UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
ADB007705
LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.

FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies
only; Test and Evaluation; MAY 1975. Other
requests shall be referred to Air Force
Armament Lab., Eglin AFB, FL.

AUTHORITY
AFATL ltr 3 Jul 1979

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

«^»»w-^B 1
w^w

■ 1 I ..—— .
 -* ••" t^^m^^tmm^m^^ i ii ^-~^^-—"^^^»■•^^^■■^■■^^■»■1 Mww^^Mi^^^^a^

UNCLASSIFIED
StCUHl^V CLOSil^lCATlQw Of TMH PMKWItmt DMuKmtv*)

UNCLASSIFIED
tf CUNITV CL»»»irtc»Tio* or TMI» mikOMrmmt o— «««».»J

■MMIMI« --^-
 Sl'MMARY

A development program was conducted to explore means of Improving

the performance characteristics of 20mm high explosive incendiary (HEI)
projectiles. The goal was to improve its hit probabilities by reducing
its time of flight and further enhance its effectiveness by increasing
its kill capability after a hit has been scored. The findings of this
program show this goal can be accomplished with a thin-wall projectile
design having a significantly reduced weight and improved aerodynamic
properties, yet concurrently providing added space for high explosive
and incendiary materials which enhance its lethality. Furthermore, It
is fully compatible with existing cartridge case and M-61 gun Systeme.

This improved design was accomplished by reducing the thickness of

the projectile wall to the least practical value,thereby replacing
space occupied by high density steel with low density high explosive.
This provided a significant increase in the charge-to-metal ratio, an
important parameter in terminal effectiveness. This configuration
change in the projectile was achieved through the choice of material,
heat treating the material, and the use of finite element analytical
techniques to provide a minimum weight design. The use of a bonded
plastic rotating band having a small intrusion into the projectile wall
was also very instrumental in reducing the wall thickness.

The experience acquired in developing the projectile is reviewed

in this report. Approximately 400 units wore expended in tests designed
to acquire information on various aspects of the projectile design. This
test experience is reviewed along with the analytical work and other
considerations pertinent to the projectile design. An appreciable effort
was devoted to the investigation of materials and the method of bonding
the plastic rotating band to the projectile. A review of this work Is
included.

(The reverse of thin page is blank)

BBS ■SL mmmmtm

 i -■ ^qpip^nf ww^mm l^^mmm mm ^^^m
■■■MB

PREIACF.

This program was conducted by the AAI Corporation, Industry l.ane,

Cockevsvllle, Maryland 21030, under Contract F0863W4-C-0116 with the
Air Force Armament laboratory. Armament Development and Test Center,
r
F.glln Air .»rce Base, Florida. Captain Earl Connor (01.00 managed the
program for the Armament Laboratory. The program was conducted during
the period from April 1974 to April 1975.

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for

publication.

FOR
IK THE C0MMANUER
U»»DiANUtK Vx

' • /i /\ J .< ^ ^> V

ALFRED D. BROWN. JR., Colonel, USAF
Chief, Guns, Rockets and Explosives Division

111
(The reverse of Ihlt» pflKf I» blanl' )

m an •*-'••• 'LL""::-.
MM
w^mmmmm^m 'mmmf^m^mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm-im. i - i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pa e
Section Title »
l
1. INTRODUCTION

4
11. INVESTIGATIONS -

1. Configuration Studies

2. Structural Analysis "

3. Material Selection And Heat Treat 32

35
4. Rotating Band Development
42
5. Incendiary Provisions

b. Manufacturing Techniques *•

7. Propellant Provisions ^6
47
8. Charge-to-Metal Ratio

9. Test Programs

111. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONAL CONFIGURATION

59
IDENTIFICATION
59
1. Physical Characteristics
59
2. Performance Characteristics

63
3. Reliability

63
4. Material
6:J
5. Interface Characteristics

6. Test Requirements -----

67
IV. CONCLUSIONS

V. RECOMMENDATIONS ^

— - ■ ■ ■
■'' mmtm^mmmim —- -:---- -—-- . HMH
 -p— —- mmmmmmm mmmmmnm

LIST Of lU.USTRATIONS
Figure Title Haj.t.
I Projectile Body - Minimum Weight,
Modified Fuze Configuration »,
2 Minimum Weiglit, Modified Füie Projectile 7
3 Projectile Body - Maximum HE Capacity,
Modified Fuze Configuration g
Maximum MK Capacity, Modified FUze Projectile . . 9
5 Projectile Body - Minimum Weight,
M505A3 Fuze Configuration io
b Minimum Weight, M50!>A3 Fuze Projectile H
7 Projectile Body - Maximum HE Capacity,
M50SA3 Fuze Configuration 12
e Maximum HE Capacity,
M505A3 Fuze Projectile 43
Projectile Body - Minimum Weight,
Modified Fuze Conical Section 15
10 Minimum Weight, Modi tied Fuze,
Cunlcal Section Configuration 16
11 Projectile Body - Minimum Weight, Modified
Fuze, Aft Support 17
12 Minimum Weight, Modified Fuze,
Aft Support Configuration ig
13 Projectile Body - Minimum Weight, Modified
Fuze, Aft Support/Conical Section 19
M Minimum Weight, Modified Fuze, Aft
Support/Conical Section Configuration 20
IS Element Pattern - Minimum Weight Design
M505A3 Fuze 24
16 Element Pattern - Maximum HE Capacity Design,
M505A3 Fuze 25
17 Element Pattern - Minimum Weight Dekign.
Modified M505 Füze 26
u Rotating Band Configuration 36
19 Thin-Wall 20MM Projectile - Test Arrangements . . 49
MlcroFlnsh Photograph ol Projectile in Flight. . . 50

vl

■an H ■ 1
 «■MH

LIST OF TABUS

Table Title page

I WeiKlit Distributions of Seven Thin-Wall

Projectile Designs 21
Octohedral Shear Stress Results for Minimum
Weight Configuration with a Standard
M505A3 Fuze (Figure 15) 27
Octohedral Shear Stress Results for Maximum
HE Capacity Design with Standard M505A3
Fuze (Figure 16) 29
Octohedral Shear Stress Results for Minimum
Weight Configuration with a Modified M505 Füze
(Figure 17) 30

Summary of Rotating Band Materials 38

6 Weight Adjustments due to Zirconium Sleeve .... 43
7 Computed Charge-to-Metal Ratios 47
8 List of Development and Acceptance Tests 56
I Physical Properties of Seven Thin-Wal I Projectile
Designs - Weight in Grains 50
10 Interior Ballistic Performance Parameters .... 61
ll Exterior Ballistic Performance Parameters .... 62
12 Summary of Testing Requirements 65

vii
(The reverse of this page is blank.)

-- ■ - - - ■ --
 mm^mm wimm mm ■ ■ " " « ' ' ! !

SFX1I0N I

INTRODUCTION

The Air Fore« ts sponsoring a program to update the d«t>lgn of the

2Ümra projectile to increase its effectiveness in the air-to-air and air-
« to-ground combat situations. Hie program embraces development work on
both the fuze and the projectile body. This program was performed to
investigate means of improving the projectile. Development work on the
fuze was performed under a separate program.
Air-to-air combat effectiveness can be improved by two factors:
(1) short time-of-flight for combat ranges and (2) greater
warhead lethality. Short time-of-flight improves the probability of
hitting the target, particularly in combat between modern high perform-
ance aircraft. Two ways of reducing time-of-flight are (I) increase the
muzzle velocity and (2> reduce the aerodynamic drag of the projectile.
Workit^ with the current M103 cartridge case and the M-61 gun
systems are logical constraints which leaves two means open to Increase
muzzle velocity: One Is to alter the propellant, and the other is to
reduce the weight of the projectile. Both of these approaches were
employed,but the major effort was devoted to reducing the weight of the
projectile. This was accomplished by thinning the walls of the projectile,
thus switching space occupied by high density steel to space occupied
by low density explosive. Thinning the walls of the projectile was
accomplished through the choice of material, heat treating the material,
and configuration changes. Configuration changes were accomplished by
sizing the walls of the projectiles to work at stress levels conmensurate
with the stress allowables that heat treating provided. A finite element
analysis technique was instrumental in achieving a design that provides
uniform stress levels throughout the projectile. The use of a plastic
rotating band that limited Intrusion of the band Into the wall of the
projectile was also quite Instrumental In achieving a practical thin-
wall projectile design.

- -- ■
 "

The wolght reduction achieved by thinning the walls and the use of
a plastic rotating band to reduce the start force resulted In a marked
reduction in the peak chamber pressure. The chamber pressure was
raised back to the level permitted by the gun by blending propellants
to provide more rapid burning. This resulted in a substantial Increase
in the muzzle velocity. Since the muszle velocity and cross-sectional
density of the projectile are fixed, the only way to further decrease
time-of-flight Is by decr»««»8lng the drag. Some of the projectile con-
tigurations employ an impiuved low drag aerodynamic shape.
Greater warhead lethality improves ^ojectlle effectiveness and can
be accomplished by improvements In a number of areas. Parameters to be
considered are:
(1) Increased charge-to-metal ratio.
(2) increased HE capacity.
(3) Improved Incendiary effects.
(4) Choice of explosive.
(5) Controlled fragmentation.
(6) Use of a delay fuze to Inhibit functioning past Che point of
initial contact with the skin of the aircraft.
The delayed action fuze was the subject of a separate program and
no effort was expended here except to Interface properly with the modi-
fied fuze configuration. Also, no effort was expended In developing or
locating an alternate explosive. The explosive employed In the M-56
current design was used. No attempt was made to control fragment size
by any of the devices available for this purpose. However, other
factors such as the charge-to-metal ratio and the configuration changes
have some effect on this parameter. The charge-to-metal ratio was
Increased appreciably by thinning th« projectile wa11% and the amount of
HE conpacted into the projectile was increased significantly. Also,
special provisions were made to Improve the Incendiary property of the
projectile bv Inclusion of zirconium metal in the HE cavity.

d^MH ■^—'■n
m\ HUM* <m
i i i i mim
i»
m
■■ —^r-r^TE. iiihiiMi mmm m- ■ M
 ■ I I I . I ■ « TW

HMM^HBI

n.e loreRolng a.scus.lon provides M overview of the objectives of

,,... pro*« a.Kl the umurc ol the «MiV» thnt were Rcnernted to
.ehlove these objective.. The followln»; dlscuwion« review the develop-
nn.nt experience and sunrurUe the results of this development effort.

L
-■■■ —- - '^
 SECTION II

INVESTIGATIONS

I. CONFIGURATION STUDIES
The program was planned to Investigate four basic projectile con-
figurations. They encompassecl minimum weight and maximum HE capacity
projectile designs for each of two fuze configurations. The two fuze
configurations were the standard Mr>0!)A3 fuze and a version of this fuze
that was modified to improve the aerodynamic shape and provide delayed
action that will explode the projectile inside aircraft structure. In
the minimum weight design the emphasis is on tlme-of-flight; the
maximum HE capacity approach emphahIzes Its lethality.
Actually, all four projectile designs are minimum weight designs
insofar as the projectile body Itself is concerned. The objective was
to minimize the metal and maximize the HE cavity In each projectile.
The constraints were compatibility with their respective fuze, the M1U3
cartridge case, and the M-61 gun systems.
Compatibility with the M •() >A3 fuze was accomplished by making the
threaded connection that receives the fuze identical to the current H-56
design. The external shape forward of the rotating band also matched
the M-l>6 design. The modified fuze has a longer body and an altered
shape)but the threaded connection is identical to the M503A3 require-
nent. The projectile bodies designed to receive thüt fuze were con-
figured to be compatible with their modified shape. This new shape has
favorable drag properties and Is instrumental in reducing the time-of-
flight to the target. The external configuration of these two pro-
jectiles forward of the rotating band is identical.
tompatibllttv with the M-61 gun systems was establinhed through
consultation with General Electric, the contractor for the gun systems.
The distance from the crimp groove to the tip of the fuze matches that
of the M-Sö projectile. The configuration of the rotating band, however,
was altered to obtain as mich Irmili as possible. It was determined that
the band could extend forward .300 inch from the mouth of the M-li'l
cartridge case and remain compatible with the M-M j'.un and the F-ll., P-I5,
and T-li» ammunition feed and storage systems. This constraim influenced
considerably the configuration of the rotating band adopted for these thin-
walled projectiles.
Compatibility with the M103 cartridge case was accomplished by making
the external diameter of the projectiles aft of the rotating band identical
to the M-56 design. The M-56 configuration for the crimp groove was also
employed on all designs.
Initial minimum weight designs Cor each projectile body were achieved
by structural analysis using a finite element analytical technique. The
object was to configure the walls of the projectile to achieve a uniform
level of stress throughout the body under the various loads applied to the
projectile. The choice of material and heat treat contributed significantly
to this design process. The configuration of the rotating band also
influenced the design^but intrusion of the band into the wall was established
at a value less tlian that of the crimp groove so the effect of the rotating
band on the wall thickness was fairly minor. The two maximum HE rapacity
designs extended the length of the body aft of the crimp groove as much as
possible consistent with a computed stability factor > 1.20. Initial basic
designs established by this process proved to be practical in extensive
testing and remained essentially unchanged throughout the program.
The configuration of the minimum weight design for the modified fuze
Is illustrated in Figure 1. This projectile is shown in Figure 2. The
xirconlum sleeve shown in the Illustration was added to improve the
incendiary properties of the projectile. It had no effect on the basic
configuration. Similar illustrations are included for the other three
basic designs. The maximum HE capacity projectile with a modified fuze
is shown in Figures 3 and 4, the minimum weight design with a H505A3 fuze
is shown in Figures 5 and 6, and the maximum HE capacity projectile with a
M <i> .A» fuze is shown In Figures 7 and 8.
The illustrations show two configurations for the aft end of the
protectile. If the projectile body is manufactured by machining, the
design utilizing a closure disc is employed. If a cup-and-draw method

.» i ■- —
MM HS» Am
 !i

JE
Ml
■
•n

B •
•^ u
C 3

i e
o
>.ü
O (U
00 N
3
« fe
•»< "O
U 4)
U -H

O T}

u
3

--
 c
o

u
3

St

li
I 01
•n

0 -o

-^ ■
U U
u •-<
V u

£3

^■M
 ISI
3

■
■
§5
e -H
c m
«1
I
ac
-H
M
>, c
■o 0
J3I
O N

II
ü n
v <
•^ in
o Q

q
J>

o
o

10

—' —

, Miiiiniin ■ «i —.. in»» i'| "— »^ ■ ,

- -- - - - - - - -- -
 y
2.
3

J
al
P

trn
a
or \
■

i
o
u.
z r ^ .
'y i • • • > >
o o
KJ
S2
K t

12
of fabrlc.-ili.oii IN oinployi-U, th* .illi-rn.iU' dosiRn can be used. Tlu-se
two designs rorrcHpond lo tlio t\S and A^» versions of Llio M-'ib pr«»-
Jectilu. Tin- disc iisud i.i thv nvK'liiiH-d vetxion Is a safely provLftion.
Bar stock i» sub|ect to occasioaal beams In the .u. i i.il ind If u part
is niadf from .such malcri.il, a path i> provided for the propcllant pases
to reach thv ME cmnpartmcnl and cause ignition while in the gun tube.
Thu use of a dii>c makes the probability of this happening almost
negligible. Parts made by the cup-and-draw method are not subject to
tills problem.
In addition to these four basic projectile configurations, three
modified versions of the minimum weight, modified fuse configuration
were designed and tested. The purpose of these modifications was lo
reduci- dispersion by limiting balloting in the gun barrel during launch.
The length of the bourrelet surface is small in the modified fuze con-
figurations. Tills results in a »liort effective wheelbase that allows
the projectile to pitch off the centerline of the bore as it progresses
down the barrel. These perturbation»* can be reduced by increasing
the effective wheelbase and n corresponding reduction in the dispersion
uf the projectile will be realized. The wheelbase of the minimum weight,
modified fuze design was increased in three dllferrnt ways. One method
was to change the curved ugive to a conical section. Another was to
create an alt support by Increasing thu diameter of the projectile ac
tiie alt end over a short distance. Still a third design was to incorpor-
ate both of the above features. Details of these modified configura-
tions arc illustrated in Figures ". 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

A distribution of weight for the seven designs described nbove is

listed in Table 1.

Vk

lB_a^__aM^- - - -
 8|S
2 tf tu
I,
■M c

E (A
e —
25
■ e
o
0 «

•* -o
u -*
0
7

is

1
- ■ - ■- —
m
«c
••«
Iy
IS
31 11
<

si
u —

n
u
3
 «I

« e
u o
00 u
■H u
« «
3 «>

3E •o
e c
H
bl
■O
o a
OP

• 2
«i
— u
•n <M

« •
••-» at

12

19

M • ■Lurw -i II^I * ^"■» * iJ m itnii I<I. i.^iiHi ,-, niii la iwi fcw^A^fa^^j^^lg
 ^ c
r* 0
"-^ t^ CM m o> oo M €*> M
M 'i t^ o o r» r«. «A IT»
P» o• r«. o> r>* 00
83 ■-<
•
<M
• • • •
00
•
3 t-4 r-t H t-l N

H
5o «4
O
00
If
o
s9« -4

pi
«
>»
00
OS
00 P
H -^ p4

■ vO CM <n ON A
18 «M ^
r^ 8 R
r^
P4
r^
in
ON
m
CM
u ir» If

M
Z
M

i
o 1
»M
O
m
r>»
n
<M
o
r^
<M
ci
p
»M
PM
o
JN
t^
H
CM
fv
■1
CM

ui G • u
«4 -^ St 3 K «n
© 8 tsj »J

sä
gö J1
•
«
15■ £ U £.
« m 1
-5 C t*

►H •-« V
u = N
3 1- 3
c
• o
C ii 0
o
11
* «1 a
ss i
B
3
w t 8 s • •
M U
ig
•*4

I
8e 3
u 7J 2c
0
£ ll U

0 m l. «1 &• • «4 • .5 X
0
52
M
N
52
•
W
r u.
«0
N
3
»1
•
IS ;i« M 0
n II 0
• 'S 2? •* "O
S. u
u -o
:x:
•
•
kl W v4
• o.
w a.
• e.
u a
3 o*
• «4
M
X <*
«M
• «4
3
.1
<•
• e
l 3 <•
• -^
■ 3 3
•
M
3 3
• ■ /-»
«4
N^
e -o c « e e
3Z2<A
C u C u
££ IS Z CD
a o z< r <

21

TCH
2. STRUCiURAL ANALYSIS
The four candidate 20™ thin-wall projectiles were nnaly^d using
a finite element technique. The concept of finite element theory
involves the dividing of a complex geometric structure into . finite
number of substructures, each of which can readily be defined by g—try.
.naterial. and equilibrium equations. These substructures or elements
are connected to each other at point« called nodes or grid points. The
collection of the equations of equilibria for all the dements are
solved simultaneously to give grid point displacements. The displace-
MM. are used to calculate element force, and stresses.
The finite element approach slmplifle. the mathematical definition
0£ a complex structure. Without .such an approach the analyst Is forced
to nu*e many simplifying assumptions in order to .«ake his particular
problem conform to classical defUction equations which are to be found
in structures textbooks. Many times such solution« are Inaccurate
because of the nature of the approximations and assumptions required in
order to obtain a solution with a reasonable amount of effort. The
Unite element approach allows a complex structure to be divided Into
single elements such as bars, plates, and cubes which can readily be
defined mathematically. »U provide, a large number of .ImpU equa-
Hon. which are solved si™.ltaneously to obtain a distribution of stresses.
A computer 1. employed to obtain a .olutlon to the equations.
in recent years a number of finite element structural .naly.i« com-
puter program have been developed. Of the.e. NASTRAN is probably the
best known and mo.t widely used structural program. NASTRAN i. the
acronym for »M «ructural Analvsi, and was developed by NASA a. - goneral
purpose dlgi^l c^ter program for the analysis of complex «true.ures
The NASTRAN program i. currentlv capable of handling the following: static
response to concentrated and distributed load., thermal expansion, and
enforced deformation; dynamic response to transient loads, steady-state
.in idal loads. ... rand<m, excitation; real tti c««plex eigen value.;
dynamic and elastic stability analy.es; a«! heat transfer analyae.^
L .tructur.1 an.ly.i..re.ul.. d..eu..ed below were developed by the

use of NASTRAN.

2^

—— "
 The firsl «top in pi-rformlut; tlio NASTRAN analysis wns to draw an
unlnrgcd half longitudinal cross-section of each projectile. By model-
ing till- sector wltli slnnle elements across the wall thickness, the
computer run time was minimized. This resulted in a solution which gave
the average stress across the thickness of the wall. It was theorized
that some local yielding could he allowed as long as this did not result
in yielding across the entire wall in any element. The average stress
could therefore be used to design the projectile assuming the material
was ductile enough to prevent cracking at points of stress concentration.
Applied loads were based on a peak chamber pressure of 60,000 psl.
rhree loads were considered as follows: a pressure load surrounding
the base of the projectile, a torque load at the rifling band, and
centrifugal loading due to projectile spin. The magnitude of each of
these loads was determined fr««m an interior ballistics analysis. The
inertia relief format of NASTRAN was used which gave a pseudo-dynamic
analvsls bv using dynamic loads to perform stepwlse static analyses as
the pro|ectlle traversed the barrel. The results of such an analysis
very nearly approximate a dynamic analysis If the natural period Is
short compared to the period of the applied force, or restated, the
stlifer the projectile, the better the approximation. A complete analysis
at a series of positions along the barrel was performed for one of the
projectiles. It was determined that peak stresses occur at peak pressure.
The tabulated stresses which follow are maximum stresses.
A sunmary of the results for each configuration which was analyzed
is Included In Figures IS through 17 and Tables 2 through 4. The
tabulated stresses reference the element numbers on the drawing. T\\e
design stress criteria chosen was the maximum shear theory of failure.
The stresses shown are octahedral shear stresses. The material tensile
yield strength Is lSS,Ono psl which results in an allowable shear
strength of 89,400 psl. All dimensions used in the analysis represent
minimum wall thicknesses on the working drawings, the single exception
being figure r>, which was an early computer run where the nominal crimp
Rroove dimension was used. The relatively high stress in element 20 of
 TAm.K 2. OCTAIUCOKAI. SI^AR STRI-:SS RKSUU'S KOR MIN1MIW WEIGHT CONFIGURATION
r
WITH A STANHARI) IÖ05A3 I li/.K (nGinu: \ A
•
Slienr SUear
EliMnunL N>>. Siress (psi) ElumcnL No. Stress (psi)

1 53735 24 72318

2 52375 25 70496

3 68401 26 70033

4 30485 27 70179

5 25671 28 70583

b 29402 29 71088

7 27272 30 71316

8 38000 31 71642

9 82982 32 65461

10 85928 33 63236

11 84697 34 69566

12 74555 35 77840

n 69391 36 83849

lk 68179 37 83664

n 66803 38 86704

lh 65719 39 87207

17 49517 40 87288

it 67391 41 83638

1*» 77898 *2 83337

20 75133 43 83036

21 80687 44 84637

22 77614 43 84279

2J 74722 46 82028

27
 TABLE 2 (COtfCLÜPH))

Shear Shonr
Stress (osl) Element Nu. sm-KS (psl)
Element No.

81727 70 34542
47
81S95 71 29118
48
81620 72 27090
49
81'»76 73 255H7
.M

79 S3 4 74 24369
.1
79704 75 28965
>2
^3 80073
S4 80554
55 81018
bb 79108
>7 79772
S8 80669
M 81675
60 82683
bl 83520
62 81201
61 80613
b4 79869

65 78686
66 76586
67 69547
68 53946
bM 4U19

28

i— —-
MMi MMA^i^ MMB^^^M.
 TABUi 3. HCTAIIEDRAL SIIKAR STRESS RESULTS FOR MUCMM H.E. CAPACITY
DESIGN WITH STANDARD M50^Ü FU7.E (FIGURE 16)

Shear Shear
Element No. StreHK (PKI) lilemcnt No. Stress (pal)

S7081 24 66483
r
4M57 2. 72691
68 «iW 2b 63629
26982 27 26936
20742 28 64338
31136 29 68742
47236 30 67742
48388 31 68772
^7266 32 70388
64785 33 67741
716r.6 34 68414
12 8215S y> 69276
13 89166 36 68984
14 88224 37 37813
15 79764 J8 39306
16 668 S 5 39 29420
17 38802 40 23620
IK 76783 41 22483
19 63713 42 20882
20 63979 43 32386
21 62938 44 26231
22 60016 74 30272
23 60062 73 17256

29

mtiifcihii ■
TABLE 4. OCTAHEDRAL SHEAR STRESS RESLI.TS FOR THE MINIMUM WEICHT
CONFIGURATION WITH A MODIFIED M505 FUZE (FIGURE 17>

Shear Shear
Element Nu. Stress (pot) Element No Stress (psl)

75440 21 64618
51770 22 56439
61380 23 72439
33370 24 81443
26802 2. 83116
29953 26 84611
28222 27 83633
36932 28 86741
81640 29 83660
88282 30 879S7
84699 31 86552
69480 32 74043
38368 13 37868
59444 34 43860
43994 33 38320
39444 36 3 3082
69129 37 33647
90490 38 32094
65005 39 30339
20 60446 40 33934

30

»__
1 Pi«ir« 16 tt. ■ local stress concentration and as such was neglected
In dotormlning the mtnlmum wall tMcknens.
The maxlimim HE capacity desiga UHlng the modified MWi fuee
(Figur« 3) wis not nodeled for finite element analysis for It was found
that stability considerations were as Important as stress requirements
in ("etermlnlng wall thicknesses of these long projectiles and wall
thicknesses less than those used for the standard fuste design could not
be tolerated for stability reasons. Because of their similarity In the
region aft of the rotating band, It was reasoned that the analysis per-
formed for the standard fuze design (Figure 16) Indicates acceptability
tor this design also. In the region forward of the rotating band the
design is Identical to the minimum weight design (Figure 17) and stresses
should be l«»wcr because of reduced accelerations so adequacy from a
stress standpoint Is assured here too.
The finite element technique for determining structural properties
has given results that agree rather closely with results obtained by
conventional analytical methods. It provides an excellent record of
stress distributions which were valuable in resolving design and manu-
facturing problems. For example, it Indicated that the material In the
region around the tab at the rear of the projectile could be annealed
to permit upsetting to secure the closure disc.

11

moot --'-*
3. MATERIAL SELECTION AND HEAT TREAT
One of the principal considerations during the program was the
selection of the material for the projectile body and the development
of a satisfactory heat treat process. The requirements dictated that
the material have adequate mechanical properties, the best possible
fabrication properties, and low cost. The fabrication properties
include good heat treat characteristics. The material must have a
through hardening capability, low distortion, and good ductility in
the final drawn condition.
The walls of the projectile were proportioned by a finite element
analytical technique. This technique utilizes the yield strength of
the material to develop the analysis and one of the tasks was to find
.1 suitable match of material properties with a design configuration
that achieved the desired weight goal and charge-to-met a I ratio. After
a few trials it was found that a satisfactory configuration could be
obtained with a material having a yield strength of 155.000 psi. The
ultimate tensll strength of this steel will be about 185,000 psi.
This corresponds to a hardness value on the Rockwell C scale in the
38 to 42 range. Steels in the low-to-medium carbon range can be heat
treated to this value without serious sacrifice of ductility and were
considered for the projectile body.
In determining the mechanical properties of the steel, the
hardenability, or depth of hardness is an important factor. In general,
surface hardness attainable after quenching is largely a function of
the carbon content of the steel, while the depth to which the hardness
will penetrate depends, in addition to the carbon content, upon the
total content of the alloying elements and the grain size. Therefore,
in low carbon steels, through hardness can only be achieved in thin
cross sections, while high carbon and alloy steels can be through
hardened in cross sections up to several inches in thickness.

32
 If the cross section is thin enough.any steel that will surface
h.irden to R,40 would be suitable. The lowest carbon content steel
capable ol attaining an as-quenced surface hardness of R^O is AlSl 1020,
so any carbon steel with 0.20 percent carbon or more was a candidate.

Through hardness, ductility, and worVabilityare also necessary

properties. The low carbon steels give better ductility and are more
workable while the higher carbon steels provide through hardness, so a
trade-off situation results. Carbon steels In the 0.15 to 0.40 percent
range, except for the free machining varieties, have the best machining
qualities. A steel with less than 0.15 percent carbon gives soft,
gummy chips that are likely to adhere to the cutting tool. The 0.40
percent carbon steel through hardens well, has suitable ductility,
and machines well, so a decision was reached to use AIST 1040 steel. This
proved to be a satisfactory choice for no problems traceable to the
material wore encountered during the program.

Carbon steels can be made easier to machine by adding either 0.10

to 0.30 percent sulfur, 0.20 to 0.30 percent lead, or a combination of
both sulfur and lead. These steels cost about 107. more than the plain
carbon steels. A 1141 steel was given careful consideration for It
machines very well and has excellent hardening qualities. It was
relucted, however, when It was learned that It had been considered at
one time for M-56 production but abandoned when a failure rate of
approximately one In six thousand was encountered In projectiles made
of this steel. These additives tend to segregate In the steel, thereby
Increasing the possibility of a structural failure which was the

probable cause of the failures.

Hi-at treatment of the 1040 steel was satisfactorily resolved by

■OM research and development effort with the heat treat process.
Excellent results were obtained by using a fast oil quench and support-
ing each projectile properly so It would be flooded with the quenching
fluid. The hardened material is brittle In the as-quenched condition

33

■- __ MHiHiiliiM^ M
and i.8 drawn to th« final hardness range. Several samples were
dimensionally checked before and after heat treatment for evidence of
distortion. Distortion of a minor nature was observed,but its exieni
in no way threatened the dimensional or functional integrity of the
projectile. This was very important for it permits finishing the
projectile to final dimensions before heat treatment which is a nwjor
consideration In limiting the fabrication cost.

The machined version of the projectile requires a safety disc at

the aft of the projectile which Is secured by upsetting a tab. Tills
tab requires annealing to avoid cracking when it is upset. This was
accomplished by locally drawing the lab to the Rc 28 to 32 range. Indue
tlon annealing was used during this program,but other methods such as
llame annealing could be employed.

34

. i. »i «■ii ■« «
4. ROTATING BAND DEVE1X)PMENT
The development of a practical rotating band having minimum
intrusion Into the wall of the projectile Is vital to the thin-wall
projectile concept. Recognizing this, the Air Force sponsored an explor-
atory program for Investigation of a plastic rotating band for 20mm
projectiles. This program produced a method of accomplishing a chemical
bond between the plastic and metal which makes It possible to apply the
bind with very little Intrusion Into the projectile wall. The work on
this program continued the Investigation of this process and expanded
experience and knowledge of the application technique to a stage that
Indicates the p'astlc rotating band Is a practical concept for 20iiin

thin-wall projectiles.
The configuration for the band shown In Figure 18 was established
early In the development program and was not changed during
the course of the Investigations. The 0.300-Inch extension forward of
the mouth of the cartridge case was determined by compatibility require-
ments with the M-61 gun systems. TTie 0.020-Inch Intrusion Into the wall
was chosen when analysis Indicated, due to the nearness of the crimp
groove, that this amount of Intrusion would have very little effect on
the design of the wall. The 0.020-lnch-wlde shoulder at the base of
the band serves as a stop when Installing the projectile In the cartridge

case.
Investigations during the program concentrated on the choice of
materials and the application process. Most of the materials Investi-
gated were various grades of types 11 and 12 unfilled nylons. The
scope of this materials study was far from exhaustive, but It failed to
show any significant difference between several of the grades. This
being the case, a decision was made to use an 1801 grade, type 12 nylon
for most of the delivered items.

35

mtammm
 l-lglit dillerent types of materials were Investigated during the
program. They are summarized In the listings of Table 5. Of the eight
maieri.-ils investigate«^only tlie Nl*)01 type 12 nylun anl the glass-
filled (1-12 nviterial were completely unsatisfactory. Some success was
dhlalned with all the remaining materials. Personnel from HÜLS
nu-oinmcnd their grade L-2101F material for the rotating band, and It
was used on some of the early projectile deliveries. However, testing
was not extensive enough to discern any significant difference between
this grade and HITS L1901 and L1801 grades.

one series of tests was run .it cold and elevated temperatures.
The bnnd material was type 12, grade L2101F non-filled nylon furnished
bv Hi'lS. Five each of the minimum weight and maximum HE standard fuze
designs were tested at -65 F and +160 F. All rotating bands at the
r
-6 > F tempernture functioned exceptionally well. At the +160 F temp-
erature two hands on the maximum HE design were partially lost.
Keathering of the bands at this elevated temperature was quite pro-
noinccd.

Feathering of the rotating band both at the leading and trailing

edge Is evident In nearly all tests. The effect this had on the
performance of the projectile is not known. It Is likely, however,
that it has some negative effect on dispersion and time of flight and
future development effort should be devoted to Its control. This
probably can be accomplished by a small configuration change and/or
use ol an alternate or modified material.

All of the test experience Indicated that the plastic rotating band
obturates very well and permits very little gas leakage. Also It
appears to be quite capable of transmitting spin-up torque to the pro-
jectile. No evidence of slippage was noted even In tests performed in
a constant twist barrel.
Achieving a satisfactory plastlc-to-metal bond Is critical to the
siucess of this thin-vall projectile concept and Is the area where
considerable development effort was concentrated. Some mechanical aids

37

-• ■ - ■ mmmm
 TABLE 'i. SUMMARY OF ROTATTNC BAND MATERIALS

Type Grade Supplicr Remarks

Type 12 - Unfilled N1901 IIUIS Flexible and dlffl-
cull to mold.
Band unsatisfactory.
Type 12 - Unfilled L1901 IIUIS Bands satisfactory.
Type 12 - Unfilled L-2101F HÜLS High density material
Bands O.K.
Type 12 - Unfilled L-1801 HÜLS f Bands satisfactory.
Type 12 - Unfilled -- Kl1san Bands O.K.
Type 11 - Unfilled BESNO Rllftan Some bondlnK trouble.
Bands that stayed
on were satisfactory.
Type 11 - Unfilled BECV-Black-T Rllsan Bands salIK factory.
C12 - 43X Class Zyfl 77C-43 Dupont Poor bond.
NC-10 Bands came off.

18

- ^.■S-i-. .A ■■■■)■ —

ass iMMSMMMBMIll
•^-J
^
 such as lined in the Navy 20nin work and on CAU-H anrnmit ion were tried,
l>iil dm- to tho shallow intrusion into the wall tlioy nppeard to con-
trÜMte little or nothing to the solution and were abandoned. It Is
necessary, therefore, to rely on a chemical bond to secure the band to
the projectile, and this Is the area where the development effort was
concentrated.

lite application process reconmended by DeBell and Richardson was

employed as tho basic approach In the band application studies. It
consists of the followlnn basic steps:

Step 1 - Clean the band application area thoroughly.

Step 2 - Apply a chemical primer to the band application
surface.
Step I - Injection mold the plastic rotating band in place
on the projectile.
Step 4 - Induction heat the Interface between the projectile
and the band to improve the bond.

Mo'ding was planned In the contractor process to avoid any secondary

operations so the steps listed above completed the process. The DeBell
and Richardson process required a secondary machining operation to remove
gate material and chamfer the trailing edge of the band. The efforts to
develop a practical application process that would produce a reliable
band achieved a gradual Improvement In quality and good success In the
latter part of the program. The bands applied to the final lot of
delivered projectiles exhibited excellent quality and performed with no
Indication of bonding failure In tests of the 25 acceptance rjunds.

Upon receipt and Inspection of this final lot of projectiles by the

Air Force at Kglin AFB, almost all of the projectiles had visible
corrosion under about 30T of the plastic rotating band area. As a result
of Air Force and contractor Investigation of this problem, it is theorized
tliat the corrosion was accelerated by the r.lnc phosphate coating process
that was applied to the projectile surface for a paint base after the
plastic routing band had been molded In place. It was discovered at about
the same time on another Air Force program tliat a zinc phosphate coating

V»

m mmam
«..■■PHI
on Che entire projectile surface, including the band seat area, before
applying the plastic rotating band would prevent corrosion. Uncoated
projectiles were observed to corrode during temperature/humidity
cycling.

Details of the four-step basic application process outlined above as

implemented in the final stage of the program are the following:

Step I ■ Cleaning
a. Bead blast baud area.
b. Imnerse in MEK and vibrate on an ultrasonic
cleaner for 10 to IS minutes.
c. Air dry for 30 minutes.
Step 2 - Trimer Application
a. Apply a thin coat of P-253 primer to the
band area.
b. Air dry for 30 minutes.
c. Final dry at 450oF for 25 minutes.
Step 3 - Molding
a. Preheat projectiles to 350 F before molding.
Limit preheat time to 15 minutes maximum.
b. Transfer projectiles to the molding machine and
mold band innedlately. Mold temperature - 200oF.
Step A - Induction Heating
a. Induction heat for 10 seconds.
b. Water quench the projectile in water.

Some of the subleties of the process were: (I) the mold finish should
be ground and polished, (2t avoid overcure of the primer, and (3) select
current densities during induction heating that melts the plastic at the
interface surface after 8 to 9 seconds of exposure.

The process outlined above is the basic process developed by DeBell

and Richardson except for one feature: The recommendation of a mold
temperature of 280 F. They do not preheat the projectile except for the
temperature rise it experiences when it is inserted in the mold. This

40
 tcmperHture rise is rapid, and the projectile temperature approaches

I
that oi the mold by the time the band material is Injected. Trouble was
ftuounlered in Implementing this approach in the style mold that was
i-mploved. The material requirt-s a long freeze time at this mold temper-
ature for it is only a few degrees below the melt temperature of the
material (315 F). When the mold opened, the band material would not be
completely frozen and the band would be destroyed. This would not be
as prevalent a problem in the style mold employed by DeBell and Richardson.
It was learned, however, that the temperature of the projectile is
^ important In molding a qualitv band. This led to preheating the projectile
to 150 F before Inserting it in the mold so that the process outlined
above becomes approximately equivalent to that of DeBell and Richardson.
The practice of preheating the projectile reduces the molding cycle time.
A cycle time of 65 seconds produces good parts by this process compared
to 2 minutes in the DeBell and Richardson method. This could became an
important consideration in future production planning.

The molding process that finally evolved from experiments and was
used to apply the bands in the latter part of the program is the follow-
ing: The material was Type 12 nylon, grade L1801 supplied by HÜLS of
Germany. The material was dried for 4 hours at 180 F before molding.
Molding was performed on a 1,0-ounce, 20-ton Arburg screw injection
machine. The projectiles were wanned to 350 F and held at this temp-
erature for a period not greater than 15 minutes prior to insertion in
the mold. Operating conditions were as follows:

Screw Temperatures
Throat - warm
Rear - 460^
Front - 490*^
Nozzle heater set at full voltage
Mold Temperature - 210 F
Mold Pressures:
Injection - 20,000 psi/PAD
Hold - 20,000 pal
Timers:
Injection - 15 seconds
Hold - 30 seconds

1
■ . . .

mm MM
5. INCENPIARY PROVISIONS

The Ifth.ilitv of tlie projectilo will be Improved niRnificantlv

If It Is capable of Ignlttng fuel and oil lire». To onhanco this
capability, a decision was made to use a I.ake City explosive developed
for use in the current M-S6 projectile. This explosive conUiins
aluminum powder, 3S percent by weight, to improve Us incendiary
properties.

To further Improve the Incendiary properties of the projectile,

zirconium metal was added In the form of n thin tube that was pressed
against the wall of the projectile as shown In Figures I, 3, S and 7.
The density of the stinonlum Is about J.5 Lime* that of the explosive
it displaces (.237/.067) so the net effect Is to increase the weight of
the projectile. The effect on the weights of the various projectiles
of adding a zirconium sleeve Is summarized In Table 6.

Installation of the zirconium sleeve created a troublesimie

fabrication problem that required some developnwnt effort to resolve.
The sleeve must be inserted through the mouth of the projectile and
expanded after it Is in place. In the early rounds this expansion was
accomplished when the HE was compacted, but this proved to be
unreliable. Some of the sleeves would expand properly but others
expand unevenly,causing voids along the side of the projectile. Install-
ation was finally resolved by fullv expanding the sleeve by the use of
n series of rubber dies. This required an appreciable development
effort to achieve the proper combination of die design and material.
The rubber finally emploved was a synthetic made of Polyurethane,
riurometer 90A. Expansion was further assured bv compacting the first
increment of HE material at 30,000 to 3,>,000 psl.

incendiary performance was not evaluated by the contractor, fhe

Air Force designed and conducted a series of experiments to evaluate
this terminal eftect. The results will be separately reported.

^2

■MW »i "■'y MS*" "- Wl

^•^
'

-1 in s

OD
CM

C CM C
IT« «n 8

I &
I
z
I«
—

§ I <

| N 4.
■
3 N 3
2
I. U.

>'£
5
tJ
I H u
90 i I
- x

■j
«
E 3 «
E u u
• p • 3
C W K CC e QC c ec c ec c e M
•— -<
X u. r u. is r u. T u.
£ o •»<
r u u.
•

43

—— ——
6. MANUFACTURING TECHNFQUES

The fabrication of the projectile body involved no unusual manu-

facturing processes. The body was machined from bar stock by a series
of turning operations. Hie body was machined to its finished dimensions
before heat treatment.

Heat treating has already been discussed. The projectiles are

placed In a rack that holds them In a suitable attitude for quenching.
A fast oil quench Is employed. The material Is drawn to the propor hard-
ness, and the tab at the aft of the projectile Is then Induction annealed.

The. closure disc is then added, and the zirconium sleeve is installed
and the rotating band is added by the processes previously discussed.
After finishing and painting, the projectile is ready for HE loading.

The high explosive is added in three increments. The first incre-

ment is compacted at 30,000 to 3^,000 psi. This compaction pressure is
employed for two reasons. First, it further assures that the zirconium
sleeve is expanded completely against the wall of the projectile and,
second, it compacts this increment of HE more denaelv and Increases
the amount of HE material that can be installed by about ten grains.
The next two increments of HE are compacted at 20,000 to 2r.,000 psi.
If the compacted height exceeds specified limits, material can be
removed by machining the HE with a non-sparking tool.

The projectile bodies were machined during the program because this
was the most economical method of manufacture for small quantity develop-
ment lots. Also. It la an acceptable method of manufacture for production
quantities and is one of the approved methods for manutacture of the H-56
projectile. A cup-and-draw method of fabricAtion la also satisfactory
and is currently used in fabricating M-56 projectiles for it has proven
to be a more economical means of fabricating this projectile in large
quantities. Hits process requires extensive tooling, the cost of which
cannot be Justified for small-lot development quantities where the design
may be modified from lot to lot. The thin-wall design, once Its

-^ ^ -
conripirAtion IH sL.tbllizud, could be manufacturuci by the cup-aml-drnw
pfDOMt« Tb«? A-4 bate configuraliuns Blu>wn for the projectiles are
suited Cor tills method of fabrication.

mtm 1
7. PROPELLANT PROVISIONS

The reduced welRht of the thin-wall projectiles plus the reduced

start force required to push the plastic rotating band into the rifling
grooves of the barrel resulted in an appreciable drop in the chamber
pressure produced by the standard charge of 40 grams of WC870 propollant.
This provided an opportunity to Increase muzzle velocities by developing
a propellant charge that would restore the chamber pressure to the design
value for the gun. namely, 60,000 psi. A faster burning propellant that
would produce gas at a higher volumetric rate and maintain pressure at
the base of the faster moving projectile was needed.

The chamber pressure was restored to the design value by blending

a fast burning IMR4350 propellant with standard WC870 propellant. After
a few trials it was found that a blend of 26 grams of WC870 and 14 grams
of IMR4150 propellants produced a chamber pressure in the 50.000 ro
60,000 psi range for the minimum weight configurations at ambient temper-
atures. A blend of 26 grams of WC870 with 10 grams of IMR4350 performed
properly with the maximum ME capacity designs. The propellants were mixed
thoroughly before loading into the MI03 cartridge case. The total weight
of propellant was reduced by two grams in the maximum HE capacity designs
because the body of these projectiles protruded Into the case and displaced
some of the propellant.

At an elevated temperature of +l60OF, this blend of propellant«,

produced in a sample of 10 projectiles, an average chamber pressure of
68.000 psi. At -650F the average chamber pressure for a ten-unit sample
was 49,540 psi. The average pressure of a similar group of these pro-
jectiles at ambient temperature was 57,862 psi.

46

. ■ » II I I»I" • • ,
g. CHARGK-TO-METAL RATIO

OM of tin« design objectives wns to achieve ■ signiTicant increase

in the chargi'-to-metal ratio uver the current M-56 design. Tnis
itbjuctive was achieved in a very substantial manner. Using the projectile
weights shown in Table 1 and including the zir miurn liners as part of
the metal component,the charge-to-metal ratios for the seven projectile
confiKuratlons are as listed in Table 7. The charge-to-metal ratio for
the M-56 projectile is Included for comparison. These ratios do not
include the fuze.

TABLE 7. COMPITTED CHARGE-TO-METAL RATIOS

ConliBuration WeiRht - Grains Ratio

Metal HE

Min. lit. - Mod. Fuze 502 202 ,34

Max, II.E. Cap. - Mod. Fuze 7«»2 237 .30
Min, Wt. - Std. Fuze 661 270 ,41
Max. II.E, Cap. - Std. Fuze 841 294 ,35
Min, Wt. - M«>d, Fuze - Conical Section 637 202 ,32
Min. Wt, - Mod, Fuze - Aft Support 672 217 ,32
Min, Wt. - Mod. Fuze - Con. Section/ 702 217 ,31
Alt Support
M-se 1001 180 .18

47

— —-
 9. TEST PROGRAMS

A test program was planned and conducted to obtain information tor

use In developing the projectiles and evaluating their performanct«.
The tests can be separated into two categories: development tests and
acceptance tests.

The acceptance tests were formal tests conducted on each of five

major delivery lots. These delivery lots included projectiles designed
to each of the four basic designs, Figures 1, 3, 5 and 7, and one
special design, a minimum weight, modified fuze with a conical section
(Figure 9). Twenty-five units were randomly selected from each lot and
tested according to an approved acceptance test plan.

The development tests varied considerably, and each test was

designed to obtain information on parameters of particular interest.
Each test was used to obtain information on as mr.ny parameters as
possible. All tests, except the soft recovery tests, were conducted on
contractor test ranges. Except for special tests, such as the pene-
tration tests, the test set-up used was as illustrated in Figure 19,
A total of 265 development tests was performed. The following is a
discussion of the various parameters that were studied and how the
tests were performed.

a. Rotating Band Tests

On nearly every firing test that was performed this was one
of the parameters that was monitored. Evidence of a band coming off
could usually be detected on the muzzle X-ray, but the presence and
condition of the band could be clearly monitored on a microflash
photograph taken about 15 feet from the muzzle of the gun. An example
of such a photograph is sham in Figure 20. The first projectiles were
not scheduled to be available for several weeks into the program; so
to implement an early beginning of the rotating band investigations,
two simulated projectiles were designed and fabricated. They weighed

48

ii. ■ f-rr
MM - --■ - __
1200 and 1500 uralrw to correspond approximntcly with the minimum
woiRhi and maximum IIF. capacity dosi^nK. Tlie simulated units were
also proportioned to match the corresponding imtments ol Inertia of
these two project lies. About 100 tests were conducted using these

simulated units.

Functioning ol the rotating band Is subject to many param-

eters, ami these were varied from test to test to acquire Information
on the best combination of materials and application processes. As
previously Indicated, eight different materials for the band were
Investigated. Also many parameters relating to the band application
process were Investigated. Each variation required firing tests to
evaluate Its effect on band performance.

b. Chamber pressure

Chamber pressure Is measured by tapping the chamber of the

Mann barrel to Install a pressure transducer. There are several transducers
available for this purpose, the principal requirement being that It
have l frequency response capable of following the time variation of
pressure which Is displayed on an oscilloscope and recorded with a
Polaroid camera. An occasional check of the Instrumentation Is nade
by measuring peak pressure with a copper crusher gage.

Chamber pressure was taken on most of the tests performed

on the program. It provides information which might explain any
noticeable performance anomaly that might occur during the tests. It
was the primary measurement, of course. In the development of a pro-
pcllant blend that would produce a chamber pressure In the 50,000 to
60,000 psl range for these lightweight thin-wall projectiles,

c. Mur.stle Velocity
Muzxle velocity was taken on all firing tests. It was
obtained bv measuring the time required to traverse a known distance
between two points In the trajectory. These measurements were taken
about 20 feet from the mur.7.1e of the gun using two timing screens
pohitinned ten feet apart.

- ' mmtm
 d. Stability

This was monitored by obnervlng the extent and decay of yaw

as the projectile progressed along its trajectory. Hie range and
sophistication of the Instrumentation was Insufficient to obtain a
quantitative evaluation of stability. However, It did provide a
qualitative Indication of the yaw present In the launch and to a lesser
extent an indication of the damping properties of each projectile.
Facilities such as the Aeroballlstic Research Facility at Eglln AFB are
necessary to obtain a meaningful evaluation of projectile stability.

e. Dispersion

Dispersion or the ranuom variation of projectiles fron

ehe average flight path was obtained by measuring the deviation of Individual
impacts from the center of impact of a group of projectiles as recorded
on a witness screen placed at a known distance from the nuzzle of the
gun. The witness screen was located at 100 feet downrange. All pro-
jectiles In a group were required to have identical design character-
istics and to be fabricated In the same lot. The group size was
usually five projectiles. Dispersion Information was taken and recorded
on the majority of the development tests. Also, a group of 30 pro-
ject I les,consisting oi ten each of the three special designs shown in
Figures 9, II, and IS were fabricated and furnished to the sponsor for

tests at their facility.

f. Penetration Tests

This was a set uf special tests designed to determine the

ability of the thin-wall projectiles to strike and traverse the
barrier represented by an aircraft skin without sustaining damage at a
level that would Impair Its normal functioning. Targets made of 2024-T3
aluminum having thicknesses of 0.063, 0.090, and 0.183 Inch were set at
varying angles of obliquity ranging up to 8") degrees (zero obliquity
angle defined as a normal or flush Impact). The condition of the pro-
jectile after penetration was monitored by X-ray photograph. The

'.2
 threshnltl of fallnrg was located in the 60- to 75-dpgree obliquity region
on 0.188 thick skin. The 0,061 and 0,090 skins were penetrated succes»-
iully «t nil nnglt's of obliquity up to 75°.

. g. Fragment nil (»n

A total of fourteen proiectiles of various configurations

were exnlotted in arena tests, and the frasments were recovered for
examination. Several of these test samples were furnished to the
SIUIUMT for evaluation.

h. Structure Testing

Since the walls of the projectiles had been thinned to the

p.m where the beginning of permanem deformation could be expected
at maximum loading conditions, It was Important to be able to detect
any Indication of structure failure or deformation. This was
monitored by photographing the projectile at the muzzle of the gun by
X-ray and at a point downrange by micro-flash photography. Tills
measurement was made on nearly 100 percent of the test firings. As a
turthor check of the structural integrity of the designs, a serlea of
twelve soft recovery tests were performed at the H.P. White labora-
tories. These recovered projectiles were checked dlmenslonally for
nnv indication of permanent deformation. No Indication of structural
deficiency was observed in any of the tests.

A series of special tests were designed in an effort to

locale lhe failure threshold of wall thickness for each of the four
basic designs. The wall thickness at the base end of these test pro-
lectlloK were thinned beyond their design values by removing additional
material from their walls. The additional material removed from the
wall of each projectile was nominally 0.010 and 0,020 inch. The actual
.■woran»* values were the following:

1 S3

—■

_•»—<
tt&a —
 Ml 11 Thinned By
ConftKuratLon o.nin Norn. i).()2n N^II.

Min. Wt. - Mod. Fu«c 0.007 O.DI'»

Max. !IE - Mod. Fuze 0.010 0.020
Min. Wt. - Std. Fuze 0.007 0.017
Max. HE - Std. Fuze O.OO'» O.OIH

A total of 16 projectllus were expended in these u-sts.

They were tested at normal propell.nu loading Kiving n cliamber presHiirc
in the 55,000 psi range. No deTormation cmild be detected in the photo-
graphs. The tests failed to locate the threshold values for wall
thickness. However, thev served a« an indication th.it the nominal wall
thicknesses provided a good margin .»i safetv.

I. Test at Temperature Extremes

One series of tests were conducted at the temperature extremes
of -65 F and +160 F to observe the performance of the rotating bands
at these conditions. Five each of the two designs equipped with
standard fuzes were tested at each temperature extreme. The performance
of the bands at these temperatures has been previously discussed.

J. Fuze Provisions

A supply of M505A3 live and inert fuzes was furnished lor

conduct of the test programs. Except for five units supplied for a
special dispersion lest, no modified fuzes were available during the
program. When live fuzes were required, M>Ü5A3 fuzes were used. They
were a proper match for the units designed to use this standard fuze,
but a mismatch existed when they were used on units designed for the
modified configuration. This mismatch posed no problem Insofar as
functioning of the projectile was concerned. However, the flight
characteristics were not a true representation of the projectiles
equipped with their proper modified fuzes. Dispersion Is less when
equipped with the M505A3 fuze. This was first detected In the terminal
effects tests conducted bv the Air Force at Socorro, New Mexico, and
led to the design ot the three special minimum weight modified fuze
configurations.

imt
 When Inen tests wore cnmlnctfd, tin- boosU-r and rotor hnll
I
iHsomhllüH of the M'>0riA3 fuRi» were reim»vetl and a weight was added to
bring (he total weight of the fute up to the weight of the live units.
These weights, one for the standard and another for the modified fuze
version, were designed to be fastened by the threads that normally
securrd the booster.

k. Soft Recovery
A series of soft recoverv tests were conducted at H.P, White
Ulwriitorics as an additional check of the structural properties of the
projectiles. At least two projectiles of each of the four basic designs
were tested In their soft recovery tubes. Each projectile was given a
post-lest dimensional check for any indication of permanent deformation.
No de format ion was observed.

These tests also provided a check on the condition of the

nlastLc-to-metal bond of the rotating band. Hie bond was good on
all these projectiles.

1. I.Ist of Tests
A condensed sunmary of the tests performed during the program
is provided In the listing shown in Table 8.

v>
 TABLE 8. LIST OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE TESTS

ProJ.O* Oimn.
Date Config. Tesl Objective Teated Remarks
6/5/74 8 Band - 612 Nylon 2 Band came off
9 Band - 612 Nylon 1 Band came off
6/21/74 8 Band - 1.1901 Nylon 3 Band came off
6/24/74 8 Band - LI 901 Nylon 2 Band cami' off
7/S/74 8 Band - L1901 Nylon 1 Band OK
9 ■kind - 1,1901 Nylon 2 Band OK
7/11/74 1 Rand - L1901 Nvlon 5 2 good, 3 bad
9 Band - LI 901 Nvlon 4 1 good, 3 bad
7/15/74 8 Wind - Rlls.in BESN0 3 2 good, 1 had
Band - Rilsan BESNO 3 3 bad
7/16/74 8 Uiul - Rllsan BESNO 1 1 good -
8 Wind - RlUan Black-T 1 1 good
8 •Wind - LI901 3 3 bad
9 Band - LI 901 5 5 good
0 Hand - Rilsan Black-T 1 1 good
7/17/74 8 Hand - L1901 2 1 good, 1 bad
9 Band - LI901 3 2 good, 1 bad
9 Bind - Rilsan Black-T 2 2 good
7/24/74 8 Hand - L1901 5 3 good, 2 bad
9 Band - 1.1901 2 2 good
7/25/74 8 Band - LI 901 3 2 good, 1 bad
9 Band - L1901 4 4 good
8/1/74 8 Charge Development 9 --
8/5/74 M-55 Charge Development 5 Checked instrumentation
8/6/74 M-55 Charge Development 6 Checked insCrumi>ntat Ion
8/12/74 8 Band - LI901 4 1 good, 3 bad
8 D&R - L1801 1 1 good
9 Band - LI 901 7 7 good
Band - 1.2101 3 2 good. 1 bad
8/14/74 1 Check project lie it rue- 9 Structure OK
ture and 1.3101 Bunds All band« OK
8/15/74 4 Check pro)ect 11 e «t rue- 8 Structure OK
ture and 1.2101 BamlH All bands OK
8/16/74 2 Check projectile mruc- 11 Structure OK
ture and 1.2101 Unndn All bands OK

.6
 TABU: 8 (CONTIWIilll
(1)
Pro). Ouan.
iKitr ConfIK. TVHtrd Kcmarks
R/16/74 ("heck proj. stnicturc 9 Structure OK
ii 1.2101 Rands Lost one band
«»/4/74 2 fVnetr.itIon r*»t 3
ivnrt r.iM.Mi Teit
Pone trat Ion Tent

9/9/74
2
I
3
4
Ponotratlon Tesl
IV« net rat ion Test
IViH-t r.u i.m Test
1 Projectile penetrated
0.063 and 0.090 alum, plate
at all obliquity angles.
rtinc trat ion Test • Also 0,199 plate up to60-
1 Penetration Test degree obliquity angle.
2 IVneir.it Ion Tesl
9/10/74 Penetration Test
I Penetration Test
4 Penetration Test )

9/12/74 I Check extra thin

2 wall projectiles No deformation
3 Thinned 0.020 and 0.040 observed In all
4 beyond basic design .) four designs
9/23/74 I Check live functioning
2 Check live functioning Functioned OK
9/2b/Ik 3 Check f +160OF
3
3
4
Check « -ev'F
Check 0 +70oF
Check 0 +l60oF
i All 1.2101 bands OK

Partial iillurc • 2 bands

4 Chock 0 -650F All bands OK
9/27/74 Check d +70OF Bands OK
10/3/74 3 Evaluate L1801 Band Bands OK
1 Evaluate 1.1801 Band Bands OK
2 F.valuate 1.1801 Band Bands OK
4 Evaluate L1801 Band Bands OK
10/4/74 3 Wall thinned No deformation observed
extra 0,010 inch
10/9/74 4 Check 1.1901 Band
I In conat. twist B Bands OK
)
10/17/74 1 Dlsp./actual Mod. Fuze Increased dispersion
1 Disp./zinc I.iner No effect noted
2 Dlsp. no l.inar
2 Dlsp./l.lner J No noticeable difference
11/26/74 s Check Functioning
h
7
Check Functioning
Check Functioning i All rounds
Functioned OK

17
 TAUB 8 (QONCUIDBO)

SPECIAL TESTS
7TT
ProJ. nun n.
Date Con t JR. Test Oblectlve Tested Remarks

9/5/74 1 Soft Recovery 3"

0
2 Structural Tests No deformations
3 at H.P. Wliite labs observed
4
8/29/74 1 Arena test to 2
2 study fragmentation 2 Simples to Eglin
3 properties 2 for evaluation
4 2J

4/10/7* Arena Tests Samples to Eglln

for evaluation

10/28/74 I Acceptance Tests 25 Report submitted

11/1/74 2 Acceptance Tests 25 Report submitted

1/29/7'i 3 Acceptance Tests 25 Report submitted

1/51/75 4 Acceptance Tests 25 Report submitted

3/2/75 5 Acceptance Test» 25 Rfport submitted

NOTES: (1) The following key identlfie« the different projectile

configuration«:
1. Minimum weight - modified fu«e
2. Maximum HE capacity - modified fuse
3. Minimum weight - standard fuze
4. Maximum HE capacity - standard fuze
5. Minimum weight - imxllfled fuze - conical section
6. Minimum weight - modified fuze - aft support
7. Minimum weight - modified fuze - conical section-aft support
8. Minimum weight simulated projectile - 1200 grains
9. Maximum HE capacity simulated projectile - 1500 grain«

58
 SECTION Hl

PRKI.IMINARY ITNCTIONAI. CON HMO I »RAT I ON inKNTIFICATION

llie following infomuition has been prepnred to identify the

funclional cliaracteristics ol the 20mm thin-wall projectiles developed
on this program. Four basic configurations were fullv investigated
during the program, in addition,three variations of the minimum weight
modified fas« coniigur.iiion were studied for their ability to limit dis-
persion. Information on all seven designs Is provided.

1. PIIYSICAI. CHARACTERISTICS

The principal physical characteristics of each design arc sunnarlted

in the listings ..1 Vable 9 . In addition, the projectile is through
h.irdeued to 1^. 38-42 except for the tabs that retain the protective
disc at the aft end of the projectile. These tabs arc drawn to IL,
2H to »2. The walls of the projectile have been thinned to the least
practical value consistent with structural demands. A plastic rotating
hand is bonded to the surface of the projectile.

2. PKREORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS

IVrformance characteristics are separable into three categories:

interior ballistic«, exterior ballistics, and terminal effects.
Interior ballistic parameters were measured on all seven designs and
are fully reported. The measured parameters were the time-pressure
variation of chamber pressure and the muzzle velocity. These param-
eters are summarized in Table 10. Exterior ballistic parameters were
partially monitored by the contractor. Dispersion was measured on all
designs and stability as evidenced by the absence of vaw was monitored.
The Air Force conducted some testing in their AeroballIstic Research
Facility at Eglln AFB, and the results are partially reported here.
Those parameters that were not measured were computed, and the results
are included In Table 11 with the notation that they are cimiputcd
vahu-s.

,u

■
 u § CM
a o
00
m IT»
00
in
oo
5
ü at
ü
9 CM

»-I
CM CM en

oo oo «n in ao 00 00
•-i m t—i f-< 1-4
en «n <i ^ <t

M
V> r^ p»
Ui CM o CM r»
o p4
e O f-t
a C
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
w
I
g o CM m o
•1-4 f* m m

< vC CM o a
l-t ao m CM
tf) CO
(M
in rv m m m vO

c
si
Z
0
H vO
V) X

h
o
01
c o
u
(U 0)
CT>
■
G
-^
V
E
CO
1-4

«
fa
w
4»

U
c
tt
K i
o
B
00 00
3
oc
•H
3
00
•rf
|M
3
00
•»<
LM
3
00
•H
a
iJ at
N
|
M
3

w >,
b
«4
1J
ß
S3
(JU
sS
"g
3 01 o « 41 U 4)
IJ
• M • .ü
N
4J 3 is M
3
•a 4J
0 o 1« 1?
31** X 41 00
£ Uu
00
•^ "O
a* 00
•H
) N
•
^8 *&
• a • a
c
0) 0) 0) w "2 4J r-) u a u a c
3 -H • ^.2
7?« .1
x « 5g
u •
C u
•
5ü
VI

<M y
^
V) IS so
•H «M
X <
•H
X< v>
4)

60

' - — —'-" *-- ■ -■■ mum

 a. CN

u
0
in
»^ »-^ o o
c -t
in 5
fn
QO

t/.
in o
in

i 01
G
3 oc
« 2 Q
U3
U in
OlIC
oo oe •
■
•-.
•
s c
11-1 -t
oo
in <«
c
<fl
C w
•* 0
3
ir,
9!
c
•»1
«CO«
9 U u U
a:
u ec o a
oc ■a «
E m
o
00
•«J 4J
3 c
•«
m , £ a u
oc y
.. « 0) C8
• oi -• a
• « 3 ä E
4J 3 CO 0
H y
3 O
r«.
OJoo vT 0O >c H .-1
3
i
i
« c -5 £
a: CM rj n M «r.
c 01
0) -i
N -o «>
N 3 4J O £
^- y ^. 3
<*- <M • 5 M
i—i
^. tn w
:: -» N- f^ 01 ^ c
.^ C (0
in
•n i-i in m
91
C •^ ■ k
00 C m ■n tn o 0)
«M •-"
t-l
M
•-<
m 5 Q a> £ c
o w. •-I
00 b. •w _■
3 ep u 0
or — o C y u £
X •>» •^ 0. §
3 n —)Tj «
1 3
«<^ 01 41
b
0 V BO a a y
£§g
N N
1 m N u Wi fc- « ^
3
01 * 3 £ £ fi
O
«
3 < <« Q> -H
4J _ 0 U N
N u I« e »-
<0 9) •a 3 N 'S * ■ü •o m •J u •^ *J O 0)
a» jh 0)
ä 0)
c ~
0) ■-' x y x
r
3
3 U. «M | VM 1-1 0 01
§ eo oc *.
•»< u.
«*J o w •-■ >.
■H o w.
c
0
f.
■o

ir 4J
1
1 1
4J u.
>.
£
•o c
4J

4J
ij
«8
■O
0 — c
3 -i —
^
« a »
o 1 1 u 6C « 0(
t
1
1 Wi
i « 01 01 a* a in oo
• p« <n • • g^ I 4J •w W b v c
M
3 V
• 3
E
H

• 3
C
4i
3 «I
hi
• 3
■
u
• 3
<ü
U IM
3 «
•
U
<p4
u a
3 3
(A
• •
O- c
4-t
3 3 0
tf) •«
4i
0
t- 1 0) > y -
H < c y
C 00 X 00 C 60 x oo c c C u c 4J O
ä •»- (M
- uo
•H tu
?: u. mm x u. rl ü. -• < sc <
01
W5
•-' CM m <t
>— s-' ^. ^

hi

^BM——^
- ' OM. --
 X
c c
(-1
IN

CM

c
X
D

C
c
—<
x
u
c o o
c O o
ry o r^

00 S3 OP 8
00 o oo
in lA X
o

41 <^i
o in 00
u in o in
9 <M

U 4J
o «
M
£
3
01 «
N V N
N 3 N 3 N
3 U.
U.
5 « u oo,
I
c
•T3
a
V)
I
i: m jrt

i I u.
> « c
« i 3
u u
3 3«
•H

6
■I
5 ■
u
a»
•n
u a IH
o a a»
^2 I 2 E
3 3
V) v>
o OH
• 3 • 3
• 3
C 00 X 00
i| • 3
K 60
ro
C C C u e u
»^ M m

62

- - -- ^
 Ixccpt for penetration tests, ao contractor testing was performed

to evaluate terminal effects. Several projectiles were CKploded In

arena tests and the fragments were furnished to the Air Force for analysis.
Thr Air Force conducted a program to evaluate terminal effects. Data
from these tosts will IK? separately reported. Tn the penetration tests
it was determined that the projectiles penetrate .063 and .090 aluminum
plates at all angles of obliquity without disabling damage. Also, they
peuotrato .188 thick aluminum plate nt 60 degrees obliquity. Failures
begin to occur between 60 and Ti degrees obliquity on the .188 thick
plate. The target material used in the tests was 2024-T3 plate.

J. REMABIMTY
A functional reliability of 90 percent at a 90-percent confidence
level was the goal for the program. A test was designed wherein
explosion of the projectile upon striking an .090 thick aluminum plate
set 60 degrees obliquity was Judged a success. If all projectiles in ■
sample of twenty-two function properly, it Is considered that the rell-
abllltv requirement has been satisfied.

A. MATER IALS

Materials and the heat treat process are critical to the success
of this projectile. The properties required of the materials In the
projectile bmly are: low cost, ease of fabrication, and a through
hardening capability. These requirements can be satisfied by a number
of medium carbon steels. Also the heat treat process must be carefully
controlled to obtain uniform through hardness with negligible dis-
tortion. A fast oil quench combined with a method of supporting the
projectiles properlv during the heat treat process will produce satis-
factory results.

r
'. INTERFACE CHARACTERISTICS
Three Interface requirements must be satisfied by the projectile
design. One consideration is interfacing properly with the M-61 gun
systems. External projectile diameters and the configuration of the
rotating band was influenced largely by this requirement. A second

h3

MM
requirement is interfacing with the fuze. In thi» area the current
design for the M-36 projectile was adopted without modification to
assure interface with the M505A3 and the modified fuzes. A third
consideration is the interface with the M103 cartridge case. Here
the external diameter aft of the rotating band was madi* identical to
the M-^b projectile. Also the configuration and location of the crimp
groove was made to conform to the current M*56 design. This assures
proper Interface In this area.

6. TEST REQUIREMENTS
Testing is required to determine conformance with the performance
goals established for the projectile. Testing Is performed to check
various structural and performance paranelcrs. This testing Is
summarized in Table 12.

bU

. ^
 >

0 u u u 1-
a. c 0 o 0 o
I
u u 0
w u
] u
<D
u
u
n
u
u
PJ
u
u
u
u
n)
u
« c
u u u u
u u i.
C C c c c
o o r o
u u u u

I
3
■n u X ^
0 eg
u x «- c
<-. A 3
u fi
u o 01
iff
Al M
•w 3
X U
4) u
u
I r- U)
— u
V
N 0
01
—n
0
N «" ki
3 c
A! *< e w
U a
W1
H ^ urj «a
■
ti e X
c
(9
« «I u -3 u
« « U C 00
c e « « c
■o -o u
0 - O
a « U M £
£ X a tg
— c
X «n O
U M a o —
O 3 m u u
<M 0 U y (-
— i. »-; E
e £ ecu 0
tio -o «.-c u
u
jC c «
« -O T.

u
|
V
U 3
5 II «I
O a C
<9
U
3
u
V I o
(A
u

c
U
3
u
W5 a. BC
3 I N
N
a
c X
I c
ft c

6r.

-—
■ ^.--^

- " ■
a-: .
 1

>.
kl
•M
—»
•M
A
-*
s0 ll u h u y
& 0
0 0 0 0 c
■a y «J w
ä u 11
13
u
u
it
H
y
H
y
h
y
E0)
n c r c c ■>
«1 0 0 0 0 0
H o o u u Ü

t •
«
pi
u
ac
N
•H
1
-«
t* c B) >.
y u ü £
■
u
•»-i
C
£
c.
>.
£>
kl
1
01
y
X 0)
0 -> C •o
u
«
& 11 tc -^0
« »->
>
Tl
c
Ä ■c 3 .r: «9
H
<*4
■
c.
S
1 •JO

§r
c
■
0 MX 1- « « u ec 01 >
«
C « Bl U «
« -<
0
y
oo *-1
u -
u tJ0 1 c — •n
<s a B — u c
0 10 —

»ac — c
«4
1
:" JSi u w
ll 0) a
E "2
« E
M C
u C
c U K

a 4J
V c
U
J *■
V
"^ u
C Ä
S "
ac o
—«
«
00
9 U
o.
01 c
S o
oo IS u 0.-
a «
8" u c
o.« lb u ■*•
o -^
u u « c u c
i « — U 3 b C 00
■
« X •o Ü
0 —
« c
ü
Eo «o
V ••< «H

2a flw Ck u
Eu 41 01
u u
E
£«
— •»<
M "i
y « « c
s u a ac « U. «w

>«

u •H
1y c
c
«i
«
y
m A >. 3 y b
•w
5a II J 3 0)
u
« 1
•«
y
a
u
JO
3
1o
u
■ H
t
0 y
u y
e ■it ■
4
u
au I Q -4
c.
—
«0
y u
b
4
u a
B
c C f* M
3»
■
y
(
I
0>
c a 4 <a a
£ U,
a c
M

(.h

■
 SECTION IV

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are drawn from the experience and

findings of this program:

• Tills work demonstrated that thinning the walls of the pro-

jectile body to achieve a 20nm projectile having Improved flight
characteristics mtd greater lethality Is g practical concept. For
example, the minimum weight, modified fuze projectile Is 20 percent
lighter than the current M-S6 projectile yet contains 20 percent more
HE plus zirconium Incendiary additives. It also has Improved aero-
dynamic characteristics and will be equipped with an Improved delayed
action fuze. The other thin-wall designs have similar Improved per-
lormance characteristics.

• The concept for a plastic rotating band and Its application

by creating u satisfactory plastic-to-metal bond Is vital to this thin-
wall projectile concept. It has been demonstrated that the | lastlc
rotating band concept Is sound, and prospects are excellent for achieving
a completely satisfactory plastlc-to-metal bond.

• The use of AISI 1040 material and the development of a

saiIsfactory heat treat process provided a satisfactory structural
design for these thin-wall projectiles. The combination en^loyed In
these designs may be only one of several practical solutions,but It
provides direction and a precedent In the search for suitable materials
and processes for thin-wall heat-treated projectiles.

f>7
 SFXT10N V

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sufficient experience was acquired on this program to establish

full confidence tltat tiic thin wall projectile design concept is sound
and that the goals established for this 20mni thin-wall projectile
can be satisfied in every respect. It Is recoimionded, therefore, that
the basic designs generated for this projectile be refined by
Instituting an engineering development program planned to complete
development and prepare drawings and specifications suited for fabri-
cation of production quantities. Refinements of the designs and manu-
facturing processes should be considered in the following areas:

1. Final proportioning of the projectile walls should be

accomplished by analysis and test. Indications are that the dynamic
nature of the loading is such that the walls can be thinned beyond the
valueb represented by the current designs. The posslbillly should be
Investigated of utilizing a form of finite element analysis that compen-
sates for the dynamic quality of the loading. Other factors requiring
consideration in establishing final wall thicknesses are: projectile
stability, fragmentation properties, and producibllity.

2. Investigations should continue on the choice of material.

Hie material must heat treat properly, satisfy performance require-
ments« and be the most economical from the standpoints of its raw material
cost and Its workability.

3. Investigation of fabrication methods should be Instituted to

determine the most economical method of fabricating production quantities.
Designs should be modified, if necessary, to achieve a satisfactory
trade-off of performance and producibllity.

4. Investigation of the rotating band design should be continued.

Materials, the configuration of the hand, and its application process
are areas where further refinements can be helpful In achieving a
totally reliable plastiv rotating band.

■r*
- , irtjliiMiliiiiiiMMi
 ■i. ContLnmtl InvoHtlKal inn of terminnl offccls Is Muggented.
Aililed Informitlon on the slsce nnd sp.itl.il distribution of the frnpiionts
IK needed. TUU mny Influence the finnl configuration of the projectile
w.ill. Also further study of the best way to enhance incendiary
prnpertlea is desirable.

6. Experimental data on exterior ballistic parameters such as

stability and drag should be acquired to substantiate satisfactory
performances predicted by theory and computation.

»,'i

(The reverse of this |HIJ»C la blank)

■ i n «■ uif »■» -
Ül
 INITIAL PISTRIBUTION

lk| USAI/UligUM
Iki USAI7SAMI
llq USAI7XÜXHD1
lk| USAF/XOONA
AI-SC/ IÜFG
AISC/SUWM
AS|)/I:.NYi:iW
Al TI/U»
MD/YW 10
ASD/UNYS
TAC/DRA
NKAMA/MMHBL
NRAMA/^IFBL
AFWL/LR
AllL/AUL-LSE-70-239
AMXBR-TB
l-rankford Ars/Lib, K2400
lUcatinny Ars/SARPA-TS
USN Mpns Ctr/Code 533
Nav Air Sys Cond/Code AIR-5323
Hit teile Memorial Inst/Rpts Lib
DOC
USAKTFWC/TA
Coindr/Naval Npns Lab
Comdr/Naval Wpns Ctr/Codc S1102
Ogden ALC/WNOP
TAWC/TRADOCLO
AFATL/DL
AFATL/üLB
AFATL/DLY
AFATL/DLOU
AFATL/DLOSL
AIATL/ULYV
AFATL/ÜLDL
AFATL/ULDA
AFATL/DLÜG
AAI Corp
AFIS/INTA

71
(The reverse of this page is blank)

^J- ^^^^ ... ,.^--,.-:.__ . -- -■- - - ,

tril " •lllilMÜiNMl IIT