiOU
Uiid
iOJI
6iC
Uli1
l
.t.M
US
..
. ih!A
t.;
.;.E
E
Olf
.TA
.II.
.S,
•i:A
flit
i:A
T•r
•T:
"'U
T A
SSY
ru
-Sf[
) c5
ifJi
li'4
l h
on
trM
, ..
tiM:
AP
'liC
AH
OM
.... E
.ll
t-"C
=.-
:, .. : ...
. '::£.:_~...;t..l(-:·~.
82
47
?'J
·~'.Jt.OJ. ~·~·:)T
#';
• .":,
.T
Bi.
47
7B
'1=''-~~JT
:_p.
bQT
.~
>5.-
'i>~
~~:;~~
r~r:
(()'
2-h~
.. ~M~t.fr
1 4
I e..C.47'5o~
· ~»~t.k. ~Cf:Y
lJ i
I ;
~.2..4
i3B
:io'
AY
LC
AL
.. f'"
-t.-Jo
.~T'
I Z,
f 1
(.2
..4
73
/ :io
.J...
...,M
v P.
ro...
/I..O
AC
IT~M
~~~ ~;~
2 ~.
-Nit..
J:·~ ...
•£L6e
:iC.R,
~TtCJt
..J
c.o..t=
....-.:
, ·.·
::.T
O~
IIGU
i.l.
i'OA
T(
oiO
ilA
WIM
S
PA
C£
RE
SE
AR
CH
. CO
RP
OR
A
·f!;,
,) ''l
,.,.
) .. ,
.-
'""'
.-m
o
....
l.I•J"'~~
_.1
-<:J
" ...
a·-1
ss '"
'M
CA
RG
O
SH
F..
U •
MO
D
c; [1
jto6
t.W
ifii
OIF
2411
h.
SC
At,
(:
I »
tUt
1
>--
' m
'-
1
• •
• ..
0 I
0 ~
C:.
1
'CO
lt 'l
AN
.'il
'(1
4.')
l~.
A2D
t)•l
A
PP
lY.
!!\
. •c.~ ._
All
'-
'AC
HH
dD
S
UIH
AC
£S
U"ll
S'i
O
(HU
WIS
[ S
f(C
IJI(
D.
~INISH
') 1.
1 O
f M
H·S
ID-1
11
.
Plt
t'll
' A
ll
'\U
iH.\
CiS
lH
lPT
W
IND
SH
ihO
C
A'i
'IT
V
' 't
UI£
0
\UIU
AO
S
WII
H
liN
(
(fH
I:O
M.l
lf.
lU'I
f M
)IS
IUIH
}
l"i-
.III
YII
'f
Pll
l:
T!·
P·I
IH
CO
lOR
Y
HI.
OW
i>~t
~t
Jlfi
"'D
\tH
HO
C
AV
ITY
, i.
'lC
EP
I IH
UA
DS
. W
IIH
f
;.-.
t SH
.'.
I 0
OF
"'l
l· \
T0
-11
1.
I~ ,I .
L
, . -)
' --
.:;;
~:,
M
...
WA
.ICH
I -
MIN
Oft
-
:0
... ---~ ':
:,z~--
:-;
--
T
~-,~-
/ '
.· .. /( \
,,
. ~ .
~~
' .
\('·-'
"'?·"'
)' .. _
_ t_
......
.. '"~ _,
'-.·
2.~
.. ,_
,.:i2
o<.
·. _
_ ::
;u M
t"J ,,.
J,.., --
t·tt
r H
.
.2:.
-\-~
~.,
...-
.Xd
1
'"''"".:;Iii!.:~-··,:)
.... ;.~
r .. :
----
1
I.,
J
_,_ J
·-·~
'-.}
---~T.~J
w::
:;R
.(m
z r:'
fR ,
Nr;,
...
l_~.:;
p!
-----~ ~-._)
----
----
-
~t) .. D
R
\ ___
i9~~~
AL
L A
'<O
UI\
i.D
?2
.41
7
'-~<+i?o
t ~473 6
tAf'
Q ~
MC
C
4 ~
.. )0
~
--
~-2.
Sj
CK
)O\
----
--.
.._
_ 1
.52
4 ?
;)
-~
UN
U'S
S O
TH
U*
IS[
Sl'
lCif
i(O
O
IM(N
SIO
N$
Ut(
IN
IN
CH
ES
TotE
tuN
ed 61
1 o
tctM
AL
S
.X){
!.0
1
.)(;,(~
!;.0
0'5
A
NG
LE
S
MA
TE
RIA
L:
!'AIL
D S
n.'
U.
lOIS
-~•:
•<.)
~LdHUT T
fllA
TM
[NT
:
.... CH
K
""'"
Siiii
tffio
ttE
VlS
ION
S
LT
R
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
~ ...
.. c-
"""
•,tA
.,,u€
..:. ~~
...:....
:....1
,..__ _
_
:~~
:."'M
~ . '
· '()
1.•·
o ~:
~ ~ ..
"" ~:
·:~
::~ ;:-:
•.J"!
(l
~-'>
("()
. ~
' . .,.
).'i•
)o')
;_~:
~ ;:-
.;;
·:.Jt)
O
t~
11
. -...
. ~
·•.vo
e ··-~lO
'~-
'I"(
!
·~.s""
~~:~
11
.0(.1
1 1
1,'
,00
;!.I
.Of!
rt,'
K(.
Y-:
' ,, .. ' :~
:.-'1
'·
-~·'4
',>
:•;.
. ...:~.·
··-,
;,
·-"'
'"
1
: '¥··
.. ~-::
i
·-/;:
·-J~ .. ~-
· :1
-.
!,
~
''/l
•u
··~ ...
ll,r
o;c
__
--
''""
I>A
IIl'
1110
:>
247C
:.;!:,
S
PA
CE
lt
f'S
I:A
acN
('X
)M'()
IItA
.TtO
IIII
1<
11
¥
lt..Jct:..:~-o~
Ti;
Oy
v~
0~
WIN
DS
!-li{:
.LD
i t-::.
:;,x;;r~•:
::s;;;s•;-
t'-'7;~;;;
s~~~;-;~:;
;;:;-i:c,.
:;.:;;.,-;
,;;;,o:;;,
~oc;;,:-:,
.. .-..,..:
:,-.,.::
-, _,;-
+.-:.
,.....
="'•"
'•---
---1
D
D2
4 7
~ 3
'
AP
P
I A
TI
N
"JO
TE
3
H
.. ····-
.......
-
Figu
re 7
5
f.-'
0'
1 O
J
• NOT£
S:
• C
LA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
O
F C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
(W
R4
3A
)
CR
ITIC
AL
-
RE
VIS
ION
S
LT
R
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
A
J1,
AG
OE
"-0
NO
TE
(_
• D
AT
E
AP
PR
OV
ED
" { .
1-.';G
,_/
(/,_
:
l A
NSI
Ylt
!>-7
3 &
A20
062
API
'l Y.
M
AJO
R
-
Z. !Z
¥ALL
MACHI~O S
URf
AC£
5 U
NlE
SS O
TOO
IWIS
£ SP
£Cifi
£D.
MIN
OR
-
1 FI
NIS
H 7
.Z.I ~ M
ll-ST
IH7l
;,~~
z-.~
-~ --
,r -
----
i! /'_
--~
1.~2
.5-
li.o
iJN
-2
.S
1 ,
le:.s
o.:o
(/>1
-:-
oRoo
T<ZJ
:
P\T
c...
.,,z
,: .
. .5e
4+-.
oo(o
s I
(c.'
10
0 Z
>)
_ .
_ M
IN L
V C
UT
---
, 1 / M
A,:
OR
¢
~ ,.
(o 2
..5
0
1\/\\
N
1 fiAi.OIO~j
., /
MINOR~;i.55'i•.OI4
i
.!_ ,
)'1
5 <
l·-.0
05
!
1.5
0¢
L __ _
t-~----
"'~~-::-""'""-..._,·__,.~.....--~~
I i -
A-;
~~~~..
..:-""
'..::.
....''
\':.:.
_., :::...._:. ~::
.......::""'.:._-~~ £\
\,\:
'-:S
":"S
:~-
-,
\ I r
-(
2.1 .::
::.oo
(/J
)
""''
~ ,
·-. __ ·,_
.\.
. ··-,
"' I _
____
_ f
-~""'"~ ~~
--""' ~ .. <;
~-"" ·-....
·-,,_ ·-I
... ·-..
·-..._:
·-._' '
"· '.' ""
" ',"
\ "-
' ..
U
\ \ I \ ~~---~t=:o
-~~-<r._
--; .
.)~
---~
.::,
) Qr.Jq_::-::.~I'J
r~'t
t:-L
_\-:
------~--
4.1~5-.-:,to
--~
-I
''1.0
0
PA
RT
N
O
!_ C
4 ""-,
' 3J
UN
LIS
S O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
IFIE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
l D
IME
NS
ION
S A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
F D
R_A
WIN
G
. --
-.~
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
AT
ION
T
OL
ER
AN
CE
S O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
-·
-"'-
·-:~
·, ~\
· -
NO
RT
H T
RO
Y,
VE
RM
ON
T
05
85
9
A~~L~S'
PR
EP
I
. -
I ...
c"
I F
Z<
l 1
7":
'-
" M
AT
ER
IA
. "
_ C
HK
I'
-• ·;,
1-j
'-/_
'-/T
': ,,q
,"<>
''·
· .
,_, "
-'··
I
L'
'-j·
· -·
,_
.-24
'l.:.
.G
1,.-,.~L-_-
'-,1
-,.
EN
GR
' _,
r•'l~·f,'
_u 1-
/1 M
\'
'Pf:.
.'/ LC
)AD
'"·v-
) ,_-
,_
HE
AT
T>
::-.
oiE
NT
: S
UB
MIT
IED
I
L ~-
ICS
'·
·'
SIZ
E I
CO
DE
!DEN
T N
O.,(
'
--. 1
'-':
....
I N
EXT
ASS
Y
USE
D O
N
FIN
AL
P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
F
INIS
H.
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
r~
C. 4
l ~
) .
APP
LIC
AliO
N
,,,;>
-;-
"-:::
SCA
LE:
: f
jSH
EE
T
I 0
I
Fi0
ure
76
.......
0"1
\.0
• NO
TIS:
• C
LA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
O
F C
HA
RA
CT
E R
l ST
ICS
( W
R 4
3A
)
CR
ITIC
AL
-L
A
NSI
Yl4
. S· n
& A.
."'062
APP
LY.
MA
JOR
-
Z. 12
5 A
ll M
ACH
IN£0
SUR
FACE
S U
NU
SS
OTHE
RWIS
E SP
ECIF
IED
. M
INO
R
-
l.
fiN
ISH
S.l
l20R
S..
l!20
fMIL
-ST
D-1
7l
1-3
.42
.
i~---
1. 12
..0
·--;
I
;.-.
.·sa
-
I
1.0
0 r
• '-'
!
I I
i---
-I
I '
i 1
; 4
0 ~
I I
--h--
--
I I
.,
' I
I I
~-----
----1 I
---.
I ~-=
.::;
r.r
3.4
2. -
,2:'
-.Q
I ,,
---~-
~-=----
/A" I A
I . .)
k)
z;
4.2
.'5
-12
..U
N-2
.A
M,)
.0C
:i=l.
·-JJ:
4
. ?.
.+o
O
-.C
I 14
-p.
-;-o
_,..
.t:
.... 1
-'\ ~'1 -.0
0(,5
.'y
'" 1
'\!0
K 1
.; -
. 1
45
3
NIA
i'..
i.:c
.C..
~-i·
.?\_
;N-:
.::
....~
r-1\
A·.)
:...;K
_.:;:
i.G2..~4 -
. ...::-
-=:--..
+ :::
.rTC
rl :b
: ,_
5.:3
2.3
-.cc
;;.:
:.
\J\1
t·JO
R i
t;:
1.5+~.c>7
MA
X
/-A-/
RE
VIS
ION
S
LT
RI
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
A.
1(1
) A
OO
E.O
(2
-J.:
:..:
.ct:
G'-~
:ie:
2..
i i p j"!~
I
@/
.:__
.50-
i :O
c.N
C.-
2.3
-~
6+.1
2...
:::.~~::;
I
PA
RT
N
O.
C 2
._j: l
3 5
• D
AT
E
I A
PP
RO
VE
D
,, •. i
0-"
IM
IJ/ ,
; 1.:_
,
1------1
------<
UNL
ES
S O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
IFIE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
DA
TE
f
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
Of
DR
AW
ING
.
-.•
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
AT
ION
~
f T
OL
ER
AN
CE
S O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
~ _!_
.._-..
l',~'~
1 q
.r
NO
RT
H T
RO
Y,
VE
RM
ON
T
05
85
9
A~-~~~
s= .-
I P
RE
P
r·...r .. _
.1
1 ,"
" ,
I >
L4
7 7
b
,._
. ~
MA
TE
RIA
L:
CH
K
I I·
-.-
.• tl
I"'t
i:l/
72
;;_
4.,
h0
T
·-·-
. l
"''I.
I'
L
-1
::',
EN
GR
I'~" ±
l:/7
/l'r
' ·.t·i~b
JI\
.\A
,.t
~
PA
VL
OA
D
8.!->
..LL.
w.-:
: T
1'-~
"'l-"-
"~ ~,..
.,.. l\
,._
HEA
T TR
EATM
ENT:
S
UB
MIT
TED
I
ij'-
ISS
Mil<
\ I S
IZE
1 CO
DE
!DEN
T N
O.I
_ ..,
IP<
v I
NEX
T A
SSY
I
USE
D O
N
FIN
AL
PR
OT
EC
TIV
E
FIN
ISH
: A
PP
RO
VE
D
l c .
J I L
c:.
41
;) t)
A
A
PPLI
CA
TIO
N
~JoTE.
0 _l
SC
ALE
: 1
/l
-JSH
EE
T
I O
F I
Fig
ure
Tl
f-'
--.J
0
...-
• NO
TES:
1.
ANSI
Yi4
. 5-
73 &
A20
062
"P?L
Y.
2. .\\
INii\
\UM
YIE
LD ST~ENGiH 2
00 K
PS
I. 3.
!25
ALL
,\\AC
HIN
ED S
URFA
CES
UN
LESS
OTH
ERW
ISE
SPEC
IFIE
D.
4. A.
F
INIS
HS
.I.IO
FM
IL-S
TD
-171
. o.
PR
ii\\E
~JOTED
SURF
ACES
ONL
Y W
ITH
ZIN
C C
HRO
MAT
E LO
W ~
.\~I
STU
RE S
EN
SIT
IVIT
Y,
PER
TI-P
-175
7,
COLO
R YE
LLO
W.
• ,.
RF
VIS
ION
S
lONE~
UE
S.C
RIP
TIO
N
1 ')
Al~
I :,; .. p
!,(
o
T=
l j..L
_;..
_-:_
:._
'L.
-1
I
' -
-~,:)-
--
:--,1
-/
""
!\)\
1\c.
.~'"
' --
-
( --
--r-
---
~
--
" -
,~
--·
~
-.
-""-
· ;•
(_ ~ --
---
--
\ ,',
-
-0
\
-~
' ...
) ,-__y~! ~
l r
~
' '-
.
:_.4
/SC
/J
-.:,
. 5...
)-2_
~-
-::.
-l--·--
"·v·
\·\u
....
._..
J-
....
_,..
-:.
p i -;
-c..
.-: ·;;
.
>;\I i'.
:CI-
' t
.....
--~
·-·
__.
---
-.._
, _ _
,
::;;
~ '·
/=
-c.
........
_-:,__
'::....
' )J~
. -·
·--
l ,=:
.'\) '--v-~ .
::.-
:-/"
"'\
__ _,
-.'
. :: '-
'
----
-----~-
PA
RT
NO
._
......
;: -
1--------.....J--------~UNLESS O
THE
RW
ISE
SP
EC
IFIE
O,O
RIG
INA
L D
ATE
D
IME
NS
ION
S A
RE
IN I
NC
HE
S
OF
DR
AW
ING
S
PA
CE
R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
AT
ION
~
.. ,-.i=--~
.. :-
:;{
TOLE
RA
NC
ES U
N U
t.I ...
.. IIV
!ti'I
L':)
..-
£·.
_ -
·-
• _
-~ANGLfs
' ,
:.
. •
-·
..., -
·--
MA
TfR
IAL
• '
-~·
;. -
--
-.
. E
NG
R I
'1
· -·-'--
HE
AT
TR
EA
TM
EN
T
suB
MIT
TE
D
stzE
'C
OD
E tD
EN
T N
ol,
_,
NE
XT
ASSY
U
SE
D
ON
B
1 -
· F
INA
L P
PO
TE
CT
IV£
FIN
ISH
A
PP
RO
VE
D
AP
PLI
CA
TIO
N
SC
ALE
'
:::_
I
PREP
00
1
,., r
--( '
---r
-'..
.J.
1--
~
_}
I SH
EE
T O
F
-,_'
. ~
,. .. ,
Fig
ure
78
•
•
• :: ~;"" .. ; .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'
• lr
tOfl
\
I.
A-.
SI
·tl4
, ~
rt'
.1.2
'()0•
1 .,,L
Y l.
W
HO
UIG
'I
OC
lDU
iUS
:
CU
A!t
II
UlD
A
lt(A
W
lfH
\I
AI"
llS
S
SH
(L
..,I
IU
III:
US
H a•
~(lDO
>'U
ti.
liQ
UID
PlllH
OI
II(
Alt
O
V(N
TO
A
Jlllt
PliA
IUII
( ..
0
(,it
UH
it T~
.t ..
H
OO
F.
'J~[
.lo G
A')
'M
IW. T
L!Id
. (.
f 1
\ ...
H(
2!1'1
. A
ll A
t "
;u,f
i.
uJ
n AG
C
fM.
11,;
'l
llll
O
uS
I'-G
1
.a··
O
IA""
lHII
T
U"tG
Sll
' tl
t(T
IIO
J(
l'\
IH0
1U
IIl0
II
IIIT
H
J-1
1
OIA
~H It~ ~,~.
AI
od.L
D
llOD
U
JIII
)(II
1
1.1
·11
0
"""'
4;.>
1'1.
"1
lill
(lQ
Y
Ei.
f \L
OW
LY
TO
A
llO
W
A
oH
ll
Of\
IHO
P£
0
;uO
Ol(
'. \
t~tii:Afi.JIU
AT
!Hf
'1111
0 '.
lfC
JIO
it
Of
lMl
1 !\'
tOT
h
t•C
UO
A
J•}
• q
Jf
4S
:'
IOlt
.:A
l(l)
IY
·~~.lTO!It\
.'\
ol.ll
~l.l(~I'HO
')U
IHA
.CE
'i
U"tl
l>S
lll~fifWI\£ ')ll'(CPI~D.
~ !'t
tl) H
1.
!.
I I)
J .\4
ll·
'; T
0-
I 1 I
ll'll
l'ol(
A
ll
\L!I
tHC
[')
O:C
lPT
..
01
£0
S~HHA(£)
... l
fw
ll'\
IC
(Ho
tO¥
.lT
E
, 1
)"
~'()
I')
I UR
( 'it
"tS
IT
I'/
I r Y
?
[II
'I·
P ·!
I'/
. C
:•il
OK
H
lLO
W
~-1~~~~-;.; .. :_
I p
J ~-.
.__.
~' ---
----.._~-
V•lW
A
-A
Co
(All
'-
/1
• C
L .. II
,ICA
TIO
frll
0#
tH
AII
AC
T(I
tlS
TIC
S 1
•4
Ut
CIH
T.CA
.L-
:auJ
OA
-..
lll'ti
OA
-
',-~
.:..
r+.l..
l..J..
;"
, I ~J
LT
O
_,z.
~lS-
C.·_
N-2
...:..
_1
~.:..-
R[V
ISIO
HS
O~H
• QA
T£.
lo
\P
~1 ±
·C~
'v1
A'll
--
.::c
--
---""~
'":7
'C
;, :
..
UN
L£
55
OT
HU
WIS
£ S
l'f:
Cif
lfO
01
1111
fNS
ION
S A
ll(
IN IN
CH
($
1 fOL
lu~c
~~ O
N 6
EC
LII
AL
S
AIU
OU
$
IUT
UIA
l
-"i<
-.fH
UI
TA
U.T
II£
•l
.:. ""~
.:. ...
'7'-
·-.....:..
.-'
".:1·-
.:.
~h -; ~i
r~>;
----
" ·c'~.
-.oc~~
---=
:~~.;{T---;.,o;-~:..-A -~-.QN---
OIII
CO
INA
L O
AT
( O
f O
IIA
WIN
G
" ~'
'._ ...
""'
,<c.
_·
fNG
II
I ,.1
_
sutl
lttT
T£
0
PA
III!
t\..
':.1
Sl"o
t.C£
MS
f:A
itC
H ~AT'IOfll
· :J
I
·.co
• ...
T"R
O'f'
~r
NE
XT
·AS
SV
U
S£.
0 O
H
FIN
AL
,.II
OJf
Cli
Yf
fiN
ISH
. AP
PttC
IY(D
A
PP
liC
AT
IOH
_:
-:.-:
' on
:: 4
Fig
ure
80
1-'
'-1
w
• ~OH'i·
1 A
.. S
I Vlf.~-11
l A
20
0U
A
Pft
lY.
l.
~l.~
tal~
~~:c~~~IDf ~~
~~fA
CB.
UN
U S
S
,.t
-~i.S
., -
......
-.::
..::
::
n I ,;
:.:t
'l
2. p.
_ "
..... t~
>
':!'
-
.:. .7_.~o._;.s
2.~25
·I; r
1 i I
!I iU --~
.;o
~.~50
2.0
0
! 5"
5 -
')I:
)
• C
LA
II"I
C.l
TIO
N O
f'
CH
A.A
CT
(Jti
!TIC
S (
_,.
4U
I
Cllti
TIC
AL
-
WA
.IOit
-
MtN
OJI
- :.
:s -
.:;.
~
LTR
3.0
:>
.-4
:::'
5-.
0tO
----·------
r--
----
5.
3'31
~
4 ~.:)
1.1~2.
----1
.2.5
-1
.80
;:(1
-.4
0
i
A~
i·
A-..
.J
I I ! --
------
-===
===-
---=-
__., --
--=
----
----
----
T\ _
____
____
__.1
-.0
98
0 ;
A;;o
liL=?
~:
::R
•JC
H
:;:)f"
-E
NG
,7..
.1
R£
YIS
I()t
lll,
O~N
-"-
5
en
_ __
j
.:;:
;.:;
:--
_:-
c
PA
Jt'f
NO
. (,
.2.4
.7..
:,?
,. DA
TE
(A
PP
R
±
I '' !r
._
UN
US
S O
TH
UW
I$(
$P
'(C
ifi(
D
OU
IOtS
ION
S A
RE
IN
INC
H($
t0U
iAN
C[S
ON
DE
CIM
AL
S .u
!.,,
;.,
.:o.x'!.-~S
OIU
GtN
AL
D
AT
E
Of
Ollt
AW
ING
IP
I'C
£
ltfS
EM
CH
C
()lt
f"Q
tA l1
0fil
Fi9
ure
81
-4-
J 1
i '"
"),;
;
AH
GU
S
W'i'ii"
AL
; ALUMI"tV~
(DQ
(,\•
T'-
-,u~~o "
Coi
11;L
LJtiU
T ta
£4
nii
it1
: ::'-
5 ,..
,,.,
NEX
T A
SSY
I
USE
D O
N
fm•A
L P
1t0t
£Ct1
Yt"
iuus
H
APP
ltCA
TJQ
_N
5 ~ '
7f
NO
RT
H rt~Of
/(R
t1'.
'Nl
.)~
HI:
(!',
....
CK
K t '®
~?f!
OE~
C.
EN
GIIt
· '
· 1,1
••
r ~
'r 7
t
Fl
N
SIJ
8Min
£D
. ......,...
•gt,c
oo£i
l ;:: 2.4
7c;
;2.
SCA
LE:
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
£VIS
lON
S
NO
TE
S:
lON
t: I
LTA
I D
£SC
RtP
TIO
N
I D
ATE
I
AP!
'RO
VE
I. A
NSI
Y
14.
5-73
&
A20
062
AP
PlY
. I
I I
!
2. 12
5 A
ll M
ACHI
NED
SURF
ACE
S UN
LESS
OTH
ERW
ISE
• SP
ECIF
IED
.
0 3.
FIN
ISH
SAB
OT O
NLY,
IT
EM2.
WIT
H 7
.5.1
OF
Mll-
STD
-17L
HA
RDCO
AT T
O BE
. 003
TH
ICK
. I
1
J. I
r---
1_
T-~-~-..--
7. 9
SC
· ~-<)IS
!.=---~,
: /
A-·
3l.
'J8
S [
I
~-
~ -
[81
lfl
~----__t
i
~
' -:
-:-~
;~
7. 9
8C:,
CZJ -
.00
5
i._
__
__
~',""
" )J
fjA-B
).o
os
I ~
//
BE
.FO
RE
. A
NN
OD
tL.\
NG
·
/ \
. '::l
EE.
NO
TE
. ~
---
--'f
--
' ~
. ,-
' -,
7
~
I A
24
1\S
R
E.T
AIN
IN&
;:
ziN
&
®
0 .-
I 0
2.4
77
5
FR
ON
T :r
.30
T
\....
__../
' I
I 0
2..
4-7
32
. ;:
:-K
.ON
I
5A
20
1
CA
RR
IER
iT-=
'II
! O
TY
i
P,A
.F\. r
~JO.
O::
.SC
.=<
.IP
TIO
N
PAR
TS
L.i 5
T
UN
l£55
OTH
ERW
ISE
SPEC
IFIE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
DA
TE
SP
AC
E
RE
SE
AR
CH
C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
--
DIM
ENSI
ON
S A
RE I
N IN
CH
ES
OF
DRA
WIN
G
i..i:, ~? 7
N
OR
TH
\!
:<0
-.'
Ji
C.S~S5
-·-
TOLE
RA
NC
ES O
N D
ECIM
ALS
FRO
t-JT
SA
BO
T A
SS
'Y
·-
AN
GLE
S PR
EP
I 'V
1 S
~ j
l ..
. :4
M
ATE
RIA
L:
CHK
.:-
t. ;
~--, .
F
.:0
47
7b
M
CC
5
<
' •
-•.
• /~ -~
r A~60 SH~LL
ENG
R
~
-,-:;
s ~.vi
HEA
T TR
EATM
ENT:
SU
BM
ITTE
D
BE
I COD
E I D
EN
T N
O.,
B 2.
4 7
7 8
IR~
NEX
T AS
SY
USE
D O
N
FIN
AL
PRO
TECT
IVE
FIN
ISH
: A
PPRO
VED
A
PP
liCA
TIO
N
s;,;
:,
Otf
AI\
_:0
, SC
ALE:
'I
~ I
!SH
EE
T
OF
!
Fi9
ure
83
.......
'-.1
(J)
• N
OI
[ S:
A~\1
Y1
4.S
·ll'
A
20
0U
A
PP
lY.
1:!,)
A
.ll
MA
CH
ltfO
S
UIH
AC
B U~l£SS
UT
rHih
'IIS
E
SP
EC
IFIE
D.
fi~ISH
'i.1
.1
OF
Mtl
-ST
0-1
11
.
PR
I'-'
( A
ll
SU
RF
AC
ES
(X
C(P
T
INT
ER
IOR
C
AV
ITY
, T
I11H
AD
S 'k
OT
ED
S
UR
FA
CE
S,
Rlf
H li~C
CH
RO
MA
T£,
tO
W
MO
IST
UR
E
Sl'
&S
lfii
iiT
Y
PER
rT
·P-I
IH
CO
LO
R
VU
ti)W
C.
f'qlM
.E
lkT
ER
IOR
C
AV
ITY
, E
XC
EPT
T
tiR
[AO
S,
·'N
ilH
fi
'III
SH
H
.6
OF
Mlt
·ST
D-1
11
.
-:;,
-·.
/,:.
. ~
~.4-'5'
0
-=--"
-
j.2
5.?
5j ~ .
.. i=
>tl
{ :)
,...
-
;J t
->ho
<.
,r-....
_._. 0
: _:
;.
:. ~~7.
-· -:_;.
~ .
...:..~
..... ~
.' ""
.. :~-'
: -)
0:: :>:
-~ :;
• C
L.I
IIP
'IC
AT
IOfr
f M
C
K.&
ItA
CT
llti
ST
ICS
(-·U
A,
C ..
TIC
AL
-
MA
,j()
lt
-
... ..
a.
-
7,0
' .tS ~t'
JJ 1r
::---~ ~
+.O
c
--...
..._
• !.1
o •
L>u5
I ~ :;:C
T P~~S
'-
-"-'
=''0
•'
)' :,
o·
r----
(.S
?::
l)
,
,-z.
. ·.;
-)
~ -~~s-;2:J
/
' MAJO~
]'
; ..::
... _:
;(_)_
:.. 1.
11 '
~ .:.
:, ":
'o-4
Z>
:
• -'
~::~
~.
::·
'3
Mlt
\10
1<
.;!)
. ~.-.)
-.-
.)d
r ---
-y
_,.
U/(
VT
d --
_,__
~---
::..
'"-"
':::.c
....
'~~-
--~---
:----~/
·./ ·i;,
',"L'
. -I
I/ ir
/ "
1 I
--
/ -
/ I!
/
I ~
(_,e~:
:; t)
~~
I:
I .
·~
I
'1:...
12_~1_
_ _ .
_ --
----4--
:---J,
: 1
.l9
.2lt
01
(4.0
74
i'l)
(4.2
D'l
<'5)
~J
~.67
4. ,
lj ~
. / I
I
I --'f ···-
---. lf
; ' ""i/-
JL.O
'c)
1--I
I l
I ,,
I _
__
_t
·o·;'
1'
~ ~---
. ----·
_.L
_
-""'
I .
. .
. ;
;/
I I.
j _
__
_
--, ---~1._;~-----
:~-.
-:,·
-,~"
''-
.A'-I
o:.·.
:;_,
t "!
-:~.
_1
.,-:
~::
} • .
l.., ~
p
s :'
J ·.
:..:
:.~ ..
. ~
r .0
1)<
) ~.-z.--,7
.'.:,
..)(
) '3
• .:;
,1 ..
<1.
..-. ~~~
~ --
-t-~
~-i -~ ~
:....v
oo
-~-~7:.~
_!,.:
X..-
..o
.l..
:S.:
..~4
r--·_;·i~~~~~~~~;
__ i i
-0
-0
+.~•
:ni>
j
: ~~ ~s
· ~-.-s~~g
! --------------·
--
----~ --
~ --
---·
----
L....
. : C
ON
OT
)
.::o
~ME.
i.)tJ----
--.:.::;
-1..2
.'3-1
2. U
l\i-
2A
•
~AJ)~
,._"'
·1.24~)
-,)1
,4. _
,
='IT
(~"'
:4,1~!"
-.:'.
:4>
5 Ml
l\lO~iZ'-..;.,+.5~\1~'11:
-~.:_,
.. _
:.4
--2
:]
-------
!.'·
-
_,:,.
,_
..__.
T ~1
-(\t
...\
E,.
_........
..
j
ex.:::
:-m '<
----
---
---
.20
_l -----~-[
'---
-2..
50
-·2
.. ·.
.JN
-2...
:..
'-1~J'~~ll. _4
..'\
~ --~·14
D1
TC
bl z:
2..
44
:X:0
-: -
: •. J
.Q.::
. Mllo.lUi::/J:2..~'l5"
MA
J(
-L.J
j A-~
j_--
.,,j
.~.._L
.i.{O
o...
!"...
\...)
RfV
tStO
N'J
LfR
I D~
~;..
[;(.
~-~~?JT~
••••
•• :
>2
4 7
32
.
-· OA
T£
IAP
PJ
'1·~·
----=
-:~--~
;
UM
US
$ O
lHU
WIS
( S
PE
Cif
iED
O
IIII
IIU
I$1
0M
$ A
tii:E
IN
!It
CH
£$
f0LE
UM
Cd
Ofl
OlC
lMA
LS
.
OII
IGtN
AC
Oi.
t(
OF
OII
AW
ING
I
SH
ta: ~ ~TtON
':...4:
'J..u
.o.\J
..j)
·.~--
~ \J
OR
Tl-
ol
:RO
Y v
I
.-.c
:
\,
-..:
:;;;
-
Fia
ure
84
i5(.Q
.l'8
::)
M<
·Q
'":>
~
-;;;;;--
;;-
,}I.
X.:.
.0
1
.XX
)l :
..C
OS
A
NIO
LU ••
Y'W
' IU
TE
iit.
\L:
"'IL
O S~L ,
101
8 ~'-'0 ~LL
(HU
T T
IUA
fME
NT
:
l'ti:E
I"
1)
11
L...__j7).~~/?
CH
K
~ ;-
.,..,'
f j,
;,;t
;>.J
F
RO
NT
S
AB
OT
CA
RR
I£.R
. ENGitt\--.L(-~1•11
SUIM
ITT
EO
=.:i
:-:-
!~==
=---
lf~~
~O~E
CTIV
( fi
NIS
H:
AH
1tO
V£O
~ :
)24.
73
?
f-'
'-l
'-l
• "!
Of£
5,
A,_
'il
f\4
. ~-1)
4. A
lOO
bl
AP
PlY
.
ll~
All
~IACHIN.fO
SU
iiJA
ClS
U
Nl(
SS
UIHl~WISi
SP
tCIF
HO
. "'
,--
----
-_,..
--
' I
-. :
4
. -~ ~._:I
-...
'· '·.
"' .
·,
' ·. (_
,
/ t
~ .. r
- .-J
•,rJ
J
-~~
..... ':
.-4
~ I
!• •
Q :'
~-~d
I O
o5t
. I
• C
I.A
itW
tCA
TIO
tl (#
C
NA
iiU
CT
t•tS
TIC
S 1
.. 4
J.l
l
CR
ITIC
AL
-
WA
JDA
-
IIN
NO
II
-
LTR
-.lJ
I K
...
OI
'--.
~u
\ A
£ V
ISIO
NS
~N
• ·'
~c
.) =l
·· .. 4
-. P
L'-
C.E
'S
~-~
\ '"
"''
. r-
.---c:::c~~
•e><
•-i"
.
. .. ·.;
,.•
. .
. I~IA
I~ j,,
,,;
l ,;
_:;
;.5
JJ)
I ---
-.
.<cw
C-
., '1
.04
'./J•
.ua
ri.C
'I.--
.._. ...
. ·:'
10
~' _s
·) (~.
'~1'=-
·t)
L_
j
• ·'_'~
.~.-
.C 1
.
~:;;
i;:-
1-:c
-:-_
:s:z
l
-l·.
_. ,_
; ..
. oo
5
[·~:. :::
::J ;.
\PE
R 2
N
·!J
t i-_
R \t
J
-.);::
L
0
j"'-
Y1
/J~
~~-~·:;;-:~
. S-J
) ..
·.:..~j
I
/
(~
')11
_::
,6)
/ -
I I ..
o.
,,i_
-
....
.. :
.(.l
,C['
S
/ i~ -
0-.~~~
~ ----
=-) ~,.
-,~i
tf
_,_
t
0 ,\•
•_
, r•-
:....r-
1
,j·:-1-~!t:':[.'..-~
4/'
/,
' ( !! !
/
/.
/ I
\Q \
-\0
\\
\ '\
,
//
I i/
v'
~~
·~
u _.... r,
'-'
r;·
·---,
;./
-•
l'
-.·.u
i5 ·
tv _
__...:
_!_;
::.:..::
H
CL
E s
I"'H
~I--
·;!
I
'1t':~
;~.
· --
t.S
O'l
---
l L
--.
~~-"-'
: -
. ' .I
!'),
VIE
w'(
. -
C."
lE :
..:
11
MA
T(I
IIA
l 7
U1
5 T
"
,t,.l_
IJM
I N
l.Jtw
'\
HU
11
11
(AT
MU
H
N()
(J A
SSY
J U
S£
0 O
N
I FIN
Al ~t
101l
C11V
f. F
INIS
H·
AP
PU
CA
TIO
N
"'("
)TI;
_
2.
Fic:
ure
85
OII
IGIN
o\l
OA
T(
OF
OII
A ..
. IN
G
.... <•• ~
.... s~
. .. m
Eo
AH
1t0\
1:15
~.U1
IICO
II"AC£..-....cM~TlOIIil
~;l-t-J'f "'
vse
FR
ON
T
'"A
Bu
T
~ ~.
; 1-
;' 5
•
•
•
N!Xl ASSY D!';UdP!IUN DA
f-'
"'-.1
<
.D
• •
• R
EV
ISIO
NS
NOTE
S:
lON
E I
LTR
I DE
SC
RIP
T IO
N
l"
DA
TE
I ~PP11(
I. AN
SI Y
14. 5
-13
& A
2006
2 AP
PLY.
I
I I
I 2.
SAW
CUT
S ON
SEC
OND
ARY
OBT
URAT
OR
AND
REAR
SAB
OT
ARE
tilT
TO
ALI
GN
AT
ASSE
MBL
Y.
3. PR
ESSU
RE B
ARR
IER
CA
VIT
Y S
HOUL
D BE
FIL
LED
WIT
H G
ENER
AL
ELEC
TRIC
RTV
·II W
ITH
NUO
CURE
73..
I
r r1·
----~r-
~ I
I I
' :
:. -~
:... =
~ -.
= :::-
]_~
l ,
;:....:
:;:
I . ~
,/-.....,;-::
-r-
-/
\ I
--
------r
I
'
I ' -
-·
-'
: I
i "
. I
I
J-B-
j \
"" --
-• ·
A·;
- I
" i
I
L_
--
/~
I ;
I
CZ?//////~
__
_ _
]
7.9
90
.0-.
00
5
I /
/ -
/ /
I_,( i A
· B
i .o
os
I .. ··
r~-~
.' .
·,
/.
/ .
• I
'
_! ---
/~/'l
.--"
' '
' ',
'-
, .
>7
. ,
~.
/ /
i C
-2.4
-70
9
1 OB
-:"u
RA
.TO
R
SE.C
..Ot'-
J0A
KY
G
) .----
--,/ ; ..
4 I
i I3
AN
D
03
TU
RA
TO
R.
'--
/ ~
·, 3
I 0
2.4
71
0
( -
~
. \: "
'\\;.:
::.
A
' • 2
I' 2
I 0
2.4
70
6
I C.A
r::.
OT
R
;:-
AK
. -
-J
---
-.-~
·-~·I
I 0
2..
47
57
I R
Et:>
-.R.
SA
I30
T CAP.RI~P,
I 4.
APPL
Y A
TH
IN C
OAT
OF
SIL
ICO
NE
GRE
ASE
ON
THE
INS
IDE
i'J
QT
E_
3 -
iT::
M.
Q.T
'{
; P
AR
T
NO
. I
DE
.SC
R!P
TIQ
N
DIA
OF
OBT
URAT
OR
BAN
D,
ITEM
3,P
RIO
R T
O AS
SEM
BLY.
!
PART~'-
c.~
UN
LESS
OTH
ERW
ISE
SI'£
CIF
IED
O
RIG
INA
L D
ATE
S
PA
CE
R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
AT
ION
D
IMEN
SIO
NS
AR
f IN
IN
CH
£$
OF
DRA
WIN
G
iNO
RT
H \
Ro
1 \
]T
'-';
J ,q
G
s:=.
.s:
TOLE
RA
NC
£5 O
N D
ECIM
ALS
'-
J ~
.
T'l
l•4
li9
S
AB
OT
I
AN
GLE
S PR
fP 1'1~
R~AR
AS·
C.:Y
M
ATE
RIA
L CH
K
If)
13
t"oC
T ~
-;:;
.:..
..--
b ""
·:·c
s EN
GR t•
I -""
f; .:•
"'-
·:-~
... ,,_o
.5-::
: ~
SU
BM
iffi
D
SB
IC
OD
EID
EN
TN
Ol
62..
4 7
7 9
r ~ -!
: ...:. .
..... _ .. ....,
HEA
T TR
EATM
ENT
NEX
T A
SSY
U
SED
O
N
FIN
AL
PRO
TECT
IVE
FIN
ISH
· A
PPRO
VED
A
PPliC
AT
ION
SC
ALE
: · /~
T
I SH
EET
' .
OF
f:.,
ure
87
f-'
co
0 ~ ..
• ~Oik '
)·
A'-
SI Vl•.~-11" ;~J.~l
AP
PlY
l.
ll~
ALL
'-!
.AC
YP
HO
'S
UiH
AC
ES
U~llSS
Uln
l JtV
IIICO
( Sr
>EC
IF
1£0.
1.
A. f
I \I
iSH
1.
:.
I O
f ""
IL·
ST
D·I
II.
• ---1
.
CL
AS
II,t
CA
TIO
N M
C
KA
it&
CT
(Iti
ST
ICS
tw
ti4
).A
J
CI'
ITIC
AL
-
....
.. 01
1 -
MI•
OR
-
-· RfVISI~S
~~RI
~~.,
..
,.I.
,,._
( .... J. ~:.
-
OA
H
IV
-'·--
'!.
_I
8.
Pll
l'd
( A
U
SU
iiiF
AC
(S
EX
CL
PT
JH
IUA
OS
' ~OTEO
SI.H
I.FA
CE
S
\II!
IIH
li~C
CH
iiiO
MA
l(
tOW
~OISTUIH
S£
\iS
IIIV
IfY
. PE
R
TI-
P-1
1H
. C
l.ll
Oif
Y
llll
lW
-ti
l /J
_.-DO
NO
T
PR
•M<
-
-r-''
I
j<~_..)<..)
·.·.
' .• /
'1-"
>:J
:.:.
:' ...
:
'~
-~
l,tt
..;.
> ~
-' ·~·.: u"
~-
~4 •.•
r:-:.,
t J•
_.,:-
.... :;
' ....
-::.:
~ -.. ~
. .:: ' I l..
>
'\0•
;/)()
-
'!()!:
.~/:
5 ---
'cr
~..._ . ._
4 •'
tO
__
,_
')!)--
.7~
,--''·
-~:047JTAPCR~0--
_ 1
/ '-"
'ti;
1!-J
lH S
f LG
.t
Sd
4; ~~,
_ ~
·
,--:.
·-. ~.: ~
'• --
--'
. P
(R
i),J
t..H
~~
;-~:
;_.
(,; ...
. -:: ~)
-------
----"-
\ --
r
}___
__ ·
.•ou::
::J
J_
I I
I C
-01-
-~.:J "'
.oo~;<·oo~
<I
PLA
.c.EC
.:.
---~---1~·.,~:·;;;, '._
' ' ~--
---'
t-+
--1
--~-
""""
'
,·
' ~
' (
',
tC
O-
~~
----
I u;
, l
31
0-
2.J
---
-.,
~cc
J>
fN
A ~--
--_ _
/ -
-I
I ,-
--•
:. ~ ~;;,.~y~-
(":>
Sv
!,
5.-
-... ~e
a
..
~~.
---
=-'-"~
'
~-'
._, _
_ ,_ -~
I
' u--~--
--=
\
'L-
~--\
.~
I T
AY
("-
•jiJ
·/J
~
f'E
K
•N'-
'FL
C,
H•
j.o
uS
J
AU
. A
R..
;UN
D
.. oa
...
• _
.,T
f •
\ 1.
-TS
_J
•A•:
)O
5 I•
E w
A,
~(ALE: r
0/1
'·
1
'W>
.,)
1 U
00
4
---------'
.-..
--:_
!J~•-
ZA
v~
--.J
:.
t =
.... ·
-1-.
On
4
... --
...
f!l'
\A '
•·::
'P
Z
-:A
]
'.4
...0
•·)-
.00
ii>
-+
". • .
:,1
:;.'1
UA
X
UH
US
S O
TH
UW
IS(
SJ>
tClf
l£0
0
1W
(It$
10
NS
U( I
N I
NC
H[S
oth.
u•ct
i ON
Otc
nuts
-~
~·:_
g?'
OR
IGII
lAL
OA
f(
Of
OftA
Wifi
iiG ~·'
A
NG
lES
m
.. -v-/:.~
IUT
(IIA
L:
AL
UM
INU
M.
'10
'15
-T(.
C
HII
I
.··t:
.....
H
UT
TII
IUT
MU
U:
SU
IMIT
T£0
I"A
IT
NO
0
2. 4
, -~ _
-_ --
.-a~~~
'JO
R' ..
. ""'
... .;
()"
·.-
REA
'R.
SA
BO
T ~.
\'KR
IE
NE
XT
AS
SY
fi
NA
l J>
lt01
£CT
IY(
JUU
SH
: A
Pf'1
tOV
lO
AP
PLI
CA
TIO
N
-F
igu
re 8
8
"-10
Tf:.
. 3
Co
py
av
aila
ble
to
DT
IC
do
es
not
per
mit
ful
ly
leg
ible
re
pro
du
ctio
n
~
00
~
• 't
OlE
S
A't
'il
ti4
. l·
;}
'·
.t.:
00
61
A
t'P
l Y
.
~~
fl tl
iH[S
\~
0\Jl
O 8E
P
AU
,[L
EL
ro
1
... \
10
1
GI<
00
\1[
S.
J.
::-...
).
Ll
\IA(HI~lO
SU
RF
AC
ES
U
1rl!
l(5'
5 lH
>1E
R'it
I 'i
.i \P
EC
If
1£0
; I ~ISH
1 2.
I
Of
'wil
l· S
T D
-111
.. !
.
'" -:__
_--____
'::-~-:
... t:
->
-: ~ s
,:; +
....
__ ....
. J r"•)f,
\l_
--~-~-
··--
~~~-
-~.
. ~--~~··.,·, '·
\,
. \
\.
\ \\
'
/·
\\.'
· \
>\'
' .
: \ '
.
~-!-
* ,.\\
\ ~ );
,li:
\''
. I
..
<~·-.
', ', -
/ /_/!
·-,~'~
. ////JI
', :::.,
<:::-:=
::::::::
:7 ~.. /
'.
/ .. ///
//
~~~-w~
~:/·
•. ~L t)
-:~_-
z_:
I"'"
-
-~I
I '.~
'\:l
'--:-
-"01
.;.;:L~~_..:---
.... ~L
~rC...:'U"'J.)
,-·-
-L
~-
'l
-:..
:3J-
'
/. C
\.A
III,
ICA
TIO
. 0
#
CN
AIU
CT
UII
!TIC
S (
.. 4
JA)
Cltt
:TIC
AL
..
IIIA
.IO
tt
-
MIN
OR
-
·~_:
')~~L_;
.... ·,0
2.-
·-,, ~
·"""
i ~
.• L
1··
I
I /1
..... , ~;
-.: 1
-~
,--~
--;-~(!
r I
, I
(5 ~-
"-t)
'~-
"'"
.lJ
I
i
--•
-4 -
I
,. •
.:..-
<.t-
,'
. ~
• .:.
t) _
i_
•. ;)
3.: "I
. 'I~ j
.·.' ·
J 't
i i
~ \·
i li
'
\
--_ _
_[
= _
.:o .r
. """
.J
.L
--~~
\ I
~~~I
-+--
-r--
t:::
:' ~
--I
J_
~----
I ~-
. ·--
-,
-.
'LA
Ce.-
'
-=-0.
.: ;.
_, z:
.
l' -~
I --..
_ '-.
,
-
• '~
... s
ect,
-~
-·->
.o,-
--~
Gtsr
~~,~
--~
i '-.
...~..
:.~--h
l.(::J
-......
-'-
--..
.(:;
s31
~ o ·
" .
:c·,
:-
At'
ER
.I~
~S
OE
f'-;N
OF
.. l
...
:1
-;,)
.... .4
~.-~
RE'JISIO~S
O~ilrll
•
{y
:,,·
J 1
----
--'
I"A
itfi
iO U24'~:_}~.
-·.1~
.::oi
fl\r
'£1
<
JN
(/J
PE
".IN
.OF
LG
'../I
E.W
'J
CA
LE
: !-
l/1
Fig
ure
89
"'[
. ....
f ';-
11,..
J"
" :0
l..
... •
,J";o
t<(l
,.
..:: ... ,
, N
EX
T AS
SY
J U
SE
D O
N
APP
UC
A.T
IOM
UN
US
S O
TH
UtW
tS(
SI"
(Cif
l£0
O
IIIG
tfii
AL
O
AT
£ O
f O
IIIA
WII
IG
''"'
-~,..
; .. ~
ruur~"
{(..
Tb
A
.tU
MIN
VM
I ~
::.
I ·t
-j
HEA
T llt
UT
Mf.
Nf
fiN
Al
l"lt
OU
Cli
V(
ftN
tSH
'IO
TE
4
SU
IMtn
£o
.......,.,
.
SPI\CI:~~ATlOM
f\1
0P
....
_. -.
.._C
''I'
:':.A
t.OT
, F<
EA
k
I-'
~~ •
• 'H
liE
S·
A~\l
"tio
l.'J
i1
"
Al0
06
1
AP
PlY
.
::~
~ll
\,A
(HI"
'ED
S
UA
fAC
l'S.
UN
lES
S
OlH
[AW
ISE
)
"!C
!f
1l 0
."",_:
_ ....
-
:..-.-..
...,_
\ --.
L--~-
t I
_______,
._ /-
·-;s;-
·1
' '~
.~~~
:I
......__......__
~·
~:C_
;.
'J v
~
'.cH
JF
I ~
. ~
o·•l!~-C.
---~
-' '-~
_I
-1~•
Ol.
. :.
_.
--
.<~
f./I
A'-
··t[
W
A
o<
.AL
E:
~/l
Lb
• ... C
LA
SS
t,+
CA
TtO
N O
r C
t.U
.It.
t.';
T[R
I,T
te!
{wtlt
o&SA
I L
TR
• R
E\"
15
10
H5
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
DA
TE
h
CR
ITIC
Al.
.-,,
-W
lJO
III!
WIN
O"
-
,, • t ~
-~
:.--
"'"-
... -""
"::::::
0 ~-:
~~I
-'
-+--
---
1 I I
----
-r
--
I
.... '
04
-' c
... ~c.
..:)
I i
I
"~0 ¢
\1
1'\
l
~
I i L
__ __
L~---
,IE
wA
-
J ~----
I ---
r- . '
( •.
<4;
"'·
__ ;
__
__
__
_!
~
lZ~~
I 1
, o ,~PI
: ·"l ~
J.c.e
> ~I
'·<·
I -~:~
··---
__
j_
,;~·y
l d
%=
-
//
-~
Fig
ure
90
1"5
t-J#
IA
-~,)
· ...
. f.
: .-
t4'Y
i-.Q
t'IC
. 1-._(~
,.:
.::.
·:::
s-.
: ~4
~
!: :
.C"-
45
...
. A
,_.,
....
-.(.
.:
l
~
Uk
l[S
$ O
TH
Eit
WI$
[ S
P(C
ifi(
Q
OIM
EN
SIO
NS
All(
Ifill
lkC
H[S
TO
LE
RA
NC
E$
ON
O
EC
LtU
t$
_.l.t
... :.
• .:
.1. x~x :.
.oo
s
AN
Gl[
$
MU
[IIt
iAl·
~"
;:>1
1\t\
',
)-2
.1 .
.. 1
,:.
~·•
I f
... --..Q:·"\~ "{~E.~£
HU
T T
lf.A
TM
£NT
... ,.o
02
4 II
C
OJI
IGU
Ul
OA
T£
Of DRA
Wl~:_ .
. ' 4
1 :,
J "":'
P ~ --·~~ ~11
011
HE
P
I ..
,4-..
. -:::l
J ,.._
: ·
'"~-
1 ·
-~1
::::1
oA
ND
C't'.T\JI<f,r:.~<
f.""
" Si
:Miii'
ffi'o
:-i
~,....
, I
£ C
OO
£ IOENTNQ.~
NEX
T ~o._
s_s~ .•
usE
o o
N
nNA
L ,.
ot£
ct•
v£
Fuu
$H
,..,.R
CN
£o
D
1 D 2
4 ·1
I 0
,..,.rv...:AI~
SCA
LE
:I
SH
E£'
Co
py
a:v
aila
ble
to
D1'
IC
does
n
ot
per
mit
h
Jly
le
gib
le
rsp
wd
uci
ion
.......
():)
w
• NOT£
S:
L
AN
SIY
14.H
3&A
200b
2APP
lY.
,. C
LA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
O
F C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
IW
R4
3A
)
CR
ITIC
AL
-
MA
JOR
-
• R
EV
ISIO
NS
LT
RI
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
DA
TE
I
AP
PR
OV
ED
-I
.'· A
:,.j
f,Q
tJ
OT
E
2.
u i
"'
I :-
11~
/
2.
12$
All
~W:H
ir.t
:D S
URFA
CES
UN
I.£SS
OTH
£RW
ISE
SPEC
IFIE
D.
MIN
OR
- ~l.
llo
_,
-.)
..,
___,
!r)~
~ I
i ~[
:3,
_,_
_
I i
[£.:
:._
;
l i
1.2
..4
~.ot
r-J.
s"
i-'f
-'L
'I
. I,·~
I __
__
_ T
--·--------~-~
r-------"E
W ( ~, i ~~-~
~~-=====~.~~~~·
I
(4.~2..1 ~)
14
.'71
'1 0
)
' ;1
\J <
;, PERI~,JCFL<..-::
,.,;;
,_ .. ..
,. .v
,_
.. 0 ~ K
-
,) I
a.o
t3,D
-.O
IJ 1
-.D~ ~AwC.UT
==
=lj
8P
L E
Q '=
>P
t O
N ·
JJ !.
I Q
\"--
.::3
:5 ~
-+ ·'-
"!
G
~_:-
:::t
i L-
~ ~ . 6
~.
~ \ ,
j :z.
!
-t.Y
J.
1/J -
.oc.
1 4-1~b--:
I ,.t i ~
! 6 ~~~
I c iJ
-.-
~:..
f -.
JIJ
'
==
=l-
~
j E
';V
:;
----
-._
.
!
lOUi
:-uJ
1-A -I
(l
2..
48
,b)
,r
.,. -
~L.t..,LE.
; 4
,.
(.:,
._:_
13
-b)
-·'-
-!
;, ....
.:. •
. .•.
~ },
I
__
...:
....
.--
. i
----
----
-\
'--'--
1--
--~
_ _
'y
:::_
y_
. ~
'·
. ·j'~ -_
;::,
:..
--..
:35;
;.: .
-:')
i0
~~
------
/i
---'-
____ --
/ I~ T
A.P
ER
ON
(])
-
:_~--,)2_--../
-~
.t\4
.-.0
4
PE
.R\N
CF
LG
,C.P
LA
C.t
.S
'JtE
W ~
::.:
.:-\
L\:
: 1
0/1
2.. PL
-:::.
-=:·S
1
UN
LE
SS
OT
HE
RW
ISE
S
PE
CIF
IED
I OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
OF
D
RA
WIN
G
TO
LE
RA
NC
ES
ON
D
EC
IMA
LS
l
-co.
~ Y
Xo
\.~~
~ ~~
~ -
-1 ~·r
I
PA
RT
N
O. C
24
10
9
SP
AC
E RESEA~H
CO
RP
OR
AT
lON
·:Jp
-__
, -"
'-0
" .. ,-
r-C
.S3
S 9
_;;,4/~9
-· "5
A
NG
LE
S
PR
EP
I
..:., .
~ . .d
f .)
>'J
>i'
/
0 B
T lj
RJ\
I 0
R I
•::, C
: ::_
01
'-J
\.) A
.K Y
I" '-4
'l--
0
I'·'',) 4
'MA
TE
RIA
L
.-llj/:-t;'(
"Q
.J
~'::
lT}'
-1\
\)-2.14~
: .._
.~ 1
0(.
,.
""o.~
1-0
\.Y
'""'
I-lO
PY
Li.
.NE
SU
BM
ITT
ED
CH
K
.I \
I E
NG
R
,,_
. ' .
._ '
I
-I
I ·"''-
'C ·"
'''
I HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
.
~~~~~~~~ F
INA
L
PR
OT
EC
TIV
E
FIN
ISH
: A
PP
RO
VE
D
A
Fig
ure
91
·~:
J T(
;."'J<
:j d
.LH
?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 8-in~h~~- ·
weapon firing the standard M106 round with zone eight charge.~ Additional 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 8-in~/subcaliber cargo ammunition.
b) Frangible Sabot ~''A goal of the current program was develop.:. ment of a sabot system which would permit effective and repeatable gun launch of the 8-in~isubcaliber round and
" also cleanly discard without causing tipoff or fin interference.
/This goal was achieved.,a-~ evidenced during the flight test program. However:··:the s-abot system contains som~ 'metal parts
which brings up the question of a safety zone requirement in front of the gun. ~With 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) Ba~~ Ejection,~ The 8-inch subcaliber round is designed to
be used for delivery of various cargoes, including submunitions and min~s 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 investigation .
/ / er Shot .Slart andJ'all .Back "?'.The fin stabilized prototype
--'-'---'---...:...__'----'--'-'-----'-'-.~ ' projectile tested under this program is seated without interference 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 inaccuracies 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 i~·ms 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 combination 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
......
ex:>
lD
"''
)Tf)
• .i.::IP~ Y
,.
.,HT
CO
ATI
"'f.
0
r 'i
!L:
C':J
i( ;,
>'f
A.)
{ ..
. L
-C-.
:'1
)61
, "r
t "!
'iP
fP(J
<;
r·~:
~•A:
:£
" !H.~
.t,
:>Q
!()P
TQ
/'!
STA
L-
l.I.T
I ~.
J I;:
::""
S.
.. p~
I~E"
" ~
'"'
n!u
v;
.-Arr~ r0~
1'"!
'~""
?"
"'PW
-:"(
;;g!
')O
T"
!"
'!~,
TAL-
LJ'
:"!M
:"
'cl!
Jl
~tw
'i ·H
AP
PI.
"~"1
"41,
..\ r"~::~
~V'E
A ii
['
1T
[Pf ~
AP
r.1c
:.
(/)
'-.-
-/ \ \ \
\
r==-=\
i
Fig
ure
Al
0
-
:5)
(4)
v-~ ()
t -=-
;
CL
AS
S:J
I C
HA
RA
C T
E ~,.
CR
ITIC
AL
MA
JO
R
MIN
OR
CD
ION
O
F
S
(WR
43
A)
t -
_\7
<:J
e7
0)
I I I
_j
UN
LE
SS
O
TK
(RW
tSl
SP
lCIF
\U)
OR
IGIN
AL
O
AT
(
01
'-4
£N
SIO
NS
A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
f D
RA
WIN
G
TO
LE
RA
NC
ES
O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
/-
..
~
C2
2S
74
E
P.
~1 D
4
-ID
22
97
3
Sf.
\E.S
,
3 cz
z=-7
2
~,JGS ~
2..
C2
.23
S3
G
·'")
DY
I D
2.2
3S
B
:.C
L\D
::
:-1;
j ~
\ TE
1'11
P
AP
T
TIT
Le
1\
J(J
f\JC
.
PA
RT
S
LIS
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OF
N
OR
TK
T
RO
Y,
YfP
MO
NT
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P
_....._
....
........
.........
._ ·!
.;P
I\ '
l
TE
ST
S
LU
G A
SS
1
MA
T[
RIA
L
CH
K
EN
GR
~
I< l..
.tl
\..,
l4.
.... <
..,
.. (~
OLID
f.J
N-
RE
AR
SA
T
ES
T ~LUC.
HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
S
U8
MIT
1E
O
F I ~JAL
9"-IS
S "
"W
I S
IZE
I COD
E I
DE
tH N
O.
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
FIN
AL
P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
fi
NIS
H
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
3
04
7B
C
22
97
7
AP
PL
iCA
TIO
N
SCA
LE
! I..
.:..
jSH
EE
1
---
'ct1
T(~·
f.-'
i.O
0
-~
po
:_
.t ~I:ti1"
(:')
AT!~
(,
~'~r '"·ilTC;t~r
'",;
;>~.
l~£.
W
fl-C
-.'1
5.(
], ~ fAPf~O
,·•:)qc~ ,,
!":"f
.. •.
~or"'~
~'1
~"f'
;i'I
..L
i..'
7: "
tt.
;r ;
~r ~
c..
·fA
r ,,
..r
.. ~
!'1
~-"!
:.:·
,'",
.;
,H(:
l r"
R
'l
""'
•r
.,.~
'll!
t"-:
. PO
!"'~
D ;.J
:<
t<;!
!.L
. ~!
':''
"''
: '1
S 7 !
L L
:
:'"f ..
S
r11
A''o
~ r
~ .. ;:
. ~
r"P
:':£
"'J~'l
:7',
('1T
iP~
P(.f
.~ ~A((.
CD
\ r l
--
-' '
Fig
ure
A2
-
f4G.7~;
®
~
\ \
~
,/";
\ \ j)
'---
-./
'\
-~
\,2)
-
0 \ \
AT
ION
O
F
ICS
(W
R4
3A
)
\
\ ,--'-
-
(J 3
S7
'lJ)
_j O
RIG
INA
L
DA
IE
s 'c-·~3-·lp
D
!ucc
.:.
,"+
.u
AN
.
""-
I D ~ =
~ 7 3
I ::)
-\ b
I_)
i
""' IC
22
9"7
2
~-~ :)
~ E
~':'?~7'
--~
G~-~DY
DZ
.2.9
S7
S
Cu
D
;:: : :
'-J
I 1
Ei'v
1
PA
?T
I
TiT
LE
.t'
\JO
. ~lO.
PA
RT
:':,
L
l 'S
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
I
I I v
•-c" "V
"O
..
. ,
"'
"'L
nu
I O
F
DR
AW
ING
Tf
"'1
~ R
AN
rr<
.::.
()
N
iH"
riM
A.l
S
: -·
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
V
ER
MO
NT
TE
~T
SL
UG
A
:S:
I I
I I
co
•v•
I -·-
. c~
~
D -
\J T
C•
· ~1-"""'
-._
, "•
I •
r•o
..
/ ..
....
....
. .-..S
UB
MIT
TE
D
I v
UL
! ,-
Jj
-CN
TR
..::
AP
PR
OV
ED
I-'
<.0
I-' 'l
"JT
[)
•••••
.-;:
lfii
'E.
-.l
· :.\
r 1 ·
1r
'"'t
! ~: .
-l}>o
c(
._'I
',..,
J .
...,..
'~iH o:
!"
· ~
: ~r.
.,
4 ,
o ::1
! '>
1 •
"')
: "1~, j
A[
.
~ .1.
7 :
~.,
, . r
: ~(..,
(
.. f ";
1 ... ~
...
~;.
: 'i
;n: ~
: "i .
-. ..-
.\ :r
o
r11o
1"
' r"
:"
' "'
J~·r
r~<:
!l
ot.
;a ~; :~~.r
.. L-
~,;~
'"j
•.,r
,·,t
,~l
:r:: .
. <;,
31 .tPP11~"1r.
~ ~1"\:Jr:E
':'V
fo
r~~,
~"'"'r:::
.:;t.u
r rA
cE
8 (2
:) '-
__
.;'
I -
H
CH
AI
•H
' I
-----
CR
ITIC
AL
-
MA
JOR
MIN
OR
G)
TIO
N
OF
S
(WR
43
A)
·,,
' -~ . ..-
-:
\ ~
"'\
; "'
I
I ;-~PUJ;
' I
I 1
;.
I .J
J
/
~Ill!___
. ~~~OJ-
LJ
I I
. I
. \
. '
I '
®
((~
\2)
.~ -
~-
.....
~
__
l
~
~
UN
LE
SS
O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
IFIE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
f D
RA
WIN
G
IOL
lRA
NlE
S
UN
O
l(IM
AL
,
Fig
ure
A3
.,
:LT
RI
,rze;
;o;;,
~
i ~
----
... ~-
-----t
·-·-
~
IC 2.
2?
s 5
I(_
L 0
su
p [
5 !C
::'?
9~..
..:.
J B
.:..
ND
4-iD
22
37
3J S
rBO
T
-::)
I c
'O
;., 9
7 ;:'
I r'o.i f' c.
~
~
-L..
_
---'
......
. ~...
.-
I c.
ft· ·
-"1
5-:
::o
.IB
' ~y
r"
t -
~
_.~u
: ID
2.2
'3::
4i
VE
NT
. Fir~::
iTE
M j
e
AR
T
r..Jc
"'
o.
l T
iTL
E
P/\
RT
S
LiS
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H C
OR
PO
I .
I,
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
V
fRM
ON
T
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P ~ :~
·• AP
R 77
T
ES
T
SL
UG
'\
<:::.:
:::..'
MA
T[R
IAL
C
HK
I
~-->
EN
GP
-. ..
• \.
! ;
....
....
.. !l
(V
ENT
FIN
-R
EA
R 5
?
TfS
T
SL
UC
..
HlA
T
TR
EA
TM
lNI
SU
HM
II T
ED
.
F'I
NA
L
e-
1ss
""""
S
IZE
I COD
E I
DE
NT
NO
I ~
-N
EX
T A
SS
Y
US
ED
ON
fi
NA
L
PR
O!(
CT
IV[
fiN
ISH
. A
PP
RO
VlD
C
3
0 4
7 B
l.
2 2
'::.)
, r:
AP
PL
ICA
T!O
N
SC
ALE
1
/4
IS
HEE
}(
I I ' ' ! .
'fl)T(~
f--'
\.
0
N
I I '
• A
PPLY
1
L~'JH
C"'..A.Tt~r.
r"lF
C:!
LlC
Ott
[ '"
,PfA
.<.,(
, .. tl-C-(1~~7. '~
T.I.
.P~I
lfO
')u;~r A
C£ ~r
: ~r ..
j .
Po
t '1
A
YIJ
1 'i
) T
lt.
;,AT;~,,
-:r :H~
').
"'[4
T !"~"
'. !'
i B1lLt~r,
.. A
:-ft
l cl
"\o
1'1
:;-8
:J .
. l'iV
7£J
~0)!
"·1:
1 ·n
I~'!T.\L-
Li~!r"ft
;'i')T
.\:_:
_ :~E ..
s
,, ~PO~Y:.,r:
~ r"
o:£
'WER
:~s
£-.T
:f;l£
P£
AOJ
n.c
£.
CD
\
Fig
ure
A4
\
(0
/4S
. 7
S,
CH
AR
AC
TE
S
(WR
43
A)
CLASS,~ION
OF
CR
ITIC
AL
-
MA
JO
R
MIN
OR
0 \ \
\
® \ \ e
- -~~~ ------
~ \\
\
~--- I
(7.3~7Z)
---+
----
--+
-
j
' ' ---
UN
LE
SS
O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
ifiE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
DI~ENSIONS
AR
E
IN
INC
HE
S
Of
DR
AW
ING
IQL
[RA
NC
[5 O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
;/:_
,,,__
{
G
!CZ
23
::o
6
C L
05
UR
E
c::
DL'~374!-B.A.ND
~
4 ID
22
37
-3
SA
BO
T
3 jC
22
97
2
f·JO
S E
2 C
22
37
1
BO
DY
I
D2
29
S4
. V
E:N
i.
,-:I
N
3
ITE
M
PA
.?-.
T
TIT
LE
·~ /
'
""-\•
:) ·~
.=>
AR
1S
L
l S
T
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
~-
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
V
ER
MO
NT
0
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P
.... ~ .
-4~ ..
~-'-
~" S.AP~ 7
7 T
ES
T
SL
UG
AS~Y
MA
T[
RIA
L
CH
K
EN
GR
:..;
C-
"'.A
..J<:
(V
EN
T F
IN-
I !
A~o
k :
I C
NT
R 5
;-\1
TE
ST
S
LU
/4
SU
8M
IT1
£0
'
. H
EA
T
T'
£A '
ME
N!
FIN
AL
.~
·-1
5'5
,..
,""
SllE
I CODE
ID
EN
T N
O.,
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
fiN
Al
PR
OT
£C
l1V
l fi
NIS
H.
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
3
04
76
C
22
97
f>
AP
PL
ICA
TIO
N
SC
ALE
1
/4
f S
HE
ET
-
_,
0 c 8 ·I
• 8
NO
TE
:'>
: 1.
A
N:'
>I
Yl4
.5 -
73
~
A2
.00
<0
2.
,AP
Pc_
Y
Z.
AL
L
HO
LE
'S
TO
B
E
PE
RP
EN
DIC
UL
AR
T
O
EX
TE
RN
AL
S
UR
FA
CE
.
7 6
tO
Z '3
~
8 S
Ob
--
<0
.71
8
i -
s.o
zs
f-.--
3.4
87
I ~ 2.0
7~
• !'i
CL
A5
51
fiC
AT
I0k
O
f C
HA
IUC
T[R
rS
TIC
S
(WR
.lA
J
CR
ITIC
AL
-
WA
JC>f
"
!2
::e
,J
...... I
4 3
'3'=
!5 .
.. 0
10
li3
MA
X.
• 2
R£
\II,
IOH
,
LT
• O
E SCAr~>TION
-4.2
.5 -
!Zu
N-Z
A
LE
FT
H
AN
D
4 2
4e
O-
.01
14
M
AJO
R
DIA
4.l
'l3
':)-.0
0.0
5 P
iTC
H D
li'
4 1
4 5
8 M
AX
lv
1!N
OR
D
IA
"o· -
. '
' \
·j
OA
'
.78
7 ~--;
i I
~ ,. ·,,
I~
~ '~...l_
_); +--~
(2
.40
0¢
)
~
l 2..
00
01
/J
HO
LE
C
HA
RT
LT
RIG
TY
I D
l.A
!.
01
s
A
., 8
75
B
" 1
.00
0
c "
1.1
2.5
D
.c.
1.2
.50
E
2~
1.-4~8
(SE
E N
OT
E
2.)
----·
Fig
ure
A5
coo·
'~
(4 '
lZ<O
;:>)
I I •J
I /
·-.''l
4o~.oo
3o r
~~y
I T
AP
ER
C
N
DJ
A
P£
P
r--1..
INC
H O
F
LE
NG
TH
.)1
;,8
2 "-.0
03
0
TA
PE
R G
N D
IAP
ER
IN
CH
O
F L
EN
GT
H
I' 18
"3-
05
1
L -(4
48
,:,)----·
i i -j
· 4
.!4
'2>
-.o
z.
J4~1>.,..oz.
~>ECTION A
A
i ~--------------
-· !
4 0
2 -
.04
--
1
"
""N
O
0 2
z. 9
5 4
U
"l.
{'!i
S
QIH
IIIW
>S
( S
l"fC
ifi(
O
O•W
tfii
iSIO
IIS
U
f '"
11
111(
1"1{
1 S
PA
CE
RE
SE
AR
CH
CO
R
'0L
[IIA
MC
.IS
0,.
O
lCrl
llil
lS
JI;
Q.l
H
Tlt
QY
Y
tltl
lfO
HT
AH
(OL
lS t.
o•
)0')
1..
;.
_,.
. !
"03
0 h~~.:t;c:;::!:__..._;_:_~r:=.:...:..:====----
I I
I"'"""
' A
LU
MIN
UM
7
::>
75
Tb
I ;:
~. I
I I
CL
l.<
=,-
,.')
~rt~,..
;.._..
..-C,
!t
HA
I ii
iUU
I(Ii
tt
L ll
_ -l1
h
.'3 ·1~5MM
Nt:
O ~SSl
I \J
SE
D O
H
\f•l
"lf.
l P
lt(I
I(C
11
\j(
ftl!
li~H
AP
Ptt
CA
ltO
N
4 3
S.U
IIII
f•TH
O
"""•
ovto
2
VE
NT
ILA
TE
D
FIN
B
DZ
Z5
D
c ,_.
'-.0 _.,.
B
A
• 8
NO
T(S
I.
A
NS
I Y
l4 5
-/3
~
AZ
OO
(.Z
. A
PP
c.Y
Z
. A
LL
H
OL
E'S
T
O
BE
P
fRP
EN
DIC
lJL
AP
T
O
tXT
ER
NA
L
SU
RF
AC
E.
7 6
10
z
'3 ~
5 S
Ob
<0
.71
8
5.0
25
----
...,
3.4
67
• 5
4 3
12
co
1
..... I
~~5
.. 0
10
////'
18
I\
1A
"'
I I : I
~----;=====I
I '
_ __
__
.L _
__
_ _
.G S
-4 -
.11
9
Fig
ure
A6
II'/
li
I i -
r--
1"8
2 "
.00
30
T
AP
ER
C
N D
IA P~R
INC
H
OF
L
EN
GT
H
l .,
.4
70
0 'l
ll
·/~
r I
.1.,
4..
,: .0
03
0
TA
PE
R
ON
D
tA
PE
P
INC
H
OF
L
EN
GT
H
I i liB":t
-C
SI
-(4
4
8.;
) ----
1 I
--1
4 0
2-.0
4
......
.,
. 4
_1
41
)-oz
.
}4~'1JT0'2.
UJ
IId
\S Q
IHII
I•t!)( !)
P.\
(lfl
(t)
0•11
111"
$10)
11\ lll
Ill
IH
(H(\
'Ol(IIUI(.(~Qit
0(C
.II•
Ut\
. "'"
" ~
0)0
U
(;l(
S t
. 0
• )0
'
IIU
I(II
L.I
tl
AL
UM
INU
M 7
?7
5T
b
H(A
I ll
lfo
\11
11
( Jl
lf
I !lU
I I"
IIQ
I((Ia
(
t•fi
ii!,
H
•
.-
4.Z
S -1
2.U
N-
2A
L
EF
T
Hi'<
ND
4 Z
4e
O-
Ott
4 M
AJO
R
DIA
4.1
":1
39
-o
o.;
,SP
ITC
HD
IA
4 1
4 5
6
MA
::<
-lt>~••OR D
IA
.,. \ \
"-C
" -
.
10
0"
~£CTION A
A
"'' •
o 0
2 2.
'3 5
4-
0ih
t;.I
IUl
OA
f(
o• •
•••"
"
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RF
(J
r. ..
/ '·
t
J )
IIO
IIH
fi
ll O
f 'f
'( I
I IIIQ
I'Oif
-:.~ e
:~~:
r· .. ,!
, .. c
;.
VE
NT
ILA
TE
D F
IN()
(
S.U
I!It
oHII
lO
.lii'I
I'IIO
vfO
,,
D
- c >-
-' <.
.0 (J
1
--+
B
- A :I I . • I ...
....
• 8
I N
OT
ES
A
N S
I
Y·l
~
S -
7 3
~ A
2
_0
01
02
. -"P
PL
Y
C. M
AC
HIN
£
C£
NT
(R
P£R>.ii~SIBL(
.30
U
Al
DE
EP
.
7 I
6 I
• !5
J. C
LA
1S
IFIC
.lfi
0N
O
F
CH
AR
AC
T[R
i'!T
!CS
(.,R4~A)
CR
ITIC
Al-
MAJ~
-
III.
IMO
fil
-
18
':
.C.-
r::4
• 4
I 3
I 2
I IH
V1
51
0H
'$
l.Tfl:l
Ot:~CRIP'no...
( o.
t.
..l
;~fl"l2:A~~Cl""Ttll
loO
.J:
-·.
'3
'3
5"
t-0
10
.It,
) /'v
1 A
X
i i I. . -
-;_
:4].:
C.C
.3.)
---
.14
00
!;.0
03
0
~~·;f_
R :_
:N
D•A
P
ER
IT A
p
E R
C
N
D I
A
p c
H
.:::;
,-'-
E r<
::. T
H
NC
H
()F
c
R
LE
NG
TH
.5
10
10
-1
03
-
.. ~-
i il
r7~~--
---r--
~--~--
----~-
-~~~~-
------
------
---~~-
------
---~
.. .
-/<
-?/
•. /
/_./
//1
//
///_
'//·
/•
..
--+~---
------
---
I '
-~
(woo
<f)J
j' !
---
_ l"
oo
ol
!• '<
¢-m
! '
! i
<9 "
' ~'"
I '
I "'0
'"'
: I
'
i I
I I
I I
r---
----
' ----
.·.s
.oo
J)-----
1.0
5-.
10
----
'7
.04
3 .
... 2
8(:
,
UJ
H(5
,5
QIH
(IIY
I'IS
( V
l(!II(Q
0
1W
f,.!
.I0
"'S
A
llf
10•
IIII
(H(5
IOlf
ltA
NC
IS Q
N
0((
1W
AL
5
AH
Gll
~
IIIA
I(A
I.I.
L
Fig
ure
A7
AL
UM
INU
M 7
07
5T
b
~ [
'• T
~ 1
.. v
t..
Ml.1
.1
lSti
.lo
l'lt
f;"
\
CZ
Z?
J7
M
19
1
55
M"
"'
MD
T A
Ssv
1
us
ro O
M
''"
'4L
P
ltO
fEC
IIY
f f1
IUS
"
AP
Pti
(.I.
IIO
N
.. ~
A
T
7
··, _r
Qlt
iC.I
M"
'l
0A
I(
Of
Qlt
AII
I'IN
C.
--4
Z
5-IC
.UN
-2
A L
EF
T
HA
r-.
4.2
.48
(;-
01
14
-M
AJO
R
Dl
4 _
1'3
3-;
,-.0
0<
.5
PIT
CH
D
11
4.1
45
5
MA
X
MIN
QR
D
l
"" •
o
D 2
. 2 "3
'S 7
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
R
:· f
"{/_
,.._
j J,•
J 7
; I'
IQIU
H
HtO
f Y
fUII
OI'
f
P•t
" ~ ...
l,....
......
.. ~::
...... ...,}
S
OL
ID
FIN
B
C
'"'
PH
:; II
'L
...
J<
':4
•("
)1
(C
[NT
ER
S
AE
w
•••n
fo
AJ
'Pit
0Y
(0
Sll
£ I COD
E IO
ENI
NO
I D
3
04
78
D
Z2
'3
SCA
Ll
I /1
T
.., I
• •
• y
~ -
CLASSI~ICATIOk
OF
,_
fVI1
10
N1
N
OT
ES
CH.a.R.tCT£••:~r•cs
!wR
4lA
I v
r11
Msc
1111,
.r1 o
,.
OJ
1 AN~I
Yl4
.5-7
3 ~
Cllti
TIC
AL
-..
r'tAOOlo(t...~•"''u..ouo
AZ
OO
bZ
A
PP
LY
. II
IAJO
it
-A
t>tl
CC
)
2..
t.IA
LH
I W
[ (( >
JTE
P.
..:"';
;;":.:
""::;
_-----
----
---1
PER>.ti~~IBLE
0 .:>
a ""
Al.
D
HP
----------·----
----
--~---
tB 5
2.-
04
·
-------·------·--·-·
--,
----
----
-~1Z
24
5
• Z:
:>E>
---
5.5
1-
OZ
. i
' I
' i
-.5
1-
0·2
. --<
----
-Z
7 M
Al'-
-----~-
1/3
MA
X
134~:: 0
03
0
· 1 .
I' ,
\ T
AP
FR
O
N D
IA
PE
R
; l I
: i
: '\
\IN
CH
O
F L
EN
GT
H
.OZ
., C
4
! l
: 1
~ ill
i _j_
.07
+.O
t
f
I \
t ' J
/ /
---~
--/ -
·.-/j
I --
,-l --
---r
l :
.02.
+.04
n~r
\ ~~-
! ;/
. //:
>' /
· ~
+
~.qB
¢-.02.
-I
. .
. /
! I
tc;
f .
// .
/ /
/.
I I
. I 5.
g z
cp -
0 2.
m
1 ~V/·/)
1 i4
.14
<1
l-O
Z
, ,
1 ·r
lz so
o!,
l)l
1 i
(z.4
ol,o
¢1~j
/
·l.-.U
R-.0
4
,..-
-..
.. -
---
I -
'&.7
4(1
)-.o
z.i
J
-"'
. .'<
-;-'\
I .
,. j
/ L
~ /
., ~
; ;
; 14 B
lot!
(1.0
00
¢)
®J
I
1.! r
~-i
5E
E>
JOT
EZ
. I
A
~-
i ~ ,
j ;_
/ -
--
\ '
1 I
'
I I
I i
' L
-.1
40
0!.0
d3
0
-n
~~
i 1
.05
-.1
0
TA
PE
R
Ot'
J D
IA
DE
R
·27
P
uZ..
I
9:J
5t-
OIO
~
-4
2
5-1
2U
.N_
-2A
R
!GH
T H
A
INC
H
OF
L
EN
GT
H
. •
4 2
48
0-0
11
4
MA
JO
R
D
./·f
4
19
39
-O
OG
5 P
ITC
H
:11
/./'
(5
.00
0)
4.1
45
8M
AX
MIN
0R
DI
S
91
3-F
OU
N -
2A
L
EtT
H
AN
D-·
5.9
77
3-0
15
0 I\
1A
JO
R
OIA
----
.;,_
.,4
3
t ze
"'
__
__
_ _
_j
C,.
89
(,1
-.0
Q9
1 P
ITcH
D
IA
5.8
2.3
'::)
f\
..-1
AX
M
IN
OR
D
IA
• ..,
•o
D
ZZ
3
5 B
U~'HlSS
Oh
•tlt
Wls
.( S
f{(t
fl(O
O
R•G
•HA
l O
"AT(
DtWI
~o!S
tOit
S ,U
(
lit
IIII
(HfS
O
f O
IUW
I .. G
S
PA
CE
RE
SE
AR
CH
GO
F 1
0ll
ltA
1tl
{S
Qh
C
((U
UlS
;}
p. .,
_./
/t1
1
NO
itiH
T
IIO
f 1
1'(
11
•0"1
o\l
tC.l
(S
••f•
.. -
),.~
:.
~M,U
II
""'"
"
'"'
SO
ID
"'
IN
B1
i F
igur
e AS
A
LU
MIN
UM
7
o7
sT
6
,.G
. <
... ,
•••
..
L I
·
~ .,
.t'"
ST
S
LV
H
(o\1
T
R(A
t•(P
OIT
so
t••T
ltO
I (
t. ~-=,
I 7
R
J 5
~....,
M
$ti
E I C
OD
E 1
D(N
l N
O I
I H
OT
A
SS
Y
US
(D O
N
''""l
fltO
I(C
itV
( fl
ltlS
H
.,.,
.OV
lO
D I
30
478
I D 2
2 ~
.H'PltCATIO~
SC
All
,
1
-···
· ..
. A
?
- .... -
Nc:n
::.
4 c::
-7
3
:~ y
. -
1 A
N::
,,
I CHA
;~~~~~
11II'I
~Ii)~:
~43A)
.CRITI
CAL-
, ~:
l 0
~~ ~:~~-~
~~~ N
-----~
MAJOR
-
/\r~00~2
AP
PL
Y.
iMINO
R -
-~ !
F ~ --
~
-----
I -3
·-~~~~~-
-',
C)
I -
.Ui"
.
51
-.....
. '2.
------
27
M
A;<
. ------+
-
.(,2
-t-
--~.
4 -~:-
1 '
I ~
·--':
-
__ 1_
.
II fi
----T---~
:I'
-·+
-.
-.
--
f !
1 I
I I
--
----~
!
----
----
--+
--~
. l
~ ~.--
_ _:r
_. I
II I
i I
I I
! I
I l-
T-
4.2
b.;
t:-
02
•:J7
t (j2
.
--r
4.t
41
--.
oz.
S .
'J 8
-
6 u
N
-2
A
L E.
F T
h
t"'-
5 'j7
73
-.0
t5
0 M
AJO
R[;
5.8
31
61
-.0
09
1
58
2.3
..7
MP
.X
PI
ICH
G
MIN
CR
D
5.'
:)8
(2)-
.02
. I I
.7 7
R
-·)
4
-
........
1.0
-....
) 3
.01
'/;-
.02
I
r I .Ll.
.. ---
~
--/--+
·
! r;-
_:,_)
----
-·-.
!
5.8
2 0
-.0
2
T
--..
-------+
-_,
I 4
.25
-IZ
.UN
-Z
A R
IGH
T
H
4 .;:
4 8
0 -
. 0
I 1
4
f\,l
A
J 0
R
D I
4
.13
39
-.0
QG
S
PIT
CH
D
l/'
4.1
45
8 M
A'A
'\
!11
NO
P.
DIP
4
2.5
-12
.tJN
-2.B
L
EF
T I
IA\'
.lfj
L
j 2
.50
c)
iv'liN
MA.J~1P,
DIA
Ll.
I 3
53
-t
00
3 5
P
IT C
1-1
D I
A
4.J
f,0
0 -
t-.:
:)1
80
M
INS
R D
IA
Fig
ure
A9
i !
---
--
. I f3
fv
l f,
'A
I ' I _
__
_ _
_._
I. 0
I -t
0
I
-------
3.')
3t.0
4--
'
./.'-:
:, M
f,
/.
.CJC
JS
-.0
10
PA
RT
N
O.
C 2
2 9
5 5
1-----~-+-------i'UNLfSS O
TH
ER
WIS
E
SP
EC
ifiE
D
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
F D
RA
WIN
G
t-------t--------1
TO
LE
RA
NC
ES
O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
~
;7
. , 1
1
' ,
1 fl/~<J:_
I '
7 1
AN
GLE
S
PR
EP
J->
<:::'. ~Jl6MA•<77
rHK
!M
AT
ER
IAL
. -·
I
I !A
LU
MIN
UM
70
75
Tf.
l E
NG
R I ~
_.L ...
. k
I~A·~,
.j S
UB
MIT
TE
D
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OR
N
OR
TH
T
RO
Y,
VE
RM
ON
T
C
CL
OS
UR
E.
HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
: 1-
----
::=-
-+-'
-=-=
-.;_
_:=.
;~
cob
E TD
ENT
No.
;.;.,;.;
:..;.;_~
;,;_..l.
._..::.:
:;=....:
:.;.:...
....jFIN
AL P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
F
INIS
H
AP
PR
OV
ED
3
04
7 8
c 2_
2 3
55
A
PP
LIC
AT
ION
S
CA
LE
: I /I
SH
EE
T
3 A
1-'
NOT.
/\N
SI
Yl4
.5
-7
3
t .-'\
::::
:ooc
,z
AP
PL
Y.
I. I ~ 4
~}--------~--
TA
PE
P.
ON
D
IA P
EP
ll'lC
H
OF
L
EN
GT
H
r T
+
I
[5.0
00·1
5]
4.2
C(j
..+
:.;z
.
~ js
. 7
oo
¢1
(4
.326
·7>)
J0
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
.50
0
MIN
M
AJ()R
C
li-
4.1
35
3-r.O
CS
S P
ITC
H[,
,/:.
,
4.
I G
0 0
+
. 0
I 8
0 /v
'l I f
'.l G
P
0 I
A
Fig
ure
AlO
CUI~.
'I I' IO
N
OF
CHAR
AC~~
I ~:S
(WR
43
A)
CR
ITIC
AL
-
iLT
RI
o·~~~;i;r·i~
.. -·--·-
·---M
AJO
R
-M
INO
R
-I
1--
______
_l I
l -
--1
;.__ _
__
__
_ 5
. S
I -.0
2
I 4
j(.,~ -.I
G3
--......;-.--~
'39
$+
01
0
r I.
··1 . 5
10 ~ -
. I 0
. ,
-r---j
.--r--· .
I 8
l'v1
A X
1 '-,
I ! I
I ".
, i
I "'·
-r--
-~
--
.77
R -.0
4 ~·
-=-=
--=-/r
/
' I /1
........
--
~
··--
-----
-r-(s
. 80
0 rz
))
4.14
0-oz
..
I
\. L
'\
-.1
5 M
!\j.
.
·--
--.0
1 +
Gi
-----3
.3
8 +
-.0
4
UN
LE
SS
OT
H.E
RW
IS[
SP
EC
ifiE
D
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
A
RE
_IN
IN
CH
£$
TO
LE
RA
NC
ES
ON
D
EC
IMA
LS
AN
GL
ES
MA
TE
RIA
L
\-4
.25
-1
2U
N:-
2A
L
[FT
H
AN
D
4.Z
.48
0-.0
11
4
Mi\
JO
R
DIA
4
.J"j3
'3-.0
0f>
5
PIT
CH
D
IA
4.1
45
8 M
AX
M
INO
R.
DIA
PA
RT
N
O. c
2 2.
'3 s
G
OR
IGIN
AL
D
AT
E
Of
DR
AW
ING
S
PA
CE
RE
SE
AR
CH
C
OR
PC
-
4
'12-t
t..f:.
/ "l 7
7
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
. V
ER
MO
NT
PR
EP
;;.:::~ :
'~MAR O
J C
LO
SU
.RE
C
HK
AL
UM
INU
M 7
07
5T
6
EN
GR
~
>
.. \, -:
1\ ~
.. n
(CE
NT
ER
S
AB
OT
T
E.S
/ S
LU
G,
HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
: S
UB
Mtn
ED
C2
C.'
?J7
6
8'-
ISS
M"-1
S
IZE
I COD
E I
DE
NT
NO.I
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
FIN
AL
P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
F
INIS
H:
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
3
04
78
C
cZ':
JS(:
~--
~PPLICATION
SC
ALE
: I
I I
!SH
E
3 A i
~-~,·
',i·
I l-
-
,_.
lD
lD
I.
f\.
1-.J
":__
'( I
4
. 5
-7
3 .$.
A
20
0G
Z.
AP
PL
Y.
l- 1 i I I
S.B
t¢-.0
2
4.0
'3¢
+.0
2.
Fig
ure
A 11
/
__ .. ,,.
_ '"
....
... . I
CL
AS
S'
-IO
N
OF
C
HA
RA
CT
E
S
(WR
43
A)
._--
r---
-·. -·
-· -· ..
. ~-----
LT
R
Dl
;(:11
I'
'I
( N
CR
ITIC
AL
-
'-4
AJO
R
-M
INO
R
-
1.0
2 -
t-.0
2
2.
PL
AC
ES
i
. --·-·
·---··
----
.18
M
AX
----
2 P
LA
CE
"::l
__., r-
-----r .
0
5 -t
. 0
I
I I
2 P
LA
CE
S
/~\ ____;.nt;j~t~d
_\ l_
jd
-~I
t i
4.Z
.f>
IJ;;
-.0
2.
2 P
LA
CE
'::,
r-L,--
-j '~
\ //.
/ ....
I /
/ ,. !
4.2
5 -
IZ.U
N -
2B
P
-IG
HT
H
2
PL
AC
ES
I 'I
......
1-----------
21
. 5
3-.0
G
4.~500
MIN
M
AJO
R D
l 4
.13
5':
?-+
.00
85
P
ITC
H
C
4.1
16
00
-t-
.01
80
M
lt'-
.IO
R
[
PA
RT
N
O.
c 2
z '3
5 9
U
NL
ES
S O
TH
ER
WIS
E S
PE
Cif
iED
O
RIG
INA
L
OA
TE
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
F D
RA
WIN
G
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RP
OI
TO
LE
RA
NC
ES
ON
D
EC
IMA
LS
';
.'a
t·._
( ..
.;-,
7
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
. V
ER
MO
NT
AN
GL
ES
P
RE
P ~:~
)I MAR~,
MA
TE
RIA
L:
CH
K
·BO
DY
S
TE
EL
A
IS
I 4
14
0
EN
GR
.;:
~-...
. k
.'::
:>A.
-~ ~1 I
c 2
2.<
)75
lE
ST
S
'LU
C.,
H
EA
T
TR
EA
TM
EN
T:·
S
UB
MIT
IED
c 2
2'?
'!7
7
B"-
15
5M
M
NO
RM
AL
IZE
D
SIZ
E I CO
DE
ID
EN
T N
O.,
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
FIN
AL
P
RO
TE
CT
IVE
F
INIS
H:
AP
PR
OV
ED
C
3
04
78
C2.2.95~
AP
DciC
.AT
I(lN
S
OL
E
. :
ISH
EE
. ·---
D
- I IC r ~
B
-i
AI il N
0 0
• 8
I N
OT
(5
I A
NS
I Y
l-4
.5
-''3
e
AZ
OO
<O
Z.
AP
PL
Y.
Fig
ure
Al2
......
...
1 ..
7 I
6 I
----s.o
o.:
..o
z..
4
S1
-.
.,:)
2
'j j-
0?
. 2
7 1'
...1
;\ ,
( -.:;;-
I l
c
5
• J. C
LA
SS
tFtC
.t.T
IOH
O
F
CH
.t.I
UC
T£
RtS
TIC
S
l W
lt4
3A
)
4
Co
lttT
K:A
L-
11
6.t
.Jo
-
... .
. 0«
-
21
53
-0
b
07
t
oz
'-5
.')
8-g
uN
-Z
A
".-E
FT
H
AN
D
5 9
77
"3
-•:
l1S
O
MA
"O
P.
DIA
5 8
'l<
OI-
::;0
'31
P
ITC
H D
IA
5.B
2.3
9
L-1
AJ-.
M
•N
G8
U
IA
I 3
I
1.0
2 ~
02
2
PL
AC
ES
UN
ltsS
O
TW
(II.
,IS
l S
r[C
tft(
O
OII
U'i
"U.l
O
AI(
O•kf,.~tO•U
All
f IJO
I "'C
ttfS
O
f O
II'A
WIN
(;
!Ol(
IIA
,..C
B O
N O
((tt
UtS
~-
/Jy-
,d
-NG
llS
P
liO
' k:
"' '?
"'-...
-
~"'~\!'Elf:L AI
S\~1
40
'"'
!"-G
il
~r:.-•
c l ~~ 7
.;,
""(tT
;;
._v
~p.T
lii{
AtM
{"1
su
e~r~
~•nE
o
..: .:
:'")7
R
f3
. ,, ~ --
NO
RM
,Ii>
..L
ir.E
D
NE
XT
A
SS
Y
US
ED
OH
ft
N.t
l jO
II'Q
T(C
TIY
( fi
NIS
H
A,.
P11
0Vl0
APPU(AltO~
4 d
I ~
r
2
LT•
i I
/~
~·
I II
I:('
V't
SIO
H1
[)(I
CII
't ..
HO
..
4.2
b<
;Z)-
.02
. 2.
P
LA
CE
':>
0A
1
.... •
O
D 2
2 9
71
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H C
OR
I
q 7
/ N
OII
tfM
fl
tOY
. Y
fiii
iiO
IIJ
"""A
oll
1}
BO
DY
:
... -.-...
(C
EN
TE
R ~AB
jSi
[rO
O£
lD
llf
HOl
D
3047
8 D
2.Z
9
SCA
L£
I I
I
,., T
i .. I I I I I I
N
0 1-'
NO
TE
S.
I A
r-1
_
Y
I 4.
5 -
7 3
~
CH
AI
,.(;
1 I
1'
1 ~ 11
"' I
w,;
·43
.A)
CR
ITIC
'A"L
'='"
··--
----··
~~
---
MA
JO
R
-~
~~--
----
----
:MIN
OR
--
----
---<
• ·--.
. .. ·
-----· .
~ill ~l~
Ac-:
::::
00
2.
AP
PL
Y
---
~----------------------~-----L--
2. 7
7-.
04
l
T-
,
4 J4
'f)-
02
.
4.Z
S-1
2_
UN
-2
A
P.I
GH
T
HA
ND
4 Z
"'!
B0
-.0
11
4
MA
JO
R
[)lA
4 1
'33
3-.0
06
5
PiT
CH
D
IA
/1 _
_ /I
-'L
14
5B
l'v1
AX
. M
IN::
JP
, D
IA
I I .1
8
fVlA
X
. ·
..._.
._
1.0
1 -.o
z. _L~
Fig
ure
Al3
C
22
97
"")
CZ
2.c
:J7
f,
( T
esT
>
cue
..
CZ
2.'
?1
7\
8''-
15
'5"1
1\1
1
c 2
.2.9
78
)
NE
XT
AS
SY
U
SE
D O
N
AP
PLI
CA
TIO
N
~
T '3
'30
'P -
.oo
s
r il-
_._!1 ~
~~-
I .0
5-t-
.02
. Z..
P
LA
CE
S
PA
RT
N
O c
Z Z
3 7
2_
!JN
LE
SS
OT
HE
RW
ISE
S
PE
CIF
IED
O
RIG
INA
L
DA
TE
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
A
RE
IN
IN
CH
ES
O
f O
R.I
.WIN
G
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H C
OR
PO
RA
I
TO
LE
R"-
NC
ES
O
N
DE
CIM
AL
S
::)
_ f-:
1,( i
I 7
7
NO
RT
H
TR
OY
. V
ER
MO
NT
os
a A
NG
LE
S
PR
EP
k"·~
)I M
AR
77
MA
TE
RIA
L:
CH
K
NO
SE
M
IL
D
ST
E.E
L
EN
GR
"·
. L
.,_.,,
J..
r.; A
. t"-
·r -,
HE
AT
T
RE
AT
ME
NT
: S
UB
MIT
TE
D
SJZ
El C
OD
E I
DE
NT
NO
.I F
INA
L
PR
OT
EC
TIV
E F
INIS
H:
AP
PR
OV
ED
c
30
47
6 c
22
37
2..
S
CA
LE: I/ I
!S
HE
ET
I
' ',...
. ~.
A
• 8
1 7
NOT~~:
I.
AN
SI
Yl"
\ ":
)-7
3
i! A
ZO
O<
OZ
A
PP
c.Y
.
0 - c -+
B - A
•
N
0 N
(7.1
8"-
¢)
1.. ....
R
.QZ
R +
.01
z
PL
AC
E'S
VIE
W
A
SC
AL
E:
10
/ I
03
5P
-0
1
2 P
LA
CE
S
Fig
ure
Al4
I 7
I 1 6
I ~
• +
CL
A!!
IFIC
AT
ION
O
f'
CH
A,I
UC
T£
Rt!
TIC
S!
WR
43A
.I
Clt
!TIC
AL
-
4
I MA"
"' -
----------i
a.. .
. (W
t - ~
-3~8-.0~ ---
I ·-. -z '
:>':
>~ o
z -
--j
2..
04
0-t
-o
zo
.
I -'
I
·~ 1
I H
SQ
+
o
zo
----
I .
l I
i '
li I
~
' -
-~
.--
/ ...
-~-'//
r
l 1
1 -·;
/·~//_
--///;
/ j
I t
~ /~
<-~~
/-/
.; ~/
~-~//--
i I
;
(7so
oa
l) I
!
7 zsr;
;-.o
l
17 .,L
¢1 I
!11 3~
o¢j
i I
I .
l i l
~ j__
VIE
W A
-
' I
-----1
--
/ /
/
"
Lj.
Z.I
GZ
\ T
AP
EP
O
N D
IA
PE
R
IN(I
-1
0F
· t-
EN
GT
H
\
05
. 0
2.
I ! i I
3
7.9
'30
0 -
.00
5
I u
•
-5
.9
8 -
BU
N -
25
L
EF
T H
AN
D
5.9
80
M
IN
MA
JO
R
DIA
5.8~58 +
0
11
'3 P
ITC
H
:)lA
. 5
.8
45
+
.02
5 M
INO
R D
IA
\.l'l"
l iS
S 0
1'1'
\ II
WIS
t S
l't:
Cif
1{
0 O
•WI
NS
JON
\ A
lii
I"' I"
CM
£!.
TO~C(S 0
N0
Ieo
lll4
l:O
Qll
lG.I
I'O
I&.l
0
Al(
01
OltA
Wtli
oiG
•• 2
J .I
I'(Y
I!IO
H!
0(1C"I~T!OI!I
~.i
... ,
•o
D
Z Z
~7 3
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
RI
NO
IIIM
II
IQY
W
fiiW
QN
I
AH
Cl(
'i
~ .. 1
.
Pll
!l'
L~-).-~
.,,,
,..'
f!7
SA
BO
T
'"'
· ..
. --~ 7
07
(, T~
'"'I
..IJ
fV1
11
"U
I'
f'7~~.++---..-jl'l'(il.l
llt(
AII
II(,
.I
N(X
T
AS
ST
U
S£
0 O
N
fiP
Ul
riiiO
UC
TJY
l fi
,.IS
H
AP
Pt
1( .
. , •v•~
h l
5 -+
4
T
3 T
2
I
D - c ... B
- A i ! • I
• •
• 8
7 6
3 2
NO
Tf:
"S:
/. AN~I
Yl-
45
·7:3
~A2.00<0Z
AP
"'L
Y.
N
0 w
l r 30+.
02
.
.OZR
+.Di
~-.07
R-.OZ
. l_
/'
/
.
. 07
-.0
,rlJ
L %...:.~
.43
+.0
2.
.18
M
AX
8
VIE
W
A
SC
AL
E:
2./
1
Fig
ure
A15
T
r c::
-11
tf:'Y
1,10
1o1S
C>
L f.
. 0
[ S
Co
lttl
"fiO
IIII
cn
rK:A
L
1111
.4-J
()jlt
-
llll
llli
fo.t
- ~
2 3
1-
oz.
--
----
__...
...!_
I ~3-
02
.
-, I
5':
/2.
.... ..
)4
0
i -~
I'
: I
i !
)
3 I
3 .t-
G4
0
~ r
fFRl
'
r :
,
I I
II I
! I
I (7
. '"
"¢)
I 7
.8"1
(1)-
.oz
/ /7
z~s<;
~>j
i !
7.2
.Gf/
>•
02
.
I~
VIE
W
A..
.../
: '
I i
I I
F5Q
OP
J I
(7S
70
0)
\_~TAPER
ON
D
IA
PE
R
INC
H O
F
LE
NG
TH
DIA
DIA
7
84
57
f'
vlA
JI..
. M
INO
P
DIA
"'' •
o 0
2 Z
'3 7
4
o.
1---
-+----1~~:!!.~~~~,·;:·~~ ~:
~~·:~[0
~:~~
~~~\
,.0;
'[
SP
AC
E R
ES
EA
RC
H
CO
R
A
toll
a.u
.cu
, O
N OLCUU.l~
'...:•
,,
,uo
Glf
S
Pll!fPV.~~
1 ~P"1
~ ....
... ,
j'"'
I I
I lc
zzffiit~r3LC P
__ O
LY
PP
OP
YL
EN
E
IHG
R
....
. u
k
,h,.
.,,
r U
~
"" -
SU
& ..
In(O
H
(AI
fJI(
AI
.. (
NI
c. 2
2"
1 . .,-
NE
XT
A
SS
Y
III!
IAl
I'R
Qil
CT
I\1
( fi
NIS
"
APf
i'II!
OV
lO
~OIH"
fltO
Y
'If
IUIQ
NT
DR
.IV
JI'
J(,
B
Ar