Agard Flight Test Technique Series Volume 6 Airdrop Testing Techniques and Devices
Agard Flight Test Technique Series Volume 6 Airdrop Testing Techniques and Devices
Agard Flight Test Technique Series Volume 6 Airdrop Testing Techniques and Devices
VO Aw
two
~lrr4 "~4~r t
4l Vm4 gr "I
~~~.b ~ 2jf>lc' 4 D ;
'ECT4 10 . IIPORNTiflVM
.",\ M
4'~ 4DEC
ov4
; ~ ~. . 4 ~ 4
4 r T4 ,s* 4 .. 4. 4. -
AGARD-AG-300-Vol.6
AND DEVICES
by
HJ.Hunter
A Volume of the
' CRA&I
AGARD FLIGHT TEST TECHNIQUES SERIES ','q
Edited by -,
RX.Bogue
• .. , . . ... .... --- - ---
i-i
•)• ll 10 Ole I!
Sii
Ji4
S~This
AGARDograph has been sPensored by the Flight MWchanics Panel of AGARD.
THE MISSION OF AGARD
The mission of AGARD is to bring together the leading personalities of the NATO nations in the fields of science and
* technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes:
- Conunuously stimulating advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening the common defence posture;
- Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development;
- Providing scientific and technical advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospace research
and development (with particular regard to its military application);
- Rendering scientific and techtnical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies and to member nations in
connection with research and development problems in the aerospace field;
- Providing assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential;
- Recommending effective ways for the member nations to use their research and development capabilities for the
common benefit of the NATO community.
The highest authority within AGARD is the National Delegates Boar1 consisting of officially appointed senior
representatives from each member nation. The mission of AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are composed of
experts appointed by the National Delegates, the Consultant and Exchange Programme and the Aerospace Applications
Studies Programme. The results of AGARD work are reported to the member nations and the NATO Authorities through
the AGARD series of publications of which this is one.
Participation in AGARD activities is by invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NATO nations.
ISBN 92-835-1559-5
L.I
PREFACE
Since its founding in 1952, the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development has published, through the
Flight Mechanics Pan.l, a number of standard texts in thi field of flight testing. The original Flight Test Manual was
published in the years 1954 to 1956. The Manual was divided into four volumes: 1.Performance, HI.Stability and Control,
[]. Instrumentation Catalog, and IV. Instrumentation Systems.
As a result of developments in the field of flight test instrumentation, the Flight Test Instrumentation Group of the
Flight Mechl'nics Panel was established in 1968 to update Volumes III and IV of the Flight Test Manual by the publication of
the Flight Test Instrumentation Series, AGARDograph 160. In its published volumes AGARDograph 160 has covered
recent developments in flight test instrumentation.
In 1978, the Flight Mechanics Panel decided that further specialist monographs should be published covering aspects
of Volume I and Hof the original Flight Test Manual, including the flight testing of aircraft systems. In March 198 1, the
Flight Test Techniques Group was established to carry out this task. The monographs of this Series (with the exception of
AG 237 which was separately numbered) are being published as individually numbered volumes of AGARDograph 300. At
the end of each volume of AGARDograph 300 two general Annexes are printed; Annex I provides a list of the volumes
published in the Flight test Instrumentation Series and in the Flight Test Techniques Series. Annex 2 contains a list of
handbooks that are available on a variety of flight test subjects, not necessarily related to the contents of the volume
concerned.
Special thanks and appreciation are extended to Mr F.N.Stoliker (US), who chaired the Group for two years from its
inception in 1981 and established the grourod rules for the operation of the Group.
The Group wishes to acknowledge the many contributions of EJ.(Ted) Bull (UK), who passed away in January 1987.
In the preparation of the present volume the members of the Flight Test Techniques Group listed below have taken an
active part. AGARD has been most fortunate in finding these competent people willing to contribute their knowledge and
time in the preparation of this volume.
CEADOLPH, AFFTC/US
Member, Flight Mechanics Panel
Chairman, Flight Test
Techniques Group.
I
A
Hi1
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ill
SUMMARY
I INTRODUCTION
2 TEST PLANNING 2
2.1 Carg Arra Airdrop Test PIonmni 2
2.2 Desip and Function olCume Parachute Systems for Carp Airdrop Testing 15
2.3 Deasi and Function ofSpecial Hazard Reducing Interface Hardware 27
2.4 Tea Instrumentation hr Caro Airdrops 34
2.5 SImulatimn Systema 39
2.6 Safety Con•iderations In Developmental Airdrop Test Planning 39
3 TEST CONDUCTING 41
3.1 Groumnd Test/Checkouts 42
3.2 Scenario dan R a D Extraction Chute Test 47
3.3 Aircraft Handling Qualities 48
3.4 Special Piloting Techliques for R a D Airdrop Tests 50
4 TEST REPORTING 52
4.1 Post Filht BrienKan 53
4.2 Formal Reports 53
REFERENCES 55
APPENDICES
iIV
r
LIST o0 SUSOLI
2 2
A Area, general (ft or in )
(CDS)Op Drag area of the aerodynamic deceler *tor, baaed on either total surface (nomi-
nal) or projected (inflated) area (ft ).
2
(CDS)R Drag area of a reefed canopy (ft)
DRo Diameter of reefing line of fully inflated canopy (equivalent to D') (ft)
h Height or altitude
LR Length of reefing line (ft or in)
__........4
v
T Temperature, general (*F or "R)
t Time, general
X Opening-shock factor denoting the relationship between maximum opening force and
constant drag force (-Fo/Fc)
3
p Air Density (alugs/ft )
GLOSSARY OF TROSW
Container, Air Drop A container designed for the purpose of dropping equipment and
supplies by parachute. It may or may not incorporate a suspen-
sion harness.
Disconnect, Ground A device that instantaneously releases the canopy from the
suspended load upon ground contact. Also called a ground release
device.
Force, Snatch A force of short duration that is imposed by the sudden accelera-
tion of the canopy mass at the instant of complete extension of
the suspension lines or similar components of a parachute system
prior to inflation of the canopy.
High Velocity Drop Air delivery of supplies or equipment from an aircraft in flight
where the rate of descent exceeds that of "standard (low velocity
drops) but is less than terminal velocity (free fall).
Line, Reefing A length of cord or line passed thru rings on the skirt of the
canopy to delay or control the opening of the canopy.
Line, Static A line, cable, or webbing, one end of which is fastened to the
pack, canopy, deployment bag, and the other to some part of the
launching vehicle. It is used to open a pack or deploy a canopy.
Vii
AGARDograph No. 366 Vol V1
DRVRLOPMRNTAL AIRDROP tESTING TECHNIQUES AND DEVICES
by
Henry J. Hunter
Air ForV4 Flight Teat Center
Idwards Air Force Base, California 93523
This volume in the AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series deals with the practical
aspects of planning, conducting and reporting on developmental airdrop tests made from
cargo transport type aircraft. typical cargo aircraft Aerial Delivery systems, parachtte
extraction systems and special devices and rigging techniques are described in detail.
typical instrumentation systems for obtaining aircraft and parachute systems force data
are also described and piloting techniques for various airdrop methods are briefly dis-
cussed. The author also uses a scenario of a typical parachute Tow test to demonstrate
the application of these techniques end the use of challenge and response checklists
among the flight crewmsmbers. Finally the use of reports are discussed and appendices
are included with many useful charts and calculations that are readily applicable in
research and development (R&D) airdrop testing.
I INTRODUCTION
Airdrop testing techniques and devices are those specialized procedures, methods
and hardware developed for use in developmental airdrop testing. Airdrop as addressed in
this volume will embody the concept of using parachute systems for aerial delivery of
supplies and equipment, ultimately designed for use in combat situations although many of
the techniques and hardware are directly applicable to rescue work and other noncombatant
roles. Also if we consider airdrop testing in general to embody both the art and the
science of this broad field of endeavor, then techniques would make up the art, and the
volumes of theoretical research information, which itself is based to a very larg2 extent
on empirical data, would constitute the science of it. Application of sound, safe
airdrop testing techniques presupposes that the diligent test engineer, technician or
loadmaster has done his homework and researched some of these volumes of available
information gathered over the past 35 years, and which are amply referenced in this
document. The science of parachute/airdrop systems testing may be learned from these
voluminous works---the art, the testing techniques, can be acquired only by doing. This
volume tries to give the reader the benefit of experience gained by the author and other
test personnel in developmental airdrop testing over the past 36 years. During these
years these techniques have been successfully applied ,n thousands of developmental
airdrop test missions without serious injury to test personnel or extensive damage tn the
dirdrop aircraft.
Initial R&D airdrop testing of parachutes and aircraft aerial delivery systems
is an extremely demanding and unforgiving task. No eventuality of malfunctions may be
overlooked because contact between parachute systems or test vehicles and the airdrop
aircraft can cause serious damage or loss of the aircraft. It is serious business.
Therefore, a new parachute system must be airdrop tested under stringent safety con-
straints while continuing to duplicate those aspects such as size, weight, function,
rigging and flight conditions, of the final system as much as feasible. However, at no
time should the safety of test personnel or the flight safety of the airdrop aircraft be
jeopardized unnecessarily. In other words, it is imperative that the flight test program
be derigned to move in an orderly, controlled sequence from the least hazardous to the
most hazardous test, employing whatever hazard abating devices, equipment, facilities and
techniques that are available to the testing organization. Thir orderly progression is
in itself the fundamental technique upon which sound, safe, meaningful airdrop testing
must be based. Time and economy, though they are becoming increasingly constraining in
this business of R&D testing, must never be permitted to preempt safety considerations;
not through ignorance nor by design. And, therefore, those organizations which are
engaged in the early phases of R&D airdrop testing must have at their disposal the
resources, in the form of experienced personnel, and safety devices and techniques,
required for this type of testing. The extent to whi'h an organization can perform safe,
meaningful flight/ airdrop testing of parachutes and aircraft aerial delivery systems
will be driven by that organization's command of these resources.
LUt us then examine some of the types of aircraft and. airdrop testing techniques
which have bwzn used in the past 36 years in testing parachutes and cargo aircraft aerial
delivery systems for a great variety of applications. Keep in mind that we are looking
at initial R&D testing, and once a component or system has been initially tested and
determined to be functionally safe many of these safety devices and rigging techniques
may be discarded in the interest of timeliness or economy.
Airdrop testing is a broad subject and has gone through a substantial evolution
during the past 35 years. Some of the earlier cargo aircraft used in this work such as
the Fairchild C-119 Oflying Boxcar" and the British "Argosy* and "Beverly" have since
relinquished their role to the cu.rent generation of cargo aircr.ft. One of these, the
C-136 'Hercules', has been the mainstay of the developmental airdrop testing fleet for
2
the past 30 years and may welI continue in this role well into the 1919s. There are
other cargo airdrop aircraft which have boon used in developmental airdrop testinq over
the last 20 years and their use has helped in broadening the spectrum of airdrop capabi-
lities and fostered the development and ap.tication of new techniques to use the longer
cargo compartments and higher airdrop opeed capabilities of tnece aircraft. Notable
among these are the C-141 "ItarlifterO and the C-SA "Galaxy*, both of which went through
extensive developmental airdrop programs to demonstrate their capabilities. The C-141A
increased the maximum cargo load capacity from 42,060 pounds previously the limit of the
""9everly'! to 76,160 pounds. and raised the airdrop altitude limit to 20,666 feet in 1965,
when airdrops of 25,066 pound platforms were made at speeds up to 192 KIAS. In late 1965
a C-1362 aircraft was put through a rigorous airdrop capability program which
demonstrated a capability to airdrop platforms weighing up to 56.606 pounds each, (Ref
1.1 It was not until 1374 that an aircraft was able to better this capability. In the
Poll of that year, a C-SA aircraft was used to airdrop three simulated minuteman missiles
at weights of 86.066 pounds each and a live missile at the same weight rigged on a
special airdrop cradle/platform, extracted by parachute. In the 197'•s new airdrop
aircraft were testedi some went on to be produced in quantity, others like the YC-14 and
YC-15 were never put in production. The aircraft that were bought however, included the
"Tranoall" and the Aeritalia G-222. These are currently being used by the UK, the
Federal Republic of Germany, France, Belgium and Italy.
The evolution of the airdrop systems onboard these aircraft has progressed from
the basic fined-pin manually operated systems on the early C-13SA Hercules to the sophis-
ticated pressure lock rail systems found on the 0-222, Tranesll, C-13R, C-141A, and C-
5A. Three of these aircraft and their aerial delivery systems will be fully described
in this volume.
Airdrop techniques and special devices have also kept pace with the new air-
craft in the developmental reane with early development of Low Altitude Parachute Extrac-
tion System (LAPES) by the US and Canada as early as 196). LAPES testing introduced the
need for tow plates and other safety devices to protect the aircraft and crew during
airdrops at high extraction rates. In a search for a capabilty to airdrop at lower than
standard altitudes, extractions were made with the main (recovery) parachutes, thereby
eliminating one system but creating new problems of applying reefing techniques and
reducing platform oscillation. Combinations of parachutes and retro-rockets were tested
by the US Air Force with some success in the 1966s and 1976.. However. for the moat part
the US, UK and other NATO nations have concentrated on "mains extraction" systems
development for lower altitudes (up to 666 ft) and LAPES for ground proximity (5-16 ft)
tests, while continuing components development to enhance the standard method of airdrop
currently usod on large seale airdrop operations.
Parachute extraction systems have evolved from simple ribbon parachute* and
webbing lines to different types of canopy designs employing roofing techniques sand
multiplied lines dvaigned for tensile loads in excess of 116,666 lbs. Nylon rope line3
have also been tested as well an several designs of extraction force transfer devices.
Current operational systems are much safer and hardware materials are "state of the art*
*a a result of these developmental tests.
Finally, as airdrop testing moved from the early years to the present, pilots.
and oth-r crewmambers have concentrated on teamwork, each trying to understand the others
apprehensions and requirements. Much has been done in developing joint procedures and
checklists as well as special techniques to be employed under various emergency flight
conditions, brought on by failed extraction systems or loose platform restraints onboard
the aircraft.
ruture chapters will explore where we are today and some of the pitfalls we may
avoid because of the wealth of experience which has been gained and the techniques that
have been developed over these peast 35 years to make developmental airdrop testing both
an safe and productive as possible.
2 TEST PLANNING
2.1 Cargo Aircraft Airdrop Test Planning
In addressing Test Planning, one might ask, "what does test planning have to do
with testing techniques"? It has everything to do with it. It is here in the planning
stage that a test engineer must develop his techniques for handling any malfunction of
the test system or any other eventuality that may occur onboard the aircraft. These
events will occur so quickly and with such force that unless every action on the pert of
the entire crew has been preplanned the entire crew's safety could be Jeopardised by one
false move within the space of a few seconds. Therefore, the test engineer must know
exactly how his teat aircraft systems are designed to fuqction, and he must know the
stability characteristics of the aircraft. No must know his entire parachute system
thoroughly and he must apply any special devices and techniques he can in planning his
teat, to reduce the hasard. of his tests. Whether we are testing a new aircraft system
to determine its airdrop capability or merely 2 component for use in airdrop, the R&D
teat engineer or technician should get to k,iow all he can about the aircraft, its
capabilities and its limitations. If it is a new aircraft, he shou.id consult with the
aitcraft designers to determine the aircraft handling qualities, and he should review any
available wind tunnel test date or analysesw He should go into the aircraft cargo
compartment and carefully study the interior of the aircraft, then he should have the aft
ramp and exits opened, so he can see exactly what the exit shape wiII be for a platform
L
I
which is being airdropped. In this way, he can see the design features of the exit area
which are potential problem areas. For example, if one were to stand in the cargo
compartment of a C-141 aircraft with the ramp lowered and aft cargo door and pei~al doors
in the airdrop configuration one would see that the petal doors (which are really large
X fairinga for the afterbody to give the aircraft smooth laminar flow along its afterbody
at high subsonic speeds) when opened for airdrop are vulnerable to being contacted by
flailing extraction line* or platform auspensioto systems if special care were not taken.
Again, if one were going to be testing a new extraction force transfer device, which has
an inherent potential for premature release, he would look at the 96-ft long cargo
compartment of the C-141 as a vulnerable area if such a premature release should occur
as has happened in the past. In looking at the general design of the airdrop aircraft
one assumes that it has been designed to satisfy certain specifications provided by the
Air Force or Army as the cOae may be, and that lessons learned from earlier designs, have
been applied. However, In every design there must be compromise, and no design can do
all things to 16M percent of the desired maximum. If it is required to fly at 555 mph
petal door* are neededl if it Is reiuired to fly in and out of unprepared, short landing
fields we must have relatively heavy landing gear and high lift wings, and so on. The
designers must compromise to give the customer an aircraft which they hope will do all
things well, but none of them as well as they would like. He will try to give his
aircraft those design features which he believes will satisfy the customers highest
priority requirements based on the intended use of that aircraft. If an aircraft will be
used for airdrop only 5 percent of its life but for rapid transport of personnel and/or
standard equipment for 95 percent of its flying life, then naturally airdrop must be
considered a lower priority. Such was the case with the C-14)A, as was evidenced by its
phenomenal record of achievwment in troop transport and rapid resupply missions during
the Vietnam war. On the other hand the C-1398 Hercules which was designed for airdrop
approximately @I percent of its life has been the aircraft used by both Air Force and
Army of many NATO nations for 91 percent of their airdrop operations. This is even more
pronounced in the area of R&D Airdrop testing where the C-134 aircraft is even more
dominant in its use for component testing of prototype items.
Therefore, in looking at the aircraft interior, the airdrop engineer should look
for those vulnerable areas, for he Is the best judge of the degree of their vulner-
ability. He should visualize a platform of maximum weight and volume being extracted,
then try to picture what it would look like if one or another system malfunctioned at the
most critical instant. Are there hydraulic lines adjacent to the frame of the exit? Are
there hydraulic lines for control surfaces in the overhead structure or out in the
"beaver tail* area or tailcone, which could be struck by flailing extraction lines or
hardware during parachute deployment and platform extractions? Are there actuators, door
hinges, door latches, ramp edges, anchor cables, parachute release mechanisms in a region
where they may be struck and damaged by parts of the extraction system? Is the ramp
truly coplanar with the cargo compartment floor during platform exit, and are there any
sharp edges on the roller conveyor sections which might snag the under-surface of an
airdrop platform? Finally, are there precautions which may be taken to reduce the
possibility of damage or to eliminate it completely? These are all questions the airdrop
test engineer aust ask himself as he studies the aft ramp and exit area.
He should then move forward in the airrrnft, testing the ten~sion in •he static
line anchor cables by pulling down on them to test the firmness of their attachment. He
should slowly run his hand along several different sections of the cable to check for
smoothness or broken wires, which could add to the friction between static line devices
and the cable during platform extraction. Too little tension in the anchor cable could
cause it to vibrate at extreme amplitude during sequential airdrops and thus cause a
static line to become wrapped about the anchor cable, resulting in a premature transfer
of the extraction force to the deployment of the large recovery parachutes while the load
is still onboard the aircraft.
The siderails restraint lock systems should be checked and their operation
completely learned. If there is an emergency release system included, this should be
thoroughly understood. The roller conveyor systems must be checked to assure they are
well attached to the cargo floor. If they are attached only at the ends of their span
(usually 7-8 ft in length), he should be prepared for problems with their popping out of
the floor. Temporary solutions to prevent this happening may be needed for the test
project. Cargo loading winches used for pulling heavy platform loads onto the aircraft,
and static line retrieval winches should be checked. They should be played out all the
way to the edge of the aft ramp to see if they could become entangled in roller systems
or during retrieval operations.
These are featureo that the experienced test engineer will check on the airdrop
aircraft during the test planning phase. whether the aircraft is undergoing its initial
airdrop capability testing or is being used as the airdrop aircraft to test a new airdrop
technique, system, or compaitent, it is imperative that a test engineer know how the
airdrop system is designed to function.
Rather than go into the functioning of the cargo airdrop systems for each of the
aircraft currently being used for RED testing, the author has selected three of these
whic' are representative of the entire size and capability spectrum and are also repre-
sentative of the simpler and the more complex airdrop systems. The cargo airdrop systems
for the Aeritalia G-222, the Lockheed C-1369 and the Lockheed C-5A will be described ir
detail. Figures are provided to assist in the explanation of the interface betweeen
airdrop platforms, roller conveyors, siderail restraint latches, parachute release de-
vices and static line anchor cables. Brief descriptions of the siderail systems for the
4
TRAMIALL (French Version) C-161F, and the C-1412 aircraft are shown in Appendix A.
2.1.1 The Aeritalia 0-222 Aircraft
t Z'
AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE
Wing Span 28.70 a (94.16 ft); Diameter (approx.) 3.55 m (11.65 ft)
Max length 22.76 m (74.47 ft) Length 22.76 m (74.47 ft)
Max height 9.80 m (32.15 ft) Minimum height from the ground oft
- Crew entrance (approx.) 1.25 m
WEIGHTS (4.1 ft)
Operational empty weight (zero fuel) - Paratroops door (approx.) 1.16 m
15,766 kg (34,466 lbs) (3.24 it)
Max take-off weight 26,566 kg (58,416 lb8) - Load compartment floor (at load
Max landing weight 26,566 kg (5.,466 lbs) ramp) 1.60 m (3.28 it)
Max transportable load 9,060 kg (19,820 lba) Dimensions of:
Max available fuel 9,466 kg (;1,690 lbs) - Crew entrance door (approx)
(corresponding to 12,966 It approx.) 1.52 x 0.71 m (4.98 x 2.29 ft)
- Parattoops door (approx.)
1.92 x 1.91 m (6.29 x 2.98 ft)
- Total loading clearance
2.25 x 2.24 a (7.38 x 6.64 ft)
Lj
Right Hand Cover
Guard Asnemblies
Right Han~d
Dt'nts~
Latc Aseetjbl
II
Lef't H and
Coto seby Conveyor Assy. Section, Typical
Cear~
Asemby ~
0 55 0
/1left
Hand Dentent Latch
Assembly
Figure
A t ma
1
Left Hand Cover
AtmtCAirdrop, guard assemblies
System
~ e~ ~
rolle or The dR
~ ~
reth
0:~1 ar4j
l Con drhyr
l va
a ea a m l
sys
d n ote :Aotb
17 9 _~oaErd~ n
R
e 0
th
RHu s t ro b l OV J~n ITALIA (:-2
22
usedO
Ongtud~a~nc f
Ve~o Platht Ore ~~
Tethe 1 L
hten
pa" aOndon lr (P
a"or ~
res e o Ovit er
t o A r d re s t~
ra
n~ o ifl, 0R(R
20, M) de t hn ,
~ iHea
ejec,
ma ~ n Poutw neahe
re
fe
. O~Yt by a6
IOvet)ý2g atre t0 Irrp given e Vr ,hh
latch. Of he Rr
l'h Ra cr nl ck ,anrte- Ar"I~ tract hoand,. P in
t A o edIs forcembo ttent re 0 de1
h eg
topoft g.I ana Ov
re 4 ent d f o , - u pi
d mttr
t r latch~ t n
40. heý 1 a.-nbl eO
te.
0ent otr m r et
Overk easedd
O ftbel
h '-ugh andkept re the~
Be" det th onl'
fl~erat
hubbto the
detent
8
800b1
3
6
t.
S Detent Springeeor-
~Release Button
" CHECK
NORMAL
EM•F.genoy
LOAD
a CHECK. This position is used to insure that all RH detente are properly
extended.
b NORM. The normal (locked) position of the lever allows all of the RH detente
to lock, securing the platforms in both forward and aft directions within the limits of
their restraint settings as shown in Figure 3.
c EMER. When the lever is placed in the EMER position, all aft restraint is
removed, while forward restraint is retained. The detente are lightly spring-loaded to
A-
7
the closed (extended) position, but any slight pressure will cause them to retract.
d LOAD. This position retracts the detents and keeps them outboard of the
siderails for on loading of platforms, or pallets.
Six left-hand (LH) detent latches are mounted outboard and above on the LH
rails. Bach detent provides a constant restraint to platforms or pallet of 20,609 pounds
fore 16,866 lbs aft.
and The latches may be operated by either of two methods:
simultaneous or sequential. The LH control assembly located on the forward end of the LH
restraint rail contains the manually operated controls that act upon the LH detent
latches. The two controls are the "LH SIMUL" handle and the "SEQ LOCK" ratchet handle
(Figure 5). A definite sequence of actions by these controls will result in the LH
latches being placed in the following states:
! disengage all latches simultaneously
Sengage all latches sequentially, starting at the forward most latch.
The LH Simultaneous Handle (LH SIMUL) is a four-position handle. The positions
are as follows:
a Stowed Position: This is the full down position with the pin in place. No
mechanical action is transmitted to the latches. They are allowed to open normally or
close by light spring-loaded action.
b Operate Position: This position is automatically obtained by removing the
quick-release pin on the housing assembly (Figure 5). The handle is ready for use, but
no mechanical action is transmitted to zhe latches and they are allowed to close by light
spring-loaded action.
{ .- , )
a The Aft Restraint Release Position: In this poaition only aft restraint is
removed. This is the position of the restraint locks just prior to initiating an airdrop
sequence.
Open Position: This is the fully forward extended position of the handle and
retracts the detente into the rail.
Release of the LH latches is attained by the force transmitted from the LH SIMUL
handle to the attached simultaneous release rods. On each latch, the rods are connected
A.-
I.
8
I to simultaneous release arms. When the rod is moved forward, the arm pulls
crank, the detekit hook is disengaged from the restraint pin; thus all
removed from the detent and it is retracted back into the restraint rail.
aft
the bell
restraint is
By ratcheting the SEQ LOCK handle, the LH latches are engaged or disengaged
depanding on the position of the control knob at the end of the handle (Figure 5). In
the LOCK position with the flat portion of the knob facing up, the latches engage
beginning with the forward most latch as the handle is rotited forward once for each
latch. sy rotating the knob to the UNLOCK position with the flat portion facing down,
the latches disengage in the same manner, starting with the aft most latch. Thus for a
sequential platform airdrop all LH latches may be released at the 3-minute warning
allowing the platforms to be held in position by the RH pressure latches only.
The C-130 series aircraft (Figure 6)(Ref 3) are four-engine turboprop, high-
wing aircraft. The "E" model is currently most often used for airdrop testing. The C-
130E has a maximum takeoff gross weight of 155,500 lbs (71,215 kg) and a maximum
transportable load of 50,600 lbs (22,650 kg). It is capable of airdropping unit platform
loads of up to 50,500 lbs (22,655 kg). The C-130E cargo compartment is 41 ft (12.5 m)
long, 123 in (3.12m) wide and 108 in (2.74m) high. However, as in all cargo aircraft,
this full space is not available for airdrop becanse of the limitation to the width of
the siderails, 108 in (2.74m), and the requirement that personnel be able to move from
the forward to the aft part of the cargo compartment with a rigged airdrop load onboard
the aircraft. The cargo compartment floor is designed to support a loading of 2805
lbs/lin ft (4170kg/m) to 3200 lb/lin ft (4750 kg/m) across the 8-ft wide rail systemn,
depending on the location in the cargo compartment. Airdrops may be performed at speeds
from 110 to 155 KIAS. On specially equipped C-130E aircraft (high speed ramp), airdrops
may be performed at speeds up to 25J kts. The C-130 E is equipped with the AAR Brooks
and Perkins A/A32H-4A cargo handling system.
C-130A
The A/A32H-4A system consists of eight outboard guiderail assemblies with manual
control handle assemblies for locking and unlocking latch assemblies contained in the
sideralle and 20 sections of roller conveyors (Ref 3). The siderail assimblies, which
are bolted to the aircrafl floor at right and left butt line 59.75, provide a continuous
guide down both sides of the aircraft and with their flanged tops and latching mechanisms
they prevent transverse, vertical, and fore and aft movement of the platforms and
L .
9
* pallets, once the latches have been engaged (Figure 7). The *iderall-installed latch
mechanisms are equipped with detente which engage indentations in the aides of standard
platforms and pallet@ currently used for airdrops.
Figure
Side Ril Assemby, SystemACTABLE uLANEdnC1
7 Lft rnpr
Each~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U oth11lthnmehnsswihaemutdothotbArdadYo h
rightsiderl
a 29999-l
prvide (9,99 kg restainin forc in he foaact ircto
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BL
vaibeatretannRoceoAptNK99ls(2g) w eso cnrl hc
are~~~~~~~~TB
toNO
contro attche
hadesaOtefowrdedEfthCTdrINsaeGat lc n
unlock
latching
the mechanisms. Theeare Ilso1 eetlthsmone1ubado h
left sideLAGERAail.T VE
LLU CRANNKf
RING.ICARGO
VNN
RELEICASEESIPI
Figue
7 eftrigue Rai Lseft-Han Master CnrlAA32H-4A
ue nC19 rnpr
The SIMUL OPEN control handle (on the left side rail) is a four-position spring-
loaded device which controls the actuation of the detent latches that have been locked by
the use of the LOCK-UNLOCK sequence control handle. The four positions are as follows:
The right-hand master control is at the forward most section of the conveyor
system and to the right of the left-hand master control (Figure 9). The master control
is actuated by the RH EMERG REL handle. This handle is a four-position mechanical device
that acts upon the right-hand detent latches as follows:
DETENTADJUSTMENT
TOOL
a The first position, CHECK, is the full down location. This position is used
after loading to insure all right-hand detents are properly engaged in the platform or
pallet indentations.
b The second position, NORM, is the normal or locked position. This position
locks the right-hand detent latches to provide both fnrward and aft restraint.
c The third position, EMERG, eliminates the aft restraining force by removing
the spring-loaded force applied to the detents.
d The fourth position, LOAD, completely retracts the detents, thereby removing
all restiaining forces in both forward and aft directions. This position is used for
cargo loading on the ground.
In case of an emergency during airdrops this handle is moved to the ZMSE
1 Gency
position thus overriding the latch spring tensions and releasing the platforms. A pre-
compression adjusting bolt and a variable restraint preload index are provided on each
right-hand latch to adjust for the desired restraint force (Figure 16).
L.
SIndex
Twenty sections of roller conveyors are located in four rows al] ng the cargo
floor at right and left butt lines 15.15 in (359.4 mm) and 49.68 in (1.12m) (Figure 11).
The sections consist of U-shaped channels, approximately 6 in (152.4mm) wide with alumi-
num rollers in the upper (open) side. The aluminum rollers are 2.5 in (63.,5 mm) in
diameter and 4.75 in (121.7..) long. When installed, the rollers form a rolling surface
parallel with the aircraft cargo floor and 2.625 in (66.7mm) above it. These rollers are
designed for a loading of 3666 lbs each at 3911 revolutions/minute. Heavier rollers at
the end of the ramp have the same exterior dimensions but are designed for a bearing load
of 16,066 lbs/roller at 3666 rpm.
caIvTRiyaTs
RAMP
IRCTION
Figure 11 Roller Conveyor Sections and Rail System Used in C-130 Transport
QI
A- A
12
Static line anchor cables on the C-1382 Ore attached at fuselage station 245 and
913 and at a height of approximately 6.5 ft above the cargo floor. The steel cables are
of seven strand construction with an O.O. of 3/8 In and capable of loading up to 16,166
iba in tension. A stop at the aft end of the cable prevents damage to the attachment
fitting from constant impact of Static line hardware during airdrops. The static line
retriever system consists of a winch, forward retriever cable assembly and an aft
retriever cable assembly for both right and left sides of the airc:aft.
2.1.3 Lockheed Georgia Co. C-SA Galaxy
The C-SA aircraft (Figure 3)(Ref. 5) is a four-engine tt~rbofan jet aircraft of
high-wing design. The C-5A has a maximum takeoff gross weight of 769,161 lbs and a
*maximum transportable load of 221,066 lbs (99,666 kg). It is capable of dropping unit
platform loads of up to 86,666 lbs (36,958 kg) and sequential loads of up to 166,6g lbs
(4 ma 46,606 lbs platform). The cargo compartment In 121 ft 2 in long (35.38 a), 19 ft
(5.770) wide and 114 in (2.89 m) high in the airdrop configuration. Airdrops have been
performed at speeds from 125 KIAS to 175 BIAS at altitudes up to 21,666 ft. The Airdrop
System (ADS) for the C-SA was designed as a kit to be installed for airdrops or
transported until needed on a specially designed wheeled trailer which may be secured in
the forward end of the cargo compartment.
Guide rails are provided longitudinally along the forward ramp extension, the
forward ramp, and the aft ramp floor when the airdrop system is installed in the air-
craft. The guide rails at the forward ramp extension are flared to form a funnel to aid
in alignment of platforms during loading. The guiderails on the aft ramp are also flared
to permit unobstructed exit of a platform if any lateral force components are imposed
during extraction of a platform from the aircraft during airdrop operations. The guide-
rails are attached to the floor by the use of quick-disconnect pins and fittings.
Four rows of ADS rollers are provided. The four rows of rollers are located
symmetrically across the cargo compartment at right and left butt lines 19.70 and 45.26.
Each section consists of a U-shaped channel which is flat on the bottom and contains
aluinum rollers in the open side. The U-shaped channels are 4.2 in wide and are either
7.6 ft or 8.25 ft in length. The aluminum rollers are bearing mounted on 16 in center.
and are 2.6 in in diameter at their slightly crowned centers, and 3.75 in long. When
installed in the cargo floor, the rollers project upward 2.25 in above floor level. The
aftmost rollers in each row on the aft ramp are teeter rollers (Figure 16). The teeter
rollers are designed to accommodate the entire platform load as it teeters momentarily
while being extracted during an airdrop. They ore mounted in four pairs and each teeter
roller is 4.5 in long and 4.6 in in diameter at its highest point. The ramp floor when
in the airdrop configuration in slightly below the plane of the cargo floor while the
tops of all the rollers are coplanar. The primary rollers and the tooter rollers are
slightly crowned to prevent grooving of the flexible undersurface of the US Army type II
modular platforms during loading and airdrop operations. The primary rollers have a
static design strength of 7,566 lb each end the teeter rollers have a static design
strength of 25,116 lb each and 15,916 lbs at 3906 rpm.
Teeter Roller
t~i _
14
anchor cable assemblies are provided &a Part Of the AD$ kit (figure 17).
EhcblamabyoeetofacbeathigbaktpllybaktaduleTwo
Cable tenaloeniag handle and bracket, and a Cable assembly with a quick disconnect device
and an adjusting turnbuckle. The anchor cable assemblies extend the full length of the
cargo compartment. The anchor cable is 1/4 in diameter steel with a breaking strength of
1,611 lb. nowever, the forward attachment fitting an the forward reamp extension limits
the assembly strength to appro*imately 1,166 lbs.
SI
3 RIVa
- -7
to A ACHNINt
AtAH iNPI
O, TAIVGET ASSOD
~~~~~IACTUATOR
ASMl ,I.I'. U~lSC~IYO
th8m
dplicateigur Exratonprachtesn
Panetrachtio
Reyetem
Mcain eeamretem
At standard airdrop speed of 156 KCAS, the single 28-ft diameter extraction
parachute would develop 6666 lbs *SNATCH" FORCE then go on to develop a maximum
extraction force of 22,161 lbs approximately 1.5 seconds later, (extraction ratio of
22 M * 6.92)
If this was a 24,666-lb load used to test the aircraft during higher velocity
airdrops at 170 WCAS and a 1.S-extraction ratio ... and the same criteria for setting the
sidarail lock were used 12,116 lbs restraint force in the locks would again be used but
the following could result.
K
17
because of the heavier weight of the chute and the higher velocity of the
aircraft the snatch force of the chute becomes 12,666 lbo, then increases to 36,666 lbs
approdimately 1.6 seconds later (extraction ratio of 36|0 - 1.5, and an approximate
extraction of 63 it/aec.
Note that the restraint force war aet at 12,600 lbs and the snatch force
developed was 12.108 lbm, therefore, the platform could have been out of the Locke before
the chute aerted inflating. Therefore, the platform would be extracted while the chute
was inflating at considerably less than a 13.extraction ratio.
For this reason, in RaD testing the lock setting should be based on the
expected maximum extraction forceg in this case 13.660 lbb in lieu of 12,606 Ibm.
Therefore, let us look at these basic methods so as to have a good idea of what they are
designed to do and how they function as an interactive force between the airdrop aircraft
and the cargo to be airdropped. There are several basic methods or techniques applied in
airdrop testing today. Theme are used by the R&D airdrop test engineer or technician as
a starting point when he begins to plan his test program.
The standard airdrop systems used by the U.S. and other NATO nations for many
years and still the U.S. standard, consists of an extraction system, a recovery system. a
platform, and some means of transferring the extraction parachutes forces to deploying of
the recovery parachutes. The extrartion system consists of an extraction parachute of
ring-slot, ribbon, or cross canopy design in sines, from approximately 15-ft to 35-ft
diameter (Appendix C). Extraction lines for these parachutes are constructed from 2, 4,
6 or 12 plies of Type X or Type ZXVI nylon webbing constructed in concentric loops with
keepers at each end. The parachute hardware varls depending on the user. R&D
organizations usually design and use their own hardware to satisfy their test
requirements. The recovery systems consist of clusters of 61-ft, 64-ft, 66-ft or 166-ft
diameter parachutes. For a standard airdrop, a load, vehicle or special test tub is
rigged on a platform which is designed for use with the aircraft siderail restraint and
latching system and conveyer rollers. The recovsery parachutes are restrained on top of
the load and suspension risers are atachad from the parachutes to the four corners of the
load (at six points on heavier loads). The handles of the bags in which the parachutes
are packed, are connected to a deployment line which in turn is connected to an
extraction force transfer (device) coupling (Figure 26). This extraction force transfer
device in a three-way connector with one pin attached to the load, a second pin attached
to the extraction parachute and the third pin attached to the dGployment line from the
recovery parachute bags. During a standard airerop, the extraction parachute (packed in
its bag) in released from the parachute roles e device and falls behind the aircraft
where wind drag on the bag causes the extraction line to deploy off the cargo ramp. When
the line is fully deployed the high force generated (snatch fcrce) breaks the parachute
out of the bag and it deploys and inflates. As the drag force of the inflating
parachute(s) reaches that force which was pre-set in the restraint rails, the latches
open allowing the platform to be extracted out of the aircraft. As the platform muves
aft, the extraction force transfer device is activated releasing the attachment to the
load, and the extraction force from the parachute is now transferred through the other
pin to the deployment line. As the load moves out behind the aircraft, the recovery
parachute bags are lifted off the load and as the load continues its trajectory the
extraction parachute(s) deploys the recovtry parachutes out of their bags annd they
inflate to recover the load. Figure 19 shows the sequence of events in a stand.rd
airdrop. Standard airdrop tests are usually made at altitudes from 1666 to 5566 ft above
ground level. Standard airdrops ore more widely used at this time in mass airdrop
demonstrations and maneuvers. This is also the basic method used in testing new
parachutes and or their compon'nts. It affords the safety of more altitude, logo-56ee
ft, in the event the aircraft handling qualities have been adversely affected by a
malfunction in the parachute extraction system or airplane siderail restraint system.
This method is also the one from which the most data has been obtained in previous
testing and operational use. Therefore, there is a larger information base from which to
draw. This method also is a basis for design of much of the hardware and webbing
components later applied to other systems. For sequential airdrops using this method
several dynamic conditions are added and need to be considered when applying rigging
techniques. Three major areas of consideration are the static line anchor cables/static
lines, stowing of subsequent extraction sytems, and sequential setting of siderall locks.
There are oscillations set up along the static line anchor cables by the sudden release
of the tensile load in a static line at time of its activation. If there are other
static lines attached to the anchor line cable when such an oscillation is caused, (as in
the case of a sequential airdrop of two or more platforms) the static lines are
intermittently jerked and slackened, unless special precautions are taken. This could
cause a static line to wrap Itself around the anchor line cable and become entangled at
that location (well within the aircraft cargo compartment). If this should occur during
a sequential airdrop, it would cause the static line to activate the extraction force
tansfer device while the platform was still within the aircraft. The resultant
deployment of the recovvery parachutes within the aircraft could damage the aircraft
siderails or roller conveyors thus affecting any remaining loads. Since there is no way
(except one), which is explained later, to interrupt a sequential airdrop if a
malfunction occurs after the sequence has started, the results could be catastrophic. To
prevent static lines from becoming entangled around the anchor cable a drag line may be
used. The drag line is run parallel to the static line but is tied to the load at one
18
and and to the bottom &Ing of the static line stiff leg neat the anchor cable. This will
allow the drag line to move with the static line along the anchor cable as the platform
is being extrected. The drag line keeps an even tension on the static line stiff leg
preventing it from wrapping itself around the anchor cable. A loop of 336-lb ?.I. nylon
cord has beon satisfactorily used as a drag line on many sequential airdrops made by the
U.S. Air Force. Appendix D-i shows a method of rigging a drag line. airdrop testers at
the USAF Flight Test Center have eliminated this problem completely by going to a floor-
mounted static line anchor strap. This shown in Appendix 0-2. Another area of cot.corn
in rigging for a sequential platform airdrop is the stoving of the extraction systems for
the subsequent platforms. The extraction line and parachute for each platorm should be
stowed on the rorward end of the platform to be previously extracted. No platform should
have its own extraction line stowed cn its own aft end. In this way the line will be
deploying off the previous load as it is extracted and relatively strnng "'towing ties may
be used to prevent spillage onto the floor, without the possibility of the parachute pack
being prematurely ripped off the moving platform and left on the aircraft cargo floor.
Appendix D-3 shows the details of this technique. Riggers should also note that the
extraction parachute pack* attached to the platforms should be attached to the load with
heavy ties (a minimum of I turn of SS3-lb 1.S nylon at each of the corners of the closed
and) while leaving the end of the bag containing the opening free to allow free movement
of the packed extraction parachute as the load tumbles upon leaving the aircraft ramp
just prior to chute deployment. The third major area of consideration applies to those
airplane siderail systems equipped with a lock sequencing system. The point to remember
here is that all platforms to be dropped in one sequence must have their locks set so
that all the permanent (as opposed to pressure released) locks may be released prior to
the airdrop. Some systems involve placing sequencing pins in a numbered hole. It in
imperative that these locks be visually checked to ensure they have been released prior
to initiating the airdrop sequence. If one siderail lock is left engaged it will be
broken at the time the platform is being extracted or (in the case where the parachute
force is less than the value of the strength of a single lock) the platform will remain
locked onboard the aircraft with a deployed extraction chute attached. If the lock was
damaged during the sudden impact loading it may not release when the emergency handle in
pulled and the only recourse left is to manually cut the towed chute away; a hasardous
task in the best of conditions. One way of interrupting a sequential airdrop after it
has started in to include a manual override to the extraction force transfer system in
conjunction with a go-nogo open link clevis on each platform. This system has been
successfully used in all initial sequential airdrop task made form new U.S. cargo
airplanes starting with the C-141A in 1965. The system is described in References 6 and
17.
gure
6hfewStadrd d a s
IIECOIOV11
PARACHUIES
•i IYPICAL BAGS
HEAVYCARGO IN DEROYMEN? IXINACTIO
[• S11WAUEM Y FPARACHUIR
E XTRAC
T"O"
AWMKY
CONIIOLICAMI
I,
System
A second
gFtitude Parachute airdrop method used today which requires special techniques is the Low
Extraction System (LAPES) first tested by the U.S. Air Force in 1963.
in the LAPES system, the aircraft is flown at ground proximity from 5 to 16 ft above the
ground with wheels down. A special platform equipped with skids and a ski nose is used
and special rigging of the load on the platform is employed to provide correct platform
attitude before it contacts the )round. A small drogue chute (1-to 15-ft diameter) is
deployed behind the aircraft several seconds before the airdrop is to be made. This
parachute is attached to a tow plate device which functions much as the extraction force
transfer device on a standard airdrop. When the airdrop point is reached, the tow plate
is activated to release the drogue chute. The drogue which is attached through a web
line to the large extractor/decelerator chutes, lifts them off the ramp and deploys them
behind the aircraft. When the large parachutes inflate they extract the load and
decelerate it as it goes throug1h a very flat trajectory and touches down then slides to a
stop. (Figure 21 shows the sequence in a LAPES airdrop.) The LAPES method is currently
used in the U.S.A., France, Germany and Italy while a similar system called Ultra-Low
Level Airdrops (ULLA) is used in the U.K. Reference 8. There are certain hazards in a
LAPES airdrop against which one must be constantly on guard. The first is obvious and
nothing can be done about it. It is the fact that the airplane is flying at 5-10 feet
above the ground at 130 kts, towing a chute providing about 4006 lbs of drag force. The
second hazard involves the high rate of extraction. In higher altitude airdrops an
extraction ratio (the ratio of parachute drag force to platform weight) is from 0.75 to
1.25 resulting in a platform exit velocity from 40 to 60 ft/sec, depending on the
location of the platform in the aircraft cargo compartment it the time extraction is
initiated. However, for LAPES airdrops the extraction ratio should be between 2.66 and
3.06. This is done for two reasons. First, on heavier loads, the quicker the platform
moves out, the less influence on the aircraft stability. This is important while the
aircraft is in proximity to the ground. The second reason is to reduce platform velocity
at time of ground impact. At the higher extraction ratios, a platform's forward speed
(aircraft speed-platform exit speed) may be as much as 25-40 ft/sec slower the-nit would
be with an extraction ratio of 1.25 to 6.75. Therefore, the slide out of the platform is
reduced (shorter field requirements) and the probability of rolling or tumbling over
rough terrain is reduced. The hazards of LAPES airdrops stems from the higher forces and
speeds during parachute system deployment and platform movement. The better LAPES employ
larger parachutes such as 35-ft to 64-ft diameter solid canopy chutes, reefed for the
extraction phase (higher speed/smaller drag area) then disreefed to fill as the speed
decreases and the larger drag area is needed to keep the total drag force as even as
practical. The LAPES method has been proposed for delivery of personnel capsul ýs. With
the advent of the C-17 aircraft which may be able to make LAPES airdrops at speeds as low
as 116 kts the personnel capsule may become a highly practical option.
y ed 1wplo
APP.o.. , . . ...
EA~e.CS..WlpI.
CAWSid",to stop
~Main
Parachhutes
Deployed
by th~te Drogue Parachute
Ground
DiI s conn ec t
L
22
aircraft ramp. On the end of the pole is a hook to which the extraction line is
attached. In operation the aircraft flIes in as on a LAPMS test, but with the pole and
its hook trailing instead of a chute. The aircraft is brought down to ground proximity
until the hook contacts the ground and starts dragging lightly over the ground. When the
hook reaches the cable, it snatches it and the braking force of the hydraulic impellars
on the ground deploy the extraction line it separates from the pole and draws the
platform out of the airplane as it flies-away from the load, The load continues to be
iT decelerated in a flat trajectory then contacts the ground and slides to a stop.
APPROACH
- VilAVION HOO OGRIi,-
CANDO
NURACtID aea
GROUND
COMtAC!AND
ENERGYDISSIPATION
Figure 23 Ground Proximity E..raction System (GPES) (Ground Based Energy Absorbers)
2.2.5 Parachute/Retro-Rocket Recovery Systems and 1ther Hi-altitude Recovery Systems
(Reqerence 10)
In the early 1960s when the Vietnam conflict was -aging, much developmental
testing was done with airdrop systems that would allow cargo to be airdropped from a
height of 10,000 - 12,000 feet where the aircraft was out of reach of small arms fire,
and yet be able to drop the needed resupply cargo on a relatively small drop area (within
a compound). Therefore, a rapid descent for the first 9000 - 14,000 ft was desired for
two reasons: to obtain the needed accuracy from minimal wind drift, and secondly, to
leave the cargo exposed on the way down, a minimum of time. The parachute/retro-rocket
deceleration system is one means of accomplishing this (Figure 24). A cluster of smaller
parachutes which will allow the cargo to fall at a rapid rate of descent (from 50 to 75
ft/sec) is rigged on the load as for standard airdrop. However, a cluster of rockets are
rigged in the suspension slings confluence point with offset nozzles so that the rocket
blast, once the ;ystem is in descent and the rockets fired, will not impinge on the cargo
and damage or destroy it. Electrical connections between the rocket pack and deployable
probes on the four r-c..ners of the platform will ignite the r:pckets when the probes,
usually about 30 ft in length, contact the ground. In operation the load is extracted
and the cluster of smaller recovery parachutes are deployed. The cargo falls at a rapid
descent rate with minimal drift. The probes which were deployed as part of the recovery
parachutes deployment sequence, contact the ground when the load is 30 ft away and the
rockets immediately ignite and burn for a very brief period (usually 1/10 to I sec)
depending on the rate of descent and weight of the load. The load is decelerated to
approximately 10-15 ft/sec descent rate at ground contact.
A-
23
Rocket Pack
Probes/
Ground
A
*A-
-- " - - - - - _ .* -*
24
In both systems special care must be taken because of the pyrotechnics and rockets being
carried in the cargo compartment of the aircraft. Especially in the case of rockets, it
is imperative that no electrical charge whether direct connection or induced can reach
the rockets' ignition system before the rockets are well clear of the airdrop aircraft.
In other words, it is not a safe practice to arm the rockets system during the extraction
phase. Retro-rockets should never be armed until the end of the parachute deployment
sequence, or later.
A-OW
SWP
"Li
__ _ ___,
25
Quite often in R&D testing we are to extend the airdrop envelope of aircraft or
to go to longer extraction systems or to higher airdrop speeds. For example, in
extending the C-130 Hercules single-platform airdrop capability to 53,031-lbs special
precautions had to be taken in planning these tests for several reasons. The stability
of a 93,110-lb airplane when airdropping a so,@@$ lb platform was a situation where
everything had to function properly or the result would have been catastrophic. When the
length of extraction lines were increased first from 60 ft for the C-139 to 135 ft for
the C-141 and finally to 215 ft for the C-SA, new problems arose which had not been
encountered previously. It is in situations such as theme that developmental test
engineers' and technicians' ingenuity and inventiveness are tasked to their fullest.
Truly in these situations *Necessity, becomes the mother of invention". For example, it
became necessary to go to a 215-ft long extraction lin* for the C-SA because that was the
distance from 12 ft aft of its cargo compartment forward bulkhead to 23 ft aft of its
tail cone. However, in the case of the extraction system required for a 41,011-lb
platform, the 12-ply 205-ft nylon line and two 35-ft diameter ring slot parachutes
weighed approximately 510 lbs. As this heavy system deployed aft of the C-5A
decelerating all the way, and then was suddenly accelerated back up to the speed of the
aircraft upon full deployment# this force (snatch force) was sufficiently high (up to 40%
of peak drag force) to cause concern that a load might be released from the latches
before extraction chutes were deployed. This could result in platforms far aft in the
aircraft being extracted by partially inflated chutes and therefore being subjected to
excessive tumble. The PLIES system of rigging the extraction line in a bag to which the
chute was attached was developed and worked satisfactorily to reduce snatch force.
(Reference 6.)
Tow plates, as mentioned earlier, have been used for 22 years in developing the
LAPES. However as extraction systems became heavier and longer, and as the Mains
extraction method became more widely adopted, tow plates have taken on added importance.
There are several designs currently in use but they all operate similarly. Therefore,
the following generic description of its function is provided. A tow plate is a
mechanical device attached to the aft ramp floor, through which a relatively small (15-ft
or 22-ft diameter) drogue parachute is attached for towing to initiate a LAPES awrial
delivery. The tow plate contains a knife cutter (usually powered by a spring which is
activated by a solenoid). The tow plate may also be activated by cable connected to
handle forward of the airdrop platform, which may be pulled by a loadmaster should the
electrical system fail. A basic tow plate system is shown in (Figure 27). Starting at
the aft end of the ramp the riser from the drogue parachute is attached to a triple-pin
connector at the aft most pin. A second pin attaches to the riser that leads forward to
the extraction parachutes which are placed on top of the tow plate. The third pin is
used to attach the connector to the tow plate through a cutter web (made of 6,300 lb T.S.
nylon when a 15-ft drogue chute is used). In the tow plate shown, the cutter web is
placed around a slotted pin and within the confines of • knift bracket. The knife slips
through the slot in the pin where it is safetied from slipping forward under the platform
and is attached to a spring/solenoid system. The system is electrically connected to a
switch on the co-pilot's flight controls. A tow plate manual control handle is placed
aft of the spring/solenoid system and attached to the same cable. In operation the
drogue parachute is released from the pendulum release system, it twings out and down
below the aircraft, deploys and inflates. The drogue Is thus towed through its
attachment to the tow plate until the aircraft is at its designated spot for the LAPES
delivery. To initiate a delivery the co-pilot pushes the button on his flight controls,
the solenoid pulls the cable which draws the knife forward breaking the safety tie and
through the slotted pin to cut the cutter web. When the cutter web is cut, the three-pin
connector is pulled aft by the drogue and the drogue force is transmitted through the
riser to the extraction parachutes (packed in their deployment bag). The extraction
parachutes are pulled out of the aircraft and deployed to extract the platform. Other
newer tow plates have replaced the slotted pin and knife with mechanical jaws, however,
the principle is the same. Extraction Force Transfer Devices function similarly to tow
plates but they are much sturdier to withstand the forces of extraction parachutes
developing drag forces up to If times those to which tow plates are normally subjected.
The Extraction Force Transfer Device (EFTD) is normally attached directly to the load to
be airdropped (Figure 20). It contains a latch to which a triple-pin connector is
attached. The latch is normally activated through a cable release assembly mounted on
the airdrop platform siderail. In operation, the extraction line from the inflated
extraction parachutes transmits the force between the first and third pins of the triple-
pin connector. The third pin is attached to the EFTD. As the platform moves aft, an arm
on the cable assembly which is spring loaded to rotate downward, rides along the top of
the aircraft restraint siderail. When the platform loaves the airplane the arm Is free
to rotate downward and it does A cam within the assembly pulls tAe cable which in turn
releases the eFTD allowing the extraction parachute(s) drag force to be transmitted
through the triple-pin connector to the main parachute deployment line which is attached
to the second pin. The main parachutes are thus deployed to recover the load. A device
such as this can be a hasard to the aircraft should a premature release occur, but this
will be discussed in the next section on hazard reducing safety hardware.
__ __ __
26
iDo
|WDoom1Q Ph W
~
2.2.10 ~
yse run~ ~
isonet
Reoer 1HWRI
PACKE
IAOCUT W• MIGI
ll~~~WW
CC/TI IenU
Those ground disconnects nre devices placed on airdropped loads to release the
rucovery parachutes from the load after ground impact and thus prevent surfce winds from
keeping the canopies inflated to topple the load and damagchie ptehn gucasn of strong
surface winds it prevents the chutes from dragging the load on the ground. Although they
are not a critical interface part between the aircraft and extraction sytem, they could
become part of
m the recovery system and should be confedered when planning airdrop test
in areas where higher surface wind are t common. They do pose a threat to the load if
they should prematurely release In midair thus causing the luad to fall free to its
ultimate destruction upon impacting the ground. One system which has been successfully
•i used in Germany by the Erprbungetelle 61 In Manching, is the pyrotechnic ground release
•;(rigure 28), Reference 9. This system is armed by a lanyard which is pulled when the
leaves the aircraft. Splatform
Upon 4round impact, a pyrotechnic device is fired
r eleasing the main parachute risers and they are free to float away. Most of the ground
6 releases used in the U.S. are armed when the parachutes are lifted off the load to start
deploying. The parachute risers are attached to a pin which is held in place by the
tension of the riser3. Upon ground impact the riser tension is relaxed, the pin
disconnects and the parachute in free to float away. These latter devices have bean
known to prematurely release parachutes in midair.
tI
27
Ground Release with Ground Release Sling Part 1 and Part 2 (Ends Only)
___
___ _
28
shortly. Other devices which have been used in Developmental Airdrop Testing include go-
nogo safety devices, the Trienco Restraint and Release Assembly (TRARA), the Nxtrector
Parachute 3mergency Release Unit (NPIRU). Flocr-Hounted Anchor Lines, breakavay static
lines, and many other minor items such as special covers for knives, anchor cable
tiedowna and so forth. These will be discussed in future sections.
In discussing the desirable features of a test platform, the test tub used by
the U.,. Air Force successfully for 31 years has been selected only because it is the
platform with which the author is most familiar. The U.K. and Germany have test
platforms with similar features and discussion of desirable features will be kept as
generic as possible. Figure 29 shows a test tub (6511th Test Group Dwg No. 6831493). It
Is constructed of steel I beams and welded steel plate. The tub is 24 in high, og in
wide and comes in lengths of 8, 16 or 24 febt. A specially designed guillotine knife
system, Figure 39, is attached to the aft end of the weight-test tub. The guillotine
blade could be activated by a lanyard tied to the anchor lire cable or fl6or Qr it could
be activated manually by lanyard at a point forward of the platform. The weight-test tub
had rounded coirners and steel posts to which suspension slings could be attached. Steel
plates of 5t6 lbs each were added to vary the weight and center of gravity location of
the test tub. The tub had a row of holes drilled in a 1/2-in thick steel plate welded to
the side of the tub through which restraint fittings could be led to restrain the tub to
the base modular airdrop platform. This standard weight tub was used (in the three
available sizes) to simulate vehicles weighing from 5,9oo to 56,888 lbs.
13;It
1 3 4 17 is It 20
I3
With the advent of larger airdrop aircraft with longer cargo compartments, a
new phenomenon came upon the scene. The bowstring effect on anchor line cables. When
static lines applied tensile loads to the anchor line cable then suddenly released this
tensile load the cable rebounded in various vibratory patterns, all of which caused
reactions in other static lines for subsequent platforms. Static lines could be caused
to flip over the anchor line cable and become entangled. To prevent this happening
during R&D testing, a floor-mounted anchor line was developed. Any tendency to vibrate
was dampened by the cargo floor. Also anchor cables attached to the floor could be put
under much more tension than those attached to the lighter aircraft structures.
Therefore, static lines were no longer limited to a maximum tensile strength of 3609 lbs.
The most important safety device developed in the last 25 years was the GO-NOGO
Safety Clevis and its couunterparts in the U.K. and Germany. The current version of the
GO-NOGO Safety Clevis as it was used by the 6511th Test Group (USAF) since 1968 is shown
in Figure 31, Reference 13. It protects the airdrop aircraft. The GO-NOGO safety device
is essentially an open link placed in the deployment line to the recovery parachutes. It
remains open until activated by a lanyard (static line) which releases a spring-loaded
pin or cams allowing it to close the link. Since the lanyard or static line is only
pulled after the platform has moved aft to the edge of the ramp, the main recovery
parachutes cannot be deployed onboard the airplane even if o. premature release of the
extraction force transfer device should occur. With a GO/NOGO safety clevis rigged in
the deployment line, the guillotine system may also be manually activated to cut a towed
extraction parachute away in the event a platform becomes jammed in the rail system. In
operations, the male end of the device attaches to the deployment line coming from the
' A-
30
extraction force transfer device three-pin link. The female end of the GO-NOGO clevis
attaches to the deploluent line going to the recovery parachute bags. The female end has
a flat undersurface with @lots through which the device is secured to the airdrop
platform. When the lanyard in pulled, the open link closes and deployment of the
1recovery parachutes is assured.
ACIATO LANYARD
MALE END
FEMALE E D
i A
31
•11=14 I..
I,^
0 0
Nt 0- 0
;w00
~0
000
STAGE a
SITA.F 4
a Transfer operating lever (17) and latch locking lever (1) are held in
horizontal position by @hear wire through lever and plate (11) of unit
body.
f Roller at aft end of latch locking lever (18) engaged in recess of floor
the hook latch (17).
j Release fl.or tie hook (6) is in vertical position with spindle (9) held
in @lots by rollers (0) of the floor tie hook latch t7).
in this position, aft restraint is being applied to the platform through the
floor tie assembly, the release floor tie hook and the floor tie hook spindle.
Stage 2 - The extractor parachute starts to develop and the extractor parachute
cable tautens (Stage 2) to exert an aftward pull on the parachute adapter (3). When the
drag of the parachute is sufficient to break the double 1236-lb nylon break tie the force
is transferred through the floor tie hook pin (4) to the shear wire fork (5). The shear
wire breaks and the release floor hook (6) rotates. After a few degrees of zotation the
notched forward end of the hook frees the trunion pins (12) of the floor, the asosmbly
thus freeing the platform from aft restraint.
Stage 3 - The platform continues to move aft (Stage 3) in the aircraft guide
rails being pulled by the extractor parachute. During this period the transfer release
cable, anchored at its forward end to the aircraft floor is being pulled from its stowage
loops at the forward end of the platform. The transfer release cable does not tauten,
however, until the platform is clear of the ramp edge (Stage 4). When the forward end of
the platform clears the ramp edge the transfer release cable (14) tautens and causes the
operating lever (17) to rotate downward annd frees the floor tie hook latch (7) and thus
frees the spindle (9). The drag of the extractor parachute is thus transferred to the
recovery parachute(s) pack and pulls the packs off the platform to deploy and recover the
load.
2.3.6 Extractor Parachute Emergency Release Unit (&PERU) (Figure 33) (Reference 8)
The EPERU In designed to function an an emergency release for the extractor
parachute while leaving the load to be extracted safely secured onboard the airdrop
aircraft. The unit is secured on the ramp of the aircraft between the extraction line
and the deployment line from the main parachute deployment bag's handles. A link and
shear pin at the forward end of the unit is used to secure it to an aircraft floor
tiedown shackle. There are three different ways in which the EPERU can function:
In a normal airdrop when the extractor parachute is released, it breaks the tie
cord between the fore and aft links and extracts a pin to start the mechanical timer.
The extractor parachute develops and the force shears the anchor pin and the EPERU is
jerked aft causing the manual arm release system (MARS), assembly to move forward within
the EPERU. This allows a stop lever to pivot and prevent a linear activator from
working. This locks the SPERU and the extraction force is transmitted through the EPERU
to the main parachute packs and they are extracted.
2. RETAINER STRAPCLEVIS
"5 3. STATIC LINE RETAINER STRAP
ANCHOR CABLE 3 4. CONNECTOR LINK
"STATIC
LINE
G
RAMP EDGE
"•.•---•-~~~~~~~~~
IKBKIE HASSRPADSAKI
5.NCOj%• RELEASE LINE
R PLATFORM APPROACHES RAMP EDGE, GOFNOTHE
"OPEN LINK CLEVIS CLOSES
SLEEVE
OUTER (STATIC LINE)
DEPLOYMENT LINE
KNIFE
CNETRSTRAP
EXTRACTION SYSTEM.
SYSTEM
ýEXTRACTIOýN
Ink..
a 11
Figure 35 Typical Electrical Strain Gage Force Transducer
Measurement of strain in a parachute canopy should not be attempted in R&iD
airdrop testing. Usually when a canopy has reached the flight testing stage; it will
have gone through wind tunnel tests and extensive analysis. Cargo airdrop parachutes are
usually constructed from well-known and tested materials and therefore little would be
gained Lrom this type of instrumentation. Measurement of force in a parachute ri*ser is
usually done with a calibrated load cell or load link. Figure 35 above shows details of
a load link employing a strain gage with a resistance bridge as the transducers element
35
i !bonded to the load link surfaces. The working range is a function of the strength and
electric limit of the load-bearing member. Strain gage links of this type having a
working range as high as 75,609 to 120,600 lb. tensile load have been used successfully
on airdrop developmental tests. These load cells must be installed so as to avoid
bending moments in the stressed beam. For this reason they should be installed only
between webbing risers and not be restrained between side plates directly affixed to the
platform.
Measurement of pressure may be done by a strain-gage force transducer dri 'an by
a sealed piston, calibrated to measure force per unit area. Other pressure s naing
transducers may operate through displacement of a diaphragm, Bourdon tube or sulphoil bel-
lows. However, measurement of altitude pressure may be accomplished by drop ai craft
instruments. Dynamic pressure is measured by the pitot-static tube as the differntial
between the total pressure and the static pressure, and translated mechanically/electri-
cally into equivalent airspeed units based on sea level air density. True airspeed may
then be calculated using this known air density.
Often during developmental airdrop testing it is necessary to obtain gravita-
tional forces, "g", along one or more of three orthogonal axes. Accelerometers oriented
along these three axes are normally placed at the center of gravity of the platform
although they may be used to measure "g" forces on parachute packs, force transfer
devices or any other object experiencing rapid acceleration. These accelerometers are
commercially available in a wide range of values. The accelerometer transducer uses
strain-gage bridge, force sensing semiconductors or piezo-electric element principles
which involve deformation under the inertia forces of moving mass.
2.4.1 Multichannel Magnetic Tape Recording System
The multichannel magnetic tape recording system (8-12 channels) which is used
particularly for heavy-cargo drop tests, contains all components within one unit. Eight
to 12 or more data channels, power supplies and a reference frequency channel are
included in this sytem. A DC power supply, usually 24-volt is used to power the
electronic components and the tape recorder, Reference 10. Airplane power 28-volt DC may
also be used as a power source. A calibration unit should be included so that it is
possible to simulate full-scale deflection on sensing elements by switching precision
resistors into the sensing element input circuit. This is used in calibrating the system
on the ground prior to takeoff when all sensing elements have been rigged in the test
system. A magnetic tape playback system converts the frequency modulated signals
recorded previously on magnetic tape into analog voltages through discriminator action.
Onboard recorders similar to this have been used on airdrop platforms or special test
vehicles by used
the U.S., U.K., organizations
Germany and France.
suitably However,
equipped telemetry
more widely at test with groundsystems havestations
receiving become
because the test data tyill be intact whether or not the test vehicle is destroyed
following a system malfunction.
2.4.2 Airdrop Aircraft Instrumentation
Telemetry may be defined as a system that takes measurements at a remote loca-
tion, transfers and reproduces them at a base station in a form that is suitable for
display, recording, or insertion into data-reducing equipment. Simply put, a sensor
located at the remote location (e.g., a strain link in an extraction line) produces an
electrical signal which is processed and applied to a transmitter. The transmitter
output is carried by the connection (radio) link to the receiving terminal (base) where
it is processed for the combined use of display, storage, and later computer analysis and
display, or is fed directly into the computer. The use of telemetry is controlled by
Inter-Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) which adopted "frequency modulation" (FM) as the
method for signal transmission. Three frequency bands: P-Band (216-269 MHz), L-Band
(1435-1540 MHz), and S-Band (2206-2300 MHz) are currently assigned. In designing a TM
pack, the higher tranomis:on frequencies are desirable because they afford shorter wave
length and wider bandwidth. Short wave lengths permit shorter antennae on the platform
or test vehicle at higher transmission efficiency. The wide bandwidth favors greater
transmission capacity and accuracy. However, the higher frequency transmitters and
receivers are heavier and more expensive. Modulating techniques vary with the
requirements of the test and test range. Until recently FM/FM telemetry was used
exclusively e.g., remote measurements were converted into subcarrier frequency modulated
messages and transmitted on a common FM carrier frequency. The required bandwidth per
subcarrier (channel), limits the number of continuous measurements transmissable to
between 8 and 12 for practical consideration. FM/FM through extensive use has reached a
high state of development and reliability and with 8 to 12 channels should satisfy 90
percent of R&D system requirements. If more channels are required, a test engineer may
consider Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM), or Pulse Duration
Modulation (PDM). The PAM/FM and PDM/FM systems provide greater flexibility and capacity
than FM/FM and accuracies within 2 to 2 1/2 percent. PCM/FM provides the same
flexibility as PAM/FM but with an even higher degree of accuracy. PCM/FM would be ideal
for carrier aircraft TM measurements as in the case of a new aircraft being evaluated for
airdrop capability where 100 to 206 or more channels may be desired. A typical onboard
telemetry pack is shown in Figure 36, Reference 14. Typical locations for various
instrumentation sensors for R&D airdrop testing are shown in Figure 37, (Reference 15).
Instrumentation of the airdrop test aircraft will vary depending on the scope of the
testing. If a new aircraft is being evaluated in the airdrop role, this instrumentation
will be extensive, but if testing is of a parachute system or if some new hardware is
being developed, most of the instrumentation may be contained in one of the airborne
i l I l IU-.
i .&W.
36
BATTEY PACK
I -
37
-TO PLARTACHT
UhlJI X R4 MA1
POTINTIOM9VER
poTgNTIOX(U?R
MOVNTIIG BLOC$
nDvlPf~l5 ido
Figure 37 Typical Locationsl for Onboard instr~elsinUe
Testing
2.4.5 Time Correlation
Tracking radars may be used to skin track the airdrop aircraft or to beacon
track the aircraft or platform. Radar may also be used to track Rawinsonde or other
meteorological balloons prior to or after an airdrop test or to provide range safety
survei lance. In most airdrop tests where the aircraft landing field is removed from the
drop zone, radar may be used to vector the aircraft to a predetermined release point so
that the airdropped platform will impact the drop zone (range) in an optimum position for
cinetheodolite and motion picture camera coverage. The test range ground controller
should examine predicted trajectories obtained from data provided by the teat engineer
for all-work and all-fail conditions so he can plot the release point. The radar should
track the airdrop aircraft until the platform exits, then it should stay on the platform
to obtain a plot of altitude versus time for rate of descent computation.
P P.
I;
39
Flight testing requirements stem from a need for basic research where no other
laboratory type testing is practicable or from a need to verify predicted design specifi-
cations of a particular airdrop system. Parachute design and performance prediction are
still a predominantly empirical science from which derived coefficients and reliability
figures, factors, etc, feed mathematical models in an attempt to show reasonable
agreement with experimental dataý Complex computer programs have been developed to
predict parachute opening forces and internal loads but complete airdrop systems flight
testing remains the ultimate test. but economic aspects more and more have dictated more
and more simulation. Such tests may reduce the number of total systems required to
demonstrate airworthiness or to qualify an airdrop system. Several different
computerised analytical methods for parachute performance may be found in Reference 4.
Very little has been done in simulating the airdrop aircraft response during airdrop
tests, although aircraft manufacturers have conducted these analytical studies during the
aircraft's uesign phase. A simulation program was, however, conducted at the close of C-
5A airdrop capability testing in 1972 by the U.S. Air Force Flight Test Center in which
empirical aircraft and parachute performance measurements during an actual airdrop test
were used to set up a simulator model, Reference 16. The model was then fed into a
flight simulator and an extraction airdrop was simulated. Figure 30 shown the results of
this simulation. Data from this simulation was then used with extrapolated valuet, for a
70,065-ib platform airdrop. Again with the known aircraft input parameters for
comparison the simulator model again followed the actual very closely. An asalos
computer three degrees-of freedom ( of) simulation which was generated to represent a G-
1303 engaged in LAPES testing, is described in Reference 15.
5 SIMULATOR
s-ACTUAL
" AIRDROP AIRDROP
-. 0
-5 i
Q ACTUAL
AIRDROP - ~SIMULATOR
- .~~~A AIDROP.---
0" . J... . ..
In the introduction of this volume it was stated that airdrop systems flight
testing should be safe yet productive. Research and Development airdrop testing by its
nature is hazardous in that the test system probably has never been flight tested pre-
viously and also that the outer edges of the system's performance envelope are being
explored. Many hazard minimizing test devices are available and have been previously
described. However, there are other basic elements which should be considered when plan-
ning an airdrop test program. Some of these fundamentals of test planninq are briefly
discussed here.
Assuming that RMD airdrop testing will be performed only by organizations which
are sanctioned by the government of the various NATO nations to do this type of work,
only aircrews trained for this type of operation should be used. Wherever possible the
most experienced aircrew, including the loadmastera and flight test engineers/techni-
cians, should be used for the more hazardous tests. This is imperative for two reasons:
40
the operational risk and the technical risk involved. The operational risk is that risk
inherent in the teat because of hasard to life or damage to the aircraft in the event of
malfunction. The technical risk is that risk wh ich is involved because of the complexity
of the teat or possible human errors which would lead to the nonaccompliahment of the
teat objective or only partial accomplishment thereof. Therefore, whenever possible, the
beat qualified aircrew available should be used.
All Rio teot organizations with which this volume was discussed, include safety
reviews of some kind during the test program's teat plan review/coordination cycle.
I These may range from simple informal reviews among toat engineers and flight crews,
full blown formal Safety Review Boards conducted by the test range at which the test
to
program is to be conducted. An important addendum to the pretest safety review is the
continued monitoring of safety aspects for the duration of the program. Postflight
briefings must be conducted immediately following each flight (airdrop) to review the
operational aspects of the test. The entire flight crew should be involved in these
briefings and should be free to say what they observed or wrote in their flight notes.
Flight notes should be written immediately following a test while the sequence of events
is fresh in their memories. These flight notes will form the basis of "quick look"
reports (discussed in a later section) that are required in some of the larger or criti-
cal test programs.
Another way of making a test program as safe as possible is to start the program
with the safer conditions then progress to the more hazardous conditions after evaluating
the results of the previous tests. This progression should involve aircraft as well as
teat systems because a more hazardous test from the aircraft stability aspect may not be
hazardous from that of the test system. However in all instances, aircraft flying safety
should take priority and for that reason it is imperative that aircraft test pilots be
directly involfed with the test engineer when the airdrop test program is being written.
Probably the beat tool for pretest analysis of an airdrop test has been the
malfunction analysis chart or fault tree analysis. An example of a malfunction analysis
chart is shown in Figure 39. In this analysis, the initiation of the test is shown in
the first block and a sequence of events which must take place for a successful test is
shown with their effects and the corrective action that should be taken by crewmembers.
These charts should be discussed and understood among all crewmembers so that everyone
will know what he has to do in the event of one of the malfunctions shown on the chart.
These charts also form the basis for the inflight checklists used between flight crew and
loadmasters during all test operations (Appendix F), these charts depict the emergency
actions called out in the emergency check list, in graphic form.
law es
WC.A,m 3 TOa~~
.1IA IAu
Li
41
On major airdrop test programs where a new aircraft is being flight tested
initially in the airdrop role to verify its design capabilities, it may be possible to
have the flight crew (pilots and co-pilots) get some time in a flight simulator through
which are fed the conditions they might expect during an actual airdrop "rom the
prototype aircraft. BesiJes being a great confidence builder for the pilots, it helps
them in providing input to the test engineer when he is designing the airdrop test
program. In the case of simulators and models for predictive analysis to assure safety,
where new untested parachute prototypes are involved the prudent engineer will )ake no
one's word for what the strength of a parachute may be, but will personally check the
design analyses. There are several cases on record where parachute designers have
claimed capabilities for their prototype parachutes which could not be met in flight
testing. This is another reason why a build-up from the center of the systems
performance envelope with a gradual expansion to the edges of the envelope, is
recommended.
Finally, preflight briefings of all personnel involved in the airdrop test are
mandatory. All personnel need not be briefed at the same time. In fact, it may be
impossible to have all involved personnel present at the same briefing on a large pro-
gram. However, all personnel must be briefed prior to the test so that each one knows
what his part is and how it interfaces with the other support units and personnel. Just
prior to takeoff, the aircraft commander and test engineer/technician should call the
crew together at the aircraft and assure that everyone understands what the mission plan
involves and what emergency actions will be taken when required. In the interest of
safety all personnel involved in the test including the pilot, co-pilot, test engineer,
and loadmasters should be wearing headsets with microphones so that the challenge and
response checklists may be executed and heard by everyone. The test engineer/technician
or loadmaster (depending on the way the checklist is written) should keep the pilots
apprised of the progress of the test as the events occur because they (the pilots) have
no way of knowing what is ensuing in the cargo compartment except by the aircraft reac-
tions. Also, because the pilots are the only ones speaking with the range ground con-
troller in most cases, they should keep the other members of the test team in the cargo
compartment informed on the general progress of the flight.
In the hypothetical test program the test organization has been requested to
test the feasibility of airdropping a 15,000-lb vehicle at 290 knots to determine if the
current minimum airdrop altitude of 500 ft AGL could be reduced. The only stipulation is
that the rate of descent at ground impact be less than 30 ft/sec. Assuming that all the
planning work has been accomplished using items discussed in section 2, a C-1308 Hercules
has been chosen as airdrop test aircraft, since it is the only one capable of 260 kts
with cargo door open. A U.S. 6511th TG test tub was chosen because it will double as a
tow test anchor point to test the drogue chute. G-12 recovery parachutes (64-ft
diameter) were chosen as "mains" recovery parachutes and the test engineer has drawn up a
test program of 12 tow tests and 8 airdrops as follows:
t TABLE 1
TOW TESTS
Airspeed
No. Tests (KCAS) Test Parrehute
2 15i 15 ft ribbon
S2 210
42
TABLe I (Continued)
AIRDROP TBSTS
No.Tet.Platform Location Airspeed
No. Test. In Aircraft IRCAS)
AFT 136
1 FWD 15
AFT 175
FWD 175
AFT 196
""ID 196
AFT 266
WPD 266
This is designed as a program of either 11 flights or 7 flights as follows: 4 tow tests
may be conducted in each 1-hour fit. (The first test being rigged prior to takoff, and
three, 15-minute inflight ,eriggings of the system). The airdrops, if feasible to rerig
the UPBRU or other force transfer system in 45 minutes, may be made two to a flight. If
rerigging is not feasible, then one airdrop per flight will be made. Based on these
assumptions, the tow test and airdrop test platforms will be checked on the ground, then
loaded, the final rigging onboard the aircraft, will be completed and finally the flight
tests will be conducted.
I0 SII
11 12
Iv "V V I- S•~_____- 12.
18 2 3 4 13 14 15 11 17
Figure 40 Parachute Tow Test Platform Rigging Sketch
43
(2) Are platform restraints too taunt so that bowing of the platform is evi-
dent? If so, have them loosened until the platform has been locked in the
aircraft aiderails.
(3) Are there sufficient restraint straps (or chains) for the required safety
margin (1.9) for the maximum force the parachute can exert at the teat airspeed?
(4) Are the recovery parachutes well restrained and the cutter knives to cut
the restraints well safetiod?
(6) The suspension risers should next be checked to assure they are connected
to the correct suspension points.
(7) The guillotine should then be ground tested as follows: (Figure 39)
(a) Place a strap of cotton around the spool and then place four layers of
type X or type XXVI nylon webbing on top of the cotton web, with the guiIlotine
cocked and safetied.
(b) Remove the safety ties, assure everyone is clear of the knife, then
have the lanyard at the front end of the tub pulled. It should take no more
than 15 to 25 lbs of pull force.
(c) When the guillotine activates, check to see if it has cut through all
four plies of nylon. If it has not, recock the guillotine with its cocking bar
(lever), safety tie the blade block, then remove the guillotine knife and
replace it or sharpen it.
(8) Leave the guillotine in the fired mode (springs in the relaxed condition)
until the load has been placed on the aircraft.
(9) Lay out the entire extraction system(s) to be tow tested and check every
component from the guillotine cutter web, through the connecting hardware to the
parachute.
(10) Assure that the instrumentation strain gage link is clearly labeled fur
identification with a particular tow test. Check to see the lead is
sufficiently long.
(11) Since there are to be four tow tests on this flxght assure that there are
four complete systems placed with the load for transport to the aircraft.
(12) The load is now ready to be transported to the airdrop aircraft. However
before loading on the aircraft, the aircraft siderails and roller conveyors
should be checked as follows:
(a) ADS siderails - Check for general condition, cleanliness, and inspect
each latch individually. One loadmaster should then go through the complete
cycle of operation for the left-hand rail latches by using the SIMUL OPEN
control handle to unlock all left-hand detent latches simultaneously. The second
loedmaster should walk forward assuring that all detents are indeed retracted.
The loadmaster should then move to the right siderail and complete the following
check. One Loadmaster should move the right-hand Master control handle through
the four positions, CHECK, NORM, EMERG, AND LOAD, leaving the handle in the LOAD
position in preparation for loading.
-- -- ----
44
(t) The loadmaster should then set the right-hand latches he plans on
engaging in the tow test platform right-hand sidersil at the maximum setting to
assume 4066-lb restraint for each right-hand detent. Note however that these
detenta should still all be in the retracted position for on loading of the
platform.
(f) Finally one of the loadmasters should play out the cable on the cargo
loading winch all the way to the ramp edge in the event it Is needed to draw the
load onboard the airdrop aircraft. With the cargo doors open and the ramp
lowered to the airdrop position the aircraft is now ready for on loading of the
ToW Test platform.
Some of the items which should be covered in the pilots' briefing are:
a The flight plan, including times for crew to show up, engines start,
Takeoff and target test times.
b Maneuvering in the test location to attain test conditions and Range
coverage.
c Airspace use and any chase aircraft involvement must be face to face
Sriefed with chase pilots.
Some of the items to be covered in the test engineers' portion of the preflight
briefing are:
a The objectives of the test and conditions, such as airspeed, altitude and
auration of the tow test.
c The position of all personnel in the cargo compartment (Figure 41) and what
their jobs are.
d Brief the malfunction flow chart and assure that each player fully
Understands his role in any of the emergencies that may arise.
! The flight crew challenge/response checklist should be briefed.
f The test engineer/technician also briefs the photo chase photographer(s) (if
one is to be used) on the coverage required, and the Range camera crews on the
object(s) to be tracked.
When possible (and this will vary with the test organization) an airdrop load
should be loaded on the day of the teat, preferably within a few hours of the takeoff.
One good reason for this is to prevent anyone who might be mnving around in the cargo
compartment, from inadvertently disturbing any one of the several special ties and
rigging details which must be completed after the load has been placed onboard and locked
into the aideralls. The major steps involved in bringing an airdrop platform onboard
which has been rigged for performing tow teats or for a heavy airdrop are provided here.
The cargo loader should be lined up with the aircraft cargo sideralls (sight
along the sideraila if necessary), so as to minimise the chances of damage or unnecessary
wear to the aircraft sidereila from the leading edge corners of the airdrop platform
alderaila if the platform is started onboard In a skewed direction. .'lao if a platform
Ia skewed it places side loads on rollers as a longer, heavier platform is forced to
realign itself within the confines of the aircraft siderails while being polled onboard.
Loadmesters should bring the platform(s) onboard slowly, especially when using the air-
craft onloading winch, and assure that all lock detent., on both aides are retracted
before starting the loading operation. Once onboard and locked in the preselected
position for the teat, the teat engineer and loadmasters are ready for their onboard
rigging operation. As much rigging of the platform as posaible should have been accom-
plished in the rigging area prior to bringing the load to the aircraft. Only thoae items
to be interfaced with the aircraft in some way, should be left for onboard rigging. In
the example chosen to illustrate a test, all that was left to be done was the final
attachment of the test extraction chute to the pendulum release device, cocking of the
guillotine spring loaded c~atting device, attaching of static lines as required, retight-.
*ening the platform restraint straps/chains, setting the RH pressure locks, and then
conducting a complete system check from the quillotine lanyard to the extraction pars-
*chute release device. The following is a good example of the type of checklist used by
all the NATO organization. consulted in preparation for this AGARDograph. Some check-
lists are shorter; others may be more detailed, especially when special devices such as
the EPERU and other safety devices are to be employed. Checklists used by AERITALIA and
ERPROBUNOSTELLE 61, for different phases of the testing effort are included In the
appendix section end in Reference 19. Figures 4S end 41 would be useful in following the
steps of the following checklist.
PREFLIGHT ONHOARD PLATFORM RIGGING CHECKLIST
The Aerial Delivey System Test Engineer end the No. 1 Lo3dmaster will make the
checks:
2following
Lj
44
67. O0-HOOO eafety device, open and safety wire in place Checked
'0. Lanyard from guillotine to anchor line cable,
free moving (no binding) Checked
S. Lanyard from guillotine to forward end of platform
(manual release), no binding Checked
(Note that sign-off procedures vary by orgenisation, howeve. the toot engineer
should, in some way certify that this test load is reedy for the airdrop test.)
'The asterisked items should be bypassed when the platform is being used for tow
testing as they would not be applicable.
3.1.4 Emergencv Procedures
At this point in conducting the example tow test, the preflight briefing, load
rigging, loading of the platform load, and onboard rigging would be complete. The flight
crew should arrive at the aircraft in sufficient time to perform a crew briefing and the
necessary preflight checks.
3.1.4.1 Brief Emergency Bailout
The pilots should brief flight emergency bailout and ditching procedures, point
out primary and seconda&y emergency exits, and review the flight plan briefly. The test
engineer/technician should then brief the test procedures, forces expected, period of tow
at full parachute inflation, and the emergency procedures to be followed in each of the
possible cases, Figure 39.
3.1.4.2 Three Emergencies
Basically there are three emergencies that may occur during a tow test of this
kind; they arei
The extraction parachute release device fails to release, and the extraction
parachute hangs there in an unknown state of release.
The extraction chute falls away but does not deploy, does not inflate; or it
inflates then immediately fails so there is minimal drag on the extraction line.
The extraction parachute inflates but the guillotine system fails to cut it away
to end the test.
Location of the crew in the cargo compartment is shown in Figure 41. Again this
may vary, however it is mandatory that test personnel man all emergency activators and
that the test engineer/technician be in position to see how the test parachute is func-
tioning so he may direct the emergency procedures. To clarify this extremely important
aspect of airdrop testing techniques a scenario of an actual malfunction on the example
tow test will be discussed in real-time.
A .4
47
3.2.1
At this time the test crew should be wearing parachutes (or alternate equipment,
such as restraint harness) used by the particular test organization. All test personnel
should be wearing headsets and a communication check should have been completed prior to
takeoff, and again shortly thereafter.
10-Minute Check
5-MINUTE CHECK
1. "5-MINUTE CHECK" "ACKNOWLEDGED" (ALL)
At this time LM-l and the TE would be on the left side of the cargo compartment
and LM-2 on the right side. Starting at the aft ramp and moving forward they would
continue with the 5-minute check as follows:
WARNING: NO PERSONNEL SHOULD GO AFT OF THE LOAD FROM THIS POINT ON. PERSONNEL
SHOULD BE IN POSITION AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 41.
3-MINUTE CHECK
1. "3-MINUTE CHECK" (CP) "ACKNOWLEDGED (ALL)
2. "LEFT-HAND LOCKS" (CP) "ARMED" (LM-I)
(NOTE that LM-l is positioned between the LH and RH Master controls and arms the
LH locks so that if required he can release the platform. He can then also release the
pressure locks in one stroke if they have not been overcome by the chute force.)
_ 1 _ __
48
I-MINUTE CHECK
2. AT THIS TIME THE PILOT WILL RECEIVE HIS FINAL CLEARANCE TO DROP (TEST) FROM
THE DZ CONTROLLER.
COUNTDOWN
2. 5-4-3-2-1 (CP)
The TE will keep the pilot, co-pilot, navigator and flight engineer (if one is
onboard) appraised of what is happening. For example he would say something like "CHUTE
RELEASE", .... CHUTE MALFUNCTION, FULLY INFLATED, ... GUILLOTINE ACTUATED .... CHUTE CUT
AWAY .... At which time the pilot or co-pilot would probably say something like
"EVERYONE OK?" "ACKNOWLEDGED" (ALL).
The Post-Drop Test Checklist should then be executed as follows:
POST-TEST CHECKLIST
In this case the test engineer would state that the mission should be terminated
until he could determine why the parachute reefing failed. The test aircraft would tuen
clear the Range and return to base and land.
3.3 Aircraft Handling Qualities
The stability and control, primarily the longitudinal response of an aircraft
during airdrop operations, is affected by the following factors: the aft movement of the
aircraft center of gravity due to the platform moving aft, elevator input, aerodynamic
moments, and power setting of the engines. A fifth factor, the ground effect is added
for LAPES airdrops.
The platform aft movement speed is determined by the total extraction ratio
which consists of the parachute extraction ratio (average parachute force during
extraction divided by the platform weight) and extraction ratio due to the aircraft pitch
attitude and acceleration. Extraction ratio effects may be more readily understood when
we visualize an airdrop as the aircraft flying away from under the platform which is
L.
49
being decelerated by the parachute (developing a drag force in some cases, as high as
twice the thrust of the aircraft). In gravity type airdrops where no drag force is being
provided by a parachute, aircraft pitch angle and increased thrust (by adding power)
provide the platform aft movement. Airdrop testing from C-13BE aircraft has shown that a
pitch angle of 5 degrees resulted in an extraction ratio of 0.09. An application of
aircraft power increased the extraction ratio by as much as 0.12 in C-130 aircraft.
(Reference 1.) The rearward travel of the aircraft center of gravity increases with
increasing ratio of platform weight to aircraft weight. Transient cg positions as far
aft as 96 percent MAC have occurred during a 50,000-pound platform aircdrop from a C-130
aircraft at a post-extraction aircraft gross weight of 90,000 pounds. Once the aircraft
cg had moved aft of the neutral point (38 percent MAC) the aircraft was statically
unstable.
As the cg moved aft of the neutral point the aircraft tended to diverge more
rapidly as the airspeed increased; for a given airspeed the aircraft became more unstable
as the cg moved farther aft. As airspeed was increased the severity of the aircraft
response to the platform aft movement depended on a tradeoff between the increased
elevator power available and the increased destabilizing aerodynamic moments. For loads
weighing 25,000 pounds or less, elevator power dominated, and aircraft response was less
severe at higher airspeeds (over 130 KIAS). Since the aircraft cg moved farther aft for
loads weighing more than 25,000 pounds, the destabilizing aerodynamic moments became more
dominant, and the aircraft response was more severe at higher airspeeds. Similar
aircraft response has been recorded in C-141 and C-SA aircraft during platform airdrop
maneuvers, although they were less severe due to the much lighter platforms relative to
the post-airdrop weights of the aircraft. It is assumed that similar response has been
observed during heavy platform airdrops from C-160 and G-222 aircraft. To control the
aircraft, particularly during low extraction ratio airdrops, various elevator control
technicques have been applied. The optimum condition would be for the airdrop aircraft
to maintain a constant 4- to 5-degree noseup attitude during the entire airdrop. The
elevator position that would provide this response would be the ideal elevator position.
However, this position could be reached only up to the point where the required position
of the elevator exceeded the fixed full aircraft nosedown trim. It was, therefore, the
pilot's reaction time and ability to sense and control the aircraft while he still had
sufficient additional elevator control available, that determined the aircraft pitch rate
when the platform exited the cargo ramp. This is why it is mandatory that a well-trained
and experienced flight test crew are onboard in heavy platform low-extractin ratio
airdrops. The test personnel in the cargo compartment must keep the pilots appraised of
exactly what is happening to the platform and parachutes on a second by second basis. In
most cases a full-nosedown elevator aircraft response can be predicted prior to take-off
knowing the aircraft configuration, platform weight, extraction ratio, cg location, and
airdrop airspeed. The peak pitch rate experienced during an airdrop is the sum of this
predicted aircraft response and the pilot input elevator position. Therefore by pre.
trimming the aircraft based on the predicted response, the required pilot response may be
reduced.
Power setting of the engines may also affect the aircraft pitch attitude. At
130 KIAS, a C-130 aircraft nose-up trim change due to Militacy Rated Power (MRP)
application required approximately 0.8 degrees more aircraft nosedown elevator to trim as
compared to power for level flight. However, this small loss of available nosedown
elevator to arrest the pitchup due to platform aft movement, was more than offset by the
aft acceleration of the platform due to adding power. Applying MRP at 130 KIAS in a
C-130E aircraft increased the platform extraction ratio due to aircraft acceleratin by
0.12 for a 50,080-pound platform and a post-airdrop aircraft gross weight of 90,000
pounds. Low extraction ratio airdrops of 45,000-pound platforms were performed at 145
KIAS and 130 KIAS with C-130E aircraft to investigate the airspeed effect on aircraft
pitchup. these tests showed that less elevator control force was required to attain the
required elevator input at the lower airspeed. (Reference 1).
Ground effect during a LAPES airdrop, with the aircraft undersurface
approximately 10 feet above the ground, had the following results: Compared with normal
airdrops (above 600 ft), flight in ground effect (LAPES airdrops) resulted in more
aircraft noseup elevator being required. This increased the aircraft nosedown elevator
available to the pilot to arrest the noseup pitching during low extraction ratio
airdrops. The pitch angle (and angle of attach) required to fly level at the same
airspeed decreased in ground effect. (Reference 1).
No unsatisfactory handling qualities should be expected when making normal
extraction ratio (0.5 to 1.0) airdrops. Mild noseup pitching should be expected as the
platform moves aft in the aircraft cargo compartment, then an abrupt nosedown pitching as
the platform leaves the cargo ramp. Platforms weighing up to 50,000 pounds have been
satisfactorily airdropped from C-130E aircraft at 130 KIAS at normal extraction ratios
with little elevator input by the pilot required. Even during LAPES airdrops, the abrupt
nosedown pitching caused by pilot Input to counter the aircraft pitchup during the
airdop, is not normally a problem. This Is because the large decrease in aircraft gross
weight (after the platform clears the ramp) and the pilot input prevent loss of altitude.
Sequential platform airdrops at low and normal extrlaction ratios resulted in
C-1302 aircraft handling qualities similar to single-platform airdrops under similar
conditions. However, airspeed varied more during sequential airdrops due to the
variations in parachute drag forces. Also, the longer extraction periods allowed more
time for the airspeed to vary. However, sequential airdrops are more critical than
single-platform airdrops if a malfunction should occur. During a heavy platform
sequential airdrop, if a malfunction should occur to cause the second platform to be
retained onboard (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the aircraft center of
gravity could be forward of the published forward cg limit. Therefore, prior to
-A-•
50
conducting these teats, aircraft cg limit studies should be conducted to see if the
aircraft would be flyable at reduced airspeed, as in landing, or in pullups from a LAPES
drop 'zone. Pullups, power-off stalls, landing approaches through flare, and landings
should be conducted at cg positions well forward of the platform loading positions to be
used in the airdrop test program, if the aircraft is a new design. if the aircraft has
been in use for airdrop testing for many years, these data are usually available from the
manufacturer or test organization, and should be studied.
3.4 Special Piloting Techniques for R&D Airdrop Teats
As mentioned earlier in this volume there are two major areas of concern which
must be protected against. These were: (1) Aircraft damage or personnel injury caused
by a malfunction of the test parachute or the aircraft aerial delivery system. (This has
bean discussed in detail in the foregoing sections.) (2) Unpremediated flight maneuvers
necessitated by aircraft reaction to parachute or aerial delivery system malfunction.
To help remedy this situation it has been suggested that only the more experienced
airdrop tert pilots be used on the more hazardous tests. In general piloting techniques
are developed by pilots during the stability and control portions of a flight teat
program on new aircraft. However, those tests do not normally include the positioning of
loads outside of the design cg limits of the aircraft. Quite often, then, these tests
are conductd as part of the Aerial Delivery System Evaluation on new cargo aircraft.
minimum trim changes, minimum pilot distraction during the delivery, and crewmember team
work all help to make this process easy and natural for the pilot. For LAPES deliveries,
there is the added requirement that the pilots develop a repeatable capability to deliver
the payload at a wheel height between 5 and 15 feet. There are other hazard minimizing
techniques which have been deveLoped by test pilots who have flown these teat programs
and these are described here.
51
When flying tow tests where a target airspeed and altitude are requirements, the
consensus is that the test conditions be established somewhere between T-30 sec ond T-l0
sec check points. The aircraft should be trimmed to fly with a noseup deck angle of from
2 deg to 4 deg at time of test initiation. In the came where a small parachute (drag <
1;.2 Ta.v1) i: to be towed for S to 10 seconds at full inflation, the procedure shouli
be to noa rncease power, but allow the airspeed to decay. The exception of course would
be if target tow speed were within 1.2 Vatall* In the case where larger chutes are to be
towed, the procedure should be to add power as needed as soon as the drag is felt. Tow
tests of parachutes developing drag forces as high as two times the available maximum
thrust of a C-130A were safely conducted with a reliable parachute line cut away system.
In one case, a C-139 decelerated 20 kts in 2 seconds at full parachute inflation under a
drag force starting at 49,000 lbs, Reference 18. This is why tow testing of large
heavily constructed extraction parachutes should never be attempted by inexperienced test
organisations or without a reliable cutaway or release system and a reliable rail system
that would allow release of the platform immediately if the chute release failed. In
general, tow tests should be conducted at a minimum of 5000 ft AGL as an added
precaution. Often in longer cargo aircraft when a lighter or higher lift parachute is
being towed the chute may rise behind the aircraft so that the extraction line is danger-
ously close to the aircraft tail cone which could be damaged by the hardware at the
platform end of the line when the line is released to end the test. Since this would
only be true in the case of a lighter, smaller chute, the test engineer should ask the
pilot to drop the nose of the aircraft, thus bringing the extraction line down towards
the ramp momentarily. The test engineer can then call for chute cutaway or release.
The approach to a standard airdrop should be similar to that described for tow
testing. In this type of airdrop, the pilot technique will vary depending on the cg of
the load, the cg of the aircraft, the weight of the load, the parachute expected lock
release force and the expected exit speed of the load. However, the pilot should enter
the range with a trim setting with which he feels comfortable for heavy airdrop. The
pitch attitude for a heavily laden C-130 aircraft flying at 130 KIAS and 50 percent flaps
would be approximately 4 deg noseup. This noseup attitude will provide a significant aft
acceleration of the platform which would be helpful in reducing aircraft responses during
low extraction ratio airdrops. The consensus for heavier platforms is to apply MRP
immediately upon feeling the drag of the extraction parachute and allow the airplane to
pitch up. The pilot should monitor airspeed, adjusting the pitch angle; the angle of
attack should remain at approximately the trim value after power application, thus he
should retain at least the same stall margin as he had at trim. In the emergency case
where a heavy platform lost its extraction force immediately after siderail locks had
been released, and the platform is moving aft slowly, the pitch rate may become
alarmingly high even with application of elevator. However, as the deck angle increases
the platform accelerates and the entire process should not take over 3 seconds for a
C-130, Reference 1. This technique has provided a load exit speed for a C-130 aircraft,
equivalent to that of an extraction parachute providing an extraction ratio of 0.12.
Reference 1, Figure 42.
APPAGAOIWITH
AIRCRAPT
w5 MII5 ITAI X
INITIAE
~ EXTRCTMINCOWMIVIMATMO
~ INAMIISSO
5 DELIVERY
TIMhID
ATAIM WIT"
ANSPMND
P"92 ASNI5UR411015,
PATL54. SEPARATION MACNTAIAM
ANPIE£D43 LEVELPLIGHT
Figure 42 Recommended Pilot Airdrop Technique for "Standard" or "Mains" Heavy Airdrops
For those tests in which low exit speeds exist (an extraction ratio of load
weight/extraction force <0.25), test pilots should allow the aircraft to pitch up as the
platform moves aft. This will allow the platform to accelerate due to gravity. However
on heavier loads he should keep his eye on his pitch rate assuring he still has
sufficient yoke movement to arrest the pitch rate should it increase too rapidly.
Another reason for not pushing the yoke forward immediately to arrest the pitch up is
that by doing so he would be forcing the aft ramp edge up into the platform when it is
; ~already sustaining the maximum load from the "platform as it teeters on the teeter
Srollers. This is an example where the communication between the test engineer and the
_
52
pilots would let them know exactly where the load is and if there are any impending
emergencies. In most cases where a heavy platform is being jettisoned or there has been
an emergency caused by a failed extraction system, the pilot should be advised as the
emergency procedures state - he should add power cautiously so as not to aggravate this
nose up pitch moment. In some cases test pilots have pretrimmed the aircraft for such an
eventuality and have experienced no real difficulties as long as the platform continued
to roll out of the aircraft. However there have been cases, quite recently where heavy
platform loads moved aft at a slow rate, ran over obstructions on the ramp, jammed at
that point, and caused the aircraft to crash when it became unflyable. Techniques for
"Mains" extraction airdrops are similar to those for the standard airdrop except that the
aircraft may be at an altitude of 500 ft AGL or less. Therefore recovery time is greatly
shortened.
ADDAIMPANDINITIATE
PULLUP iAXIMUM)
M2j
TO 2 aOtEE
PITCH
ATTITUE IF OBSTACLE
IS NECESSARY
CLEARANCE D
BEGIN GRADUALPLANE
INITIATE EXTRACTION
PAYLOAD
SEPARATION o Saom
NOTE, PAYLOAD I
TOIC LBTO STARTS
MdOV
I - NIt
HIL HEIGHT
30It
5 1 IfWHEELEIGHT TNEEUT
4 TEST REPORTING
"No job is done until the paperwork is complete." This axiom holds doubly true
for technical testing such as has been discussed in this volume. Whether the report is
Ln
I5
brief and made verbally bitch as a post-flight briefing, or covers the entire technical
efforts of a test team over an entire teat program and requires many coordination signs-
turoa on a formal technical report, the report is the statement of the teat results. it
answers the quesation# how did we do in relation to what we planned to do? There are
several forms of report for which R&D airdrop teat personnel are reapoflaible and theme
are briefly discussed here.
4.1 Poat-Flight Briefing
The poat-flight briefing should be conducted as soon after the aircraft has
landed as practicable. Usually the pilots may wish to speok with the maintenance crew
chief immediately after engines shutdown unless the maintenance writeups "squawks" are
part of the post-flight briefing. Then they should be available for the post-flight
briefing. These briefings should be brief but everyone participating in the test should
be heard from if he has something to add. Normally it is a good practice for the test
engineer to write up notes on his test immediately after the cargo doors are closed in
flight and while the test in fresh in his mind. In discussions with test
engineers/technicians from the NATO organizations it was determined that they all made
notes during the flight and used their own versions of a form similar to that shown In
Figure 44. The teat engineer should brief how the system functioned and any comments he
may have on test procedures. The loadmasters should also make their comments at this
time. These comments should be incorporated to the "quick look" report as appropriate.
4.2 Formal Reports
4.2.1 "Quick Look" or Post-Test Report
On larger test programs where the magnitude of the support requiresa notification
of a higher echelon or organization a "quick look" or post-test written report way be
required within 24 to 48 hours following a test. This report should be brief but should
contain all the pertinent data available prior to extended scientific or engineering
analysis. The data for this report usually comes from the post-flight briefing. For
many of the shorter accelerated programs, written reports after each test are not
required but the data are accumulated and provided periodically or at the close of a
phase of the testing.
4.2.2 Periodic or Summary Reports
Periodic or Summary Reports may be required every month or quarter depending on
the frequency of tests or they may be required only at the completion of a phase of the
testing effort. For example, in the sample program shown in Section 3 a written report
may be required after the tow tests, but normally a short program such as this would
require a written report only at the end of the entire program. However, on a full-scale
erial delivery
arequired system evaluation on a new cargo airplane summary/periodic reports may be
after each phase such as tow tests, single-platform airdrop tests, sequential
platform airdrop tests, LAPES single platform tests and so forth. Again the various NATO
organizations that were consulted In preparation for the writing of this volume each had
its own philosophy regarding the writing and dissemination of technical reports.
However, they all agreed on the need for some intermediate reporting.
4.2.3 Final Technical Reports
The final technical report is the most important document that will probably
come out of an R&D airdrop test program. The final report should contain data from the
engineering viewpoint and from the operational viewpoint. In those cases where only one
technical discipline is involved such as the aircraft mechanical airdrop kit, with no
aircraft performance involved there may be a single author. In this case the mechanics
of the report writing are simplified since consistency in evaluation is not a problem.
However, when several disciplines are involved, such as parachute engineers, mechanical
systems engineers, aircraft performance engineers and pilots, there will be inconsis-
tencies where these disciplines interface and it should be the primary author's responsi-
bility to weave these evaluations together into a comprehensible and clearly written
document. Often test organizations have opted for separate sections to a report with one
section being written by the test engineers and another by the pilots. Nevertheless,
both disciplines have important contributions to the worth of the technical report and
their input should reflect the writers tone as well as his technical arguments, conclu-
sions and recommendations. Several organizations, recognizing the importance of the
final technical report as the end product of the testing effort, have published technical
report writing handbooks to assist the authors in this necessary yet tedious task.
(Reference 20.)
4.2.4 Malfunction Reports
Malfunction Reports are usually only required if someone is injured or the
malfunctionl resulted in loss of expensive or accountable equipment, or in the case of a
suspected safety violation. In R&D airdrop testing where new devices, parachutes or
procedures are being tested, malfunctions are to be expected and are included as part of
the teat results. on larger airdrop programs, malfunction reports are required more as a
means of explaining the loss of accountable equipment such as airdropped vehicles or
weapons or damaged aircraft hardware. A well-written test program, which as been safety
briefed usually accounts for all eventualities, therefore no one in the test community
_ _ _ _ ~ ~- . -
54
should be surprised if on a hazardous test there in some aircraft damage or some expen-
sive telemetry equipment is destroyed.
4.2.5 Service Reuorts
Service reports are seldom required in R&D airdrop testing except in the case of
a new airdrop aircraft or a new major weapon system which is nearing a production cycle.
In these instances, it is cost effective to identify troublesome parts as early as
possible so they may be changed prior to the production cycle. For this reason, service
reports are submitted even in the early developmental phases of the testing effort.
However the test engineer should be sure before submitting service reports (unsatisfac-
tory material reports) that the system components are not performing up to the
specifications in the manufacturers contract. As a rule service reporting during R&D
airdrop testing should be approached with caution and only after consulting the contracts
Z personnel of the organization when organizations exterior to the test organization are
involved. Quite often quality assurance in-plant inspections by teams from Program
Offices are included in the development contract and service reporting could conflict
with inspection procedures if not properly coordinated with the System Program Office.
A/C NO. FT
LMODEL
NO.
LM 3 OTHER
RUN TIME AIRSPEED ALT FLAPS EVENT TYPE EXTR RECOV PLATFM
2 HOT . .. - I
3 HOT
4HOT
LI
55
5. REFERENCES
1. E. Rutan Evaluation of the C-130E Stability and Control Characteristics During
r. Stroup Tandem, Sequential and Single Platform LhPES Deliveries and Airdrop
Deliveries. FTC-TR-67-18, 1967
2. Cargo Handling System for Aeritalia G-222. Brooks & Perkins T.M.
BPS-373, 1976
3. USAF Technical Order T.O. IC-130E-9
4. AFSC Design Handbook, Air Transportability,DHl-l1 1t Ed. Rev 4. 20
Feb 1980.
5. USAF Technical Order T.O. 1C-5A-9
6. H. Hunter Evaluation Tests of C-BA Airplane Aerial Delivery System, Phase II
G. Boyer Airdrop and Jettison Capability, AFFTC-TR-71-47, 1971
7. F. B. Morris Performance Evaluation of Heavy Duty 28-ft D Ring Slot Extraction
Parachutes USAF FTC-TR-69-43. 1963.
12. R.S. Morrison Development of a Parachute System for Minuteman I Missile Launch from
C-BA Aircraft, AFFTC-TR-75-2, 1975.
13. Open Link Safety Device (GO-NOGO) AFFTC-TIH-69-1001, 1969.
14. [I.J. Klewe The Telemetry and Telecommand Equipment in Measuring Techniques for
Rescue and Recovery Systems, DFVLR. Germany
15. K. Martin Evaluation of the C-130E Stability and Control Characteristica and
R. Franzen the A/32H-4 Dual Rail Cargo Handling System During Low Level Cargo
R. Ramirez Deliveries. FTC-TR-66-43, 1967.
16. H. Hunter An Airdrop System for Testing Large Parachutes for Recovery of Loads
in Excess of 50,000 lbs. AIAA Paper No. 73-471 4th Aerodynamic
Conference 1973.
17. H. Hunter C-141A Category I Aerial Delivery System Evalaution AFFTC FTC-TR-66-
32, 1966.
Appendix A
...-.. ~..-.........
S
58
Drivingforce * T:rmvs~n
tear th tranemitted
.l~e~t La fea gtto
5*Selctor p- r
Fixed pin
Fixed pin
"Armin lg ever
Stop block
Cam
L. CA
Alo Inter
*.v*er
Comtrol
tU
0
60
0 pp
L.Lea kho.k
MCWIf
SIDERIL
LCK
1. *t
i..11.1*1
at~t tPLCtyPi
Starliftor C-141-A Transport Aerial 0eliVery $Yltem
,r-1
Platfo1m Restrftined In C-141A Siderail Restraint System. Four Rows of Roller Conveyor&
are via ib le at Right and Loft buttlines No. 15 and 51
CONTROL
HANDLE
CONTROL HN~jDLE
I CONTROL
ROD
13t
-~ 1•
2. Release Mechanism
3. Release Lever
5. Operabl Hooks
6. Parachute Solder
6. Uplock Indicator
9 Uplock 8able
18. Hoisting Cable
11. Release Solenoid
12.
13. Extraction Parachute
Para1hute Pendulum Cord
14. Uplock 3.~,
Lever Rees/ee
S.....
.e.up .bl
12... in o r Cabe.. or.
"63
1. Tension Strut
2. Anchor Cable Terminal Fitting
/
3. Anchor Cable
4. Compression Strut
5. Forward Strut Attach Bracket
6. Quick-Release pin
7. Aft Support
8. Aft Support Actuator
* ,I TlpOo.VVPI FQRWARD U OI
p
Ar T rUPP d
o
Anchor Cable Forward Support, Tripod-Type, and Retractable Aft Supports
65
Appendix B
Sample Calculations for Drag Force, Steady State Drag Force, Reefing Line Length
A very useful tool for the developmental airdrop test engineer/technician when
planning his teat program is the wealth of accumulated teat data available in the publi-
cations which are referenced in Section 5 end elsewhere. Notable among these are the
documents referenced in Reference 19. That Technical Report is often called "The
Parachute Handbook" in the U.S. and contains design characteristics and performance data
based on literally thousands of wind tunnel and flight teats. Many useful equations are
derived and charts are provided based on these empirical data.
A few of the basic equations are provided here which are directly applicable
to the types of testing described earlier in this volume. If the reader wishes to pursue
the theory of the various aspects of aerodynamic decelerator. (parachutes) in more detail
he should obtain a copy of The Parachute Handbook, (Reference 10).
1 DRAG FORCE
The basic drag equation may be uaed for predicting the drag to be expected for
various types and sizes of parachutes. When the chute is to be towed by an aircraft
weighing many times as much as the total drag of the parachute, the infinite mass prin-
ciples apply.
Using the sample tow test described in paragraph 3.2a 16-ft diameter chute
(reefed to an equivalent drag of a 10-ft diameter chute) was to be towed at a speed of
200 knots at an altitude of 5909 feet.
Drag then, is an aerodynamic force which is defined by the equation
D - CD3Sq
Therefore in the example tow test, the steady-state drag force at 209 kias would
be
D - 0.5(200)113 - 11,309 lbs
However, at opening, the chute will experience an additional opening shock load.
This load has been verified by many tests and is based on these experimental values.
If Fo is used to denote the maximum opening force and the constant velocity or
steady-state velocity, force with a fully inflated canopy, expressed as FC
with Fc a (CCS)0 ,pqs
where subscripts o,p refer to the nominal and projected areas of the canopy, and q,
denotes q at the start of canopy inflation.
And if X is an amplification factor denoting the relationship between maximum
opening force, Fo and the steady-state constant drag force FC expressed as
X- o
PC
then the maximum opening shock or opening force is
Fo - (CDS)0 ,pq,X
where X is a dimensionless factor, the value of which has been established experimentally
for various types of canopies. For a ribbon canopy X > 1.95
66
In the example, the 16-ft diameter ribbon chute being tow tested at 266 kts
would have its expected steady-state drag force of 11,300 lbs increased by this factor,
resulting in a maximum predicted drag force of 11,300 X 1.65, or 11,865 lbs.
4 In the sample case an extraction parachute force of approximately 4500 lbs was
required, therefore it was decided to use a 16-ft diameter chute that was readily avail-
able (Section 8). By reefing this chute to an equivalent diameter of 16 ft, the result
was a drag force
D - 6.5(73)113 = 4125 lbs
or a maximum drag force of
Fo - 4125 X 1.65 - 4330 lbs
NOTE: It is important for flight safety reasons when using a reefed canopy to know the
potential total drag for the canopy in the unreefed state in the event there is a failure
in the reefing system and the chute fully inflates. Therefore, all components of the
parachute system should be sized for the higher drag force of the unreefed canopy until
the entire system's reliability has been proven. In the example case, tow test com-
ponents to withstand a force of 12,600 X 2.6 safety factor, or 24,066 lbs should be
used.
3 REEFING LINE LENGTH
When a smaller drag area is needed temporarily, as in a case where the required
size of canopy is not available off-the-shelf, it is possible to obtain the desired drag
force to test a system by reefing a similar parachute of larger diameter to an equivalent
drag area. This required diameter may be determined as the diameter of the reefing line,
DRL where:
Do - Nominal diameter of the unreefed canopy - 16 ft
DRL - Diameter of the reefing line of the reefed canopy
2
(CDS)R - Drag area of the reefed canopy - 50 ft
(CDS)o - Drag •rea of the unreefed fully inflated canopy
109 ftl
16 32 45 0
NUMBER OF GORE$
and since the drag area ratio (CDS)R/(CDS)o for the sample case - 50/100 = 6.5 by
entering the chart below with a drag area ratio of 6.5
67
I I i i I
-- -DRAG AREAOF' RErED rARACHI1-
1 01
a 1.4 .ft
.4- DOC -
1606305 -
5.-f
REEFI4G LI DIAMETERRATIO
LINE LOA
ORt
Tension begins to build-up in the reefing line at that moment in the inflation
process when the angle of the canopy radial members, *, become greater than the conver-
gence angle of the suspension lines,0. From this point on, the ratio of the instan-
taneous loads in the reefing line and the parachute riser can be approximated from the
geometry given in the figure below:
hI
.o.,
Radial C.=vona.,a .1
I p_-
68
hlm (Do/2)-h.
*r hc•=Dpr/4
Equation (1) derives from the simple relationship for hoop tension in a flexible
band
f's - pr
r - Dr/2
Although f's (max) occurs a short time after P(max) a conservative result will
be obtained by assuming they are coincidental.
L
69
q Appendix C
Typical Airdrop Parachutes and Webbing Characteristics
Parachute Extraction Force and Extraction Speed vs Time for a 35-ft Parachute Extracting
a 50,699-lb Load
40 40
- UN
to to
I 20 TfC-SEC
z b,
£ 0
70
..75 t5
Ringpail () -1 1.16 .69 to -1.10 to Descent
.90 .10e
.52 -10"
Disc.Gap-Band .73 .65 to -1.30 to Descent
.58 ±MSI
L
71
COTTON WEBBING
L
73
Appendix D
Rigging Techniques
During sequential airdrops in which the aircraft anchor line cable is used to
anchor the static lines, it is necessary to rig a drag line to prevent osciallation of
the anchor line cable and the subsequent entangling of static lines about the cable. The
figure below shows a way of rigging draglines for a guillotine force transfer system and
a go-no-go open link device on the same cable e
Anchor Line Cable
I'4
The problem noted above may be eliminated if the anchor line is rigged along the
center of the cargo floor.
Static Line
CGu-1 /B
Tiedown Device
In stowing the extraction lines for subsequent platforms "S" folding may be used
either vertically or horizontally but each stow should be tied to assure orderly deploy-
ment of the line. The extraction chute deployment bag should be tied at the closed end
only to allow the bag to move at the free end and align itself with the extraction line
when the platform rotates. A typical method is shown below.
1 Turn 2200 Lb •
Nylon trpeainBac
1 ur 550 Lb
Nylon Tape
80 Lb .S., Cott• // \\ /).
Tape ,. so Lb T.3. Cotton
E atrnction
Relay line
Extraetion Branch 2 -
lineURelay c
Branch lI 0Araf
lectrical
Dicanatocwthtw inier
10 meters long
Extraction bracket-
~ I •/ • Extraction riser
Appendix E
Test instrumentation onboard the airdrop test aircraft will very in accordance
with the extent of the toating effort. If a newly designed aircraft in being toeted to
evalute its capabilities an a an airdrop aircraft, much of the instrumentation may be
installed by the manufacturer during the aircraft assembly. The instrumentation listed
below, however, assumes that the aircraft has completed atructural and performance
testing and is being instrumented for airdrop touting, using carry-on type recording
equipment.
1. Instrumentation lusts have been divided into the following two categories:
a. Aircraft Flight Instrumentation
Aircraft flight instrumentation can be quite extensive and may include the
following parameters.
Airspeed 50 to 350 kt
Pressure altitude 9 to 59,099 ft
Radar altitude 0 to 1999 ft (for LAPES)
Turbine inlet temperature (4 engines) 0 to 1996 deg C
Flap position U to 190 pct
Outside air temperature -48 to +66 deg
Angle of attack -19 to +31 deg
Angle of sideslip 20 deg ANL to 20 deg ANR
Vertical acclerometer -1.5 to +4 g
Stop watch (19-second sweep)
Elevator trim tab position 25 deg up to 10 deg down
Time correlation 9 to 99999 counts
Events as required
PARAMETER RANGE
K.
WLb
PARANETER RANGElb
PARAMETER RANGE
The rate reel consists of a grooved cylinder (Figure 37), with a circumference
(measured at the bottom of the groove) equal to 1 foot. Wire (22 gauge) is wound in the
groove and the end is attached to the leading edge of a platform to be extracted. During
extraction, the wire causes the cylinder to rotate 1 revolution per foot of platform
travel. A magnetic pulse is generated by a magnet and pickup on each revolution, with
time between pulses decreasing as rate reel rotational speed increases. The extraction
rate may then be determined.
*Provided by a strain gage metal link, available in 3 sizes. (Figure 35)
~f
77
Appendix F
AIRITALIA
FLIGHT TEST
L.M. tO t.
Checks carried-out - a. & P. system handless
a. LH Sequential handle: stowed
6 MINUTIES.EFORI DROPPING 2. Drogue chute safety linetchecked
3. Tow-plate
P to L.M.Z a. Normal control lever in proper
-- I mj1es position
A/C depressurised b. Emergency control lever in
proper position
.M. to Pt 4. Check that all personnel are for-
Checks carried-out ward of the load
Ready to ramp and door 5. Removal of restraining chains
opening
L.M. to P.:
P to L.M.' Checis carried out
ia-Tjht, ramp and door
Open i ng
L.M. to Pt
Ramp-and door open
P-
lectrical winch atby
E-
switch: ON
L.M. to P.:
- seconds: received
-Ren'ova safety pin on TOW PLATE
CONSOLLE
!,.M. to P,:
Drogue-Norma. opening
(otherwise see Emerg. Al or A2)
P. to L.M.: P. to L.M.:
-Ready for green light -3-2-1-GREENI
P.: L.M.:
-Landing liqhts: OFF F.T.I.: OFF
-Audio signal
-Ramp and door close
-Light oif
_________________-__
_______ ___ ____........--..-
, !1
79
AERITALIA
FLIGHT TEST
; .. ... a
f80
on-aircraft
1. Air-drop system 88 - Installed
U
81
Loading
1. Loading documents - Check
2. Stations - Determine
3. Cargo - Load
4. Cargo - Restrain
5. DD Form 365 F Prepare
After Loading
1. Crank handle -Normal position
2. Loading winch cable -Reeled in
3. Auxiliary loading devices -Stow/restrain
NOTE
Paras 4 - 14 shea11 be executed for each individual load; for the load to be
delivered first pars 15 to be executed in addition.
Before Taxiing
Adopt parses 1 - 9 from GAF T.O. 1C-160-1 page 8-104.
--
--
-----
83
Dropping
After Dropping
1. Rotary selector switch "AS" (extraction chute) - On
b) Horn - Off
2. Malfunction - Report
WARNING
If during closing operation the extractTon c'ute fell. out of the aircraft, the cargo
chutes will be extracted. Closing of loading ramp/cargo door shall be stopped
immediately to prevent the extrension strap from becoming caught. After about 3 seconds
the cargo chutes will be de-reefed, and when exceeding a tow load of 8BUS kp (about
78590 N) they will be automatically separated from the locked load. After closing of
loading ramp/cargo door:
2. Malfunction - Report
NOTE
The cargo chutes are extracted and will be de'-reefed after 3 seconds. When exceeding a
tow load of 8606 kp (about 78566 N) they will be automatically separated from the
locked/jamming load.
3. Toggle switch "VERSTANDEN/FLUG" (Roger/flight) - FLUG (flight)
or
II
it AI-I
Annex I
12. Aircraft Flight Test Data Processing - A Review of the State of the Art 1980
by LJ.Smith and N.O.Matthews
16. Trajectory Measurements for Take-off and Landing Test and Other Short-Range Applications 1985 ,
by P.de Benque d'Agut, H.Riebeek and A.Pool
________________________________
Al-2
Volume Publication
SNumber Date
At the time of publication of the present volume the following volume was in preparation:
SPub/kation
Number Title Date
AG 237 Guide to In-Flight Thrust Measurement of Turbojets and Fan Engines 1979
by the MIDAP Study Group (UK)
The remaining volumes will be published as a sequence of Volume Numbers of AGARDograph 300.
At the time of publication of the present volume the following volumes were in preparation:
Aimie 2
This annex is presented to make readers aware of handbooks that are available on a variety of flight test subjects not
necessarily related to the contents of this volume.
Requests for A & AEE documents should be addressed to the Defence Research Information Centre, Glasgow (see
back cover). Requests for US documents should be addressed to the Defence Technical Inform ation Center, Cameron
Station, Alexandria, VA 22314 (or in one case, the Library of Congress)
NATC-TM76-3SA Simpson, W.R. The Development of Primary Equations for the Use of 1977
On-Board Accelerometers in Determining Aircraft Performance
NATC-TM-77-2SA Simpson, W.R. The Numerical Analysis of Air Combat Engagements 1977
Oberle, RA. Dominated by Maneuvering Performance
NATC-TM-77-1SY Gregoire, H.G. Analysis of Flight Clothing Effects on Aircrew Station 1977
Geometry
A & AEE Note 2111 Appleford, JK. Performance Division: Clearance Philosophies for Fixed 1978
WingAircraft
A & AEE Note 2113 (Issue 2) Norris, EJ. Test Methods and Flight Safety Procedures for Aircraft 1980
Trials Which May Lead to Departures from Controlled Flight
A2-2
AFIF'rC-TIH-79-1 - USAF Test Pilot School (USAFTPS) Flight Test Handbook 1979
Performance: Theory and Flight Techniques
AFFITC-TIH-8 1-1 Rawlings, K., MI A Method of Estimating Upwash Angle at Nosexoom- 1981
Mounted Vanes
AFFTC-TIH-8 1-1 Plews, L and Aircraft irike Systems Testing Handbook 1981
Mandt, G.
NATC-TM-71-1SA226 Hewett, M.D. On Improving the Flight Fidelity of Operational Flight/ 1975
Galloway, R.T. Weapon System Trainers
NATC-TM-TPS76-1 Bowes, W.C. Inertially Derived Flying Qualities and Performance 1976
Miller, R.V, Parameters
NASA Ref. Publ. 1008 Fisher, F.A, Lightning Protection of Aircraft 1977
Plumer, JA,
NASA Ref. Publ. 1046 Grncey, W. Measurement of Aircraft Speed and Altitude 1980
NASA Ref, Publ. 1075 Kalil, F. Magnetic Tape Recording for the Eighties (Sponsored by: 1982
Tape Head Interfawx Committee)
A2-3
63 Gremont Aperqu sur les pneumnatiques et leurs propridtds 25 3uie Edition 1972
77 Gremont L'atternssae et le probl~me du freinage 40 2eme Edition 1978
& 9. Date
Heay i.Humac
Edimed by RJC.Boge September 1987
CupairmftFliglit zinanoeuves
~-This volume in dhe AGARD Flight Tomt Techniques seriesdeals with the practical aspects of
planning conducting and reportng on developmental airdrop tests made from cargo transport type
aircraftj. Typical cargo aircraft Aerial Delivery systems, parachute extraction systems and special
devices and niggig techniques are described in detail. Typical instrumentation systems for obtaining
aircraft and parachute systems force data are also described and piloting techniques for various
airdrop methods are briefly discussed. The author also uses a scenario of a typical parachute Tow
Test to demonstrate the application of these techniques and the use of challenge and response
checklists among the flight crewmembers. Finally the use of reports is discussed and appendices are
included withpiany useful charts and calculations that are readily applicable in research and
developmcnte(R-&D)0airdrop, testing. KLu
o:!'~i
'a I
2 1
ili
""111 jj1ii
TO.
I T8
lls1.I fiiA
L0