See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258272476

Quantitative model of record stratospheric freefall

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · April 2013

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/34/4/841

CITATIONS READS

11 2,257

2 authors:

Jose M. Colino A. J. Barbero

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain University of Castilla-La Mancha
61 PUBLICATIONS   540 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Magnetooptical effects in rippled cobalt films View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose M. Colino on 19 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quantitative model of stratospheric record free-fall
José M. Colino1, Antonio J. Barbero2
1Instituto
de Nanociencia y Nanotecnología de Toledo. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
2 Departamento de Física Aplicada. Facultad de Farmacia, Albacete. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Josemiguel.colino@uclm.es; Antonio.Barbero@uclm.es

SUMMARY

The study of high altitude free fall was hampered by the lack of sufficient or reliable
experimental data until the stratospheric record jump of Felix Baumgartner last October.
His feat and the organizers publishing of GPS data have provided us with a nice
experiment to study in the Introductory Physics Course. A quantitative approach to free
fall dynamics only takes a spreadsheet model that incorporates air properties calculated
with the standard atmosphere model, and a speed-dependent drag force in transonic-
supersonic regime through a variable CDA product, where CD is drag coefficient and A is
the skydiver maximum cross section area.

I. INTRODUCTION
On October 14th, 2012, supported by a team of experts, Austrian skydiver Felix
Baumgartner ascended to 39,000 m in a stratospheric balloon and made a freefall jump
rushing toward earth at supersonic speeds for a significant time lapse before parachuting to
the ground. This has been the first time the position of a high altitude stratospheric jumper
has been tracked with GPS satellites, thank to GPS apparatus located in Felix’s chest pack.
GPS system performance was scrupulously tested to verify its accuracy. Evaluations
included twice dropping an unmanned test pod and comparing the results to those of a
Doppler radar [1]. After weeks of post-mission analysis, the Official Observer for the
Contest and Records Board of the United States’ National Aeronautic Association was able
to provide the World Record figures. As of February, 2013, the Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale (FAI) governing body has confirmed Baumgartner’s three records: (1)
Maximum Vertical Speed (without drogue or stabilization device) at 1,357.6 km/h (Mach
1.25), (2) Highest Jump Altitude at 38,969.4 m, and (3) Vertical Freefall Distance (without

1
drogue or stabilization device) at 36,402.6 m. It is also reconfirmed Baumgartner’s
originally stated freefall time: 4 minutes, 20 seconds [2].

Needless to remind the great social impact of the RedBull Stratos mission: apart from an
incredible 8 million concurrent people watching the internet livestream and an increased
social media number of subscribers, everybody could know about it on the press and on a
worldwide television broadcasts. There is unanimity among marketing and branding
experts praising Red Bull strategy. The mission is not only a feat of aeronautical record
accomplishments but also of technology developments (full pressure suit, balloon and
reefed parachute). All in all, the mission has been a great success.

When it comes to study free-fall in the atmosphere, a high exit altitude is most
interesting case. Baumgartner’s jump altitude was a “quantum” 24-percent higher than the
previously known highest exit altitude, Joe Kittinger’s Excelsior III jump from 31,333
meters. USAF Project Excelsior was initiated in 1958 to design a parachute system that
would allow a safe, controlled descent after a high-altitude ejection from aircraft [3].
Francis Beaupre devised a multi-stage parachute system to facilitate manned tests [4].
Joseph Kittinger, who was test director for the project, made three ascents and test jumps.
On August 16th, 1960, he completed the longest free-fall ever attempted (4 minutes 36 s),
having demonstrated the effectiveness of the survival techniques and equipment they have
developed. In his last, third fall Kittinger reached a maximum speed 988 km/h (Mach 0.9),
thus in transonic speeds for short while. Andreyev’s jump (1962) from 25.5 Km reached a
record free-fall distance of 24.5 km, without any stabilization device, but did not reach that
high speed. Later in 1966, the men who made the first supersonic jump, just not on
purpose, are Bill Weaver and Jim Zwayer on a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird over the Pacific.
While in flight at Mach 3.2, the inlet to the right engine developed a malfunction and
within two to three seconds the aircraft broke away around them. Pressure suits and
parachute systems saved the pilot life upon descent. Unfortunately Jim Zwayer was
retrieved dead.

To our knowledge, the study of high altitude free-fall from the physics education
viewpoint dates back to the nineties [5-6]. Under the assumption of a Laplacian
(isothermal) atmosphere and constant drag coefficient (subsonic regime), Mohazzabi and

2
Shea analytically solved the free fall equation of motion for the speed v(z) with an infinite
power series [6]. They further found a nearly linear relation between the altitude at which
the maximum speed occurs (zMAX) and the initial altitude (z0), and predicted how the impact
speed is usually larger than the terminal speed. Several attempts to model Kittinger’s jump
are unsatisfactory: Mohazzabi and Shea applied their model to Kittinger’s jump but reached
only a semi-quantitative agreement with reported data [6]. J. Benacka has revised the
problem and considered transonic drag but still found some contradictory results related to
published speeds and altitudes [7]. Comparisons of stratospheric free-fall models to
Kittinger’s legendary jump are just based on a few velocity/time/altitude published data.
Besides, Kittinger´s jump in 1960 was a free-fall with a small stabilization parachute
deployed at 16 s into the jump [3,7]; this making difficult quantitative studies. Thanks to
technology improvements and GPS development during the last decades, Baumgartner’s
jump provides us with many reliable data to compare with.

High altitude free-fall is not only a hot topic but also an appropriate case study in the
Introductory Physics Course at undergraduate level, especially in first year course of many
science and technology grades. Understanding the fundamentals requires Classical Mechanics,
knowledge of Gravitational Force (FG) and Drag Forces (FD), as well as basic Fluid Statics to deal
with a simple atmosphere model. Some concepts of (Longitudinal) Mechanical Waves are also
used (speed of sound in air). In this paper we present a model of supersonic high altitude
free-fall that is numerically solvable in a spreadsheet. It is based on Euler’ method and
considers drag at transonic-supersonic speeds in a standard atmosphere. This simple model
quantitatively fits the published data of Baumgartner’s record jump.

II. THEORY
Let us consider a free fall strictly vertically so the object acceleration is always a =
a⋅k. The equation of motion of a body of mass m falling free in air from altitude z0 can be
written as m—a = FG - FD. The force on a skydiver due to gravity (FG) at altitude z above sea
level is given by,

m⋅ME
FG = G = m ⋅ g ( z) Eq. 1
(R + z )2

3
m being the mass of Felix (118 Kg), ME the Earth mass (5.98—1024 Kg), R the effective
radius of the Earth (6,356.8 m) and G the gravitational constant (6.67—10-11 Nm2/Kg2).
Whereas at sea level the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.82 m/s2, at the initial
altitude it has just decreased to around 9.71 m/s2. Though small this change is easily taken
into account and we will do so in our analysis.

The force of air resistance or drag (FD) is not in general a simple function of velocity.
However, in many cases, a good approximation can be obtained by using a combination of
a linear term and a quadratic term as follows: F(υ) = -k1υ - k2υ2. For speeds in excess of a
few centimetres per second the quadratic term usually dominates. Reynolds number (NR=
ρ⋅υ⋅L/η) can be estimated for the stratospheric free fall at over 106. This huge value implies
negligible viscous forces as compared to inertial forces, and supports scenario of turbulent
air flow around Felix, which tend to produce chaotic eddies, vortices and other flow
instabilities. We should therefore compute air drag using the empirical formula:

FD = - ½⋅CD⋅A⋅ρ⋅υ2 = - ½⋅CD⋅A⋅ρ(z)⋅ υ2 Eq. 2

CD denotes the drag coefficient, A the projected area (maximum cross-section area of the
body perpendicular to the velocity vector), ρ the air density and υ the speed of the
skyjumper [8-9]. The air density ρ= ρ(z) can be straightforwardly obtained from a model
atmosphere.

The simplest atmosphere model is the isothermal or Laplacian atmosphere. This

predicts an air pressure decreasing with altitude z as a single exponential function P= P0⋅e-
z/H
, where P0= 101300 Pa and H is an effective height (H= 7482 m). This approach clearly
fails above the troposphere where air temperature rapidly lowers. More accurate is the
empirical US or the International standard atmosphere. The standard model is based on
average conditions at mid latitudes and makes a real reference in aeronautics [10]. The first
layers of the US standard atmosphere 1976 are: Troposphere (0- 11 km), Tropopause (11-
20 km), Stratosphere (20- 32 km) and Stratopause (32- 47 km). In each layer the
temperature is a linear function of altitude z, likewise air pressure is a decaying exponential
function of altitude z, with coefficients varying from one layer to another [10-11]. Given
the temperature and air pressure at a certain altitude, the equation of ideal gases allows to

4
know the air density ρ= ρ(z). An atmosphere model of four different layers suggests using
a numerical approach to study the free fall dynamics.

Two major difficulties arise in equation 2 as to know drag coefficient CD and the
projected area A of a supersonic skyjumper. Drag coefficient CD is generally shape and size
dependent. It can be analytically computed only in case of moving objects with simple
geometry. Otherwise drag coefficient can only be empirically determined. Skyjumper
coefficients are more difficult to estimate; with the human body we are not dealing with a
hard surface or a ballistic shape. We expect a low drag if the skyjumper shows arrowlike
stance: head first, arms and legs pointing backward in a V shape called the delta position.
On the contrary, a skydiver makes a maximum drag if horizontal, belly-down position is
adopted. Either way estimates can be obtained for (hard) skydivers or objects of arbitrary
shape using Fluid Flow extensions of 3D design software like SolidWorks [12]. Further
difficulties are encountered in case the moving object approaches the speed of sound;
above a critical speed near Mach 0.8 the drag coefficient rapidly increases with velocity in
the transonic regime, up to around Mach 1.0-1.2 [13-14]. Thus, Baumgartner drag
coefficient in the record free fall definitively should be considered velocity dependent CD=
CD(υ). On the other hand the area of Baumgartner’s cross-section perpendicular to body
(center of mass) motion is not a constant magnitude throughout his leap either. According
to organizer’s Full Scientific Data Review [2] Felix rotated very slowly since a good step-
off, for the first half minute, then he went in transonic speeds and rotation got faster. In
fact we could all watch infrared camera video of Felix in flat spin with a rotational speed up
to 60 rpm while returning to subsonic. His diving skills made him arrest spin at around 70-
75’’ and thereafter maintained belly-down position until parachute opening. Therefore,
both drag coefficient and projected area are variable quantities through the free fall and
hardly estimated a priory. Based on the previous arguments and the published velocity
evolution of his leap [2], the following strategy can be put forward to study the freefall
dynamics: our model lets the product CDA take different values in the following three
stages of the leap evolution:

(1) First subsonic stage: From step-off (t= 0) to leap time t= 25 s, when Felix
approximately reached a critical speed Mach0.8. According to published data the
initial vertical speed is negligible [15]. In this stage acceleration is largest, nearly

5
 constant value (a= g) for the air density is extremely low; drag cannot even warp
Felix’s pressure suit.
(2) Transonic-supersonic stage: From t= 25 s at Mach0.8, then further accelerating to
record speed Mach1.25 in supersonic regime, and back to Mach0.8 at t= 75 s. Here
the drag coefficient rises rapidly with speed from Mach0.8 to Mach1.0 and may
reach three or four times the subsonic value [14, 16-17].
(3) Second subsonic stage: From t= 75 s to the parachute opening at t= 260 s. Since
the speed is again subsonic the drag coefficient must decrease below transonic
values. However the product CDA could still be high because the projected area A
is clearly large all throughout this stage; actually Felix managed to stay quite stable
in horizontal position (belly-down).

These three stages are established according to when the skydiver speed enters or exits
the transonic regime. Thus, a free fall model must compute the speed of sound at every
altitude and compare it with Felix’s. Since the speed of sound is dependent on temperature
and the standard atmosphere provides T(z), the speed of sound is given by the equation.-

vS = γ ⋅ R ⋅ T ( z ) / M A Eq.3
where γ = 1.4 is the ratio of the molar heat capacity at constant pressure to that at
constant volume, R is the gas constant (8,314 J/mol⋅K), T temperature in Kelvin and MA
the molecular weight of air (0,029 kg/mol).

Numerical method and spreadsheet

N.M. Shea first solved the free fall by numerical methods in 1993 [5] in case of
isothermal atmosphere. Very recently J. Benacka applied a spreadsheet model to Kittinger’s
legendary jump and discussed several discrepancies on published speeds and their related
altitudes [7]. Last year, project RedBull Stratos has provided us for the first time with a
number of certified data obtained with very precise GPS apparatus, so this share could
trigger interests in modeling the freefall at high schools and college levels.

6
 Since g= g(z) and [CDA]= f(υ), the equation of motion states that acceleration is a
function of altitude z and speed υ, a= a(z, υ).-

dυ 1 dυ 1
m⋅ = m ⋅ g − C D A ⋅ ρ ⋅υ 2 → a = =g− [C D A] ⋅ ρ ⋅ υ 2 = a ( z ,υ ) Eq.4
dt 2 dt 2m

Not only the air properties (ρ) are changing in the fall from stratosphere, but also the
body properties (CDA). However a spreadsheet model that runs on a personal computer
can deal with both dependences without any programming. In order to numerically solve
the equation, it should be transformed as follows,

dυ
=υ
dυ d υ 2 / 2
= =
(
df )
= a ( z ,υ )
dt dz dz dz

With the function f defined as f= υ2/2. Thus the supersonic free fall is hereby based on
an ordinary differential equation, plus a given initial condition υ(z0)= 0. A backward Euler’s
numerical method is a simple approach to calculate speed as a function of altitude provided
that the algorithm applies on f= υ2/2.-

df f ( z i ) − f ( z i −1 )
≈
dz h

A backward Euler’s method allows a larger step size h= Zi- Zi-1 can be used and is more
stable than normal (forward) Euler method. Implicitly the values of f are obtained from the
acceleration, therefore.-

f ( z i ) − f ( z i −1 ) υ 2 i − υ 2 i −1
= = a i −1 Eq.5
h 2 ⋅ ( z i − z i −1 )

The spreadsheet model first creates a row for each altitude automatically in 100
meters steps (h=100 m) from the initial altitude taken at z0= 39000 m to the earth surface
at z= 0. Nevertheless we are to discuss results for altitudes above ∼2600 m, where Felix
deployed his parachute; the subsequent (slow) descent is not a focus in this paper. Table I
displays the first five rows of the 391 row spreadsheet in which columns correspond to row
index (i), altitude (Zi), air properties (P,T, ρ), speed of sound (Vs) and body properties (FG,

7
v, CDA, FD , a, tCUM). First two columns are row index and the independent variable Z. The
three air properties are only dependent on altitude Zi according to the standard atmosphere
as explained before. Speed of sound Vs= Vs(Ti) as in equation 3 is also altitude dependent
since Ti=Ti(Zi). Likewise FG=FG(Zi) as in equation 1. Felix speed υi (i>0) follows equation
5 as

υ i = υi −1 + 2 ⋅ ai −1 ⋅ h

Given the initial speed υ(z0)= υ(i=0) = 0. Next column is the product CDA (m2) at Zi:
Depending on the skydiver speed υi at altitude Zi, product CDA takes the value: 0.18 up to
Mach0.8 in the subsonic 1 stage, 0.73 in transonic stage and 0.85 in subsonic stage 2.
Between first subsonic and transonic stages, as well as between transonic and second
subsonic stages, product values are linearly varied within 15’’ to bridge the gap and follow
the rapid velocity variations. Drag force FD=FD(Zi, υi) is then obtained from equation 2.
Acceleration ai at Zi is thus a= (FG-FD)/m. Finally kinematics allows computing the
cumulative leap time as ti= ti-1 + (υi-υi-1)/ai, given another initial condition, t(i=0)=0.

I I I. DISCUSSION
Figure 1 summarizes the results in the 391 rows of the spreadsheet model. Figure
1(a) is a plot of speed as a function of time from step-off to parachute opening (0-260’’)
with the three stages of leap evolution indicated. In stage 1 (subsonic) the product CDA =
0.18 m2 has been used. Deviation analysis outputs a large uncertainty ±0.15 m2 that can be
due to the fact that only data in the range 20-25’’ depicts some deceleration [2]. Another
source of error arises in differences between actual air pressure and standard atmosphere
pressure in this layer. As a matter of fact some photos of on-board pressure gauge taken
during ascent showed less air pressure outside the capsule (6 mbar at z= 30.1 km ) than
that expected for standard atmosphere [11]. Nevertheless the projected area can be
estimated from the product if we know the drag coefficient. The Engineering Toolbox [18]
provides drag coefficients for many geometrically different (solid) objects, in particular CD
~ 1 -1.3 for a person in upright position and CD ~ 1.2 -1.3 for a sky jumper (horizontal
position). If we take CD ~ 1 the projected area would be A = 0.18 m2. Whether or not this
area is reasonable depends on Felix position in this first 25 seconds. He stepped off the
capsule in almost upright position but then, a slow rotation around a (roughly) horizontal

8
axis turned him and he plunged head down by the time he entered the transonic stage [2].
His projected area in first stage would thus be something in between that of upright and
horizontal positions.

Later in the transonic-supersonic stage, rotation got faster and around several axis
so the projected area is a more complex average. In this stage the model fits measured data
υ(t) with a higher product CDA = 0.73±0.1 m2; this implying a large increase of the product
of around three times that of stage 1. Since the projected area is practically unpredictable
we can assign the higher product to a large drag coefficient at transonic-supersonic speeds.
In fact, it is know that drag coefficient of supersonic aircraft and ballistic bombs at speeds
over Mach0.8 increases up to four times that of subsonic speeds [13-14, 16-17].

The subsonic stage 2 (75-260 s) is well fitted with product CDA = 0.85±0.05 m2.
Here we expect a drag coefficient lower than in transonic regime, but the projected area
also changes; actually the area increased since Felix maintained belly-down position for all
his way down. If we take CD ~ 1.2 the projected area would be A = 0.71 m2 which is
reasonable for that position. We wonder if Felix could have opened parachute about 17”
later in order to break Kittinger’s longest free-fall record (4’36’’) as well, despite this latter
was a drogue-fall. If so, according to our model he would have to fall another 1000 m and
reach z ~1600 m, which is just about the recommended altitude for safe deployment; it
was wise to let Joe Kittinger one record yet. Finally it should be remarked that the speed
profile v(z), shown in figure 3(c), satisfactorily matches published data too. As expected,
speed profile points out to impact speed over the terminal speed (mg/k2)1/2, in agreement
with conclusions of previous models in a Laplacian atmosphere [5-6].

I V. CONCLUSIONS
The numerical method of stratosferic free fall makes some qualitative predictions
as the analytical solution of Mohazzrabi and Shea, as an impact speed over the terminal
velocity in Laplacian atmosphere. Nevertheless the numerical method allows taking
into account two significant improvements: the standard atmosphere and the transonic-
supersonic drag. Our model makes use of the standard atmosphere to quantify air
properties, temperature, pressure and density, and sets three temporal stages in fall

9
 evolution in order to account for transonic-supersonic drag: stage 1 (subsonic) in
acceleration up to a critical speed Mach0.8, stage 2 (transonic-supersonic) while speeds
are above Mach0.8, and stage 3 (subsonic) in deceleration until parachute opening.
This approach has turned successful a quantitative modelling of Felix Baumgartner
record free fall for the following values of the product CDA; 0.18 in subsonic stage 1,
0.73 in transonic stage and 0.85 in stage 3. By means of a (backward) Euler method and
classical dynamics we are able to fit a number of time dependent speed υ(t) data and
five υ(z) data published by the organizers and FAI certified. The low CDA product in
stage 1 is subject to a large uncertainty but reflects low drag coefficients of subsonic
speeds. Transonic stage requires a large drag coefficient implicit in shock wave drag
regime, and the CDA product goes up to four times the previous value. Last, longest
stage 3 requires a large CDA product as well because of a large projected area A all the
time. Finally, we would like to stress that a key point to successful modelling the record
free fall has been the many GPS data released by the organizers already.

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.redbullstratos.com/

[2] Full Scientific Data Review; http://issuu.com/redbullstratos/docs/

red_bull_stratos_summit_report_final_050213

[3] Ryan, C. The pre-astronauts: Manned ballooning to the threshold of space. 1995, Naval
Institute Press (EE.UU.)

[4] Francis F. Beaupre came up with the system built around a series of parachutes that
would deploy in sequence to stabilize the pilot. The sequence was designed as follows:
Right after bailing out, the pilot would pull a cord to release a 0.45 m pilot parachute after a
few seconds of delay. Once it was fully inflated, the pilot chute would pull out a 1.8 m
diameter stabilization parachute. Next would come the main parachute release. It would
inflate partway until the pilot passed through 4300 m as measured by an aneroid barometer
on his person. Passing this altitude would trigger full release of the 9 m diameter main
parachute. It would inflate fully, and he’d make a soft landing on Earth.

[5] Shea N. M. Terminal speed and atmospheric density, The Physics Teacher. 1993; 31:
176

[6] Mohazzabi P., Shea J. H. High-altitude free fall. American Journal of Physics. 1996; 64
(10): 1242-1246

10
[7] Benacka J. Spreadsheets in Education (eJSiE). 2011; 5(1), 1-9. Benacka J. American
Journal of Physics. 2010; 78 (6): 616-619

[8] Jewett Jr. J. W., Serway R. A.. Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Seventh Edition,
2008; 1 Thomson Learning Inc.

[9] Lock J. A. The physics of air resistance. The Physics Teacher. 1982; 20: 158

[10] International Organization for Standardization, Standard Atmosphere: ISO

2533:1975, 1975. US Standard Atmosphere 1976. Washington D.C. October 1976.
Available at:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539_1977009539.pdf

[11] http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
[12] Endersby, S. http://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/2012/03/supersonic-sky-
diving-with-solidworks-simulation.html

[13] J. B. Marion, Classical Mechanics, 1970, Academic Press.

[14] Gowen F. E., Perkins E. W. Drag of circular cylinders for a wide range of Reynolds
numbers and Mach numbers. Technical Note 2960, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA), 1953

[15] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Red_Bull_Stratos_-_Capsule_elevation.png

[16] Anderson, J. D. (2001). Fundamentals of aerodynamics (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

[17] Sadraey M., Aircraft Performance Analysis, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2009

[18] Drag Coefficient. The Engineering Toolbox. Available at:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html

11
Figure 1.- (a) Speed of Felix as a function of leap time as calculated (black dots) and as measured
(open symbols). Speed of sound is also drawn for reference (red dots). (b) Calculated acceleration as
a function of leap time. (c) Profile velocity v(z) out of the model (black dots) and measured values
(red dots).

400
v model (a)
v sound
v Felix
speed (m/s)

300
SUBS.1 SUBSON.2

200
TRANSONIC- chute
SUPERSONIC opening

100

0
acceleration (m/s )
2

8
50 100 150 200 250
4
0
-4
(b)
-8

time (s)

model speed
400
Felix speed (c)
speed (m/s)

300
SUBSONIC 2 SUBS.1

200 TRANSONIC-
chute SUPERSONIC
opening
100

0
10 20 30 40
Altitude (Km)

12
 TABLE I. Spreadsheet model of air properties (pressure P, temperature T, density ρ), speed of
sound Vs, and skydiver properties (weight FG, vertical speed v, product CDA, drag force FD ,
acceleration a and cumulative leap time t CUM. Left columns are row index i and the independent
variable Zi in 100 meters steps.

i Zi P T ρ Vs FG v CDA FD a t cum.
0 39000 318,21 248,25 0,004456 316,2 1145,9 0,00 0,18 0,0 9,71 0,0
1 38900 322,63 247,97 0,004523 316,0 1145,9 36,6 0,18 0,5 9,70 3,7
2 38800 327,10 247,69 0,004591 315,9 1145,9 57,3 0,18 1,4 9,70 5,9
3 38700 331,65 247,41 0,004660 315,7 1146,0 72,3 0,18 2,2 9,69 7,5
4 38600 336,26 247,13 0,004730 315,6 1146,0 84,6 0,18 3,0 9,69 8,7
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

13

View publication stats