You are on page 1of 97

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
ADB087370

NEW LIMITATION CHANGE TO


Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

FROM
Distribution limited to U.S. Gov't. agencies only; Test and Evaluation; Oct 84. Other requests must be referred to ARDC, Attn: SMCAR-TSS, Dover, NJ 07801-5001.

AUTHORITY
DTIC Form 55, Control No. 1127009, dtd May 15, 2001.

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

:-AD

AD-E401 243

0
TECHNICAL REPORT ARSCD-TR464022

CC0 0
30-MM

TUBULAR PROJECTILE

LUCIAN M. SADOWSKI

EDWARD T. MALATESTA
JOSEPH HUERTA

OCTOBER 1984

U
j

U..ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER


FIRE CONTROL AND SMALL CWER WEAPON SYSTEM LARATORY'
DOER, Mw wRE

Distribution fimrited to U.S. Government agencies only; test and evaluation; OctoberI
19F4. Other requests for this document must be referred to ARDC, ATTN: SMCARTSS, LDover, NJ 07801-5001.

..

F.3TE

.~84

2601 210

-..

T" I-1l

'

.I

V%

---

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Departmert of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation. The citation in this report of the names of commercial firms or commercially available products or services does not constitute official endorsem-rent by or approval of the U.S. Government. Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return to the originator.

-..

7,

UNCLASSIFIED
L:u qITY CLASS!ICICA'TICN

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE


2

OF THIS PAGE "Ihie, Pats Knfered)

RI 'AD INSTtIrFioNs
IAEPOX tIII'LlTINC I'ORM c
CATA,) NLJMHFP ACCESSION NL. k t'CIPIrNT'2

REPORT NUMBER

GOVT

Technical
4.

Report ARSCD-TR-84022
"vPE OF RF,'.RT

____

-/

TITLE (and 'i,;httIe)

& PERI('O) C "

ErF"

30-mm TUBULAR PROJECTILE


6PERFORMING OR(G. REPORT N,:IABLR 7 AUTHOR(.)

S.

CONTRACT

OR GRANT

NUMPFrIP

Lucian M. Sadowski Edward T. Malatesta Joseph iuerta


9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10.

ARDC,

FSL

PROGF.AM ELEMENT. PROJFEC I .A AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBE

TAK

Armament Division .(SMAIC-SCA-C) Dover, NJ 07801-5001


II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12.

612201 03 04 1L162617AH19
REPORT DATE

ARDC, TSD STINFO Division (SMCAR-TSS) Dover, NJ 07801-5001


14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(II different fro;m Caontrolling Office) I5

October 1984
13.

NIIMBER or PAGLE
SECURITY CLASS. I th s rop,,tn)

96

Unclassified
I507DECLASSIF ICATIUN
SCHEJULEI

DOWNGRADING

16.

DISTRIBUTION

STATEMENT

(of this Report)

Distribution limited to US Government agencies only; test and evaluation; October 1984. Other requests for this document must be referred to ARDC, ATTN: (SMCAR-TSS) Dover, NJ 07801-5001.

17.

DISTRIBUTiON STATEMENT

(of the abstract entered In Block 20, It different

fron Report)

I8. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19.

KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide If necesiry

ind Identify by block number)

Tubular projectile Tubular ammunition Plastic bands


STUP ammo

Aircraft weapon Welded overlay band

30-mm ammunition
20. ABSTRACT (Catiue

sa reve

stil

It necseary eau

IdentIfy by block number)

The feasibility of tubular ammunition (sometimes referred to as STUP ammo) has been examined for both air-defense and air-to-air applications. The reduced time of flight, high kinetic energy at the target, low manufacturing costs and increased effectiveness have enticed weapon systems managers for half a decade. As a result, the Armament Division of the Fire Control and Small Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory was asked to initiate the development of a 30-mm tubular cartridge for use in a weapon system feasibility demonstration called high impulse airborne demonstration (HIGAD). (cont)
DDFORM

DO
L

,A

1473

EDITION OF I NOV 65 I5 OBSOLETE


SECURITY

UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION OF T; IS PA',E (Wh Vets EnteiII

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Otw THIS PAGE(tWo Des Eloed)

20.

ABSTRACT

(cont)

The effort consisted of: an analytical study to determine the optimum design for the tubular projectile, fabrication of tubular projectiles (both copper and plastic rotating bands were investigated), ballistic testing and reduction of the data. The results of the effort are: 0 The parametric analysis revealed that the benefit of the subcaliber tubular projectile in terms of time of flight was outweighed by the increase in kinetic energy which would be delivered to the target by the full bore projectile; The projectiles with plastic rotating bands remained intact and obturated well; and The projectile had reduced time of flight to a range of 2100 meters, where the projectile became high drag, causing the projectile to be range limited. This unique property makes a tubular projectile an ideal training round.

'

6..

. I'-1

.. . ,f.I-s,

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS $PAGE 47,.n Oar. F,,Iad)

4.4

.~

I
PAGE

Introduction Parametric Analysis Computation of Projectile Weights Design Characteristics of the Tubular Projectiles Flow Characteristics of the Tubular Projectiles
Configuration Design Requirements

1 1 2 3 3
4

Internal Ballistics
Stress Analysis Fabrication Projectile

5
6 6 6

Pusher Plate Obturator Evaluation Inspection Indoor Range Testing Exterior Ballistics Conclusions References Appendixes A. Copper Banded Projectile B. Plastic Banded Projectile C. Radar Test Results Time of Flight Velocity Decay D. Drag Coefficients
Distribution List

7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11

57 61 65 77
95

on For
NTIS GRA&i

DTIC TAB Unannounoed Justflioati0o By .. . . Distribution/ Availability Codes


Dist Special

TABLES Page
1.

Constraints for parametric analysis Steel Tungsten Internal ballistic sumary Geoetric properties Inspection of GAU-8 plastic banded tubular projectile Inspection of GAU-8 copper banded tubular projectile Inspection of Hispano Suiza tubular projectile Inspection of Hispano Suiza sabot Inspection of GAU-8 sabot Firing data - 30-rn tubular projectile (Hispano Suiza copper banded)
Firing data
banded) Firing data
-

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12.
13.

30-m tubular projectile (GAU-8 plastic


30-m tubular projectile (GAU-8 copper

banded) 14. 15. 30-mm exterior ballistics results Radar tracking and velocity 26 29

FIGURES

PAG 1. 2. 3. 4. Subcaliber tubular diameter Subcaliber tubular muzzle velocity Subcaliber tubular impulse Subcaliber tubular time of flight 31 32 33 34

5. 6.
7.

Flow condition of tubular projectile Tubular projectile


Original design of 30-m tubular projectile

35 36
37

8. 9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Modified design of 30-W., tubular projectile Tubular projectiles, original and modified designs
Bar stock prepared for banding Fabrication of copper banded projectiles Fabrication of plastic banded projectiles In-flight Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles In-flight C4U-8 (plastic) tubular projectile In-flight GCU-8 (copper) tubular projectile Modification of copper banded GAU-8 projectile Zero degree impact of shot 2 on 2-in. armor 1.55 in. penetration Back of armor of shot 2 zero degree impact of shot 4 on 2 in. armor 1.59 in. penetration Side of armor from shot 4 Impact at 600 obliquity of shot 10 on 1.05 in. armor-complete penetration

38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

18. 19.

48 49

20. 21.

50 51

ift

PAGE
22. Back of armor of shot 10 52

23. 24.

Impact at 560 obliquity of shot 9 on 1.5 in. armor 1.10 in. penetration Pressure time curves GAU-8 tubular projectile plastic banded and copper banded penetration 30-ram GAU-8 projectiles CD vs Mach numbers 30-m Hispano Suiza projectile CD vs Mach numbers

53 54

25. 26.

55 56

iv

U-!

',,.

7-:-

-.

INTlMDUCION
A tubular projectile is a cylindrical projectile with a large circular duct
4pusher

along the longitudinal axis. When launched from a gun, the projectile uses a plate and an obturator to seal the propelling gases behind the projectile while in the gun tube. When the projectile exits from the muzzle, the pusher plate and obturator are completely separated fron the projectile. The properly designed hollow projectile launched at or above the design Mach number will achieve the desired supersonic internal flow conditions. This flow condition produces the ideal low drag characteristics of the tubular projectile. As the velocity of the projectile decreases, the internal flow urdergoes a change and
becomes choked. In the choked flow condition, air continues to flow internally, but at subsonic velocity. In this mode, the drag is similar to a streamlined standard projectile.

L,

Although, experimentation on tubular projectiles can be traced as far back as 1858 very little knowledge about supersonic flow, particularily in ducts, was known until after 1944. Use of this supersonic flow theory permitted a true scientific evaluation of tubular projectiles in the late 1960's by the Canadian Defense Research Establishment. During the early 1970's, the ARDC Weapon Systems Concept Team (WSCr) conducted experimentations on tubular shapes in a variable Mach number wind tunnel. Based on the findings from these experiments the WSCr developed a design methodology for tubular shapes for ballistic applications. Limited investigations of several tubular applications were conducted in several caliber sizes. The largest effort was the 20-mn program which resulted in the automatic firing of tubular projectiles from the vulcan air defense system. This firing yielded system dispersion for the tubular projectile in the M61 automatic gun and a measurement of velocity as a function of time which yielded drag coefficients as a function of Mach numbers. The purpose of the effort described in this report is to determine single shot dispersion of a tubular projectile when fired from a hard mount and to verify the existing value of drag coefficients as a function of Mach numbers.

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
The foundation of any parametric analysis is a good understanding of the constraints placed on that analysis and the variables which are permitted. This program was funded by the Army Aviation Systems Command (AVSCXI) who directed that this ammunition effort be on tubular ammunition for air-to-air (helicopterto-helicopter) engagements. Since this ammunition effort was to be ccmpatible with the weapon for the high impulse gun airborne demonstration (HIGAD), the ammunition was constrained to function in the 30-nun, GAU-B system. This constraint defined the gun caliber, gun tube length, peak chamber pressure, ammunition impulse and available case volume. The Weapon Systems Concept Tham (WSCr) recommended the highest length to diameter ratio (L/D) possible without exceeding 3. The interior ballistics investigation was limited to conventional technology by the available funding. The projectile material selection was also limited by available funding. The parametric analysis was conducted on both steel and tungsten projectiles but actual hardware fabrication was limited to the steel projectiles only.

n1

II

N%

An effective analysis would strive to obtain the highest possible probability of kill. Such an analysis would be very complex and would require vulnerability testing and scenerio definition. It was decided to simplify the analysis by assuming that time-of-flight to the target would be the parameter to minimize. Time-of-flight would be ccmputed for various projectiles as the caliber was varied from a subcaliber size of 12am through the full bore size of 30nm. Once the caliber of the projectile was defined, the length was determined by the maximum length to diameter ratio of 3. To preclude exotic advances in the state of the art of internal ballistic technology the authors limited themselves to real and achievable muzzle velocities which were obtained using the projectile internal ballistics analysis (PIBA) program. This ccmputer code in FORTAN uses the ballistic curves developed by Dr. H. P. Manning for calculating the velocity performance of smnall arms weapon systems. SCMTATION OF P1WJCTILE WIGHTS In order to calculate the total launch weight of the tubular projectile assembly, the dimensions of two existing tubular projectile designs (20-nrn and 30-rim) were analyzed. Three analytical equations to determine the weights of the projectile, the pusher plate and the obturator were generated. These equations listed below required only the outer diameter of the flight projectile and the density of the material being considered.
1T

) 0 1D

T FR
Pp

(2.541)
(0.4)

Wp

=1 R30D

Wo=8 R P0

ROD

10.348-R2oo]

Where: Wr = Weight of tubular flight projectile (grains) ROD = Radius of tubular flight projectile (inches)
3 PT = Density of tubular flight projectile material (grains/inch ) Wp = Weight of pusher plate (grains) 3 P = Density of pusher plate material (grains/inch )

WO = Weight of obturator (grains) Po-- Density of obturator material (grains/inch3 ) Using the above equations both the launch and flight weights of the tubular projectile in steel and tungsten were computed in 2-mm increments from 12-nm through 30-m. The flight weights for the steel tubular projectiles are shown graphically as a function of diameter (see figure 1).

Those weights and the GAU-8 system constraints (see table 1) were then used as input to the interior ballistics program (PIBA) to cunpute both muzzle velocity and single shot impulse to the gun. The muzzle velocities of the steel projectiles are depicted as a function of subcaliber diameter in figure 2. Figure 3 shows single shot impulse for the steel tubular projectiles as a function of the subcaliber projectile diameter. Table 2 lists launch weight, flight weight, muzzle velocity and impulse for all of the steel subcaliber projectiles and table 3 lists the same parameters for all of the tungsten subIt is noted that all cases meet the impulse constraint caliber projectiles. which was 150 lb sec. The flight weights and muzzle velocities of the various subcaliber tubular projectiles of tables 2 and 3 were then used as input to a two degree of freedom computer program to compute the time of flight to various ranges of interest. The program uses Newtonian mechanics to calculate the trajectory of projectiles. This program also requires the input of a drag coefficient vs Mach number curve to compute the time of flight. The best available drag coefficient which was determined from the 20-mn tests conducted at Ft. Bliss, TX was used. The computed data for the subcaliber steel tubular projectiles summarized in figure 4 graphically shows the time-of-flight to various ranges as a function of the diameter of the subcaliber steel tubular projectile. Examination of this data indicates that the optimum steel tubular projectile is somewhere in the range of 22-m to 24-qm in diameter and that is only markedly noticeable at the longer ranges of 2500 meters to 3000 meters. At the more probable ranges of engagment below 1500 meters, the time-of-flight curve is almost flat, fielding a difference in time of-flight at 1500 meters between the 22-um subcaliber projectile and the 30-nn full bore projectile of approximately 0.12 seconds. This modest gain in time of flight to 1500 meters is insignificant when compared to the decrease in kinetic energy delivered to the target at 1500 meters. The full bore 30-mn delivers more than 52,000 ft pounds as compared to the 24,000 ft pounds delivered by the subcaliber 22-m. In addition, the full bore 30-num will

affect an area on the target that is 87 percent greater than the area affected by the subcaliber 22-mn tubular projectile. Using engineering logic in lieu of a detailed analysis one can see that the most effective projectile choice wuld be the full bore 30-mn tubular projectile. DESIGN CHAXTERISTICS OF TE "UUAR PRWCrILES *
0With

Flow Characteristics of the Tubular Projectiles


increasing demand for high performance in projectiles, various means

have been used to minimize the total drag of a shape. ibis decrease in drag has '* aft section, or by emission of gases at the base. These methods appear to be reaching an asymptotic limit on drag reduction for conventional shapes. The properly designed unconventional tubular shape shows excellent promise of
performance superior to that of existing low drag conventional shapes. To obtain an appreciation of the low drag potential of tubular shapes, the elements contributing to the total drag at supersonic speeds should be described. The major contributors to drag for conventional shapes are the been brought about to a certain degree by streamlining the nose, boattailing the

.9V

frontal area (forebcxy) and the base. A tubular shape, correctly designed externally and internally will show an appreciable decrease in both frontal and base drag because of the presence of the internal passage and minimal losses due to the internal flow. The skin friction drag is higher than that of the conventional configuration, because in addition to external skin friction, there is internal skin friction present due to the internal flow. But the overall drag coefficient is decreased by a factor of two when compared to most conventional projectiles available to date.

Proper internal supersonic flow conditions must exist to allow the low drag performance of the tubular configuration. The internal flow becumes supersonic only when it is said to be swallowed. This is generally indicated when a lip or nose shock wave is generated externally as shown in figure 5. A choked flow condition which indicates a high drag mode is characterized by detached or bow shockwave as indicated in the same figure. It should be noted that the choked flow condition can result in one of two ways. Improper internal design of the tubular projectile will cause a choked flow condition at all velocities. A properly designed tubular projectile will experience a choked flow condition only when the projectile decelerates to a Mach number too low to sustain internal supersonic flow. The change from low drag condition to a high drag
condition is instantaneous at this critical Mach number. Configurational Design Requirements The Aerodynamics Research and Concepts Assistance Section (ARCAS) Chemical System Laboratory, has been doing developmental wrk on tubular projectile shapes of various sizes since 1974. Experience has shown that there mst be trade-offs in the design approach in order to obtain reasonable projectile weight and low drag characteristics. The internal geometry was selected to allow the tubular projectile to decelerate to a Mach number of 1.8 before the high drag mode was reached. The internal portion of the projectile (see figure 6) consists of the .nvergence section, constant area section, and the divergence section. The length to diameter ratio of three has been considered a practical ratio. The 30-mm tubular projectile shape used in these tests has the following design characteristics: o Nose lip angle of 100 o o Boattail angle of 100 Internal divergence angle of 30 15'

o A length to diameter ratio of three. o Welded overlay rotating band or plastic rotating band. Figure 6 shows the general contour and pertinent dimensions of the 30-mm tubular projectile tested in the program.

KInternal

Ballistics

The selection of an optimum propellant for the 30-rm tubular cartridges consisted of two steps. The first step entailed using analytical methods to select the propellant for the cartridge. The second step involved ballistic firings in order to verify that the propellant yielded the predicted muzzle velocity within the pressure constraints of the barrel. The tubular projectile with sabot was predicted to be 250 grams. The length of projectile travel is 2.25 meters (88.58 inches), the barrel crosssectional area is 7.35 square centimeters (1.139 square inches). The case volume available for propellant was estimated to be 162 cubic centimeters (9.9 cubic inches). Using the computer code, PIBA and propellant masses of 154 and 162 grams, the code predicted muzzle velocities of 1280 meters per E73cond (nips) and 1310 meters per second (rps), respectively. Therefore, a minimum muzzle velocity of 1280 naps (4200 feet per second) will be obtainable. Due to limited funding, conventional propellants were selected which would yield the greatest muzzle velocity but also conform to the operating pressures of the weapon. Three single base extruded propellants were selected, IMR 6962, CR8325, and IMR4996. The relative quickness values based on IMR4350 as a standard are 64, 58, and 51 respectively. With propellants selected, internal ballistic testing was conducted on February 26, 1979. A 30-rm Hispano Suiza barrel and cartridge case were used as the test vehicle due to availability of components. The barrel was attached to a hydrorecoil bond mount. A lumiline screen was placed at a distance of 7.62 meters from the muzzle and another lumiline screen was placed at a distance of 3.05 meters beyond the first screen. A counter was attached to the lumiline screens to record the time interval for determination of velocity. Peak chamber pressure was recorded using a copper crusher gage. A total of 15 rounds of ammunition was fired during the test. Table 4 summarizes the results. Three propellants were tested in order of increasing relative quickness. Propellants IMR4996 and IMR6962 were eliminated due to excess pressure. During testing, a graphical prediction showed that for IMR4996 a loading density of 100 percent would yield a peak pressure of 434 mega pascals (MPa) (63 kpsi). This pressure is above the 393MPa nominal operating pressure for the system. The 581 MPa reading for IMR6962 clearly eliminated this propellant, as well. The i loading density of CR8325 -- s increased based on a revised prediction of tubular intrusion into the cartri..e case. At a loading density of 105 percent, repeated firings yielded a velocity of 1277 meters per second (m/s) with a standard deviation of 6 m/s. The calculated muzzle velocity was 1286 m/s, which was satisfactory. The mean peak pressure of 430 MPa with a standard deviation of 1OMPa was higher than the nominal pressure, but was within the maximum allowable pressure for the barrel. Since this effort was to demonstrate a concept, propellant CR8325 was used for ballistic testing.

N"
MY.

Stress Analysis , The structural integrity of any new concept should be analyzed before

"-

fabrication. A finite element scress analysis was conducted at ARDC on the initial design (see figure 7). 'he results indicated a substantial amount of plastic deformation in the base of the projectile from the base to a distance of approximately 3.81mm from the base. This deformation can alter the configuration of the boattail of the projectile and could lead to in-bore problems with the projectile. In addition, the stresses in the bottom of the crimp groove were near the yield point. The stresses in the remainder of the projectile including the rotating band and its interface with the body were low and provided a large margin of safety. With these results, several design modifications were made. After a few iterations, a final design emerged (see figure 8). The boattail angle was changed from 100 to 80. The exit/diverging angle was changed from 3 degrees, 15 minutes to 3 degrees. This change increased the surface area on the base of the projectile, which in turn decreased the stress in the base of the projectile. The plastic deformation in the base of the projectile was eliminated. The above changes in the projectile configuration changed the geometric properties of the projectile. Table 5 compares the initial design to the modified design. These slight differences in the geomatric properties of the projectile designs were not expected to affect the flight characteristics. Therefore, the hardware was fabricated in accordance with the modified design.

FABRICATION

I
.'

The tubular projectile consists of three parts: projectile, pusher plate, and obturator. Three different projectiles were fabricated for this effort: two configurations for air to air applications and one configuration for air defense application (see figure 9). A different procedure was used to fabricate each projectile component. The details of the processes are presented below.

Project ile The projectile was machined from AISI-4340 steel bar stock. The bar stock was sectioned and machined for application of a copper rotating band, or a plastic rotating band. The details of the procedure for a copper banded projectile will be presented first, followed by the plastic banded projectile. For the copper banded projectile, a blank was sectioned from bar stock and machined (see figure 10) so as to be compatible for use in a copper overlay welding machine. A hole through the blank along its axis was required so water could be circulated for cooling of the blank during banding using the welded overlay machine. An iterative approach was required in order to define the proper wire thickness, current settings, rotating rates and number of revolutions required to band the projectile. The details of the banding procedure are discussed in appendix A. A total of 100 blanks were banded.

6 7..'
",IIk-"e?.

-,

-.

i-

Forty of the 100 banded blanks were machined to the original tubular design. The remaining blanks were machined to the modified design. The banded blanks were machined close to final dimensions, then heat treated to obtain a hardness of 52 and 54 on the Rockwell C scale. Upon completion of heat treatment, the blanks were polished to final dimensions (see figure 11), yielding a tubular projectile. With the recent advances made in the field of plastic rotating bands, 39 steel projectiles were machined from AISI 4340 steel bar stock. In order to accommadate a nylon rotating band, a slight band seat of 0.5 millimeters was machined into the projectile before heat treatment. The projectiles were polished to final dimensions. Two techniques investigated by the Air Force were considered for application of the rotating band onto the projectile. The first technique consists of applying a coating of plasma sprayed material onto the band seat and then injection molding plastic onto this undercoating creating a rotating band (ref 1). The Air Force projectiles were fired in a GAJU-8 barrel. Muzzle velocities of 1280 to 1370 ups were recorded. In flight photographs showed that the band obturated well, imparted spin to the projectile and remained in tact after launch. The second technique consisted of applying an adhesive to the band area and then injection molding the band to a tubular projectile body. The Air Force tubular projectile resembled the ARDC design. For this technique, no band seat is required. The results of the testing revealed that the rotating bands remained intact after launch, obturated well and imparted spin to the projectile. Muzzle velocities in excess of 1219 raps were recorded. The second technique was chosen for application to the ARDC tubular projectiles. The banding process is described in Appendix B. Figure 12 shows the projectile at various steps in the fabrication process from bar stock through completion using the plastic injection molding technique. Pusher Plate The pusher plate was machined from AISI-4340 steel bar stock. The plates were heat treated to a hardness on the Rockwell C scale of 52 to 55. The plates were then machined to final dimensions. cbturator The obturator was machined from 31.75 millimeter bar stock. was nylon 6/12. The material

The next section of the report deals with the inspection, assembly and testing of the projectiles.

7.

9%W, %'~

*C$4aa.

..

EVALUATION The evaluation of the tubular projectiles consisted of three phases. First, an inspection of the cczponents; second, indoor range testing to evaluate chamber pressure, muzzle velocity, sabot discard and integrity of the projectile; and third exterior ballistic testing to determine dispersion parameters, time of flight, velocity decay and a drag curve for each of the
projectile designs.

Inspection The plastic banded, copper banded, GAU-8 and Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles were inspected for critical dimensions. An extensive examination of the GAU-8 plastic banded tubular projectiles revealed dimensional uniformity within the manufactured lot (table 6). The copper banded projectiles (table 7) and the Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles (table 8) were inspected to a lesser degree; however, uniformity was met for these rounds as well. The pusher plate and the obturator (table 9) for the GAU-8 tubular projectiles were inspected for key dimensions. Only the mass was provided on the Hispano Suiza obturators and pusher plates (table 10). Examination of all data reveals uniformity throughout the lots. Indoor Range Testing The tubular projectiles were tested in the following order, Hispano Suiza, GAU-8 plastic banded; and, lastly, the GAU-8 copper banded tubular projectiles. Lumiline screens were placed at 8.5, 23.8, 39.0 meters fran the muzzle of the gun. A micro-flash photography apparatus was placed at 8.5 meters fram the muzzle of the gun. Armor plate was placed at 45.7 meters fram the muzzle of the gun. A total of 21 rounds was tested in an indoor range. The Hispano Suiza projectiles were fired from a Hispano Suiza field barrel. Plastic banded GAU-8 projectiles were fired from a GAU-8 Mann Barrel. The in-flight photographs (see figures 13 and 14) revealed that the rotating bands produced a good gas seal and that the projectiles are structurally sound. The chamber pressure and muzzle velocities (tables 11 and 12) for the Hispano Suiza and plastic banded GAU-8 projectiles confirmed the results that were obtained fran the internal ballistic portion of the program. However, the high chamber pressures that were encountered during the initial testing of the GAU-8 tubular copper banded projectiles (see figure 15 and table 13) lead to a redesign of the copper rotating band. After several iterations, a relieved rotating band (figure 16) yielded a moderate pressure and muzzle velocity. The penetration data gathered against the armor plate which was placed at 45.7 meters (150 feet) fran the muzzle of the gun is shown in tables 11, 12 and 13. The projectile would not penetrate 5.08 centimeters of armor at 0 degrees obliquity (see figure 17, 18, 19, and 20) but will penetrate 5.08 centimeters of armor at 60 degrees obliquity (see figures 21 and 22). (Depth of penetration was measured normal to armor plate surface). At large angles of obliquity, the

8
%9

"N

projectile digs itself into the armor plate (see figure 23). Due to its hardness, the projectile fragments upon impact. Further testing will be required to determine the ballistic limit of the tubular round of ammunition. Examination of yaw cards which were used for the first two rounds fired reveal that the pusher plate will depart from the projectile flight path within a 4 degree cone angle. The obturator will depart from the projectile flight
path within a 2 degree cone angle.

Exterior Ballistics The external ballistic testing of the three different projectiles consisted of two phases. The first phase conducted in March 1980 pertained to measuring the dispersion parameters of the projectiles and obtaining determination of the chamber pressure and muzzle velocity. The second phase conducted in May 1980 pertained to the Hawk radar tracking of the projectiles in order to determine the drag coefficients for the tubular projectile. During the first phase, an accuracy target was placed at 1000 meters from the muzzle of the barrel. Chamber pressure (see figure 24) muzzle velocity, and the velocity of each round was recorded (table 14). The dispersion for the GAU8 target practice projectiles manufactured by Aerojet, had a mean radius of 0.7 mils. The plastic banded GAU-8 tubular projectiles and copper banded GAU-8 tubular projectiles had a mean radius of 0.4 and 0.9 mils, respectively. The dispersion is not available for the Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles. After several attempts to walk the projectiles onto the target, the test was concluded (ref 2). The problem did not lie with the ammunition but with the barrel. The Hispano Suiza barrel was not clamped in the proper places during
-

'4

the test firings. This was not discovered until after the test. The test was concluded in order to save the remaining projectiles for the Hawk Radar Test.

The Hawk Radar Test was conducted in May 1980. A total of 22 rounds of ammunition was tested (table 15). Of the 22 rounds of ammunition tested, 8 of the projectiles were target practice rounds, which were fired for reference. The Hawk Radar data was reduced to generate range and velocity as a function of time of flight. Appendix C contains time of flight and velocity decay data f-r each round of ammunition. The time of flight values were reduced to generate a drag curve for each of the rounds of ammunition presented in Appendix D. For each of the different types of projectiles, a mean drag table was generated. This mean table is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual rounds of ammunition. The mean values were then plotted to generate drag curves for each different type of projectile. Figure 25 ccmpares the GAU-8 plastic banded and copper banded tubular projectiles with the 30-nm GAU-8 Aerojet target plastic projectiles. Figure 26 compares the Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles with the Hispano Suiza target practice projectiles. It is interesting to note that the drag curve for the Hispano Suiza tubular projectile fits between the drag curves
for the two GAU-8 tubular projectiles.

CCNCLUS IONS

The 30-u tubular projectile program was a success. The results of the program worth noting are summarized below: 1. The parametric analysis revealed that the difference between the full bore and subcaliber tubular projectile in terms of time of flight was outweighed by the increase in kinetic energy which would be delivered to the target by the full bore projectile. Therefore, the full bore projectile was selected for the program. 2. The stress analysis conducted on the design of the projectile revealed possible structural problems could occur in the base of the projectile. Ballistic testing of the original design, Hispano Suiza tubular projectile, showed that the concern expressed was unnecessary. 3. The plastic rotating bands on the tubular projectiles remained intact and obturated well. The muzzle velocity and peak chamber pressure prediction were verified by the ballistic tests. 4. The tubular projectile has significant reduced drag coefficient as compared to conventional projectiles at high Mach number. This property of the tubular projectile yields reduced time of flight to a range of 2100 meters. Then, the projectile becomes high drag, causing the projecitle to be range limited. This unique property makes a tubular projectile an ideal training round. 5. The amount of reduction in the time of flight of a tubular projectile as compared to a conventional projectile at a distance of 2,000 meters is approximately 25%. The percent difference in the drag coefficient at Mach 2.5 between the tubular projectile as compared to the conventional projectile is approximately 50%. The dispersion of the tubular projectile is approximately of the dispersion for the conventional projectile. 6. The purpose of the program did not entail determining the ballistic limit of the tubular projectile; therefore, no comment will be made on this point.

l *.

10

*.

Ir.

. * .

-.

.,

. - %, '. t

..

l.

* ,

k" 1

.H F

*.

References

1. Stephen J. Price, Rotating Band for High Velocity Thin-Walled Projectiles, Report Number AFATL-TR-79-7, Florida, January 1979.
2. George B. Niewenhous, Feasibility Test of 20n Tubular Projectile, Material

Testing Directorate, Maryland, 1978.

11

Table 1. Constraints for parametric analysis

Parameter

Oonstraint

Source

Type projectile Diameter of bore Fatio of length to diameter Length of projectile travel pressure Inpulse Available case volume Diameter of flight
projectile Peak nominal damber

Tubular 30am 3max 84 inches 59 Kpsi 150 lb-sec max 8.9 in3
12 thru 30am

AVSCOM HIGAD WSCT GAU-8 GAIJ-8 HIGAD GAU-8


Desired
range

Mterials

Steel & tungsten

Save time

lower cost

113

Table 2. Projectile diameter (imM) 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Launch weight (grains) 848 1043 1261 1508 1785 2098 2449 2841 3279 3765 Flight weight (grains) 208 331 494 703 965 1284 1668 2120 2648 3256

Steel Muzzle velocity (ft/sec) 6687 6409 6114 5811 5513 5227 4971 4698 4458 4220 Impulse (ib/sec) 73.2 77.7 82.2 86.9 91.7 96.7 102.0 107.3 112.8 118.6

-414

Table 3. Tungsten

Projectile diameter
(Mu)

Launch weight
(grains)

Flight weight
(grains)

Muzzle velocity
(ft/sec)

Impulse
(lb/see)

12 14

1089 1425

449 713

6345 5909

78.7 85.4

16
18 20 22 24 26 29 30

1832
2320 2900 3582 4375 5291 6339 7529

1065
1516 2080 2769 3594 4570 5708 7020

5467
5053 4662 4305 3957 3618 3306 3030

92.5
100.00 108.0 116.5 124.9 133.0 141.0 149.3

%.%

I-7

.515

4,

44

M4)f'

~.~

0 -

5k),,

,-4

W-

In

4J~

AA 0A

LA

H~~
'4P4

r4 H

%04H

16

Table 5. Gecmetric properties


Initial Des ign Projectile (with sabot) Weight (gram) 241 254 Modification

Length (CM) Penetrator Weight (grams) Length (cm)


Diameter (cm) C.G. from roxe (cm)

10.36

10.99

106 8.99
2.98 4.83

211 8.99
3.00 4.88

Axial moment (g-cm 2 )338 Transverse mument (g-aa2 ) 1104

346 1145

.1

17

00 (4
00

~
w v 0

-N
rr.-.

N
q

"4~C %
ON

~ 00O
CN
r C

0' 00

"4

94 "nFI N N

*'n N

'm w f

rN

No 4 0
Ytr

0 N

IA-U0si

MN
Pco

NIA
N

C41;

44 .
N
(14 N

00

Ca 00
.Ir4

0 N
P-4 P-4

*-4

0.

"

41*
(nn

Nc

C1

"N B
CNN

01

r-4

r4 "4cn

"4

C4N

OD4

"4smS),V N4 (1 NO0 -4 N

(r

OD
45" 4-D

ri"4

N N

CN

C4

PN

00

04

-4 P-

"

C6 4N

N N

N 14 N

IA

(Y

aC
*@~~-

t
O1

Lo

n
N 4'-

RN
N

4A

LA

N "44

-44

"

5F

% I) ,N, 0
~J
618

"-4

It

*i

000

0.)

c
0 0v

5-

aI.1 0 0

*O

00

0M

00

'U.~1 *45"4'

C4

V V

'v19

%D

CON

%D

Nm

.r4-.N:

14U

in

0%
.
In*In

CO

n L No

LA
G

In:

9 N

I-;-I NL
SN
L

Ln
O
N

8%
S

ND

00

Ei4

Cr

02
'W,%%4 ~

Lny

'x

'I

54

LA

"'.'N

LA 0

N0 N

p '
N

0% 0% N.
u 4
' In

NN

tn

c;N

NH

41

*l

*-

-- 4*

H .0

.'4-4Pen

0%

ON

tn

'

'-"21

K
12
*

Table 10.

Inspection of Hisparm Suiza sabot (mass in graw)

Pusher plate

"'

Item

Mass

29.8

30.0

30.1

29.9

29.8

.;
, Item 1 2

Obturator
3 4 5

Mass

6.1

6.1

6.1

6.1

6.1

22

.41

41

4JJ

00

04

M) 0)

C14

H4

.Im r-4 4J

rLn
I)

LA

Ae

K'

N' H 4

44SH

L H -

LA H -

LA H 4 H4

Ln H

041

cn N N

--

01
TH-

0
0 R 0 LA(

!7-7
601

144C4
23

41.

-4W

41-

%D

co

r-

m.A

LA mA

*1-)

0
A. 4

-4

00r

41

0 00

a Q

0 0

LA 0

0 0

Q 0

10

U)14C
w". P44
r".1

m
n0n)

n
0w

R
n .4

f
''4.4

r-4-

0 -4

U.

00
Z

(4

O r-

4
r-4-J (N
54

414
co

4'

~ 0;
C4

CH H
co 8

-L
8)Mr

C1 r-

04

C4

24-

LUn

IH
A 4J 4 4 4 4

00

4'r

.1-'

4C4

*a

LA

.4a

'4

C.

r-

r-un

444

C11

H00~

03

4449r-~

-11 Ic

4J

LOO

LAO9

U; ; LA

4W

49~.

4.)

a.

* .9

$44

r4

4JJ

Lo

0C0%0

LA

U; t

; W; U

en m2m6n

jf

q.LnN

'0

LM..

ILn
o o L~n r-

LO~~ inQ0
0 0~~' N w
40

m4wL
n L ( N
U4

ov
a

wC

UO0LL
*

n in M0
. .

LnO PiU

ULc'00
U

..**/ *

4~ N
4JC

N LAN~jN

.9

"
*

9C 9

n0 m

i 9

4 en 91 IC

1111

I
'-a

ii

FA Ca l "m

41

f-Mr N NN m

N N

omt

.L

(nf
U)

nm n( ne m
0~ 0 000 DaI Q L 0

40- *4

rqrq

Iq

CD

nNr00 00000

00000000000~o 0 m 00

>47.

.1.4r

N4

" 4

r-%o*1c4wr-8-c 8 0UN4r'~0

C'

27

44

to

La. ,

4i

.44

LA -4
4'0M

O LAa

S.4

fn4en0e

~-T-

4.0

aD

CD1onQro

CDC 0 nr M% %H. % %

.44

$4

8.

t
en e mM

LALinAn
Vq I

01 000

28

Table 15.

Radar tracking and velocity

General Electric barrel

Hispano Suiza barrel

Shot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S8

Target practice(TP) TP TP TP

Tubular

Target practice

Tubular

Time 10:58 11:00 11:03

Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic copper

11:07 11:11 11:15 11:17

"9

,%,10

oper copper
11 12 13
14 15

11:20 11:24
11:29 13:46 13:47
TP TP 14:33 14:36

Copper Copper TP Coper


Coper

16
17

14:40
14:50

18 19 20
21 TP

comer Copper Copper TP

14:53 14:55 14:57


15:01

22

15:03

29

!~

VI V

%kVri W0

.4.

ooC

I-

LU4

C14~

31.

i
C44 cc

ca

.4

cc

4U

0-O.
(03S/IA) A1043A3zn
32.

I-

QD

hi

0
614

('33-81)

sindW

3-

d'

14

.5

.54

Scc
4u4

seT

AA

0c

344

rL

0 I
5-4

030

35-

4..

LN . 4

Tlr

"V:i

U z

1-4r-

q,-

010

I'

I,

44

'I.'
I0 4'

I
9-4
-A

*i
5.4 "-4

P~4

I
LII

-* -

nI
~gS3.44.,
-.

I- 1- I 6I

ww

'-4

38

-H 4

S4
N

39b

ra

AR

&flP4

404

4.4

RT
41.

14.

Id
A.4

4.v

v06

a
41

1
42-I

00
14-44

04

,.. S.

.V.

. , .

3 g,,, r 4,. .y,,

. o ,.

., j ,,j

j,,

. , .

.,

, .~

It!
4.i

Vii

i,,,

4J

.I

4$4

-V

44

'I

0~
St..

(4

'.5

4
N.

"St
~5

.1~
5,.,

A A
5\ '9.

4 A
.3.'
0

IV
+

SI

''.7

Sn -i

U-.'!

'*7
-.
'.5-.

I)

14

"S

'Ii.
45
~ ~

Z{Z

~t 2C&~.

LIZ

Kt
V..4

Ku

k*1

~~1

--

-46

I.

run- s.u4 , *.

'r- irr

*~

hi

Sr.
-a.. 5~4 4

a
p
-~ 4

"0

.~

S.

is

~-

,d4

.,~

*
t *;A.md.

4C
4..'.'.
A

Ps
5%~

'

t-., *

'~r <"a
-A

4
an
-

~
'-G ''.. 4
aV

Li;

yy'w.~
4. r1 1 .
,

V
-' 1-

-*4

~r'N

'rr

x~"1~~
-'r
-'

C'r
.. AS-r.
I *

0< 0 . 0)

eSiEgsmw~~

-~

4UbJt
-

N~C~% -~
__

1,

~
.,-

2 K-K:
'N 5.*.*,

-4
4

'S

-,
S.'

.g N.

a.

11.4

5.4

54~

S.

a, I,~

N''

U.

~.

.A

A.

'IS

44

Sli

r., .7S

*V

0d

NIXI

-1

-1

41:

Figure 20.

Side of armor from shot 4

50

.4..

Fi
*n

ue2 105i.

Ip

ct aro-o

biuiy

ht

*lt pentraio
5lE

.4...

" : '

"

.::;

.4 -- ' '

= :Y ,.

,: "4<,.: .4 :.

.: : .:< .:

:.

.>:

; .S

.4,

617

SAl.

Figre ackof rmo ofsho 1 2.


'52

L.

TV

*'Pill.

'I

14

141.

ts, A .. roIt

Y.w

57

:.~~~~~~~~~~~

~7~~-**

~-

.~-'.

41:~~

$44

P4go
$4 1:

''N

14
P4. C40
44

;4J.

rcc

k~Ul

go0
cc.

IZI

CL oL m
*

'CIO

k~
I.

....... . ..
J TIn

0/W 0_

I_0

55

CV I

I0

Lai

'

'

' ' '1

U)

0
.4

I 5wE

r'r

c:w~c.7:Ur..~

e.~

w!

.rd

bt~t

.~.~Sg~

I
p

I
'5

p
APPENDIX A

I
.9

CliPPER BANDED PLEJDZTILE

I
'I

I
I

I
.9

57

The banding of the steel projectiles was a manual procedure. The equipment
required for the process consisted of a tungsten inert gas (TIG) welder, rotating table, and CDA-189 copper wire of various diameters. A total of 10 bar stock sections, blanks, (see figure 10 in body of report) from the 100 blank lot was used to determine the procedure for applying the bands to the blanks. The procedure consisted of placing a blank into the rotating table, and applying a weld bead in a tightly wound helix onto the band seat area. Initially, wire of 2.38-mm diameter was selected. Eleven revolutions were required of the blank to apply sufficient copper to the bank seat area for the rotating band. (No water was circulated through the projectile using this manual procedure.) Examination of the band seat after chemically etching the copper from the steel body revealed a smooth surface, indicating little absorption of the substrate material into the band. It was determined that only 0.25 percent of the steel diffused into the copper band. The time required to perform the task was approximately 30 minutes per blank. The amount of copper applied to the blank exceeded the maximum dimension for the rotating band. In order to reduce the time required to band the projectile, the wire was changed to a diameter of 3.18 millimeters. Four revolutions were required, for a total of eight minutes. However, etching revealed cracks in the band indicating an unacceptable weld. After numerous attempts to weld the band onto the blanks failed, a decision was made to return to the 2.38 millimeter diameter wire for the banding of the stock. The process requires a considerable period of time to apply the copper to each bar stock section, but this procedure resulted in an acceptable copper rotating band. The TIG weld process using 2.38-wm wire was used to apply the copper to the bar stock sections.

59

APPENDIX B

PLASTIC BANDED PFCJECILE

pEVIOUS PAOE

p~. *~~~

The procedure used to prepare the projectiles for banding and the materials used are described in this section. The tubular projectiles were placed in a bath of trichlorethylene and soaked until the surfaces were free from oil. The projectiles were then centered in a lathe and rotated. The hand seat was cleaned with emery paper to remove the oxidized surface. The outside surfaces were wiped and lint was removed by ccpressed air. After all the projectiles were prepared, the projectiles were placed in a lathe for the second time. Using a small paint brush, a coating of 253-P adhesive was aplied to the band seat area, from the crimp groove to the boattail. The projectiles were air dried overnight. The following day, the projectiles were placed in a 2320 oven for 45 minutes. The temperature of the projectile, the nylon 12 and the 3 piece insert for the single cavity mold (see figure B-1.) were checked periodically until all three items were the same temperature. The projectiles were inserted one by one into the mold. In a period of 45 minutes the 42 projectiles were banded. During the banding process, a projectile was tested for structural integrity of the rotating band. The projectile was placed into a fixture to simulate the lands and grooves of a barrel. A 9 kilogram mass was dropped 1.8 meters aito the band. This simulated the approximately 81 joules the projectile would experience in the launch environment. No cracking or separation of the band from the projectile body was observed. After the projectiles cooled to roam temperature, they were placed in the lathe for the third time. The band was turned to a diameter of 31.14 + 0.05n.n. The diameter is based on the groove diameter of the barrel of 31.19 + 0.05m. A leading and trailing angle of 15 + 2 degrees was placed on the band to eliminate plastic filaments as the band is engraved. It was thought that these filaments increase drag during flight.

63

,'I,

, ::

&

,,

i,

.,L

,; \,:

'' .' '

'

,k.'

,,.'.. '

'..

'-

,. ''.

:,

.L'

'

Ii

I-".

Figure B-I.

Mold insert

"--

64
-

-L,;' ".;',2;

"

2-

"?

%'\

5;

',

i,

,r i ",",'"

APPENDIX C

PADAR TEST RESULTS

TIME OF FLIGi~r VELOCITY DCY

I6

A total of 22 projectiles were tracked by the Hawk Radar. Target practice projectiles were fired as well as the tubular projectiles. The key parameters for the projectiles are presented in Table C-i. The meterological data which is required to reduce the radar data is contained in Table C-2. Tables C-3 through C-7 contain the time of flight and the velocity of the projectiles as a function of range. The numbering of the projectiles 1 through 22 in the tables in appendix C correspond to the values presented in Table 15 of the report. Target practice projectiles were fired before and after the GAI-8 tubular projectiles and the Hispano Suiza tubular projectile . The target practice projectiles serve as a reference round so that comparison can be made between a conventional projectile and the tubular projectile. The radar data was reduced at 0.02 seconds time of flight intervals. Tables C-3 through C-7 summarize the reduction of the radar data. The choking of the air flow through the tubular projectile is evident in the velocity decay plot for the tubular projectile. For example, figure C-l is the velocity decay plot for the GAJU-8 target practice projectile. The curve has a gradual change in slope. Figure C-2 is the velocity decay plot for the plastic banded GAUl-B tubular projectile. The velocity decay curve has a sharp discontinuity at 2.5 seconds of flight. This discontinuity represents the unique property of the tubular projectile. To the left of the discontinuity, the air flows through the center of the projectile. To the right of the discontinuity the flow is choked. This discontinuity is observed for each of the tubular projectiles.

67,

67

Table C-1.

Tubular Projecitle Prcperties

Mass (grams) GAU-8 TP Plastic Banded Tubular Coper Banded Tubular Hispano Suiza TP Tubular 362 203 369 198 204

Length/Diameter

4.6 3 3

5.3 3

68

LL

.i.4

pl
r-4

I--

LfLtnuw

69

v.IlV

Vm

47,

41-

o~

r-Io'

~c

.4 1

rn
1-4

0Ln

00'00(

NM4 I
r-

-4

ON

70

-4

C4

4> .4-4 4-

1
1%

'-4

It

r-

r-4

rn

1--4

0
r., N''~0f% 0

00.CNP

4(

71

ON-Ln4O

41

r-

F-

4 -1

LM

r-44-

-4

0
0

30Nmm
0 0
P4C13 C 4

-r

00

41

00O()%

r'~w
-~r

-.

\'-.v %-o

M~i

I-

Ln

41rr

Ln-

NO,~(

Vn

U-l

tJ0Jn

-0C

C,

Hn
%4.

r-i

00
C4

rO
14

73

4.-

9.

tH

N)

r fI

04-

ri

CC"

4H o0

C4 C4

'44

4-41

-4

0)

c)0

.V.

0
-H

M0n
-4 N

COHN

f74

. . ... .I ...

. . ..

. .~ .-

. . ..

..

..

.. . . . . . .

. . .

..

. . . . . .

CD

1.403ANO

(Sd)

N"N

I,

"

.
UU)

..

.. .. .

.. . . .

*..

. .

. ..

..

..

..

. .

. .

. .

. .

.. ..

. .

. .

. . . .. .

............

CD

4 r-

01

o]

O8

00

(SdW

AIJ3IUI~

76

APP!ZMIX D

DRAG O2EWFICIDITS

77

Ltzoaaz,-

t,

The time of flight values were used to generate by computer methods the drag coefficients, CD as a function of the projectile velocity. Tables D-1
through D-10 contain the drag coefficients for each of the 5 different types of

projectiles. The numbers in the column headings of the tables refer to the firing sequence of the projectiles. For each of the different projectile types, a mean drag table was generated. Tables D-2, D-4, D-6, D-8, D-10, refer to the GAU-8 target practice, GAU-8 plastic banded tubular projectiles, GAU-8 copper banded tubular projectiles, Hispano Suiza target practice, and Hispano Suiza tubular projectiles respectively. The C values in the above tables are the arithmetic D mean of the individual values for each projectile. The mean values are plotted as Figures 22 and 23 in the report. The mean values of CD should be used to generate ballistic trajectories.

IS BLANK

79

Table D-1.

GAU-8TP
TP2VEL

GAU C. TP 2 ,261 .273 0281 .285 .285 ,284


,283 ,28S *288 0291

TP 13
Co

VELOCITY(MPS) 986.8 967,0 947.3 927.6 907.8 Beall


868,4 848.6 828,9 80912

TP 3 0274 .283 .290 0295

TP 3 .273 .280 .284 *286 ,287 0208


0289 0290 *293 9296

(p5) 984.0 9643 944.6 925.0 905,3 885,6


865.9 846,2 826,6 806.9

.284 .290 .293 .294 .293 ,292


,292 ,292 9293 *296

.299 ,303 *305 s309

789,4 769.7 749.9 730.2 710.S 690.7 671.0 651.3 631.5 611,8 592,1 572.3 552.6 532.9 513.1 493.4 483.5 473.7 4638 453,9
444.0

434o2 424.3 414, 404.6 394,7


384.8 375.0

.312 .315 .319 324 ,330 .336 o343 9349 .355 s360 ,366 :373 .379 .386 393 .400 .403 o407 .411 .415 .420 9425 .429 .433 .437 .441 .445 .447 445 .433 .407 .359 .296 ,251 o241 9236 0220

*294 .298 s304 o310 .314 .319 .323 .330 .337 s343 .348 .356 o *363 9368 .378 .386 9389 .392 .395 .399 .401 .404 .411 .418 .426 .428 .428 .428 430 .430 .411 .357 .280 .246 235 9238 *225

3651 355.2 345,4 335.5 325,6 315.8 305,9 296.0 286,2

.300 .304 .309 .314 .319 .325 .331 .336 ,342 .349 ,354 .360 .366 .374 o381 ,388 .392 395 398 401 .404 .407 .413 *417 .420 .423 9428 .431 .433 .426 .401 .348 .280 .247 .239 9231 .239

787.2 767.5 747.8 7282 708.5 688.8 669.1 649.4 629.8 610.1 590,4 570.7 551.0 531.4 511.7 492.0 482.2 47293 462.5 452.6 442.8 433,0 423.1 413,3 403.4 393,6 3838 383,8 373,9 364.1 354.2 344.4 334.6 324.7 314.9 305.0 295,2 285.4

.298 .301 .306 .312 s317 322 .327 9333 .340 o346 353 ,360 .369 .376 .384 .391 .395 .400 403 .406 o411 .415 .419 .423 .426 9428 .33 ,433 .437 .436 .429 ,401 .336 .270 .255 .247 .238 ,238

30

Table D-2.

GAU-8 TP Mean Values

LOT GAU-B TP VELOCITY(4P$) 984.0 964.3 944.6 925,0 905.3 885,6 865,9 846,2 826.6 806.9 787.2 767,5 747.8 72892 708.5 688.8 669,1 649.4 629.8 610.1 590.4 570,7 551.0 531,4 511.7 "~492.0 482.2 472.3 S662,5 452,6 442.8 433.0 423.1 4133 403.4 393.6 383.8 373,9 364,1 354.2

CD

.273
.281 .283 .287 0289 .290 ,291 .292 *295 .298 o301 .305 .309 .315 .320 .326 .331 m337 o344 .350 .356 o362 .369 .376 .384 9391 .395 .398 o402 .405 .409 o413 ,418 ,423 .427 .430 .433 .436 *436 o430

VELOCITY 344,4 334,6 324.7 314.9 305.0 295,2 285.4

CD o40S 9350 .281 *250 .240 .236 .230

81

Table D-3.

GAU-8 Tubular Projectiles Plastic Rotating Band GAU8 TUP 4 .099 .118 .122 .122 .120 .120 .119 .121 .19 .133 128 .127 .28 .132 .135 .138 1 4 e488.1 146
.151

CO VELOCITYf4PS) 1263o 1243.3 1223.6 1203,9 1184.1 1164.4 1144.7 1124*.9 1105.2 1085.4 1065.7 1046.0 10262 1006.5 986.8 957.0 947,3 9276 907.8
868.4

GAU8 TUP 5 GAUB TUP 6 GAU8 TUP 7 .056 .082 .128 .105 .082 .143 .110 .118 .141 .111 .121 .136 .111 .118 .132 e114 .119 .135 .112 .118 .134 .115 .117 .121 .121 .131 .126 .128 .134 :145 .118 .135 .147 o118 .144 .121 .147 .139 .144 .125 .140 .139 .130 e147 .147 .130 .144 .148 .145 .130 .138 .141 147 .150 .139 .143 .155 .1943 .148
.157 .143 .151

848.6 828.9 809.2 789,4 769.7 7499 '730.2 710.5 690.7 671.0 651.3 631.5 611.8 592.1 572.3 552.6 532.9
513.1 493,4

.152 .154 .157 .164 .165 .170 A173 .175 .173 .188 .286 4343 .36? .366 o3H1
.0 .405

.157 .160 .164 e12 166 .169 .172 .175 .175 .175 .177 .195 .311 .356 .355 .366 ,371 .379
.395 .399

.151 e154 .154 0155 .162 -163 .168 *167 .176 .171 ,173 .267 .339 .343 .351 .367 .367
.379 .393

.1S1 a153 .161 .159 .163 .171 .168 .174 .170 .178 .181 .279 .352 .355 .370 .368 .378
.393 .409

483.5

.12

.414

.408

.4i9

82

Table D-3.

(cont) CD

VELOCITY - (MPs) 473.1 463,8 4S3.9 444.0 434.2 424.3 414,4 404,6 394.7 384e8 375.0 365.1 355.2 345,4 335.5 325.6 315.8
305.9

TUP4 *415 0420 s433 s450 .461 .461 .461 .459 .459 .452 .450 .447 .435 .434 o416 .367 .342 .328 .317 .325 .323 9311 .319 9326 .317 .310 .314 .310 .282

TUP5 .414 .419 o429 5 .447


9455

TUP6 .417 .414 o416 .441 94 .443 .442 .450 .455 .453 .438 o436 .436 .426 .412 0425 .355 .328 .316 .313 .301 .312 .311 .322 .324 o305 .310 *303 .294 .266

TUP7 ,424 .434 9438 .452 .466 .471 o467 ,466 *467 .461 .456 .437 .437 .424 o419 .388 o330 .317 o324 .311 .301 .308 .314 .342 o331 *318 .312
o282

296.0 286.2 276.3 266.4 256.6 24607 236.8 227.0 217.1


207.2

197.4

.463 o472 .474 .480 .468 .452 ,438 .442 o420 *378 .332 .320 .287 .309 .317 .297 .293 .294 .286 .273 .295 .267 o276

.311

83

Table D-4. GAU-8 Tubular Projectiles Plastic Rotating Band Mean Values

LOT GAU8 Ti) PL VELOCITY(14PS) 1263,1 1243. 1223.6 1203.9 1184.1 1164.4 11447
1124.9

CO .069 .103 .122 .124 .122 .121 .121 9123 .129 .133 .134 e133 .134 *137 .139 .140 .142 m144 .148 .150 .153 .155 .159 .160 .165 .168 .170 .172 e174 .175 . .286 .347 .352 .362 ,368 .376

EOIYC VLOTYC 493.4 483.5 473,7 463o8 4121


444*0

.401 .413 .417 .422


.429

1105.2 1085.4 1065.7 1046.0 1026,2 1006.5 986.8 967.0 947,3 927,6 907.8 888.1 868.*4 848.6 828.9 809.2 789.4 769,7 749.9 730.2 710.5 690.7 671.0 651.3 631,5 611.8 5921.1 572.3 552.6 53?.9

444.0 434.2 424.3 414.4 404.6 394,7 384.8 375.0 365.1 355.2 345.4 335.5 325.6 315.8 305.9 296.0 286.2 276.3 266.4 256.6 246.7 236.8 227.0 17.1 207.2 197.4

,44 .454 .458 .460 o463 .463 .458 .453 e443 .434 .428 .420 .372 .333 .320 .310 .311 .313 .307 .312 .321 .310 .303 .306 ,288 .284

LL~

Table D-5.

GAU-8 Tubular Projectiles Copper Rotating Band

VELOCITY (tPS)
1263.1

(14PS)GAIU8 CD ,

GAU8 TUC 8 .094 .114 e122 .123 .124 .124 o126 .128 .134 .139 .135 o132 .134 o137 .136 .139 ,142 o145
o148 o150 o153 *IS?

GAU8 TUC 9
.TUC 10

"

1243.3 1223,6 1203.9 1184.1 1164.4 1144.7 1124.9 1105.2 1085,4 1065,7 1046.0 1026.2 1006.5 986.8 967.0 947.3 927,6 907's
9888.1 868*4 848,6 828,9

.100 o143 .141 0144 .149 o147 .146 .149 .151 .158 .170 p165 .157 .159 .163 0168 .169
*169 9174 o179 0180

.147 0147 o144 o150 .148 0152 .149 .155 o152 .154 .175 .169 0162 .158 .167 .167 .168 *171
0175 o172 0190 oleo

GAU8 TUC 1! .109 .109 .239 .137 .120 .136 .116 .137 .119 o136 .138 .141 e133 .138 .137 128 .147 o138 0137
*136 o158 .152 *156

GAU8 TUC 1

,095 .117 ,127 .129 .130 .129 .131 o132 .138 o145 .143 .140 .140 .142 .146 o149
9151 0150 .154 o159

809o2 789,4 769.7 7499 730.2 710.5 690.7 671.0 651.3 631.5 611.8 592.1 572.3 552.6 532.9 513.1

.160 o160 .158 .168 .165 .172 .173 ,195 o295 .350 0362 9356 .361 .372 .379

.182 o184 .184 ,187 .166 .187 .197 .195 .200 .240 .347 .357 .372 .365 o381 .387
o399

o172 o189 9183 .IR8 0180 .196 .189 .290 .362 .355 ,381 .375 .376 .391 .389 .404

.148 ,145 .163 .160 .145 .172 .182 .167 .172 .329. .350 .340 .346 0357 .363 .385

.164 9164 .164 .165 .172 .171 .173 .181 o177 .211 .306 .353 .363 .365 .369 .379

85

Table D-5.

(cont)

CD
Velocity VcMPSi

TUC 8

TUC 9
.400
*400

TUC 10
.420 .417 .415

TUC 11

TUC 12 *388

493.4

483.5

473.7 463.8 453.9


444.0

.391 .393 .394

9384

.412

.382

.408

.397 .402
.412

.422 .442
.431

9429
.440 .467
.42

420

9392
.403
3466 9

.406 .403
.41 94 .444

434*.2
4243

.43

.434
e443 4431

.427 40

.424 .462 *416

414,4 404.6 394.7

s437
.437 9439

.450
.454 .458

.463
.471 .45:

399

384.8
3750 365,1 355.2

.430
.418 .417 .416

.437
.421 .422 .414

.455
.459 .436 .460

.411
s414

.450 .439
.425 .421

.446

.384 .352

345.4 335.5 325.6 315.8 305.9 29690 286.2 276.3 266.4 256.6 246.7 236.8 227.0 217.1 207.2

.392 .353 .306 .276 .272 .257 .266 .258 .264 .265 .257 .261 ,254

,416 .397 e335 .306 .262 .292 .270 .256 .268 ,279 .275 .267 .253 .240

.419 .399 .354 .308 .321 .289 .293 .300 .286 .305 .280 .288 .278 .258

.362 .389 .303


e241

.297 .249 s232 .218 .274 .223 .264 .216 .122

,d1 .413 .389 .326 .299

e283
.276 0269 .262 .273 .268 .262 :260

261
240

0228

86

Table D-6.

GAY-8 Tubular Projectiles Copper Rotating Band Mean Values

LOT GAU8 TU C VELOCITY(MPS) 1259.5 1239.8 122092 1200.5 1180.8 1161.1 1141.4 1121.8 1102.1 1082.4 1062.7 10430 1023.4 1003.7 984.0 9640.3 944o.6 925.0 905.3 885.6 865.9 846.2 826.6 806.9 787.2 767.5 747.8 728.2 708.5 688.8 669.1 649.4 629.8 610.1 590.*4 570.7 551.0 531.4

CD , .109 .116 *139 .133 .132 .136 .134 .138 .136 .141 .144 .151 .149
.148

VELOCITY 511.7 492.0 482.2 472.3 462.5 452.6 442.8 433.0 423.1 413.3 403.4 393.6 383.8 373.9 364.1 354.2 344.4 334.6 324.7 314.9 305.0 295.2 285.4 275.5 265.7 255.8 246.0 236.2 226.3 216.5 206.6

CD .391 .398 .400 *402 .414 .418 .426 .432 .436 .438 .454 .443
.434

.146 .146 .153 .153 .155 .156 .162 .165 .167 .165 .168 .170 .175 .170 .181 .184 .201 .236 .327 .358 .363 .362 .372 .378

.427 .416 .412 .400 .386 .325 .286 .287 .273 .266 .259 .273 .268 .268 .258 .234 .246 .228

87

't

inM

0(

DL

omLn0

oc

m C'

60

00

4 PL N NA

0t

n00zzzzr jNNNNg

Na00 vN(

-wC

NNf

NNNNNN~uNCODNNtf*N
00 0 0 . 0

N
g0
e0e 00 0 e

4...-

%4.

2pl

%Im

)%O04

,0

o40

cv~ a.

aU

I- Cc

h aa

r.0

&040

aM N

...

*. P-

M, *

so.

50-0nMN

CP-4

S89

.% .

Table D-8.

Hispano Suiza TP Mean Values

LOT

HS TP

VELOCITY( MPS)
1080.0 1060.0 1040.0 1020.0 1000.0 980.0 960.0 940.0 920.0 900.0 880.0 860.0 840.0 820.0 800.0 780.0 760.0 740.0 720.0 700.0 680.0 660.0 640 e0

CD
o197 *247 9253 .250 .253 .252 ,253 .255 .260 .261 .265 .271 .271 o279 .277 o287 .289 .295 .296 9304 o311 ,317 319

VELOCITY
410.0 400,0 390.0 380.0 370o0 360.0 350.0 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0 290.0

CD
9396 o398 .407 .408 .409 .422 .405 .396 .347 .260 .223 .210 .287

..-...

620.0
600.0 580.0

.326
.330
*336

560.0
540.0 520.0 500.0 490.0 480.0 470.0 460.0 4SO .0 440*0 430,0 420.0

.344
.348 .358 .360 .369 o369 .374 .378 376 382 .389 o394

90
L-,

J. W . .,' .. J

O'

','

'

C ,'

,' i ','> ,'. .: :.-

'

? ,

..

'

,.

Table D-9.

Hispano Suiza Tubular


Projectiles

HS TU 16
VELOCITY(MPS) CD 9

HS TU 17 .117
.121

HS TU 184S TU 19 .102
.114 HS TU 20

1280.0 1260.0 1240.0 1220.0 1200.0 1180.0 1160.0 1140.0 1120.0

.115 120 .126 .131


.134

.092
.110

.124 .127
.130

.126 .133
136

.125 .132
e134

0107 .115 .130 .138


.139

.137 .138 .140 .142


.144 .146 9148

I.1040.0
1020.0 940.0 920.0 900.0 880.0
860o0 840.0 820o0

1100.0 1080.0 1060.0 1000.0 980.0 960.0

.132 .133 .135 .136 .138 9140


.141

e137 .137
.137

.139
9143

e133 .133 e132 o135


.141 .146 .145

.136 .132
.133

.137

.140
e145

.147
.148

.150

.149 .149
0149

o142 .142
o142 .143 .144

.149 .151

.147 .146 9147 .149 .150 .153


.155

o142 .141
.142 .144 .147

e142 .140
.144 o145 .147

.153
.156

.146
.148

.149
.151

.152
.153

o159 161
.163 .166 *168

.150 .152
.154 *159

.157 .1059
.159

.154 .156
.156 .160 1162

.153 .157
.159

o156

*162

.160
*162

8000 780.0
760.0 740.0 720.0

170 e172
.175 .178 .180

162 .165
.167 .170 .171

e165 168

.172
.174 .176 .181

.164 .166
.169 .174 .176

e167

.166
o170 .173 .178

700.0
680.0 660.0 640.0

.181
.182 .1)7

.172
.174 .184

.182
.186 .185

177
.181 .178

.IRO
.177 .177

620.0 600.0 580.0 560.0

.237 .287 .323


.343

.209 .247 .285


.315

.193 .242 .308


.341i

.185 .255 .322


.340

.28 .312 .330


.341

.351

.334

.352

.345

.342

91

Table D-9.

(cont)

CD

VELOCITY xMPS 540.0


520.0 500.0 490.0 480,0 470.0 460.0 450.0 440.0

STU16
.356 .361 .368 .373 .379 .386 .392 .398
s405

HSTU18
.347 .355 .363 .366 9369 .373 .377 .383 .358 .363 ,365 .367 .373 .379 .385 .390

HSTU19 .352
.360 .359

HSTU20 .346
.355 .362

*363
.373 .383 .392 .394 .393 .396
,406

.367
.371 .376 .381 .390 ,397 ,399
.405

o388
.394
o399 .403

9398
,408
.416

430.0
420.0 410.0

.409
9412

400.0 390.0
38090

.412 .410 .406


0401

.405 .406
o404

.420 .422 .418


.413

.414 .418 ,419


9416

.418 .423 .422


.417 9413 .397

370.0
360.0

.396
.390

o399
.390

.407
.402

.409
,404

350.0 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0


290.0

.376 .349 .300 .250 .227


9214

*377 .356 .322 .282


249

280,0 270.0 260.0

2SO.0
240.0

.207 ,206 .201 e206 .203

9230 .223 o215 .212 .213 ,226

s397 386 .354 .288 s249 .230 .231 ,221 .225 .232 .214 .222

.403

*389
.361 ,283 .241 .227 .217 ,219 .t21
9226

.391 .397 .352 .264 .236 .216 .206 ,217 .202 .201
o204

.216

.410

92

VN

Table D-lO.

Hispano Suiza Tubular Projectiles Mean Values

LOT

HS TU

VELOCITY(4PS)
1280.0 1260.0 1240.0 1220.0 1200.0 IlRO0 1160.0 1140.0 1120,0 1100.0 1080.0 1060.0 1040.0 1020,0 1000.0 980.0 960,0 940,0 920.0 9000 880.0 860,0 840,0 820.0 800,0

CD
o107 .116 .126 *132 .135 .13S o135 .135 .138 .141 .145 9147 9144 .144 .145 .146 .148 .151 .IS3 0155 ,157 .159 .161 o163 ,166

VELOCITY
560.0 540.0 520.0 500.0 490,0 480.0 470.0 460.0 450,0 440.0 430,0 4200 410.0 400.0 390.0 380.0 370.0 360,0 350.0 340,0 330,0 320,0 310.0 300.0

CD
o345 .352 .359 o363 *367 .373 .379 .385 ,391 .396 .401 .407 .413 .415 .414 o410 o405 o396 ,389 .375 o338 o273 o241 o223

780.0
760,0 740.0 720.0 700.0 680.0 660.0 640.0 620.0 600.0 580.0

.168
0171 .174 o177 .178 .180 ,184 *210 9269 .314 .336

290.0
280.0 270.0 260.0 250.0 240.0

.217
.216 .212 ,216 o213 .316

-93

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Commander
U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Center Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Comand ATr : SW.AR-TSS (5) SMCAR-SC SMCAR-SCA SM'AR-SCA-U, (6)
SMCAR-SCS SMCAR-SCM-P S'I~cAR-SCA,-,O SWEA&-LCA-0P S .AR-SE-IA

Dover, NJ 07801-5001 Comander U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Ccammnd ATTW: AMEb-GCL (D) Dover, W1 07801-5001 Administrator Defense Technical Information Center
ATIN: Accessions Division (2)

Cameron Station Alexandria, VA 22314 Director U.S Army Material Systems Analysis Activity RXSY-M ATTN: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

Cnander/Director
Chemical Research and Development Center U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Cenar

ATTN= SMCAR-SP-I

SIEAR-RSP-A (5) APG, Edgewod Area, MD 21010 Director Ballistics Research Laboratory ATTN: tRXBR-OD-ST Aberdeen Prcting Ground, MD) 21005 Chief Benet Weapons Laboratory, LCL Armament Research and Development Center U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Comand

AT7N:

DRSC-ICB-JM

Watervliet, NY

12189

95

Commander U.S. Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command


ATTN: AMSMC-LEP-L

Rock Island, IL 61299 Director U.S Army TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity ATIN: ATAA-SL White Sands Missile Range, i4 88002 Cammander U.S. Army Aviation Research and Development Caziand ATN: DRDAV-N St. Louis, MO 63166 Director Applied Technology Laboratory U.S. Army Research and Technology Laboratories ATI: DAVDL-ASL-ASW Fort Eustis, VA 23604

96