Ad 0745335

AFFDL-TR-72-3
cy• RINGSAIL PARACHUTE DESIGN
* -Edgar G. Ewing
NORTHROP CORPORATION
VENTURA DIVISION
TECHNICAL REPORT AFFDL-TR-72-3
DDC
JANUARY 1972 •"'•*°" !,! JUL
JL
• ! 91Z !
Details of i,,,ustrationl in
in1 TT rTEO
this document may be better
studied on microficho - --- B
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

,Rt.o Irotfu,, by
NATIONAL
1
TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
IS I""uot it C. 11111fc
VA 22051
AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. OHIO
NOTICES
When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for

any parpose other than in connection with a definitelj related Government
procurement operatiori, the United States Government thereby incurs no
respQnsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the
Government may have formulated, furnished,, or in any way supplied
the
said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by
implication: or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder. or any other
person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manu-
facture, use, or sell 'any patented invention that may in any way be related
thereto.
-ii
I/TE $1ETrll
WUU
•0UNCE
lI
iCATlOa................--.
o....o...
.......
............... .
...... ..... .
vU
.
M
I I
.....
Copies of this report should not be retu"ned unless return is required by

security considerations, contractual obligations, or notice on a specific
document.
AIR FORCME 19-7-72/200
__ UNCLASSIFIED
Secutit Closesifiketinn
I.ORIG"INATING ACTIVITY (CvI~sorael Author)

"nOrthrop Corporation, Ventura Division
T_
.tPR EUIYCASPCTO
1515 Rancho Conejo Blvd.2bGRU

Newbury Park, California 91320
3 . VMPORTl TITLE
Ringsaill Parachute Design
4. ORSC RIPTI VL NC 7 ES (Ty'pe -of repott and incluciv* date&)
-F..jinal Report
middlo Initial, fa&! ntame)
S., AV rHORISI (Firt 114twine,
Edgar- G. Ewing
'Jack R. Vickers-,
4. REPORT O..75 7a TOTAL. NO.-OF PAG S 91.
NO OF REVS
Ia. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
COTATOI~IATN.}ORIGINATORIT$
d REPORT NUMISER(S)
F33615-71-C-14815 .
6. ROJCT O. -None assigned.

:-412A 9b. OTHERl REPORT NoMS(Any other number. that may~be aseAiued
thiv. of
I.d. ______ . ept)AFFDL-TR- 72 3

110. DISTAIBUTION STATEIMENT
Approved for'Public Release; Distribution.Unlimited,
It. 3 UPPLE64ENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory-,
AFFDL/ PER
___________________________Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433
13. ABSTRACT-
This document is intended for use as a design handbook for the Ring sail
-parachute. It begins with an historical review of the aerodynamic and
structural development of the parachute, including the development of the
modified. Ringsail Design used in the Apollo ELS main parachute cluster,
* Salient characteristics of all1 Ringsail parachutes fabricated and tested over
the past 16 years are surn-aarized. An exposition of the present status of
* Ringtsail design and operational theory, with special emphasis on a general
ttheory of the inflation. characteristics of clustered canopies, is given.
Accumulated perfotimance and weight data are presented in tabular and
graphical forrnx. A detailed step-by-step procedure for the design of the
ARingsail parachute is given and illustrated by numerical example. ,Perti-
nent. design analysis methods are described including the recently improved
computer methods of openivng load prediction and stress analysis. Con-
struction details and fabrication and assembly procedures in which the
Ring sa i parac.hute differs from other para chute types are delineated. Addi-
*tional dosigr. data, sp,4cificnxtions and p#4rtinent inforrmation are presented,
-- ~~~
ina1eni~s
DD 1NOWA 7 UNLSSFE
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classificatiort
14.
LINK A LINK 8 LIN C
KEY WO RO -~
ROLE WT ROLE WT ROLE WT
Ri ngsai] Parachute
Parachute Design
Parachute Fabrication
Space Vehicle Recovery
Parachute Structural Analysis
",US,Govornment Printing Off 1e,1972- 759 -087/674 k UNC i tASSIFIED
ts.fcto Isuiy
AFFDL-TR-72-3
RINGSAIL PARACHUTE DESIGN
Edgar G. Ewing
NORTHROP CORPORATION .
VENTURA DIVISION
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
I '
FOREWORD
This final technical report was prepared by Northrop Corporation, Ventura

Division, Newbury Park, California, under Contract F33657-71 -C-1 815.
The study was sponsored by the Life Support System Program Office, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Mr. Anthony S. Mastriana of the spon-
soring organization served as the Program Manager for this effort under
Life Support SPO Endeavor AOZ1l . Mr. W. R. Pinnell of the Air Force
Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command was the Air
Force Project Engineer.
This report was prepared by Northrop Corporation, Ventura Division at

Newbury Park, California. The principal author was Mr. Edgar G. Ewing,
the inventor of the Ringsail parachute and a noted parachute designer. Mr.
Ewing is presently retired from Northrop and performed this effort under
a consulting contract to Northrop. Mr. Ewing was assisted in this effort by
Mr. Jack R. Vickers, Project Engineer, and received aid and encourage-
ment-from the noted parachute designer, Mr. Theodore W. Knacke.
Publication of this report does not constitute Air Force approval of the
reports findings and conclusions. It is published only for the exchange and
stimulation of ideas.
This technical report has been reviewed and is approved.
<;;4, G "ORG•VA. SOLT, JR.

Chief, Recovery and Crew Station Branch
Vehicle Equipment Division
AF Flight Dynamics Laboratory
ii
ABSTRACT
This document is intended for use as a design handbook for the Ringsail
parachute. It begins with an historical review of the aerodynamic and
structural development of the parachute, including the development of the
modified Ringsail design used in the Apollo ELS main parachute cluster.
Salient characteristics of all Ringsail parachutes fabricated and tested over
the past 16 years are summarized. An exposition of the present status of
Ringsail design and operational theory, with special emphasis on a general
theory of the inflation characteristics of clustered canopies, is given.
Accumulated performance and weight data are presented in tabular and

graphical form. A detailed step-by-step procedure for the design of the
JRingsail parachute is given and illustrated by numerical example. Perti-
nent design analysis methods are described including the recently improved
computer methods of opening load prediction and stress analysis. Con-
struction details and fabrication and assembly procedures in which the
Ringsail parachute differs from other parachute types are delineated. Addi-
tional design data, specifications and pertinent information are presented
in appendices.
iii/iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ...... • ........ • ...... .... . ... ii

Abstract ...
Section 1 - Introduction ........ . •• •• I1
Section2 Historical Development ................. 3

2. 1 Descriptive Historical Review . . . . . .. . 3
2. 1. 1 Conception of the Ringsail Design Principle .... 3
2.1.2 Evolution of the First Working Models .... • 4
2. 1.3 Evolution of Canopy Shape and Construction .... 15
2. 1.4 Ringsail Parachute Cluster Development . . .. . . 34
2. 1.5 Summary of Ringsail Parachutes . • • •.55 5.
2. 2 Present Status of Ringsail Design and
Operational Theory ................ . 55
Section 3 - Performance Characteristics . . •, . . 65

3.1 Drag Coefficient . ....... •........ .. 65
3.1.1 Effect of Unit Canopy Loading (W/CDS0 ) .6.5. . 65
3.1.2 Effect of Scale ...... ....... . ,..... • 65
3.1.3 Effect of Suspension Line Length .... ...... 68
3.1.4 Effect of Canopy Porosity .... • ...... . .... 68
3.1.5 Variation in Rate of Descent .......... 70
3.1.6 Effect of Clustering ... . ........... 70
3.2 Opening Load Factors ........ , o.,..... 74
3.2. 1 Opening Force-Time Characteristics . ....... 83
3.3 Filling Intervals (Time, Distance, Kf) .. *•. • 91
3.3.1 Filling Time and Kj ....... .. G.... ....
a a 91
3. 3.2 Filling Distance . . . . * a *. . . . . . . . . .. , 91
3.4 Stability . . . a .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.5 ReefedDragArea .*...... ........ o.... 101
V
3.6 Opening Reliability and Repeatability ... ... ..... 105
3.7 Tolerance for Damage . . . .. . .. . ....... 110
Section 4 Weight and Volume ...................... 117

4.1 Individual Parachutes Without Risers .......... 117
4.2 Line to Riser Links........................ 117
4.3 Riser Assemblies ......... . ............. . 117
4.4 Complete Parachute Systems ,............... 120
Section 5 Design Procedures ........ l2 l

1..............
5.1 Calculation of Basic Dimensions ......... * .. 123
5.2 Selection of Materials ................. . 130
5.2.1 Canopy Cloth ...... . .... , . . ..... ..... . . 131
5.2.2 Suspension Lines and Vent Lines .... .......... 133
5. 2.3 Radiai Tapes .......................... 133
5.2.4 Risers . . . . . .... .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . 134
5.2.5 Circumferential Bands .................... 134
5.2.6 Vertical and Intercostal Tapes........... .... 135
5. 2.7 Miscellaneous Textile Components ............. 135
5.2.8 Hardware. ....to. o.f... Go .... ... ,. 136
5.3 Ringsail Design by Computer ............... . 136
Section 6 Design Analysis Methods ................... 139

6.1 System Trajectory Computations .. ,,........ .. 139
6.2 RingsailAerodynamics................... 140
6.2.1 Rate of Descent . ... . . ......40 ... .... ..
6.2.2 DragCoefficient .... ..... ,,........ .. ,. 141
6.2.3 Reefed Drag Area .... ,..... . ......... . 142
6.2.4 Calculation of Reefing Line Length . ............ 146
6.2.5 Filling Time . . . . . . . . . 147
6.2. 6 Derivation of the Dimensionless Fiing Interval .... 149
6. 2. 7 Stability 151
6.3 PredictionofOpening Loads..,.., .. ,, 155
vi
6.3.1 The Load Factor Method ....... * ........ 155
6.3.21 The Mass-Time Method ............... . 157
6.3.3 The Area-Distance Method 160
6.4 Stress Analysis .e . .9 .s . . . 165
6.4.1 Structural Design Factors a•.••.. •••.. 165
6.4.2 The Shoit Method • ........... ,... 166
6.4.3 The Computer Method . .. •0 0 ..0 e 178
6.5 Calculatibn of Ringsail Weight .. 0... 0,0e 0,. * 178
6.5.1 Canopyand Lines a....... • .,..... ..... 178
6. 5.2 Risers • e..'-96.. • 9 .. 0.0...........9* 180
6. 6 Calculation of Ringsail Porosity .• ••••. . 180
Section 7 Constru•tion Details .... •........• .• 187

7.1 Sail Patterns . ....................... 187
7.2 Sail Edge Tapes(Intercostals) Gt....°. .... • 187
7.3 Radial Tapes 187
7*4 Vertical Tapes' ..-. .................. 187
7.5 'The Gore Subassembly ..... ,...,..... 188
7 .6 Radial Seams 188
7.7 Circumferential Bands ................. 188
7.8 Suspension Lines and Vent Lines .• • . 189
S7.9 Pilot Chute liridle.Harness ... .. .. ... . ... 189
17.10 Risers .... ,......... . ...... . . . . 190
Section 8 Fabrication and Assembly . .... ... ....... 191
:6. 1 Cloth Layout and Cutting' e.6, toa 4 so a, a 0 is v qi 191
8.2 Sail Edge Tapes 0 al a 6 0 v a 0 0 a 0 0 191
i.
8.3 Rtadial Tapes ............ .... ... 192
8.4 Vertical Tapes .'. . . es, . . .b. .6 . . a. . 6 . I . 192
. . ai
8. The -Core Subassembly ..... o.,............ 19.1
8.6 Cicumiwerential Hand, ... i.......0 ..... 0 193

3.7 Suspension Lines and Vent Lineo . 193
vii
8.8 Risers .... ... . .9. .. ....
. . . . .... 193
8.9 The Canopy Asembly ..................... 193

8.10 The ParachuteAssembly 9 a o9 e a 9.194
8.11 Dimensional Tolerances ......... ........ 19 5
8.12 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix A - Prominent Ringsail Parachu s, . 203

"AppendixB - Special Ringsail Parachute A plications......... 293
AppendixC - Sample Design Problem 303
AppendixD - Specification, Trip Selvage C th .............. 317
Appendix E - Ringsail Parachute Design Comrputer Program ..... 3.3
Viii
-- . -.. • . i
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Skysail Geometry ........................... 5
2 Sail Fullness Distribution of First Ringsails ....... 7
3a First Ringsail Drop Test 4 February 1955
(NotelInfolded GorsonRe Side) id)........... a
3b Same Parachute with Two of Forty Light
sores Remtoved **. . . . *. * * *.*.******* * 8
4 Skysail Model ATetheedrntedWindh~n,.,.... 10
5 Skysail Personnel Parachute Coordinates .... *..*..... 11
6 ~Effect of Rest rictor Tapes on Slot Openings of
Skysail Model XB-l1 13
7a USN Parachute Test Junmper Landing with 19.6 ft D
Skysail Model D El Centro,. Califoriija February 1999 . .. 14
7b -JunipersView of Sk ysal
anoappy.......... 14
8 Ringsall- SkysaiCorinatiets.. ........ 16
9 Typical Ringsall Gore Layout Developed by theý
Original Standard Meathod (Schemiatic) . ........ ... 17
10 tapped-Sail Core Assembly Method of 64. 7 ft V
Rlngsail No. 1 18
11 ~Rlnpuail Construeto , n .*.~. ... *..4
14 RngaaIl Parachute Basic 01#meno ano a. A. ..

.A .. 44
13 Gemfini 84. 2. ft D_ 1itngsaii - Boiler Plate Capsule
-Splathdown an the Salton Sea, CaliforiI~ . e
. 0 a..
14ermniination of $'Little Joel* int simtulating Apollo
Off-Pad Ab6ort with 08. 1 it 0 0 ltingsail Parachutes
ink First £nperinenutAl Ea htb anding Syse . .. , 6
X 5 Cnijaisunof.ltingsail Caniopy Construtted Profiles. . . 41
.16a. 12Ž4. 5 it 0_0 liingsall Opening Configuration Astociatedi
with the "Soft"UOpening Mode 4 ... , 9 9 ~ 0 .
D0 fltingsail Parachute in Steadly Descenit
1k124,5 fit
with `9650 pounds . . . . . . . . ...... ,........ 2
17 Two Stages During ke. fed Operation of 164. 5 it 0D'
IRPingsAIl Showing Typical Irregula r shape ...... .3
Figure Page
18 Fullness Distribution. of 127 ft D0 Bi-Conical Ringsail
Canopy Relative t~o Calculated Widtlh of Conical Gore .. ,33
19, 128. 8 ft D0 Lightweight Version of the Century Ringsail

Descending at 27. 9 fps (EAS) with 9762 pounds (Bottom
- of-Damaged Gore Visible on RHSide) ....... ... 35
20, Results of Full Scale Wind Tunnel Air Flow Studies
with 88. 11ft Do Ringsail.Reefed ...... 0.0..000.04.. 43
21- Rin gsail Geometric Porosity of Crown Ventilation ...... 60
22' Variation of Ringsail Drag Coefficient with Unit
Canopy Loading and Effective Line Length ... . ... .66
23 Variation of Ringsail Drag Coefficient with Scale ...... 67

24 Effect of Suspension Line Length on Ringsail CD ...... 69
25 Effect of Canopy Porosity on Ringsail Drag
26 Cluster Effects on Ringsail Drag Coefficient. . . . . . . 73

27 Opening Load Factor (CK) vs Unit Canopy Loading .... ~ 75
28 Opening Load Factor(CKvsMas Ratioa............... 76
2-9 Apparent Trend of Ringsail Opening Load Factor
30 Ringsail Opening Load Factors at Altitude -(see

* Table XII for Code) . . ... ... .. .. .. . .. .... . .. ... 79
31 Effect of Flight Path Angle at Line Stretch on CK
(Results of Computer Study of 128. 8 ft D0 Ringsail) .. . .. 82
32 Enlargement of Coleman Tensiometer Record Obtained
with Non-Reefed 56. 2 ft Do Ringsail Deployed at
130OKEAS, 15,000 f Altitude..
t .............. ,... 84
33.- Opening Forces Correlated with Canopy Shape, Gemini
84. 2 ft D0 Ringsail Reefed 10. 5%D0 for 8 Seconds,
Deployed at 272 fps (TAS) at 9630 Feet Altitude
(Wieight 4450 pounds) . ............ 85
34 Opening Forces, and Trajectory Data for ASSET 29. 6 ft
D Rings~ail with two Reefed Stages .$*,1......6.4-.... 86
x
Figure Page
35 Opening Force-Time History for Cluster of Two 128. 8 ft

Do- Ringsails Reefed 13% Do for 8 Seconds, Deployed at
299 fps (TAS) at -10, 246 feet Altitude (Weight = 17, 7Z0
pounds) ... ..... . . ..... ... .. 87
36 Opening Force - Time History for a Cluster of Two
85. 6 ft Do 1.odified Ringsaiis with Two Stages of
Reefing Deployed -at 167 KEAS at 10, 000 feet Altitude
Weight = 12, 989 pounds) ......... 88
37 Opening-Force - Time History for a Cluster of Three
88. 1 ft D. Ringsails .Each Reefed 13% Do for 6 Seconds
Deployed Under Simulated Abort Conditions (Weight =
9500 pounds) Apollo Test 50-11. .......... 8..
38 Opening Force - Time- History for a Cluster of Three

85.6 ft Do Ringsa.ils with Two Stages of Reefing (8.4%
Do/24. 8% D Deployed under -90% Design Limit
0 0
Conditions (Weight -• 13, 000 pounds) Apollo Test 83-6 . 90
39 Pendular Oscillations of ASSET 29.-6 ft D Ringsail
During Terminal Descent at 45.5-fps (EAS) with
1115 Pounds ... . - 97
40 Pendular Oscillation of Z9. 6 ft DO Skysail During -

Jump Test Program at El Cetro in 1959 . ........ 98
41 Typical Coning Oscillation Record of Gemini 84. 2 ft
D Ringsail (Development Test No. 19) ........ .... 99
42 Oscillation of 128. 8 ft DO Ringsail Descending at

26.4 fps (EAS Average) with 9786 Pounds ........ .. 100
43 Statistical Comparison of Angular Deflections of

Apollo Two-Canopy Clusters of Standard and Modified
Ringsails -........ 10
44 Oscillation Data, Three Canopy Cluster, Apollo
Modified Ringsail, Test 73-3 ........... 03
45 Oscillation Data, Three Canopy Cluster, Apollo
Modified Ringsail, Test 73-1 .......... 104
46 Typical Ringsail Parachute Reefing Ratios ........... 106
47 Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Development Test Data

Averages* . 107
xi
I 2
: ~2
-
2.
Figure Page
48 Century Ringsail Reefed Data ...... ...... : . .. :..,... 108
49 85. 6 ft DO Ringsail (Modified; -7576 of 5th Ring

Removed) with Mid-Gore Reefing ..... " : . 109
50 :.Mercury 63. 1 ft DO Ringsail Damaged by Falling
. . Compartment Cover During Qualification Test-
:SaltonSea, California * - . II, '
51 Century 1 Z8.8 ft D Ringsail (Lightweight Model)
Opening Damage (Rate of Descent 27. 9 fps with
-976z-Ib) .. .. . ,113
"-52 88.1 ft D. Ringsail Descending Safely with One Gore.

Split from Vent to Skirt ............... ........ 114
53 Ringsail Parachute Weight vs Diameter (Without
Risers) .. 0. to. . . . . 000..#..
.......... so *1,t .. o* 118
54 Ringsail Fullness Distribution o *..... . ...... s . 12

55 Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Data ............. ....... 145
56 -Typical Reefing Line Splice ... .................
s 146
57 Idealized Ring sail Drag Area Growth with, Time * I. .. • 148'
58 Variation of Filling Distance with Mach No.
(Reference 23). . . . ... ..... ... . . . .' ,...1.2
*
59 Typical Static and Dynamic Stability Characteristics I
of Parachutes . **..... . . . . . . .... ....... t o.
60.- Drag Area Growth Exp6nent vs Filling Time I

(Disreef to Full O en) . ........ ...... . . .... . .. 159
61 Mass-Time Method; Calculated v.s Measured ,
' Opening Loads (Apollo Tesý 80-1R) 1.161
62 -:Area-Distance Method, Apollo Cluster Test 81-2 ., .. . 163

.63: Mass-Time Method, Apollo Cluster Test 81-2 . . ..... 164
64 Differential Pressure Distributions Across 85. 6 ft D
Ringsail (Modified) Deduced from Shape Measurements
and Strain Analysis by CANO Program ... ... .... 170
65 - Method of Estimating the Design Load for, a Mid-Canopy
Circumferential Reinforcing Band ........ . . . . ., 173
66 Method of Calculating Reefing Line Tension . .. . . . . 175
_67 'Stress! -,St~rain Characteaistih:of Nyloh.-Textiles ..... . 177
,I .1
b,|I• >I -" " -" ""
Figure 1Page
68' Variation of Relative Porosity with ~p for Typical

Parachute Cloth.. 1 ... **.**.....*.*.*.... 182
69 Assumed "reso
Shap o
74 SacecaftLaningSystm,
Ghiii renSs e 4. ot................
i' •D 184
70 Cr085 Section of Vertical Tape Cut on Gore Centerline. .. 188
*71 Bridle Harness for Pernianently Attached.Pilopt Chute.,. .. 190
72 Acceptable Tqlerances for Finished Dimenoions of
* the1 .ingsail Parachute ................ 16. 196
73* Mercury Capsule 1Landi~ng System,. I 63. 11 ft,, 0
APn ara a achute '180 0 2lt
Rngsail ................... . 206

75 Apollo Spacecraft Ea rth Lading System-. iClust~r'
of Three 85.6 ft D. Ringsail Parachutes " 2."
Page-."207
* ~~76 1U. 8 ft D C(ent~ury RingzailParachuite. 208
0
81 GrePttr. ulnssDtiuioR6
. 1 z-2
77 Guide Ptoe
Fnadullnessa Distribution
CrePResented1
,
S69 Ringsaiphes o
1ssumd .r . e ots....................
. 214
780
71 Gore
Go P~attern aord
re Pattern and' F
Fullne ssaullness
Distribution, R
2951 67-fttC04-.51
41.0 ft Do Ringsail Pa rachutee 216
-8 Gore Pattern ansl FullnedIns Di.st ribution 5t 8 0

80
1 8. 8 ft DO
63. n'rRingsSai1 Parachute
1t D0 Rirgsail Parachute . .. .
.
.... .... .
. . . . ."
,. . . . 222
2145-"
S82 Gore Pattern and Fulanesd Distribution, PDS 8-9t

8.,ftn Ds 'ings ail
I Parachu te #19 210
83 Gore Pattern and Fullness istributiorn, PDl92771,
88A fthD Rengsai1 Pail Parachutes .. ... . ........ 220
85 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,

u-sDS 1226-1
through -505 88.1 -t Do Ringsall '.Parachute 224
86 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,. PDS 15434-11
535
"7 and 553 88. 1 and 85.6 ft Do Ringsail
- . . -.-,,1
Parachute . 22.9 *
. . I I*I . ':"
Figure Page
87 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, PDS 1543-521

and -523 88.1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ............ 233
88. 1 ft D Ringsal Parachute .................... 236
and -543 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute .............. 238
90 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, PDS 1543-525,
-533, -539 and -551 88. 1 and 85. 6 ft Do Ringsail
Parachute . . . . . . . . .............. 241
88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute 246

85.6 ft-Do Ringsail Parachute ................... 248
and -501 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ............. 250
and -501 87. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ............ 253
95 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, PDS 2021 -1
88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ................... 256
88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ...... ............. 258
97 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, PDS Z072-1
87. 9 ft Do Conical Ring/Solid Parachute ... ...... 260
88, 3 ft Do Ringsail Parachute .............. ,.... 262
99 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, R7118-1, -501,
-503 and -513 88.1 ft DO Ringsall Parachute ........ 264
100 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, R7118 -507
88. 1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ................... 269
101 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, R7118-515
88.1 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ................ 271

and -503 85.6 ft Do Conical Ringsail Parachute ....... -273
103 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, DR 7661-1
and -527 83. 5it DO Conical Ringsall Parachute ....... 276
xiv
Figure Page
104 Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution, R7661 -1

thru -519 83. 5 ft Do Conical Ringsail Parachute ....... 279
128. 8ft DoRingsail Parachute ................. 291
106 63 ft Do Glidesail Parachute Gliding at L/D (max)
-0. 7 with 2580 pounds ........................ 294
107 Aerial Engagement of 17.5 ft Do Ringsail Target

Canopy on 42 ft Do Annual Parachute with 800 lb
Dummy Payload ................. .... ...... . 296
108 Schematic of the PEPP Ringsail (40 ft DO) .......... 299
109 Opening Load Fluctuations of PEPP Parachutes
Following Line Stretch at Mach 1. 4 - 1. 6 ........... 301
110 Trail Gore Layouts of Crown Ventilation per Gore . .... 306
ill Prototype Design Dimensions and Materials for
60.6 ft Do Ringsail Parachute ................... 315
Xv
TABLES
I Measured Opening Forces-Clusters of Three 100 ft

Parachutes (Reference 10) ................ 37
II Ringsail Parachute Design Modifications for Cluster
Development ..... . . ..... . . ..... .... . 40
mI Porosity Variation of the Wing Tunnel Models
Tested .................. . . . . . . . 45
IV Apollo Cluster Development - Measured Opening

Forces for Cluster Tests Showing Maximum
Divergence .............................. 47
V Maximum Force Ratios from Table IV ............ 49
VI Measured Opening Forces of Two 128.8 ft Do
Ringsails in Cluster ..................... 52
VII Cluster Opening Time Sequence of Two 1 28. 8 ft Do
Ringsails in Cluster ........................ 52
VIII Comparison of Unit Canopy Loadings of Three Apollo

Parachute Systems ......................... 54
IX Standard Ringsail Parachutes - Design and Performance
Data .............. . . . . . . . . . . 57
X Effect of Crown Porosity on CDo of 88. 1 ft Do

Ringsail ...... . . . . . .. . . . 70
XI Summary of Rate of Descent Data ............... 72

XII Ringsail Opening Load Factors at Altitude G.... . .. .. 80
XIII Comparison of Filling Intervals of Standard Ringsail
Parachutes and the 85. 6 ft Do Modified Ringsail of
Apollo Block II .......... . . . . . . .... 92
XIV Filling Intervals of the 85. 6 ft Do Modified Ringsail

with Two Reefed Stages (Apollo Block II H) . . . ...... 93
XV Measured Filling Distances of Large Ringsall

Parachutes . . .... . ............. . .... . . . . . . 94
XVI Relative Filling Distances of Large Ringsall

-- • Parachutes ... . . .......... . . .. . .. . . . . . . 95
XVII Typical Suspension Line-to-Riser Link Weights ...... 119
XVIII Typical Riser Assembly Weights ....... . . . . .... 119
xvi
'TABLES (Continued)
XIX Weight of Spacecraft Landing Systems ............. 120

XX Wind Tunnel Test Data for Two Configurations of
the Apollo 88.1 ft D Ringsail ............... 143
XXI Wind Tunnel Test Data of Configuration A-Z Apollo
88. 1 ft Do Ringsail with Mid-Gore Reefing .......... 144
XXII Shock Factors for Synchronous and Non-synchronous
Inflating Ringsails in Cluster ................... 156
XXIII Measured Reefing TLine Loads on the 85.6 ft Do
Modified Ringsail ................... .... . 176
XXIV Textiles Commonly used in Ringsail P3.rachutes ....... 179
XXV Typical Unit Weights of Ringsail Canopies ........... 180
XXVI Representative Ringsail Parachutes ............... 203
XXVII Measured Glidesail Performance ................. 295
XXVIII Ringsail Target Performance as a Drogue in the

UAR System ...... . ............ . .......... 298
XXIX PEPP Measured Drag Coefficients . . o s

*. ... .. . 300
XXX Summary of Crown Geometric Porosity *........... 308

XXI Canopy Dimensional Calculations .... . .......... . 310
XXXII Sail Pattern Dimensions ...... . ....... . . . . . . 311

XXXIII Material List for the 60.6 ft Do Ringsail
Parachute softest o. 314
Xvil
SYMBOLS
Primary Subscript
Width of sail pattern upper A Sail upper edge, allowable

edge, allowable strength
factor
Acceleration, length of short a Added air mass

edge of sail
Width of sail pattern lower B Sail lower edge

edge
Length of long edge of sail b Circumferential band
Coefficient, constant, factor, C Canopy

chord
c Crvwn, Critical, steady state
Diameter, drag, a charac- D Drag

teristic dimension
Diameter d
Abrasion loss factor e Effective, equilibrium
Force, load F Full
f Fpling
Acceleration of gravitation g Geometric, slot
Height of gore pattern H
Height, altitude h
Shape factor, dimensionless x

interval, a constant
Fatigue loss factor, spring k Opening load

constant
xviII
"Primary Subscript
Lift L Lift, limit, leading canopy

of cluster
Length . Lagging canopy of cluster
Total mass of system, Mach M Aerodynamic moment

number
Mass m Mass, material (cloth), canopy mouth
Number of gores, an integer N
Expcnent of drag area growth n The nth member of a series

equation, any number
0 Initial, nominal, at sea level
Strength of material, presuure P Projected, parachute,

(abs olute) strength
Differential pressure p Pressure, pack
Dynamic pressure q
Radius, reefed, ratio R Radial. rated, reefed, risers,

crescent-shaped slot
Radius, local radius of r

curvature
Area S Suspended
Distance, load distribution s Suspension line, sail. snatch

ratio
Unit tensile load T IProof test, total
Time t
Seam or joint efficiency u
Volume V Vehicle
Velocity v Vent
• xix
Primary Subscript
Weight W
Unit weight w Woven
Opening shock factor ( CK) X
Displacement along "x" x

axis
Displacement along "y" y

axis
Number of identical a
members or plies
Angle of attack, filling
distance coefficient
Angle of yaw
Flight path angle from y

horizontal
Difference, small 4
increment
Density 6
Angle between longitudinal e

axis and vertical
Vacuum lose factor
Relative porosity of cloth.
Porosity
Viscosity of air .
""umidity lose factor.

.3. 1416
Density of air
xx
I Primary Subscript
Summation
*Standatd devlition j Impoirous
Temperature loss factor
Suspension lini angle from

longitudinal axis
Skirt angle from longi- 4

tudinal axis, drag azea.
(C CS)
at Infinity, far away
Approximately
Approximately equal to
Superscript
Reference value
Average or mean value,
similar~valu", reference
value
Rate of change of variable

With timte
Abbreviations and Definitions
CDSR Reefed drag area
C DoS Full open drag area
EAS Equivalent air speed
O• Full open
fps Feet per second
D.F. Design factor
DOF Degrees of freedom
DR Disreof
KEAS Knots equivalent air speed
Uklx Maximum
chute Parachute
SLa Line stretch
in Inflow
out Outflow
pst Pounds per square foot
S.?. Saety factor
Yb ]roude number (gO sin y/vl
Re Reynolds aukMbs (0vp4)
Sa Area of design drag surlace including

slots nd. venits
U.,&•Margin of "fety
Xxii
Definitions
Differential fullness The difference in lengths of adjoining sail edges..
Fullness The difference between the width of the sail and

the chord of the gore at any radial ordinate (h).
Pendular Pendulum-like
Squidding Behavior of a parachute which stops filling at

any stage prior to the normal full condition for
that stage,
4~ 4
Cluste -of Two 128. 8 Ft Do Ringsail Parachutes

P1edcohding at 26. -1 I'PS (EAS), With 17, 7.20 Pounds
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The first Ringsail parachute started out as a rather unprepossessing

modification of the Ringslet design, but after surviving two embarrassing
proof tests, it was found to have some desirable performance advantages.
Since that day in February 1955 the Ringsail parachute has been improved
in both performance and method of design, and has seen extensive use Ln
missile and drone recovery systems. it has also been used in a variety
of space vehicle recovery or landing systems including those of Mercury,
-Gemini, and Apollo.
- The purpose of this work is to provide designers with all of the detailed
information required to produce a successful Ringsail parachute of near-
•.=-optimum performance for a given application. The presentation begins
with a historical review of Ringsail development aimed at exposing the
--
pitfalls that lie in the path of the innovative designer, hopefully to spare
him repetition of errors made by his predecessor&.
--.
One of the earliest designs of the Ringsail was the "Skysail". personnel
parachute developed for the Navy. The first Skysail jump test was per-
-T
"formed in -1958 over the Salton Sea by Chief H. W. Piccard of the Naval
-Parachute Unit, flying out of the Navail Air Station, El Centro, California
on a routine jump test mission. Since that time-hundreds of Navy airmen
and a. number, of skydivers have jumped the Skysail without-incident.
The historical review pays special attertion to the development of the

modified Ringsail for the Apollo ELS parachute cluster. Although-this
"parachute has beenwidely publicized as having a nominal diameter of
83. 5 feet, it is referred to throughout this document by its true-scale
diameter of D = 85. 6 feet. 'The smaller figure was calculated by sub--
J.. -tracting the area of the wide. slot from the canopy area, producing a value
"for-S which cannot be used in performance comparisons.
The historical review includes a summary-of the salient characteristics

of all existing Ringsail parachutes, supplemented by a set of diagrams
in Appendix A covering the constrqction details of the most familiar,
operational models. Significant data on several special-purpose Ringsail
pparacthutes of modified design are given in Appendix B. The history con-
-cludes -with an appraisal of the. present status of Ringsail design and oper-'
ational theory.
S.-L__• -
1
Presented in Section 3 is a digest of Ringsail parachute performance data
accumulated from a number of different programs in which instrumented
aerial drop tests were performed. An attempt has been made to discard
wild points and reduce the data to a form most useful to the designer
The data scatter remains wide. The validity of the measurements reported
for some Ringsatl models is open to question, but to reject the results
completely mould leave unjustified gaps in the picture. The .quality ot the
performance picture has been blurred in another way also; the doc'umenta-
tion is incomplete. Some important test reports could not be found in. the
morgue and are presumed lost or destroyed. Other test reports were
incomplete- in basic -essentials. Everything that is known'about Ringdail
parachute performance has-been put together in Section 3 as accurately
as possible for the guidance of-the designer. Accumulated-weight data
"-forall-Ringsail parachutes :manufactured- are summarized in Section 4.
-A step-by-step.design procedure -for the Rifigsail parachute is.detailed in.--

Section 5, This is a minimal prmocedure which-will produce as an end
iten, all the dimenSlonaldata and material requirements needed to manu-
"-facture a prototype model. The design procedure is illustrated by-numerical
-example in Appendix C-, concluding with a preliminary weight and volume
"estimate. Design analysis r'ethodis are given in Section 6 by means of:.: -
"whichthe prototype design can be-refined, 9reefing requirements -determined,
-performance characteristics 'and oipeing.'loads predicted, a rigorous stress,.i.
analysis performediand'weight. volume and porosity calculted. The
design analysis is usually a preliminary to the 1perfoi-mance of a number of
aerial drop tests. aimed at co0rpleting the .design development of the para•-
chute through verification of both aeiodynamic performance and str-uctura. .
integrity. After such tests have been successfully-completed is the"time '
to prepare detailed production drawings of the new parachute.
"Construction.features.peculiar -to the Ringsail parachute-are described in

"Section 7 as a guide to the preparatioh of manufactuiing 'drawings. The
fabrication and assembly -techniques ubed in Ringsail parachute manufacture
are described in Sect-ion--8 along with a dis cussion of unusual-quality control..
ýmethods.
J- . - " - - , '
S,• :-. ,-. . .. ..
*- I ,' ; . :• .. ' . : I ,- , "
1 " I
* SECTION Z
HLSTQRICAL DEVELOPMENT
Z.1 DESCRIPTIVE HISTORICAL'REV-IEW
The purpose of presenting this historlical review in what is nominally a

"design handbook" for Ringsail pkrachutes is to give parachute desiiners
* (anid innov~tive designers in p;.rticular) a view of the many different con-
figura~tions and mothods of construction tested. Of particular interest will
be those features that were tested, found-wanting, and discarded.,
-`. 1. l. Conception of the Ringisail:Design Principle

a In:,1953;' during an engineeiing relsearch program aimed at advancing the
- - development of the Ring slot parachute as an aircraft deceleration
parachute., it-was recognized that there was a large number of ways' -in
:which an annulate canojpy'with alternating rings of slots and sails could
.be formed.- Indeed -'the ni.imber of possible corribinations of slots per gore,
fslot/sail-width ratios, variable glot width distributions, and canopy profile
-shapes-ýwa-sj so large as to preclude tdisting more than a, fraction qf them~
in thie wind tunne'l.- Thus, :it is- not surprising that when the suggestion~ was
offered that the bell or "fullness'.. of the sails could also be, varied
-between leading and trailing -edges, the idea was not ve&ceived with -
enAthusiaszni.*. 'However-, -it-was rec4orded in Reference-1 as -follows:

1 'It, is evident that the gore geom~etry of ihe' Ring sldt is open
to ýcpnsiderable variation, not only in the'nu-mber a~nd width
of slots 'and sections,1 but also -in the ingle of radial cut'on -
each rpaAel, 14 addition to the usual methods of affe~cting the

overall canopy shape by varying the width of the iore' patt~erA,
- the opportlinity is presented of varying the fullness and angle
I o f'attack of -each -section ii. e. , each ring) indbpezndently, f the
others, While the effects of diffprent c~mbinations of slot
- :.,width anc4 rin~g he ight' have been inve atigated .to some ext~ent,,. a
the independent variation of se~ctlon fullness and angle of

attackihas piot, t&nd is suff.1ciently promising 'of r~sults to,
warrant careful e'vailuation. Two.: posasibilities arejmimnbdiately '
evident:
A -
a "-1 I3
(1) An increase in the average angle of attack of the individual
rings in the skirt region beyond the mid-radius could have a
beneficial effect-on both CDo and.opening characteristics.
(2) An increase in the section Width in the crown area will

reduce transverse fabric stresses:by reducing the local radius
of curvature.-":
Subsequent events have proved the first surmise to -be quite correct with
little qualification., The 'second, it was found could be effected better
by simply adding fullness to conventional Ringslot construction in the
* crown of the -Ringsail canopy.
Z. 1. 2 Evolution of the First Wprking Models
An opportunity to test the Ringsail design concept did not arrive until 1955
and then simultaneously on two different programs. The first of these
-programs had been-initiated in April 1954 with a proposal to the Bureau of
Aeronautics for development :of the Ringsail personnel parachute (Reference 2).
The purpose of this program was to produce. an improved escape system for
-Naval airmen in which the parachute opening shock would not exceed Z5g in a
400 knot bailout and the pack weight and bulk would be a minimum. .
The Skysail configuration illustrated in Figure I was justified by the
following statement of Ringsail design theory (Reference 2).
"Although the possibility exists of effecting the desired improvee.

-.. ment by the stepwise development of a set of gore coordinates
for a'solid shaped canopy, "experience with the Ringslot
parachute suggestr,"that the use of carefully distributed geometric
-. porosity holds greater promise. However, the delicate balance
between drag efficiency and opening reliability on the one hand
- and stability and opening shock on the othe-i is easily upset if
.-.:the size and shape of the geometric openings are poorly proportioned,'
The central problem is one of providing the geometric porosity
needbd'to satisfy the stability requiren'ment ina form which
properly'controls airflow through the canopy. The flow, control
must be twofold.-L'...
(1) The openings shall provide good ventilation during, inflation

in order to limit opening shock.
'(2) The llps of the openings shall inhibit ventilation during

steady descent in order to provide a maximum drag coefficient.
.4
h
hR Typical Slot Constructed Profile ,
... • •,"+ Spherical

Coordinates a canopy ,
e ii
- -i.-----Suspension
+ ---- Line
Qore Sail Patterns Inflated Profile
Figaure Is Skysall Geometry
5+
Solution of this problem is possible only because both the ,shape
of the canopy and the character of the flow field during each of
these phases is different. The geometric purosity of the Skysail,
like that of the Ringslot, is distributed among a nuiiber of
narrow concentric annular rings (Figure 1). However, the
similarity between the two parachutes ends here. Aside from
important structural differences, the essential difference between
the Ringslot parachute and the Skysail is... (that described in
the quotation from Reference 1 above). Precise and virtually
independent control of each annulus of the canopy is achieved by
this means. Thus, during inflation the absolute magnitude of
canopy porosity may be relatively large, but after inflation the
projected geometric porosity is small and through-flow interference
becomes a maximum. At the same time, the leading edge of each
fabric annulus in succession meets the airstream at a high angle
of attack, thereby promoting reliability of inflation.
It is estimated that a geometric porosity of between 516 and 10%

will satisfy all requirements, but the uncertainty factor inherent
in the aeroelastic properties of any new gore design can only be
resolved by appropriate experiments. For the same reason, it
cannot be assumed that the sail geometry shown in Figure I is
necessarily the best, but on theoretical grounds its probability
of success is high."
In December 1954, before the Skysail development contract award was

made, the need for a high performance recovery parachute on the XQ-4A
drone program motivated the design, fabrication and testing of the first
Ringsail parachute. In the form first tested in February 1955 (Reference
3), the canopy had nominal diameter (DO) of 64. 7 ft, 48 gores, 10 rings
of sails, and the sail dimensions were derived from the coordinates of a
shaped-gore as shown in Figure 2. In searching for a rational method
of computing sail widths that would be structurally conservative, the
coordinates of a flat gore were adopted as a base reference and the
coordinates of a surface of revolution approximating the inflated shape were
used as a lower boundary reference. The result was a shaped-gore with
considerably more allowance for bulging between radials than was actually
needed for stress relief.
When the first 64. 7 ft Do Ringsail prototype was drop tested (February
1955, El Centro, California), it exhibited the same general behavior aisi
that seen much later in the 84.2 ft Do Gemini Ringsail---the fully inflaw.4-
canopy was slack and puffy with several gores folded inward on one siot
(Figure 3a).
6
64. 7 Ft D Ringsail, No.1I
Fla~t Suarface
Chord -:, Fu11nes4 Etivelp

0
Ratio *9. jida nl
c ,Design(Do 6 ft).
.6.
he Raeilfea
t
77
Figure 3a. First 1Ringsail Drop Test 4 February
1955
(Note Infolded Cores On RH Side)
694 1
" All..-
Figure 3b. Sane..Parachute With Two of 48 Gores Removed
8
In order to continue the test program with minimum delay,
the infolding
was corrected by removing two gores from the canopies
of the existing
test specimens (Figure 3b). The modified parachutes
(with 46 gores
Do = 63 ft) were used until new 48 gore models could be
fabricated with
sail dimensions corrected as shown in the Figure 2 with
a reduction in
width of approximately 10%.
During the subsequent development and qualification
tests, the drag coefficient
derived from rough rate of descent measurements averaged
CD = 0.73, an
increase of 30% over that of the 56 ft Do Ringslot canopy
that Wl~e new
parachute replaced. However, this was tempered by
a 40% increase in the
average amplitude of pendular oscillations, i.e., from
- 50 to 1 70.
Since the stability was still acceptable for recovery
purposes in a system
utilizing an airbag impact attenuation system, the gain
in drag efficiency
was almost entirely on the plus side, and It could be
said that the Ringsail
design principle had proved to be reasonably successiul.
In the Skysail program, progress was made more difficult
by the small size
of the canopy (Do :t 27 -30 ft). Ringsails in the 18 to
41 ft Do range could
not be made to develop as much drag per unit area asthose
of DV 56 ft and
larger. In this respect the Ringsail appeared to exhibit
a C(o change with
size, similar to a solid conical or extended skirt parachute.
Average drag
coefficients ranged from Cj 0 = . 67 to C o - . 71 approximately,
1 with no
improvement in stability relative to oscillations of *71,
while in some cases
average amplitudes of *10 to 15' were recorded. Thus,
in the Skysail size
range the gain in drag coefficient for parachutes of
equal stability was leas
than 20% relative to the Ringslot. Along with this gain,
the opening shock
was moderate and the increased sail angle of attack
made the opening tendency.
strong.
Skysail Model A (R6.9 ft Do with 20 gores) designed In June
1955 (Figure 4),V
was the first Ringsail with gore coordinates developed
for a canopy shape of
a quarter sphere. The fact that the performance of
thie mod-el was deficient
in all categories is attributed to the use of only six
cloth rinfs of which the
three in the major area of the canopy were 36 inches
wide. and the skirt ring
had no fullness, I. e.. the constructed profile had a
skirt angle of'60 degrees
ao shown In Figure 1. The sail fullness distribution
used in this, first Skysail
-model iW shown in Figure 5. The angle of attack of
the salls was not adsd-
quately developed in this model and the geometric porosity
was low,.
Sk til Model 1B (29.4 ft -1)- with 20 gores) was made
with nine cloth rings
a1• appr44imately 18 inches in width, but again with
no fullness in the skirt
riog. Ths model went through three modifications
aimed at gaining an
acceptable drag otofic ient:
9
14.W
I b k
AF
ga,
4 04
I w. w.
104
I- H
_ I...
t. &n**
W4 0
*fw "ww m1
01-
in FA
OPP0
* .it
DnS
oi
(1) XE-i: Restrictor tapes were installed on the gore centerline
across the four slots in the peripheral area of the canopy above
the skirt. These changed the crescent shaped slots to double
openings as shown in Figure 6. This modification was abandoned
when tests showed the filling time to be excessive, giving the
first indication that the Ringaail filled through the side slots as
well as through the mouth.
(2) XB-2: Pocket bands derived from FIST ribbon parachute design
documentation were added to the canopy. These were discarded
to simplify construction after a few teats showed no overt im -
provement in opening characteristics, but it is now believed the
tests measurements were too rough to constitute conclusive
evidence. Pocket bands on the aingeall should be as effective as
they are on other parachute types.
(3) XB'.3: The skirt ring (#9) was removed from the canopy, de-
creasing the basic skirt angle from 601 to 54% This change also
reduced the nominal diameter toD,268itbumoempra,
It produced a canopy having a flared skirt with a fullness of it, 5%
in the bottom- sail (#8)., However, with an average leading edge
fullness in the sails of approximately. 13%, the crescent shaped
slots were relatively large In, the fully inflated canopy and the -low
drag coefficient obtained was attributeid to-excessive geometric
porosity. XSg 13. 5%! W, 16. 6%).
Skysil ode U.28. 3 ft Do wih 4 res) -was designed to overcome the de-
fIcIencies of Model S. 24 gores (in place of 20) for narrower sails and average
"sil leading edge fullness reduced to 9% (in place of 13%). Hfowever, the
canopy was again made to the tuarter spherical shape with A 60 degree, skirt
anlThe justification fothswsth lsi of Model B did not inflate
tatitty and tended to flutter, but this retrogresision was ain over.reaction. and
the dirag coefficienkof Model C. was no better thana that of Model S.
Skysail Model 0 (29. 6 ft,\% with'24 gores) was tha final conflgturatlon devel-ý
oped under the original bureau of Aerontauticst contrcta And twnsMe selected
for the qufication program (Pagure 7). it combined what were believed to
be the beet features Of Models Ba C:
a) basic *Ape a shrcleg ntwith a Sk irt angle of 54 degrees.

hi Average sail leading -edge fullniesso S. 8%.
c). tJine rifts each 18 inches wvide with four open rInigsloe in the crown
*0 it, Figure I this would c-hanige the height of the spheric;al tosegmet frownt
A11i to 0. 4391L.
nigure.6. MitCA ot lasttictor. Tape %* Slot Op~aiftga of s-ky. ?adadel xs.
13
Figure 7a. USN Parachute Test Jumper Landing With 29. 6 ft
Moel D- ElCenro, California Feb. 1969
D0 Sysai
ýIIV
FA%
Figure 7b. Jumnper's View of Skysail Canopy
14
d) Calculated porosity based on photo measurements
Geometric 10.9% Total 14.2%.
e) Effective suspension line length 0.91 Do.
A U. S. patent was applied for 15 May .956 and Patent No. 2, 929, 588 was
issued ZZ March 1960. In June 1956, at the same- time the Skyvail design
was frozen, the method of computing Ringsail-gore coordinates and sail
widths was standardized in the non-dimensional form illustrated in Figure 8.
The difference in sail fullness between the standard Ringsail and Skysail
Model D in the perpheral region is indicated, The chord ratio (C/C') was:
based on the width, C', of a flat triangular gore because it could be
calculated easily at any radial height, h, as
C- Zh tan (360 /2N),
for a canopy embodying N gores of height, bR, from center line vent to skirt.
In practice, the h dimensions used corresponded to the upper and lower edges
of both slots and sails, and the values of h/hR were calculated. Then, at
each value of h/hR the curves were read to obtain CA/C' and CB/C' from
which the lengths of the upper and lower edges were calculated. It wili
be seen that the spherical profile is controlled accurately in the peripheral
region of the canopy below h/hR = 0.65 by the upper edges of the sails.
Above this point, the introduction of fullness mn both upper and lower sail
7" edges for-stress relief modifies the shape slightly. The restilting sail
layout for one gore is illustrated schematically in Figure 9.
This is the method of gore coordinate and.sail-width calculation that.was

used for all Ringsail parachutes designed prior to September 1965,
including the Apollo main parachutes. Although a few modifications were
tested experimentally during the Apollo ELS development program, --none
proved acceptable. These are described in Section Z. 1.4.
2. 1. 3 Evolution of Canopy Shape and Construction
During the early aerodynamic development of the Ringsail a number of

innovations in the methods of parachute construction and assembly were
tested. Traditionally, Ringslot parachutes were assembled sail by sail
to form rings and then the cloth rings were joined with radial tapes.
This appeared to be an inconvenient procedure for shops geared to the
gore by gore assembly sequence of solid cloth and ribbon canopies.
Since Ringsail No, I had no open slots other than the crescent shaped
openings developed in the inflated surface between contiguous sails, it
appeared feasible to sub-assemble the gores by shingle-lapping and
basting as shown in Figure 10. First, the edges of the individual sails
were hemmed or taped to augment tear -resistance in the areas of greatest
15
WV>,
in. M
fai
rn'- -to
0
1 7
E-4)
* IN
a* 4). 'O0
V
~1
SSe
* 1 7
No m
Intercostal Tape On Sail
Upper Edge~s-As Required
Selvedge (Typ)
-4 1.5 Baste (Typ)
Selvedges or
H~emmed Edges
As Required
Figun 10O. Lapped-Sail Gore Assembly Method of

64.7 It Do Ringsail No. I
18
JillL
stress. (Cloth selvedges were generally strong enough only in the periph-
eral region of the canopy where bulging of the sails between radials was
pronounced.) Second, the sails were basted together into gore subassem-
blies. Third, the goreo were joined in the conventional manner with onle-inch
fell seams stitched on a four-needle sewing machine. The final parachute
assembly operations also were conventional, including the running of sus-
pension lines over the entire canopy through the center channels of the radial
seams.
This assembly method worked reasonably well as long as the intercostal

tapes on the sails were light and thin. However, the tape joints in the radial
seams were strong enough to develop substantial hoop strength which created
the general misapprehension that the tapes could also function effectively as
reinforcing bands. During the test program when the 63 ft Do Ringsail ex-
perienced opening shock damage in the crown, heavier intercostal tapes were
placed on the sail edges in lieu of reinforcing bands. The multiplied thick-
ness of these tape ends in the fell seam made it difficult to pass the material
through the sewing roaching, and the usual seam forming guides could not be
used.
Since the lapped-sail gore construction was not amenable to the introduction
of adequate geometric porosity in the crown of the canopy, as well as being
structurally inefficient and difficult to assemble, a better assembly method
was sought for the Skysail parachute. The drive for minimum weight and
bulk motivated the design of a narrow (11/ inch) radial seam to reduce seam
allowances, while the need for tape reinforced radial seams to overcome the
shortcomings of the line-in-channel construction produced the construction
methods illustrated in Figure 11. These m-ethods have been standard for all
Ringsail parachutes produced to date with minor exceptions, e. g.. the radial
seams of a few early lightweight models were stitched with two-needle ma-
chines instead of three, vertical tapes were introduced in 1962, and tapered
line joints a year later. The subassembly of sails and radial tapes came
from traditional ribbon canoc'py assrnbly methods, but the rolling of the one-
Inch r'adial tapes to one half width in the fell seams was novel; it reduced the
variations in gore width caused hy under and overfolding to a negligible
factor. This was Important to the basic Ringsall principle inherent in the
fullness distribution of the individual sails between radials.
The fell-folded radial tapes have other advantages. The lower ends extended
below the skirt provide a conveniant mneans of fornming an efficient tapered
splice for the suspension lines, thut eliminating the need for additional re-
inforcements such as the "butterfly" tab commonly used. Also, a recent
experiment by NASA with a modified lRingsail assembled ring by ring with
single lapped seams reainforced with radial tapes revealed indirectly another
structural advantage. In this modifiel parachute the tear resistance of the
19
A..
A Tape Selvedge
Warp,
=!
B A-A B-B
Typical Binder Typical
B Trip-Selvedge
Sail Assembly
Bottom Canopy
Ribbon Assenmbly
Top
Ribbon Bse Si
C-C Ribbon
C C D-D
D D Vertical Tape Ribbon ,,
Typical Main $eam
Bottom
Ribbon .,Ribbon~
Sail-
TpclRib
Detail H
Gore Assetnbly
Figure 11. Ringsail Construction
10
sail edges was so poor it became necessary to add hundreds of short rein-
forcing tapes to the edges across each radial seam. A plausible explanation
is that the narrow reinforcing tapes, being at least four times thicker and
muchi stiffer than in the standard Ring sail' construction, provided a stress
concentrating mechanism that degraded the tear strength of the sails along
the radial seams.
It is important to emphasize that the intercostal tapes on sail edges joined

end to end in the fell seam provide an effective means of augmenting the
tear resistance of cloth selvedges and as such need not be very heavy;
70 to 90 lb 5/8 inch tapes attached with two rows of t"Bt or "Ell nylon
thread have been adequate. However, the misapprehension that these tapes
should also carry hoop stresses persisted well into the 1960'Is, so riost
of the Ringsail parachutes built prior to 1965 have excessively heavy inter-
costal tapes in the crown area, i. e. , heavy relative to the strength of the
end-to-end joints in the radial seams. In some cases, such tapes were
replaced with continuous reinforcing bands where excessive hoop loads
were encountered.
Rlngsail parachute construction also borrowed from early Ringalot develop-

ments which produced cloth woven to a desired sail width with special
reinforced selvedges. Some "doupe" selvedge cloth was available but
Skysail requirements motivated the design of new weaves with triple-strength
selvedges, whence the term "trip" selvedge cloth. With trip-selvedges.
one half inch along each edge of the cloth is reinforced with additional
warp yarns to a strength three times greater than that of the basic cloth.
Woven widths of 18, Z4, 36, an~d 4'" inches in nylon cloths weighing
1.1oI16o anid Z. Z5 oz/yd~ wtere used. The trip-solvedges, of course,
.-substantially reduce the need. for additional reinforcements on the sail edges.
The Bureau of Aeronautics, In 1900, after iupporting the development and

qualification of Skysail Mi.-dei U as it infinimu bulk parachute for high speed
bailout eniergenciesi decided to, in orporate it in the Martin Baker ejection
seat systemi theri heing Adtd fu s t l l~e lace Naval aircraft.
Although this parachute opeiied fast eniough to pass the Navy's low altitude
qualification reqiiirenients at normal fligiht speeds 1200 ft at 100 Kt.s and 500
ft with pre-twisted lie.,it could tiot 11"st the "off-the -deck" ejection seat,
test in the hUtartikt baltiti y.iVtefn kitb t;%ndetn pilot ehutecs and peak altitudes
of only 70 to lA0 ft. Thercor~e, Skysail Model E with Do .29.7 it was
designed as a tnininial f Model 1).
oiottcaii
At that tinle the effectivente4i of vertical tapes across the crown iringslots
in proio~ting positive and retpeat~abit opening (if the Itingsail was unknown
and, as noted earlier, pl~e'ot bahnds were believed to be of aniall value,
having had no mnea soratlde e ffect ort Mode I U. Thus, relative to Model, D,
Skysail Model E was made with seven rings of 24 inch sails in place of 9
rings at 18 inches, a flared-skirt ring with 5% leading edge fullness in
place of the 54 degree spherical skirt ring, and a total porosity of approx-
imately 11. 5% in place of 14. 2%.
Although Skysail Model E passed the off-the-deck ejection tests and was
retrofitted in all of the Navy's Martin Baker seat system, it constituted a
step backward In Ringsail development because its performance was not
outstanding when compared to that of the standard flat service parachute
it replaced. In qualitative terms, although its stability was significantly
better, its opening shock was only marginally lower and its drag coefficient
was less (CD = 0. 7 vs 0. 76).
This bit of Ringsail history is noteworthy because a few years later (1 962)
Skysail Model D was adapted for recovery of the ASSET lifting body entry
vehicle through the addition of two reefed stages. When it was observed
that canopy filling during the first reefed stage was slow and erratic, the
deficiency was corrected by placing a single vertical tape on the center line
of each gore across the ring slots in the crown. The tapes prevented the
slots from opening widely during the initial phase of filling when the crown
of the canopy was slack, thereby eliminating randonm delays and greatly
improving the repeatability of the filling time. Had this same innovation
been introduced in 1960, the Skysail Model D may have passed the Martin
Baker ejection seat off-the-deck tests and the regression to Model E avoided.
After Skysail Model XB-Z, pocket bands were not again tested on the Ring-
sail parachute until the Apollo wind tunnel program of February 1963 (Ref-
erence 1 5). The wind tunnel models also had vertical tapes across the crown
slots, Although the two devices have similar effects, they are not mutually
exclusive and their use together can be justified on theoretical grounds in
any Itingsail application for which total opening time is critical. Pocket
bands, by limiting the extent to which thO skirt sails can blow inward when
thfty first meet the airstream, promote the early admission of air through
the *.iouth. Taped crown slots, as noted, prevent excesslve outflow from the
first mass of ingested air to flow the length of the canopy. The net result Is
a considerable reduction in random delays In getting effective filling started,
and the total filling time is made mote repeatable about its tninitnum value
for any given set of operational conditions.
In September, 1965. the method of calculathin the basic dimensions, gore

coordinates,. an4 sail pattern dimensions of the Rtingsail parachute was
revised. The purposes of the revision were,
a) To standardize the ling sail dosilgn in an advanced form

b) To zimplify the computational procedure and inprove the ac-
curacy of determining gore coordinaites andi sail pattorn
dimensions
,t1'
c) To minimize the possibility of producing new Ringsail
parachutes having subnormal characteristics such as a
slack, infolded canopy when fully inflated (84 ft Do Gemini)
or excessive stress concentrations during opening (127 ft P 0
bi-conical).
The new basic dimensions scheme summarized in Figure 12is the product
of a number of different developments generated by the Gemini, Apollo,
and Century programs. The 84.2 ft Do Gemini Ringsail was designed in
1959 as a.backup recovery parachute on the Q-4B drone program. A few
years later Cflgtrcies of the Gt-mini Paraglider development program led to
its adoption as a backup for and ultimate use as the Gemini primary landing
system (Figure 13). As noted, the fully inflated canopy was slack and exhibited
an infolding tendency that was never fully corrected, although a number of
"tight" peripheral bands were added to the canopy for this purpose. The
deficiency was traced to a slide-rule, error in computation of the gore
coordinates which increased the average sail fullness from 4.4Z to 4.71%
of the gore width, i. e., an actual increase of 6. I% in the cloth perimeter.
Since ihe width of one gore in a 72 gore canopy is only I. 39% of the
perimeter, it is not surprising that several gores tended to fold inward in
the fully inflated canopy. In other respects the basic dimension scheme
of this Ringeall was identical to that of the Mercury 63. 1 ft Do canopy and
also of the 88.1 ft Do canopy from which the Apollo main parachute was
* derived. Neither of these exhibited the infolding tendency. but the latter
. - . was slack enough to have some difficulty in maintaining A polysymmetric
shape in a three-canopy cluster tFigure 14).
Early in the development pro4rrain for the Apollo Earth Landing System. it
was found that the drag oX thE•t. I ft DO lngsail in clusters of two and
.three canopies was considerably greater than the design requirement at
. that time. The chrouic mtted to reduce parachute weight and bulk motivated
reyloval of four gores froit the' canipy rather than design a completely
hlew one. -Of course, it was lkaown from prtivious, experience that this
change would also iuorret ,vr bluekne
••t the fully inflated canopy. The
result of the modiftcatiotn wati an 85,•6 it DO canopy with 68 gores and
a conical apex of 19 degrees (measured below the horizontal). The shape
- of the const rutted priohe *iUthie cahqpV waas described as a "truncated
ogive" having -a base angle of 5T degrees. (See Figure 15b).
In May 1963. the f-rst of two 'Cceato•", RiIngsail programs was initiated
with the design of an expowi•en1 I uodtl itavins a nominal diameter of
124.5 teet. The design logir cntpluytc was necessarily conservative
(for want of any pre-vious experievcte with: kingeails larger than 88. I ft Do)
and is described in Appendix A of Raefrence 5. Quoting from the design
notes relating to the canopy shape:
Canopy Area S0 CDSo
Nominal Di. D Canopy
Number of gores N - .76-.88(Do in feet)

Effectivo line length le" 1.15 Do
Riser length IR 2 - 4 feet
Line length IS I-
-
0 - 150
hR - .519 Do
H a Width of cloth
A a CA + 1.6 in. B Ca+ 1.6in,*
CAUKaCC K
44 in h x 540J KA .. 06-0.1
Vent diatke Ov "2 v co 1s - 1.932 h,

, shovwn bulow
KA. f.rols JJ-h . - .4.5\
(A Vat'" from 1.06 ,. 0
95- 1.08 tr"e .45 11.0
IK b
0 .45 .60 1.0 .- t,-
vent h/% Skict Cote Lboy*t *TtCld&s $&as

ftullnesS Distribution
Figure 12. Ringsail Patachute Basic DimenfotiO
24
Ijij
iIe13. GmInlft 84. 2: ft DO Rtilleaft1 Baiter -PlAte CA" ule

Splatphdowu ilk the S&1tob Se-1, CAU(fornia
40
FPIgure 14. Tcrtminmtion oi "~ttle Sue"l Ttet Si~mulating Apollo

off- Pai Abort with 36. 1 ft DO lungsail Parachutes
in' 1Irst &s'porimentaal Entb Lauiding Systom
74. Spherical
V 54
()Gemnini 84.2 ft Do
SAMOS 74. Z ft Do
(b) Apollo 85..6 ft Do
Wd) CenbtrY. 4 i 5t.DO
FEguwe 15. Cothpawison of Plogail Cantopy. Cousthacted 1ProMi*s
27
"A taut canopy minimizes the infolding tendency and can be
obtained readily by modifying the spherical profile to that of
a truncated ogive. This is accomplished by removing gores
from an otherwise full canopy. In this instance the desired
result was obtained by designing an oversized canopy with
116 gores andutilizing 112 gores in the final assembly. This
had the effect of reducing the circumferential fullness of the
spherical canopy by 3.4 percent."
The expedient described produced an ogival profile with an apex angle of

150 and a base angle of 550. (Figure 15c). Because the performance
of the new Ringsail throughout a series of five aerial drop tests with
a gross weight of 9650 lbs was unusually good in all categories, the
decision was made to use the design as a basis for the design of all new
Ringsail parachutes (see Figure 16).
To quote Reference 6: "Analysis of the canopy shape of the 124. 5 ft Ringsail

produced the gore coordinate formula given in Figure (1 2) for the revised
basic dimension scheme. In the interest of further design simplification,
the distribution of circumferential fullness was simplified by a conservative
revisior. of that found in the 124. 5 ft model. This introduced 0. 5 to 3. 0
percent (points) more fullness in the crown area for further stress relief
and reduced the graduated differential fullness of the major (ringsail)
area from an average of 9. 83% to a flat 8. 0 percent. The latter is expected
to slightly reduce the strong expansion tendency of the skirt on disreefing
by rediicing the average angle of attack of the sails, but the performance
of an 87 ft model with 5-6% differential fullness (see Table II and Figure 94
(Appendix A)) gives assurance that the effect will be virtually undetectable by
present methods. " It will be noted that this redistribution of differential
fullness also slightly reduces the area of the crescent slots near the skirt and
increases it in the mid-gore region, but this is another second-order effect.
The mos:- significant aspect cf the change is the reduction in average overall
sail fullness from 4. 91 to 4. 0 percent of the gore width or a net reduction of
18. 6 percent in the cloth perimeter near the major inflated diameter. Although
the relative magnitude of the change is large, its effect is slight, the
increase in peripheral tautness merely reducing the amount the sails bulge
outward between radials. This further augmentation of the aeroelastic
forces maintaining the canopy's polysymmetric shape, reflects continued
concern for avoidance of canopy slackness and infolding, particularly in
very large Ringsails.
The effective suspension line length of 1. 15 Do given in Figure 12 is opti-

mum for large lightweight Ringsails, yielding, as shown by analysis in
28
Figure 16a. 124. 5 ft Do Ringsail Opening Configuration Associated
with the "Soft" Opening Mode
P'igure 16b, 124. 5 ft Do Ringsail. Parachute In Steady Descent

with 9650 Pounds
29
Reference 5, a parachute of minimum weight W;,- or maximum specific drag
area (CDSo/Wp)*. The seam allowance given for sail pattern layout is that
required to form the typical 0. 5 inch with fell seam shown in Figure 11 using
two 1.0 to 1. 06 inch wide radial tapes folded together,
The second Century Ringsail program was initiated in September 1964 with
the design of a 1 27 ft Do canopy having the bi-conical profile illustrated in
Figure 1 5d. This departure from the proven design of the 124. 5 foot model
was precipitated by two ideas:
a) It had been demonstrated that a solid cloth conical parachute had:

a higher drag efficiency than the solid :flat parachute, :conse-
quently a conical Ringsail would have, a higher drak efficiency
than the original Ringsail.
b) The unsymmetrical infolded shape of the revefed 1 24. 5 ft D

0
Ringsail (Figure 17) was undesirable and could be corrected
by changing the canopy shape.
The mechanical difference between a solid cloth canopy of 45 degrees bias

construction and an annulate canopy with cloth warp horizontal is sufficiently
marked to warrant little elaboration. In a conical canopy, the bias-cut cloth
stretches freely at near-zero stress to assume an ellipsoidal/inflated shape,
and, having less redundant material than the flat 'canopy the conical canopy
can develop a higher drag coefficient. The *conical annulate canopy' on the
other hand tends to hold the conical shape and the .strain resulting from
inflation to a rounded, or even ogival, 9hape is attended by~hoop stresses
which reach a maximum in the mid-radius region, . In short, the ogival con-
structed prcfile of the Apollo 85. 6 ft Do canopy with 1;9 degree apex is about
as close to a conical shape as appears structurally safe for any, annulate
canopy of lightweight construction. All conical ribbon and Ringslot cAnopies,
for example, are either of uniformly heavy construction or icarry added rein-
forcing bands in the zrown and mid-radius regions. Therefore, neither the
drag coefficient nor the specific drag area of a straight conical Ringsail
could be expected to be higher than for the pruven design.'
As to the unsymmetrical reefed shape of the 124.5 ft model, it was argued

that this could be a source of non-uniform loading of the parachute structu're
during opening and might lead to early failures thereby preventing attain-
ment of the very lightweight parachute sought. Ib general, reefed canopies
are not noted for their symmetry and all Ringsail parachutes have exhibited
* The design drag coefficient of CDo 0. 81 proved to be a minimum value

(see Section 3. 1. 1).
30
Cc~nopy Configuration 0.,2 Seconds After the Rleefed Load Peak.
1 ~&~c~t~ \f~%S1\ '1 "ir

f.r ~XX
V,
" P- z't. %~Ark'"~ t4
* ~-f ~ ~
v4 t~ , VNx}4i
vI 0000," $)
4
e~r#tk4tS~~44M
-4 awaI
Caop
.gutajjonyat Co. Pia reef
igure 17. Two Stages During, Rc-t-fed Operation of 124. 5 Ft Do a
Ringsaii Showing rYpical Irregular Shape
a 31
"this characteristic. However, there is no test evidence that under near-
ultimate loading conditions the irregular shape of the reefed canopy was the
source of a critical stress level. Indeed, critical loading conditions of the
Ringsail causing extensive damage are generally encountered after dis-
reefing as the canopy approaches full inflation. At this time, because infold-
Ing relaxes the load in the several gores and lines affected, the average load
in the balance of the canopy would be increased possibly as much as 10 per-
cent., However, use of the ogival shape had already been shown to correct
this condition in the fully inflated canopy and the adoption of a straight coni-
cal profile did not appear to be warranted. Actually, no method of improving
-the symmetry of a reefed canopy was known at that time, the efficacy of the
conical shape being pure conjecture.
The 30/60 biconical profile illustrated in Figure 15d represents the compro-
mise made with conflicting requirements for the design of a highly efficient
lightweight Ringsail of 127 ft Do. The profile is a straight-line approxima-
tion of the desired ogival profile-over -the major canopy area based on the
assumption that the sharply conical apex could be coped with by reinforce-
ment of the normally heavy crown rings at small weight cost. Since, one
design goal of the new program was to simplify the method of computing
Ringsail gore coordinates, a tri-conical design canopy with a 15° crown, 30'
midrif, and 60°skirt was never pursued.
The fullness distribution of the bi-conical Ringsail canopy illustrated in

Figure 18 represents an attempt to reconcile two conflicting requirements
in an optional fashion for a lightweight parachute, These two requirements
are:
-a) Introducing sufficient fullness in the leading edge of the
sails to provide necessary stress relief
b) Maintaining canopy shape with the trailing edge
It is clear that the bias cut solid cloth conical canopy does not hold the coni-
cal shape as it inflates and it obtaino stress relief from the great bi-axial
elongation inherent in the cloth weave. To approximate this action in the
annulate canopy it is-necessary to make the gore wider in the critical stress
regioa with the result that the conical profile becomes onion-shaped, which
is even rmore complex than the tri-conical.
Aerial drop testing of the new 127 ft Do bi-conical Ringsail was initiated in
March 1965 (Reference 8). After four successive failures of three succes-
sively heavier modifications at low load levels, the parachute design was
discarded as essentially unworkable. In each case the canopy split along a
32
dp-
<A0 . 4-)
00
00
044
0' 0
P-
++
0 -44
0 4)
S a 0
E--4
P44
'~0 433
'4
gore after disreefing, the rupture starting in ring #6 in test No. 1, in ring
#5 in tests No. 2 & 3 and in ring #7 in test No. 5. (The catastrophic failure
of test No. 4 triggered by a faulty pilot chute link is not pertinent. ) A com-
parison of the 30 degree conical shape with the inflated profile of the canopy
at the time of failure showed rings 5 through 7 to be in a region of maximum
strain; hence, prohibitively heavy cloth and/or reinforcing bands would be
required to prevent rupture.
The 128.8 ft Do Century Ringsail (designed in March 1966) was the first
Ringsail parachute to be designed in accordance with the new basic dimen-
sion scheme of Figure 12 utilizing at the same time the new IBM 7090 digital
computer program designated WG 1 76 (see Section 5. 4).
The results of three aeridl drop tests of this "all new" Ringsail, one a
cluster of two canopies with a weight of 17, 720 pounds, were sufficiently
impressive aerodynamically to justify unqualified acceptance of the revised
design. For example, the single parachute performance included 0CD
87 -. 90 at a rate of descent of 27 fps, average amplitude of pendular oscil-
lations +7 degrees and a specific drag area of CDSo/WP = 51 ft 2 /lb. Although
the two canopies of the cluster exhibited the characteristic divergence of
inflation observed in the 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail clusters during the Apollo pro-
gram, the ratio of maximum to average forces for this one test was about
half that of the maxima recorded previously. Figure 19 is the only good
photograph obtained from the two single canopy tests.
2. 1. 4 Ringsail Parachute Cluster Development
Ringsail cluster development embraces the Apollo Earth Landing System

(ELS). Perhaps if a new program were to begin wherein suitable time and
money was available, a Ringsall cluster possessing characteristics other
than those of Apollo would emerge. However, due to schedule pressures
which accompany development programs of the magnitude of Apollo, and
lack of any experience in clustering Ringsail parachutes, a sequential order
of events led to the development of the modified Ringsail used on Apollo.
The design, in its present form, is a composite of changes which were
necessitated during the development to solve the clustering problem. What-
ever improvements might be conceived in retrospect, the Apollo Ringsail
cluster performs exceedingly well and has safely and reliabily returned all
of this nations astronauts from space. The following paragraphs recapit-
ulate the development of the Apollo modified Ringsail and, so far as practical,
gives the reasons and rational behind the decisions that were made.
The proposed Apollo Earth Landing System (ELS) was to have as its prin-
cipal components a cluster of three identical parachutes. Each of these was
to be deployed independently of the others so that a system redundancy of
34
•1I I
=9?
F'igure 19, 128. 8 ft Do Lightv.eiý-ht Vv.tsion of the Century Ringaail

Descending at 27.9 fps (EAS) with 9762 Pounds (Bottom of
DLan.aged Gore Visibl ron RI1 Side)
50 percent could be provided by designing for safe recovery with any two of
the three parachutes operable. At the outset of the development program
the design descent weight of the command module (CM) including parachutes
was 9500 lbs and the rate of descent with two main canopies was not to
exceed 33 fps at 5000 ft msl. With allowance for an observed 6 percent
scatter in measured rates of descent, a design value of 31 fps at 5000 ft
was used. The corresponding EAS was 28. 8 fps under standard sea level
conditions with an equilibrium dynamic pressure close to 0. 99 psf. The
latter numbers are significant because they show the unit canopy loading of
the cluster (W/CDS) to be high relative to that of previous large parachute
cluster experience. One of the consequences is that the peak opening load
after disreefing occurs much later in the filling process as the canopy is
approaching full inflation, even in the ideal case of perfectly synchronous
inflation.
Prior to the Apollo ELS development program experience with the Ringsail
parachute in clusters was too limited to be represented by either useful test
data or definition of the problems. In April 1962 the design of the original
88. 1 ft Do Apollo main parachute for use in clusters of two and three was
carried out with no clear understanding of the magnitude of the operational
problem faced. The need for a conservative approach to the structural
design was indicated by Reference 10 In which the opening force data for
clusters of three 100 ft Do solid cloth canoples* exhibited the load sharing
characteristics given in Table L
These clusters were deployed from a common rigid container, housing three
deployment bags, by a single 12 ft extraction chute. As shown in Table 1,
the measured maximum opening forces compared to the estimated syn-
chronous opening load varied from nearly equal to +16%, reefed, and from
+17% to +108% on disreefing. This dramatic demonstration of the magnitude
of the cluster nonsynchronous inflation problem was not fully appreciated
at the time, and the Apollo ULS parachute development program was liiti-
ated In July 1962 with aerial drop tests of very lightweight single canopies.
These early tests were exploratory in character and had as their objectives:
(1) evaluation of reefing parameters and opening load factors for the nominal
design conditions, and (2) to produce the lightest possible parachute struc-
ture. Some of the experimental lightweight models were so extensively
damaged by opening loads that they could not inflate. however, it was noted
that it the skirt band was not broken, the canopy would inflate despite split
gores and massive crown damage.
* Several different canopy shapes were used: flat. 27* conical, and tri-
conical (18 -30 -67 5).
36
I!9
~~%to~0r-c.4
0 N' t- 0 N' )o.
-2 .0.
0~~~00Q 0000
0'- 0 000 0
0 0000 l 004
~ *o % *00t 0
~~)A~W
N0 ý4u0~cM
0~ "S
- -UK0 - Eo 0 o
0 w i I
to~ 4" #4
-41
Z -
Thus, at the conclusion of the first series of single parachute tests with
one stage of reefing, structural integrity of the lightweight 88. 1 ft Do
Ringsail had been demonstrated for maximum opening loads of 17, 300 ]bs
reefed and 19. 000 lbs on disreefing; these were about equal to the. probable
synchronous opening loads of a two-canopy cluster.
In anticipation of cluster rigging requirements, the 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail had

been designed with an effective suspension line length of 1. 40 Do. This
was done to increase the drag efficiency of the cluster relative to the con-
ventional approach using 1. 0 Do lines along with long risers to obtain
effective canopy separation at a moderate angle of attack. It will be
recognized that the general configuration of a two-canopy cluster can be
made similar to an equivalent single parachute of area a So, having an
effective line length equal to its nominal diameter, by providing a combined
lenga. of lines and risers equal to if Do on each of the two canopies.
The first three-canopy cluster test was performed in December 1962. The
failure of one canopy to ivdlate caused by a fouled reefing line did not
signal the existence of a serious problem. However. the second cluster
test a month later with two canopies was characterized by "some blan-keting"
in which the leading canopy was subjected to a maximum load of Z91370 lbs
on dis reefing with a total cluster load of 31, 500 Ibs. Now, the worst aspects
of the cluster operational problem had been demonstrated: nonsynchronous
inflation tended to degrade system reliability and substantlally xu4.muted
the peak loads to which each member of the cluster might be subjected.
One nitlt•l reaction to this, which overlooked the evidnce -of Reference 10,
was to ascribe the source of the troublo to the unique inflation character.
i •ties of the Ringsail itsel: the large bulbous development at the end of
the roeoed intern-il caused by fiting through tha side slots (as well a• the
canopy mouth) and the rapid growth-to full inflAtion followitg dlsreefting,
Later, it was demonstrated that these cha.vacterlsdcs aggavated non.
synchronous opening but did not cause it, Thus, a concerted attack on
"theproblemi th.t was launched early i- 1963 was mainly conceernd with
reducing the canopy growth during thie nosefed intetrva and increasing the
filling time after disreefing. While these objectives are not mutually
exclusive, some of the canolys modifications tested during the initial p"ae
of the investigation attacked one at the enpense of the other and only
succeeded in worsening clustet operation.
The experimental approach reflected the gnetral weakiess of cluster

operating theory preV. iling at that tinet. tnerierence between tahopite,
tometimes called "blanketin•", was couslder$ to be the prime source of
the 3trouble.
38
Two other tributarj factors were recognized. (1) nonsynchronous
de-
ployment causing the canopies to: arrive at line stretch and
start filling
at different times and (Ž) nonsynchronous disreefin& due
to variations in
reefing line cutter' initiation and timing. * The former was
of relatively
small effect and, being difficult to control with three independently
deployed
parachutes, was neglected. The latter, on thelother hand,
was not negli-
gible So long as cutter timing variations remaintl a large
fraction of the
diereef filling time. Hence, considerable thought and effort
was devoted
to both teduction of pyrotechnic cutter timing tolerances
and the creation
of a~synchronous disreefing system. However. no practical
synchronous
disreefing system was developed, and the-best that could
be done with
pyrotechnic line cutters was a reduction in timing variations
at any given
temperature from *1076 to *7% approximately. Tlterefore,
the most
promising course wan to effect a s tbsantial increase in the filling time
of the parachutes after disreeiing.
The experimental test program was carriod forwavrd in the
wind tunnel as
well as with full scale, aerial drops of two- 4nd three-canopy
clusters.
Two different series of tests were performetd in the Ames
40 by. 80 whid
tunnel at Moffet Field. The wind tunnel models 'consisted
of both full scale
stingle parachutes reefed and one-hal* and ot-third scale
models, The
one-third scale models were allowed toý disreet mnd inflate
fully in the
tunnel. A oane.third scale cluster was also tested.
Presented tn Table U is a tumnnnry of dwo differenut mndictns

basit Ringsail design that wor; tesitgd durln&the. experimental attackthe
on the
"clusternon-synchrontous opetniug prtAhkuntI Additioa.l variations
of these
nwdificatiOno 4ad a fe•w ova co•t•lgur•ions were testied an the wind tunnel
as noted in the following discussion.
The first graup of w iebrntard

t'n.*el nid ted iW 196) consisted
of live foIl Vcale (IDCL bi. I A). tw,- haluksC4i MCI 44 A1), aud two one*
third scale (0D r I t)i es spopi**-a.•, dot.e
iss••ortne.e n iS o different
r t
shaped canqpies -of ZU4t 3 iZt )ý,, •$e•1•acct i Thlr.
hteen d.titteet Ring-"
sail contagtaratkotsa were edval~tted Idtinc runeclust
oft*O'~r twe_ !'$ ft.
canop4ie. However. due to a YrW44ikn eQrpor ktW 04l1s6er teflo was inconcluelve.
"0A fairIv we.41.idefined, 5rdti*s

"1• " fee
disreef load-t of the l*esdug 4fl4 lt4r.- ~ainsgn tA .eir resvpective
diareefing~~~~~~~~~
u e~t4i tie,~ ~Steclaras devtkoptd
mor* fully ater i•n Refetrene ' .,
:11
toP
£4 N" 8Eo
0&4 UO ~S
£40
'310
AO U M
*4 044
* 40
* S n ~ ~ ih~f '( *
Al 0
*0 4 0.
++om
:,3• , , +
o 0
911
- 4- 0h
60% a
~~
U
+it ol 44
0i 46
4 . ,o
b4 .. ' $ ( ++4 00 - I•,
01 C) US: P4 m "' :.% W

*$409W
,,,,W i-i+
I
ot I
+,, :j+ , +
"to w + ' A.4L
o a P 0
(4 0+, Z
Configurations in Table II represented by wind tunnel models included
PDS-1543 and PDS 1543-535. All full-scale models had a 10 ft DO Ringslot
pilot chute attached. The canopy modifications evaluated were relatively
minor. Pocket bands and skirt stiffeners were added to promote more
uniform reefed inflation by reduciing random variations in the initiation of
effective filling. As noted, vertical tapes on the gore centerlines extending
across all slots to the skirt were aimed at reducing aerodynamic inter-
ference between canopies by reducing inflow through side slots.
Steady state airflow studies of the unmodified parachute reefed in the range
of 8 to 13% Do (with rings on radials) produced the results illustrated in
Figure 20 as an aid to understanding how clustered -canopies might inter-
fere with each other while reefed. The effect of the modifications on the
inflated shape of the reefed canopy was evaluated in terms of maximum
inflated to skirt mouth-diameter ratios and the distance from the skirt to
the-maximum diameter. The extended verticai tapes had no significant
effect on the inflated shape but increased from one to four the number of
skirt rings stabilized with all sails blown inward between radials (Figure
201-'). A measured reduction in reefed drag of approximately 18 percent
was attributed to this change in airflow over the canopy.
The variation of reefed diag with reefing ratio and with canopy scale vas
evaluated for the unmodified Ringsail design. The results had no bearing
on the cluster operational problem but appeared to confirm the general
increase of drag coefficient with scale observed with fully inflated Ring-
sails of different sizes in free descent.
Reefed inflation time cf the full scale models was evaluated, the results
indicating no significant effect of the stiffened skirt, early development.of
a steady inflation rate with pocket bands, and slower inflation with vertical
tapes extended over the lower slots. Evaluation of the reefed filling time
in terms of the dimensionless ratio vtf/Do for the three canopy sizes
yielded values within 10% of a'donstant 8.5. The disreef inflation time was
evaluated for the one third scale Ringsail model and the other small para-
chute models. Of possible significance is the observation that the Ringsail
value of vtf/Do = 1, 09 was 207%greater than for the solid cloth circular
canopy and 40% less than for the solid cloth conical canopy.
Steady state reefing line loads were also measured, adding to the useful
general information .produced by the wind tunnel program. On the whole,
42
-.. ..•
$4A
4A 4
:1i tb4
0
44\ 1 &,
~40 - ed V' '
4..4
K!4 ý4)
1-4
4 tv q '.
tv (d-
-4 4-) 4-A 4-(
C-d
0 1 o
44 N
A)
4) 44
N . ..
the results of this first series of wind tunnel tests of modified'Ringsail

"-parachutesproduced no conclusive evidence bearing or the cluster oper-
ational problem. It was -observed that pocket binds "~promoted rapid initial
reefed inflation" which could be 'construed to also promote more- uniform. -
reefed inflation of clustered canopies. Th 9 vertical tapes extended to the,
skirt appeared to have the desired effect of reducing nflow through the.
side slots, but whether or not this would benefit cluster operation remained
•to be demonstrated. Additional wind tunnel testing of two-canopy clusters
"-ofone-third scale models- was recommended.as an economical method of
evaluating the, effects of further modification 0f the Apollo main parachutes..
The second group of wind tunnel 'modelstested in October 1963 consisted

of six full scale and one, one-third scale test specimens by means' of which-
it was possible toevaluate 35 different configurations, of-which three fall
scale configurations were duplicated in one-third -scale (Reference, 16).
Configurations in Table U represented by wind tunnel modelý included
S. PDS 1543-535 (vertical tapea extended to skirt); PDS 1543ý547 (all of ring
5 removed); PDS 3iZ0 (increased-geometric porosity); PDS 1543-533 ' -
.(upper 507o of ring 5 removed). Other -configurations had all of the crown
slots covered in combination with'25%, 50% and all of rings 4, 5, & 6,
removed plus provisions for both radial and mid-gore reefing. lidermediate
canopy reefing for the purpose of forcibly reducing the diameter of the
inflated bulb was tested in both full and one third scale models with a
second reefing line installed inside ring 7.' This proved to have a very.
-unfavorable effect on the shape-of the reefed canopy. .
.Most of the one third scale models were tested with different reefing! ratiosL
both with and without an attached pilot chute of 3. 4 ft Do. Two falil scale
"high" porosity configurations were tested in whichi.9 inches-and 3.8
inches of material were removed from the trailing edges ?f all ringsails
below the ringslot crown to increase the total porosity'by 25% and 50%
respectively. The effect of these-changes in canopy ventilation on the
calculated porosity of the different wind tunnel models is summarized-in
Table LEI. For the most part, these modifications were aimed at reducing
the reefed canopy bulb diameter, but one full scale test was mide with ,
10 ft diameter guide surface canopy riding inside the mouth of the 88. ft"
it
DO Ringsail restrained only by a long riser, The reason for this. is .
not now clear because the technique was designed to-accelerate the opening,
of the canopy mouth where a very short total filling time was needed in a
non-reefed parachute. Altogether, 159 wind tuAnel runs were made at low
dynamic nressures ranging freom 2. 5 to 20 psf. Data were accumulated on
reefed drag areas, projected diameters, and, for several oAe third scale
models, reefed filling times and the filling timey from the disreef to fu.ll
open. The results indicated that a wide slot bordering the ringslot crown
44
- .i
S' j TABLE I'.
POROSITY VARIATION OF THE WIND TUNNEL MODELS TESTED

"Geometric Porosity
.. , Model
. " DescriptioA
, - ~Skirt Area 'CroOn. AreaMaeilTtl
Material Total"
1- Basic Model With: Po . P-oity
i :. _ . .. T " -
______________ ()xs/z2.
M8 1 c%)X/50 XN(%)
V Xr(%) 1XTr7. 21 -
Open Crown 2.Z 1.00 1. E0 1.00 3.59 7.21 1.00

Closed crown" 2.12 1.00 0.17 0.1) 3.60 5.89 0. 82
*5016Row' No. 4 01 ___
I removed open 2. Z 1t00 4.36 2.9,1 3.55 10..0.3 1.39.
, ," "•
r.crown-
-*100% Row No. 4
removed open
crown
22
2.
1 1.00 6.80 4.53 '3.48 12. 40 i.72
.
'257 Row, No. 5 -"

S. lose crow
~~closed c2.12n ;.. 1.00 1.88 1. 45 3. 58 7.56 1.05
50% Row No. 5

jremoved closed 2. 12 1.00 3.40 2. 27 3. 54 9.06 1.26
crown
S• -- .. 10076 Row ,No. 5
-remoed closed '2. 12 1,00 6.43 4.28' 3.50 12.05 1.67
C
rownI _ __"_
crow --
Sopen crown o.12 z0 1.00 7.10 4 .73 3.49, 13.38 1.85
.to 1251 No.
6 -Z5%RowNo.
2.12 1.00 .217 1.45 3.57 7.86 1.09
:Clowsed, crowi }
-removed closed Z. 12 11.00 14.11 2.74 3.50 9. 73 1..35
' '~!10,0%Row No. 6 [. ,, i, ,,. , ,,!

6 . 1o 1.00 18. 5. 55 3.34 13.78, 1.91
,1001o,Row No. 6,....' [
Z..121 1.00 948 6.32 1 3. ~ 51 23. 10
Sopen crown I I
. Material removed from. leading edge of sail row rather than trailing
edge as on Row Nos. 5 and 6. Porosity v~luescalculated p r
Reference 5.
45
SI
....
produced the greatest reduction in reefedbl diameter and that ring 5
*was the best location for it. The bulb diameter decreased with increasing
width of the slot and the reefed filling time decreased at. the same time
because the volume to be filled was reduced. On the othershand, the filling
time after disreefing increased significantly with increased slot width.
Quantitative. evaluation of the effects the Ring sail modifications had on

- - cluster operation was possible only for those that were subjected to full
scale aerial drop tests with suitable instrumentation. The following analysis
i1s based on the opening loads reported in Appendix A of Reference 13. The
criterion of cluster performance is the same as that applied to the 100 ft Do
solid cloth parachutes in Table-I. However, in Table IV only the data for.
tests showing a maxi-fum- ratio of opening force to the average are given
for each modification.
It is clear that maximum measured values of FIFav for most of the con-
figurations tested-might be increased by performance of a statistically
adequate number of tests, but in some cases the results of one or two tests
were sufficiently extreme to justify rejection of the modification. Outstand-
ing examples are POS 1544, PDS 1650, PDS 2071, PDS 1543-535,- and
PDS 1543-549. A reduction in sail leading edge fullness to minimize inflow.
through the side slots also reduced total porosity and simply accelerated
*the rate i in.,ý"ation after disreef. Increasing the-crown porosity by en-
larging the ringslot area of the canopy did not increase' the total porosity-
enouph to lengthen the filling time after disreef. Extending the vertical
*tal s the full length of the gore to restrict filling through the side slots did
nct have the desired effect and canopy filling after disreef was accelerated.'
The use of short suspension lines to slow down canopy filling was largely
-ir~effectual because only the reefed filling time waF increased.
PDS 2072, a hybrid Ringsail with a. solid cloth crown, was not rejected
-because of its cluster performance (Table IV)-but Lbecause of the -exaggerated
balloon-like development it exhibited at vhe enid of the reefed interval. This
modification sharply- accelerated filling after disreef. A total of six full
scale drop tests, two of them with clusters, was conducted and the decision
was made to abandon this idea.
* -Considerable effort also was devoted to optimization of the width of the slot
in ring 5 by means of full scale aerial drop tests. The object was to obtain
the smallest possible reefed bulb diameteT without jeopardizing opening
reliability-, one of the ýone-third scale miodel~s had been marginal in this
respect on disreefing in the wind tunnel. The reduction in reefed bulb diam-
eter by the additi.on of the wide slot waa given considerably more weighat
than t-he increase in filling time after disreefing that attended it. Conse-.
quertly, anew*high porosity Ringsail model (PD 31) that showed no'.
"46
1
Cpl. .0
4ý
0
in
CN
0
0 Nco0.
LA
ON a
M.100 0
I-- n0
v 0j
en r~-0
"I0o
ILn n0
0 0O
otU1 t~~-= c-
* V- - i n- OD N -00
04
0'0 0f00 00
a0 000oi 000
-ý - 00u N M N t- a, VN- NNNr
00
en ;p-
N4O l~ >t-
NO N > N
0co A_ 1 _
00 0U 0041 O~r 00
G- k
4:4
U _ _ .. _ _ _
HP
-4
U OD
01
kino -Oo a, 0 0, a m a, ODo Ln 0'
M~~ 0 L v 0 t- N 0 V4) 0 .CI'0 LjCO 4'tA
___
oo cc__ __m _____N 0 NN
a
0n 0 - 00
DVI fl
0 L00 0 0 0) U)t- - 0~ O
0-%
ZCen 'a N 0-40 00N 0 00 UN

0 uNM LA a 0 N N0
#-I - uic0,
V) ~'o 1l- CY 0 Ln'00 t0'
Q. '0 Nt41O u~-. '~ - ~ ft- -'
t 0 c 0 -coo 00' 0 00 0 1.)0 00 a '0.A O0 0

-l M01t - 0%-
S 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0Q0
- mk
00 0 %0
CO N a, 0 1t- .10 N 04cy Oc V0 0 U
t's
- -
-4 N- N N- N b - N V% ~ -
r:
0411
J~ik
4:
;in ___
t4 -
1'
040 00 A4
Nn o
tON
48
significant reduction of the reefed bulb in the wind tunnel yet which promised
a substantial increase in both reefed and disreef filling times was dropped
from the program without further test evaluation.
Due to schedule pressures, experimental model performance in the wind

tunnel dominated technical decisions. The adoption of mid-gore reefing is
an example. The full-scale models tested in the wind tunnel with mid-gore
reefing exhibited a high degree of poly-symmetry, each sail being held tauntly
inward between radials. Drop tests made prior to this on an experimental
basis had exhibited no overt difference in reefed opening characteristics of
the Apollo parachutes with mid-gore reefing. At least two reasons for this
can be cited: (1) the reefed filling time was not long enough for the poly-
symmetric shape produced by a taut reefing line to develop; (2) only the
S skirt ring of sails was controlled by the reefing line, the others remaining
free to flutter in and out at random, (except on those models with vertical
tapes on the gore centerlines extended across all slots to the skirt). While
mid-gore reefing has worked very effectively, we cannot show conclusive
data that it was superior.
While it cannot be said that a statisticaJly adeqg ate number of instrumented

cluster tests has been performed with either the original 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail,
the 85. 6 ft DO model with four gores removed, or the modified 85. 6 ft DO
design adopted for the Apollo Earth Landing System, comparison of the
maximum f..rce ratios in Table IV indicates that some improvement in
cluster operation may have been realized. Recognizing the possibility that
the number of canopies in the cluster also may have an effect on synchro-
nism of inflation, the comparison is made in Table V.
TABLE V
MAXIMUM FORCE RATIOS FROM TABLE IV

SNumber of Canopies
Numbr
ofCanoies Origiztl~ Ring sail Modified Ring sail
in Cluster e 1rc,f Disreef
Test No Test No.
Firtax/Fav mxFa
3
41 -1~ J#5 1.541
13-ut1. .1 ..:¾
:
* Test 29-Z may be cons iderec.d irnvalidt becaube i pilot chtOe separated
from one of the main canopiVI!S.
•* Test 2.6-5 may be considered invalid bet,.ikie a pdanned difference in
reefing line cutter operat (itnd i 1I.
'' wa
w used and the actual
difference was 1. 33 second•i,
4 ')
The fact that the results of the three-canopy cluster data are negative was
apparently overlooked at the time, because the individual parachute loads
are greater in the two-canopy cluster than in the thr.•e canopy cluster.
The ratios shown in Table V indicate that the maximum probable opening
load after one stage of reefing may have been reduced from 1 51 percent to
149 percent of the maximum synchronous opening load of one parachute in
a two-canopy cluster. This difference is small and the comparison is incon-
clusive because of significant differences between the two parachute systems
and the way in which they were tested. The secondary goal of the develop-
ment program was attained in that the bulbous development of the reefed
canopy was substantially reduced. The design modification responsible for
this change in Ringsail behavior was the wide slot in the crown of the canopy
formed by removal of the upper 75 percent of the width of ring 5. This
increased the total porosity of the canopy by 73 percent (from 7. 5% to 12. 5%)
and reduced the drag coefficient by 12% (from CDo .85 to CDo . 75). The
effect on canopy growth during the reefed interval in terms of drag area (CDS)
was marked (down from 90% to 20% approximately), the wide slot falling at
the periphery of the reefed canopy at disreef. The reefed filling time was
reduced because the volume to be filled was smaller. The filling time from
disreef to full open was increased by two factors: (1) the greater differential
volume to be filled starting with a smaller reefed volume, and (2) the in-
creased ratio of outflow to inflow produced by the higher canopy porosity.
The increase in filling time from disreef to full open was estimated to be
approximately 50 percent. The stability of two-canopy clusters was im-
proved, the average amplitude of pendular oscillations being reduced from
*8 to *3 degrees.
The design limit loads applicable to each of the three parachutes in the
cluster as reported in Reference 1 2 are:
Reefed opening 21,400 lbs

Disreef to full open 25. 000 lbs
The maximum cluster load calculated was 49, 700 ibs for three canopies
opening reefed. Probable synchronous opening loads calculated by the same
method are:
Reefed opening 16, 300 lbs (ea of 3)

Disreef to full open 17, 000 lbs (ea of 2)
50
The maximum load ratio corresponding to the limit design case on dis-
reefing is:
25, 000
Fmax/Fav - 000 = 1. 47
17.
While this may appear to be slightly unconservative in view of the test results
in Table V, the difference is small relative to the errors inherent in the
method of load prediction (e. g., see Reference 14).
Several reasons for the improvement in cluster operation of the modified

Ringeall have been given:
a) Reefed drag area growth stopped at the 5th ring.
b) TAhe smaller reefed canopy volume to be filled made it

easier for a lagging canopy to catch up with its mates by
the end of the reefed interval,
c) Reduction of the bulboua reefed development reduced

ae.rodynamic interference betweon canopies.
d) The increased filling time after disreefing reduced the

retarding effect of the direef time differential on
subsequent inflation of the lagging canopy.
The changeover to two stages of ieefii fur the AHullu llock Heavywe ght
after the gross landing weight increased from 11,000 to 13, 000 lbs (approx-
imately) did not degrade cluster perforvnxnce. The maximum recorded
force rtio for the final qualification, tests with three-canopy clusters was
Fmax/Fav - 1.49. the same an thut for two-canopy clusters in the Block I
system. bince the synchronows opetitrg lo.d -4for nornial entry with 2 drogues
and 3 mains is in the order of 10, 000 lbh on ouch parachute in the cluster the
probability of any one parachitte bei,,w! kubje<td to a peak load greater than
15, 000 lbs appears arnall. Structurý1l intgritty of the parachutes has been
demonstrated for each opening stage with me tured individual loads of
30, 000 to 33, 000 lbs (alit) ruxitiate 10, l'hersp.ore, !he structural reliability
of the Apollo BlocU 11 Heavywaight matwt p.*rachvkO clubter ia very high.
As noted, the history of iI ngwt.wet,•

ini ,:•:- h•cludea one aerial
drop test of two 128. 8 ft Do "' nttury" iAraf:htvt;* with 4 grove load of
17, 720 lbs. (See Frontispiece.) The Its, wt; perforated on 27 October 1966.
The system was launched from an aircraft in level flight at approximately
150 KEAS and 10, 000 ft altitude. The canopies were reefed 13 percent Do
for 8 seconds. Deployment and opening took place in a normal manner and
the peak loads are presented in Table VI.
TAh3tE VI
MEASURED OPENING FORCES OF TWO
128.8 ft Do RINGSAIILS IN CLUSTER
Canopy Max Reeled FR Force Max Disree Fo

No. lbs. Ratio at Diereef lbs. Ratio
lbs
M. . 19,400 .94 7,050 13,s800 .67
a- z 800 1.06 13.900 Mt600. 1.33

(Avg.) 20.600 1.00 -- 700 1.00
The time sequence of events is given in Table VIL"
TABLE VII
C LUSTER OPENING TIME SEQUENCE OF TWO
18. 8 ft Do RINGSAILS IN CLUSTER
Canopy Event time after line stretch-seconds

No, F maX Disreef Fo ax. Canopy halt open
M-I 1.88 8.41 9.59 18.25
M-2 z.69 8.59 9. 67 11.26
With a unit canopy loading of 0. 81 psf, the systemn descended at an average

velocity of 26. 1 fps EAS (C 0 w .84), and the average amplitude of pendular
oscillations was *2 degrees. 0The cluster specific drag area for this test
was 2;CDSo,/ ý;Wp u 48"f~tilb."
it will be noted that although the lagging canopy disreefed first, the small
lead of 0. 18 seconds did not prevent it from continuing to lag on a divergent
course as the lead canopy contributed an increasing major fraction of the
total force causing deceleration of the system. With a maximum force ratio
of 1. 33, the cluster nonsynchronous inflation characteristic, is roughly
52
comparable to the average performance recorded for all parachutes tested
during thet Apollo Block.I main parachute development program. Had the
lead parachute disreeled first., Uthn the maximnum force ratio would have
been much higher.
In order to understand the basic cause of the cluste:r inflation problem it is

necessary to employ more precise language. Termo like "aerodynamic
*intierference" find "blanketing" d6 not describe what is actually ha~pening in
a cluster system, and it has not been p6sbible to quantize a flow field through
and around clustered canopiLes Lhat fits such a description. For examnple,
when all of the canopies begin to fill, their moaths lie in the same plane
normal to the airstream., and, their initial inlet areas are -nearly equal. The
only change in inlet geotuttry visible during subsequent inflation is the
flattening of comaon boundaries as the canopies come together and their
are-as begin to diverge. t. e.ý there is no blant~etizig in the seuse that one
canopy obstruct.%airflow into another.
During the course of the detailed study of the Apollo parachute- 9ystem re-
ported in R~eferences 13 anid 14. an analysis of parachute load predictiou
methods brought tozlight a possibbk mechanis-m be-hind the cluster infllation
problemo. It has been described loosely as 'iiitflation instabl~ity induced by
4system deceleration. " The physical process i* dlarified by conside ration
of the equation for the tangential force produced by an inflating pa rachute,
C~~ ~ DS4
V M " W Siny
B)) ( 4)
Thie first term repfestnt6 siuipla ýi~ynau.~

ra. The docond terti is
the monanentuni of the Incomning 4irw~s44 4 lArge -posiltivt! 4ttanitly. The
thittd terni reprtisents the inortial fnc# of tiao pattadtute 4Y the air thia#6
moviuvng vith it tautsed by symien-,d,,O ra! 4-1t, 4i newtivv qkiit~t vhith i's
Somtimtnes preater thant the ffrst lwui twvm~ *~4#.fýtieti Vtis ltcte event
becomiee, vitiblt gs a moetr dýi r fa11tieniri of the canqpy at the
enid of a PeraIM of r~ipid inflation NL,. t et ::*ue ý0 as, IS. I tecoadt). The
fouxtib teirm~I isth 14nge~l~ia wtioht ns of the paahue siataU enouigh
to be -tgotod in notost s~cs
It is the third ft~ni L~it identaifif Ot.h sic -i
Clistere~l coioes, V, the SVy041", ýO' ~itke tha. k the
Single Pataochute ~y~,is m41Ci k~r,1*4 the dtsg
growth "iithe ittdvitLa-0 z~aiv . -th vpeo i4, i, thesorc
ot the detelotatlon, :ht!%h,1 tr'
a~ e~i Al v.A I of Ow~ ca"OPies
In the cluster. The toiect IN,, o"~o~t
the t~rmta.s-a n
ta~h canopy is ftlt a4 4 44~ni ~ ~ e~a across the canoPy.
the air mass tending to continue moving at its initial velocity, and, of course,
this diminishes the motive power forcing air to flow into the canopy gt a time
when the free stream dynamic pressire is dtc~ying. The slightest hebitation
on the part of one canopy to ingest air at the same rate as its mates will cause
it to fall behind or lag in a divergent manner until the system deceleration
drops to a low level. Lacding any stabilizing mechanism, inequitable inflation
and load sharing is the most probable mode of operation, as all test evidence
indicates.
In the comparison of different cluster systems, maeximunm and average decel-

eration leveis during canopy inflation would bt the governing criteria. These
are functions of unit sanopy loading reefed and disreefed and of the average
flight path angle. Thtzse factors were neglected in the foregoing compaAson
of the Apollo cluster systems. The actual difference in unit canopy loading
was not negligible because the modified Ringsail was both smaller and had a
lower drag coefficient than the original design. The effect of this on the unit
canopy loading o! fully' infLited two and three-canopy clusters with W 9500 lbs
is shown in Table VIII for both the 72 and o8 gore models.
TAD LE VIII
COMPARISON OF UNIT CANOPY LOADUNGS OF
T!•RIE -AP•LLO PA.ACHUI E SYSTIM$
aingsail Design oripaid eld4 Modified (ApolloO)

Model Designation I P IS
154 1z P1S 153So l
o88.1 (7 gore) .re)

SM,6 (4$ -#u• 45, 6 (68 gore)
hIT-b VI Ae
•0 L 0o .94
tU\ape I ie 110 ,0
54
In general, the average system deceleration is inversely proportiunal to the
unit canopy loading for parachutea of similar inflation rates. Thus, in the
absence of an inflation stabilizing mechanism, the effects of nonsynchronous
inflation could be expected to be more severe on the average for the original
Apollo cluster than for the modified system on this ground alons.
2. 1. 5 Summary of Ringsail Parachutes
Dasign ard performance data for the different Ringsail parachutes of stan-
dard deaiin built and tested in single canopy systems are summarized in
Tblc IX, For purposes of clarification, a "standard" Ringsail is one which
has a spherical or ogival constructed profile without any wide slots or modifi-
cations of that nature. A "modified" Rini sail is one which hats a constructed
prefile other than spherical or ogival in nature (such as conical or bi-conical)
or incorporating wide l0ots such as the Apollo or PEPP Ringsails. A symbol
code is provided for identificatin of the different Ringsail models in the
graphs. Additional symbols for models not listed in Table IX will be found
in Table XH. The characteristtcs of the modified Ringsail used in the Apollo
EI main parachute cluster are outlined in Section Z. 1. 4 and Appendix A and
performance data are Liven in 0ection 3. da.a
*Similr
for modified Ring-
sails designed for other more speciali:.4 uses are given in Appendix B.
The special purpose Ringsails included a steerable version known as the
"Glide sail" (Reference I?), a target canopy of an aerial recovery system
in which the primary was an annular parachute (Referenee 4)ý and a tatidi-
date design in the NASA program for development of a planetary entry para-
chute for the Viking Mars Lander (Reference 18).
Z, C PH ES*NT STATUS OF RINGSAIL DL0N AND OPEUATIONAL

rnEM Y
The preti-nt coicept t4 . optlzc3ir Hingsnil patirchutc design for gentral
use as ?te;resetted by the 128.6
-2 ft Cc-utry aingsait Of 'mid-weight"
construc~ton, This atakchute conforms with the bais dimension scheme
given in Figure 1 a•nd has exhibited upeltior performance in all categories,
both i•dividually ai in a cluter Of? two IReference 5). Whent comparison is
*madewith other. parachute types oisdes cnnd-ltwiu of eaiqAt scale, caopy
loadinu {Wt%5 • 0. 83 ps, and stability of descent O *71) a drag, to(-
-
•icietnt of1C e 0 0. ' aI-peare to be cteitiknal. Ever, thae ighteiht

trtodel
detcendin with two spuit gores had CD 0. 6i, Wh equal6ed the d*esi
drag coef$Zcient. Although the canopy ftlling tnte ternaio relatively short,
the openlng load faact is moderate, etablhg -a uct dag ea greater
tha0 CS
Wa ~ ett~be aQttajse int 4k 'We t'ane".t*IStructure deeigre~d
foweprrpin at 1 4. i)00 feeti altittadt and *j 10O0 pwpi. The design limnit
4opeing load for these r-onditions WrMuId $eý FeO 6a lbi.
The statements in paragraph 2. 2 are qualified by the following considerations
pertinent to the performance evaluation.
a. The number of tests performed was insufficient to

establish firm averages.
b. The pilot to main parachute drag area ratio was 0, 005

and the pilot chute was permanently attached to a special
bridle harness on the apex of the main canopy.
The drag of the attached pilot chute was believed to be large enough to influ-
ence the reefed opening characteristics of the main canopy by retarding its
rate of growth. This appears to be borne out by the quasi-flattened shape of
the reefed peak load for approximately 1. 5 seconds as shown in Figure B8 of.
Reference 9. An examination of Figure B 15 of Reference 9 (see Figure 35)
also indicates similar peak load flattening in the force tracings of the indi-
vidual parachutes of the cluster. The characteristic "spike"? which accom-
panies reefed inflation of Ringsail parachutes without attached pilot chutes
(see Figure 34) is not there. The force tracing of the Gemini parachute
however (see Figure 33) shows what could be interpreted as a quasi-flattened
shape at the reefed peak load similar to that of the Century parachutes refer-
enced above. The Gemini parachute however did not have an attached pilot
chute. Therefore, the total effect of an attached pilot chute on Ringsail
performance is still not clear and should be subject to system analysis. The
following deployment options are open to the designer:
a. Use of the drogue as a pilot chute when conipatible with

the system configuration and reliability goal.
b. A free pilot chute which carries the deployment bag away

with it.
c. A permanently attached pilot chute stowed outside the

deployment bag, both being retained on the apex of the
main canopy with a strong bridle.
56
k
STANDARD RINGSAIL PARACIHt A
Symbol RingealU Basic# Reefirg Design Conditions (Design) P4
Do No. No. c Ix
/T 4t Weight Altitude V max q Lim F, Lin" IVe C1
(0 . (b) (ft) (pal) (Ib) (fps)
"(Rt) G ores RIl es
- - -KTS
. .-
cZ, 19.0 16 5 >.89 7.2117.0 (none) ZOO 7,000 ZOO 135 2. 10 (34) (.56
0 4730(R) 190 120 R)
.183 1I 6 .93 3.7 ,. 82 6 230(DR) 10,000 134 61 (DR) 3,000 42 .59
1 73710.8 1•2. (noe 200 7,000 OO 135 2, 50O (2'4) .61

rj 4.1
4.1 I
24
4
-7
7"7/10.8
3.7.
10 4 325 1,000 377 481 4,000 (31) (.64
A29.6
29.5
Z
29.6
?.8
24
24
9
9
9
.9
.93
3 .7
.93 12.7112.
2.74/14.2
10
-I.
(none)
10/20 .6/6
4 1,650
270
1,085
15,000.
1,000
25,000
272Z250
400
-
232
542
18Z
6,200
6,700
4,400
(55)
zz
44.5
(.68
.67
.6,
ZQ. ? 24 7 .q3 1.97 111.5 (none) 21;0 1,000 350 410 6,000 (ZI.6) (.70
70 3 , 3 1 . ZZ 12 545 1,000 351 422 7, 500 25 .68

S40.5 40 s791 3.15 10 4 1,000 350 410 6,000 23.3 .66
41.0 32 9Z /7.8 635 1,000 351 422 7,500 24.1 .70

- 41,0 32 9 .93 2.42 9 2 694 21,000 285 274 7,600 25 .7(
41.0 32 9 f.78 2.42 14 8 1, 300 0,000 150 76 6,000 35 .6;

1.93 6f7
i, O S 6. z
56.2 48
48 99 .97
.97 . 9/7. 1
1.94 10 6 950 15,000 130 57 4, 500 20.5 .78
3-6.2 48 9 .97 1.94 10 4 900 1,000 172 100 5,000 (20) (.78
63,0 48 10 .92 1I 4 1,900 15,000 217 159 8,000 26. 5 73
O 63.1 48 10 .97 /.417.1 12 4 2,340 10,000 150 76 10,000 14.0 .91

279
M . 7!
0 74.2 60 12 .94 1.56 12 6 1,700 50,000 139 66 11,250 6
( 84. Z 72 13 .941.Z8/77 8.3 4 2,980 12, 000 205 142 110,000 20.5 .71
S84.2 72 13 .94 1. 28/7. 10.5 8 4,400 1v, uuf, 190 120 16, G ZO
V 88.1 72 12 1.40 1/72 13 6 4, 750 10, 000 151 77 Z2, 000 27.8 .8~
88,3 72 14 1.40 1, 79/10.7 13 6 4,750 10, 000 190 122 23, 000 127.5) 8!
0 124. 5 112 17 1.40 1.96/8.7 11.5 6 9,500 i5,000 137 64 28,000 (27.8) 8!
128.8 112 21 1.15 2,08 12.5 8 M 9786 15,000 137 64 28,000 26.4 .9(
/ IL 9762 127.9 .81
189.5 156 217 1.18 2.24 NR U/5 20, 560 18,000 153 80 40, 000 26.90 (
_ _ _/.26.9 .81
(1) Average pack density (3) At altitudes belbw approx. 20, 000 Rt; M, L De
0 t 15.40 deterues between 20, 000 - 50, 000 ft S
(Z) With cylindrical bomb (4) Lightweipht design had parts of 2 gores split N.R. No
It I. ( ) Denotes design valkies not verified by test
TABLEIX
CHUTES - DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE DATA
Performance Weight Status References bate Total

.- - Number
e 0 Avg. CDSo W (1) Active vs Inactive of
D e WP 6 Retired - Reason Drawing Program qtlor Design First Tests
SD C p (lb) (lb/Wt3 ) Operational System No. Application Irest
2
(ft /lb)
( (34) . 56) 5 - 4.6 22 Retired - XT too high 62746 RP-76 Recovery I ,8/57 N. R.
'42 .59 5-10 Z9. 1 5.6 - Active R-6204 Gemini R&R Pilot/Drogue 6/62 8/6Z 4
(24) .65 - 7. 1 22 Active 80165 kP-76 Recovery UI
(31) (.64) - - 8. 3 22 Inactive R-3656 Redstone' FITR
'(55) (.68) 5-10 - 14.0 22 !nactive 66850 Test Vehicle Recovery

2 .67 7 38.6 11.9 22 Inactive R-3220 Skysail Mod D 6/56
.5 .67 5 Z2.8 14.0 Active R-5616 Asset Recovery 10/6A 11/62 9

1.6) (,70, 10-15 - 12.2 28 In navy mart in Baker System R-3230 Skysail Mod E 9/60
25 .68 15-25 - 19.0 25 Retired - 0 too large R-5001 B-58 CES Recovery I 1/60 3/40l
10 P.3 .66 10-15 31.2 27.4 22 Retired - Wp too high SK-7016 RP-77A Recovery 7/55 10/55 5
1 .1 .70 5-10 42.3 21.9 45 Operational R-5044 DB-58 CES Recovery I1 5/60 6/60 33
11( 2)
Z5 .70 - 47.2 19.6 - Inactive PDS-1859 Sud Nose Cone 7/63
'35 .62 6 37.0 24.0 - Inactive R-3877 GE E-,6 Recovery 7/62
(.68) 9
0,5 .78 6 50.2 38.6 33 Active R-3303 GAM-72 Recovery 5/56 7/56 14
0) (.78) - - 38.6 24 Active 62341 RP-77D Recovery

.5 .73 6 - 53. 0 31 Retired - Obsolete 33023 Q-4A Recovery 3/55 4/55
0 .91 57.4 55.4 28 Active R-5157 Mercury Cap. L.S. 4/59 4/59 77
.9 .75 5 43.0
.6 .78 5-15 (3) 46.2 73.0 38 Operational R-4444 Lockheed E-5 Recovery 8/60 9/60
.5 79 42.2 104.3 - Inactive R-4,177 Q-4B Recovery Backup 10/59

5- 9.6 .76 7 41.9 101 22 Active but obsolete R-6220 Gemini Cap. L.S. 10/59
.8 .85 8 49. 1 105.4 33 Retired - Obsolete PDS- 1543 Apollo Exp. 1 4/62
5) (.85) Active PDS-3120 Apollo Ext. II 1./63
.8) (.85) - - 218 22 Active R-6853 Century 1 6/63
14 .90 7 51.3 230 25 M Active R-7811 Century 1 M 3/66 6/66 1

4 51.4 206 22 L Inactive R-781Z L (4) 3/66 7/66 1
.9 .81
0 .90 45.6
9 .85 z2 557 Inactive 20K System 5/66
Deolgnates medium and light conutruction

Symbol used In data plots (see Table Xli also)
No record 57/58
nate
Co
A. Forciblp ejection by thruster, mortar, ejector bag,
etc., with pilot chute'stowed on the-deployment bag, the f
bag being free to separate after canopy-stretch.
e. Any other means comp tible' with system operational

I requirements.
Fhe geom:etric porosity oecrowA ventilation is a small but important part

of Ringsail parachute total porosity. By governing the iniflation rate and
growth,of the reefed cwinopy it determines the magnitude of the reefed opening
load factor. The crown geometric porosity as varied sons ewhat erratically
throughout the Olevelopmnent period between excessively high (in small Ring-
sails) and unnecessarily low (c. g., Mercury 63 ft D ). depending somewhat
on how much conservanis, aopeaaed to be called forp. The general downward
trend of crown geometric porosity with increasing can9py diameter is shown
'in Figure 21. Aftr the vale of ver.tical tapes had been firily established,
the earlier; design trend was superseded by the rhcommendedrdesige curve
given., The us of ar lpwer porosity crown without vertical tapes is not
recommended.
taldulat'on of the crown geomrctric

porosity is simplificdp bydneglecting the
area covered by the radial ieod vertical tapcs and by the vent lines.t Thedsu
tithe vent;rrs ede b tho rirpen yincy'omnoeq bdne
earetrs dei' gn rendtrwas ds hgn ur 0.
is used tohefine the crown geometric porosity number Xgc LEpS ISO. This
simplified
:*' approach is usefulI foro0Iscomparison of one Ringsail design with
another but should not be applied as a gene~ral criterion.
It: will be recognized, that ther~e is a sound theoretical basis for the difference
in performnance between s~ynall and large ýscale parachutes (Ref!6rcnce 14).
The -,ize effect (increase in C with D ) can be acCOUn~te~l for. Reference 24,
inclicates an increase ini D -with Do for extenided sk~irt and conical canopis
and Ringsails apparently gfom the samerpattern. Also, sommie of the dif-
_fer'n~es in performance between the I'lingsail and- other parachuteltypes can
be explained on theoretical grtounds. The folldeing considertions derived
fromth bothl, theory and experiments are, pertin Ient.
Difeuendes that can. bi actountrd for (plausibly explainred):
a. The relative efl orticitoof the naraclinte

structure increases
with is caleb (re•lfe rence 14).
b. The unit; lopndine of parachute suspcnasioa lines and canopy

radials (Wi/cr ) increases with scale (when t fNin
approxiry atdely constsare).
;. eE BesttAvailable Copy
- . - - - - 0
I
* I I 'I .44
1.1w 1
I 'fP17 I
I
r 'fY7
I
I
I
I7i j -
-
III I I '-4
I
I '4
ii
14 I
I.-..
t:c.)
IL.2
I
I
rr
ii
if
--
-
0
* I!--
* - 0
'4
*
-t * E.4-
.-- - .
I .:i
.-
I I 0
... i
. I I' '44
'4
0
0
* r-v 0 -
*
K1.. I
* -. ''------/--'-:-. I! -
* I.
* 1/
..........................................................
1'* .10
I . .... K 1-4
*1>* '.4
0,
*ji
I- 777. .
4)
4
I.
- I .7
I I p
44 0
60
c. The relative porosity of the canopy may increase with
scale due to (a) above.
Differences which are theoretical:
d. The bulbous development of the canopy at disreef

accelerates canopy growth and shortens the final
filling interval.
e. The contribution of skin friction to total canopy drag

is augmented by the surface roughness produced by the
differential fullness in sail leading edges.
f. Resistance to air through-flow is greater in crescent-

shaped slots than in rectangular slots due to increased
interference flow in the sharp corners.
g. The positive angle of attack of the sails promotes

continued filling through the side slots during the reefed
interval.
h. The flared skirt augments the radial component of the

opening forces acting on the canopy.
The scale effects may combine to produce a larger increase in canopy

drag area than is lost to reduced through-flow resistance, the result
being a net gain in total drag coefficient with increasing scale. Augmented
canopy roughness undoubtedly accounts for an increment of Ringsail drag
coefficient over that of other canopy types such as a Ringslot parachute of
equal total porosity and/or stability of descent. Another increment would
be accounted for by the effect of augmented radial forces on the projected
area of the fully inflated canopy. The accelerated filling rate after. dis.
reefing would account for an increment of Ringsail opening load factor
over that of other canopy types of equal total porosity.
Some thought has been given to the measures that might be taken to fu-rther
improve the Ringsail design, i. e.
a. To make ita performance more repeatable &iLd hence

more predictable.
b. To make it adaptable to requirements for different

inflation r.ateb, slow as yell as5 fast.
61
For example, the wind tunnel tests of Reference 15 showed that pocket bands
regulated initial opening of the canopy mouth so that filling started earlier.
This, through elimination of random delays, would make the reefed filling
time more repeatable about its minimum value. Pocket bands were in-
stalled for this purpose on the small Ringsail target canopies of the UAR
systems described in Reference 4. There is some indication that the re-
peatability of reefed rilling was improved, but numerous changes in system
parameters diluted the data. The addition of pocket bands to new Ringsail
parachutes is recommended for serious consideration when improved re-
peatability of canopy inflation is desired.
Another direction for Ringsail design improvement was suggested by the

two opening modes exhibited by the Century Ringsails in the seven single
canopy-tests performed. These modes were called "hard" and "soft"i
rather than "fast" and "slow" because there was no consistent relationship
between the magnitude of the opening loads and the filling time after dis-
reefing. Rather, the correlation appeared to be with the shape assumed
by the canopy mouth as it expanded after disreefing. The soft opening mode
resulted when the mouth assumed a roughly symmetrical shape of large
lobes alternating with infolded flutes extending up the canopy to the crown
(e. g., Figure 16). The hard opuning mode resulted when the lobulation
and infolding was grossly unsymmetrical. Because the soft opening mode
occuirred spontaneously in two of the seven tests, indications are that a
relatively minor, modification of the skirt shape might convert it to a wholly
* repeatable process. The specific modification contemplated was to invert
N/8 skirt sails in four equal groups spaced N/8 sails apart, the purpose
being to induce the formation of a symmetrical pattern of four flutes and
four lobes in the expanding canopy by varying the radial force components
on alternate zones of the skirt. This concept still appears to merit ex-
perimental investigation.
Finally, the question of what can be done with the Ringsail to improve its
cluster performance must be answered. As noted, theory suggests that
non-synchronous inflation effects could be mitigated (but not eliminated) by
a reduction in the peaIk and avurage deceleration levels of the system. This
is synonymous with increasing both reefed and disreef filling times sub-
stantially, something the modified Ringsail of the Apollo ELS cluster does
only in part; i. e. , the disreef filling time was increased roughly 501o, the
reefed filling time was shortened due to the reduction in bulbous development
and the test evidence shows that the net overall benefit was small. The main
problem with any increase in filling time is that the methods used seriously
degrade drag efficiency. Another problem arises from the c:urrent military
requirement for a fast opening cluster in which the time from deployment
to full open steady descent must be a minimum. Theory also suggests the
strong probability that a fast opening cluster of any type of parachute will
exhibit the effects of nonsynchronous inflation in exaggerated form, with no
predictable opening time from one operation to the next.
63/64
SECTION 3
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
The performance of standard Ringsail parachutes in single canopy systems

is well established by test data from many programs. The performance of
Ringsail parachutes in clusters was derived primarily from the Apollo pro-
gram since only one other adequately instrumented test was performed, that
of the Century Ringsail program. Some data applicable to single canopy
systems at high rates of descent was obtained from Reference 4 for Ringsail
target canopies functioning as Stage I drogue chutes in the UAR system (see
Appendix B).
Since all Ringsail performance data is derived from full scale aerial drop
tests, the common types of data plots obtained from wind tunnel tests such
as static stability coefficients as a function of canopy angle of attach are
missing. (The results of very small scale model tests reported in Reference
21 cannot be accepted as valid for comparative evaluations because the test
specimen was not a faithful scale model in respect to number of gores,
canopy shape, or sail fullness).
3.1 DRAG COEFFICIENT
3. 1. 1 Effect of Unit Canopy Loading (W /CDSo)
The variation of Ringsail drag coefficient with unit canopy loading is pre-
sented in Figure 22 in the familiar form expressed as a function of rate of
descent under standard sea level conditions. The actual variation with air-
speed is slight, if any, and cannot be detected by present methods. The
effects of varying both effective suspension line length and canopy scale are
indication but the data scatter yields only a rough correlation at best. Most
of the small parachutes performed below the desired norm, while the cen-
tur-, seriks and 20K parachutes exhibited remarkably high drag coefficients.
Even the 1 28. 8 ft &0 model that descended with a split gore fell on the norm
expe cte d for f /D- - 1, 15, while the two-canopy cluster (indicated for ref-
erence by the double symbol) gave CDo = . 84. These were the averages for
single tests, however; only the solid curves are faired through data points
which are mainly the averages for many tests.
3. 1. ? Effect of Scale
The variation of Ringsail drag coefficient with nominal diameter presented
in Figure 23 exhibits characteristics which are closely related to those of
the conical and extended skirt parachutes. The conical parachute CDo ranges
6Best Available Copy

..IT .-..
"."T'':. - -.. T--
...........
,..
.........
I .# . . .*. .. - o
j !. i 'I I4": "~

:
"' ., 1 " : "J *-' •- ' 0

a
.F4
* I . , . .:
K:j •'.
,"" 0
•" 11
... I.
:g~ .. • " '...
1..
I : **., ".'.. ...
I I
I; I *1
SI I ,,I I
o 0
66
I ' : .•,< " c
v r'i I... ..
I . ." "
• . I .
.. . "..
*".. . . . . .. - -o - . . . . .'.. . 4
I :! ! [ -. .
1 I--L,,--- . "--q
'-4:
I . I
~ . . !.......
.. . . .. ... ..... ~........ -. ..
S• . .-
from 0. 62 to 0. 95 depending on size, cone, angle, suspension line length
and rate of descent. The extended skirt parachute CD, also varies with size,
rate of descent and suspension line'length. The data presented in Figures 22
and 23 show this same effect for the Ringsail parachute.
3. 1.3 Effect of Suspension Line Length_
The variation of Ringsail GD with the effective length of thu- suspension

lines Oe = Is + iR) is shown in Figure 24a corrected to ye fps and
-8 to
Do > 50 ft using Figures 22 and 23 respectively. The faired curve. may be
.onls9erCd rcprtrsentaLive of Ringsails having nominal diameters in the range
of 50 to 100 feet approximately. The two curves for .,e/Do of 1.1 5 and 1. 40,
is cons isent with the data derived from the century series Ringsaii program
weretn increase is CDo with size and increased line lhngth was obtained.
* 'The fairet data have been normalized in Figure 44b rhlative, to le/Do 1.15
with CD • 0. 81 as representative of the optimized lightweight Ringsail
d(esign. As developed, CD /CGDo vs Ie•/Do should be essentially invariant
with scale over the entire range of parachute sizes., vt-mo this relationship
it was shown in Refe recnce 5 that the length ratio for a minimum weight para-
chuto wat, i1e/Do - 1.15 for Do = 1 8 ft. A similar analysib in Referenee 35
3. 1.4 Effect of Canop. Por"t~j
Thu 88. 1 ft DO canopy of the Apollo ENL development program was thq only
Rlngsail model in which a wide range of porosities wits evalua~td in ade.
qulately in.Ktrumented tests, Hokiw-ever, the porosity vakriation- wa• simply the
effect on the poometric porosity of the crowin arva of removing diffarelt
fractions of the width of ring number S. The only raw data reported were
avtt'age ratt46 of dasuemn from drop tests made %rithconstant weight. The
effect on GDo of the changes iri crown powrotity wer*2 deducud froviw the
relatiotiship
1 dtJ "M eD v X kdrt n-a
Thu data and result• are• se~tiimari:,t,.d Inl T~atI X ,,td~ p'olt~d in !l'igurus 2!5(a)
atvi (1,).
L4.0 ......
.8 8 .9 ~ a1.4 1.6
i* tk
F4cZ . We uuvsl ~
Dov
TABLE X
EFFECT OF CROWN POROSITY ON CDOOF 88. 1 ft D.0 RINGSAIL
Fraction of Ringb5rmvd T w 0 17 100
Area ofiSlot 4-5 (S8 ) (7~) 021 3.421 5v 111 7.050

I Crown Xge AS8 + 1. 22, _ _ _ __
1 _ _
4.64 &. 33 8.72
Avgmesurd ,,,(fs) 3 0. 0 j31.1 32. 1 33. 2
Ratovg tesuev i.ps064 .935 .904
Calcul4ted Cn'. "!)0 1ý OP0 .9301 .876 .812

Av~ag
0 .8 5 t.79 j 745 .69j
~4e~usothz, 4cc~i;"y of these data is uncertain and. the porosity variation

strictly iw&zdin the cre-wn of the canopy. Figure 45b should bet viewed
virwrta4
&sAn example th~a as a basis for design.
1.$Vi-imion, In Rate of Descent

3.~~
Parachute dlrag co*effkicints aedicrived frtomirt cn fC uenns

Tito rule -of- thumnb variatiosn in parachutr -rate 1q., descent usýýel for Aittn'5a1t
doiti teo et a specified moaximutn rate Wfdevscent wab; i n rot A
Ooi tf raeuda tdiata (r.'m the Mo.rcunt G0tatt adAp*)or
'Chutof dtiv~ie o-urent 1 og ram utrepo rted 4'it ~ofke4rttte
4 ¶l4it
toA 4-cvl~ n
tion 3of.ntd "4 dfavim~wiv prostived 4n T'Able XZ. It wlilt be. sten t14t tht
fo-tf-thumtb tvariAtion used is Approximxately fr 0-nc afA ;wo ic-Anopies
to-
* Antl Z. iw tot thrdtct-atiny cluster's.
Tne effect -ofcluttering on draig coefflicints, is T& w in; rFcu~e .) as A

tl~nct'a on of the numbe. "Ifcanopies; in the cluster. The dab t-,tnt do thIe
rocaoycluster was, corrected fromi - $25 t~ 8 1iO. 'n'ic t
eIhe s:t ps o
the jvasin
Vwrirt #2.. tos account for the difteteren-e in ea~tes -f descrent.S
The cakctit4lth'A'eary clulter svstccn' *e;Pcht tha't w-.Xgld have the samet
'nint haýding4 (i.e. * rtaw •*f descenit) as. thre "to a'At'-.&aase Atcl t
45.0 1bs. The effective hoste #?iser kneholS nrcYP_ thi san frai*1~ tr
li fc1. 4) Itili as noted. the eifiectivi %e
hr.. r-j'h o'f the ;rIAIvidwal Cent*;n-
fps' 5or the sirngke anid twtx.canopyr cluslter cas

Pes-.
.9
- Averages of Seviral Tests
V .ID0 88.1 ft'

'//Do 1.40:
CD0
2..6
0 2.4 b8 10.
x.gc(%oS 0)
(a)
S * , 1,CD
0 2j. 4 8, 10*~
.gc (%"So)
(b)
Figure 25. Effect of Crown Geometric Porolity
On Ringsail Drag Coefficient
71
0r C4: ~
e
toC. t '
*N ~* *0
I4 4 C4 m4 N4 NC
"CO t0 N- G4
01 . U
to 0) 0 00 .4) .
cc Is.
'0 0~00 too
- ~~~~~N
c-o CIC'
4:4
0~~~t C 00 0 - 0
~ 0.~ ~ . C .7Z
(a) Cluster Drag Coeffcients
Z.0
V Do:
D(ft) eD
1
1 1~i
85.6 1.44
e: 26 -28 fps
-~ r ~ .. Slotted Apollo main
1 ~23
Number of Canopies
1.00 (b) Normalized Cluster Drag Coefficients
C .98
0
Do*.
12 3
Nunger of canopies
FW~WO 28., Cluster Effects On Ringeal Drag Codlcieztt
73
3.2 OPENING LOAD FACTORS
The opening load factor(Ck)determined experimentally by the ratio

Fmax/CDS q provides a conventient means of making quick estimates
of the probable opening loads of a given parachute system. At best, the
method yields predicted loads having an accuracy of about *10 percent
when applied within a narrow range of speeds and altitudes. The principal
s'urces of error are:
a. Mensuration of parachute forces and flight conditions
b. The element of randomness in the parachute opening

process
c. Variations in reefing line cutter timing
d. Limitations of the analytical methods employed in the

prediction of dynamic pressures at line stretch and at
the end of each reefed stage.
e. Limitations of the methods of predicting parachute

reefed drag areas.
A substantial quantity of data has been accumulated over the years pre-
senting Ck as a function of unit canopy loading (W/CDS) as shown in
Figure 27. In this form Ck varies widely with both altitude and dynamic
pressure or equivalent air speed (EAS). The Ringsail data plotted in
Figure 27 are for tests performed In the altitude range of 10 to 16 thousand
feet. The faired curves indicate the general trend of Ck as a function of
W/CDS and EAS, but data scatter makes the quantitative effect of EAS highly
uncertain. In general, higher opening load factors are associated with
lower relocitles (EAS) or dynamic pressures at the beginning of the filling
process. The disreef data also reflect the accelerated filling rate of the
Ringsail caused by the large canopy growth during the reefed Interval.
The presentation in Figure 28 of measured opening load factors as a function

of mass ratio (Rm) Is derived from the model law developed In Reference Z0.
(See Section 6. 3. 1). This includes the effect of altitude. The general trend
of the scattered data is indicated by the faired curves. The effect of the
other related variables, velocity and flight path angle (Froude Number) Is
lost in the "noise." The sharp separation of the disreef data reflects the
difference in inflation process noted above. Stage I reefed data should
logically fair Into the nonreefed data as a limit. The width of the trend-
bands shown emphasizes the difficulty of applying this methods of load
prediction to new system designs.
74
.4 4-4 .-
141 0
t G 00PC
414
jG 'IL;:4'11
M)0c
I OV.1e(
,.*.-i! 9~
~~I4
75
100
-- 7 -
__........
.* ..
76~
The apparent effect of altitude on Ringsail opening load factor, with unit
canopy loading constant, is shown in Figure 29. This was derived, as
illustrated, by interpolation of the data in Figure 30 to W/CDS = 10 psf.
The interpolation is based on the postulate previously noted that the reefed
and non-reefed data points are related. Figure 30 is similar to Figure 27
with data points keyed for identification of the different Ringsail models
listed in Table XIL The disreef data are irrelevant to this study and so
are not shown. The symbol code does not apply to Figure 29, the points
merely locating the data interpolated at W/CDS = 10 psf. The ladder at
15-16 thousand feet represents the great majority of the data, and the hori-
zontal bars indicate the altitude uncertainity of some load factor interpola-
tions. The extrapolation of the data per the non-reefed modified Ringsails
at altitudes over 100, 000 feet is somewhat speculative but the broad trends
shown in Figure 28 provided some guidance. The tendency for opening load
factors to level off somewhere between 1 and 2 at high unit canopy loads is
supported by general wind tunnel experience, i. e., "infinite mass" inflation
tests. The effect of deployment velocity on Froude number has not been
identifiable and no doubt contributes to data scatter along with the several
sources of error cited.
Since(g sin ))is also important component of Froude number, the effect of
flight path angle on opening load factors is not always negligible. A com-
puter study of this effect on the opening forces of the 128. 8 ft Century Ring-
sail produced the variation of Ck with flight path angle at line stretch plotted
in Figure 31. With the velocity and altitude at line stretch constant, the load
increases 21 percent between Yo = 10* and )Yo 90 degrees, while the in-
crease in dynamic pressure is only 14 percent, the net result being an
increase In Ck of 8. 5 percent. Since this is within probable error tolerance,
the effect on predicted opening loads would be detectable only under unusual
circumstances, but obviously contributes to the variation in test measure-
ments.
* 8-10 degrees is generally representative of parachute dystems deployed

from aircraft in level flight.
77
1.4--
I~W . !i--'
.171
Li-rftti
LUJh
~~t-j
PE.P
II
* .. . .L
",': - *
S.: _L , ..:_ ..
" .__" . :' ' " ."* I
- . -• ' "
', ;. . .
- , , . , . ! * .
". - - '. -
-! . . _ . ..
• "• .'
. . .
. ": • -,1-• - ' - . ": I ... .
...
... . ' -". . .. ...
...... I
. . . . . J..
. I _ t .
. , ..
. , l.I •, I : • :,., 1 . .
•
: :--" .. j i.-:
• • • 4'
, . ".-../.--_. .-. : I.
,
' " , "
, 49•
4 . "
1*-~*~
- " . ... ,- ..... • -I'
"i.: - • _! ..:... • i i% . •! - -i -. : •J,
.-.
. . ..
I..
*
• I
," "; ....-- -. . o
...
i* *'
.i
-
i!
,,, t I ,.,,,;
I
]!i t, , -1
,1/,,, - :I! , . ,t
•...4,, ... -...
... 0
•l /l ' * ' I ..
5.
,. f l 1 i I '"\
9,i t,
-,--- , 11 I... . *..... .....
S I.'! A• I• i . • A
* '9'
.. . >.m .ii .
a A
• t i9I , ,
p
, .9 _.1 . ,-1 '- 0 :'• , :•

, ,: .,,
. . ..... ,. . . =
\4,.
II I•I llII~l iI l iI IIll•I I I • II
, ' " • , : . t • X ,•
I0
• .. ... . . ..
I7
TAMME XII
RINGSAIL OPENING LOAD FACTORS AT ALTITUDE
Do W/CDS CK Altitude
ft psf Nonreefed Reefed' Feet Symbol
23.0 17.2 -- .68 46,200
"34.0 17.6 .. 91 12,560

.0.6.84 19,660
-" .87 46,630
29,6 *.58 .0306 -- 1,100

.0477 "" 5,000
.0562 -- 10,0000
*0610 15,000
.0642. -- 20,000
41.0 16.1 .56 15,000

. 12.6 .66 22,300
16.4 -- .78 22,900
56.2 .48 .036 -- 2,000

_.__ ____ .052 -- 15,000
11.7 i" •59 2,500
"19.6 .83 15,000
t I
7163.1 .91 .12 10,000
18.2 .,47 2,700 0
16.4 .58 10,400
74.2 6.43 -; ,61 48,800.
*" I so
TABLE X11 (Continued)
RINOSAIL OPENING LOAD FACTORS AT ALTITUDE
DoW/PS __ __Altitude
ft psi Nonreefed Reefed Feet Symbol
84.2 33.9 --. 74 9,0000

30.6 --. 74 9,1100
88.1 12.3 1-55 15,900

14.4 --. 47 15,700
21.11- .65 15,500
124.5 13.4 .39 3,600

- -. 45 6,000
127.0 27.7 *-.6z .15,000

22.6 .55 15,500
17.5 .56 15,550
128.8 17.1 .47 15,750
29,6 49.1 1.11 15,000

.95 26,200
731.2 s.6 694 - 11905000
94.4 .39 1.05 -- 129.300e

Z".
I I
0.10 20 30 40 SO 60- 70 $0 90,

-p(Deares")
I4OXL Use tor Cie vati peutina~t to the

Sys1tem uvaadr coaeldentsuoa whou
Flhwn31.Effs(ct of TligMPotb Attieatael Stretch on -

-- 77 "M
3.2. 1 Opening Force-Time Characteristics
Opening load factors are derived from parachute force-time recordings

in conjunction with system trajectory measurements that yeild dynamic
pressure data and canopy effecti•ve drag areas at several points of critical
interest as follows:
a. Main canopy line stretch
b. Reefed opening and/or Fmax
c. Disreef
d. Fmax after disreef
". Full open
The way in which the opening force-time history of the Ringsail parachute
varies from system to system is illustrated in Figures 32 through 38 de-
picting traces obtained from tensiometer recordings and telemetered force
transducer records. * Figure 33 is particularly instructive because it
illustrates the development of the inflated shape of the canopy at numerous
points in the opening history enabling important deductions to be made about
the physical events. Note that the force of the reefed canopy increases
significantly while the deployment bag is still being withdrawn from the
canopy. The canopy is still an elongated sock when the initial air mass
reaches the apex to generate a preliminary force peak. At the peak reefed
opening load the canopy development angle ( - ) is almost zero indicating
-very little tension in the reefing line (see Section 6.4. 2. 6). The bulbous
'growth of the canopy is continuous through most of the reefed interval.
After disreefing,the canopy is only partially inflated when the force passes
* its second peak. The rebound following full inflation, attended by a dip in
-the force trace, clearly demonstrates the tendency of the added air mass
to.decelerate at a lower rate than the parachute system. (See Section 2. 1. 4.)
* All tests were performed at the DOD Joint Parachute Test Facility,
"El Centro, California
83
"J1' ''s
lit
Itoo
[44
x.. U
I it4 00
voEq
Ki-t I
4 84
0 In
iir-'
1A
RMV
43
0U
XI Ha
n L 1 Ir UNtX:
J . .LI I I
2-42
.4' 4. .. ...
.T V
qi-
-Tt4.I
F.4,
__T_ _ _7
li.: IJ I4.,
I
86'
1.11
?(
Test Vehicle Weight = 17, 72 0 lb 13% Reefing

39, 000 at 38, 500 at
600
q=40psf q=40psf 27
39,500
Stretch q 40 psf 27,600
30 - at q 13, , 00-i•1
0000ata
900
lib
f 1
I
76.2~a "768 2 q= 18.9 ps
1 2. 3 4
35 57 s q:8=8"9pat
25 --P
4 1 I 7 1
7 193,6 00 aI1t3
20
6oce.56 Tm0ec 27
0a
Key
Foc
Note: Parachute 1 Full Open at 22. 56 secToa
..... Parachute 1
Parachute 2 Full Open at 15. 16 sec
m T i e ( s e c 1 2 .7 1
6 . 5 6 •
for Cluster of Two

Figure 35. Opening Force-Time History Feet Altitude 80
;!i• 13% Dq for 8 Seconds,
at 10,246
Reefed
(TAS)
R ngals
.128.8 ftDat 299 fps
pounds)
5 Deployed 1 7, 720
0 (Weight
0187
3 469
00
-41
4~44
'AF
I I0
88-
Itr
Oto
l0@
400t
89
IU O
1
.7%
0 a.
Eu -.
* . I
I INu
I .-.-.
S 90
3.3 FILLING INTERVALS (TIME, DISTANCE, Kf)
3. 3.1 F'illing Time and Kf
Derivation of the filling time equation used in Ringsail parachute analysis

is given in Section 6. 2.
Test data for the filling intervals of the Ringsail parachute with one stage
of reefing are given in Table XUI in terms of time and the dimensionless
constant, Kf =A tfvl/(•/ 2 1 / - ýl 1/2), along with those of the 85.6 ft Do
modified Ringsail used in the Apollo Block U system. Evaluation of a good
average for the latter parachute was handicapped by the lack of adequate
data. However, a comparison of the average values of Kf obtained shows a
30 percent shorter reefed filling interval and a 54 percent longer filling
interval after disreefing, which confirms the estimate made (page 50), that
the reefed filling time was shortened and the disreefing filling time increased
by 5016. The data given in Table XIV show that when the same parachute is
reefed in two stages, Kf for the first and final stages is altered significantly.
The stage 1 filling ch.racteristic approaches that of the unmodified models
and the filling interval after disreefing becomes shorter; both are close to
91 percent of the averages for the standard Ringsail. Of course, the magni-
tude of the stage 2 reefing ratio Is the governing factor and its effect needs
to be determined over a broader range.
Data for the leading canopy of the Century Ringsail cluster are included in
Table XIII because it appears to have filled at the normal rate. This was
not the case for selected Apollo cluster tests examined and so may be an
atypical event.
3. 3, Z Filling Distance
The actual distance traveled by the parachute while it is filling may be a

matter of critical importance In low altitude operations. Measured filling
distances of two Century Ringsaill and the 85, 6 ft D modified Ringsail are
given in Table XV. Data for the unsuccessful 1 27 ft 0 D
0 bi-conical model
are presented as pertinent to the effects of different porosities and reefing
ratios on the distance traveled during the reefed interval (where the con-
structed shape of the canopy has little Influence). Crown geometric and
canopy total porosities are given in Table XVI.
See Section 6. 2. 6 for derivation.
91
TABLE XIII
COMPARISON OF FILLING INTERVALS OF STANDARD RINGSAIL PARA-
CHUTES AND THE 85.6 ft Do MODIFIED RINGSAIL OF APOLLO BLOCK IS
Do Xgc Reefing Atf -(sec.) VI -(fps) KI Test

(ft.) (%OS) %Do)T 4t(sec.) Reef Disreef Reef Di8reef Reef Disreef No.
128.8 2.08 12.5 8 2.33 2.40 380 104 37.3 3.41 6
2.44 3.00 368 98.3 37.4 4.36 7
2.69 2.67 299 101 37.2 4.14 8
88.1 1.50 11 6 2.1 3.3 315-
1.8 3.4 375 - 37.7
1.7 3.4 380 - 36.1 -
2.4 2.3 283 - 38.0 -
2.2 3.3 305 - 37.5 -
84.2 1.28 10.5 8 (.95 - (1.41- (265 -(96.4- 37.4 4.76

1.48) 2.43) 453) 109)
(1.37- - (94.2- - 5.44
, 3.10) 116)
63.1 1.40 10- 144.6 .5. (.3 5) (15o.(9o- . -
:4.25) 375) 154)
85.6 7.04 9.5 8 .82 2.62 432 140 21.5 7.45 70-1
10
1.90 2.20 240 137 27.8 6.15 70-Z
gore) 161.
1.
67 281 - 28.6 - 30-2
- 6.80 Averages
Standard RingsaUl Averages 37.3 4.42
NOTES: & Two sores partially split after disroof.

Leading canopy of two in cluster.
Typical teats of PDS 1226 version (See Figure 85) performed in 1962.
The velocity at disreef was not recorded.
Averages for 10 development tests performed in 1963.
A Average (or 10 qualification tests performed in 1964. The
reefed filling time was not recorded.
A Reported Mercury Ftilling time data are not useable because they (ail
the constant filling distance test in a way that reflects use of
inadequate tnwnsturation techniques.
A These may be considered representative tests. All are single parachuted
92
F.o- N m~ I N v4
0N 0 0ý N N:
0D 00 0 Go 00 Go
N t- 0%. c0 C 00 %0
Icyl ' ' '0
%. so 0 .
m)
- - - - - -
0.0 OD ~ 44 4
_ ~ r U LA
%0 0
- w
00'. ~ ' 60 LN -
6- -. 4
0 j 0
14s W...b-
0 0
-
to -q
to'0
U) 4J~~ - N3
0 N0
.4 % *
a -a a%
r ow% A E ~ @ 0 U
oft*N
4 b -4
- o
4*. ~ 0 * **
0 0~' N
t- i
.40 ,
TABLE XVI
RELATIVE FILLING DISTANCES OF LARGE RINGSAIL PARACHUTES
Reefing Porosity -
(ft) RI RZ x gc XT RI RZ DR
128.8 12.5 - 2.08 9.77 5.25 1.40
127 11 - 2.81 10. 51 3.78 - -
13 " 3.20 - -
16 - 5.22 - 1.00
85.6 8.0 21.3 7.04 IZ. 54 6.9Z 1.0 1.31
8.2 23.4 7.38 1.44 -
9.3 24.2 7.82 1.51 1.08

Z6. 0 1,)33 1.02
Because the average velocity during initial Inflation of the canopy is high# most
"ofthe distance traveled Is covered during reefed stage I - also the effects of
small differences in filling time are amplified, which emphaszles the Impor.-
tance of taking every measure possible, to regularies the opening process and
eliminate random delays In the initiation of canopy inflation. At the other end.
the distance traveled after disreefing is very short, scarcely more than the
nominal diameter of the canopy as shown in Table XVL Here, the relative
filling distance in canopy diameters is another dimensionless form of the
•Ringsail filling interval that has been particularly useftl in the analysis of
rminimum altitude recovery trajectories. Additiotal test measurements are
needed at very low deployment velocities to determine whether the total filling
distance oi nion-reefed parachute. is under such conditions.
Of course, with a reefed canopy the distance traveled during the reeoed inter.
val is a substantial increnent added to the total. At high speeds this can only
be minimixed by reducing the reeted interval to the shortest time allowed by
S~~the dejligt limit case. At low speeds. it the reeted'inletvai is no longjer thant.
two or three seconds, the normaily slower filling rate of the canopy may era-
brace the reeted interval to the extent that the catopy inflates as though non-
reefed.
9s
3.4 STABII4TY
The principal mode of instability exhibited by the Ringsail parachute, like

that of any other circular parachute, is described as a "pendular"* oscil-
lation in which the axis of the descending system describes a series of
alternating angular deflections in random directions from the vertical. Be-
cause the center of gravity of the system with added air mass is generally
closer to the canopy than to the suspended load,the similarity to a pendulum
is marked (when the out-of-plane components of the motton are not clearly
evident). The actual deflections of the system axis in three-dimensional
space may be characterized as an irregular "coning" oscillation (Figures
39 and 41). When the coning motion becomes roughly circular it tends to be
sharply periodic and this mode has been observed occasionally. (Figure 42).
Synchronous phototheodolite measurements from several stations have en-

abled both amplitude and direction of axial deflections of some recent
Ringsail parachute systems to be determined, as indicated in the Figures.
Most early measurements obtained from motion pic~ture records Indicated
angular deflections in the plane of the picture only (Figure 40) but in some
CASes out-of-plane data was obtained by scaling the changing ellipsicity of
the canopy skirt and correcting the result for the angle of elevation at which
it was viewed.
The average amplitude of pendular oscillation ()characteristic of different

Aingsaal parachute systems during steady descent is given In Table IX. It
will be seen that i0* degrees Is a fairly typical average. In normal descent
the amplitude of os-cillations varies widely in a radom manner as influenced
by atniospherilc disturbancets (wind gradients. thermal currents, turbulence
and gusts) so that occaitiontal excursions of up to three tiffes the average
may be oeoniwtered (Reference 30), However, the RI-tigsAll damping charac-
tensilei It strong enough to reduce gveater tha 'n average oscillations to small
amplitude# in approximately on* fuall cycle. Alto it Is not unusual for well-
balanced systems descend steadily without perceptible ostillation for
protracted periods (e. g. ecthe note in Figure 40).'
'Undamped oscilla~tions at large ampl~itde have oiccurred i" sonic Itingsail

prac~hutoe systems undo - the special eircuwnstances described In Section
6i. -1.7. These are not typical anid rtsultanit problems have been minsintiied
by design tevisionC5
A word coined by parachute people to signify a pendulum-like motion, not

noteessa&rily periodict like a pendulumn. however.
96
FU. . vf T
F-
ld * I
o .1
44 m
bo~
4J
IV.
"41
97
010
44.44
Td0-
4- Im
00 -- 4 N en v ~ 'nD t-
o0
1.0)
4T.4
14 0
04)$)
34 0
0--
0N1
-4. a
z044 -.
~v
II 1
984
0-
L44~~44
At
...... ...
* I04
A1.1-
004
7-i----
44)
VO
aao
II i.
N~~ NN.4
Ivol" JJO I.....-
99
0in
e-4be
4) OD
0
N
100)
Distribution curves for angular deflection of the Apollo cluster system are
shown in Figures 44 and 45. These are not typical for either the 88. 1 ft D
standard Ringsail or the 85. 6 ft D modified Ringsail but they are indicative
of the improved stability resulting from the higher total porosity of the latter.
It will be recognized that the two systems in Figure 43 are not quite equiva-
lent because the average rate of descent of the modified Ringsail system was
13 percent higher.
*i The stability of the 41 ft Do Ringsail varied from system to system and

posed some unusual problems. The B-58 escape capsule recovery system
parameters fell in the critical Reynolds number range (described in Section
6. 2. 4) where oscillation amplitudes have been greatly amplified. With a
cylindrical bomb test vehicle the averaged measurements of seven drop
tests showed oscillation amplitudes greater than 10° 41% of the time, greater
than 15 * 19% of the time and greater than 20 * 6% of the time. The maximum
was 24* and the average 11.4° (Reference 28). However, with the "boiler-
plate"* capsule, system stability was observed to be greatly improved, and
an average amplitude of 5 to 10 degrees was estimated on the basis of limited
test data, no measurements being available. Stability of descent was par-
ticularly important to the B-58 capsule operation because of the highly
directional type of impact attenuation mechanism employed.
In the much heavier E-6 Satellite capsule system, average oscillations of

O = 9 degrees with maximum up to 18 degrees were found objectionable, so
the suspension lines on the 41 ft Do canopy were shortened from 32 feet to
26 feet and limited test measurements indicated that the average amplitude
of oscillations had been reduced to approximately 6 degrees with maxima
up to 10 degrees. However, additional tests of the short line configuration
performed later put the average back to 6= 9 degrees with maxima up to
23 degrees. It should be noted that while the suspension line length was only
0, 64 Do and no risers were used, the effective line length was made close
to 0. 78 Do by spacing the line attachment points some distance apart on the
base of the capsule.
3.5 REEFED DRAG AREA
The reefed drag area of Ringsail parachute expressed In the nondimensional

form CDSR/CDSo ippears to vary widely from system to system for a given
reefing ratio. How much of this variation is real is uncertain because if the
technical difficulties associated with getting drag area measurements during
Designating a rugged dummy vehicle usually made of welded steel plate
101
Drop Test No.
u
!..pi4' M.
*w
---
~.Standard Main
Parachute 26-6
Conical Mod with 41-5
{6-5
* * -7576 Ring Removal
'4W
*~~~~ .i ~.
.* . *~ ~ 41.aP
I CanopyLr
Clvsters Stndhdadrodfed
of
T
tesaisshw
102
00
000
0rI
-4 04
CID
010
1 111 ~~J
Jill l: ,4
11 ý1111Of
it
104i
unsteady flight conditions. Theoretically the initial reefed drag arja (at
FR max) should show some correlation with the geometric porosity of the
crown area of the canopy that is pressurized at that time. Along with this
effect, the reefed drag area at disreef is dependent to some extent on the
duration of the reefed interval. But while the canopy appears to fill steadily
at a low rate during the reefed interval, there are some indications that
equilibrium between inflow and outflow may be reached after a short time
(3 to 4 seconds).
In view of these sources of uncertainty, the typical curves relating reefed

drag area ratios to reefed diameter ratios given in Figure 46 can be treated
only as indicative of general trends. The reefing data compiled during
various Ringsail development programs presented in Figures 47 through 49
give a more realistic picture of the performance to expect under similar
conditions. For example, the data obtained from the Century program
(Figure 48) shows a separation that correlates with the crown geometric
porosities of the two canopy designs. However, the difference between the
Mercury and Gemini data cannot be accounted for on this basis; the validity
of the Gemini data is suspect.
At DR/Do = 0. 16 the 127 ft Do Century parachute is seen to revert to the

augmented growth characteristic of the lower porosity 128. 8 ft DO model at
disreef. Apollo cluster data show no significant difference in reefing ratios
relative to the sahgle parachute system.
3.6 OPENING RELIABILITY AND REPEATABILITY
The opening reliability of the Rlngsail like that of any other proven para-
chute design is a function of factors unrelated to its aerodynamic propertie6.
A parachute can be prevented from opening by faulty rigging, a fouled reefing
line, failure of reefing line cutters to fire, and extensive damage In the
crown. One of the sources of crown damage other than opening shock is the
whiplash impact of a broken pilot chute bridle or attachment link,
A faulty pilot chute bridle link precipitated the catastrophic failure of one of
the 127 ft Do bi-conical Ringsails reported in Reference 8. A broken radial
member in the critical pressure area of the crown was clearly the result
of a whiplash impact following failure of the link and this provided the focus
for a ruptured gore that subsequently split full length and through the skirt
band.
10OS
Theoretical Ljimits
a ,L. Mid.-Sore Reefing

85. 6ft DoModIifid U~sllgUI~
ORadial ReefingI
88. 1 ft Do Rngsall
CDS.
___._ i9 *4
s*rtU DmtatRai
CDSO ms1 plaus &a"Rd

p Is
Kmemi 2Wd GeMdn Daft Avenges
(a)
".0/" I...1 .* ; • .
-"• j , . ,
1'"',. 'D 63.11 t
74• , ; p0
'", --. I-" ... D 84.2 ft

Cs% . :7I 'A.-
. j.. • - -g, -,
.5 . . .- . .- , . .
10--- .- , , ; .. - A' ; :I 7* -"-u'
t- Do
. -0.5. .-. h$ . : .. ,t :
-~•. ! '
2 A" t o,
/ 1"i . # i... , .! 0
S.<o. Do -
,.,_, ..:;A
Do
CD a.
..
0,
1) one of1Two
.05
A13
.10
TatDais TA
...1 .. . , .5
1A
,?
•.0
S.. :.,. ,. .1 .0
-. m -. vm, Gol. ad, Ai "f "40 ,• " .t A •I

.20 . *-
012?, 2.81 10.51

12e.s 2.08 9.7 0
-e At aur..
.15 - - . .*
A A6
A~~ -. / A ,-
- A 6 -
'asgood I
IS~, Cm aIgm U.., DO

.3 r I I:~ ~,4AtDisroot
c 3
D R
~~ ~7- -
I. it , 4..
U~~tt
49 .65. 6 ft 00 Iti*'l(od*4-5%o thAa **o
10
The strong opening tendency of the Ringsail parachute provides added insur-
ance that once deployed it will inflate. This is born out by its high tolerance
for opening damage as described in Section 3. 7.
The repeatability of the Rlngsail opening process is subject to the same ran-
dom variables found in any parachute system that does not have a positive
mechanical means of opening the canopy mouth as soon as it is exposed to
the air stream. The slack fabric in the skirt area flutters in and out between
the lines according to no fixed pattern such that the initial influx of air is ob-
structed in varying degrees. It is known that the flared skirt configuration
augments the radial opening force component when the sails flutter outward,
more than It Is inhibited when the sails flutter inward, because such canopies
open reliably with a higher than normal total porosity. Also, pocket bands,
by limiting the inward deflection of the skirt panels, significantly reduce
random delays in getting effective filling started. Stiffening the skirt band
is believed to have a similar effect but the amount of stiffening required for
useful results may be impractical for packing. Initial inflation of the reefed
canopy is also promoted by vertical restrictor tapes across the crown slots.
InsoWa as the Ringeall parachute has a flared skirt, stiffened skirt band, and
tapes across the crown slots, and may have pocket bands to tncee4 critical
opening requirements. its opening process can be said to be more repeatable
%amn that of other types of parachute* lacking any or all of these features. A
13sasuf`0 of such repeatability would be provided by statistical evaluation of
the time laps* between line stretch and first opening of tht canowpy mouth to
form a positive flow inlet in a series of tests all performned under identical.
conditions. The practical obstaelesm In the way of so dongn are considerable,
*and such a survey has never bein made# at least not with the Aingbailppra-
chute.
Another less rigorous, yet meaningful, meature of ltingt~il 0 "ening repeat-
* bility is the dimensioultes tillting intervatlf. given in Table VUII, etion
3. 3. Some data showing the variattos of Xf froat test to test aft given Wn
both Tables VIII and IX.
-3.? TOLER~ANCE FOR DAMAGE
Tolerance for dathag* may be considered an unusual criterion Of parachute

vorformance. Wwoeve'. the ultiftate reliability of 4aV parachkite systent
hinges on the ability of the canopy to remain inflaited and limit ithe cestent
velocity whan severely daimaged. The critical area for openiog dlamage is
110
progressing beyond a low-drag "squidding"* configuration. The normal
geometric porosity of the Ringsail crown is between 1 and 2 percent (Figure
21). Tests performed during the Apollo ELS parachute development program
demonstrated that the 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail would inflate reliably with a crown
geometric porosity of Xgc = 8. 1 percent of which 6. 9 percent was concen-
trated in ring 5 between h/hR = . 37 and . 45. This is equivalent to a very
heavily damaged canopy because strong cloth is used in the crown rings.
Normally, the area of critical stress is lower in the gore between h/hR =.53
and. 76.
The split gore is a more typical form of Ringsail parachute damage, and
two gores split from vent to skirt will not cause the canopy to collapse, nor
is the rate of descent increased to a dangerous level. The Ringsail has also
zemained inflated and descend safely with one split gore and both vent and
skirt bands broken. This occurred in one of the early Apollo development
tests of very lightweight Ringsail. The canopy split (one gore) from skirt
to vent, including skirt and vent band. During descent the canopy slowly
unwrapped itself and turned inside out, forming a canopy shape, then pro.-
ceeded to reverse itself and formed a canopy (right-side-out) and descended
in a gliding mode. However, in the most cases the dynamic rebound from
this type of failure is so violent that the torn edges are driven too far apart
to recover and the event is followed by canopy collapse and streaming.
A partial measure of the Ringsail parachute's tolerance for damage is indi-

cated by Figures 50, 51 and 52.
A split gore or other large rent in the canopy may have as its point of origin
a minor defect or rupture in a region that is subjected to critical stress
levels during inflation. This is most certainly the case when major damage
is sustainod by a parachute of sound design at a low load level. Such fail-
ures have occurred with opening loads below the design limit. The presence
of minor damage prior to inflation is also highly probable when the major
damage originates in those gores of the canopy identified as the "packing
axis" (Gores 1, N/2 *1, and N), because the gores on the packing axis are
on the outside of the pleated canopy as it is folded into the deployment bag.
Therefore, these same gores are the ones exposed to the dynamic effects
that cause pro-opening damage. (Only rarely can the damage be traced to
faulty packing technique.) The damage charts of parachutes (large ones in
particular) which per.^ormed successfully frequently show a scattering of
minor damage and friction burns across the canopy with a greater than aver-
age concentration in the gores on the packing axis. The number of such de-
fects tends to be a direct iunction of the test dynamic pressure at deployment.
* A term coined by parachute people acknowledging the similarity of the

streaming canopy configuration to that of the familiar marine creature;
however, the direction of motion is reversed.
!. Ill
iv
.4, . ,
Figure 50. Mercury 63. 1 ft Do Ringsail Damaged By Falling

Compartment Cover During Qualification Test -
Salton Sea, California
112
'N4
Figure 51. Century 128.8 ft D,, Ringsall (Lightweight Model) Open~ing

Damnage (Aate. of Deicint 27. 9 !Ps with~ 9762 ib)
143I
I 'I
I .
I -
A
II
-.
I Fgure5Z. 88, 1 ft D0 Rinasail Des cendhg Safely with One

I Gore Split from Vent to Skirt
It
114
1:3
Evidence of this sort compiled during the Century Ringsail test program
supports the theory that pre-opening damage is caused by dynamic pressure
blowouts at small spots in the canopy that have been temporarily weakened
by frictional heating. Friction burns in nylon can be identified after the
event only when the material was heated to the melting point. In such spots
embrittlement occurs after cooling and the material has no strength. But
any spot that was heated to less than the melting point cannot be identified
afterwards because there is no embrittlement and the material recovers
most of its original strength. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the
majority of small pressure bursts found in the canopy without brittle edges
were earlier hot spots and that were exposed to dynamic pressure before
they had time to cool. Since the heat capacity of nylon cloth is very small,
it is clear that the time between heating and exposure must be very short,
L. e., of the same order of magnitude as the time required for the affected
area to move out of the mouth of the deployment bag. This is also the time
during which the outer surface of the canopy is rubbing rapidly across the
deployment bag lining.
The presence of pre-opening damage generally across the canopy, suggests

that inter-laminar friction is the primary source, while the concentration
along the packing axis would reflect only the added contribution of the deploy-
ment bag. Therefore, it is not something that could be controlled effectively
by employing a reversible lining in the deployment bag, unless measures
were also taken to reduce inter-laminar friction, The other appro.ch would
be to prevent penetration of high pressure air into the canopy until th•e 'deploy-
ment bag has been stripped off, a difficult mechanical problem requirln" both
zero leakage and unfailing release at canopy stretch.
115/116
SECTION 4
WEIGHT AND VOLUME
4.1 INDIVIDUAL PARACHUTES WITHOUT RISERS
Ringsail parachute weights without risers are listed in Table IX and are
plotted in Figure 53. These are average measured values. In addition to
the weights shown, 12% must be added to obtain the pack weight which include
risers, links, reefing line, reefing cutters and deployment bag. The weights
presented in Figure 53 fall into three categories which are representative of
the following basic structures.
2
Light Construction: 90% So of 1. 1 oz/yd cloth
10% S0 of 1. 1 to 1. 6 oz/yd 2 cloth
Suspension lines of 400-450 lb cord
Medium Construction: 85% So of 1. 1 o/ydcloth
1 j5%
So of 1. 6 to 2. 25 ox/yd cloth
Heavy Construction: 75% So of 1. 1 oz/yd2 cloth 2

25% SO of 2. 25 to 3. 25 oa/yd cloth
Parachute volumes vary with the pack density 6 p which Is a function of the
packing method employed. Average pack densities also are given In Table IX.
The Installed voluem depends on the weight and density of other cornponent,4
stowed in the deployment bag along with the parachute and even on the skin
thickness of the bag Itself.
4.2 LINE TO RISER LINKS
Table XVII presents weights of some of the line to riser links used in Ringsail
par4chute assemblies.
4.3 RISER ASSEMBLIES
The weight of riser assemblies varies widely from system to system. Table
XVIII presents some typical examples.
117
H0 tf...P
.....
Welabi j - bij"
100:: 1- li
100 5 O~M 0
4- il118
TABLE XVII
TYPICAL SUSPENSION LINE TO RISER LINK WEIGHTS
Part No. or Rated Strength Weight

Drawing No. (Ib) (Ib)
Capewell 101740 6000 .144

(for I inch webbing)
MS 220Z1-1 6000 .184
USAF 5ZB6660 9500 .190
R7666-1 (Northrop) 6650 (ULT) .267
MS 24553-1 , 23,000 .540
TABLE XVIII
TYPICAL RISER ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS
S Part No. or j Weight

D( Drawing No. Brranch (ft)I Trunk (ft) (lib)
Mercury 63.1 .BR5107-301 3.5 0.1 1.50.-
Gemini 84.2 R62Z2 1.1 4.1 1.82

Apollo 85.6 R8•061 -1 3.5 1.3 2.50
J 88. 1 PDS 1 366-501 3. 5 3. 0 5.80
Century 128. 8 R72805-1 3.0 32 Is. 43A
A This riser was designed for cluster operation
119
4.4 COMPLETE PARACHUTE SYSTEM
Significant statistics on the weight breakdown of Rlngsail parachute system

components are summarised in Table XIX for the Mercury, Gemini and
Apollo spacecraft landing systems.
TABLE XIX
WEIGHT OF SPACECRAFT LANDING SYSTEMS
STS-YMW M OTT, PER FABRIC OTHER TIOTA PER SIC

Ta ac LB LB La LB
oe1 7. 4.0 31.1 13.1
Pnlot I 12. 1.5 4.3 4.3
Idaf 1 69.3 4.1, 1o0.o0 70.0
Reserve 1 64.0 0.3 67.3 67.3
Loeation Ade 1 0 I. 5 6.5 6.5
of~a~. 1 0 9.8 %.a8
i Totals 146.2 22.8 169.0 169.0
%Rcevued Weigt.
a.8
TotWl
.1 Wthoauk Seqmecei LocaUca Aide
3.4 Wlthoel Backup
Iqo
3 I'.s 4.1 s1.l 1sla
Pilot 1 .49 4. 133.6 13.6
main I 111.3 1.6 116.9 114.9
iMeconsaete 3 L0 L0 4.0
Pensoa.1 3 11.0 3.I
I's 19t1.3. 39.4
1 61
Toutas 9.
"o 4. 4 Toute
4, a Wa ot Iraawio•kes &D1ciwlto
-... -I•]••- - ..
3.3 W3owlt 3lklkq
... . lill --... . ill l -i+
D~eslat a 14P. 13.2 50.O,0 100,.0
Pilot 3 1.1 &S3 10.0 30. 0
WnMa 3 1314.0 9.1 14&.1 43I64
0 Itueatli 3 I'l 0 I.1 3
S" Sit%
•eetP 1 2.6
0 06.6b L 4
4.4 x &
3i.
Tci~j - -564.
- .ieoe
•- 41elaw
i 4 - lOl
,-,, 1• •i
+, - ,, 4•4• • -
,+,.,:, - -_ ,
4.4 withe" sue. Se***tc "se,

Le6 WiWee medomdaw 0"gue Pilot WAt
ofa
SECTION 5
DESIGN PROCEDURES
The design procedures outlined in this section are applicable to Ringsail
parachutes of all siese. The solution of a sample deeign problem is given
In Appendix C. The design of a Rizigsail parachute. like that of any other
type, is carried out along two parallel courses - - geometric and structural
.- with some interplay between them aimed at one or more of the following
potential objectives:
a. Minimum weight
b. Maximum specific drag area (CDS/ WP)
c. Maximum structural reliability
d. Facility of manufacture
System operational requiresments for the parachute yield basic design

criteria which may include the following:
a. The maximum allowable rafte of descent at a given altitude.
b. Maximum allowable opening load or load factor.
c. Maxisnum or average amplitude of pendular oscillations.
do Installed weight and/or volume.
Co. Matimnum allowable elapsed times from deployment to [Ull open

under a given set of conditioeds
LGeometrical factors affecting the lengths af suspanelon lies,
and rivers.
S. Type of deployment system.u
h. Type of reefing system.

*Usually some -of these o it4Akia are given greater weight thab oter. *ofte
may be sat up only as desigh goals. *t"d in areaS of po0-sible contlict an
order of precedence mkay be established.
The decision to use a cluster of parachute# rather than one parachute is
made on the basis of preliminary design calculations and tradeoff studies.
With the exception of specific details to be Identified. the design procedure
for the cluster Ringsail Is the same as that for the single parachute.
Design of the parachute proper is preceded by a number of preliminary

computations. System true airspeed and free stream dynamic pressure at
parachute line stretch and at disreef for each reefed stage are determined
for given desion conditions by trajectory computations using a digit.&I com-
puter program of the type described In Section 6. 1. The size of the O~ra-
chute or cluster is determined by calculating the total effective drag area
(MCDS) required using the method given in Section 6. a. I along with the
applicable drag coefficient; (CDO) determined from Figures 22 through 26.
as follows:
a. Enter Figure 22 with the design rate of descent. and estimated
suspension line length and estimated Do range and read CDO
interpolating I*/Do as required.
b. Calculate Soand Do to verify size of single canmpy.
c. Enter Figure 23 with Do to verify CD for 4./D .15

d. Fo r efective line lengths other than Is /DO 1. 15.
enter Figure ZOb with design value and read CD 0 /C0 0 * where
GD0 ' is the value fortl*/D 0 1. 15.
e. If the crown geotric porosity is algnifiacontly higher than
standard for the design as given in Figure U.. consider the
need forrCD correction derived from Figure 254 with due,
allOWante for ~e epeciallsed nature ot the source data given.
L For cluttilro.'use Figure U6 to determine CD0 *ICD*o wh~er
C)*is the single canopy value derived tromn steps (a) through
(a) above.
Design limit loads of single and clustored, canopies are calculated by the
method given fia Section 6. 3. 1. Whena design safety factorli are not given
in the system speiftication,- those given ih Section S. 2 should be used for
ptelinalnry estimate#. The overall design ftatte is calculated as
V. V . lAp. The compone~ts of tMe allowable load factor (Ap) aire
given in Section 8. 4. 1.
It should be noted that moot of the empirical methods given for Riugecll
I parach~te design are derived from tests in which unit canopy loadings were
In the order of W/CDS, =0.5Sto 1.5Spsi;uncertainty asto their accuracy will
S.1
CLCULTIONOF BASIC DIMENSIONS
Thl aerody ami alysis through determination of the required effective
drags area and applicable drag coefficient defines the drag surface area (S 0.
This provides the basis for the bulk of the basic dimension calculations.
S lioat aspects of the design procedure. summarized in Figure I Z. are
repeated here In grie~tter detail# each discrete step being numbered for
clarity.
1. alculate the nominal diameter of the canopy
D (4 5 W
2. Determine the number of gores as a convenient *ven number divisible

by the number of risers fok good structural design between N =. 76 Do and
N =.88 Do* with Do expressed in feet. Since, the number of susponsion lines'
i.equal to the nu~'nber of gore. ýstructural efficiency will be benefitted if the
product NPR Is about five percent gr&4ter than the product (D. F.) FLirn@
obtalined from "~i structiual analysis (see Section 6.4). The "rargivi allowed
for futuare growth depends on the firminess of the design criteria 4wd somne.
what an the availability of textile cords of the proper rated strength (PR)-
However the possibility exist* (and Ias#been taken adv~ant*g Wf) of uprating
the strength of sone il-
n~runs of 6114M Spec"1 materilah by performing
41acceptance tests to ensure comp4aance.
3.Calculate the length o1 the qusptasibb lines.,
1 4e
and the Vtiar leogth (ta) i# any convenient nutsiber, usu~ally btw~wee Z and
4 fteel. ]or two-canapy clusters the rtcomnieaded efloticve, line length is
C -o 4b
W3
and for three canopy clusters of high efficiency
ie-43D o 4c
might be justified by a tradeoff study of length vs CD to obtain a cluster of

minimnum weight for a given -CDS, as was done for single parachutes in
References 5 and 35.
Make certain that the drag coefficient used in the aerodynamic analysis
was based on the effective line length selected.
4. Calculate the gore height equal to the canopy radial dimension.
ha 0. 519 Do (see Figure 12) 5
For convenience this dimension is rounded off to the nearest inch.
5. Calculate the combined area of the central vent and the ring slots In
cthcrown of the canopy.
"XS
gc
X S0 6
SWhere k to read from the top curve of Figure 21 at the pertinent Do,
Se'
6. Select the woven width (hw) of cloth to be uued In the sails. Integral
widths of 1$, 24, 36 and 42 inches have been used depending In part on the
sioe of the parathule, However, the use of 42 inch cloth tn~y not be desirlable
s.ince models with 36 1nch sail ranging from D0 =. 56. Z to It8,f 8 feet have.
exhibited very satis•actory performance. Select a width such that the number
of sails In the filal gore layout Is not lss thtan nitne, Note that at sail number
I allowance moust be made for folding wuider the vent btad a shown in ?igulre
70 in seCtiott 7.
7. ie0termitne the vertical wpacinc of &ails hi the gore,. This is neces-'

n" riiy an iterative procetoure, initiated by mt•-in'tg a rough estimate and then
"€-refid by rhsequettt steps of adjustoteat and com-putation. ýn general the
""utlibbr of sails (it) Is the noarest wihole timber liess than htt/hv. but wheib
Note in.%re
I • th!at thc ring s4l1t it the crow of the eat•piy extend to
a-;:.pti~rnately 0. 4 hit. A4.tfnfc that the number of slots (Ag) is the neftatrest
inotoger jews thitn (0.4 b1h t) 1 1.
124
a. Determine the number of sails and number of ring slots with the
above relationships. Let the vent dimension be any convenient
number between h. = 0. 02 Do and 0. 03 Do rounded off to the
nearest inch. Estimate the slot width dimension (&h ) by defining
a mean slot as follows:
* Let the position of the mean slot be
h9 (.4 Nt-hv)Z+hv7
a Then the length of the mean slot is
Cg 6.44 (hR/N) sin (h-/hR) 54" (Figure 12) 8
The open area per gore is ES IN (See step 5)

gc
"* Estimate the area of the vent sector and calculate the
area of the mean slot in one gurc S PS /N) -S JYn
9 4c v g
* ThenAh" Eare°of mean slot
g length of mean slot ' g g
Present beat practice is to make aUl slots the same width because experience
gained from the Apollo Ringeall development program demonstrated that
having slot widths inversely proportional to the ring diameter was a needless
complication,
The fRual step In completing the first approxinAtion of the -mail spaciag is to
calculate lhe height the) of thb top sail as the diference,
",°ihair liwn % "4)) 9 .
This dimension will usually be less than the woven width of the cloth and is
rounded off"tco t. neatet inch Allow 2 0 inches for the vest hem as shown
in Figure 70.
bT "he seaond approxiniation begits by making any dimensional ad-

jusatents that appear necessary upon appraisal of the folow*if:
Is the height of the top eati too wide or too narrow?

If too wide. consider additn one sail to the layout,
If too narrow, consider rt*ducing the-vea diameter.
I Z
•."~
Compare the radial position of the mean slot obtained from
the calculated dimensions with the first estimate. This
will indicate whether the slot width should be increased or
decreased. This step is clarified by the numerical example
given in Appendix C.
After making the dimensional adjustments indicated, check the size of the
central vent. Because the average Ringsaii vent is relatively small, there
is considerable latitude in the area acceptable. The following criteria may
be applied; only one need be satisfied.
S IS =.0015to.0035 (LetS =Dv 14)

v 0 v
hv/Do =.02 to. 03
C :Z.Oto2.5 inches (LetC = wrD IN)

VV V
An approximate vent diameter is obtained from
D u1. 932 h 1Oa

v V
The finished vent diameter is
D NC/ IOb
V V
and
S = nD 14 11
Note that the vent diameter is not increased by the fullness factor because
the vent lines are marked to hold this dimension, causing the vent band to
arch upward between radials. In order to prevent the vent band from
shrinking the vent, it is nu rked under nominal tension to a dimension Cv
based on its outside diameter which is close to D + 2 inches for a 1 inch
band. An additional allowance for takeup due to thread tension in the seams
may be made.
With the preliminary crown geometry thus defined, the geometric porosity
Is calculated and compared with the value obtained in step 5. Note that
this computation entails determination of the gore width at each slot in
place of a mean slot length.
L. 126 '
c. The result will indicate the adjustment to be made in the slot
width. If the adjustment is large, the number of slots may be
increased or reduced by one. Since these changes also change
the radial spacing of the slots in the gore, the third approxima-
tion consists of repetition of all the operations required to
verify the crown geometric porosity. If good agreement with
the desired design value is obtained, say within *5 percent, no
further dimensional adjustments need be made the vertical
spacing of the sails in the gore is determined.
8. Calculate the gore coordinates at the upper and lower edges of the
sails.
C = 6.44 (hR/N) sin (h/hR) 54" (from Figure 12) 1z
These are the coordinates of a truncated ogival surface having the construc-
ted profile illustrated in Figure 1 5c. Mathematically and geometrically,
-it is the equivalent of a spherical surface with small sector, i. e., several
*gores", removed and the cut edges joined together.
9. Determine the fullness factors KA and KB using the diagram showing

how K varies with h/hR for the upper and lower edges of the sails in
Figure 54.
10. Calculate the widths of the sailo at the upper and lower edges.
CA zA C 13a
"CB = KB C 13b
These are the distances between the centerlines of the radial seams.
11. Calculate the sum of the areas of vent, slots and sails to verify S0.
S = + MS + LS
o v g s 14
The area of each slot or sail is calculated as the product of Uts height and
its mean length
AS = Ah (CA + C)/Z 15
And the area of each ring is simply N(AS).
127
hl'gý Iý \ !,.1
.*'-*
*.J
..........
....
......
E-.
* 128
I'
The Value of So thus obtained usually is slightly different from the design
value and the nominal diameter is corrected to reflect the difference.
there is no SHowever,
pressing need to correct the design drag area (CDSo)
bercause the change is small relative to the probable accuracy of the drag
r'opfficient.
12. Calculate the sail pattern dimensions. Seam allowances are added
for the radial fell seams and the rolled hem on the upper edge of Sail No. 1.
The allowance, made for the 1/2 inch fell seam shown in Figure 11: is 0. 8
inches or 1. 6 inches for two overall. The allowance made for a 1. 0 inch
rolled vent hem is +Z. 0 inches on the height of Sail No. 1. With reference
to the pattern diagram:
HI = hlh + 2. 0 (inches); A2-
H2 t°
to H hw (woven width)*
"A CA -1.6 (inches);
B = CB + , 6 (in:hes) H '
The upper edge of Sail No. 1
A C + 1. 6 -AC
Where AC is the change in width B

over the 2 inch seam allowance.
S13. Calculate the gore assembly: height: hal hR -!hv 16
SThis 'completes the basic dimension scheine and the lengths of all components
are determined.
Note that hw is subject to a minufacturing tolerance which is shown on the

pattern drawing' only. 'All calculations are based on the nominal width which
Sis the minimum value; ea., hw $612 *1/2 inches for a nomh"al width of
36 1n hes.i
129
5.2 SELECTION OF MATERIALS
Selection of materials is based partly on experience and partly on a pre-

liminary stress analysis employing empirical formulae to estimate the
strength of materials required. The stmrcture so defined provides a basis
for weight calculations and for a detailed stress analysis by more rigorous
methods supplemented by laboratory strength tests. The results may dic-
tate changes in the weight of cloth and in the rated strengths of other mem-
bers with a consequent revision of the weight estimate.
The stress analysis, more properly called an internal loads analysis, is

based on limit opening loads applied by the parachute to the attached vehicle
through the main riser. These design limit loads are supplied by the loads
analysis and may be different for each opening stage. Since the shape of
the reefed canopy differs greatly from the shape of the disreefed canopy at
the instants of peak loading, a separate internal loads analysis must be
made for each opening stage.
A preliminary selection of materials may be made without going into the

various factors affecting the allowable strengths because a suitable design
factor can be estimated for any safety factor required. For example, com-
monly specified safety factors are 1. 5 for canopy and lines and 2. 0 for
risers. Corresponding design factors for a sound lightweight parachute
structure are: (Reference Section 6. 4. 1).
D. F. = 1.9 (canopy and lines)
D. F. 2. 5 (risers)
Very conservative structures of mid- to heavy-weight are obtained with

design factors of 2. 1 to 2. 3 for canopy and lines. The actual weight class
of the structure also depends on the magnitude of the opening load factor.
The required minimum rated unit strength (P'R) of the textile member is
determined as the product of the design factor and the maximum or critical
Internal load
", (D. F.) T 17
and it is good practice to select the lightest available material for which
the rated strength
P a PR 18
130
"I'?,•..
The following empirical formulae provide a convenient basis for the pre-
liminary calculation of Internal loads and the required strength of materials.
(See Section 6 for derivations.)
Canopy cloth: T F /wD 19

c L p
Suspension line cord: T F IN 20

c L
5. 2. 1 Canopy Cloth
The projected diameter of the canopy at the instant of FL = F (max) during

inflation is
2
Dp (4 S /w)I 21
where
S = C S/C 22
p D D 2
p
and CDS is derived from trajectory calculations for reefed stages and CD
comes in Figure 55. (See Section 6.2. 3) p
It can be assumed that the reefed opening load reaches its peak at the end of
reefed inflation, but on disreefing the load peak occurs prior to full inflation.
Fortunately, only the reefed condition is critical in the great majority uf

cases, because for many years the lightest available parachute cloth has
been more than strong enough for the major area of the canopy outside the
crown. Therefore, the problem is reduced to a simple determination of
how much of the crown area should be made from cloth stronger than 1. 1 oz
Ripstop (normally rated at 42 lb/in). (See Table XXIV in Section 6. 5.)
The maximum reefed opening load obtained from the loads analysis Is based
on a particular reefed drag area (CDSR). For rough calculations it may be
assumed that the crag coefficient CD = 1.0 but this is very conservative for
small reefing ratios. A somewhat lePes conservative approach is justifiable
using a CD value corresponding to the given reefing ratio (DR/Do) as given
in Figure 59 (Section 6. 2. 3).
Calculate PR 7' (D. F.) Tc and compare the result with the unit strengths
of available parachute fabrics.
Tc F L /WDpl (Equation 19)
131
. x a
The crown area to be covered with the heavy cloth should be a minimum
because the weight increases rapidly with increasing radius. This area
can be estimated in terms of a radial dimension (h ) on the pressurized
portion of the canopy defined as a hemisphere of diameter DpI (see Figure
66 in Section 6).
hc -irD p1 /4 23
Comparison of this dimension with the table of gore coordinates will indicate
the number of rings of heavy cloth required.
The crown of the reefed canopy is not a hemisphere but photogrametic anal-
ysis shows the radius near the vent to agree well with this assumption, e. g.,
see Reference 13. The profile radius decreases toward the periphery, as
does the differential pressure across the canopy also, which may account for
the concentration of damage close around the vent when the crown cloth is
not strong enough. With two stages of reefing the above is true of both stages
and the method of calculation is the same as for stage 1.
If a transition annulus of intermediate weight cloth between the crown and the
major area of the canopy is needed, the strength required may be determined
by estimating the unit loading after disreefing when the pressurized portion
of the canopy has expanded to a larger radius such that
h/hR U0.5*
when hc2 <h/hR . 5 the transition annulus is not required. Since the
parachute force will not have reached its peak at this time a calculation
based on the limit load will be quite conservative.
Let
D p2= (41) .5 h.R4
and
Tc FL /VDp2
1 (Equation 19)
*Observation indicates the inflated periphery to be roughly in this region

shortly after disreefing.
" II
| ' - • i •• :. ....• :'•"'• .. • 2'"°: : "•'"• .... J• ' •.. .••• " : "•" : •''--:• •:,"1-3 . •''
The conservative nature of both of the above calculations allows the designer
some freedom in the selection of materials for the rings in the upper half of
the canopy. For example, in the interest of minimizing structural weight a
fabric could be selected for which PR was somewhat less than the calculated
P1R on the ground that the prototype model will be subject to more rigorous
t-valuation later both analytically and in aerial drop tests for demonstration
of structural integrity. This approach has been used successfuliy in some
programs where weight was a critical factor.
Having determined the number of crown rings to be made of heavy cloth, the
remainder will be made of 1. 1 oz ripstop nylon or its equivalent. In many
cases, if lighter weight fabrics of the proper porosity were available , such
material could be used. A listing of the unit strengths and unit weights of
currently available parachute textiles is given in Table XXIV. Section 6. 5.
5. 2. 2 Suspension Lines and Vent Lines
Although the vent line load is less than the suspension line load, it is good
practice to use the same cord for both members, because the weight incre-
ment is negligible. As noted in step 2 of the basic dirhension calculations the
strength of cord selected for the suspension lines is coordinated with deter-
mination of the number of gores in the cunaopy such that PR is roughly 5
percent greater than
P1 = (D. F. ) F IN a5
R LIM
Of course P = PF is also acceptable but allows no margin for growth.
5. 2. 3 Radial Tape.
The canopy load transferred to the suspension lines Is shared by two tapes
and the cloth in each radial seam. As a minimum the strength of each of the
'-tio tapes in the radial seam must have
PF (0. 9 P of suspension lines)IZ (See 6.4. 2. 3) 26
but the limited choice of suitable textiles usually results in radial# consider-
ably stronger than the lines. New textile forms are needed here to support
the design of Ringsail structures of maximum efficiency.
133
5.2.4 Risers
Of the many nylon webbings available a few have unusually high strength/
weight ratios in combination with good flexibility, e. g., 6000 lb 1. 0 inch and
10, 000 lb 1. 75 inch. These are used in preference to the stiffer and less
efficient webbings even when choice of the latter is indicated by the required
strength
PF= (D.F.) FLIM Z7

SNR
Because the riser assembly is usually quite short, the weight increment of
using stronger webbing than required is very small.
5, 2. 5 Circumferential Bands
These are the bands that form continuous hoop members around the canopy.
as opposed to the intercostal tapes placed on sail edges to increase tear
strength.
Vent Band: Because the vent band is so short, it is made much stronger
than can be justified by any internal load analysis. Good practice is to
make the vent band from 4000 lb 1 inch tubular nylon webbing, or an
equivalent textile form or plied assembly.
Skirt Bandt Under normal operating conditions the skirt band is lightly
ii•abstantial strength may be required only to resist whipping
*: loads and to hold the canopy together when a gore is split. Because thip
band also serves to stiffen the skirt as an opening aid, good practice is
to make the skirt band of a one-half inch wide tape or web having a strength
at least equal to that of the suspension lines. However, the practice in
large Ringseals has been to employ a 1,000 lb I/Z inch tubular web for this
member.
Intermediate (ripstop) Bands: Parachutes subject to high stress levels

in the mid gore region after disreefing are reinforced with one or two con.
tinuous bands on the upper edges of selected rings. These are redundant
members and in order to be effective in preventing the radial spreading.
of rips in the canopy they must be quite strong. Consequently they are
heavy and the number used irust be sharply limited to obtain a parachute
structure of good efficiency. One such band made of 1000 lb 1/Z inch
* tubular webbing at h/hR . 416 in the lightweight 128. 3 ft Do Century
Ringsiall proved to bc an adequate ripstop member.
134
5. 2. 6 Vertical and Intercostal Tapes
Good practice it to make these members of 5/8 inch tape with PR = 70 lbs
in low stress areas and PR = 90 lbs elsewhere. The vertical tapes on gore
centerlines across the crown slots are generally double members of 90 lb
tape. The weight increment of the 90 lb tape over the 70 lb tape is negligible
except on sail edges below h/hR w 0.45, where the tear-stress level is low
and 70 lb tape can be used to good advantage.
Distribution of the tapes on sail edges along the gore is made as follows:
.90 lb tapes:
- on both edges of all ring slots in the crown

- on upper sail edges only to h/hR . .40 -. 45
70 lb tapes:
- on upper *ail edges only between h/hR .45 and

0. 60 approximately
Beyond h/hR a 0. 60 no tapes are required on 'Trip" selvage

cloth, (See Appendix E.)
Where a ripstop band is installed, the intercostal tape is omitted from the
sail subassembly.
5, 2. ? Miscellaneous Textile Comp Oents
Threadt In general, Ringtait structures of All weiglht are stitched with

the sme weight nylon threads aw follows:
-D.(i% 5 1b) -- asing gore setusuemblies
E (8. 5 ib) -- All sesms exc.ept radials and vent band
Pf(10 l, - Radial seams and vent band

Use o| B thread may be considered optional tor stitching intercostal tW*
to sail edges. $Liser assemblies are geterally stitched with 06 nylon, cord.
Reefing Line: Use 1000 lb braided nylon coed except where the strtrctuaral
analysis or test data show the need for an allowable strength greater than
500 lbs approxim.-tely. Although 550 1b and 750 lb reefing lines hive been
used iuceeusfu~ly in eome systems, there is nothing to be gained by Using
a cord lighter tL•an the provens eapacit- o( avaiUable miniature reefitS line
cuttersll.
135i
* .p+.*.
5. 2. 8 Hardware
Reeling Rings: Of the many reefing ring designs available, the best for a
given application will be the smallest that allows the reefing line complete
running freedom. The ring selected must also be rigid, very smooth with
fully rounded edges, and wide enough so that it can be rigidly attached to
the canopy skirt. The ring should also be of corrosion 'resistant materials
or design.
Line to Riser Links: The preferred design is a separable link of maximum

specific strength that is rigid and smooth with fully rounded edges all over.
The proof test load for thP link should be not less than
FT - IM IN R Z8
and the minimum ultimate etrength or certified rated strength should be

equal to or greater than
P'1 l.5F IN Z9
Rt LIM R
Suitable links of different strengthe are given In Section 4. Z, Table XVIL
A rough weight estimate of canopy and lines is made with the. aid of Figure 53
based on the weight class into which the new parachute design falls. This
weight increased by I Z percent will provide a representative pack weight In-
cluding reefing components, risers4 links. and deployment bag. The pack
*olume Is then calculated for an aver xje pack density based on the packing,
method to be employed.
When the parachute design has been completed to this point, It is ready for
a more detailed and rigo•ous analysis by the methods outlined in Section 6
and for the preparation of detail drawings or sketches suitable for the fabri-
cation of the first lest speocimenvs.
"S.$ IINOSIL DEGN BY COMPUTER
A digital computer program designated WG1476 was developed itn 1966 to fa.
ciltate solution of Aingsail parachutae desigan problems, The program was
designed around the basic dimension scheme of Vigure I 2 to carry out the
design procedure described in preceding Section 5. 1. including an iterative
determination of the sail spacing on the gor*e. it addition, it performs a
porosity computation similar to that illustrated in Section 6.6 "d a weight
computation by the exact method ftiven itn Section 6. 1 The program was
136
.....................
originally written for the IBM 70901digital computer in FORTRAN IV. It
has since been modified for use in the IBM 360/65 digital computer and
exists in two forms: WGI76A-10 punched -IBM input cards and requires all
sails below the ringalot crown to bp of equal width; the -11 version employs
S11 input cards and variable sail widths may be used throughout.
SAs a minimum the input must specify either the desired effective drag area
(CDSo) or the nominal diameter (Do) of the Ringsail parachute to be designed.
Given one of these, the computer will develop the basic dimensions and gore
coordinates of a standard Ringsail design havinq an even number of gores
divisible by the proper number of risers, the correct crown porosity, the
correct number of rings in the canopy for a cloth width of 36 inches, and an
effective suspension line length of Ie/Do ; 1.15 (with risers 3, 0 feet long).
The printout includes a summary of the porosity computation (Xg1vt Xe )Xg'
Mand T). the drag coefficient CD6 (corrected for scale) used to calculate
CDSo, plus corrected values of SO and D. derived from a summation of the
sail and slot areas. The printout also includes the sail pattern dimensienus.
When the program input is augmented to include a listing of the unit weights
of selected materials, the print-out will also include the total weight of
ptfachute1 and risers down to the confluence point and a breakdown summary
* of the component weights: sail fabric, suspension lines, risers, radials,
skirt and vent bands, and all reinforcing tapes -and bands.
The Inppt provisions of the program are comprehensive and flexible, e*t-
abling the designer to'specify a# many of the design parameters as he
wishes, including the vertical spacing of sails of varying widths along the
* gore. After a preliminary detig to4n on the computer. the designer i free
to adjust any of the basic dimettsion specified and learn their precist effects
on the area,, porosity, and weight of thenodified
- onfiguration by perform-
in; a second computer run. W0.176 is a valuable adjunct tothe CA.NO stress
azalysis program descrimd W Section 6 a"d Aefer.ece 25..
I .A-, ,.
5 137/138
SECTION 6
DESIGN ANALYSIS METHODS
The design of parachute systems requires a variety of computations employ-

ing a. combination of analytical procedures based on empirical data describing
the performance and other characteristics of the type of parachute to be
utilized. Presented in this section are the major design analysis methods
used in the development of Jingsall parachute systems. The material is
presented under the following subheadings:
a. System Trajectory Computations
b. Ringsail Aerodynamics
c. Prediction of OpeninS Loads
d. Stress Analysis
e. Calculation of Rtngnil Weight
L Calculationat Rongsall Porosity
"6.I SYSTEM TRAJECTORY COMPUTATIONS
'Parachute system trAjeathry computatious are wade te produce a graphic

pre.tentationn ot vehi-le motion and dynamic response ihtte followlng.
n•t;c.fý-
niout of the en tioaent parachutes in operational sequence. •*reiin tI y
trajectory cal•itwns sin are za necessary part of the paratogtt design
mroncess and are taually based on a ginn set at ifitial conditions It deploy-
tneht (vehicle neight. velocity. and flight attitude and path angle).
Such Computations art best deme with a difital computer using a simple two-
--. }degree freedom ~igram in which the equations of motiou are:
is cos V 1
Sv &in Y
-(r Wv-:si " "
tSee equation 5Z in Section 6. ). 2)
4 -(g cosMV)/W
•13
For rough preliminary work the parachute force and the drag of the vehicle
are approximated by
FP + DV = (CDS + CDS )q 34
and CDSP Is represented by a simple step function of time corresponding to

the reefid program desired. Significant variations of CDSv with time or
Mach number also are represented by step functions. For any given set
of initial conditions (WO, ho, vo, and V.) this method will yield dynamic
pressures at the beginning and end of reefed intervals suitable for prediction
of opening loads by the load factor method. The loads indicated by the com-
puter itself are excessive because the drag area step-function is not realistic.
However, with the introduction of filling times in the drag area step-function,
e. g., Figure 56, the reefed oPO~nng forces predicted by the computer can be
made quite accurate as shown In Section 6. Z. 6. Unfortunately the same is
not true of the final opening load after disreefing because this process is
dominated by the influence of the added air mass on system dyna'oics.
The determination of parachute reefing parameters (DR/Do and AtR) for a

given system prior to flight test is done through a series of trajectory cal-
culations made prim-xrily for the purpose of determining the dynamic preo-
sure at the beginning and end of each reefed interval. This Is done in
conjunction with opening load calculations aimed at attaintmelnt of a favorable
balance of peak load# from stage to stage for the crit'cal design conditions
on the performance envelope of the vehicle. In the general case the maix-
rmam opening load of *ne stage is not necessarily associated with the samte set
Vt
of initial
tconditions for which the opening loads of other stages are maxima
"6.Z RINGSAIL AERODYNAMICS
"Dugto aeroeolatlcity and porosity the ai'trdynmics of parachutes is so

complex that only rudimentary c-iculat ions can be tmie with any confideiice,
SEven so, the results aire subject to statistical vAriationa of i rndotn Charac-
tel. as the data of Section 3 clearly demonstrate.
6. 4`11 Alace c-( Ococent
In equilibrium descient thse total dtag of the system (Yc) is very searly equal
to its weight (W) tuch that
c-1 D4
140
Whence the equilibrium dynamic pressure
"qe W/MDS 36
and the rate of descent
v -(2 qlP) 37
e e
Generally at low rates of descent the drag of the suspended vehicle is negli-
gible, permitting the effective drag area of the parachute to be calculated
for a desired rate of descent as simply
CDSo= W/q 38
Since system oscillation and gliding are limited by design to magnitudes

that pose no hazard to the payload at touchdown, there is seldom any need
in the operational analysis to consider horizontal velocity components other
than that of wind drift. The latter is a totally random factor to which all
non-steerable parachute systems are cubject.
6. 2. 2 Drag Coefficient
The drag coefficient is calculated from test data relating the tangential force
(Fc) of the parachute to the free stream dynamic pressure (q)
C
C =F IS q 39
With large parachutes this becomes a matter of measuring the descent

velocity and atmospheric properties over a substantial altitude interval.
An attempt is made to obtain aerological data as a function of altitude at the
time of the test -k30 minutes so that the air density can be evaluated with
reasonable accuracy. The descent velocity is subject to errors of observa-
tion and mensuration of phototheodolite data and includes an unknown incre-
.ment due to vertical air motion. The system weight can be measured very
accurately to yield Fc, and while the canopy area (S ) is known within narrow
limits, the inflated (projected) area (S ) is not. Sp ?s known to vary some-
what due to the breathing phenomenon ihich tends to be periodic. However,
it is suspected that S also may vary from test to test due to the effects of
hysteresis after the canopy has been stretched by opening loads of different
magnitudes. Thus far, attempts to correlatA these factors have been un-
successful. While some photogrammetric data show the Ringsail adhering
closely to the two-thirds rule (Dp/Do Z/3) other measurements yield
141
DI/Do = . 74 to . 80 following heavy overloads. In any event, when the cor-
rected rate of descent during a given test is found to vary widely in a non-
periodic fashion, the resultant average value cannot be relied upon for eval-
uation of the drag coefficient. When this behavior was found in the results
of Ringsail drop tests, such data points were rejected from the performance
evaluatire.
For design purposes the drag coefficient is estimated with the help of
Figures 22 through 26 by taking into account all of the governing factors:
a. Unit canopy loading as measured by the equivalent rate

of descent
b. Scale effects
c. Effective length of suspension lines
d. Crown geometric porosity
e. Number of canopies in a cluster when pertinent
6. 2. 3 Reefed Drag Area
Reefed drag area calculations are made for both single and clustered para-
chutes on the basis of empirically derived curves of the two reefing ratios
CDSR/CDSo vs DR/Do such as those of Figures 46 through 48. Accurate
deteraination of Ringsail reefed drag area is handicapped by the fact of its
-growth during the reefed interval. Thus, the easily measured value, under
near-equilibrium conditions at disreefing, is a function of the duration of the
reefed interval, while the smaller initial drag area associated with the peak
opening force is obscured by system deceleration. It has been a common
practice to report measured values of F/q as equal to CDS, ignoring the
dynamiks of the added air mass. Consequently, the data obtained by this
uncritical treatment tends to be unique for each different system and cannot
be relied upon for general use.
Note that by defining the diametral reefing ratio in terms of Do, the canopy
is fully inflated at DR/Do m Z/T =. 636 for any parachute in which Dp
2/3 Do. This is necessarily only an idealized theoretrical limit.
As noted in Section 5, the short method of estimating internal loads would

bt improved by more accurate knowledge of the reefed drag coefficient CDP
J i144
Steady state measurements made in the wind tunnel give •-esults correspond.L
ing to conditions at the end of a long reefed Interval. For example, the full
scale tests of single Apollo 88. 1 It DO experimental parachutes described in
Section 2. 1. 4 yielded the drag 'coefficient data presented In Table XX for
reefed canopies having the same crown porosity as the unmodified design.
'TABLE XX
WIND TUNNEL TEST DATA FOR TWO CONFIGUR"TIONS OF
THE APOLLO 88.1 ft DO RINGSAIL
Wind Tunnel Test-D D -Cj SR~
01 D
Configuration ý pD CSR Cp CD
Do f00 (ft 2 ) CDSo
A-2 (1) .10 27.8 397 .0766 .316 .652

(Full length
vertical tapes) .13 30. 5 641 . 1235 .346 .876
CD So ft 5180 ft2 _ ,_
A-1l(Z) .10 26.3 399 '.0795 .298 .733
(Overall Xg in_
creased to-9%) .13 29.7 563 .1121 .337 .813
CD SO, 5020 ft 2 .
NOTE:
(1) W. T. Mod A-2; PDS :1543-553 Figure 86 AppendixA
(2) W.T. Mod A- 1; PDS 1543-543 Figiure 89 Appendix A
Comparison of the area ratios with those in Figure 40b at the correspdnding
diameter ratios shows reasonably good agreement at D / Do 0. 10 and only
fair agreement at DR/DO'= 0.13 for conditions at the en%of the reefed
interval.
Tablu XXI presents results obtained with Wind Tunnel Test Configuration
A-2 (see Table XX fordefinition) using mid-gore reefing in plape of radial
reefing.
143
,'I
...... . ... ... ___

TABLE XXI
WIND TtJNN9L TEST DATA OF CONFIGURATION A-2

APOLLO 88.1 ft Do RINOSAIL WITH MID -GORE REEFING
Dp CpCS
DSR DPý .C~.
j(ft) (it 2 ) Do Do
* 08 28.0 i402 075 .318 .652
dta re loted.inFigure 551 to show the difference between mid-gore

Thee
and radial reefing. For equal drag areas the difference in reefing r.atio is
close to &(DR/Do) =.-02. The drag coefficients plotted in Figure 55b show
food agremerent when this difference is applied to correct DR/Do for mid-
gore reefing. The drag coefficient of the fully,-inflated canopy was callculated
.with the assumption -that Dp~ (2/3) DO*
CDp S~ CDO
0
and w ith C (Z 3 4_0S/',

0
ICD '*85-
CD 91
il.
T7he indication is that CDP inc reases -continuously With canopy inflation as the
shape changes from that of a tubular sock to, that of an ellipsoidal cup.,. Sizjce
the canbpy inflated, dianieter is considerably smaller initially (at the instant
of peak loading) than it is at the ond of the reefed interval, Figure 55b pro-
vide's-a conservative meant; of evaluating the projected area bf the cano~py
for stress calculations.
144
* A ,, ___________________
(See Figure 46 for larger reefinig ratios)
.15.. ... i ..
2....
CS
DR . .... .....
.......
S K- t CC 0 .5180 ftZ
.05 *-.~1717" y ±~ (aMid-Gore
-1-- Radial
................
........
~~
0 .1.
DR
(a. Comparison of Mid-Gore and Radial Reefing
- 47
I;+zT3D~ ... ..........

5 t'ft
..
01 .23 .4 . 6 .
DR
Do
(b) Reefed Ringsail Drag Coefficients
Figure 55 *Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Data
145
The wind tunnel data is presented here rather than in Section 3, because
It cannot be translated into a form representative of the performance of the
reefed parachute under the dynamic conditions of free flight.
6. 2.4 Calculation of Reefing Line Lannth
The length of the reefing line is simply IRL =DR + length of splice overlap
(Figure 56) where DR is the desired reefed diameter of the canopy mouth at
the skirt. Determination of the reefed diameter ratio (DR/Do) for a given
drag area ratio (CDSR/CDSo) prior to test depends on the quality of the
empirical data available. The method given in Reference 24 is satisfactory
for Ribbon and Ringslot canopies but not for the Ringsail. Two values of
CDSR/CDSo must be taken into account.
a. At completion of rapid reefed inflation (marked by FRmax)
b. At disreef
The first valut is associated with reefed opening force calculations, and the
second with velocity and dynamic pressure calculations at disreef. Where
both values are plotted, as a function of DR/Do as in Figures 40, 41 and 42,
such curves can be used to make a preliminary estimate of the reefed diam-
eter required. Since CDSR at disreef is the easiest to determine from test
data with reasonable accuracy, this Is the value commonly represented by
single curve data plots as in Figure 39. Such curves can also be used to
make a preliminary estimate of DR and the reefing line length. However,
when opening force calculations are carried out, It is necessary to make an
l0 in.
in.
li Tubular Braided Cord Secure With 5-Cord Nylon,

Doubled
Figure 56. Typical Reefing Line Splice
146
/+•
+•+••''" + -+ - ' • ++• " +++!•Y•• '+• •++••-+ ++.x+•.
assumption about the drag area growth during the reefed interval. As indi-
cated in Figures 40 and 41 this may be in order of 100% for the standard
Ringsail design. Also it should be noted that the determination of reefing
line length should not be based on the wind tunnel data of Figure 55a, because
it represents an equilibrium condition of canopy growth reached after a much
longer period than the typical reefed interval.
6. 2. 5 Filling Time
Parachute filling time is defined as the intefval, or intervals, between the

following events in the deployment and opening sequence:
a. Line - stretch to full open (nonreefed)
b. Line-Stretch to reefed open
c. Disreef to reefed open (two reefed stages)
d. Disreef to full open
Actual canopy filling usually begins somewhere between line-stretch and

canopy stretch after the mouth has opened far enough to admit an effective
flow of air. This short randomly variable delay can be minimized by good
design and it neglected, It has been found (e,. g., Ref. 14) that the best
indicator of reefed opening is the maximum load peak. This has also been
true of the second reefed stage when the reefing ratio is in the range of
15 to 30 percent Do approximately. After disreefing of the final stage the
peak load occurs before the canopy is fully inflated. The instant at which
full inflation of the canopy is completed is difficult to determine accurately
due to the rapid change in canopy shape and the over-expansion attending
the peak pressure load. Thus, the definition of the "full open" configura-
tion has varied from program to program and this contributes to the
considerable variation in filling times reported.
It is also necessary to allow for the filling that occurs during the reefed
interval as shown in the diagram of Figure 57 illustrating how the canopy drag
area increases with time. Two stages of reefing are shown in the interest
of generality.
The determination of canopy filling times reefed and after disreefing with
sufficient accuracy to be useful in the prediction of opening loads is
difficult because of the wide scatter of empirical data. However, there
147
00 0
o4 oU 4) 0
0 0 .
4 -b4-A 4
1484
is no practical alternative to the use of such empirical data in the form of
the dimensionless filling interval (Kf) as given in Table XIIL By this defini-
tion the filling time is calculated from
Atf=Kf(
K 2 24- 1 12V 41
and in order to do so it is necessary to know the true air speed (vl) at the
beginning of the Interval in addition to the initial and final drag areas. This
unavoidably leads to an iterative trajectory computation, except for the first
reefed stage when the conditions at line-stretch are defined.
Evaluation of average values of Kf from Ringsall test data justifies use of the
following formulae for the calculation of filling times.
Reefed (stage 1): Atf 37.3 (CDSR) /2/v1 42
1/2 liz
After disreef: At 4.42 (2 1 - 1 / )v1 43
Presum4bly the addition of a second reefed stage would alter the filling
characteristics in the way indicated in Table XIII and XIV for the 85. 6 ft Do
modified Ringsall, but the prediction of quantitative effects on this basis
would be highly speculative.
6. 2. 6 Derivation of the Dimensionless Filling Interval
It will be recognized that the dimensionless filling interval corresponds to

the parachute filling process described by the concept of a "constant filling
distance"; le, the distance traveled by a psrachute while filling is a constant,
irrespective of speed and altitude, and is unique for each different parachute.
Understanding of the origin and limitations of this concept is helpful in
guiding its utilization in Ringsall parachute design.
In the general case for filling any plenum:
Volume to be filled
Filling time -Inflow rate-outflow rate
In the case of an Inflating parachute the volume to be filled can be expressed

as a function of the cube of a characteristic canopy dimension such as Do# I. e.
V f (Do 3 } 45
149
'1i " ) : i • ' •.....; :. •. •, . . ,. •.., :• :, : ' f , , - , " . . ::' •• , ,. . . : . .

The inflow rate, being a function of the canopy mouth area and the air flow
velocity, with the assumption of incompressible flow, can be expressed as
a function of the square of a characteristic canopy dimension multiplied by
an average air inflow velocity, i.e.,
2-
in z f (Do0 v.n) 46
With the further assumption that the relative porosity of the canopy is a
constant fraction of the canopy area (So). the outflow rate can be similarly
represented. i. e.
V out =f (D0vout
: Yout}47 47
The average flow velocities in and out are both proportional to the average
flight speed (9) of the system so that the functional relationships (46) and (47)
remain true with 0 substituted for these velocities. Thus, with the introduc-
klon of constants of proportionality, substitution of the expressions for V.
Vin an Vout in equation 44 yieldse
3 ~
Alt 1 Do /K D V-KD
f 10 a o 3o0
K D '( "K
1 o z 3)
combining constants
A .f - K /V 48
or
K .At /D o 49
which expresses the filling distance In canopy diameters. But so defined the
the filling distance is not useful in a practical sense because the average
airspeed can only be determined by a series of iterative trajettory com-
putations. Also the volume of a reefed canopy is not a simple futwction of
the nominal diameter. Therefore. the dimensionless filling interval used
in this work is defined as follows. (-See also References 14 and 22.)
Kf AtfV)/(i l a - 1 1/ so
150
Where Atf is the filling time while the canopy in growing from an initial drag
area 'Li1 to a final drag arel jIz and v, is the true air speed at the start of the
filling process. Use of 012as the characteristic canopy dimension in place
of Do permits reafed filling to be expressed In the same form as filling after
di. reef.
* This formulation should be used circumspectly, because the constant filling

distance concept break* down at high speeds due to compressibility. Ref-
erence 23 indicates the possibility of a large discrepancy at Mach 0. 5 in-
creasing drastically at supersonic speeds as shown in Figure 58 for the
modified Riagsalls of the NASA Planetary Entry Parachute Program (Ref-
erence 1)
Also, at very low speeds tv, <60 ICEAS) there is justification for the-expec-
tation that the filling distance will be reduced by a sharp decline in the
effective porosity of the canopy due to the low differential pressure (e.8get
Figure 68). This hypothesis requires experimental verification.
6. 2. 7 Stability
From a practic.l standpoint the stability of a parachute system must be

considered in relation to the stability of the atmosphere through which it
'I descend&, this being the source of the disiturbances affecting normal system
motion. Also, the condition of crucial interest is the probable nature of
system motion at the moment of touch-down.
Parachute, instability takes several forms of which pendular oscillations

and coning oicilliations are of prime concern,, Breathing and longitudinal
pulsations ate of secondary interest because they seldont become ctitical
at normal rates of descent, Since the air I* always in motion* the average
amplitude of pendular oscillations obberved in aerial drop tests might be
conside red misleading6 However, the damping function af parachutte it
generally strong (or any excursion beyond the normal characteristic angle
of attack Lor static stability. (8e as illustrated schematically in Figure S9a.
For example, a non-rested parachute deployed in level flight follows thet

first downswing of the suspended mass with one excursion of large amplitude
which is virtually damped down to the average amplitude (0) in the. next half
cycle (Figure 59b).
Ringuall parachute systems that have exhibited unacceptable instability in

the form of undamped periodic oscillations of large amplitude relative to
those of Figures 42 (aet.) tall in what appear* to be a special category along
with a variety of other parachute types. There it some evidence pointing to
the existence of a critical Reynolds number near which any type of parachute,
1 51
IVil 1m
N Do
3On'ot
Mach W6o
NOTE. -Th* modifiedf Waibgtal W~eewed to he t* it, tht

PEPP pawathute inicorpoltatitaz wid*ldlot eAir
the skirt (a" Ap$*tndix B).
I1~i. Vt~aloa~f
5. iliaagDistACK- with Mach Wt~o (Re(. 23)
0=0-
(a) Variation of Parachute Moment Co4Ufcienz with Cancjq An&i of Mtatck
:15
system begins to oscillate widely with the sharp periodicity of a pendulum.
The first instance of this behavior reported was an oversized model of the
personnel guide-chute design (approximately 40 feet in diameter) tested at
El Centro in the mid-1950's. While the'average amplitude of oscillations of
the AF type C-1l personnel version of this design is in the order of *10
degrees; the 40 RI model was said to have oscillated steadily at *30 to 35
degrees. Early in 1960 a 37 ft Do Ringsail with a suspended load of 520 lbs
exhibited sharply periodic oscillations of as much as *25 degrees throughout
its descent from 10, 000 ft altitude. Because the motion looked like a forced
oscillation.s resonance of pulses caused by vortex shedding with the natural
frequency of the parachute system was postulato!. The same type of be-
havior was encountered at high altitudes with three different large parachute
systems:
a. A cluster of four 35 it T-lO Extended skirt canopies
b. A 67. 3 ft D0 Full Extended skirt parachute
c. A 74, 2 ft D Ringeail parachute
The suspended load In each case was 1640 lbs. and those yntems exhibited
t• strong periodic oscillations (up to *45 degrees) throughout the first halft o
the desceut foIlowed by more normal behavior below approximately t0. 000
feet P hItude.
In the cape of the 714, ft D Riugsail it was found Ith the Reynolds numbet r
at 45, 000 feet attitude was the same as that (tc the 37 RDO
t model at sea
level (RO 3.64 x lOb), It will be seen that dorin; Any tArachute descotu
Reoyolds number increases cont.iuously because ,theratio P/p for a•r It-
creaset fAster than v* decreases, ConGtderation of the possible relationehip
between Reynolds number and the tiatural requoency of the parachute systemt
suggests the existence of a critical combination of* Mcae or elfective line
length and altitude a# which large '.dasmpsd oscillaitiaon are moit likely to
occur. Shottening the tuspension l0tes. of the above litgfrnl by about 14
percent to increase its natural trequency appeared to mitigate he.-problem
rby
aising the critical altitude sonewhat"
NTherefore, 4k view of tOe comtplNity '4

the pitOUcm aild the VJ'Sied4 e),avior
exhibited by parachute syttems descending through a r•eal Atmoql.Ete. ho
method of predicting the probAble stability "5.1 a given Hinsiai| parachute sys-
"temcan be presented. Ont. the average a;nispiude has Won establishd
*Defined as f-C v Pi
Sde,
a number of drop tests, the data given in Section 3.4 suggest that a probable
maximum amplitude that would not be exceeded 90 percent of the time is
approximately 30. As shown in Table V,0 $ranges from 5 to 8 degrees for
the majority of the single Ringsail parachute systems developed.
6.3 PREDICTION OF OPENING LOADS
Three different methods of predicting Ringsail opening loads are available

to the parachute designer.
a. The Load Factor Method
b. The Mass-Time Method
c. The Area-Distance Method
Although the Load Factor method has been highly refined in its application
to Ringsall parachute systems (References 11, 12 and 14), its accuracy
at best is no better than *10 percent. The Mass-Time and Area-Distance
methods were developed in order to get better results, and accuracies of
*5 percent have been obtained in the limited context ct the Apollo main
parachute development program.
6. 3. 1 The Load Factor Method
The simplicity of the load factor method makes it quite useful despite its
heavy dependence on full scale drop test data and the uncertainty of its
accuracy in any new design situation. The peak opening load is
Fmax = D q8 C1 51
Where q. at the start of the filling process (reefed or disreefed) is deter-

mined from trajector'y computations and the load factor (Ck) is estimated
with the aid of Figure 27 or Figure 28. When entering Figure 27 with an
appropriate value of the unit canopy loading (W/CDS) considerable judgment
is required to make a realistic allowance for the effect of initial velocity,
as reflected by the data spread. The effect of altitude on Ck can be estimated
with the aid of Figure 29, using the assumption that the trend indicated by the
faired curve is invariant with W/C S.
D
155
Figure 28 is useful for making preliminary estimates of the opening loads
of both single and clustered canopies. Conservative results are obtained
by reading the upper faired curves for the reefed and disreefed cases. Rm
is evalated in terms of 32instead o D 3 to make reefed Ck data directly
comparable with that for non-reefed and disreefed canopies. The synchro-
nous Inflation of a cluster can be treated the same as for a single parachute
using 41 = -CDS and M = W/g. Non-synchronous cluster opening loads can
be estimated by making an assumption about the fraction of the total mass
applicable to one parachute of the cluster. Worst cases for two and three-
canopy clusters, for example, will be obtained by using RmsIZ and Rms/ 3
respectively, where Rms is the mass ratio for the synchronous case, i.e.,
the leading canopy is assumed to open before the other members of the
cluster develop any drag. The ratio of the load factors obtained for the
non-synchronous and synchronous cases will be comparable to the ratio of
the maximum to the average opening forces given in Tables I, IV, V and VI.
Taking a typical disrcef case aa an example, enter Figure 28 with Rms = 7.4,
Rng/Z = 3.7, and Rms/3 = 2.47 and read from both upper and lower curves
corresponding values of Ck as presented in Table XXII:
TABLE XXII
SHOCK FACTORS FOR SYNCHRONOUS AND NON-SYNCHRONOUS

INFLATING RINGSAILS IN CLUSTERS
Cluster Opening
Configuration Synchronous Non-Synchronous
Number of canopies 2 or 3 2 3
-R 7.4 3.7 2.47
Ck maximum .3 .47 .57

k minimum .21 .35 .43
Ratio: Ck (nons)/Ck (eync) - 1.57 1.90

1.67 2.05
Apollo test data representative of thc two-canopy case is given in Table V

with Fmax/ Fav" 1. 58 for test ý6-.5 in which the disreef time differential
was artificially increased by one second (nominal). Test data representa-
tive of the three-canopy case is given in Table I with Fmax/Fav = 2.08 for
"."m av 2. 08 f
~ ~* 156
"test58-8,8 In which two of the three solid cloth canopies were-heavily
damaged*.', However, it appears from Apollo statistics that' the Ringsail
three-canopy case may never reach the extreme inequity of load sharing
assumed; L e., each of the canopies will always develop a vignificant frac-
tion of the total force. Therefore, for preliminary design purposas in
systems having a unit canopy loading in the order of W/ZCDSo = 1.0 psf
"aconservative assumption for both two- and three-canopy clusters based on
the data in Table V would be a load ratio Fmax/F~ynC = 1. 5 applied to the
calculation of the design limit load for each parachute. For systems having
a design unit canopy loading significantly different from I. 0 paf, this ratio
will tend to be smaller or larger than I, S in proportion to the synchronous
mass ratio (Rm), due to the slopes of the curves in Figure 28.
After a few suitably instrumented aerial drop tests have been performed,
the accuracy of the load factor method improves and it is useful in predicting
the probable opening loads of subsequent tests as well as the design limit
loads for conditions that it may not be economical to duplicate in theltest
program. The opening load factor of each stage is derived the test data, by
using Equation 51 in the form C = FmaI/CDSqs.
6.3. 2 The Mass-Time Method
The Mass-Time method of predicting parachute opening loads, developed in

detail in Reference 14, is summarized here. The parachute force IF) used
in Equation 32 is calculated from
F -q +'v ri + (m + ma) i + W sinY 52,

p a a p P
Both the effective drag area of the canopy (y) and the added air mass (ma)
are expressed as functions of time in equations having empirically; based
coefficients and exponents as follows:
CDS(t)- :I ) •ii. (t -tl)(z-t~ n 53
m -PK 3/2 54/,--

5
a a
Sa a
n[(•2"l )/(tz " tl)] [(t 6 At)/t tl) n-I 56
*When the damage occurred is not stated in Reference 10, but the 'results
indicate that extensive reefed opening damage of the lagging canopies maly
have been responsible for the high leading canopy load after disreef.
(I
1 57
77= ,
The computation is carried out in steps using equations 30 through 33 to
describe system motion and a program' of drag area changes similar to that
in Figure 57 for determnination of the values of 411 and 'Z pertinent to each
step. The growth that occurs during the reefed interval cari be estimated
with the aid of Figure 47. Figure 47b is for the 88. 1 ft Do Ringsail only.
If another size parachute is used we cannot be certain. The :reefed intervals
are assigned first on a tentative basis and the filling times are calculated
with empirical formulae such as 42 and 43. As the computation progresses
through seyeral iterations, optimum reefed intervals will be developed.
The added-mass shape factor (Ka) is equal to 0. 66 for modified Ringsails of

the Apollo type but has not been evaluated for the standard design. Because
this dis pertinent only to the final stage of inflation after disreefing when the
effect of the crown geometric porosity is diminished, Ka for the standard
Ringsail design may~not be greatly different. Tle results of two or three
well-instrumented drop tests would be' sufficient to provide substantiating
data.
The instrumental measurements required as a minimum are:.
a, Weights of parachutes and vehicle during deployment and

steady descent
b. Photo theodolite flight trajectory elements coordinated with

parachute force-time and atmosphere density-altitude
measurements,
tC. Onboard and ground-based motion picture records
It was' found that reefed opening loads could bel predicted accu'rately neglecting
the added air mass, i.e., Ka = 0 for reefed stages. 1 Further, with the end of
reefed filling marked by the instant at which the parachute force reached its
peak, the assumption of linear-area growth with time gave good results. Thus,
in the area growth equations (53 and 56), the'exponent n 1. 0 for the reefed
stages., On the other hand, 'in the' final stage of inflation after disreefing, n
proved to be a function of the fillipg time, varying with Atfo a's shown in
Figure 60. The applicability of this data derived from tests of the Apollo
main parachute (slotted design) to the standard design also is uncertain;
additional test evidence is needed.
The Mass'-Time method of opening load :prediction gives good results when
the computation is carried out with a two DOF digital computpr program
depigned around the equations of motion given (30 through 33) and incorporat-
"ing the variation of atmospheriý density with altitude. When the empirical
158
3,,4
3. I......
.. .... ...
11 0 t. -I.0
3.0
Fiur 60 Dra Are GrwhEpoetv iligTm
2.59
coefficients and exponents have been correctly evaluated, the peak loads will
be within *5% of actual and the final peak after disreefing will occur at the
correct time prior to full Inflation. An example of the results obtained
during the Apollo program is illustrated in Figure 61.
The example in the form presented was computed to provide partial verifica-
tion of the data reduction process; i.e. average values of CDSR/CDSO and Ka
obtained from all tests were used as inputs along with measured filling time
and roofed intervals for this test. Exponent n was read from Figure 59. The
pro-test computation is carried out step by step for each area stage to deter-
mine the velocity at the start of each filling interval. Then, average values
of Kf for each stage (e. g., Table DL) enable appropriate filling time to be
calculated. Nominal reefed intervals also are used as inputs. A pre-test
computation superimposed on Figure 60 would show the peak loads shifted
in time where actual roofed intervals departed from the nominal and actual
filling times varied from the averages calculated with Kf values derived
from all prior tests.
In order to evaluate the parameters of the Mass-Time method from the

results of aerial drop tests it is necessary to obtain coordinated velocity,
dynamic pressure and parachute force histories. The filling time from
disreef to full open must be measured independently from photo records,
because this does not appear in the force-time record. Other measurements
required to define inpnts to the computer program include: initial altitude,
velocity, path angle, system weights; system descent weight when this differs
from the initial value; parachute weight (A detailed breakdown by components
should be recorded at the time the parachutes are rigged and packed.) and
the reefing parameters used (reefing line length or DR/Do and reefing line
cutter nominal timed intervals). The computer program was made double-
ended and can be run backward to facilitate data reduction, i. e., inputing
trajectory data to obtain CDS vs time and Ka, for example.
6.3.3 The Area-Distance Method
The Area-Distance raethod of predicting parachute opening loads is identi-

fied in Reference 14 as the "Modified Mass-Time" methods. This method is
similar to the Mass-Timrle method in all particulars except that the distance
traveled by the parachute while it inflates through each stage is expressed
as a function of the drag area growth. The reduced test data showed the
filling distance of each reefed stage to be a linear function of the change in
effective drag area during the stage. The computer program was modified
to accept these filling distances and to calculate how far the vehicle traveled
after the beginning of inflation, by integrating the velocity and "remembering"
where it started.
160
Best Avaitlble Copy
-q
-77 - T
*jbe
....... .~-
- 4'
161~
I J I t ~.OV
tom -
The non-linear function of the final stage of inflation expressed CDS in
terms of lineal constants and a function of s* derived from averaged test
data where s* is the distance traveled since passing a reference point a fixed
distance before the completion of filling. There are other complications
that introduce discontinuities and make the final stage calculation somewhat
specialized. The drag area values between inflation intervals were deter-
mined as time functions in the manner specified for the Mass-Time method.
One of the important advantages of the Area-Distance method is that the

filling times fall out of the calculation. They do not have to be calculated
in advance. This greatly simplifies the approach to prediction of clustered
parachute opening loads, which was a prime objective. Applied to single
parachute cases the method predicted reefed opening loads with an accuracy
slightly better than that of the Mass-Time method. Both methods had large
errors in the loads predicted for final opening stages of clustered canopies.
Also, both methods were not fully developed for the cluster calculations,
because only empirical coefficients for single parachutes were available
eg ... K. and ds/d4I. The observed discrepancies suggested that the added
mass terms caused each parachute to have a strong effect on the loads of
the others through the mechanism of system deceleration.
The promnising potential af both methods for further development is shown

in Figures 62 and 63. ccmrnparing measured and calculated forces for two-
canopy cluster cases.
One of the significant aspects of the computed force-time histories is that

they were generated by the equations of motion and parachute forces with
the input of single canopy inflation characterisitics. Only the disreef time
differentials derived from the cluster test data were included to trigger
the nonsynchronous inflation process. The fact that the force-time history
of the lag canopy is reproduced with good fidelity is ample evidence that
the momentum of the added air mass coupled with system deceleration is
the prime factor. As noted, the equation for parachute force (Equation 52)
accounts for the effect of system deceleration on dynamic pressure in the
drag term during the reefed intervals and on both drag and added air mass
after disreefing, each parachute in the cluster being computed individually
such that F = F 1 + F 2 + •* • Fn. There is nothing in the equations cor-
responding to the mechanical and aerodynamic interference seen to take
place between the inflating canopies in the film records. While this inter-
ference distorts the canopies by flattening or caving in adjacent surfaces,
the evidence shows that this does not inhibit air ingestion or the inflation
rate. The theory of deceleration induced inflation instability of clusternd
canopies was first presented in Reference 34.
162
28 41 M .S$.. 4If+
mb r :
32
$~ a4
8 16 .....
lit
I..........
........
f ' i. sa I ....
161
Fi. .......
It : k6.. ,'
M.-- I-
36
I/
ri
>i,
10I
L1 *, IUP
I.It
- ...........
6.4 STRESS ANALYSIS
Today, there are essentially only two practical methods of calculating the
internal loads of a parachute structure.
a. The Short Method (Illustrated in Section 5 and Appendix C)
b. The Computer Method (Described in References 13 and 25).
There Is no intermediate analytical approach of a general nature that will

yield results any more dependable than the short empirically-based method.
All of the intermediate quasi-analytical methods developed are complex,
laborious, and time consuming and their usefulness is limited to a particular
type of parachute structure or a particular set of operational conditions
(Reference 24).
6.4.1 Structural Design Factors
The structural design factors (D. F.) are derived from required safety
factors (S. F.) and allowable strength factors (Ar) as the ratio
D.F. = S. F. /Ap 57
The allowable strength factor is the product
Ap u a o k1t s coso+ 58
where the subtactors used in Ringsal! design are defined as follows. (The
typical values given in parenthesis are seldom all used at the same time,
some being equal to unity for each design case.)
u = joint or seam efficiency (.85 applied ovty to MIL-Spec rated

minimum strengths)
e abrasion loss (.95)

a
o humidity loss (. 95)
It fatlgue loss (. 95)
T = temperature loss (. 97 @85"F to account for the loss in the

strength of nylon due to dynamic heating, for example)
165
L - vacuum loss (*)
a = load distribution ratio (.95)
€ = line convergence angle or similar deflection of the applied

load (0 to 20° or cos . 94 max. applied to the opening load
I -after disreefing)
For other values typically assigned to these allowable strength factors see
References 6 and 24. The allowable strength of the textile form is
PA Ap P 59
A P R
For design purposes, the required minimum strength of material (PI for
a given member is
R (D. F.) (Limit Load)/z 60
where z is the number of identical cords, webs, or tape plies in the member
(for fabric z = 1. 0).
In the stress analysis the margin of safety (M. S.) of each member subject
to an applied load (To) iS
M.S. -(P /T')-1 61
6.4. Z The Short Method
6.4. 2. 1 Canopy
The short method of estimating canojpv initrnal leads it based on inemtbratte

theory and depends heavily .n empirically tierived coefficionts and to •oote
extent o.A the judgment of the designer. A general expression for the circura-
ferential unit load or hoopstress it an ellpsolda! surface of revolution having
no bending strength is
pr V (r It 0
*The vacuum factor was 00. 8 for the first At-ollo parachutes to allow for
the estimattu etfect& of oua.•isng and dehyd ration in a hard vacuum, bht
later it was .:on|chided that the irtatrri& recovered sufficiently during
atmosplic ,.rI that thit4 r k-. I tou n tgected.
where p Is a uniformly distributed pressure, rc Is the local radius of curva-
ture In the clrcumferential direction. TZ is the unit toad in the merldional
direction, and ra Is the local radius of curvature of the meridian.
As noted In Reference 22. "The difficulty inherent in attempting to apply

equation (62) to a decelerator surface that is not a surface of revolution lot
evident, although It is well suited for computing unit loads of bi-axial struc-
tures like woven fabric."
The short method employs the simplest form of equation (62) to develop
empirical fornulae for the unit loads In the canopy fabric. L e..
T XKpr 63
where K 1. 0 for simple curvature (cylindrical, conical) and K 0. 5 for a

spherical surface. For other shapes. K falls between 0.5 d 1.0.
From these relatlonehipa for unit pressure.
p FISp 64
and for radius of curvature,
r V /2 65
p
The formula given JA Section 5Is oblained by substitution in equation (63)
with K
X 0. S.
T, l/vD 6-
C P
To estimate Op for the tested canopy, the effective drag area must be known
in order to caliulate
s6 C S IC 67
using C 1 p from Figure 55b for a given rtefifg ratio (D/0 o).
167
A&
ffi
The problem is more difficult when the canopy is not reefod because the
projected diameter of the canopy at the inatant of peat !oavling is not pre-,
dictable. The same is true after dis.xeefixig. where various utrategies are
used to defineta local radius of curvature.
When the unit canopy loading is js•iy when W/CDSO <1. 0) the peak open-
ing load occurs early inýtht icIaion interval, and thle nton- reefed canopy
can be treated lik. reeflI canopy by tnn.pty estimating from empwirical
data what týhe quivalent reefing ratio< w-i-d be. Sometimes a more accurate
e0t linate of radiu of ccvawm•re*au be obtained front damage statistics, with
the .arumption tht the. cloth developed it; rated strength at the time of
failure whet the parachute force wN..4, 4 known value. Then from Equation 66
,F/T
where T sa U uSi.g u I when t1. cl:oh failure did not occur along a
seam and a 0.6 for full saila in which the trailing edge stress is critical. 4
When the u.nit anoýpy 1oaditi• is relatively high the peak load ef the non-
reefed canopy, like that following disreefing of the reefed canopy, occurs
later in the filling interval. and ii the limiting case may be Coincidew- With
.lulA Inflation. This c-,oArred in daurcof twerload tests of the 85. 6 ft D0
Apollo mNin parachute with W/UGSO U. The results of one M) the~e tests
provides an lnstniuctive exaa ple oW the empirical approahd de•svri1wd,,thvit.
ito the test in queatioo. tO-)) thp arAdwtite canopy wa s deostroVyed by a load
whieh rtached -a t theoot
-ek nof tailurt of 14, 110 ls. 'the nated
tr enjgh of the cloth wAA Pt - 4.16`4,ta ann the averiage 4614 of" cec
nmeasurred u 7•. With the a.tstuuption tht iailure occurred At a unit load
of
7 Na 1t$. lb1i4n,
ZqUnon 66 yield U.•-t

'Itw
. 40D 4f r.t MsbtenD~~~2
all( Dp .. . 74., •.•t latienf .vie . , the
O ewoiut
of c.s-,py ic-
rsrnhlep's naiad 'At thyV Peak load znlalthr ji sNTh.41Ar 1%est orn which ulst-nýAtv
davnaige *ia&aict .sýsauxfle;.
~oad
l~e gd'
ro. ~ C iux t~ ;~ab V d tre ,ia.ttzl t amg sg
*TVt stre.itc an. 'V~o4 on t r, C 1'4~r, r t-wtV e t

d % 'ratlthe aceragiev.
at
Other significant aspects of the design problem brough out by this example
are:
a. In the design limit case the unit canopy. loading would be much.
less (because the test was performed with an overweight.
vehicle) and the peak load, occurring earlier in the, filling
interval, would likely cause the critical hoopstress to occur
higher in the canopy.
b. The elasticity of the structure results in substantial over-

- expansion of the canopy under heavy loads; i e., well
-beyond the nominal projected diameter.
, -Consider the parachute of the above example from the designer's viewpoint
with a given limit load of F = 25, 000 lbs and required S.:F. 1.35. Applying
* Equation-66. he would let Dp - Z/3 Do = -5'7 ft and obtain Tc 14 lb/itn. ! For
S. F. = 1.35 a design factor of D. F. = 2. 7 should be used when s = 0. 6,
* - whence PIR =.38 lb/in, and 1, 1 oz ripstop cloth rated at 42 lb/in, would be
selected. The fact that laboratory test data on hand showed a minimum
breaking strength of 45 lb/in, would boost the design factor to a realized
value of D. F. : 2.9 for added confidence.
The conservative nature of Equation 66 is brought out by examination of its

underlying assumptions. The Ringsail canopy is not a surface of, revolution
but an ellipsoid made up of radial ribs and a large number of small semi-.
conical surfaces supported only along the edges attache4 to the ribs. The
profile radius at any stage of inflation is everywhere less than D /Z except
in the region close around the central vent. Here the assumption of a
spherical surface in which r = Dp/Z is a good approximation. '
The unit diffential pressure is not uniformly distributed across the inflated
area of the canopy but varies along the radials approximately as shown in
Figure 64. However, across the central spherical regiorl of the canopy
the differential pressure is 'essentially constant. Th ese pressure distribu-
tions are those of several different ones tested in the CANO computer
analysis of the 85. 6 ft modified Ringsail: that gave best results irn terms
of canopy shape and total load vs measured data as reported in Reference 13.
Since the shape and structure of the standard Ringsail is similar, it is,
probable that such pressure distributions are representative and qould be
used in the analysis of new Ringsail designs. Thus' the pressure'calculated
as p =F/Sp would be less than actual if all of the parachute force was the
product of pressure loading. However, an unknown but possibly significant
fraction of F is due to skin friction, which tends to mitigate the unconserva-
tive assumption
p about the pressure distribution.
169
I ... ~ - . I.--.-----.-------.
I a
So l)
a0
. a "
a. '
IiII
0
a 0
I . • .::,
c-o
.1 14
a a. I
oi a 44
II
"a 170
a a .
6.4, Z. 2 Suspension Lines
The load in one suspension line can be calculated with precision using
Te =PLIM/N coso 69.
However, the required strength of material based on its allowable strength

-is'determined as given in Section 5 from
PR= (D. F.) F LIMN (Equation 25)
R I
in which the design factor includes coso along with the other allowable
strength factors, With PR = P'R for suspension line cord (using Equation 69)
the margin of safety, in expanded form for clarity, is
MS. ApPR _ l 70
FLIM/N cosý
6.4. 2. 3 Radial Tapes
The load In each pair of radial tapes is equal to the load in the suspension
lines up to the point of tangency with the pressurized bulb of the canopy,
both reefed and after disreefing. But after the reefed load peak, when the
canopy continues to grow and build up tension in the reefing line, the tension
in the radial will become greater than in the suspension line in proportion
to the canopy development angle between them. This is not a critical load-
ing condition for the radial but Is for the reefing line as shown in Section
6.4. 2. 6.
The fact that a radial tape stlrength (in pairs),of 9016 P'R for the lines is
acceptable merely recognizes the fact that the efficiency of the suspension
line joint is generally about 90%6 and the tape joint is reinforced by the
canopy cloth.
6.4.2.4 Risers
The load in one riser is calculated by the same method used for the suspen-
sion lines simply by substituting NR for N in Equation 69.
R
171
6.4. 2. S Circumferential Bands
Because circumferential reinforcing bands are largely redundant members,

the only way to obtain a realistic load estimate is to assume that the cloth
in one gore is cut for part or all of its length as shown in Figure 65. This
approach is illustrated in Reference 6. The validity of the result was
substantiated by a test reported in Reference 8 in which the lightweight
Century Ringsail sustained gore failures above and below the reinforcing
band but the band held and prevented the vent from opening widely. The
design analysis was aided by existing data for another Century parachute
test in which the canopy split from vent to skirt. From the failure analysis
it was possible to deduce approximate values for the unit running load and
radius of curvature at the point where the band appeared to be needed.
A similar method is based on the observation that the peak load after di s-
reefing occurs at a time when the projected area of the canopy is between
S = 0. 7 and 0.8 Sp, for W/CDSO = 1. 0 to 1. 3 psf (Reference 14). Use
p 0
Sp w 1. 0 Pp for higiier canopy loading. At this same time the linear dimen-
slons of the canopy are elongated about 10 percent by the design limit load
so that
D 1.1 (4 Spr)1/ 2 71
p p
With reference to Figure 65, the unit running load Tc is calculated with
Equation 66 using F = FLIM disreef and the assumptions are made that.the
hoop tensions in the bands are equal and that
T b+ Tv =(hb -h) Tc 72
Whence
Tb h - T /2 73
b (h hv
Experience teaches that a good location for the band Is on the upper edge of
a ring about midway between the vent and the "equator" * of the inflated
canopy. The equator of the fully inflated canopy is close to h/hR = 0. 85.
When the canopy is partially inflated the location of the equatoA is assumed
to be at h =irD /4.
p
*Term used to designate the point at which the perphery of the inflated
canopy is a maximum
172
STv
i • " Tc
Midbn
I 1 quator
Figure 65, Method of Estimating the Design Load for a Mid-Canopy

Circumferential Reinforcing Band
173
6.4. 2. 6 Reefing Line
Calculation of the tension in the reefing line is straightforward when the

riser load and the canopy development angle are know. From the vector
relations given in Figure 66, it can be shown that
TR = F (tan4- tan4)/Znr 74
Unfortunately neither of the governing factors can be determined accurately.

Initially the canopy development angle (J - •) is zero and is still quite small
when F reaches its peak. Then as the force decays with J- * continuing to
increase the tension in the reefing line reaches its peak. In other words, the
peak reefing line load is not directly related to the peak parachute force, and
steady state wind-tunnel measurements are not applicable.
A few measurements of reefing line loads were made during the Apollo para-
chute development program. These are presented in Table XXIIL The
maximum values turned out to be much less than expected on the basis of
data given in Reference 24, as the following table of measurements shows.
Inasmuch as somewhat higher load ratios can be expected in standard Ring-
sails due to the more rapid rate of increase in (4i- 4) associated with their
characteristic growth while reefed, the designer should base his reefing line
material selection on a more conservative load evaluation. It appears that
an amply conservative load could be calculated as
T = 2. 57o F max. 75
R R
or select a reefing line material of
P A5 F max. 76
R R
but not less than 1000 lb' coreless braided cord in any event, this being the
allowable maximum for standard minature reefing line cutters.
6. 4. 2. 7 Pilot Chute ,Jrldle and Harness
The bridle and attaching harness of a pilot chute is subject to an Initial

impact load that has been of critical magnitude in some Rlngsail systems,
notably those of the Apollo and Century parachute development programs.
When It is feasible to neglect drag, the bridle and lines can be treated as
a linear spring and the probable magnitude of the snatch force estimated
from the expression:
1/2
F av (knm) 77
174
Ve
L/
)I
1754
\I
: g :0
where Air Is the velocity differential between vehicle and pilot chute at line
stretch, k is the effective spring constant and m is the mass of the pilot
chute canopy pius one-third of the mass of bridle and lines. The stress-
strain characteristic of nylon cord shown in Figure 67 is typically non-
linear, but two average spring constants are identified: k1 is applicable to
limit load calculations and k2 to ultimate load calculations. Air is determined
from two-body trajectory computations.
Of course, the drag of the permanently attached pilot chute is not negligible
when the main canopy comes taut and the fully inflated pilot chute is im-
pulsively accelerated to the vehicle velocity. Computation of the impact
load In this case is best accomplished with a digital computer program
* written for a two-body spring-mass system. However, the results should
be used circumspectly because the computed load will not be conservative
when the shock onset is sufficiently high to generate traveling stress waves
* in the bridle. (See Reference 13.)
TABLE XXIII
MEASURED REEFING LINE LOADS ON THE 85.6 ftD

MODIFIED RINOSAIL
Test No. ReafiaEData Maximum Load. Ratio

Stage 'Dp(%Dg -(lb.) Tp _(1b) T I
81-1 2 24 (1)19052 229 .0120
(2)13692 132 .0096
80-3 2 28.5 14760 121 .10082
80-3R 2 26.7 21184 307 .014S
80-3RI 2 z6. 7 19491 121 .0062
81-3 2 Z6. 7 (1)14710 227.5 .'0153
(2) 19925 257 .0129
81-4 1 8.4 (1) 16318 -
(2) 15834 143 10111

81-2 12 26.17 (I)18597 259 .0139
_______(2) 13391 I
NOTE: This reefing line loads were measured with strain gage
force transducers in the lines having electrical leads running
down the suspension lines to thei talemetry trananxitter in the
vehicle.
Wit, TI I,*"r, I,
it
I N1
H,1 tit fil it
I IN!Mi
E-PI.
I M! it t.1
I Hit
-11t
fit imUl I tit H ai 1ý
11,
W11 T
+4 1
IT
IL-C-7515 Type
Nylon Chord
a Pit- 550 lb I': t
III! pig III im ::5 i. I M IT R itll
K 6.4
2 -Fit jtýlj
j
t; i U-ill :1.
Relativi:
juit LOW IiII, Rfi dil I it: Iit ;:tl I 01;
T i9t , 'i *Itt
p 1141 1 1
R if It.
p hi it It; I:!
It,1". 1. 11 ;it, ii.: III
015
p H1 '.r M
R , Ri S 1 1, - -
K 4.24 lit, n'.1 iin
I ý,11;
Oil, It i. 'tit ..
-,:: :;. ,:- '- ..., .." . -
T7
7 IT 71.. _;1 I
U. ,T!"
I
ni
W,if
j
V.,
M
0 1105 10 .20 .25 .30
Figure 6 7. Strain C.h-traaenutlc o( iNyluu Textiles
17 7
6.4. 3 The Computer Method
/I
A' digital computer program id6ntified as CANO was developed for poly-
symmetric annulate parachute structures (Ribbon, Ringslot, and Ringsail)
through which a; complete internal loads analysis can be performed using
an IBM 60-90 computer. The :mathematical model includes the dimensions
of every strul:tural member in the parachute, together with the stress-strain
characteristics of eanh different rhaterial (e.g. , Figure 67), the pressure
distribution across the canopy (e. g., Figure 64), the shape of the canopy,
and thl applied riser load. Stress-strain computations are Iterated in small
steps throughout-the structural model until the calculated shape of the canopy
agrees with the observed shape and the calculated net pressure load agrees
wi~h the applied load. The print-out includes a tabulation of internal loads
for each structural member with sufficient accuracy to identify critical
areas and probable points of failure. This enables optimization of the struc-
ture fok consistent small margins of safety throughout the parachute.
A CANO user's manual which includes a listing of the program is given in

Refereice 25. Its application to the stress analysis of the Apollo parachute
system is demonstrated in Reference 13.
16.5 CALCULATION OF RINGSAIL.WEIGHT
'In making weight calculations It is convenient to prepare a table listing all

the member, in the structure, their lengths (or areas) and their unit weights.
"*Total lengths (or areas) are summed and multiplied by the corresponding unit
weights to obtain the weight of each set of components. Table XXIV presents
L• a list of the unit weights of textiles frequently used in Aingaail parachutes.
6. s. I and Lines
"A,less accurate yet useful estimate of the weight of canopy and lines can be
made fairly t4ickly wVth this relationship.
S'Wp . W 4N w. 76a
1NWV_ W
Where we is the unit weight of an existiang crnopy of similar design and %%#
Cs the unit weight of the co rd. Table XXV presentt sme typical unit weights
of ing sail canopies calculated with the same formula, i.e.,
7.' . w (W - N •oI)/S "ib

IY/so
k7
TABLE XXIV
TEXTILES COMMONLY USED IN RINGSAIL PARACHUTES
Textile Form n Streanth Unit Weight (I

lb lb/inch lb/ft lb/ft4
Cloth" 1. 1 oz ripstop 42-45 .0076

(2) 1. 6 ox ripstop 50-58 .0110
2. 25 os cloth 90 .0155
Cord: (coreless braid) 400 .00303
550 .00392
650 .00354
750 .00527
1000 .00710
,Tap: 5/8 inch 70 000926
5/8 inch 90 .000996
1..06 inch ZOO *00Z11
one inch 300 .00302
one inch 525 .00624
Webbing: 9/16 inch 500 10050
1/Z inch 1000 .0081
one inch 4000 .017I
one inch 6000 .0344
1-3/4 inch 10000 .0563
NOTE: (1) Representative atea•ured values are given where known

(2) Trip #*Iva&* cloth per Appendiz 0
579
TABLE XCXV
TYPICAL UNIT WEIGHTS OF RINOSAIL CANOPIES
D (ft) S 0 ,(ft) 1610. WP NJ6 w1 (lb/ft2)
ý29.6 688 .93 11.9 Z.3'k .038

41 \32? .93 21.9 590 .11
$.2 2483 .7 38.6 1~.6 .01 48
'-" 63. 1 1-13,0- ,9.30 1. 1 14
88. i 6091~ .10-154 215 .0134S
6.5.2 Rise*R
A good wVelght or a coiwantjoral short rievaisa'iAmbly may be

fsiat
mndwite ic
V
~ 1 N W'
0)-+A 79.
wfier* is th-e length of lg,in feet :id ww, as the unit weight of the
16
webbing in lbs/ft.. n
When the main riser trunk is longer th~an 6 incheii add the differenc* In feet
66 6 CALCULATION Or~ RINGSAIL WROSWIT-1
At baett the khathiods uf calculating parachutat povoaiity yield only approxi-

mate results due to the ol1 &stivityao the suetu~~rt and the tftexlb.lity of
vontilition boun-dairies. This causes th* rel~ativ&.p*rooitV of the cAnopy to
vaty with d iffe rentia I pr~e %ure over a wide r~aga.. such that during opeffing
Magnitude greAt~tr thant th*~ of the fully intlatett a rta during steady descetat
oenumber. it is itiwportAnt to utideruand to which phase of th* parachutt

boartaot io t is related.
The rated air permeability of parachute cloth (XR) is measured in this
country at a differential pressure head of 0. r inches of water, i. e., Ap =
2.6 0 psi. From the relationship
F = Ap S CSq 80
the equivalent dynamic pressure is
q =p/CD 81
and for flat panels of parachute cloth at a - 90, CD 1. 74*
whence
q Z. 6/1.74 - 1.49 psi
which corresponds to a velocity of
v =35.4 fpsE.A.S.
3 2
The cloth permeability is expressed in ft /Ift /min., and defines the average
through-flow velocity in ft/min. at a given Ap. In these terms, any change
In Ap causes a marked change In X. The relative porosity defined as the
"ratio,A = X/v, where v is the free stream velocity, does not change as rap-
,dly. 'but below Ap = 3 inches of water the rate of change is still significant
-as shown in Figure 68 for a typical, parachute cloth of XR 125 ft/minute.
Note that the relative porosity corresponding to this number is AR = 4.45%
"and the ratio XR/AR = 28. 1 ft/min. / I%. But in the calculation of parachute
-porosity the number 27. 4 ft/min. was established to represent 1% of rela-
tive porosity and has been used as standard for many years. This cor-
-responds to the Introduction of a drag coefficient CD =1. 05 into the calcula-
tion, an expedient for which no justification can be found. It would seem
-of 21. 3 ft/min. /percent of relative porosity to obtain a total parachute
porositV compatible with steady descent conditions. Then in calculating the

canopy porosity pertinent to deployment and opening conditions a value of
.. say 1?. 0 it/min. /.1% applied to XR would be more realistic, i. e,, q m 60 psi.
* *Unreported data from wind tunnel tests of rectangular cloth panels

supported on two sides with leading and trailing edges free.
181
II
04
U41)
14
1-44
18.Z4
- C
Also for such conditions& the calculated. goemetric porosity should be based
on the a"ea of ventilation in the pressurized area of the canopy rather than
In the entire area (So). However, these are refinements that lack of time
has made impractical to Incorporate into the calculation of Ringsail porosity.
"Thetotal porosity of the canopy is defined as'

x +T (in percent) 4 82
where
- x=) + g 83
g gc ga
S)m ="-
27.4 9 8
1L~[i.01 (x. q~)] 84
i g€ =(Area of crown v~entilation) (100)/SO
kgs (Total area of crescent slots) (100)/ISo
xR Cloth rated porosity in ft /ft /mir,

3 2 at
Ap = 0.,5 in. water
. (Imporous area of canopy) (100)/So
Because of the difficulty of making an accurate appraisal of some of these•

components, several assumptions were made to simplify the computation.
a. Ventilation area covered by tapes is negligible.,
b. The area of the crescent-shaped slots can be characterized

in terms of an average slot,.
- c. The imporous area is a constant Z. 5%.
d. The cloth porosity is a constant R 105' ft/rnih.
On this basis, the open area of the crown ventilation is
Sc s +h L(slot lIngths) 8'5
ES :.00353 S n 86
183
2 I"
2 *
tywhere nR i6 the number'of rings of crescent slots in the ,canopy. ThM aver-
ige value of the crescent slot area was derived from -photogrammetric data
applied;to the:basic dimensions of the 88. 1 ft Do, Ringsail which indicated
'that the area of the slot nearest the skirt was 0. 408 percent of the gbre area
(SG) and that of the uppermost crescent slot was 0. 29816 SG. These relative
areas were calculated for slots of the shapes shown in Figure 69.
I I
I'
b b
Near Skirt Near Crown

Uppermost COescent Slot)
Figure 69. Assumned Shapeg of Crescent Slots
The qxpression for-the relativeporosity of the clcth reduces to,
3.83 1 01 + 2.) '87
The porosities given in Table IX for R1ngsaili of D 41 ft and larger were

calculated by the above method. The -porosities of the smaller models were
estimated from photogrammetric data, because the, simplihied method pro-
ducqed answers that were clearly too low.
A more accurate method of calculating tlee relative area of pach ring of

crescent slots is expressed as follows.
""t 'S .67 JD IN)? (b/a) 007175 (h/h 003384 88
T'his allows for the varying shape of the slot with Its psitlo n in the gore and
for variations in the relative widths of gores In'different canopy designs. In
one test case utilizing dimensional data for the 63. 1 ft D model the calcu-
latod yalue of Xgs came out 15 percent greater than that obtained Wvith the
simpliflied, method. This refined method has not seen much usý because it
Is laborious andi time consuming .. -
' . 184
- I
Inasmuch as the method of calculating porosity incorporated in the Ringsail
computer design program (WG 1 76), yields totals that are about 20 percent
less than those produced by the above methods, it is clear that considerably
more work could be done in this area to put Ringsail design analysis on a
firmer footing.
Ideally, the relative porosity of a parachute canopy should be presented as

a function of dynamic pressure for three different operational conditions:
reefed opening, opening after disreefing, and steady descent. The total
porosity for each condition might be defined as
XT =5S/Sp+A~p8
xT Sg/SAp +AAp 89
where S, is the open area of the ventilation in the pressurized area (SAP)
and A.pgis the relative porosity of the cloth in the same area. Although
the practical difficulties in the way of obtaining such data are formidable,
the end result finally attained would be a marked improvement in the pre-
dictability of parachute performance.
Since, most design needs can be satisfied with the crown geometric porosity
Sgc /100 = (sv + XSg)/S 0 90
it is the only porosity calculation presently required for Ringsail design. The
precise determination of total porosity can be left for future development.
185/186
SECTION 7
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
The preparation of detail drawings of a Ringsail parachute assembly for

use in the shop entails consideration of a number of features peculiar to
the Ringsail design along with many others common to the art.
7.1l SAIL PATTERNS
A table of sail pattern dimensions including seam allowances is provided.

These are calculated from the gore coordinates as described in Section 5.
Note that the warp of the cloth is always horizontal.
7.2 SAIL EDGE TAPES (INTERCOSTALS)
The lengths of these tapesare determined automatically by the sail sub-

assembly procedure described in Section 8. Hence, no dimensions other
than the sail pattern dimensions are needed. The use of Trip Selvedge
cloth minimizes the number of tapes required.
7.3 RADIAL TAPES
A radial tape marking diagram is provided in which the dimensions between

marks are identical to those on the gore assembly layout, i.e., neglecting
the angularity of the radial seams. This introduces a small increment of
radial fullness in the sails in addition to that resulting from the fact that
the woven width of the cloth is always greater than its nominal width.
Another increment of fullness results from take-up due to thread tension
along tlhe seams.
Two sets of radial tapes are identified, one extending one inch below the skirt,
the other two inches. When assembled in pairs the bottom extensions provide
a wrap-around tab of tapered thickness for the suspension line joint.
7.4 VERTICAL TAPES
Each vertical tape is made of one length of tape doubled with the fold at
the bottom end. The tape passes around the lower edge of the sail below
the last ring slot in the crown &o that half the tape is on top and the other
half on the underside of the canopy. Since the 1.2 slot is small it need not
be crossed by the tape and the ends can be finished off by folding them over
the upper edge of sail 2 as shown in Figure 70. It should be noted that,
with a few recent exceptions, Ringsails up to this point have utilised vertical
tapes across the 1-Z slot as shown in Appendix A.
187
Tape Sail Sail 1 Vent Band
Figure 70. Cross Section of Vertical Tape Cut on Gore Centerline
A marking diagram is provided in which the sail spaces are made approxi-
mately two percent longer than the nominal woven width of the cloth to
minimize the distortion caused by take-up along the seams when the tape
is stitched to the sails.
7.5 THE GORE SUBASSEMBLY
The gore subassembly consists of one set of sails and one pair of radial
tapes basted together. The radial tape on one side of the gore is placed
on top of the sails and the other underneath so that when the gores are
joined along the radial seams the two layers of cloth will be sandwiched
between the tapes.
One vertical tape is also made part of the gore subassembly. It is stitched
in place with a continuous two-needle seam of "E" nylon thread running full
length.
7.6 RADIAL SEAMS
The one-inch radial tapes are folded together with the cloth in the one-half
inch fell seams to minimize the variation in gore widths produced by over
and under-folding. A three-needle seam of "F" nylon thread is used
because comparative Rtrength tests have shown this yields a maximum
seam efficiency. (With ý00 lb radial tapes and 8 to 10 stitches per inch
the seamefficiency in 1. 1 oz. cloth is 81 percent and in 2. 25 oz. cloth,
86 percent.)
7.7 CIRCUMFEREN'*IAL BANDS
in conformance wi•!-: -ammon good practice marking diagrams are provided

for vent, skirt# and intermediate bands to provide N equal spaces equal to
the gore width at the latitude of each. The calculated band dimensions are
increased by shrink allowances as follows:
188
Vent: Cb = Cv' + (0 to 3%)
Intermediate: Cb CA + 2%
Skirt: Cb C 5 + 2%
I In practice these allowances are negotiated between the shop and engineering
when cloth stretch or gathering along the seam poses an assembly problem.
Band lap splices are usually made 4 to 6 inches long and are located far apart
• •around the canopy, each centered on a different radial seam.
7.8 SUSPENSION LINES AND VENT LINES
Line marking diagrams are provided in conformance with common good

practice.
The vent line attachment is a simple 4 to 6 inch lap over the main seam
secured with one row of double-throw sig-sag stitches. The vent line
length is made equal to the vent diameter (Figure 71).
The skirt line attachment is a 4 to 6 inch lap over the main seam with the lower
ends of the radial tapes wrapped snugly around the cord below the skirt for
a distance of 2 inches all secured with one row of double-throw zig.zag
stitches.
7.9 PILOT CHUTE BRIDLE HARNESS
When a permanently attached pilot chute is part of the system and predicted
impact loads are high, a special bridle harness is employed to relieve the
vent lines of the strain and abrasion produced by such loads, and to minimize
the vent closing tendency of bridle tension. The number of lines in the har-
ness is made equal to N divided by an even integer, and the ends are lap-
spliced to the under side of the radial seams parallel to the vent line splices
but offset enough to prevent superposition of the zig-zag stitching. The
harness includes a confluence keeper and centering loop, and the length
of the lines is made equal to the length of the vent lines, i. e., vent diameter,
as shown in Figure 71.
189
7.10 RISERS
The riser design conforms with common good practice, employing a keeper
at the confluence constrained to prevent slippage and having all plies stitched
together between the keeper and the attachment loop to prevent interlaminar
slippage. Buffers are installed in each attachment loop.
Standard line to riser links of the separable types are used except when
weight limitations dictate the.design of special links that more closely
match the strength required. The links may be covered with envelopes
of dacron felt to protect the textile members from abrasion, particularly
when the packing pressure under the ram foot is high.
Bridle Attachment Loop
-Keeper
V: DHarness LUnes
Vent. Unes
Figure 71. Bridle Harneas for Perwanently Attached Pilot Chute
190
SECTION 8
FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY
Fabrication and assembly of the Ringsail parachute follows conventional

shop practices with the exception of the specific construction details de-
scribed in Section 7 wherein the Ringsail differs from other types of para-
chutes.
8. 1 Cloth Layout and Cutting
The sail dimensions, as described on the engineering drawing, are trans-

ferred to heavy pattern material in the shop and trimmned to size. These
serve as master marking patterns. For each cutting operation, the master
pattern is used to layout a cutting pattern on a bingle long sheet of pattern
paper, alternating the upper and lower sail edges to mninimize material
waste. Some wastage is unavoidable because the angle of cut is different
for each sail. The difference may be negligible in the small sails near the
vent but not for the majority. Care should be taken to insure that the pattern
io followed because neglecting, to any degree, the angle of cut could seriously
degrade the performance of the finished parachute. A large cutting table is
used and sail material is distributed over the length of the table (under no
tension, back and forth) so as to create a stack of sail material. Care must
be taken to insure that each layer of the material Is smooth and the edges
straight and even. The thickness of the stack of cloth will vary depending
upon the size of the p~arachuite and the number of parachutlis to be cut at any
one time. This generally Is worked out by thle manufacturer. After Insurim?
5 that the stack is uniform in smoothiiest4 aind straightness, the cutting patteroi
is placed upon the material stack and secured into pouition with weights. The
cloth stuck is cut with it power bhear along thle lines marked on thle cutting
pattern. Note that thet ruttinig tlattertt ih; cut simultaneously with the sail
stack. EAch cut set of sails thould be stAmped with the sail number near the
center lower edge of each sail to Aid in ititure identification and assembly.
a.
J SAIL E00k: TAPE'S
Sail edlge tape'sil~rt vlac-lid lii ee. tly to. tit' sa l chtalkwi-se off tile roll aild
ckit off even with tim wvdlte ot e.-v ia it4 is. siqpA riltt! tile sail basnbi.
The chith aod tape .&rso (ol Uiriewh like twi.~ tivti~le iiewiiip iiiiivhtne in a
Mranne r that will millit.1ik* Atb r or i.ke - ui iii v ahe r toettier. A inm-
Itnurn thread tension i iim,.ee &jidt "Wo nylontt hreaa iay be substituted !or "'Ell
thread un sailb rvi 1. 1 oziyd" ralootol.. clo~th..
8.3 RADIAL TAPES
Radial tapes are marked under nominal tension* in accordance with the
marking diagram. An allowance of about 1/2 inch is made at each end for
turning under yo cover cut ends. One of each pair of tapes is made one inch
longer than its mate at the lower end to provide for the tapered suspension
line joint (see Figure 11).
8.4 VERTICAL TAPES
The double vertical tapes are marked under nominal tension* in accordance
with the marking diagram. An allowance of about one inch is made at one
end for turning that end over the other cut end when finishing the gore sub-
assembly.
8.5 THE GORE SUBASSEMBLY
The gore subassembly consists of one set of sails, one pair of radial tapes
and one vertical tape. About one-half of the sails will be subassemblies
carrying tapes on one or both selvages, the remainder will have trip selvage.
The upper edge of sail I will have a I-inch rolled hem basted with "B" nylon
thread. One of the radial tapes will be about an inch longer thau the other.
The radial tapes are placed even with the cut edges of the salls and basted
with one or two rows of "B" nylon thread through each sail in proper order
holding upper and lower edges even with the marks on the tapes. The tape
on one side of the gore Is placed on the undersurface and the other on the
upper surface, always in the same order from gore to gore. Cloth fullness
is distributed uniformly between marks. The basting seam Is placed where
it will not interfere with subsequent folding and stitching ofthe main radial
soam.
The double vertical tape is stitched in place along the gore centerline with
a continuous two-needle seam of "E" nylon thread running full length. The
mid-tape bend Is made around the lower edge of the sail below ýbe longest
ringslot, sandwichlng the cloth between the two halves. The long upper end
is folded back I /1 inch and bent over the upper sail edge to cover the short
end even with the sail edge.
Nominal tension is sufficient to straighten the material for maintenance of

dimensional consistency without undue stretching, usually about 5 Ibs
carefully measured each time.
192
F
8. 6 CIRCUMFERENTIAL BANDS
The vent, skiTt8 and intermediate bands (if any) are marked under nominal
F tension in accordance with the marking diagrams on the drawing, which
include provisions for lap splices. Temporary marking jigs are used until
spacino take-up allowance has been verified on the prototype assembly. S
8.7 SUSPENSION LINEý AND VENT LINES
Suspension lines and vent lines are marked in accordance with the marking
F diagrams while subjected to a uniform tension, usually 2(0 lbs. As in any
circular parachute the purpose is to produce a high degree of uniformity
in the length of lines afound; the canopy. The material should be rolled off
'the spool and allowed to "relax" tor 44 hours before marking. Recently
some mahufacturers have not stored' their line material spools hut store it
loosely in boxes. in these t-casea it is not necessary to relax the material
ifor 24 hours. If lines are untisially lonu. tension may be applied with the
lines routed around a pulley.
Riser material.s are measured, cut and assernbled in conformance with the
best standard oractices using ikipoint cross-stitch patterns. Box stitch
pattqrns are not used.
8. 9 'THE CANOPY ASSEMfBLY
The canopy assemblV couiists of N gore vent linoo,

N/bassembl2e,
N/l
vent and skirt bandt, ,amt. .&aay mid.-anopy drutinferential reinforcing h.,n4tr
that may be rotluired. If 1 ri.ranvotly ,ttwthod pilot chute Is reqtuired.
the apex bridle harneigs will bt ;A emrt of the eanopy aasembly.
The canopy is assetnbled g•,e.bylgore with three.needle fell seams of "F'.
.•nylo thread. In each seam thi two radial tapes are folded together to one.
half width with the vloth sandw-iched between. The ulpper and lower tapes
are held together atid fed thrutigh the soWinog tmAchiue front mail edge to sail
edge itn a wai that will m ihmiA•, diffiorentiAl pAtheirivig hi" thie cloth oind dim-
*" . p)ia:et~Lb -betweean at•didning ntil edgeg aerots th. seam. A niAxinluntl
isilignhiaent of *114 inth -le rPepiihl*e .Atid .irm-id.s adeqiuate ctuitilltuty
of stleucture arqund 11w .mhl;ti. A -Aillvd Ot'.Ator requirte. only a tew
thmitutes lead ning tithe to pr-dtt0
b vt rk within thi'm tole 'noe
1, Seam .'olding
aide may be used but-are pout easraeti-,l.
L193
u L
When a canopy is to be made up of several large segments, each assembled
by a different operator, care must be exercised to ensure that each operator
employs the same main seam stitching technique in joining the gores so that
the radial take-up will be uniform all around. Common practice is to stitch
the seam downward from vent -to skirt so that the radial tape tabs can be
easily fanned out as the seam runs off the bottom. Tab fanning is done to
facilitate the wrap-around ope ration when the suspension line joints are
finished.
Vent, skirt, and intermediate bands are stitched to their appropriate ring
edges so that each mark falls on a radial centerline. Care is exercised to
effect a uniform distribution of cloth fullness between marks. If any dif-
ficulties are encountered here, a satisfactory change In the shrink allowance's
can usually be negotiated with the engineering department. Band lap splices
are made, each centered on a different radial seam, and stitched as speci-
fied on the drawing.
Vent lines are installed in the conventional manner on top of the canopy with
end lap joints secured with one row of double-throw zigzag stitching running
one-half inch off each end o! the lap.
The bridle harness, if one Is required, is attached to the apex of the canopy
as illustrated In Figure 71.
.8.10 THEk PARACHUTE ASSEMBLY
The standard parachute assembly consists of one canopy assentbly' N

suspension lines. N..2 reefing rings, two cutter pociets with doublers,
two cutter lanyards,. one riser assembly, and a set of links.
Each suspension line tis stitched to the skirt of the canopy with on* row of.
double-throw sigaag -stitches starting I i24nch above the card end and
extending to I 12-inch below the radial tabend. The radial tap* tabs Alto
wrapped snugly around the card for a distAnce of 1. 5 to I inchws below the
skirt and seczured as the row of ziozag stitches as tun through -to the end of
the pattertn.
Vath Ireefangt ring tiuasit

beAttached rigidly to' the inside of the canopy at the
intersection o.( the radial with the skirtt band. The ring attachtnent should'
consist of 5 turnis of *axced #tb oylon cord doubled and titi aff on ,th autside
with a surgeon's knot and av overhand knot.. Machine stitched 661d-down
cleats ot tape are acceptable if n~id-gtire reefing is used.
¶ 194
The cutter pockets with doublers are Installed on opposite sides of the
caopy at the skirt In the conventional manner, The short cutter actuating
lanyards as suspension line cord are attached to the appropriate suspension
lines in conformance with boat practice for the tubular insertion-type joint
known popularly as the "Chinese Finger Trap." The location specified for
this attachment will be far enough below the skirt to ensure complete extrac-
tion of the firing pin from the cutter.
The suspension line attachment to the riser link is made as a snug loop
around the bar (preferably two turns when space permits) with the bitter
end inserted into the tubular cord and secured with a short zigzag stitch
pattern (approximately 2 to 4 inches long) near the link bar.
8.11 DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCES
The characteristi,- stress-strain curve of parachute textiles affords inherent

forgiveness for errs -s of fabrication that distort the polysymmetry of the
structure. As sho%,% in Figure 67, an initial elongation of one percent is
attended by a load of only 3 percent of the ultimate strength of a typical
material. For all dimensions longer than 20 inches *1 percent would con-
stitude a generous tolerance. The shortest critical dimension is the width
of the gore at the vent band (typically 2 to 3 inches in the Ringsail) for which
a variation of *. 1 inch or *5 percent is reasonable. On this basis it is pos-
sible to construct a diagram of acceptable dimensional tolerances as shown.
in Figure 72. Use of these tole-,,nces for the finished dimensions of Ring-
sail parachutes is xe -rnmende: when they do not conflict with tighter stan-
dawrds dictated by eclfic o, erational considerations.
8o 4UA.••.ATY CONTROL
The mothods of construction employed in the Ringsail parachute lend them-

selves to good in-process control by the sewing machine operator as weUl
as easy post-assembly inspection. Close control of the folding of the inter-
gore fell seams by the radial tapes is one example. Good practice is to
in-spect all patterns and marking boards and witness call cutting of material.
b-process inspection pouts can be established to insure basting of the gore
atsemblies are proper before assembly and that all gores are properly
as~semblkd prior to installing the vent and skirt bands.
The important dimensions of the final parachute assembly that must be

uniform around the canopy within reasonable tolerances to ensure good
polysymmetry of the structure are as follows:
195
Best Available Copy
125 * . .L.. . .
- . -o
* j 0
0 0
- In
V. -........... S4
.1 I
I .
I. I I . I
I 1....A.jj* *1i.
I.
1
. ... * 0
- 4)
0
0
0
.6*4
0
7i72.............*-.1.7Tj...77 I::
I...I .1
. .
I
4)
--.....-... ...-- 0
* ..-.................... 00 0
- .........-----............
I * p4
I -. . ".4
0
.............................................................................................
4)
0
I................
"44)
0
0 4)p-I
-
4)
U
U
4:
"4
M N
J
+1
196
"a. Vent line length
b. Width of gore at vent band
c. Length of radial from vent to skirt
-d. Width of gore at skirt band
e. Suspension line length
f. Riser length
In general, dimensional inspection of 10% of items (a) through (e) above,

taken at uniformly distributed points around the canopy are sufficient to
insure good quality. Although the width of the gore at intermediate points
between vent and skirt is also important, the method of assembly prevents
large discrepancies and it usually is not feasible to check such dimensions
except at intermediate circumferential bands.
If the measuring and marking of components is controlled to within close

tolerances, then the inspection of the coincidence of matching marks can
provide one measure of the dimensional accuracy of the assembly.
The line lengths are easily checked to the design dimension by applying the
same tension used in their fabrication (usually 20 lbs). Checking the lengths
of the canopy assembly along stitched seams is more difficult. During the
manufacturing process a canopy cut to the design dimensions "shrinks," i. e.,
becomes shorter along all stitched seams due to takeup caused by thread
tension, etc. Owing to interlaminar friction, it usually requires more than
a little tension to stretch such seams back to the original length, and verifi-
cation of uniformity around the canopy is inconvenienced. However, the
inconvenience is not great, requiring merely the determination of an average
dimension on the first production model to be checked at nominal tension
(say 20 lb.).
A parachute, during the inflation process, stretches and It happens that

under the nominal loading of steady descent the elongation of all components
is more than sufficient to restore the assembly to Its design dimensions;
indeed, considerable over-expansion of the area is the rule for Ringlall
parachutes larger than 40 ft Do. Therefore, the requirements for the fabri-
cator to apply a shrink-scale to the measurement of some of the canopy tapes
tapes and bands, to make trial canopy assemblies, and to juggle measuring
tensions until the parachute can indeed be checked against the design dimen-
is superfluous. Quality control of the polysymmetry of the canopy
gsion
can be effected very simply by measuring the first production model under
a stshdardized constant tension and establishing the average dimension of
each component to be satisfied on the inspection table.
197/198
REFERENCES
1. WADC TR 53-78, A Study to Establish a Parachute Research and

Development Program, Vol. II, Sec. V (Design and Fabrication),
Radioplane Co. Report No. 756, Aug..1953.
Z. Ewing, E.G., Enginee'ring Proposal for Development of thi Skysail

Personnel Parachute and Container, Radioplane Co. Report No. 882,
I April 1954.
3. Ewing, E.G., Development of the Light Weight Ringslot Parachute

for Stage IMI Recovery of the XQ-4 Drone, Radioplane Company
Technical Memorandum AMM- 1Z-1, Nov. 1955.
4. Anon; Design Development of a Universal Aerial Recoirery System

Phase IlI (Product Improvement), SAMSO,68-Z44, Northrop Ventura
Report No. 6174, June 1968.
5. Graham, C. R. ; Heavy Vehicle Ring sail Parachute Century Series -

124. 5 it Do & 123 ft D0 , Northrop Ventura Report No. 3856, May 1965.
6. Ewing, E.G., Design Analysis 128.8 ft Do Century Ringsail!

(Project 1821), Northrop Ventura Report No. 4051, June 1966.
7. Nash-Boulden, S.S.; Apollo Aerial Drop Test Summary ,Northrop

Ventura PTM-763, Nov. 1963'.
8. Ewing, E.G.; Development Program for a Ringsail Parachute

(Century Series) Final Report, Northrop Ventura Report No. '5U28,
Dec. 1966.
9. Norman, L. C. andSuit, K. L.; An Investigation of the Initial

Century Series Ringsail ParachUte, NASA TND-5968, Manned
Spacecraft Center, Aug. 1970.
10. Gimalouski, E.A.; Developmentlof a Final Stage Recovery Syslem

for a 10,000 Pound Weight, WADC TR 59-.109, Pioneer Parachute Co.,
Dec. 1958.
11. Moeller, J. H., Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect 6f 100%

Vertical Tapes and Midpanel Reefing on Reoiucing Aerodynamic
Interference in PDS 1543 Cluster Operation, Northrop Ventura,
internal memo. APT/64-2ý2, 2 April 1964.
12. Moelaer, J.H. ; Basic Loads for Apollo Block I Spacecraft Earth
Landing System; Northrop Ventura Report 3772A, Oct'. 1966.,
199
i3. Muiliins,W. 1., Reynolds, D. T.,; Lindh, K. G. & Bottorff, M. R.;
ýnvttiatin
o PrdicionMetodsfortheLoads and Stresses of
Ap2ollo Type Spacecraft ParachtsVl U Stress~s, Northrop
Corp., Ventura Div%ý., Report NVR-6432, June 1970.
14. Mickey, F. E., ýMcEwan', A. J., Ewing, E. G, Huyler, W. C. Jr.,

and Khajeh-Nouri, B.; Investigation of Prediction Methods for the
Loads and Stresses of Apollo Type Spacecraft Parachute~s Vol. I
Loads, Northrop Corp., Ventura Div. Report NVR-6431, June 1,970.
115. GroAt. J. F. and Nash-Boulden, 5.5-.; Analysis of Apollo Main

Parachute Wind Tunnel Test Using Full, Half, and Third Scale Models,
Noi.throp Ventura Report 2928, Jan. 1964.
16. Niash-Boulden, S. S. and Coe, D.,C.; Analys!is of the Full Sicale and
Clustired One-t~hird S~cale Apollo 88 foot Ringsail Pai~achute Tests
in the Ames 40 x 80 foot W~nd Tu~nnel - Second Serie's. Northtop
Ventura R.ýpo~rt 3518, April 1964.
17. Riley, V. F. ; Pinal IRepqrt' Glidesail Development Program

Contract NAS9- 140, Northrop Ventura Report PTM-524A Dec. 1962.
18., Murrow, *H.N. , and McFall, J. C. Jr. ;, Summary of Experimental

Results Obtained from thd NASA' Planetary Entry Parachute Prograrti,
AIAA Paper No. '68-934, Sept. '1968.
19. Stone, J. W. ; Rate of Descent Analy~is of the Apollo Earth Landing

ISystem with the Basic PDS-1543 88-foot Parachutes', Northrop
Ventura Report 2972, July 1964.
1o. Fre~nch, IK.E.; Mýodel Law for Parachute Opening Shock,, AIA.A
Journal, Vol. 2, No. 12, Dec. 1964, pp. 2226-222.8.
21. 'Riffle, A. B.,; Determination of the 4erodvnamic Drag and Static,

Stability of Reefed Parachute Canopies. Wright Patterson AFB
Ohio, Jan. 1965.'
-22. Ewing., E. G.; Deployable Aerodynamic Deceleration Systdms.

NASA SP-8066,i June 0971.
213. Greene, G. C.; Openling Distance of a P~r~chute Journal of
Spacecraft ind Rockets, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan. 19,70, pp 90-100.
24. Anon., Performance of and Desion Criterja for Deployable

IAerodynamic becelerators. ASD-TR61 -579, AFSC, Dec. 1963.
200
25. McEwan, A. J., Huyler, W. C., Jr., Mullins, W. M and Reynolds,
D. T.; Description of Computer Programs for the Analysis of
Apollo Parachutes, Northrop Ventura Report 6428, June 1969.
26. Ewing, E. G. ; Ringsail Parachute Characteristics, Radioplane

Company PTM-323A, Jan. 1961.
27. Weller, E.J. ; Design A)Jproval Test Report - Asset Recovery

System, Northrop Ventura PTM 571, Apr. 1963.
28. Graham, C.R. and Baker, J.T.; Recovery Parachute - Staple

Escape Capsule Component Verification Tests, Radioplane Report
No. 2392A, March 1962.
29. Buhler, W. C.; Project Mercury Landing Parachute Development

and Qualification, Radioplane Report No. 2312-B, Oct. 1961.
30. Nash-Boulden, S.S. ; Suniniary Report Gemini Main Parachute

Development Tests 7 through 20, 28 through 30 and 32, Northrop
Ventura Report No. 2932, Jan. 1964.
31. Swanson, J. N. and Dedon, W. W. ; Flight gualification Test

Program - Gemini Parachute Landing System Spacecraft 3
bi ý OflfiPLQratiol, Ný)rthrop Vlit-ura Report No. 3796, July 1965.
32. Belknap, S. and Goar, K. ; Summary Analysis Report of Drop Tests

Performed Durin the Apollo Main Parachute Improvement Program;
Drop Test Series440 414and44 Northrop Ventura Report No. 37Z2,
Dec. 1964.
33. Murray, H. L.; Apollo Block II Increased Capability Earth Landing

System - Final Report of Drop. Test Series 80 and 81, Northrop
Corp., Ventura Div. Report NVR-6106, May 1968.
34. Ewing, E. G; Another Look at the Filling Problem of Clustered

Parachutes, Northrop Ventura Report'No. 3502, April 1964.
35. Anon.; OXK Parachute Sy.ten Final e.ort, Irving Air Chute Co.
Inc., Report No. GIR85-15, Aug. 1967.
201/202
APPENDIX A
PROMINENT RINGSAIL PARACHUTES
This Appendix presents diesign information on a number of the better known

ingsall parachutes. This Information is presented for the benefit of the
designer to provide some Insight into the various methods and techniques
used in the structural design. Figures 73 thru 76 presents still photographs
of Mercury. Gemini, Apollo and Century Series Parachutes. The Century
Parachutes in cluster are shown in the Frontispiece.
The Ringsail parachutes shown in Table XXVI and the figures referenced
were selected as representative of the full spectrum of system operational
requirements that can be met with negligible development risk. A guide to
reading the fullness distribution curves presented in Figures 78 through 105
to shown in Figure 77.
TABLE XXVI
REPRESENTATIVE RINGSAIL PARACHUTES
D W(t) Program or Operational System Figure
Z9.6: Project ASSET 78
4.1.0 B-58 Escape Capsule and SUD 79

Aviation Nose Cone recovery
£3. 1 Mercury Capsule Landing System 80
84. 2 Gemini Spacecraft Landing System 81
85.6 Apollo Earth Landing System 82 thru 104

(including various development
configurations)
1 28. 8 Century Series 105
Included with the Information relating to the final design version of the
moWdified hingsail of the Apollo ELS cluster is a group of construction data
sheets for significant test specimens of the many prior versions fabricated
and tested during the development program. The original Apollo main
parachute had a nominal diameter of Do 88. 1 ft. Subsequent versions
dLfUsred in two basic ways. embodying.
203
a. Basic design modifications aimed at improving cluster
operation and reducing weight.
b. Changes in materials of construction during the structural

evolution required to strengthen critical members and meet
increasing design limit loads as the spacecraft weight grew
from 9, 500 to 13, 000 lbs.
Two classes of parachutes are represented in Figures 78 through 105 and

the data sheets which follow:
a. 72 gore Ringsails of standard and modified designs all having

nominal diameters in the range of 87 to 88 feet.
b. 68 gore, 85. 6 ft Do Ringsails modified by removing 4 gores

from the standard 72 gore model and by removing 75 percent
of the width of ring 5.
The 72 gore canopies with the exception of PDS 31 20 have a constructed

shape that is essentially a spherical segment to which fullness has been
added as shown in the diagrams. The 68 gore canopies being assembled
from spherical gores have a truncated ogival shape with an apex angle of
19 degrees, and the same fullness distribution as the standard 72 gore
model. The constructed shape of PDS 31 20 is a truncated ogive with an
apex angle of 1 5 degrees. For convenience the 85. 6 ft Do ogival shaped
canopies were designated "t conical" in the drawing titles and the popular
nominal diameter of 83. 5 ft is retained to agree with the original documen-
tation.
I
cZ04
it
Pigure 7). Me~rcury Copoule LiAnding System. 63. 1 ft Do Ringoati
205
IL
Uttr. 74. Geminidpacecraft LAndingSpetent, M4.t ft Do Rbgtai&

$iit75. Apollo Spacteckat Earth lmatding Syot*ew Cluoter 6f
Three 65. 6 it 00~ RingiaailParachutes
201
F.
I 7¶# 'J: . -
- ;.V..'
N' 1' 4,4 \'.'4

44
.4.4..'
-(4.4
>,A.'1 -'Vp 4'' "4.
A 5 4. '' 4'444
4 '.. '' .ffr
.44 4 ,.. 4'. 4,2.
4: , 4A4 V. m¼2Th4t.*2' t-4'ilr>44 A

44> '.444
ttC;A{t' *:44vt
.4'.' 'A.
4..: . 4 .4 .4,
Vt .4;...."
.
"4;.
Y.4
4
444fl4:r.{
I
'V.'
(4
I I
.1
1
flgture 76. IZSE S Pt D0 Cekattary Ringanil Parachute
206
I..
I" ~~Centerline of vent -.. , ._.0
Fu•elnss distribution on the Ringsail parachute

S r ~Is defined ak./-
•' * sdf~s a: , Sall Width - 0
"~ Fln Spherical Gore Width
.'£dg of vent
* Xdlcafts 6%fullness in trailing edge of-

Sail No.. I (at vent) which Is at a point EE"
4% hR out from the centeritne of the vent
SI. Ivgm
- didateo Zfullness in leading edge of

Sai 2144-- 1 which isat a point 8% hR
out *om the centerline of the vent
e, Indlcate* fullnes in leading and

trailing edge of sails between a point
8% and approxlmately 30. 6% hR oat
I"o the centeriune of the Vent
*..Indicates trailing edge fullness is Za
66oapoint 31. 5%hRout from the
,.•. .. And:
•..~icabis leading edg~e (41iness incrseo-a" --- -"
from zI to 4at 30.6%to 37. 5 hiot -ou
4itt~an the Cen"Arineof the vent
ii~~~~i"•
~~1 * C"Indcates trailing
tihe to edge
cmenterline
6" at•z••,o,,
3-1.61 esnrese*-
uutn
of h vent.
6A,%tha MA ''-i"
'froma to 161%at 37. 5% to 60.%ha u
Inditates leading edge fu-lneas icees.-
•' ' " "t" 'Fig t diat "edit
" ' " /i..FUL" t-".'S-taper
DISIL -"ID
,•A U•.60; th 4.f, ,4,o, the Vent "

•" -• " ' • I ULLNE" DISTalMUTION,
.-.. '.• .-
•"-. . , " atiS~ ~
77..
I Guide to line ! .t."Distli"Uton Qt f• • -
ana 0
2.72 AT CLSEAM
18.0 NOTE:
___________I SAIL! SUSPENSION
, LINE RATIO 0. 93 D
18.0 05
SAIL2
18.0
SAILS3
18.0 os
________SAIL6 5
18.0 0
16.0 1SAILL 9
I
AA
GORE PATTE~RN'
1000
"FULNES DISTRIUTON
lUt. G8
oe Pattern a*hd runfest Distir~tmAioa
R5616-1 Z4.6 itc bo Ringa& Parftachute
210
PART NO.: R5616-1
TITLE: PARACHUTE, Z9.6 ft Do RINGSAI L
NO. GORES: Z4
TYPE OF REEFING: RADIAL
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Ib NYLON CORD
!VENT BAND 900

Li71lb~i~
NYLON TAPE, 1. 0 WIDETAPP.
'V.IGiT- ..
RING NUMBIER OZIYD (a) ' ,, •1IDTfl, IN.
I a. as 90 (b ,) .62
1. a.
1. 90 ,6z
S3 a. as 90 (c. 1) .6a
:..•!:i 4 h i90(C. 1) .6,2
1. S " None
A -a
.7 - ! . N~on N..e
I!
jj lot None Nune
VRTICAL TAI'I f~z

qd10b XYMN (AIjt-:('
SKi.-T hAND 100 lb NttAMN tA PIE. 1.0 WIDE .
(1) ThINU|,5L VAGiK CL.OlIi (c) LMADtk; AND TRAILING 9D00
NO, DIMMI-SAM
AU4AU-R
"THE CIU L
•KUIRITV.RMhINATKI;
&i A,•.T 1AA ,F
NTL OF TUM ) NO.
TO TOP O S
311
--..42.93 ATCLSEAM 0
z9. o ~~~NOTE:---2" '

.. 4.0o SAIL 1 iEFF. SUSPENSION
I * LINE RATIO I. 03D -Do
29.0
3SAILZ hR =49
24.0LI~iL 2Z.
SAIL3
24.0 Z5
SAIL 4
24.0 .
24.0
0 -
SAIL7
24.0
SAIL88
H
24.0I
SAIL 9 Q .75
(L SEAM . SEAM
- 44.-75 ,, •
GORE PATTERN
100
...
0 10
FULLNESS DISTRIBUTION
_•., (%)
"Figure 79. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution

R5044-501 4! ft Do Ringsail Parachute
212
PART NO.: R5044-50t
"TITLE: PARAC HUT E, 41 ft Do RI NGSAI L
NO. GORES: 3Z
-I EM MATERIAL
VENT LINLS 550 lb NY LON CORD
fVNT -\ND 900 lb NY ONTAPE, 1.0 WIDE

- :ING NUMBER D WIDTH, IN.
•t•,~~oz on€ WITH IN'.-L-'

- I Z5-300 (b) 1.0
I.
2~ 3011(c) . 1.0
3 1.1 90 (.d) .6Z
4 - - -90( )
5*, 90(dm ~6g

. .. 1 Nne . None
x
'.. None None
1.1 None -.
SI" 9" ..-. I. None . None . " .
VERTICAL TAPE NONE _•__._. ..
SKIRT •BAND 300 lb NYLONt TAPX, 1.0 WIDE
"RADIALS (A EAChI) 300 lb NY IDN TAPE, 1. 0 WIDE
SUS1ENSION LINES 550 lb NY LON CORD
(a) T1UPLE-S&LVAGF CLOTX (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGt.• ONLY (d) ritAILING EDGE ONLY
213
_.. - _ . ,• ,•• ....

,, .!•
.. "• .,0 .
......... ) ,•.
-•. ,(,,,. ,•.. •., • - . . .. .. .. .. .
t0
2.90 AT CL SEAM 0
30.0 NOTE: EFF. -
.SAIL 1 A---USENSION LINE

"£.0.__LENGTHO.97
36.0
SAIL2 h= 8
3. 0 SAIL3 .25
36.0 SAIL4
36.0 SAIL5 -
36.0 0
36.0
SAIL
5Z4
U
36.0
SAIL70
'!SAIL 9 - • .75
I I
q360 a SEAM ,
048.05
GORE PATTER I 0 10
I (%)
FULLNESS DISTRIBUTION
Figure 80. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution

R5157-321 63.1 ft DO Ringsail Parachute
214
k
PART NO.: R5157-3ZI
-ITLE:' PARACHUTE, 63. 1'f%Do RINGSAIL
NO. GORES: 48
- TYPE OF REEFING: RADIAL
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 lb NYLON CORD
VENT BAND;" 900 lb NYLON TAPE, 1.0 WIDE

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZIYD2 (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN.
:1 2.25 90 (b) .62
2 2.25 90 (c) .62
3 2. Z5 90(c) .62
4 2.25 90 (d)! .62
5 1.1 70 (d) .62
6 *1.1 70 (d) .62
7 .1 70 (d) .6z
8 1170(d): .62
9 Pr1
one Non~e
I
10 1.1 None one

n
VERTICAL TAPE ____,
30O lb NYLON TAPE 1.0 WiD..

SKIRT BAND 5A5 WbNYLON WEBBING, 1. 0 WIDE
- I RADIALiS (2 EACH) 300 lb NYLON TAPE, 1. 0 Wipe
SUSPENSION LINES $50 lb NYLON CORD
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH, (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
I ýCl,
215
( 4 2.9o AT % SEAM 0
36.0 [0 . 0 S A IL I"---.NOTE: . . ,
-,AEFF. SUSPENSION
36.0
I "La A LINE LENGTH
0.94 Do
-. f 3.0
..-.. . SA
• IL 2 ~ h~hR
= 5510
10" i , ,. 2
36.0 . 7SAIL. .
36. 01..
.0 SAIL 4
36.0 -
!z 360.SAIL 55
36.0
- SAIL o-
-4 -6
- 0
36.0 -- :
SAIL 8i
'I,
36.0 ,
SAIL 9 [ .75 -7
36.0 - ,
SAIL 10.-• =
36.36.0
0 -- ' ..
SAIL 11
36.0 TYP
I _SAIL 12 & 13
E43.0 100
SEAM FULLNESS DISTRIBUTION
1 GORE PATTERN (
Figure 81. `Gora Pattern and Fu11neas Distribution

R6ZZO-525 84. 2 ft Do Ringsail Parachute
216
......
PART NO.: R6220-525
TITLE: PARACHUTE, 84.2 f.t Do RINGSAIL
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 lb NYLON CORD
VENT BAND (2) 900 lb NYLON TAPE, 1.0 WIDE

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) P,, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 300 (b, e) 1.0
2 2.25 300 (c, e) 1.0
3 2.25 300 (c, o) 1.0
4 2.25 300 (c,'*) 1.0
5 a. 25 5Z5 (do, o 1.0
6 1.1 90 (doo) .6z
7 1.1 70 (do .62
8 1.1 70 (do e) .62
9 1.1 70 (do el .62
10 1.1 7 o(do e) .6a
S11 1.1 70 (d, eo .6z
12 &13 1.1 70 (d, .6z
VERTICAL TAPE NONE
SKIRT BAND 500 lb NYLON WEBB, 1.0 WIDE
RADIALS (ZEACH) 300 lb NYLON TAPE, 1.0 WIDE
"SUSPENSION LINES 550 lb NYLON CORD
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

Ib~E)GE
EADIG NLY(d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
CIR.CUMFERENTIAL REINkORCEMENT
217
36.0 -~~ 2. 04 AT _
- -~ r%SEAM J
36. 0 5. 0 SAIL I
1
SAIL NOTE:
SAIL L..L Ef. Suspension --

c0 0 2 Line Ratio = 1. 4 Do -
.h• a--..
535. _ • .. •_ ...
42.0
1-3.0 SAIL 3 .A -
*42. 0 Z l t - '-.. --. . . -'

2.0 0SAILS
42.0
_ _ _ 1 L V.• i - - = --- -:.
1. SAILS H --- 7-_7
10 SAL,
SAIL67 --
___ __ FA L_9_"' -.: -_..:

42.0
42.0 4 SAIL b0 -- ,- 7z.-
_• SAIL. 10
1--- ..................... ; ..
42.0
I ~ AI 1 100 ~ 2;~
GLSEAM 44.94 SEAM
(j. SLAM ULLNES'S 1)1ST2hIfT1I)N
GORE PATTERN (5)

Fiure 82. Gore Pattern and Fullnes, Distribution
PDS 808.1 88. 1 ft Do ftingUll Varachuto
.118
PART NO.: PDS 808-1
TITLE: Parachutes 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsal
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFING: Radial
"ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 400 Lb Nylon Cord
VENT BAND 900 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZIYD 2 (a) P,. LB WIDTH, IN.
II I None None
z 1.1 None None
3 1.1 None None
4 1.1 None None
$ 1.1 None None

II.1 None None
1.1 None None
a 1.1 None None
LI None Nonm
10 1.1 None N,,e
t 1. 1 Now Nafe
12zi None None
VERTICAL TAPE No e ..
SKiRT BAND 00 Lb Nylon Webbing, 56 Wide
RADIALS (Z F.AC111 ZOO Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 06 Wide
SUSPEtION LtES 400 Lb Nyton Cord
(a) TRIPLE.SELVAGC CLOTH (t) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (4) TRAIL1NG EDGE ONLY
219
0
S.... Ef~f. Suspension

4-.0
-!| .•e Ratio = I 4 Do -
4.0 SAIL 21-..
hR 53 -
42.0 .. -...... .
3.0 SAIL 3
2.04
SAILo .4.. ..
42-.0
4z. 0
42.0
42.0 47..
SAIL
42. 0
- ~SAIL6 9
• ~ . SAIL
5 , .... .. .,..
42.0 ' - 0 44.S94SIAIL D
zAL
42.0 -SAUL to
+ SEAM
at 44.9
8. oe aten n SEA•1, D--iu~n * -
I 'd
4'20SA I z 0
I
LP., -1 6- I ORfei ~ah
q SEM 4494 Zzio~'U wsrt I1~
IPART
T1TLLM
NO.: PDS 926-1
Parachute. 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFVIN: Radial
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND (3 each) 900 Lb Nylou Tape*. 1. 0 Wide

-COTiH WEM~T TAPE
RING ~'MUER OZI1yal (a) P'. L5 WIDTH, IN.'
42,2 200 (b) 1.06

2.25 200 (c) 1106
4 Z.5 200 (c) 4.06
4~o 1. 0(c) 1.06
* .190 (d) .62
1 ..Nome Nab*
1,1No"e Nofts
U 1.1."One
VERTICAL tAP N~e.
SKIRT SANDv 500 Lb Ntk W~bbtal. S65Widt
(2ACH)-
RAIMAL (I to0 Lb Nylon Tap*, 1..04 Wige
SUSP041SON LINES 400 LbNlo Cord
(a) TORIPL-E.LYAGES CLO=h (c) LEAL tNOA TRAILING £EW

1b) LtAMG £EDGE ONLY (d) TaUAILNG EDGE ON4LY
-0
"Z ,. AT
f IL SEAM
1 [.0SIL I NOTE:-
"--,0 n Ratio .- "

-z -
r4.0 SAIL 2.
=h535-
,-',". ~4?. 0 • :
3.0 SAKI 3 .25 l-
SAIL 4 7 .
-" ' --• --- "
-2.0 1-O
: ~SAIL . . .
42, 0 0
$0 -
SA I - --
!* I ' It
42,0 S-AIL .
42.0 SAIL -
42.i 0 - .,0 -4•_* -"'-
•aa *,...,. SA.M' 1, ,-- =

. I
4L~ 0
-SAIL I30to
4I rLNS- D-ITIDM
PD
97- S1ftID, 12 sal1ft 0
PART NO.: PWS 9Z?4
TIVUZ Paraacbuateo. 1 Ft Do RiAgail
NO. GOtM5 7Z
TYPE OF RFEFING: Radial
ITEM MATgRIAL
VENT UINE 400 Lb !LYtoz Card
VENT BAND (3 each) 900 L# Nylon~ Tape. 1.* Wide
RMN NUMBER OZIyDZ (a) = 1BWDH
4111 200 (b) 1.04
4lot o 0(C) 10
lei. t~oe(C) 1
14" Was.~
lip .141 il"No"e
Kern
" YtkTICALT1APE~
SVKIT DA"O $00 Ub "!t~yi wl"aIbs, .65*4*Wd
RADIALS 41 EACHJ _. 100 Lb KY)6.Tae. 3.04 Wide
M5 ENSt'ION UNES 00Lh "it" CA"
(a) TRtPLt-SZL'AiGt CWTH (C) LEAMtMG AND TRAING Poole

(14 LXAMNG E1XC 01* (4) TRAIUNO EDGIC ONIX
~lAT
2 -
36.0 5.0 ISAIL I NOTE:4

AEff Suspension - 7-.
42.0 0m~to~.D
_j 4.0SAIL Z
I-4. Ri 535
4Z. 0
.25SIL
4.2.0 L 37
r Z. 0SKIL 4
42.0 SA4L 1... ---

1.04
42.0 so1L
42.0 S
42.0 SAM 9
41. 42.0
L
$AIL 10
42.0SAILI I
r ~~ 420ISII 0
SAm44.94 SEAM ~ S )I I I
riguro 85. Gore Pltern &VA Fu&11noe. DittibautioN

PD5 1226-1 thru -5SOS G&I Do aingil Patfchiale
22.4
PART NO.; PD912Z45.
TITIM Pevochuls Sk I ft Do RMeall
TYPE OF REUING Radia
ITUh MATERIAL
VENT LIN= 400 Lb &!tos Card
VENT BAt4D( "ab) 90 A 1. 0 WHO TP
'ARNO dtMBR O2/YiD2 (0) P.. U3 WIDTH* IN.

L 25z 90 (be. 16&
*9 ~ 0()
(as, .62
90 fdq * .62
4 14 %(..) .4
IS Ito
T. '"
I&) ?RRPLE4ESLVAG CLOSE (c) LEAUK*G AND TAAILNG EDGE

(h) LEAWO£DtO, (0) TMILZNOEDGE ONLY
44GCIUFE&UIT1%"AL U OCMN
us?.
PART NO.: PDS 1226,501
TITLE: Parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb.Nylon Cord
VENT BAND(3 each) 900 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wid.-

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) P,, LB WIDTH, IN.
2.Z,5 90 (b, e) .6z
2 2. zs 90 (c, e) .62
3 ?125 90 (c, e) .6z
4 1.1 90 (c, e) .62

5 1.1 90 (d, e) .62
11
* 90 (d, e) .62
1. 1 None None
8 1. 1 None None
9 1.1 None None
10 1. 1 None None
11 1. 1 None None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE None
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbing, .56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 200 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 06 Wide
S USPENSION LINES 400 Lb Nylon Cord

(e) GIRCUMFERENTIL'L REINFORCEMENT
226
•'• - .- - -- - - - - ._ -. ,..-
PAXT NO.: pfl5 U3,5O3
ram-E parachutet Be.1I t D- lir4ua

•. -_ M GORES" U/ -.... :...
TYPE Or REEFI=-: Radial
STEM MATERIAL
VENT LANES S50 Lb N!yla Cord4-
900 LbNy'I Tape, 1. 0 Wide

.-" ~ ~ VENT, ~BAND (3
'' each)
~ 'CTWiT
L TAPE
RING NUMBER OZIYD2 (a) " Pr,, LB WIDTH, 11.
1 ~2.25 90(be
Oil
a L•, •S590 (c, e) .6Z
3 Z,2as 90 (c. a)- .62,

4 1.1 90 (c, e) .62
S1,1 90 (d,.e) .62
I ,| .. 90 (de a) 62
1
T1I. None - None
8 1 1 None None
9 1.1 None None
to10 1. None None
11 1.1 None None
12 I. None None
VERTICAL TAPE None
SKIRT BAN)D 500 Lb Nylon Webbing, . 56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 200 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.06 Wide
FSUSPENSION LINES 400 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE C1OTH (€) LEADING AND TaAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING LDG ONLY
(O) CIRCUMFERENTIAL RELNFORCEIENT
227
I -,'11
PART NO.: PD 1226-505
LE'TIE: Parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Rngsail
~-1 NO. GORES: 72
TYPZ OF REEF ING: Radial
- ITEM IMATERIAL
VENT BANID(3 each) 900 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide

V ~CLOTH WEIGHT ____TAPE
-RING -, NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN).
_ 2.25 90 (b, e) .62
- 2.25 90 (c, e) ,62'
3 2.25 90 Cc, e) .62
1.1 90 (c, e) .62.
. 5 1.1 90 (d, e) .62:
, 1. 90 (do e) .6z
--- 11 None None
- 8 1.1 None None

91.1 None, None
10 " 1.1 None None
11 .1None None,
'"- 1. None Pone
VERTICAL TAPE None
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbing, *56 Wide _
RADIALS (Z EACH) ZOO Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 06 Wide t ,
SUSPENSION J.INES 400 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND T1IIJNG EDGE

V.(e) CIERUMFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT
228
k' • •• + ','+'+' + % + > "N ( x,,+ +...•, .. ;.••.,,•;+,, .. . .
-~~~~~~~I - 'I"".",,.,-'"' ,'.: *,,.. .','

SEAM -
(5.0 SAIL 1 Not.: -
42. SAIL
A'Eff. suspension
line ratio = 4 Do --
, h 531. 75 .- "1'--- -
42.0 .L5
j 3 .0SA5
• 3 --- -
F T7I
I-
--
p 42.0.0
42.01.0SAIL 4'
42.0 150 W
- SAIL 5; E4
"4&0 " -
SAIL 6 __ ,
z
42.0 +1*
SAIL 7 O
42.0
4Af. 0 L-2-
SAI
-- 10 71- 1-
42.0 ...... -
140
qSEAM 4 4.4 j SEAM
FULLNESS DISTR1]lIUTION
1 GORE PATTERN IM
Figur 86. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,

PD 1543-1' 535 fld-553 '88. 1 Lad 85.6 A Do Ringsall Parachute
'
'
*.
..- 229
. . .•
I!I
PART NO.: PDS 1543- 1
TITLE: Parachut-e Assy., 88.1 Ft DO Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb. Nylon Cord
VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbhg, I,. 0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAIE
RING NUMBER ., OZ/YD 2 (a) P,., LB W'IDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200(b) 1.06
2 Z. 25 200(c) 1.06
3 Z. 25 200(c) 1.06
4 1. 200(c) 1.06
5 1. 200(d) I. 06
6 .6 90(d) .62
7 1.1 90(d) .62

8 1.1 90(d) .62
m9 1. None None
10 1.1 None None
11 1. INone None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon T'ine. .62 W,,d. (c)

300 Lb. Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SKRTBAD500 Lb. N~ylon Wc-bbine. .5k N~d
RADIALS (2 EACH1 300 Lb. Nylon Tg,.'. 1.0 Wide-
SUSPENSION LINI,S 1,I, .50Nylon CA.d...
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) I.MADONG AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING ZDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING EDGE OCNL•Y
(c) NO. I TIIRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OV GO,,FE
230
- !•i••'•:"±•. ••,•-'';,'.
% Y• ,•,• ••, .•%-• •':t•-• ,.,, ' ,,• •',q~:>,' :'• • '••,:•• " :•'I ".1,' , .• -'•• .,, .. .
PART NO.: PM 1543- S35
TITLE: Ptarchute Assy., 88.1 Ft Do Riagsall
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL
VZNT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
tING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) P., LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200(b) •1.06
2..s Z0O(c) 1.06
3 alas 200(c) 1.06
4 1.1 Z00(c) 1.06

- 1.1 Z00(d) 1.06
6 1.1 90(d) .62

111 90(d) .6z
* 1.1 90(d) .6z
1ei None None
10 1.1 None None

11 1.1 None None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape. .62 Wide (e)

SKIRT BAND 500 Lb. Sylon Webbing,. .6 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 30Q0 Lb. Nylon Tane. 1.0 WMd
SUSPENSION LINES 550 Lb. Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAIING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING I•DOE ONLY
(e) NO. I THRU NO.12 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OF GORE
'31
PART NO.: PDS 1543 - 553
TITLE: Parachute Assy., 85.6 Ft Do Ringeall
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) P,. LB WIDTHl, IN.
S2.2Z5 200(b) 1.06
SZ. z5 20o(c) 1.06
S2.25 200(c) 1.06

4 1.1 200(c) 1.06
S 1.1 200(d) 1.06

300/300(f) t.00/1.00
6t 90(d) .6a
7 1.1 90(d) .6z
S I, I90(d) .6Z
,.1 None None
to. 1 None None
r11 1" None None
I,1. None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

300 Lb. Nylo% Tape, 1.0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb. Nylon \Vebbini, .56 Wide
RADIALS (Z EACH) 300 Lb. Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSION4 LINES 550 Lb. Nylon Cord
TRIPLE-SELVAGE
R(I) CLOTH (c) LSADING AND TRAILING EDGE
(f) CIRCUMFERENTIAL REINFORCE-(e) NO. I TIIRU NO. 12 SAIL, DOUBLED,
&TS9. 5 & 20.0 FROM BOTTOM OF CENTER OF CORE
23U
__
___ __ _ 85 AT £0
______ AM
0 r.0 IL I Note:
Eff. suspenuion _
42.0 line ratio = 1.4 V
42.0 SAIL -'
-3. 0 SAIL 3 .Z.
41, 0 16.?7 - 4
SU.L .o- ----
4Z. $,A1L6 , ,50 -- . .. •-

42.04
42.0 SAIL -7
0SAIL 8--
I+",-"" -- - ==- ---

SAILS10
42.0
i~~~i A',
4L 0
S.. .... -
° 0
-" - + -" e
SAML I)1:
qSJFAM 44. 94 SEM'LL% JTUT)J

FUJLI.NIESS DISTRI!B UTI•ON
•"~~ 15)
GORtE PATTERN
Filure 87. Gore Pattern and MIiness Distribution.

PDS S43-51-1 and -SZ3 88.1 •t DO Riing"il Parachute
.233
(,*k.'
.I-'i'+
+''+'i .r,+ . . ->+, - ,++:,,+,
........................
. . ,*+
. . . +i'i, +,+,+.. •,.,
PART NO.: PDS 1543- 521
TITLE: Parachute Assy., 88.1 Ft Do Ringsall
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND 14000 Lb'. Nylon We bing. 1. 0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) P.. LB rWIDTH. IN.
1. as 200(b) 1.o6
z. 25 o00(c) 1.06
a.25 ZOO(c) 1. 06
4 1. zoo(c) 1,06
5 (35% Removed 1.1 300(d,f) 1.00

Top) )00(f g) 1.00
61. 90(d) .6z
1.1 90(d) .6a

i iO I.90Q(d) .6a
10 t, Non1e None
* 111~.1None Noue
11Naito Noad
PVERTICAL TAPE' 90 Lb. Nylon Dit'e, ,6 Wide (W1

100 Lb. i,'yl.u% ,alt,
- .0 Wide
SKIRT flAND Soo, Lb, .t,,:4iqjwgbbigg~. 3 ~
(,• R~~~PADI)At$ (2 EACht ) 9.. Lb, NM•Ii TniL t:£~ O •l-.,_ , _ :: ....
SUSPENSION INEI • ,! - "
(a) 1UPX.SEN,6. 63 ItctIS DOWN FROM TOP 0F FUNG 5

t)
(a) T[UPLE-SELVAG.1F!: CI.;IIi
:• LA1,IN1! .i,4 TRMLU:G EDGE
(b) LEADING F-WE; O•1lt pi) TItAinixt 111iA Ox-L.Y
I) Cmi(CUMERENTMAL HFANYOKQ, to) NO. I TI~IU NO. 12SAL,, DOUBL.ED.
m.4a Ck:NT"T. O1F CORE
22 4
[.?1
PART NO.: PES 1543- S53
TULIUM Parachuis Assy. 88.1

a Ft Do Riag•g"l
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEF=G: Radial
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES
, 550 Lb.
. - n Cord
VENT DA1D 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing. l, 0 Wide
WTH -WEIGHT - ,,TAPE
PA NUMBER
. OZ/YD" (a) P.. LB WW'H. IN.
I Z.Z5 00(jb) 1.06
S I.S00(c) Z1.06
4 .L2$00(c) 1.06
.S (35emo 1.1 300(4001 1.00

Top) Ioq0t.*) 1.00
1.1 90(d) .6z

, S-l 1.1I 90!&,) .6?.
ZE" 11 IBM- wd 4
1t i.1 lio. Nole
300 LbY. Tape,

(4o) Wide EDG0
SUESIEoN z.:pZ |_Ltb, •qv1m Core ....

1i 63 ni.dlH,,, DOWN FROM4 TOP OF RN
• ~~(a) T?31PLE-S.LVAGE c1z•m (€c) LcJ;DmtG AND TR.IMING £_L•
(4 LEAI1)1IG £1X•S ONILY (8,) TnAILING £:• OKItr
(I=MFERETLAL, RI),Wt&C,.j) ?60.
N TIIRU NO. S SAIL, 2O4tlnEIX
CENTER OF GORE
:, 235
0
.85AT.
1.-- 0.7, -
SEAM '----
.3.. 0 6.1 ,SAIL

I Note:
40.88
40•
88 r 5. 1i IL 2
SA..• A Uina supnso = 1. 4 D o
En. ratio __ . L ''- "-- -••
-I , ,,I -531.75 -- =_ -n
40.88 " ..
1r4. Z SAIL 3 ...--. ... .
40.88
12 SAIL 4 ...
410,80U•S .. .: -- ..
1. 0 AL-
41.0
4 1.0411~~
.1. 88
MSAtL1
0-
.1 (i,
. ....-................
-- r •- ;4%.
9E
Ftigure go. Gsore Pattern aW ul~llness Distributiou,

PbS 1,S43-529 U8.1 P Dollftngell |Parachult
Z•36
PAaTPO.** PM5 1543- 329
TflLE Parachute Assy. * 68.1tft DO RiaguaU
NO. GORES. 77
"MYPOFMUMWC: Radial
IEMA MATERIAL~
VEN4T LINES 150 b.1ti Cord

VENT BAND 4000 IA. Nylo We ns 1.0 Wide
aZ. Z5 ZOOb) 1.06

3001d4f) 1.00
4 ZO1b
200M 06
300(~,t)1.00
S LI 1.00d) 1.00
1.12
3"L."t 1.1ae wit*.
bdKT
SADSO~ ~ 1 Mtlg0 -bw f 4da)
_A"I ( 10.il
YTRL LtMhC Lb.XN(

"CLOT TRAW
it) ANDo EW
(~LcAum4 .1) tig Tu1AIU - NI-

QRCUMMU.MtAL& REnt0O1L:.4e NO. I THIkU :4O. S WtL,
C) OBX
Z37
ZZ -.1 85 AT 0
0_
~1~~ SEAM -
36 0 6 12 S.. No
_ .:
'Eff. jiuspeznaion
40_88 _.12 SA 11. 2 Une ratio =u1.e4 Do
i 531. 75I
40.88
40.88
•t- fla....
. --
40. as f .i
40 asL 88 85
.39.ZS 75SAIL I& m
39. ZS ILs
39. ~3 75
irziSSAILI I
PD 53-51 &a 53-8 I o-tfsi
Gaf"patt
Figure 89l.i~ii" h& "oMot""i.t
PART NO.: P16 1543. 531
TITLE: Parachute Asay., 88.1 Ft Do anpsau
______ITEM MATERIAL.
VENT LINES S50 Lb. M!Ion Cord

VENT BAND 4000 Lb, Nylon WebbIng. 1.0 Wide
-CLOTH
1WLHT TAPE'
RING NUUMBER OZ/YlD" (a) P., LB WIDTH. IN.
. as Z00(b) 1.06
z z. zs ZOo(b) 1.06
3.as zoo(;)
300(d. 1) 1.00
300(d, ) 1.00
:,4 I.I O0(b) .I.106
St300(d) 1.00
S,, . 90(d ) .62
l.t 90(d4) .6Z
- I.lo 9Old. l) .6.2

1I0.1 90(4.1) .62
VERTICAL. TAPE 0L.._*.!tqTpt. .6 Wid1. ,

SKIT: 100 Lb. Ny)iao Taj*, 1.0 Wi&4
I-AT OAND ..... 1.A Webbing..
Lb. N•J.b - Widg.
___ATAA0 ___0 EIAC14 Lb. T1,e. IAWid.
SUSPEWION t4?• S 0.Lk. t.vion Cord,.
()TPLC.VAO~tCLOTH (c) LCIINAGJAND TILULING ZD

4b) LEAIXNCi LCoSot.L (d) TILULU~I~D8O~
(a) C•IIWEtENEIAL
RETIP)a) Ito. I TiliU NO, S SKIL, DQULZt1
MECENTE (WG
239
IPART
TITLE:
NO.: PENS 1543-. 543
Parachuxte A ssy., 88.1 Ft D. Ringsall
NO. GORES: 7Z
ITEM IMAT!ERIAL'
VENT LINES 1550 Lb. N~ylon Cord
VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 1. 0 Wide

CLoTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) Pro LB IWIDTH, IN-.
1 2.25 200(b) 1.06
2 Z. Z5 200(b) 1.06
300(d, f) 1.00
3 2.25 200(b) 1.06
300(d, f) 1.00
4 11200(b) 1.06
300(d. f) 1.00
6 1.1 300(d. f) 1.00
6 .190(d. f) .62
7 1.1 90(d, f) .62
81.1 90(d. f) .62
9 .190(d, f) .6Z
to 1. 90(d, f) .62
11 .190(d, f) .6z
12 .190(d. f) .62
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape, . 62 Wide (e) ____

SKIRT BAND 500 Lb. NyTlon Webbing. . 56 \yje.....
RADIALS (2 EACH)_ 300 Lb. Nylon Taý_,2WU
SUSPENSION LINES _ 550 Lb. Nylon! Cord ___
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AX.'D TFRAILINIG EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRtAILUG -.rlE ON-Y
(i) ciRCUMFErXENTIAL REINFORGE-(c) NO. 1 THRU NO.1 2 SAIL, DOUBLED,
MENT CENTER OF*GORE
240
............1
.. .. ........
..
... ..
. . ..
-~ 1. 85 AT
.3 . ALINote:-
Ir U4I
4&.0 E~ff. suspens'ion
SAILzline ratio
-539 =1.15 D
T f
42.0 3SAL3all
-501
*0
= 1.0 Do
othera=1. 4 Do .25 7:
hR =531.75
42,.0
SAIL 4
23.0
21.0 SAIL 5
42.0 _ SI__ ~.0j
42.0 SAIL.6"
-~fyV
42.0
SAIL 8
~
*1 .<42.0
SATL 9
42.0 ICT
RAIL12 h
LSEM 4 4. 4 9 CL SEAM -- ITTRL111-0

U-,-S
90 Gor Paternand Fullness Distribution,

Figue
PDS 14-2,-533,.-539 and -551 88. 1 and 85. 6 ft Do lingsail Parachute
241
PART NO.: PEG 1543- 52.5
* ~ TITLE: -Parachute Assy., 88, 1 Ft Do Ringsail
I NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFING: Radial.
ITEM MATiERIALT
.- EN LIES550 Lb. Nylon Cord
BAND
VENT 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 10Wd
CLOTH WEIGNT TAPE ___
IRING NUMBER OZ/YD 2- (a) P,. LB WIDTH, IN.
*- I12.25 200;(b) 1. 06
2.25 200(c) 1.06
3 2.25 200(%:) 1.06
4 1.1 200(c) 1.06
5(5011 R~emoved, 1.1 300(d, f) 1.00

Top)
6 ,190(d) .62.
7 .190(d) .62
8 1.190(d) .62
k I9 1. ~None None
10 11None oe
11 .1- None None
12 11None None
¾VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

300 Lb. Nylon 7 1ape, 1. 0 Wide
SKIRT BAND _00 L~b. Nylon Webbiagy. . 56 Widpe
RADIALS (2 EACH) .00 Lb. Nylon Tape.- 0 !ZI0
LS TJsINSO LIE 50 Lb. Nyl~on Cord_____
* *()TRIPLE.SELVAG!E CLOTH (c) LEADING AND) TRALINIG WEDG

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY )TfALNID NY
(i) CIRCUMFERENTIAL. REINFORCE.(e) NO. I THRU NO, 5 SAIL, DOPBLED),
MENT CENTER OF GORE
242
..................
PART NOt: PDS I543-533
TITLE: Parachute Assy.. 88.1 Ft D,, RIngealUl
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFING; Radial
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb. Nylon Cbrd
VENT BAND 4000 Lb. ylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide

C.LOTH WEIGHT TAPE
SINM NUMBiR OZ/YD: (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200(b) 1.06
2. 2S 200(c) 1.06
3 2.25 200(c) 1.06,

4 1.1 ZOO(c) 1.06
SO50u Removed, II I 300(d, f) p.00

Top)
1.1 90(d) .62.
7 1.1' 90(d) 1.62
5 1.1 90(d).6
19 None None
10 1.1 None None
11 1.1 None None

"12 1. .None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tjpe, .62 Wide (a)

SKIRT BAND 50a Lb. NylonI Webbing. .56 Wide
.RADIALS (2 EACH) 300 Lb. Nvlon Tne, . I0 Wide.
SUSPENSION LINES I550

Lb. Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPýE-SE'VAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILIMG EDGOI

"() IRUMFERENTIAL REINFORCE. (e) NO. 1 THRU NO. S SAIL, DOUBLED,
".WNT CENTER OF GORE
243
.l.'1 ___________ ____

PART NO.: PD6 1543 -539
TITLE: Parachute Assy., 85.6 Ft DO Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 1,0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
SRING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) P, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200(b) 1.06
2 2. 25 2Q0(c) 1.06
3 2.25 20C(c) 1.06
4 1. 200(c) 1.06
5 (50% Removed I 1. 300(d, f) 1.00

Top)
6 1.1 90(d) .6z
7 1,1 90(d) .62
8 1.1 90(d) .6z
9 1.1 None None
10 1.1 None None
11 1.1 None None
121.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape, .6Z Wide (e)

M LE.-Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide -
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb. Nylon Webbing, .56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 300 Lb. NyVon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES [550 Lb. Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADIMG AND TrAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TrAILING EDIGE ONLY
(f) CIRCUMFERENTIAL RE,INFORCEMENT (n) NO, I T4RU NO. 5 SAUL,
DOUBLED. CENTER OF GORE
244
r '
•4 I" " . . '4 &
PART NO.: PDS 1543- 551
TITLE: Parachute Assy., 88.1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 7Z
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE _
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) P,, LB I WIDTH, IN.
1Z. z5 200(b) 1.06

z 3.3s 200(c) 1.06
3 2.35 200(c) 1.06
4 .1 ZOO(c) 1.06
6(50%Removed, 1.1 300(d, f) 1.00

Top)
6 1. 90(d) .6z
7 1. 90(d) .6z
8 1.1 90(d) .6z
9 1.1 None None
to 1.1 None None
11 1.1 None None
,12 1.1 None , None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape, .6Z Wide (e)

SKIRT BAND .500 Lb. Nylon Webbina. -6 1Xide,
RADIALS (Z EACH) 300 L&. Nylon Tana. 1. 0 Wde..

S-SsP.ENSION LINES O550
Lb. Nylon Cord

(b) LEADING ZDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
(f) CIRCUMFERENTIAL REINFORCEje) NO. I THRU NO. S SAIL, DOUBLED,
MENT CENTER OF GORE
245
-- 1. 85AT 0 ~ r
SEAM-
4 f 5 .0 SAIL 1 Note: -'
Efu. suspension
42. I ......Aline ratio =1. 4Do
'4 4.0 SAIL 2
h 5 31.75 ZZ
42. 0
.ifI? - SAIL 3 .2 __
42. 0
SAIL4 5
45.0 OMITTED z___
42.0 U
SAIL 6.5
42.0 -
SAIr 4 7
4Z. 0 - U
42.0 SAIL 8
42.0 ~SAIL 9.5
42.0j
SAIL 10 zz-
42.0I
SATIL IiI
42.0Iý;A1L 1Z1.00
q~ EAM
444 1..... ~ ~ LAM FULLNIESS DISTRIBUTIOIN
GORE2 1-1,T"ERN,
Figure 91. Gore Pattern~ ard Fullness Distribution,
PDS 1543-547 88.1 ft. DO Ringsail Parachute
2~46
PART NO.: PME 1543- 547
TITLE: Paraihute Assy., 88.1 Ft DO Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
ITEMj MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
2
RING NUMBER OZ/yD (a) Pr' LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200(b) 1.06
2. 5
Z . zoo(c) 1.06
3 2.25 200(c) 1.06
4 1.1 200(c) 1.06
5(00%0 Remove None None None
S1. 1 90(d) .6z
-' 1, 90(d) .62
8 1.1 90(d) ,62
1.1 None None
10 1.1 None None
1 1.1 None None
12 1. - None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon T.,,, .62 Wide (a)

300 Lb. Nylon I ape, 1.0 Wide
SKIPRT BAND ,Wide,
I I|iiA,( "o C , 10 L.Io. TAR&

o. • . 0 wide
SUMPNSIONI LINES ot.
Is) TRIPLE-SZLVAGE CLOTH 1c) LU3NOG AND TAILING EDOC

(14 LEADG EDOE ONLY (d) TR•AII.NG ZIY4ONIX
Ce) NO. I 'rIRU NO. 4 SAIL, DOUBLED.
iINTtlR OF GoRJ
247
0
h-1. 8 AT
SEAM __ .. _
.36.0 5.0 SAIL 1 Note:
Eff. suspenlsion
4.0SAI 2 line ratio = 1.4 Do -
"-I 1 hRt- 531.75 -75 ...
42.0 ....
42.0
SAIL4 .r47
1o.s 33.5
42'10 1.0SAIL 5
• "~~
I L = "-. . ..
II ++~.7- 42.0
420
-=
SAIL
777M
...
42.0 SAIL 8
42.0
SAIL 90
[!* z o ! = ':= ' . - -..... ..... .
iii1
42. 0
i P I.llll
, ILs10
Ms I ., jI
!-
42.0
Fgue92-Gr -'IS~t.12
Patr-n ules
10
1.0
itiuin
SAMv
SE - 44.94 L SEAM V)L.L4 Tii i1 (>
Figure 92. Gort Pattern anid Fullness Distribut~ion.

P1)5 1543-555 85.6 ft 00~ Ringsail Parachute
:" LZ48
*A
1
t .
jPARTNO.: PDS1I43- 555
TITLE: Parachute Assy., 85.6 Ft Do R"ing"
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon WV6 ibng. 1.0 Wide

"CLTH WEIGHT .... TAPE
RD NUMBER O (a) - WIDTH, IN.
I. 25 200(b) 1.06
g •. •5 000•) i. o6
3 Z.z5 Z0o(c) i.06
4 1. 200(c) 1. 06
S ?45% Removed 1.L 300(dof) 1.00

Top)
161 90(d) .6Z
S1.41 90(d) .6Z

S1.1 90(d) .62
1.1 None Nona
10 1.1 None None
ait 1.1 None
a: 1. INone None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 L.. Nylon Tape*, .62 Wide (e)

3O-b •o ir,
j,10Wide
SJRT BAND 500 Lb. Nylon Webbin#. .56 Wide
RA..ALS .Z EACH) 300 Lb. Nylon Tape. 1.0 Wide
S~I$PE•d•ON uLi S Lb. Nylon Cord

'50
(a) TIPLE.-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AN-)TRAILING EDGE

Ct OCEMENT
REMO. (a) NO. I TI4RU NO. S SAIL.
ILED. DIRCUMFERENTIAL
CENTER OF CORE
Z49
0
1. 85 AT
(L E.AM
36'0 "SAIL
.0 I -oTp- ".
.-.-
_ NOTE-. ----- '-
42.0 Line Ratio 1. 4 Do
42.0 L4I
-
Zfl.Lj
-_
I~ i-.oSAIL 3 , 2......
s. ..
a oSAIL
0. 4
:'4,: .. ::: ••_..-I i '- - N-* ... - ... .........
L 3SAIL 54 ----
42.0 0 -l,
4o.
42.0 -1-
L, ;
0
SA IL 6
00
4.0
42.0
fI . ... ..... ..
SAIL I I ~
i:I - ---
42.0 . . ... .....

N,'•il,
I•100 --
i.• SEAM• 44. 94 (LSEAMh FULLNLSS U)ISTINMAU11N
PLS 15,44 .1 and -501 88. I ft Do -inV'ail

Parachute
I, ,A., , , , ,
PART4NO.: PDS 1544.I
?ITL,'W Patachbut, I& 1 Ft !o Rimasail
NO. GORES: U1
ITEM " MATRInAL
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing. 1.0 Wide

CIOTHl WEI4T TAPE -
wUKG NUMBER* OZlYam P'w WIDTH, UM
-Z.I . 90 (b, f. g) .6Z

S•, ,21 M5 90 (co f. 6t) .6z
3 .as 90 (c. f, g) .62
4 90 (c. f. 1 62.
SS 1.1 90 (d. f. S .62
LI 90 (d. t .6.,
SI. 90 (d. f .6
i + +• e .1 90 (d, 1) (,.a
t Ia ,None
Itl 1.1 ono Nona
VERTICAL TAPE None

S5:5Lb tVylo&T• ApT. 1.0or.de
SKIRT SAND .O. Lb ivlr",+ Webbl.•e.. 56 Wide
"200Lb Nylon Tap*. 1. 06 Wide (a)
RIXALS (I EACH) IzOq).L, ,ttvt+ Tapt1.
106 Wide
StmUPC;SION LIANES 550 Lb, Nylon Cotd ........ _-_
(1) DO(WILED
() TRPPLE.-SELVAGt CLOTH (c) L•ErANG AND TRIUING EDGE
(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAIL•NG tDGCE ONLY
(0 CIRCUMFERENTIAL REIN- (a) ONE RKOUIRtED P1IF: RADIAL SEAM,
_OWRCEMEUNT DOUDL"b & SEzwN AS A AL
h.INF.
PART NO.: PDS 1544-50t
TITLX: Paraichutae. 88. 1 Ft DO Riugsaji
NO. GORES: ?Z
TYPE OF RE&FING: Radial
ITEM ____ MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb Nylon~ Cord
4000 Lb Nytori Wehhing. 1.0 Witt
{P.
VF.NT BAND
CLOTH WEIIT PF
RIGNUMBER OZ/YDv() I Jf l IN.
Z. as w
90. f. g) 4
J90(~ (C ~
4 f o (C 1. .6f
6 .190} id j)
Z40 4.1NX.wl
~lttX-*.LV-i
T! *tUt~r -AN
(bI "DN 0,'4t:_I (4 EG- o.~

(h !lml-
O.1 1,0cý flert f)XVIAlr)t" AV0 tI-",RIWAL~ ACAN
0
Z. 12 AT-
I (L~SEAM -
36. 0
0 rS. 0 SAIL I NOTE:
ELC. Suspension
42 0 Line.ngth = 1. 4 Do
P.0025 4
SIL 6, - -
4.0
44.0
4LL
[ SIL
SAIL
S
7
9
6
....
.
4L. -
SAIL 1
S1 -I 510.II o k41l aall -•
4Z. 0
SAIL I1Zto
SM 4Z. 60 (.SLAm VL~S )~h1T
GORE PA2TTERN
Figure 94. Gore Pattern &Md Puftto** Visl#ibutjioh,
PDS 1650-1 and -501 87.1 A1 D0 Ringaa Parachuate
Z53
PART NO.: PDS 1650-1
TITLE: Parachute, 87.1 Ft DG Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM I MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Ub Nylon Coe:i
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, 1. 0 Wide

CLOTH WEI'GHTT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200 (b) 1.06
z Z.25 200 (c) 1.06
3 2.25 o00 (c) 1. 06
4 1.1 2000 (J) 1.06
5 1.1 200 (d) 1.06
6 1.1 90 (d) .62
7 1.1 90 (1) .6z
8 I.1 90 (d) .62
9 1.1 None None
10 1. 1 None None
ii 1. 1 None None
12 1. 1 No;tp None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 U) Nylon Tape, .6Z Wide (e)
SKIRT BAND 500 I-1 Nylon W:bbing, .56 Wide
RADIAIS (2 EACH) 300 Ub Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SUSPENSION LiNF.S 550 L1 Nylon Cord
(a) T1UPLL.,SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

( IEADING EDGE ONLY
1) td) TRAILING EXI×,E ONLY
(.) NO. I T1HRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CNTrER OF10
GORJ±
TITLE: Parachute, 87.1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 7Z
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) Pro LB WIDTH, IN.
I 2.25 zoo (b) 1.06
2 Z. 25 200 (c) 1.06
3 2.25 200 (c) 1.06
4 1.1 ZOO (c) 1.06
5 1.1 zoo (d) 1.06
6 1.1 90 (d) .62
7 1.1 90 (d) .62
8 1.1 90 (d) .6z
9 1. 1 None None
to0 1 1 None None
I 1,1 None None
12 1.1 None None
*. VF:R'-!CAI, TAPE 90 Lb Nyloa Tape, .6Z Wide (e)
SKIRT BAND 500 lb Nylon Webbing, .56 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES 550 l-b Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPXE.SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(e) NO. I THRU NO, 12 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OF GORE
2.12 AT 0
CLSEAN &-...
36.0
.f f*5.0 SAILI1 NOTE:
Eff. Suspension
4. 0
4Z. |Line Length 0.93 DO
4.0 SAIL 2
- hR535 5-
42.0 - ,
3.0 SAIL 3 .25
42.0 _. SAIL 4
42.0
1.0 SAIL 5
S.._z
* .42.0 50U
SAIL 6
0 ---
42.0
SAIL 7 w
42.0o--Z - -----
SAIL, 8
U
SAiL 9 .75 __-
42. 0"
A ! .. : SAIL 10 .....
-.- _• .L-
42.0
SAIL I l
42.0 "---.
L...... .•. BAIL 1?. 100
oo1
0 ....
ci SEAM ,- 44.94
I0 C,(S SEIAMN
1.0
FULLNESS DIS'I'IBI11 U'ION
GORE- PAT'IE1PN (
Figure 15. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,

PDS W021 -1 88. 1 ft D[ Ringsail IParachute
.5'
PART NO.* PDS ZOZI-I
TITLE: Parachute, 68.1 Ft Do Ringa•il
NO. GORES: 7Z
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND(A each 900 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) P,. LB \WIDTH, IN.
1 I 2.35 9,0 (b, a) .62

Z•.5 901(c el) .6Z!
3$ Z.5 90 (c,. ) .6z
4 1.1' 90fc, e) .6Z
5 1.1 90 (d, 6). ,6Z
6 .1 90 (d, e• .62
7 1.1 None None
A 1,1 None None
9 1.1 None None
10, 1.1 None! None
11 1.1 I~None None
13 1. INone None
VERTICAL TAPE None
SKIRT BAND 600 Lb Nylon Webbing, . 56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 200 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 06 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES , 400 L, Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (•) LEADING AND TRAILING EDgE

(b) LEADING EDOZ ONLY (d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
1a) CI4.CUM FERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT
.257
2.12 AT
-T J-.~.-SEAM
37.0 50SAIL 1-
___ ___ -NOTE
1T a /\Eff.Suspension
S4L.2 Line Length 1. 4 D 0
h =531.75
42.0R
SAIL 3 .25-
42.0 2.0
SAIL 4
42.0 1.5 SI5H-
42.0 ~~SAIL6 U550
41. 0AIL
SAIL8
42. 0
SAIL 9
42. 0
SAIL 80.2
42. 0
SAIL 91.7
SA I 1200 0.
4 1 0
SEM44. 94 qL SAmm
AM FULLNESS L)ISTR113UTIOD4
CiO1U'~ 1PATTT2RN (/
Figure 96. Gore P~atte~rn aiid Fullness Distributiozi,

I-DS J.'71-1 88. 1 ft 1.) 6.igsail Parachute
. '58
TITI: Parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 7U
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb Nylon'Cord
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDz (a) -Pr LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 Z o(b) .1.06
z 2.25 200(c) 1.06
3 2. 25 zoo (c) 1.06
4 1. 200 (C) 1.06
5 1.1 200 (d) 1.06
6 I. I90 (d) .6z
7 1.1 90 (d) .62
8 1.1 90 (d) .6z
9 1. 1 None None
10 1. 1 None None
. None None
1z 1. 1 None Ibne
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon T"pt., . 62 Wide (e)
SKIRT BAND 300 Lb Nylon 'rape, 1. 0 Wide
VADIAU; (Z EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1, 0 Wide
SUSPENSIN LINES 550 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGEF CLATI (c) LEADING AND TRAILING ErXG

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING %DG!E ONLY
(e) NO. I THRIU NO. 7 SAIL, DOUBLED,
GENTER OF GORE
i A59
S4 ._ 0
2. 12 AT
q, SEA.M E-EF7--
PANEL I
NOTE:
A, -Eff. Suspension
PANEL Z n
hR 556.23 .ý5
276.40 N 3 --
PANEL 4
PANEL 5
PANEL 6 .50
42..0 TYP 20l

- . SAIL I N
SAIL 2 m -H..
AL 33 .7 --- - ----
SAIL 4
SAIL 5
i [
~--
- I.. ... *......."-'.
SAIL 6 0 , .
S(•SEAM 43N1 "qSA 0 10
GFU
Q 11 IIINN
I.,INESS )iT'1' iA
& P'• TTE, N %)
Figure 97. Gore Ptatemr

ant Pullnes Distributionl,
PDS 2072-1 87. 9 ft Do ConIcal
Ring/Solid Parachute
. .L
TITLE: Parachute. 87.9 Ft Do Conical Ring/Solid
NO. GORES: 7Z
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb Nylon Cord.

CLOTIi WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) PWD
I (Panel) 2. 25 None None
Z (Panel) 2.25 None None
3 (Panel) 2.25 None None
5 (Panel) 1. 1 None None

1 1.1 90(d) .6z
S1.1 90 (d) .6z
3 1, 1 None None
4 1.1 None None
65 . 1 None None
6 1. 1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE Norte ,
SKIRT BAND 900 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
R A•DIALS (2 EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES S,.0 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE.SELVACE CLOTrH (c) LT 'ADING AND TRAILING EDGE

261
1. 85 AT0-
4LLSEAM - -
213 6oSAIL I NOTE: --
A65Eff. Suspension -
IT P~ LLŽLin~eRatio 1. 4Do
SAIL 2
h ~544.75-
3.0R
SAIL 3.2
2.20
SAIL 4
Z. 5
SAIL 5
2.5 SAIL 6
F25SAIL? 7
T- 0
r .5SAIL 8--
U
[2. SAIL90
SAIL 10.75
SAIL I I
f ;. SAIL 12 T-- =7
Z.8 SAIL 13
ISAIL 14 100
(L SEAM 44.94 (L SEAM FLNS
GORE PATTERN
Figure 98. Core Pattern and Fullness Distribixtion,

PWS 31.10-1 88.3 ft D0 Ringsail Parach~ute
PART NO.: PDS 3IZO-1
TITLE: Parachute, 88.3 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFIN: Radial (Pocket Bands)
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, I. 0 Wide

CIO)TH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) PPr, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 zoo(b) 1.06
2, 3, 4 2.Z. 200 (c) 1.06
5 1.1 200 (c) 1.06

6 1. 200 (d) 1.06
9o (b) .6z
7 1.1 90(c) .6z
8 h.1 90 (c) ,6z
9 I.1 90 (c) .6Z
10 1.1 None None
i 1. 1 None None
12 1.1 None None
13 1. I None None
14 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 lb Nylon 'rape, 1. 0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbino, .56 Wide
RADIA•S (2 EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINFS 550 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TTUPIE.SELVAGE CLOTH (c) I.EAIDING AND TAAILING EI)CE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING EMGE ONLY
(e) NO. I 'IIRU NO. 14 SAf L DOUBIAED,
(ENTihft OF CaOktE
11.85 AT fM 0
-. ! ~SEAM
36. .0 SAIL 1 Note: 7'
Ef. suspension - _
42.0 line ratio = 1.4 Do

SAIL 2
ThR 531. 75
42.0
.L.....SAT-.
3 5 "
42.0 2.0
SAIL4 -4
42.0 1.0
42.0 U
. 50
SAILt -
42.0 7.!.
4LO4
42.0
q .oI V.':: ': ,:: :
4 1 75
42. 01]'. 10 U 7
.. % L 1
42.420S SA0 V;Il M1'1
Fi" liir., 9I9. ý .ore

1 tt. ancta
.ut, F tillwuss lD st r abmatimi
-, 1. 01,
8~IH Y, A ai j d 1~ 5 1C8.11 it 1)A
ki 'isai I-Ia vacimle~
PART NO.: R7118-1
TITLE: parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: U3
'ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb Nylon Cord ._ _
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webhing. 1.0 Wide

SCI"H wIGHTr rAP%.
RING NUMBER vOZIYD
(a) Px,6 Lb WDTH, IN.
1 Zl5 ZO0 .tb) 1.06
z Z.Z5 o00 (c) 1.06
31 Z.2 O 1.06
S4 ,1 ZOO (c .1.06
1 t. 1o00 (1j 1.06
.6 1.1 90 (d) .6Z
,.1 90 (dl
S1.1 90 (d) ,6a
9 . 11None ul
10 1.1 None None
! ~t I INowe None
S13 1.1 None None
V~F.tTICAI, TAPE 9 ObNlo3nT.je.fitW%'de~c

300 Lb Nylon T",pe, 1.0 Wide
SKIRT B~AND 500 Lb Nylon Webbitig, Widn
RAfDIALS ( EAC.I) 1300 UJ. Nylon 10

1'.Xpi'.
Widt
SSUSPUNNIS|i, NINES
650 Lbt
NylCord
x(') TRIPL,-.S FLV.AGT CLO

101 (r.) LEADING AND TKAIAING EDGW
SU) L.ADNG EDGE; ONLY (d) TKAILINC- EIM; ONIY
eNOl, Itl"M
CEýNTER OF tUORE
No, 53 IN(• OUalIE.,
PART NO.,. R?118-so1
TITLE: Parachute, 88.1 Ft DO Riuigsail
NO. GORES: UZ
TYPE Or'~REE1FING: Radial
4 ~ITEM IMATEMtA L
VENT LINES 550 Lb Nylon'Cord ____ ______
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nyloni Webbiing, 1.0 Wide

CLOT11 ViKIGHT T
*RING NUMRFR oz/VDZ(a) ______wit N.
TiLf)TII
zoo (b) 1.06
a. 5 Z00 (Q) 1.06
3 Z.1as00 (C) 1.06

4 1ZOO0) d 1.06
600.(4)0 .0)
8 1.1 0 (ii) .6a
9 1.1NoiwNon~e
to NomaN~i
'Von None4
VERTICAL TAPE~ 40 Lb Nylnn T;%10p,.b W14 (id)

Io Tape, 1.0 tI
L1n~
SKIM D~AM) slo Lb Nlylxllý WobbI~.~Wd
SUS~t.o(t;ýCP 11 - Nyfisn oT4

n .0W
R~ifl~tS eCI
L US `4'¶
-1. Nyln Tattl. Wd _____
(a) TWE-L.W; .T4 (c) LENGI4G ANI TAaCI

(b) LKAMINXCA t- UN1.Y 1d) TRAI11 ~1ýW,V~.
0%1
U LI f'#Uf. 14.EI1fl'r
Ve WAU0.1XV1
C 'Nt ERO GUIl
PART NO.: R71118.503
TIT LE: PaaCh~~te. 8a.3I Ft Do Ringeall
NO. GORES: UZ
TYPE OF IREiiMNO: Radial and MW&4,ýrc
ITEM
CM Nyo We3 ing 1.Wde
*~x 1.1 WEIGHTl

RIN 1.3BE NGWQ i,
, as 10 1c 1.
£3 .1 Z6 1,06
1.31 __________0 _
______0_( ) .6a
___(__ .6a
I'it 40 (d
Lh
100 I ap. i. W~idlN) tIoi JII,,
Z(ý 7
PART NO.: R7118-513
TITLE: Parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Ringeail
NO. GORES: 72
TYPE OF REEFING: Radial'
ITEM _ MATERIAL
VENT LINES 550 Lb ylon-Cord
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, I 0 Wide

'CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD' (a) P',L 1WIDTH, •T.
.Z/ .p LB !IN.
2.Z5
? ZOO (b) 1.06
.200 (b,f) 1.06
z Z.5 200 .(c) 1.06 -
0-ZOO
(c,f) 1.06
3 ZOZ.,5
0oo (c) 1.06
ZOO (c,O' 1.06
4 1.1 zOO
2 (c) 1.06.
zoo (c, f). 1.06
5 1.1 zoo (d) 1,06
200 (d, f) 1.06
6 1.10 (d) .6.
200 (d,f) 1.06
7 1.1 90 (d) .62
ZOO0 (d,.f), 1.o6'
8 -90 (d) .62
9 1.1"' None None
"10 1. None None
1 1. I"None None
I1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

- 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon W-ebbing, . 56 Wide
RADIALS (Z EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSICN LIN\S 550 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (d) TRAILING EDGE'ONLY

(b) LEADING 'DGE ONLY. (a) NO. I THRU NO. 5 RING, DO'UBLED,
(c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE CENTER OF GORE I
(f) CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT
268
I I 0
°0-
85 AT f
:1.
.3 6 0
r5.0 SAIL I ,Ndte:
42,0
A Eff. suspension
4SAor.2
FIL line ratio = 1.4 Do . ---
44.0
I I:
SAL h•slT -
• ~~~~SAIL 5'-• -- = •-
S~OMITTED 1 '4'-
42.0 50
SAIL
4 - 4,
_I 42.0 4.. - ' S.--

SAIL 5 i - . . .. --- ...
'!• 42.00AI? . 5.
SA Il, 10'
42 _•SAIL I
4,2.,94. ,, .. -
0 S42. 2I 1.00
S(%)\L
110
S'(I, SAM 1 44.,94 O•SA
94, L SEA FULLNESS DýSTPIB UT'1ON
0'0• OR PATTERN!• 101

-:.Figure 4R.118-507 100. Gore Pattern
88.,1 ft Oand Fullness
Ringsall Distribution,
Parachute
269
I
PART NO.: R7118-507
TITLE: Parachute, 88. 1 Ft Do Ringsail
NO. GORES: 72
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTII WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN.
2.Z25 ZOO (b) 1.06
2.Zs 200 (c) 1.06
3 2.25 ZOO (c) 1.06
4 1.1 ZOO (c) 1.06
5 None None None
6 1.1 90 (d) .62
1.1 90 (d) .6?
8 1.1 90 (d) .62
9 1.1 None None
10 1. None None
11 1. None None
12 1.1 None Nond
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb NyIon Tape .6Z Wide (e)

300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb NXIon Webbing, .56 Wide
tRADIALS (2 EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1,0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES i 550 Lb Nylon Cord

(e) NO. I TIIRU NO. 4 RING, DOUDLED,
CENTER OF GORE
270
i0
-1.S-SEAM
85 AT
.
36.0 0. SAIL I Note: -
ii /i\ Eff. suspension

42.0 .line ratio = 1. 48 Do
42.0 '-0-----SAIL3 .25 -
h
- 531. 75
42.0
21.0
E.0 I 34
SSAIL N- . . . .
21.0 __ _
Li ~SAIL 5 -
L 1 42.0 .50
I0________AL 0 -_:
= ......
42.0
4z~~A.•IL SAIL?7
6 • -_ --.
z
42.0 8 ...-
42.0,. :. -
SAIL 9 .
42.0
SAIL 10
-- -. t-.. -- , .. .4-
42.0 SAIL 11 1.00

i. •.'0
HSAIL 12 10
oA
q• ý
SAM 44.94 ( SEAM FULLN'ESS DISTRIBUTION
GORE PATTERN
Figure 101. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,
"R7118-515 88. 1 ft Do Ringsal Parachute
271
PART NO.: R7118-515
TITLE: Parachute, 88.1 Ft DO Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
TYPE OF REEFING: Mid-Gore
ITEM MATERIAL
VElNT LINES 550 Lb Nylon Cord

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
T
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) _ Pro, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2..5 200 (b) 1.06
a 2.25 200 (c) 1.06
3 2.35 200 (c) 1.06
4 1.1 200 (c) 1.06
5 (50% Removed 1.1 200 (d) 1.06

Top)
6 1.1 90 (d) .6z
7 1.1 90 (d) .6z
8 1.1 90 (d) .62
9 1.1 None None
10 1.1 None None
11 1,1 None None
12. None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (a)

300 Lb Nylon Tape, i.0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbing, .56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACiI) 300 Lb N ylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
6US2PENSION LINES 550 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE.SELVACE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILJNG EDGE ONLY
(e) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL. DOUBLED,
CFNTER OF GORE
272
0
;_____"__-- 1.85AT _ _
S| SEAM -
A0o 5.0 SAIL 1 Note: .
~-1------. ' Elf. suspension - -
• I, t4.0
4.0 S4L 2
SAIL line ratio =.41 0!'.'"
O._
S- - T.--. -- -
•" ~~42.0 hR 531.75 -- - "

42. V3.o SAIL 3
42.0
33. o SAIL 4.
10.75 .4" .
SAIL 5 w
- z
SAIL 6 j -
42.0 SAIL? :8
. ---
42.0 ~SAIL8 -11-
42.0
ZII
1 00
i SEAM 44.94 IL SEAM FULLNESS DISTRIAUTION
S. GORE PATTERN (%)

"Figure 102. Gore Pattern and Fullness Distribution,
R7527-1 and -503 85.6 It DO Conical RiWgafl Parachute
273
PART NO.: R7527-1
TITLE: Parachute, 85.6 Ft Do Conical Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) Po .LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 90 (b, f) .62
2 Z.25 90 (c, f) .6z
3 2.Z5 90 f) .62
4 1.1 90 (c.f) .6z
5 (75% Renoved 1.1 200 (d. f) I. 06

Top)
6 1.1 90 (d, f) .62
7 1.1 None None
8 1. 1 None None
9 1. None None
101.1 None None
11 1.1 None None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide. (e)

300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbing 56 Wide
_RADIALS (Z EACI) 300_ Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES 6S0 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE.SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(f) CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT (e) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OF GORE
274
PART NO.: R75t7-503
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) P,., LB WIDTH, IN.
S2.5 90 (b, f).6
2 2.25 90 (c.() .62
a2.25 90 (p, f) .62
4 1.1 90 (c,f) .62
S 1.1 200 (d. L) 1.06
"6 1.1 90 (d, f) .62
1 1.1 Nono None
8 1. 1 None Note
9 1. !None None
10 1, 1 None None
S! 1.1 None None
.. None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbi•g, ..56 Wide
RADIAL$ (2 EACH) 300 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES 650 Lb Nylon Cord
(m) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

1b) LEADING EDGE ONLY 1d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
.) CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT Ie) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL. DO1UBLED.
"CENTER OF GORE
275
TI
0
___1.---- 1.85 AT
%
L SEAM
36.0 30 0 SAIL I NOTE:
---
| __ •Eff. Suspension -
42.0 Line Ratio 1.4Do

4.0 SAIL 2
hR = 531. 75
42.0 0 SAIL 3 .
42.0oAI-- --
SAIL 4 --
10.75 33.25 * -
SAIL 5 H .
,1.0 o o -4 ..
42.04 ___ | SAIL6 U .6
.....
soL?. --
42.0
4. •SAIL 8
42.0 . . .I Z.-.
SAIL 90
42.0
£3, SE 44*9 - % SEAM FULLNE:SS LflST"RIBUT:ON
GO1S PATTERN 10
' _ . • m , Figure
,m m, 103.
m m~m l = mGore m m ~ m and
~ m Pattern • mmm Fullness
m m m m •- Distribution.
- T 4-a
DR 7661 -S and -5I7 83. 5 it DO onical Rlngeail Paraciuto
Z76
PARTNO.: DOR7661-1
TITLE: Parachute, 3.• .Ft Do Conical Ringss•.
NO. CORES. 68
TYPE OF REEVING: iMld-Oovo,
.•. 1 MOTM MATEIAl,
VENT LANES 650 Lb Nylon Cord
VENT MN4000 Lb Nylon Webbing. 1. 0 Wide

,. OTH
CL WM• I -TAPE(•)
RIM NU...
.. R .. (a)
.YD. . .. -.. W ,-.o, IN.
S. zs 200 (b) 1.06
L s 20(CY
ZOO 1.06
3. 5200(c) 1.06
.4 4I z5 zoo tc) 1.06
5 (7s% ReYov t11 200o4) 1.06
6 I, 90 (d) .6z
;:~~~g , . 9! Ad .6z""
90 (d) .6z
.w " on* None
11 $1.1None Nano
NNona
TAPE
_ýR*CA L. Nlytim 1Uapt. 62 Wide (0)
SKIKT BAND '901,h Nylon Whbbingi ,56 Wide
RADIAL (2 1AC-11 3 S0 Lb Nylo.. iape1.

0 Wid __
SUSPENSION LUjp4F5: 650 1.b Nylon Cord
-. T(E) M.'LVACE CLOTH 11) LEADIN•G AND TRtMLUNG EDGE
b)• CIfCUM
MA
.E DICFh.MT16RIMfE-
E OEU Y'd (a) TUU
N04 I THlU NO. S SL.zv DOUBLE4
FO1CMENT4 CEzNT.";R 01F GORE
27?
PART NO,: DR 7661 - 527
TITLE: Parachute, 83. 5 Ft Do Conicv.l lRngeaii
NO. GORES: 68
TYPE OF REE ING,

, Mid-Gore
ITEM T MAT ERAL
VENT LUNES 650 Lb Nylon, Card

IZOO Lb Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nyon We izg, 1.0 Wide
CLOTH WE-IGTT TA V (()
RING NUMBER OZIYDZ (a) P LB ...... 'w IN,
1 Z.25 ?.no(b) 1.06

z. s zoo 106
3 .a ZOO~c 1.06
4 Z. as ZOO (d) 1.06

350 (b) I.
S (15% Remove h.1 625 (d) 1,00
Top) -00 (b) 1.06
6 1.L 350 (d), ZOO (h) 1. C011,06
90 () .62
7 1.1 3 ,0 (d), ZOO (i) 1.00/-.06
90 (b) ,6?.
4 1.1 o00 (d), o00 (h) 1.061t.06
90(b) .6M
I.
19 90 (d) .6z
o10 1.1 None N"o~t
It L, None None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nyloa .Tpe, . 6.1 Wide (o)
SKIJt BAND 1200 1.i Nylon Wehiit%, 1,0 Widte (g)
SIADIALS (Z FACIw} 350 I.th Nylov% T.%pv. 1.0 Wide
SUS11nIS'vilO, 0Lb Nyvtoai Corti

6J'J0
(.g) bOtiJLEAD {hi ,0II1-1NG
1a) TRIPLr..3r1.LVG!; C.XOT;! I:,IGND Ac TR.\LINC'- EWEI;
(b) LEADING EIE•C.I ONLY (t) ThA I 1i.C '1!X-
K'tONLY
(a:) ClRIC~1MEIl,'•IIN•'VAL ItIN- (C) NO. I "1141U tJO, - SAI., DoliL:I),
IMCEMIENT ("Ni"t GOP
0)
S,•78
iL L JZ"
0
-1-I-. 85AT-.-T
5. 0 S__._36
SAIL I Note:"- ' -- "
! ~ ~~~Ef
f. s u s pe n si o n" -- .--. •
49.0 In* ratio 1.42 Do
I+•~ t .. 0~ SAI-L 2 -
-•.....
-€•
4. 0 ba 531.756
•:-r SAIL, 3 2 S -_-
- ! _ ,"% 2
423.0
0. - . r-
33.25 l-ul
10.175 SAILSS.
4L.J0 SAIL 6 . . . . ."
so
( ~~~4L. 0 , .. .
.4L0
42.0 SAIL S. 0
+"+~ ~ Q 0 .... ••
!SA __7 .4.,T -5-.... ""
SAIL 10. ,
41.0
4L SEAM 44. 41 ,'

(L" - • • '/ G OFU L L N
M 4 11T-sNi
Iilgre 104. Got* lattror &nd Fullaeae Distribution,

R7M61-1 thiu -519 83. 5 A D0 Coakal ltinloail Parachute
Z79
PART NO.: R7661-1
TITLE: Parachute, 83.5 ft Do Conical Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) Pr# LB W!DIH., IN.
1 2.25 200 (b) 1.06
2 2.25 200 (c) 1.06
3 2. Z5 ZOO (c) 1.06
4 2. 25 200 (c) 1.06
(7516 Rem ovec, 1.1 200 (d) 1,o6

Top)
.6 1.1 90 (d) .62
7- 1.1- 90 (d) .62
S8 1. None None
9 1.1 None None
10 1.1 None None
r1 1.1 None None
lz 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 .Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

350 Lb. Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wida
SKIRT BAND 500 Lb. Nylon Webbing, .56 Wide
RADIALS (Z EACH) 350 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
"SUSPENSION LANES 5b0 Lb Nylon Cord
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LE'ADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(b) LEADING FDGX ONLY (d) TRAILING .EDGE ONLY
(e) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OF GORE
280
PART NO.: K761-501
"TITLE:Parachute, 83. S Ft DO Conical Ringeail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, 1,0 Wide

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZIYD2 (a)___ P, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200 (b) 1.06
2 2. 25 200 (c) 1.06
3 z. Z5 ZOO (c) 1.06

4 .5Z. 20o(c) 1.06
S1(75% Remove; 1. 200 (d) 1.06

Top)
1.1 90 (d) .62
7 1.1 90 (d) .6z
* S .1i90 (d) .62
11I9 None None
10 1.1 None None
11 .1 None None
12 1. None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape. .6Z Wide (e)

SKIRT BAND 500 Lb NyMon Webbing, .56 Wide
RADIALS (2 EACH) 3S0 Lb Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
() TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH !c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

(e) NO, I THRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED,
CENTER OF GORE
'•Z8 1
PART NO.: R7661-503
NO. GORES: (
TYPE OF REEFING: Mid-Gore:
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 650:Lb Nylon Cord

CLOTH WEIGIIT TAPE
RING NUMBER , 2 (a)
OZ/YD Pr,. LB WIDTH, IN.
I 2.25 ZO (b) 1.06
2 2.25 20o 0(c) 1.06,
3 2.25 ZOO (c) ,1.06
4 Z. Z5 200 (c) 1.06
5 (75% Removed 1.1 200 (d) 1.06

Top)
6 1.1 90 (d) .6z
"7 1.17 90 (d) .62
II 8 Ia90(41)
9 1. !None None
10 1. Norie None
11 1.1 None None
12 1.1 Nonei None.
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tapi, .62 Wide (e)

SKIRT BAND 5.00 Lb Nylon Webbing, .,56 Wide
RADIALS (I EACH) 350 Lb Nylon Tape, 11. 0 Wide
SUSPENSION LINES Lb Nylon Cord

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILING' EDGE ONLY
282
I
PART NQ.: R7661-505
TITLE: Plrachute, 83. 5 Ft Do Conical Ringsail
NO.: GORES: 68
TYPE OF REEFING: Mid-Gore .
ITEM , MATEAL
VtNT LINES 650 Lb Nylon Cord
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nyln Webbi,. e

- CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUI.iBER OZ/YD (a) P,. LS WIDTH, IN.
- 2.LS 2bzoohi 1.06
Z.5
.Z 200 (c) 1,06
3 T.25 zoo 11 1.06
.14 1 2.25 200 (c) 1.06

( R ... 90 (b) .62I
$5• (7!f* ov-d 1200 (d,fj) 1.06
Top
6.1 200 (d) 1.06
90 (d) .62
- 71.1 200 (d): 1.06
. 90. (d) .62
' 1. 1 90 (d, f) .6Z
9 1.1 None None
10 1.1 None None

-None None
'1 - ".i None None
VERTICAL TAPP, 9 b yo Tae .6ZWide (e)

SKIRT BAND I 7.00 Lb Nylwn Webbing. 1.0 Wide
.RADIALS (2.EACfI) $50 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 WWO
SUSPENSION LýNES 650 Lb Nylon Cord ',____

(b) LEADIMG EDGE ONLY (d) TRAILJNG EDGE ONLY
" '10) DOUI•.,ED•
DOUBLEDN. (elCENTER OF G•ORE
THRU G
NO. • D9UBLED,
SAIL,
2831
283 I
PART NO.: R7661-507
TITLE: Parachute, 83. 5 Ft Do Conical Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbing, 1 .0 Wide

CdLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) Pr;, LB WIDTH, IN.
S2.25 200 (b) 1.06
2 Z. Z5 ZOO (c) 1.06
3 2.25 ZOO (c) 1.06
4 2.25 200 (c) 1.06

90 (b) .6z
5 (75% Removec, 1.1 20 (d, f) I. 06
Top) 90 (b,f) .6z
6 1.1 200 (d) 1.06
90 (d) .6z
7 1.1 200 (d) 1,06
90 (d) .6z
8 1.g 90(d,f) .6z
9 1. lNont None
10 1.1 None None
IL 1. INone None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wido (e)

SIURT BAND 500 Lb Nylon Webbinkg 356 Wide
ADIALS (2 EACF) 350 Lb Nylon Tape. 1.0 Wide
SUSPENSIO,. LINES 650 Lb Nylon Cord

(f) DOUBLED (e) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL, DOUBLED
4 ENTER OF GORE
284
PART NO.: R7661-509
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL
VENT LINES 650.Lb Nylon Cord

-. CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) Pr, LB WIDTH, IN.
2. 25 200 (b) 1.06
2 2.25 200 (c) 1.06
3 2,25 200 (c) 1.06
4 2.25 200 (d) 1.06

350 (b) 1.00
5 (75% Removem, i.1 625 (d) 1.00
Top) 200 (b) 1.06
6 1.1 350 (d), 90(b), 1.00, .62,
200 (f) 1.06
7 1.1 350 (d), 90(b), 1.00, .62,
2oo (f) 1.06
8 1.1 200 (d), 90(b), 1.06, .62,
200 (f) 1.06
9 1.1 90 (d) .62
10 1. None None
11 I. None None
12 1.1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (o)

Doubled
SKIRT BAND 1200 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
TRIPLE-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAWONG EGE

(b) LEADIN D• 6O NLY (d) TRAILING EDGE ONLY
MID-11) CIRtU N (e) NO. I TIIRU NO. S SAIL, DOUBLED
REINFORCEMENT CENTER Ol GORE
285
PART NO.: R7661-511
TITLE: Parachute, 83.5 Ft Do Conical RingsaUl
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

TZb1200 Nylon Tape, 1. 0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD, (a) P,, LB WIDTH, IN.
Z.5
. 200 (b) I.06
Z 2. Z5 Z00 (c) 1.06
3 Z. 25 200 (c) 1.06
4 2.25 2OO (d) 1.06

350 (b) 1.00
5 (75% Remove4, 1.1 625 (d) 1.00
Top) 200 (b) 1.06
6 1.1 350 (d), 90(b), 1.00, .6.Z
zoo (1) 1.06
7 1.1 350(d), 90(b), 1.00, .62,
zoo (f) 1.06
a 1.1 200 (d), 90(b), 1.06, .62,
200 (0 1.06
9 1. 1 90 (d) .6z
10 * 1. None None
1 1.1 None None
12 1.1 None None
V.-RTICAL TAPE , 90 Lb Nylon Tape, .62 Wide (e)

Do-ubled
SKIRT BAND 1200 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
1aADIALS (Z EACH) 350 Lb Nylon Tape . 1.0 Wide ____ -_,
SUSPENSION LINE~S 650 Lb Nylon Cord _____________
.) TRIPLE.SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE

bLEAD) NG &ED ONLY
Ldl TRAILING EDGE ONLY
(1) hfkD- NG C;flUMPERkNTIAL f NO.I TIIRU NO. 5 SAIL, DCUDLED
REINFORCEMENT CENTER OF GORE
286
PART NO.: R7661-513

NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RIN, NUMBER OZ/YD 2 (a) ,Pro,, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200 (b) 1.06
2 Z. Z5 200 (c) 1.06
3 2.2.5 200 (c) 1.06
4 2.25 200 (d) 1.06

350 (b) 1.00
S (75% Remove 1.1 625(d) 1.00
Top) 200 (b) 1.06
6 .I 350 (d), 90(b), 1,00, .62,
200 (f) 1.06
1 1.,I350 (d), 90 (b), t.00, .62,
200 (f) 1.o6
S1.1 .ZOO(d), 90(b), 1.06, .62,
200 (f) 1.06
9 1. 90(d) .62
10 1.1 None None
It 1.1 None None
1.
.a None None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb Nylon Tape. .62 Wide (e)

Doubled
T
SKIRT BAND 1Z00 Lb Nylon ape, 1.0 Wide
RADALS (Z EACII) 350 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
. SUSPENSION LINES 650 Lb Nylon Cord

(b) LEADING EDGE ONLY l TRAILING EDGE ONLY
(1) MID-RING CIRCUMFERENTIAL e) NO. I THRU NO. 5 SAIL. DOUDLED.
REINFORCEMENT C&NTER OF GORE
287
PART NO.: R7661-515
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM M ATERIAL
"VENT LANES 650 Lb Nylon Cord

1200 Lb Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide
VENT BAND 4000 Lb Nylon Webbin , 1.0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD (a) P, LB WIDTH, IN.
1 2.25 200 (b) I. 06
2 2.25 ZOO (c) 1.06
3 2.25 ZOO (c) 1. 06
4 2.25 200 (b) 1.06

350 (d) 1.00
5 (75% Remove(, t.l 625 (d), 1200( 1.00, 1.00,
Top) 200 (b) 1.06
6 1.1 350 (d), 90b). 1.00, .62,
200 (f) I. 06
7 1.1 350(d), 90(b), 1.00. .6A
Zoo (f) 1.06
S111 200 (d), 90 (b) 1.06, .62,
zoo (1) 1,06
9 1.1 1200 (d) (g) 1.00
90 (d) .6z
10 1.1 zoo (d) 1.06
11 1.1 None None
12 1,1 None None
VERTICAL TAPE 9A 1I, Nylon Tpeo, .67. Wide (W)
.SI!RT BAND I100 Lb Nylon Tape, 1.0 Wide
RADIALS (Q EACH) 10 Ib Nylon Tap.o 1.o0 Wid1
SUSPENSION LINES 650 Lb Nylo n Cord

(R) [) ttIE
(a) TRIPL1.'-SELVAGE CLOTH (c) LEADINU AND TRAILING EDGE
Ib)
LEADhI~r FDGE 0O4LY
)M1D-IUN( CItCWt4iFERE.%'LAI
1d) TRAILING EnGE ONLY
5
(c) NO. I TI1RU NO, SAIL, DOUBLE)
REANFORCDMENW. CENTER. OF GOR&
PART NO,: R 7661-S17
TITLE: Parachuite. 83. 5 Ft Do Conical Ringeall
NO. GORES: 68
TYPE OF R.EEFING: Mid-Gore
ITEM MATERIAKL
VENT LINES 650 Lb. Nylo# Cord
1200 Lb. Nylon WebbIng, 1,,0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT _ ___TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YD2 (a) Pro LB WIDTH, IN.

12.5 200ZO(b) 1.06
3 2.25S 200(c) 1.06
4 2.25 200(c) 1.06

350(d) 1.00
5(75%# Removed 1.1 0250). 1200(d) 1.00, 1.00,
Top) Z00(b) ts06
1.lo 350(d). 90(b), 1. 00, .6Z
20011) t.06
III 350(d), 90(b), 1. 00, ,6Z
zoo(() 1.06
*1.1 Z00(d), 90(b) 1.06. .6Z
200(f) 1.06
9111 1200(d) (a) 1.00
90(d) .6z
1o.II 200(d) 1,06
11 1.1No"e Nonie
I21. Nouise None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape_, .6Z Wide-te)

Doubted
1SKIRT BAND 1200 Lh. Nylon Tage, 1. 0 Wido
JRADIALS (%'%
!PACI4) 350 Lb. Nyloni Ttke~l- 1.0 Wide
[SUSPENSION LINES 16S Lb. "ylon CotdANTtIUOEG
a)TPIPIJX.ELVAOE CLOTHl it) LF.ADINOAN AINGM

(b) LEADING EDGE ONL~t (d) TRAWNJG EDGE~ ONLY
(1) MID-RING CtRCUMFU.ENTUL,4 (a) NO. I THIW NO. 5. SAIL, DOUBLED
KZU4OR&CUEMN1 CENMZ OF GORE
ass
PART NO.: R7661-519
TITLE: Parachute, 83.5 Ft. Do Conical Ringsail
NO. GORES: 68
ITEM MATERIAL

1200 Lb. Nylon Webbing, 1.0 Wide
VENT BAND 4000 Lb. Nylon Webbing. 1. 0 Wide
CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a)_ P,, LB WIDTH, IN.
2. 25 200(b) 1. 06
a 2. as 200(c) 1.06
3 Z. a5 Zoo(c) 1.06
4 Z, a5 ZOO(b) 1.06
35o(d) 1.00
5(75% Removed 1.1 625(d), 1200(d) 1.00, 1.00,
Top) 200(b) 1.06
. 1, 350(d), 90(b), .00, .62,
Z00(f) 1.06
7 1.1 350(4), 90(b), 1.00, ,62
my0(t) 1.06
8 h. 200(d), 90(§) 1.06, .6Z
zoo(() 1.06
9 I'l 1200(d) (a) 1,00
90(d) .62
t0 1.1 200(d) 1,06
11 1.1 None Noae
1 1.1l Nor* None
VERTICAL TAPE 90 Lb. Nylon Tape. .62 Wide (e)

Doubled
SKIRT BAND 1200 Lb. Nylon Tape. O Wid..
RDIALS EACI) 3"0 Lb, Nytot Tape. 1. 0 Wide
SUSPENSIJON LINES 65O Lb. Nylon Cord

(g) VOUDAXED
(a) TRIPLE-SELVAGOE CLOtH () LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE
(h) LEADING F.MGE ONLY (4) TRAIIING EIXOE ONLY
(1) M D.IRNG CIRCUMFEREN4TIAL NO. 1 T?(RU NO. !S, SAIL, DOUBLED.
ORCEMNT "CElNTER ( GoA"
290
1-.68
AT rLSEAM0
18.0 '4.0 NT:SSESO

4SAIL 1/N EF.SPEIO
LILINE LE14iGTH 1. 15 Do
36.0
ir r... SAILZ haR800
36.!0 4.0
SAIL 3
36.0 F.
- I ~SAIL 4
-SAIL 5
'36. 04. -
SAIL 6
36.00
4~:40SAIL 8
36. -7
36.0 4.0SAIL 9
36.0
SAIL 10
36.0 ----
I SAILlI-
SAIL 11 HU 1
36. toP
( kAM38.97 FULLNESS DtSTftMUTILUN
GORE PATTERN (%
ftgure 105. Gore Pattetn and Fullbeau Diutributitmi

R7811-1 128. 8 ft Po WiSngaa Parachute
291
( ~PAR~T NO.: R7811-1
TITLE: PARACHUTE, 128. 8 ft Do RINGSAI L
NO. GORES: 113
ITEM MATERILk
VENT LINES~ 550 lb NYLON CORD
VENT BAND 4000 lb NYLON WEBBING. 1. 0 WIDE

CLOTH WEIGHT TAPE
RING NUMBER OZ/YDZ (a) Pr L WIDTH, IN.
12.2as 200 (b) .1.0
z2.25 200 (c) 1.0
3 a. 25 200 (c) 1.0
4 2.25 90 (c) .6a
6 2.25 90(0) .6a
6~ 1.6 90 (c) .62
11. 6 90(.61
3 A9(c 6
9 1000 (do f) so
101.1 70(d) .61
~aANDI It 1 10 (d) .62
S3 THAV at 1.1 10 (d) .62
VEKTICAL TAPE 90 lb NVO AE 6 M p
SKIRT BAND 1000 11)NYL*N *E11ING,. 5 WIDE
SUD1ALS12 EACH) 300 lb NYLON TAPt, 1. 0 WIDE)
SUSPENSION "Nile 550 lb NYLON C01b
(a) TRIPLIC-SELVAG2E CLOTH (c) LEADING AND TPAWLNO EDOE

( b) LEAD)ING C009t ONLY (d)' TRAMLANC EDGE ONLY
()CIRCUMrElR5MTIAL REIN- e.) No. I TSIRU NO. 9 SAIL, oOUgLED.
FORCMENTCENTER OF CORE
Z22
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL RINGSAIL PARACHUTE APPLICATIONS
Modified Ringsail parachute designs were developed for applications other

than the Apollo ELS cluster. Development of the "Glide sail" steerable
version was initiated in 1960 when interest in the potential utility of a con-
trollable gliding parachute was beginniing to gain momentum. In 1967 the
Ringsail parachute design was adapted to the need for an aerial pickup target
canopy of good efficiency and positive opening characteristics. About the
sarns time the NASA Langley Research Center developed a new Ringsail
design with a wide peripheral slot (eirnllar to the Disc-Gap-Band parachute)
for the Planetary Entry Parachute Program. The salient characteristics
of these parachutes are sut-*marized in the following sections.
1. 0 The Glidesail Steerable Parachute
The Glid-esail parachute was conceived as a mninimial modification of the

Ringeail design to produce a fully dirigible para~chute having a maximum
ratio to lift to drag in the range of 0. 5 to 1. 0. It was one of the first new
gliding parachute designs to provide for LID control from- zero to maxilunt..
kk thi raspect it was an improvement over its steerable contemporaries.
most of which had fixed built-in glide ratios between 0. 3 and 0. S.
The Glidesail control wyotemk. for which a patent was applied ist Jtuie 1961
and granted in January 1964 (P~atent No. 3, 117, 7%3), conuisted of %.broad
trailing edge nlap having in the final configuration A rad-'Al depth Aho'mi tle
skirt of 0. IS D0 and spanning , 37N to . 4N goreii. The group of s io
lines an the tAap were attadted tW a coo'mon cuntrol river. Steering was
effcted by retracting suspension lints o~n either aide of the canupy whitch
caused the Glidesail toj ttura by ahiftitag thie systent center ot gravity. The
arcute was deployed wilh. the flap fully retracted so that all suspensialn
lines would be of equal length through the aipehing transient. After the sys-
teot reached a steady descent condition. the flap control river wat extended
to initial* glide.
One of the 63 ft Do Glidesail models it *t;own in ij'gure 116 tivcending in,

full gliide with flap extended. The NASA- spoheivred devekiprnent progratrt
reported in lteference 17 incdude-1 tethered control totals Of a viriety of 18 ft
Do models in the AMES 40 x 80 wind tunnel and aerial dtrop teo.ts of 36 ft L\)
and 61 ft Do moadels with a tac1.o-controlled toot vthicle. One lest Was
also pesrformted with a cluster of three canop~ies secured together in Adelta
corfiguration of which only two were Glideesaile. The leadivig cattopy was a
standard Riugsall inherited fromn the Mercury progrant. All of the test
R'..
... ~ n ',i v
-A.~ .
Ž.~~rR
M~ ~WA-
Figur 63AI 0 Gesi fO~

aahteGiiga
L/D~nax ~' O.wit Z580 pounds
k.9
-specimns ~were tzads fom. stsanard-parachute cloth and most of them~a bad
'-azceLfactive ;nspenslozz ine length of 0.8 D. Because the toest Instruvmentx%-
-tion was nkot adupked -for-caucelWngthe effect of wind except when a straight
course waS flown*, anly Tough LID measurements were. obtained. Therwe-
potdperformnae Jspc~~s
n Table XXVIL
-TABLE XXYU
MEASURED GL ESUL PERFORMANCE
-ZinliD Single Cluster of 3

GlidAhbll#D (t 3&6 63 63
Descent weight, (lb) 184, 258.0 2750
Rate of descent, (fps) 1',6. 29,5 18.0
Average Turuing Rate. (dog. hoc.) -4 5
Control-riser extension *125 Po~ 125 Do .120OD
Average LI!) 47 ~..6
Once the glide had bten Initiated, 3ystem stability-during the de scent was
exce1llent, peandular oscillations being. zimperceptible.
One. of the major program object1*0s *&;,to, produce. a controllable gliding

-parachute .4s a minimum. mxodifiictioni of the Rinj sail in oider. to gain full
benefit from the demonstrated high-opepuIng reliabilitf "ofthe Ringsail, design.
-This objective was attained., butthedalg4 ol fLi 10wa nt Sb
41 equient experience taught'that the` asof low. posity'cloth in*the major area
of tb. canopy around the F#ng rit -rw probably-would have enabled attain-
mont of the design jgotL.
L0 The Ringsalil Aeriall Plckyp Target
ThecaopyoftheRAgoal ae iaP~kup target parachute Is of standa~
design. As shown In Figure 107-the 'modification roqcaiwed'ta adapt It for
the annular parac~iute &Aeal recovery'system -consists of an added set of
multiple suspension iestacetothe apez of the wizukalr canopy. The
target parachute also carries an nterwoven web of heavy reinforcements
for transmiission ofjtbe 4agagomnet and, pick~ip loadsa through the annuilar
specimens were made from standard parachute cloth and most of them had
an effective cuspenaiien line length of 0. 8 D., Because the test instrumenta-
tion was not adapted for cancelling the effect of wind' except when a straight!
course was flown, only rough L/D measurements were obtained, The to-
ported performance is presented in Table XXVIL
TABLE XXVII
MEASURED GLIDESAIL PERFORMANCE
System Configuration Single.. Single Clu'ster of 3
Glidevail, D (ft) 36 63 63
0
Des;cent weight, (IbM 184 2580 2750
Rate of descent, (fps) 15.0 29. 5 18.0
Average Turning Rate, (deg. /sec.) - 4 5
Control riser extension . 125 D .125 DO • 120 D

0 __0 0
Average LD : .4 i ~-.7 -. 6
Once the glide had been initiated,, system stability;during the descent was
excellent, pendular oscillations being imperceptible.
One of the major program objectives was to produce a conirollabli gliding

parachute as a minimum mo~iificatiorn of the Ringsail in order to gain full
benefit from the demonstrated high opening reliability of the Ringsail, design.
This objective was attained, but the design goal of L/D = 1. 0 was not. Sub-
sequent experience taught that the use of lowi porosity cloth in the major Area
of the cauopy around the ringslot crown probably would have enabled attain-
rnent of tho design goal.
2. 0 The Ringsail Aerial Pickup Target
The canopy of the Rlngsail aerial pickup target parachute is of standard

design. As shown in Figure 107 the modification required to adapt it foir
the annular parachute aerial recovery system consists of an added set of
multiple suspension lines attached to the apex of the annular canopy, The
target parachute also carries an Interwoven web of heavy reinforcements
for transmission of the engagement and pickup loads througý the annular
295
YO:
*.X
0 .r"
%*esL
I N
"*. 2V,
%b~
Figure 107. Aerial Engagement of 17,5 ft Do Ringsail Target Canopy on

42 ft Do Annular Parachute with 800 Lb Dummy Payload
I 296
parachute to the payload. The number of suspension lines of the target
parachute is equal to the number of lines on the annular parachute, while
the ratio of the number of gores in the two canopies is made either 1/2 or
1/3, depending on the relative size. Thus, the Ringsail target parachute
hav either two or three suspension lines attached to the skirt of the canopy
"ateach radial seam. This attachnment is made to a loop formed by turning
back the ends of the double radial tapes, each line-end being bent through
the loop and inserted back into itself to form the familiar Chinese finger
trap splice.
Because the length cf the suspension lines is determined by the relative

sizes of target and annular canopies, the effective lengths of the Ringsail
target rigging varied from e/Do 0 . 76 to 1. 49 during the development pro-
gram reported in Reference 4. One of the unique advantages of this type of
parachute system is that the target canopy is used first as a drogue (either
reefed or nonreefed) to decelerate the system to a low velocity for opening
. iof the nonreefed annular canopy, During the drogue working interval the
suspension line confluence is retained by a temporary keeper formed by the
upper end of the sleeve in which the annular canopy is deployed. A pair of
standard reefing line cutters is used to release this keeper a predetermined
time interval after the deployment bag has been stripped off.
The Information obtained from the system development tests provides the
only data available on the performance of small, heavily loaded Ringsall
parachutes. In the majority of the tests the equilibrium descent velocity at
the end of the "drogue" working interval fell between 53 and 93 fps (EAS); the
corresponding unit canopy loadings were in the range of W/CDSo ;: 3. 5 to
10. 3 psf. Measured drag coefficients and opening load factors of the'te palrF-
chutes are included in Figures 22 and 28 respectively. The data presented
in Table XXVIII are representative of the beet performance of the ftor dif-
ferent models tested. To insure structural integrity for the test program
these Ringsails were made of the conservative "mid-weight" construction
invorporating pickup reinforcements of 9000 lb 1 inch webbing and 10, 000 lb
braided cord.
3.0 The Modified Ringsail Parachutes of the PEPP Program
During the Planetary Entry Parachute Program conducted by the NASA

Langley Research Center (Reference 18) a modified Ringsail parachute
design was subjected to several tests at speeds up to Mach 2. 9 and altitudes
in excess of 120, 000 feet. Experimental models having nominal diameters
of 31. 2, 40, and 54.5 feet ware tested. These parachutes were deployed
nonreefed at dynamic pressures in the range of 9 to 1 2 psf. Total geometric
297
TABLE XXVM
RINGSAIL TARGET PARACHUTE PERFORMANCE AS A

DROGUE IN THE UAR SYSTEM
0I
(Symbol) DO- (ft) 0 723.01 L 28.5 V34.0
Number of gores 20 20 30 30
Number of lines 60 1 60 60 60
Rigging (1/iIe) 1.49 1 1.13 .91 76

e 01-.
Reefing (%/Do) 31 $ 224 4 17.6
STest No. 6 i 7 5" 9
Descent weight, (lb) 1779 1835_ 2010 2090
Altitude, (it) 15800 16000 16100 12560

4
qs (pes) 44.3 48.3 47.9 141.1
Opening Loads: Reefed, (lib) 3940 3010 j5660 5000
Disreef, (lib) 5270 5410 i 7110 7500
CK: Reeled .97 .80 .70 .76
Disreef 1. 52 .79 1.35 .91
W/C S: Reefed, (psi) 20.0 23.6 I 11.8 13,0
F. 0.. (psI) 10.3 6.3 j 4.5 3.6
v "ps (EAS) 92.6 72.8 60. 3(1) 54.0
C .72 .70 .70 j .66(2)

Parachute weight* (Ib) 27.0 30.4 .134.8 41.0
NOTE: (1) Averages for 4 tests (2) Averages for 2 tests
Includes canopy and lines of "mid-weight" construction and pickup

reinforcements.
": ~298
porosities were typically about 133% Sol most of which ( 9% SO) was concen-
trated in a wide slot near the periphery of the inflated canopy as shown. in
Figure 108.
This modification was derived from the Disc-Gap-Band parachute configura-

tion developed by LRC in an attempt to produce a parachute system that
would be reasonably stable in very low density air corresponding to condi-
tions expected on the planet Mars. Although the PEPP Ringsail's subsonic
performance as a parachute was mediocre, both its subsonic and supersonic
performance appeared to be better than that of the DGB. Degradation of
parachute performance in supersonic flow is expected, but the poor showing
of the PEPP oatachutes subsonically can be attributed to faulty aerodynamic
shaping of the skirt area below the peripheral slot. * In operation the can-
opiets inflated to the peripheral slot, while the skirt a.itulus, functioning
like an extension of the suspension lines, contributed little more than skin
friction to total drag. This fault could have been corrected.
With reference to Modified Ringsail and DGB only; the Cross designs tested
were disqualified earlier for even poorer performance,
j •• 72-5 ha
i as. 788 hR
Figure 108. Schematic of the PEPP Ringsail

S(40 it DO
Deployed supersonically these parachutes exhibited high opening shock
(CK = . 92 - 1. 05 nonreefed) followed by severe longitudinal pulsations and
load fluctuations as shown comparatively in Figure 109. The crown geo-
metric porosity of the Ringsail models was too low, and the roof porosity
of the DGB was even lower, the latter due in part to operation at a super-
critical differential pressure across the cloth pores. Experience with
supersonic drogues would suggest the need for more geometric porosity in
the canopy roof than in the sidewalls. In the DGB configuration the effective
sidewalls would be an annulus of the canopy roof above the peripheral slot,
the cylindrical band functioning more as a brake on canopy opening.
The difference between the constructed shapes of the two canopies in the
skirt area is reflected in their filling rates, comparison of dimensionaless
filling intervals showing the filling distance of the modified Ringsall with
flared skirt to be 75 to 80 percent that of the DGB with cylindrical skirt (at
the same Mach number). Significant contribution of the Planetary Entry
Parachute Program was t*e finding reported in Reference 18 that the para-
chute filling distance increased with Mach number (see Figure 58, Section
6. 2. 5). This is accounted for by the effect of compressibility on the air
inflow rate, the canopy volume to be filled remaining e~sentially constant.
"Subsonic drag coefficient measurements were subject to considerable un-

certainty; average values obtained for each different model are presented
in Table XXIX.
TABLE XXIX
PEPP MEASURED DRAG COEFFICIENTS
Modified Ringsall Disc-Gap-Band
DoW(t) CDo DO(fM) CDo
31.4 .55 30.0 .52

40.0 .6z 40.0 .53
54.5 .60 40.0 .48
64.7 .58
NOTE: CD. is based on So computed with slot area included
300
M-Ringsail
Stretch(d 4.71.6tMch
01 301
The difference between the small and large models may indicate • scale
effect, but probable errors are large. The low drag coefficients of these
Ringeallg models, allowing for the wide peripheral slot, Indicatea a design
problem. For parachutes larger than 48 ft Do a drag coefficient of less than
CDo 0. 70 would normally be considered unacceptable.
30Z
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM
RingsilU parachute design procedures are clarified by a practical numerical

example based on the requirements for recovery of a 2340 lb vehicle. The
maximum allowable rate of descent at 5000 ft MSL ia 33 fps. Because a high
rate of deceleration is desired to ensure safe recovery at very low altitudes.
the maximum allowable opening load factor Is 5. 5 g In level flight. The Para-
chute Is to be deployed at Z25 KEAS by a forcibly ejected pilot chute aided, If
necessary, by an ejector bag under the pack. The Installed weight and volume
shall be a minimum compatible with the most advanced state of the art.
The canopy area required is derived by aerodynamic analysis as follow*:
STo allow for the normal variation In the observed rate of descent
of Wachate systems let the design rate of descent be
veo331h 06 c 31. 1 fps (rule of thumb)
The equivalent rate of desceut at sea level

.1/
ve 31.lit.7077 MZ9 fps (0, 1.077)
- The equilibrium dynamic pressure
qe =1. 0 pot
"Therequired effective drag area
CIDSo W/qa 2340 ft2
For Iet/Do 11 i and v. z9 fps
Cb -0.81 (Figure ZZ)
- The canopy area
So CDSOICDO = UZ2 ftZ
The following steZ* are numbered to conform with Section 5. 1
303
• d
Ringsaal Basic Dim&ensions
,. Nominal dianetet: Do = 60.6 ft
Z? Number of gores: NK= 46 to 53

From the loads analysis:
F 5.5Wmax.
=M=
-= 13. 000 lbs
From the structural analysis:
(D.F.) FuM = Z4.700 Tb5
NR = 4 (risers)
PR "=550 lbs (sulpension line cord)

For N 48 NPR t Z6.4001bs
and the ratio NPRI(D. F.) FLI= 1. 068 is atisfactory.
3. LAngth of suspension lines:

effective lengthLe = 1. 15 Do = 70 It (to the nearest foot)
let riser# 3 ft
Unelength ,67 ft
"4. Gore height hRa 5~19 Dio-w 377 i~che*
5. Area of crown ventilatiow.

Sc Z. 75%So (from Figure Zl)
v
S€ 79. 3 tt
Vertical tapets oa gore pettevirUe* crossing the crows slots
"willbe used.
6. Woven width of cloth: hw a 36 inches

To conlorn; with beot practfie for Kingsails of
IO =s6 feot and larger
7. Vertical ipacing of sails in the gore:
a) First approximatow
Number of sails in gore: hR/hw a 10. 5
3 0to
304
Number of ring slots: (.4 hR/hw)-. 3. 2
Vent height: hv = IS to 22 inches

Start with hv = 18 inches
Sot width dimension (Ah):

9
Estimate position of mean slot at shown in
Sketch (&) Figure I 0.
.4hR= 151 in.
hi (4 hR..y/Z + hV 84. 5i
Length of mean slot:
dg 6.44 (ha/N) sin (hjP0ha)540 (per Figure 12)

bRIN w 7.86
bj/hR= 84. 5/377
S6. 44 (7. 86) sin I2L 10
=50.6(.Z09) =10.6 in.
Open area per gorez

Neglect area covered by radial* and vertical
"tpebs.
. =Z38. ( C ornomstep5)
Etinmated area of vent sector 18 in. 2
Area of vnean slot per gore:

0(238-18)/3 73 in.
Approximate slot width:

"Ah =73/10.6=6.9in.
305
4d
KT0V1K-
UDU
OW44
30b0
Check width of sail No. I
Fnh -324. in.
n = 20. 7 in.
g g
hv 18 In.
Total 362.7 in
h Ih1=77 - 363= 14 in.
b) Second approximation:
Tho dimensional adjustment needed may be deduced from

the size and position of the mean slot in Sketch (b) Fig-
ure 113.
Sirnce the radial position is less than estimated the slot

area also will be less. Try increasing the slot width to
Ah 6. 9 (84. 5/78.4) = 7.4 in.-
Then
n Ah 22.2in.
g g
and
h =.377-364= 13 in,
The crown geometric porosity of the adjusted layout

shown in Sketch (c) is now checked by the calculations
summarized in Table XXX.
Note that G 6. 44 (hR/N) sin4 - 50.6 sin+;

rough slide rule accuracy is adequate. (Figure 1 2)
X.S 239 (48)/144 79. 6 ft 2

gc
c) The result it very close to the design value from step 5

above. Therefore, a third approximation is not required.
Since th* vent dimension was not changed, no size check
*. is needad here.
307
.............- i •• _ ,¢:•, • ,•,. . . .

TABLE XXX
SUMMAR~Y OF CROWN GEOMETRIC POROSITY
Slot Ii* h 4h Area

No1 (in.) hI 1.Ž ?-')(a.
/gore)
(Vent) 9 .0)24 1.3 .023 1.16 18 21

1-2 34.7 .92 5.0 .8 .0 743
2-3 78.1 .207 11&.2 .0894 4 74 733
3-4__
112. 32 1. .299 15.1 7.4 112
CPer gore Total 239 in. 2
Per Figuro 110 (C).
8. Gore Coordinators: C =50o 6 sin (h hR) 54
9, Fullness factors: Read K A&KBfo iue5
1.Sail width&:' CA KA CCB = t
11. Verification. c~canopy area and nominal diameter-
The calculations required for steps 8 through 11I are icummarized

in Table XXX.M The sample calculations were carried out with a
_24-inch slide rule. H1owevor, us. of a desk computero and four-
pl~vce table of trigonometric functions is recommended.
The total area of the slots and sails in one gore -is obtained from
the lamt column in Table XXXI.
2
Arts, 86 9 In. per gore
so (86691144) 43 =2890 ft2
DO 60. 65 feet
308
p-N %-
. -o .O V
.1NA
:
Al a Zp, t- g- Z- co
cc co
@. N co coo0 0 0 CD. ;0 D
00 IV, 00 43 t- dD (fo
v-; OD th Cp-
Nn N'In~ N 4 ~
ninQ
j 0
*D4'e ovl ~ inC in 0
-- .oA NN, t-m ma 0,I in t
00 0 00 00 C0 0
on -- . - - -40 - -
C 309
. . . .. . .. .. . . . .......... .................
Via final crown geometric porosity is
McS (244.3/144) 48 =81.4 ft'
gc Z. 816 %So
This is slightly greater than the previous calculation due'to a

small Increment -added by the fullness fadtors.
The ,finished ven%dianieter 'with Cv =.2. 28 in. Is
Dv " 48 (Z. 28)/Ir= 44. 80 inches!
2 2
"and Sv 952in. 6, 60ft
. = .OOZZ8 SO
Note also that the slot between sails 4 and 5 hag no diffarential
fullness b~cause it falls In the region above h/hR = 0. 45 (Figure
54). This coincidence eldom happen's but is harmless.', The
effective area of the slot is not zero but is less than It would be
normilly. Although the transition point on the d~ag'ram can be
tr'eated flexibly as a; bf.nd between h/hR = 0.4 and O.5, nO cor-
rective adjustment is called for because, in this area cf the
canopy, strength is more Important than porosity. The designer
could elect the option of adding a fourth ringslot to the canopy at
this point, reducing the width of all accordingly.
12. Sail pattern dimensions (Table; XXXII),
Add 1.6 Inches tO CA and C
Add 2. 0 inches to h
,1 0
{,i!310
TABLE XXXU
SAIL PATTERN DIMENSIONS
Sail
No. H A B
1 15.0 3.74 5.74
2 36.5 6.71 11.35
3 12.27 16.75
6 (etc.) (etc.)
7
8
9
10 36.5 39.72 45.8
Note: A The cloth is woven 36. 5+0. 5 inches
Calculation of the sail pattern dimensions is not essential to the

preliminary design analysis and can be deferred until prototype
fabrication drawings are needed.
Selection of Materials
Assign design factors that are compatible with the desired safety factors
and a parachute struzture of minimum weight:
Component Canopy Lines Risers

Let S.F. = 1.5 1.5 2.0
Use D.F. = 1.9 1.9 2.5
The design limit load from the loads analysis is the same for both opening
stages
FLIM = FR = Fo = 13,000 lbs
The reefed opening load is for a canopy reefed with a skirt line diameter
0 O (radial reqfing) for which

DR =9. 5%D
CDSR = .054 CDSo (Figure 47b)
= 126 ft 2
CDP = .65 (Figure 55b)
and Sp = 194 ft 2
Dp= 15. 7 ft
311
. ,. • - - , . . ' .- , , ,5g
I
Canopy cloth: PR = 1.9 Tc
Tc 13, 000/irDp
In the crown when reefed:

Tc = 13, 000/wr (15. 7)
= 264 Ib/ft = 22 lb/in.
P =41. 8 lb/in.
Although the possibilty of employing I. I oz. cloth with PR 42 lb/in, is
indicated, this likely would be marginal in a canopy of this size due to the
relatively high dynamic pressure (172 psi) at deployment.
Therefore, use 1. 6 oz. /yd 2 ripstop cloth with PR = 50 lb/in.
The crown area to be covered with the heavy cloth is estimated for Dp = 15. 7 ft.
hc =,((14)15.7 (12) = 148",
Although this extends into ring 4 (Table XXXI) only rings 1. 2, and 3 need be
made of the selected cloth, because the unit lad in ring 4 is much less
than Tc near the vent.
Checking a transition annulus of:
DpZ
p (4/ ). 5(377/12) = 20 ft (Equation 24)
Tc = 13, 000/ir(20) = 207 lb/ft
= 17.2 Wb/in.
= i,9 (17.2) = 32.8 b/lin.
Therefore, over the balance of the canopy (rings 4 through 10) 1. 1 oz.
ripstop with PR = 42 lb/in. will be used.
Suspension lines and vent lines:
PR = 1.9(130,000)/48 = 515 lbs
Use 550 braided nylon cord
312
.'N N
Radial ta..es:
iP1 = 0.9 (515)/2
=32 lbs
Use 300 lb I inch nylon tape
(A 250 lb 1 inch tape would be a better choice if such were

available.)
Mid-Canopy Circumferential Band:
Assume: Sp .7 Spo
and Dp 1. 1 (4 Splr)I12 (Equation 71 Section 6)
Spo = (2/3)2 so = 1284 ftZ

"SP : 900 ft 2 Dý = 33.9 ft (unstretchied)
Ip = 1. 1 = 37.2 ft when V = 13, 000 lbs
Tc = 1 3 ,000/wr(37.Z)
= 11.1.3 lb/ft
= 9.48 lb/in.
Location of canopy equator on gore:
h'a xn/4u a26.6 ft

t 319 incheR
Place the band near hI/2a- 160 or the top edge of

ring 5 at hb = ";•I inches
Under load bb - 1. 1 h = 177 inches

hb - hv • 159 inches
Thon: Tb = 159 (9.28)/2 738 lbs
PR = 1.9 Tb = 1400Ths
Use 1500 lb 9/16 in. tubular webbing.
313
S~Z. S(l 3.000)
Risers: P1 = 2 3 0 8120 lbs
£. 4
Although 8700 lb type X webbing at 3.7 oz/yd satisfies the

strength requirement, 10. 000 lb type XIX webbing at 4. 1 os/yd
is preferred because of its superior flexibility.
The remaining materials are selected in accordance with the guidelines

given in Section 7. Table XXXIII presents a complete list of the textile
materials that should be used in prototype models of the new 60. 6 ft Do
Ringsall parachute.
TABLE XXXIII
MATERIAL LIST FOR THE 60.6 ft D RINGSAIL PARACHUTE
Member Mate rial Code Specification
Vent lines 550 lb braided cord a MIL-C-7515B Type II

Vent band 4000 lb 1 in. tubular wed b MIL-W-5625D
Rings 1 2, & 3 1, 6 o:/yd2 nylon cloth c MIL-C-7020D Type II.
Rings 4 thru 10 1.1 oz/ydZ ripstop d MIL-C-7020D Type I
Sailedge tapes: L 70 lb 5/8 in. tape e MIL-T-5608E Type III
CLEB
M 90 lb 5/8 in. tape f MIL-T-5608E Type III
CLB
Vertical tapes 90 lb 5/8 in. tape f MIL-T-5608E Type III
Radial tapes 300 lb I in, tape 9 MIL-T-6134A Type II
Ripstop band 1500 lb 9/16 in. tubular
web h MIL-W-5625D
Skirt band 1000 lb I/ Z in. tubular

web I MIL-W-5625D
Suspension lines 550 Io braided cord a MIL-C-7515B Type 1I
Risers 10, 000 lb 1 3/4 in. web j MUL-W-4088D Type XIX
Reefing line 1000 lb braided cord k MIL-C -751 5B Type 1V
Thread & Cord nylon B V-T-295 Type I CL 1
•. 06
The prototype preliminary design in completed and presented for more

detailed analysis in Figure 111.
Hardware
Reefing rings: Use part No. USAF48H7995
314
Dv" 36.8
13 ~2.2 8 (Refi)~
-b (Ref)
7.4 -- -- ! ,•359 (Re}

36 c-
36 "f/
, f
• I d
360
" -h (e f
40.9
3595
3319
\d
Si
.. .. . . 4"( •hR
)• "• ":•;'v • "4/ ! : " ' • " '/ ' :0"•
: •••"1 i (e • ", . , _. " : . _,
• "7' 36, ,d •••,'' '' i,'' • '• "••'"'• . &(*
. -. ", .: . '
¶
Line to riser links:
Proof test load PT - 13,000/4 = 3250 Ibs

PR = 1. 5 PT 4880 lbs
Use MS22021- 1 speed link (if qualifiable) for minimum weight

(,184 lbs), otherwise use AF52B6660 "U" link.
Preliminary weight estimate.
The parachute structure falls in the medium weight category for which
Wp = 51 tbs (Figure 53)
The probable pack weight is:

1. 12 Wp = 57 lbs
The pack volume for different packing methods would be:
Method ib/In. 3 Voluvme in. 3
I anual (hard) .016 3560

Light press .0Z0 2850
_____.16380
_____
316
APPENDIX D
SPECIFICATION, TRIP SELVAGE CLOTH
1. INTRODUCTION
i. I PURPOSE - This Specification contains requirements for the

fabrication, inspection and control of one type of reinforced
selvage for use on parachute cloths.
1. Z SCOPE - This Specification shall be used only in conjunction with

a specification for parachute cloth.
1. 3 APPLICABILITY - This Specification shall be applicable when

specified on the Engineering Drawing, on the Purchase Order
or in a Material Procurement and Design Specification for
parachute cloth.
1. 3.1I ADDITIONAL CAL400TS - In addition to calling out this

"basic specification, the following items must also be
specified:
(a) A Specificatior for parachute cloth

(b) The nominal width of the parachute cloth
(c) Government Source Inspection, wheo applicable
(P.O. only)
Z.. REFEREN.CES - The latest revision of the following db•cwnezts form a

part of this Specification io the extent specified herein;
FEDERA L
Textile Test Methods CCC-T-191
M ILITAR Y
Cloth, NyLon Parachute M ILt C-7020
Cloth, Nylon Parachute MLt-C-7350
3. BQU!LAEMENTS
1.1 WIDTH
, 3. 1. 1 NOMINAL WIDTH OF CLOTH - The nominal w•dth of the

base parachute cloth atKll be specfia4d on the Ehgineering
Drawing ad shall be selected irom the list shown in Table L
S.317
3. 1. 2 WOVEN WIDTH OF CLOTH AND TOLERANCES - The
woven-width and allowable tolerances for the finished
cloth with reinforcedaselvage on both edges shall be as
es,).wn in Table L
TABLE I: WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
Nominal Width ! Required Woven Width

Of Cloth Specified And Tolerances
(inch) (inch)
4z 42 1/2 * 1/2
36 36 1/2t+1/2
24 24 1/4 * 1/4
188 1/4 * 1/4
3. 1. 3 WIDTH OF SELVAG.E - The width of the reinforced area

of each7 selvage shall be 1 / 2 * 1/16 inch.
3. Z MECHANCAL, PROPERTIES OF TPE REINFORCED SELVAGE
32..MINIMUM BFRAKI(NG STRENGTH -The miri'murn- brieaking

strength of each reinforced selvage in the warp direction
shall be as follows:
€ (mi) -1. •38

S
whe re;
S (0o*iAi M-namuum breakia straeagth of tOw

reliotvrcol selvage in the Warp
d•reactitn *n pouinde per selvage.
SC Breaking strength of the base coth

in the Warp directon ill pounds per inch.
I.
3•, 3 TkAR RESISTANC_. - The reasltiance of the reinforced selvage to
both Tearing and Weave sefaration shall be Increased to the great-
Qst extent posSible by suitable locking warp menmbers in each edge.
The exact shall be left to the discretion of the fabrica-
son~truati
tor but every, erfort shoitdd be titate to obtain taxinium tasistance
for these pro;pertles Qhile rentaiming connpatible with the other
requirements spelitekd teave'n.
31.
N -p". . .
3.4 CONSTRUCTION
3.4. 1 WEAVE - The weave used shall be at the discretion of the

fabricator but shall be compatible with the requirements
shown herein.
3.4. 2 DESIGN - The reinforced selvage may be integrally woven

with the cloth or It may be woven separately of plied threads
provided the finished cloth satisfies the requirements shown
herein.
3.4.3 MULTIPLE WIDTH WEAVES - The 18 inch cloth only may

be woven in two parallel widths provided all inside, rein-
forced selvages are effectively locked against fraying by
suitable warp members.
3.4. 3. 1 FILLING WIDTH - The width of the filling space

between bhside selvages in multiple width cloth
shall be 5/16 * 1/16 inch.
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA
4.1 SAMPLING
4. 1. 1SMPING FOR EXAMINATION - Sampling for Examina-

tion shall be in accordance with MIL-C-70Z0.
4. 1. Z SAMPLING FOR M=MChANICAL PROPERTY TESTING -

Sampling for Mechanical Property Testing shall be in
accordane with MIL-C-7020. Sampling Plan B.
4. Z METHOD OF TEST
4. Z. I EXAMINATION - Both Yard-by-Yard and Overall Examina-

tions shall be conducted on the selvages in accordance with
!: MLL,-C-7020,
4. 2. 1 MEGHANICAL PROPERTY TEST - The Breaking Strength

of the telvage alone shall be determined in accordance with
CCC-T- 191. Method 5)04. 1 with the following exceptions:
(a) The original specimen shall be approximately 3/4

-inch wide, 6 inch minimum length, and shall include
the selvage plus approximately 1/4 inch of the base
cloth. It shall be taken in the warp direction.
319
"¾. . -. . .
(b) The warp threads of the base cloth shall be removed
by raveling until only the actual selvage remains.
(c) The remaining selvage shall be used as the test

pecimen.
(d) h1he selvage breaking strength value shall be reported

Sn pounds (per each selvage).
4.3 ACCEPTANC1 CRITERIA
4.3.1 XAM TION
4.3. 1.1.
4. 3. 1.
\au
DEFINITIONS OF DEFECTS-
defined inl FFD-STD-4,

Defects shall be
CIASSIFICATION, FLAGGING AND ACCEPT-

ABlLE QUALITY 1,EVEL.S FOR DEFECTS - The
classification, flagging and acceptable quality
levelu shall be in accordance with MIL-C-70ZO
and, in addition, the defects shown in Table H
shall be classified as shown and full allowance
given for each it determining a,ýceptable quality
level*.
TABLE I1 ADDITIONAL C LASSIIC ATIOIN OF DEFECTS
j MAJOR DE FECGTS' MINOR DEFECTS
Multiple Floats over 1/6" Lo. py it- Stringy Selvage projec-

square tIng up to I/16 ithc
klt.l-se Selvage in Which the scallops

Stringy e s cannot be pulled vniooth under a
oparatn or s , Ifahric
ttnsion Applied to the adjoining
equal to or less than A%of
the nv-výinsial strength to the fabric.
Loops inof Selvage
excessO the 1 /16extending
inch. in T a
Tht Selvaige in w'hic:h the 1uIlne~s
in the ad msaing fabric cannot be
willied .nu.vthunder a tension ap,-
Fuzzy selvage indicating phed tv the selvage, equal to or lesst
frayed or broken warp or fill than %Y1W9 ; the ,oominal strength of
threads. the selvage. j
1 2r
I
4.3.1.3 ALLOWANCE FOR DEFECTS - An allowance of
1/2 yard shall be added for each major defect.
4.3. 2 MECHANICAL PROPERTY - The minimum Breaking

Strength oi the selvage shall be shown in Sectioa 3. 2.
4.4 CERTIFICATION AND TEST REPORTS - A statement of con-

formance to this Specification and a report on the Examination
shall be included in the Certificate of Conformance and Test
Report for the base cloth.
4. 5 ACCEPTANCE - Acceptance or approval of material in the course

Of fabrication shall in no case be construed as a guarantee of the
acceptance of the finished product.
4.6 QUALITY CONTROL OPTION - Quality Control shall have the

option of requiring the reinspection of the product, regardleas
of prior inspectlons.
4.7 REJECTION - Material not conforming to the requirements

of this S-necification is subject to rejection.
4.7.1 RESUBMITTAL OF REJECTED MATERIAL - Rejected

material shall not be resubmittal for approval without
furnishing full particulars concerning the previous re-
jection(s) and the measures taken to overcome and/or
eliminate the defects.
5. PROCUREMENT CRITERIA
5. 1 GOVERNMENT SOURCE INSPECTION - The Purchase Order shall

specify Government Source Inspection when required.
5.2 PACKAGING1 PACKING AND MARKING - The Packaging, Packhig

and Marking shall conform to the requirements of the applicable
specification for the base cloth.
321/3Z2
. .. . I=l ý1
APPENDIX E
RMGS&IL PARACHUTE DESIGN COMPUTER PROGRA)4 WG I?6A-1O
This Appendix presents a~ computeor printout of tho fliagsail dc*egn progro..

WG 176A-10 referenced Ln Section 5, page 136. lucluded on the bottoiv- of
page 358 and all of page 359 is sample inpuat data. to *id the user..
C PROCOA14 TO DESIGN RIINSAIL VARACHUTES

C
REAL LLW _______
COMONOICDATAICDOX(50) .DOXI5O),ICD
COPI'ONI*GT8LIPSVR 150) .PRSLISO), !PD
CONNONICNTftLIVCS(15O) ,CTRtL(100).TITLF(121.
COMM1!#4FULDAT/HHR(50) ,XKA(50),XKSISOI#dFO
COWPNONSAILSIXA15O1 .XRI50).XAB(5 *EXA;.Y45G PS-ALWGT(50P
MMNtNREADAT ~CSo~1B OISL T~O AIfO ENO
I *XLSXLRDVXHRSALNOSEANVU490
2 *CRANG*CCOEFCKOEF*GRCOE*RLCDE*PESLOXNJ4BR
3 .SLW*LLW*SRW*V$W*RTW*RCW*VLbi
6 ,CRNPORGEOPOR.TOTPORCLHPORVNTPORXJXMU
CONMONI4SDATA/SPC(50) .$LARAKHTXHV0*4IBRKXtOEARRADSLTAR(50I
~~NQ~l5DI~/XYY12 t,50)
0C(OIY1
0)JY IXf 2,S1591VH(~O) ,XYA 150)
I XYP (5019 XI J,9XAREAYVAREA, 1St ýO 1.RITOM-S0V,Rv8iOT(f50),q'i Z J
2 PRCRN.PRGGR.PRCLTHPRQTOASATLAR(501,SO
DIMFNSIPN, RDC4K( 35) ,STDRD(35),lXXXI1OIAOA1 35)
iQUiiALENCE-(RDCHk1 COS)
DOUBLE PRECISION ENDATA*EP4DTSr.VC8#YIYLE#ADA
DATA ENATA/ENDATAO/
C
C READ PROGRAX4 VOCABULARY OATA
C ots OEsc~iPTION
C .2 4
- START1ING NUMBER J
C 5-AENO IMG, NLIIRE A KK
C It -AS REOUIRE A6DI1 ONAL' 'VCA8"ULA'PY WORDS VCtI
C IN GRnUPS OF SIX LETTERS OR SPACES
C NINE W3RDS OF SIX LETTERS MAXIMUM~
C USEfIS NANY CARDS AS .REOtR4fECO W I-Ti HLA-Ai
C CfILS 2 4 AND 5 -7 MUST CONTAIN 15)
C, COS i1. 16 MOST -COMT-AIN THE LFTTERSý I*EIOATACe
C
C VOCACULARY DATA AS USED IN P'ROGRAM WG176
C
C 1 In CHU)TE D1A. w CANOPY AREA DRAG* AW-EA---ff, K
Nt 0P6AL/CMwT
C 11 20 F DIA00te.can RtGGIW4P LGTMLINE LEtGT14 AISER LEW'GTNGvORE L.
C 21 .10 ENG74 6,*.4 HP14I VENT RADIUS VENT OIA. OVLAMSDA SUB C SlIP 0
C 11 460 sup T SUB #SAtL AREA H SU- R Fe. ET-"SQaFT*'FNtHFS'PUNDS
C 41 50 PERSo S0.INsVS* WEIG147, TO'ýAI APE% OIA1METER NOOOF
C 51 52 RISERS NIS
3Z3
C151-1t'0t FNt)ATA
5S RFADIo(5303JJ,K~t4VCRit~sL3JJKKI
fr tVCa(Ji NE. ~oATAtrx0 TO 5
C
C REAn PARAM4ETRIC CDOO ATA
C-
r, COLS DESCRIPTION
r I VAL(IE -IF COO,
l0 CDOX(!)
C U 20 VALJE OF. COR*RESPONDING 0SUe 0 .Dox I'
C 1SF AS MANV CARDS &S RIE#,3IPEi (30 MAXI
IC LAST. nATA CARan TO BE FOLLN'ED BV CARD WITH ENOATA IN COLS 75S 80
~EADr,(5302SCDOX(ll9D9X(I)'VEP4DTST
flOx(Il=r1Ox~i 129o
F TFfEN0TST.NE.ENDATA0GOn TO 1t0
c- PFA! PARAMETREIC CDOO 140D VS LINE L.ENGTA DATA
-C I - PFRCfNTA6E VARIATION ERDOnICFD IN CDO6VRT

10
r 11 - PFRCFNTA'E- VARIANCE FROM OPT14UM
20 PRSLMI
RIGGING LENGTH
c LAST nATA CARD) TO aE FOLLOW-ED BY CARD WITH ENDATA IN COLS 7ý 80
C lJSF AS MANY CARDS AS-RUEUIRED (50 MAX)
C
TWO
12 1=1,1
PFAD4ý,302)PSVR(T ),PRSI.A~bEM,)TST
lFlENf)TýTNE.EN0ATAltyO TO 12
c PEAD FULLNESS DISTRIpJTtIONA
fCOL' flESCRIPTION.
r. I - in VALIJE OP THE RATIO H/HR HHR(1l
C It 7n)f VACUF OF KAXK)
r 21-30 VALOF Or- K XKB(I)
r USE> AS MANY CARDS AS REQUIRED. (50 MAXI
I AST 1ATA CARO) TO BE FOLLONEO BY CAR!) WITH FN!)ATA IN-COLS 75 80
T=0
14 tvI+l
PFAO(S,306)HHR(I b,XKMTI).XKR~t),ENDTST
fF(PNDYS.T.NE.V10Ar~)GO TO 14
TFD=T-1.
c PEAt) TNPIJI DATA
324
..........
.......
DATA CARD NO* I
c cats OSSCRI'PTtON
IC I t TITLE TO APPEAR ON DATA TITLEI12ý)
80 CARD SEQUENCE-NUMBER1 , MUST CONTAIN I IXXX(I)
C
9999 REAry(5,300)(TITLE(J),J1dli2),IXXX(1)
C iITItAffiZE SAIL MATERIAL VE104T
C
9 SALWGT(Jl~oO*0
C DATA CARD NO 2
t COLUMNS- DESCRIPTION
I ES OF PARACHUTE
CO..0 SQFfl Cos
C It- 20 1DIAMETER OF PARACHUTE (FEET) DSU8O
c 41- 30 OESiGN LOAD (LBS) DZL
* ~A9_ ADJUSTDSUSPENSIONLINE STRENGTH__(LBSI SLST.
ic 41- 50 DRAG COEFFICIENT CDO
C 51- 60 NUMBER, OF GORES END
6 0 Y H F AI.!A!AikA',
Mit±i CHES)
(INj1 X
eo8 CARD SEOUENCF NUMBER UT COTAIN 2Ix~x(Il
C tLS DESCRIPTION
C 1 - 0 SUSPFNSION LINE LENGTH (FEET) XLS
~ 10 RISER LENGTH MICHES) KIR
1C 21- 130 VEN4T DliAMETE 1IHS DV
C 31- 40 GORE LENGTH fiNtHMES) XHR
c 41- 50 NUMSER:OF.SAILS SALNO
C 51- 60 ;WIDT "OF SAIL- MAfE*RIAL REUIE SEMm3 tNCHESl SEAM
C 61- 70 NUN8ER OF VENT LINES Vt NP
C 80 CARO SEQUENCE NU4BER , MUST CON10AIN 1 IEXE(I)
C
RE-Anlf5.30,4)LSXLROVXHR.SAL~40,SEANMVtN0,IXXX(3),
C nATA CARO) NO 4
C COdLSDECITO
I - 10 CROWN ANGLE (DEGREES COANG
r it- 20 ICOEFFICIENT ANGLE FOR MOE WIDTH (DEGREESI) CCOEF
c 21- 30S COEFFFIýIENT eOR GORE -WIDTH C CKOEF
C It3- 40 GORE LEWGT14 COFOY6CIE'NT 6RCOE
Ic 41- 50 RIGGING COEFFICIENT RLCOE
C St- 160 PERCENTAGE OF GORý LENGTH VITHOUT SLOTS (PERCENT) PESLO
. ....
C 6t- 70 NUMRER OF SLOTS XN"BR
80 CARD SEOUENCE NUMBER , MUST CONTAIN 4 IXxx(I)
READ(5t304tCqANG*CCOEF*CKOEFGRCOERLCOEPESLOXNMBRtIXXX(41
C
C DATA CARD NO 5
C
C CrYLS DESCRIPTION
C I - 10 WEIGHT OF SAIL MATERIAL (LBS/SQ FTI SLW
C 1I- 20 SUSPENSION LINE WEIGHT (LBS/FT) LLW
C 21- 30 SKIRT BAND WFIGHT (LBS/FT) SSW
C 31- 40 VENT BAND WEIGHT (LBS/FT) VBw
C 41- so RADIAL TAPE WEIGHT (LRS/FT) RTW
C •I- 60 RISER WEIGHT (LBSIFT) RSW
C 61- 70 VEHT LINE OFIGHT (LRS/FTO VLW
C 80 CARD SEQUENCE NUMBER * MUST CONTAIN 5 IXXX(Il
C
READf5,3041 SLW*LL Wt SBWVP•,RTWRSWtVLW IXXX (5)
* C
C DATA CARD NO 6
C
* C COLS DESCRIOTtON
, C I - 50 INFORMATION RELATIVE TO SAIL PEINcORCEPIENT IS(IM
C COLUMN NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO SAIL NO.
C IF COLUMN BLANK - NO REINFORCING
C IF I IN COLUMN - REINFORCED TOP ONLY
C IF 2 IN COLUMN - REINFORCED TOP AND BOTTOM
C 80 CARD SEQUENCE NUMBER # MUST CONTAIN 6 IXXX(I)
C
RPAOI(5321)(IS(J)tJ=1,5OItXXX161
C
C DATA CARD NO 7
C
cC ClL S DSCRIPTION
C 1 - 50 INFORMATION RELATIVE TO REINFORCING TAPE WEIGHT
C COL.UlMN NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO SAIL Nn.
CC IF CnLUMN BLANK - THIS WEIGHT TAPE NOT USED ON
SC SAIL
C IF 1 IN COLUMN - THIS WEIGHT BOTH TnP AND BOTTOM
C IF 2 IN COLUMN - THIS WEIGHT TOP
* C If 3 IN CILUMN - THIS WEIGHT BOTTOM
SI- 60 HEIGHT OF RE INFDRCING TAPE fLBS/FOOT)
C 70 IF THIS IS THE LAST REINFORCING TAPE CARD PUT A 2
.C IN THIS COLUMN
, C DATA CARDS 74. THRtl 7(Nt N = NUMBER OV CARDS REQUIRED
C SAME AS CARD NO 7 NOTE A 2 IN COLUMN 70 OF THE
-* C LAST CARD ONLY
C 80 CAPO SEQUENCE NUMBER v MUST CONTAIN 7 IXXX(I)
C
15 PI'AD(5,322)(tX(J),J1I,50),RFTWtKTESTIXXX(?I
32b
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
.11
+........
' + i + i . . . :'' ' +' '+ : +
IFIIX(J1.EO.O IGO TO 1150
IF( TX(JEO, 2)RWTOP(J tRFTV/12.0
IEfLJA1.0iQ.21GO_ WI1L
IF(!XIJIeFQ3)GO TO 1149
RWTOP( J)-RFTW/12 0
1141 R*W90TfJ)RFTW/lZ.O
1150 CONTINUE
!F(KTEST*EO*OIGO TO 15
C DATA CARD NO A
C
COLS - DESCRIPTION
C I - 10 DESIRED CROWN POROSITY (PERCENT) CRNPOR
c It- 20 DESIRED GEOMETRIC POROSITY (PERCENT GEOPOR
c 21- 30 DESIRED TOTAL POROSITY (PERCENT) TOTPOR
C 31- 460 POROSITY OF SAIL CLOTH (P--C-T) CLHPOR
C 41- 50 POROSITY OF VENT (PERCENT) VNTPOR
I- SA - 60 IJUMRER OF RISERS '"IXmU
C S0 CARD SEQUENCE NUMBER . MUST CONTAIN 8 I-XXX(II
E-D• C NPORGOO. TOTP._,CLHPOR,*VNTPORXIXMU,OU
0. M, IXXX(
c DATA CARD NO q
C COLS DESCRIPTION
C I - 50 INFORMATION RELATING TO SAIL MATERIAL AND SAIL NUMRER
COLUMN NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO SAIL NUMBER
C IF COLUMN !SBLANK-STANDARD SAIL MATERIAL WILL BE USED
C IF 1 * THIS WEIGHT MATERIAL WILL RE USED
I
S- 60 .WE!GHT OF SAIL CLOTH TO BE USED
SC 70 II THIS IS THE LAST SPECIAL WEIGHT PUT #1 IN THIS COL
C DATA CARnS qA THRU 94NI N=NUMBER OF CARDS REQUIRED
C SAME AS CARD 9 NOTE A I IN COLUMN T0 OF LAST CARD ONLY
1115 PFAO(59,322I(IX(J).Jw,51O),SPSWT.KTEST,1XXX(91
116!.J~t, ,0i
0_0,.
TF1I(J1,,EOoO)Gn TO t116
SALWGT!J )=SPSWT/144,0
1116 CnNTtINUF
i-F(fkTfEST.EQ.n'4,O rr, 111s
C
C RE.AD.-DATA CARD NO 10
C
C Col S DATA SYMBOL
C I - 10 DIM:NSION DOWN TO FIRST SAIL XHV
1'C- 20 HEIGHT OF TOP SAIL XHT
c 21 - ZS SLOT DIM4ENSIONS SLOT NO I SPcI1I
S _76 - 10 2 SPCI()
c i 1-'is 13 SPC131
C 36 - 40 4 SPC(41
C 41 - 45 5 SPC(51
c t - 0 6 SPC (6)
C 51 -55 7 SPC (71
c S6- 60 a Spc 8)
C 61 -65 9 SPC 91
C 66 -70 10 SPC(101
C 71 -75 11. SPC(1l1
C 79 - 80 'CARD SFOUENCF NO* MUST BE 10 IXXX(101
REAfl(5,9'36)XHV.XHT,(SPC(1),Is1,11iIlXXX(IOI
316 FORAT(2F10*0#IIF%5091Xv12)
C CI4FCK CAROS FOR COMPLETENESS AND ORDER
C
nnlist15 1-1#10
!FU(IXXtfI),NEItCGf TO 1157
1191 CONTINUE
GO TO t170
C
c WRTE FRRCR 4ESSAqE REGARDINC, INPUT DATA
C
11S2 WRITT(69323)1
CALL EXIT
C
C INITIALIZE CONTROL DATA
C CONVERT DATA TO PROPER UNITS

C
XXSLTmOoO
no 2m1 1=1.11
XXSTmXXSLT+SPC( I1
215 ONTINOE
1Ff XXSLT*NE,0e01CTPLf 95)s4.0
CnSvrCDS*144or)
XL S.XLS*12*0
CRANfl=CRANG*,01 7453
CCEFmC.COFF*t4O174r%
'qLWzSLWi144,0
LLWaLLWI129O
VRWzXRW/ 12.0
IQTWaIQTW/12aO
R Sl-R SW/1 2 *
VLWuVLW#'12*0
(PNPr1R=CQNP6R~/100.0
tAE0P rR aGEOf'n* /10%0O
CLHPnfWC L HPORf100, 0
VN4TPflRmVNTPflR/100.0
328
'1FSttD.Pf$Lf/100*0
STOD 1)?~36, 0
STO$ko4; 9).3E. 0
STORMl ..3)A.6
ISTCPRO0 (.1 61~ 94 248
%Tflpn(171-6.44
STORD 2q)-.02
STOPO f31)%#00Q3
C
C ctwrcK FOR SPECIFICATION 14PUT SET CONTROLS
DOn 1100 I=1934
IF(RDCHK( I)*FO0e0*0CTRLt! m1*0
IFtCTRL(1).efQsO.OIGO TO 1100 -
IPIST0R&OM*FI 1TR(1*e
RDCHK(InSIORD4I)
1100 C.ONTIN4UE
c
C CHFCK RFINFOACtNG TAPE DATA
c
no 1053 JW1950
IFfliStJI.ECtd).*ANO*(RWYO)P(J.efQ.O.0l)GO T3 W04
I'((TSI~itAFO.2).AknflItRW.YoPtj).EQ,0O1.Olrj-qRlW8FT(JI.EO.0.O)tiGo TO
1 1054
1053 CONTINUE
CO TO InOS
1054 CTPL(36)aI.0
C.
C
C CHECK Fnpt COS PRovisioN
C
@4 VRITF(693301
3A0 F('PMAT123MI, CHUTE CAN BE DESIGNED)
IF(CTRL(2I.EGOeOIOGO TO 1s
C
C CALCULATF SO COO nSUBO WHEN COS IS GIVEN
C
CALL SOCALI(SO.O)
CGO TO 20
C
C CALSULATE SO COO COS WHEN OSUSO GIVEN
18 Sn03*I4146*OStJRO**2/4s0
CALL SOCALIS0,21
WPITF(6s33I1 OSUbO*CDS*SO*COO
331 FOPMATIIAHO SOCAL CALLED94E12*31
20 IFICTRLISI*EQO*OOIGO TO 1021
C
C SlJSPENSjfn% LINE LFNGT14 LENGTH NOT PROVIDED CALCULATE RIGGINGG
C LENGTH
C
VLORLCOF*OSU4O
CYRL 181m0*0
GO TO 21
1021 %LmXLSXtlt
f IF GORE LENGT" UNSPE-IFIED CALCULATE GORE LENGTH
21 YL OveXL- XL R
IF(CTRLIIII.EO04*01O TO 22
XNRuGACOE00SM~)
C SFY BOTT~OM LIMIT ON GOAES
C
V2 LONU so76 *OS 1140I12 o0
C SET TOP LIMIT ON GYORE1
C
Iwl~Uwefl4*DSURq/I1 20
C nFTFQMINE NUNAF4P Of RISERS
C
too
&Ff1KWUe.f4e.OGO Tn 2222
IFILOlNUeGT*601o ITUISI.
IFfLOAIU*GT.RO IX~um.8
330
. ... ..
2222 vINUuItipt
C
SWT GORE NUPM8ER BY STANDARD SET
C
C IF NO OF GORES UNSPECIFIED CALCUL.ATE NO
IFlCTRLt6).eFQ*O.)GO TO 2023
tFEII.G?.LONUJ).AND.I1.LT~yHNUI)GO TO 24
GO TO 23
C
CETERNINE If GORES CALCULATED FROM LOADS
C
24 END. I
IFiCYRL(34),EO*.1.GOI TO 1125
IF LOADS PROYMfED CALCULATE MINIMUM LINES
C
XXNO*IDZL/SLSTIO*I9
IEt.INTIM0N1#1
.00
If LOAD PROVIDED DETEM"1N 4O OF GORES
124 IuI.IVWU
154 IoLT*IWXNO)SGO TO 124
Go TO I12s
C CHECK IS 140 OF GORES IS COMPAIABLE
IFffAIMIIKEN~1)-XXWNoIfg*0OlGO TO 112S
2014 FMORAT(SlH REOUESTED GORES INCOPPATAOLE TAIG,ALTE3F#AtfouTts
GO TO 23
112s RT~i3~E0EN,~
132 fno"SAT12ZHG GORES AND RISERS StiolvI2031
C
C C14ECK IF NO Of SAILS OROVIM~
IF4CYALllZ)*EGT.IIA1,0M TO 211
IC
IFPTA
GOREGIVEN4VVASS3StL4 KC
~c
IFICINL..................1
XXXYKKHR-SALP4O*XH
VYXYY~CKOFlF*(XHRIXNOI*SIN(XXXYX*CCflEF/XHRI
XXNX'RXXXYX*YYYEYI( 2.O*SO))
IF(XXXV *LT*GEOP01R)Gf TO 25
r WRITE ERROR STATEMENT REGARDING SAILS

C
1124 WRITF16,3011TITLE
WRITE(6*3240
CALL EXIT
C flETERNINE SAIL CnNFIGURATJON UP To START OF SL.OTS
* C
C FSTARL ISM CONSTA'4TS
C
75 two
xxcECOECKnfl*(xHvi xhoj
AtJRAnwCCOFF /WHR
YUTOS ORH
YFtT0P=XmR-0FS.0*X" PK-StO.IRMP~5)X
fl(LYu=EN
14 1-1+1
C
C PETPRI4INE POSVIION OF ROTTnP IF SAIL
c
c PEYER14110 GORE WIDTH AT BOTTOM#OF SAIL

c
CCf*XX.COfStli veAksAOI
?"PfP4IN VULLNE-Is C14ST&"T

C1NSYmYI X4R
CALL KYICNiSToX9K8q11
c Of~eRNtI6NI CREF SAILt koj,?n D114ENSION

C,
f r)*TFRqtNf SAIL. flOTTO04 fEO.4SSrUCTtO.4 OtHEN'p
c 5%? %~Alt 14IG34T

L
11Y( II t~flEt.y
C nYPRWIIJF 0O5ITIlON flt TO op SARl

DETERtMIN~E GORE WIDTH AT TOP OF SAIL
-CCCmXXCOf$SIN(Y$Aft4ADt ___
XVC(2* I1*aCCC
c DETERMINE FULLNESS CONSTANT -_______
Ct4ST-YtXHA
C
c rPETERNINE 'PUEF SAIL TOP 014ENSIONI
XVAIlwXXKA#CCC --.. ' - ___
c RETENNINE SAIL. TQPC R t#--09 I
XAfII.XYCA(II.SEAW4
c C14ECK FOR EkO OF NO SLOT REMQN
c SET '4URRER Of SAK(S WIlTHOUT RIOTS
c ofTEroItNF POROSITY INFO

(Alk stIIcAI
wp1 TFq6*3)41AAlL
t CI4EcK IF. WEIG~4Y CAN at OfTEopINED
1194 tPiTRlt4Ib.F'.O.O)Gfl TO US54

VL~mtLLW~f~
61 ClRL13)-T0L13¶I $CtRLfJJ)
* Il~lcTqtfl~~l*4lo.oo) GO To 1004
guISUFFICIF04T VEtW~T DATA C&LCULATE CHUTE WEIGHT
3 fl
CALL WF14HT(WGr)
CTIAL (91Q I WGT
gn Tfl So
10fl4 WRTTEfE,,3011TM~E
C
C CALCULATE CHUTE PLAOSITY
84 CALL POPSITM?
C WRIT1E OUTPUT
C
CALL OUtJYtT
100 F09MATIYA6,7X.I1)
.Qn? PflPMAT(2P1O.0,,c4x,A6j
ý103 Ffl~mATOK,*?I,3X,1OA6k
30S vnpmAvI..AHO lNS(JFFtrtFNT OATA PROlVIDED TO DESIGN CH4UTE)

10f, V0Q1AT(13.I*44XAAt
IM? F0PMAT(I)HO24X.I?AA,
a~ ~lp&Tl,~,9 It N S A I k. r U T E 0 E S I G N)
I Ft ARAT1
N cSIG"
)TI
l~RIiTIRt440IL 51STA!4CE SAtIL W10TH SAIL WIDTH GORE WIDtH4
10 GH~PT FRE Si~ AREA)
'314 fnilWAyt gli4 4), PFOI4 APEX LESS SEAII At SAIL
I ~S~~ ~4n. 04,4T$0
-%f4
c Ars tt VFe T I T I qN APF& AFi t NfA

£ rtr ~INT
PO~~~. fN QUr'STf '
C frrflp - r lk *; ul~ i1%um i tHf4IN0,'I C l)4aNIALLY *$4, DEG
-c - r ýT -.1311 4f I PRr COFOIFTýnr VM
C fivtII- i tIN1
aT A 1 T04V fnl vs pl" Tg~
. lOS l51,) V iju azq nF irA'4'TE tN$4E
134
C CKOFF -COEFFICIENT FOR OETERMINdING C OIPAL..
c (MST CONSTANT FOR FINDING FULLNESS CDEFFICIENT
c CRANG - CROWN ANGLF NOMINALLY 15IDEGREES
C CANPOR - CROWN POROSITY DESIRED
C CYPLIII - CONTROL NU"SERS AND LOGIC DATA (SEE ASSIGNMENTS$
DCT IUTP11T
P*1 DATA
c DAT? OUTPUT DATA
C 1101~ OUTPUT DATA
c OELY SAIL NFInHT
c GLDTST DIM4ENSION4 LEFT FOR SLOTS
noxlO(I - On IIATA IN vmE Cn vs DOn TABLE
c flsupo - NONINAI CHUTE DIAM4ETER
C Py - VENT DIAMETER NOMINALLY ?OHVOCOSICROWN ANGLE)
C OIL - DESIGN LOAD
C VNIDATA SYMRnL To mI~CATE FND OF DATA DFCK
c FNOTST CHE-CK FOP LAST DATA CARD
C FPTW - RFtNFoPCtNC. TAPE WEIGHT AS READ FROM CARD
c nEOPOR - GFOMfTPIC POROSITY DESIRED
c G~cnF - GnRF LENGr4 COFFFICIENT NnOINALLY uSI
C GSIA - SLOT ARFA PER GORE
C HHlP4I) - H/4A DATA FOk THE FULtNESS DISTRIBUTION DATA
C 6YHEIGHT OF TqA SAIL
C I INDEX tJSI~f IN LnQPS
C ICn - N110REP Of DATA POINTS IN THf CD VS DO) TAR3LF
C IFe NU~4'FA OF DATA 01INTS IN TWt3 FULLNESS OATA
c 14NU UPPFR LIMIT ON No OIF GPRES
C PC
I9 NL?4'AFR OF qATA POINTS IN RIGGING TASLe
c ISTP ;IxEo POINT NuJ OF SLOTS
C tISK FlxFn POINT NOl OF SAILS
r If-fI - SAIL NUMB8ER% REQUIRING RPINFORCIA4( TAPE Jw2 P-OT4 Jul Tnp
c I IXw) FIXFfl POINT VAL4F OF XXNO
C V160RE
X's Fr~PIT opE 114E% pfp pSEp
r IVXXfl - rt~r FOP 10TA CARO C04PLFYENESS AND ORDEP
C IV(II - C(IWO 1-1 ESTABLISHM R'IN~FUNCIN4 TAOF WEIG64T
jj IsflF x Flp V~IrAR11tANY REAr)
r K t l~nfly fn V-tVA101 APY OF0A

IC CVUj4rfA r~1j &0VljjqIrN SJI'T nlENSIOnk
C YVT C64FrCI 1!A %(F 1I0 %&!V DA T A CARDS FCVLLOfd
r ( 4r ~I
u rN fi tksiPfoT
C I nul twq L3UC 1.44IT nk 41f OF 1401)r
c Nhipv N,14IlIP no: '10I;INS 1I%P AT XN%%.R `14I F F004MAT
-NOTV kPrrFfi~i
r clC ProPFVNAtr VFVItTT11'4 POOM4 (IfSbOFn SLOT AIRE&
Vr.1X - VcVrF4TA4~f ?V eqnQF Pflm FULLj SAltS %0MI&A4LLV *5
k. SAl' Anva pcqýF*47A4,r (F SO
('Pk ix- PAVt,~i T Vn4 CL f ')T PFQ(IE4T 0f S SUNR 0 i(IFSIGNI
C ao - PO('ýI ~Ty Ci' ?RfhflW PVQCFNT Sý to%
r
*I~
poro~lb - r~nslcr ;)'100c-TY DERCF4Y r, 5tg 0 (DESIGN!
r Pv#OTft TflT4t pn'l41y prcN OFl S %up 0
C. PRSLMI - PERCENT O1F OPTIMUM R~IGGING LENGTH FROM 00 VS RIG* TA8LE
C PSVR(!) - PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN DO FROM Do VS RIGGING TABLE
C RFTW RFINFnRC.INGC TAPE WEIGH1T PO Bý ASSIGNED
C RLCnE -RIGGINGCOEFF!C??:NT NOMINALLY 1,5
C RSW - RISFR WFIGl1T LBS/FOOT
C RTW - RADIAL TAPE W4FIGHT lB8S/FOOT
c RWBOTIY)- REfNr0Qrir. TAPE WFIGHT BOTTOM LBS/FT
C PHIOP II- RE1Ni:O,_1C.Tkl TAPE aiFIGHT TOP LBS/FT
C SALNl NUNIRER IF .SAILSý USED
C SRW - SKIRT RANO WFIGHT LBSIFOOT
c SEAM - WIDTH OF SAIL RE~1JTRED FOR SEAM NJOMINALLY 1.5 IN*
r, SKABM! - CONSTANTS POR THE FULLNESS DISTRIBUTION DATA
c SLTO DISTANCý USý'O TO CHECK SLOT WIDTHS
C StSpr FIRST TRv 4r SLnM SPACING
C SLARA - SlilT AOFA TOTAL
r SLST - ADJUSTED SUSPENSION LINE STRENGTH
C, SLW - SAIL W~lfGHT LBgS/Sg FflOT
C SNO - NU.r.ER Op O
C so - CANOPY APý4 Sif Tý
c SPSWT SPEc-'-AL SA'7t 01ýEIAI_ WEIGHT
C. SPfTOT TOTAL SLOT ij*I4EiiS[ON
r TARFA -SUMMATION 7.L MATERIAL
C TITI_ E( I- TIt'. OF jPP, J4USE IN DATA HFA')INt;S
C TOTOST CROWN DISTANCE T BE FILLED WITH SLToS AND SAILS
c TOARA - TOTAL frRl0STTY AREA
C TOTPt1R - TOTAt Pr)PnSTTY L)FSIREO)
c TPnP - TOTAL. CHUTE POROSITY -PERCENT OF S SUB 0 NOMIPNAL =e02
C VARFA - VFNT AREA
r VBW - VENT SAND) W~fGPHT tAS/F-OOT
r VCB(I) -VOCABRuLARY PAT& STORED IN A FORM&T (SEE LIST)
C VtNO -NUMýAFR rlF VFNTL INFS NnRMALLY SCt'?
C Vt.w VENTLINF W~fGHT LBRS/FT NO4INALLY SAME AS LLW
C VNTPnR - VENT PnPnSrTYry ESIPED
r VpoIk - VENT PD3R9ISIY -- PFRCENT OF S SUB 0 NOMINAL -*003
C WGT TOTAL. CHUTF `,EIGHT
C XAIT) - WID)TH nP '411.rTH TOP
C X111111 - W IDTH 0 f: :.A f Al' THE BOTTOm
C YOO - OIfAMPI* CAI Cdl iTFO FROM TAREA
C XH - WIDTH (IFU 0.: 1T FOP SAILS
C XHR OEL~;'F
C XHV - O!'?ArFNrIPN IIOWN TO TOP SAIL OF GORE
C WIMtj NIJmfR nPy t.]NES PER RISER
C XL - RtfGGIN.,t'%G
AC, xtP - szI'J ~ N'CtlM!NbLLy 'A6 IN*
C, XL S - SIJSt0 I'N UN
)N IN L~F N GT H
r xxNn L iNf- RH.JUI RF- pRY 1,00ADING
r X~XYX DIý4N f AIL NO CrOmPATABILITY
r xxxx AkFA 1:! CH' ý AfL NO COMPATABILITY
c XXKA KA N' F f[ILLNE.SS
r.V(
r XXKR Vii~ rrlFFp',(p l:rlm:N FULLNESf,
f, XyA(fl - Fp~c SAILt ARFA
.~~ ~~~~'
.
~..
~YA(I - EFLENOTH OFP T;4 SAIL -TnP
C lc~aI FPRE tFN~tTt4 OF THE SAIL -AfITTON4
C xycfJlyi GOA3)Wt~Ifii Jlr-!-bTG* SAIL J -2 TOP (IFSAIL
c EYV~14It - ¶Sk!L HE)GHT
c yf -. PErACEUFAGE OF ~FREE-SAIL aRFA TO S SUi3 6
_ C ~VY1J.E)- AOTinx 4tXID TOP PlD'AtlONS OF SAILSJ'm-~ .-
Y VcýRrTCAL 61TNIS'InN
r vvy" DIMEW'STQN TO CHECK SAIL NO fO04PATA8lL.'TY_
C CONTROL ?AUPREP AS~I?*GMEs4T IN PRCaGkAM WCG!Th

*r INDICt'TER Str'(tUiRO CiUA
'*t~AiS
C klNTRIt 4UNREA ASSIGNM4ENT YES-. ) - NO aý
NORMAL
_C CTIZ. (2 "AS A if5 VALOF IPE 4 Ptr3VIDIED ~
C CTRL127 4A S A 'kOP~iN4L DIAME'TR REEN GIVEN *
C C!TRL31 BES
S GN UA )~ BE-rv~
EI 0
C. CTRL(4) WAS AN 0fJtJSTU) SIJSPEt4SIOW LIKE L3AD GIVE.N 0
C CTqL(51 W4S A DRAG U19iTCI~ vENF~1D~4
C CTR L( WERE- THE NOMB4:P Or- GUO4^ SPECIFIED *
CTALI
C II WAS THE WIDTH OF C,:.OIH SPECIFIED 0
C CtRt.19 WAS THE SUSPFNSIOt INEU I.EN6TH SPECIFIED 4
*C CTRL(91 WAS THE PfSEQ LtHGT4 SPFCIFIED
C CTOL00) WAS THE VENT DIAMETER, SPECIFIFO *4 0
c fCTPtII1I WAS THF qORE LFNGT1H SPfECIF1EI)1
C CTOL( I ) WAS THP NU4- nFl SAktS SPECIF~IIF.0
r rTOL413) W'AS THE SýAM WIDTH SPfCI!EEn* 1
c CTRL(14) WERE THE NU)48ýR OF-VENT LINES Gl1VEN ~* 0
C CTQLfl5) WAS V8F CRENN ANGLE SPECIFIED 1
r CTRU 161 WtAS THE rfIEFFTCTENY ANGLE FOQ C SPF~lr-IED
c CTRLQ71 WAS THE cnPFFitC!PNT FOP C SPECIFIED
el CTPL(I.9) WAS Tr4F rORE LEN6TH SPECIFIFO *~
c CTRL(191 tik.S THF C4 Crt-FFlCIENT SPFCIFiED
r CTOL(7)? WAS THE PFPCENT OF~ Gr0R WITRtOUT SLOTS SPECIPIEO *
C CTP(.1(1'l WAS THE NIJM~cýR OF SLOTS SPECIFIED *
C CTPL1?7) IS SrIL MATFRYAL siI!GHT PROVIDED~ 0
c CTRLi?3) W.Af: t INF WFTCHT :"QfV I D: D
c fTRL(?41 WAS SKIRT A&N~ WFIGHT PROVIDED (
(I C'TL('5'1 WAS VFNT SAND) WFIGHT P~tlV10FiO 0
C CTRLf?6) WAS RADIAt. TAPE 4FTGHr PPOVII)FO 0
r CTRLP771 WAS THE RISF(ý WETCf-it~ PR~i'JYDED
r 0
CTRL2P) WAS TXE VFNI LINE WF3tGHT'GIVEN
04
r rTRL(?91 WAS THE CrkWN PfIRr)ITY SPECIFED~r
I*
r CTPLUlfl) WAS THF nEflmETRI. P'okos!TV SPECIFIED 4
f CT~t f3l WAS THF T0141 PrIPCSITY SPFCIFFED
r.TRL 13?) WAS IHFI SA~IL CLOTH PnROSITY SPECUFIEO *
rTRj.(jjl WAS T 4F VFNý POROSVTY SOCCIFIFO *
c rTAL1147 tnADS ARý T93 BF 1;SEt TO DEFINE NO, OF GORES -1
r CTRL41S)1'V TPERE S1?rF!CVrNT INFO 'inf PROVIDE WEIGHT 0
f rit.~(iA) WAS QFTN~F1PCINr, T&PF i*WTGHT F~nVboEEo 0
C CT 01 f3)o-'AS THF S.AIL N[1!4RR FOR aFINFnR'R!IG GIVEN 0
SUOROUTINE SflC4L(So 9lXX)
c
C SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATF-CANOPY ýAREA GIVEN REQO4 DRPG AREA
COI4M04,CNTRL;VC3!150),CrPLf(O),#TIrLEt12'
COH~t4ONfCDATAICOOE(5OhODOXI5O) ,ICD
C~flNMfNIPEAfAT/CQS,OSUeoTntLSLSTCOO, XNOXHi
I *XLStXLR*DV`*XH~R,$ALNOtEAMVL14O
2 4 CRANGCCOEF.CKOEFGRCOERLCO6,PESLOXNNflR
,SLW~tLLW.S83WVBW*RT4,*RSWVLW
9
4I ,Cit-P6,GEOPOR#TOTPOR*CLHPDR*VNTPOR#XIXMU
I c
C
OC1U8LE PRFCIS!ON VCiS.TITLE
ITERATIVE PROCESS TO CALCULATE SO'

cCC TERMNX~E IF CBS OR D SUN 0,IS GIVEN
c
fr-U-:X*NE4,)GO (0 1
GO TO 3
SCCD
c I
INITIALIrEFf SUB 0
0 CS
C
C RIGNSUB 0
InPTIALUF
C
C CACUAEPTIET FOPMUM LEFGtt1

RIGGING
C
S PTPSmel.15*(XOO PT)OP
C FIND) 'WPER CDO MODIFIEA IN RIGGING TABLE
'138
Lwl/L,ý=ka p
IF(R~ll*EP~S~ý *PS~toEPRD)DTO 22
20 -C(W~TNUF
* CALL EXIT
r INTERPO.LATE IN R149ING VASLE!
C
~2CALL EXR(RSt-bPV(-.wRSIIPV~)PPD:SVX
nO TO 26
24 PSVRXu 0.0
C.
26 00 28 Iu2*!CO
!F(tfD(0ft'-ll.EL.X6,h.AND.(0OX(II.GE.XDO))G3 TO 30
* - 28 CONTIMiE
WRITE(60021
101 FORt4AT(24HO R!GGING-TAOLE EXCEEDED.)
302 FORMAT(33HO')3RAG COEFFICIENT*TAIBLE EXCEE0EDI
CALL EXIT
C. INTE.RPOLATE WWID TABLE

cl
30 CALL EXThP(DtI(I-1tCDOX(1I-,ttOX(t1,cDo1~(IxDOtCOaI
C CALPULATF Ml
CtX0wCflO+CDO*PSVR K/I00.0
IF(tX.X*EO.Z)GO TO 44
c r.ALCtJLATE!TRIAL SO
4. C
C'
c CHECK FOR CHANGES RFOUIRE3 MN 00'
C
OEL S Z-SbX-SO
;F.:((ELS?*OELSýiLF 01$ nLUSa=SCPL;JS*(-oS)
C ISEE IF 001 tS WITTiN 5 PERCENT

tPtAoks(nIVAI.,LT,,O.51GO 'T0 40
1TFST~TT~tl
SO S04S0PL US
c
r CHFCK FOIR Rti*4'AWAY LOnP
'C
TFMFTSTdtT*:5I1GO TO
301 FnRMAT(28Hfl I)NAOLF TO FIND VALUE OF S01
339
CALL EXIT
40 sswsOx
C CALCULATE D SUR 0 FflR COS CASE

P)$UBOwSQRT(4*0*$013#14161
RETURN
C
C CALCULATE COS FOR D SUB nlCASE
C
44 CDSaSU*CDO
RETURN
FND
SUBROUTINE KSET(CNST*XXE, ITYP)
C
C SIJBRPUTINE TO PERFORM TABLE LOOK-UP AND SEt FULLNESS RATIO
c
cnmmoN/FULDATIHI4R(50),XKA(50),XKR(50),JFD
c
C FIND) POINT 14 TABLE FOR INTERPOLATION
00 20 1u2t[FD
fF1 (HR~t-l.LE.CNST)AND.(I4HR(t).GE.CNSTIIGO TO 24
20 CONSTINUE
WRYTEI6#3101
310 VýNA7135HOU4ABLC To ESTABLISH~ FULLNESS RATI0)
t'ALL EXIT
24 iF(ITYPEO.2)GD TO 28
C INTERPOLATE FOR SAIL ROTT04
CALL FXTRP(H4R(-t),XK8(I-I ,HHR(IiXKSfI),CNStEXXI
RETURN
c
c INTFRPOLATE FOR SAIL TnP
C
76 CALL EXTRPPHHR(I-1).XKA(I-1),HHR(I).XKA(I).CNSTXXXI
RFTURN
END
SUAROUTINE PORSMTITYPI
C
C, StI9ROUTINE TO CALCULATE POROSITY OF CHUTE
C
VODQION/READAT/COS,05UB0,DZr .SLSTCDOENOXH
I *XLGXL#DIVK4R#SALNO*SEAM*VL'4O
2 ,CRANGCCLIEPtCKOEFGRCOERLCOEPESLDKNI4BR
14 *SLWiLLW#SRW*VBW*RTW*RSWVLW
4 ,CRNpnp, GFOPf)P TOTPnRCLHPOP,#VNTPORX IXMUI
COMMON/SO)If/XYY(?.5O),XYCrAf5OI,XYCB(5OI¼XYC(2,50),EYH(50IXYA(50),
1 XYPC5O),XyMUXARFAvVAREAIS(50)iRWTOP(50IRWBGT(50), IX(501,
340
2 'RCRNPRGnRPRCLTHP'LUTOASAILAP.(5O),SO
1Ff ITYP *EO.1)GO TO S
C FLOAT N4UMBER OF WLITS IN CROWN

C
C
C CROWN POROSITY CACULATION
GO TO 24
C NUMBER OF SAILS WITHOUT SLOTS SETWtEN
C
q CRNO*SALNO...
C
C NUMBER OF SPACES FOR INFLATION POROSITY
JJ=(RNG
C
_c CALCULATE POROS.ITY. OF INFLATIOnN
t SET RATIOOF SPACýE RAD............- .
RluXYCR(2) 13*14I6
R~wXYCA(JJI----. --.
OISIUXYY(1212
C
c CALCULATE AREAS
00 20 lut?,JJ
A-XYCA(I-1.1
fBuTXVYC(I9V
34FORMAT(29UOSAIL FULNS AOSNTMTC/0*
I -T~u~RP A*?.O)0S4104
nn TO3It
17 LnPNS
XX*RA*SIN(T)4ETAA)
VfLuCOQ0-XX
IMFI(SS(DELMOR91 *LT**OI)GO TO 19
1Ff I EL*DFOELI.'T.0.OIADRsAOR*(-.5)
RA uP A.LO
IF(LOPNoGT*231GO TO tA
LOP~aLOPNG1
GO TO IS
13WRITF(613051I
305 FORMAT(341 C3OP BLOWUP IN PORSIT AT SAIL tJ3.,131
RAuO.O
19 Y~wR9*CflS(THETAB)
VA-P A*COS IT*4ETAA )
AR FAR= IRR**2*THFTABI-YB*CORO
AREAA- (0A**2*THFTAA)-YA*CORD
AR(fluAREAS-ARLAA
ASAILwASAIL*AR( Il
ý.O CONTINUE
ASAILuASAIL*XNn/Snf
RETURN
C
C GEOMETRIC POROSITY
C
24 PRGOR*PPCRN+ASAIL*O0.0*
r CLnTH POROSITY
c
CLPORO.*0383*I. ?5-IPRGOR/100.G))
PRCLTH*CLPOP*lO0.09
C
C TOTAL POROSITY
c
PROTO0. CL THe PR GrO
RETURN
END
SURROYTINF SLTARE(PEkSO)
C SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE TOTAL SLOT AREA

C
rOMMON/SDATAfSPC( 501 SLARA, KHTXHVNR4BRXXIOEANRADSLTAR( 501
commflN/REAflAT/CD5,D5'JBO#0ZL, SLSTCDO, XNn,tXH
I .XLS*XLR*,DV#XHR#SALmn*SEAM*VLNO
7 ,CrkANGCCOEPCI~nFFGRCOFRLCnEPESLOXNMBR
14 sSLWtLLWsSRWiVRW*RTW*PSWtVLW
4 ,CRNP()R#GEnPOPoTOTPOR#CLHpnp,VNTPORIXXMU
I XYP(50),Xi#I4LjAREAVAREAZSI5OI.PWTOP(5O1,RWBOT(5O),IX(5O),
C !NITTALIF
342
GSLA-SLARAIXNG
XAPEAwOeO
C
C POSITION OF TOP OF FIRST SLOT
C
YT. XMV*XHT
00 20 1s.NMBRR
C
C CALCULATE FULLNESS CONSTANT
C
CNST*YT/XHR
CALL KSET(CNST*XXKA#21
C SLOT WIDlTH At TOP
'flinoXXKA *C
C
C POSITION Of BOTTOM OF SLOT
YS-YT*SPC (Il
C
C C.ALCUL ATE FUL.LNE.$s. ClNSTANT
C
CNS~uYA/XHR
CALL KSET(CNS.TtXKx~t~,)
C SLnT WOYNY AT "OTTOM

C*XXCnE*S IN(Y8*ANRADl
R'tMvXXKB*C
C AREA OF SLOT
C
SL.TAR( I~wSPCfl)*(TOPR.TI4)/2*
C
c TnTAl AREA OF SLnTS
c
VAPFAuXAQFA+St.ARl I)
YT=YR..XH
70 C(1NTINUF
c
C StLnT 0O~f1STfY
,PFPStW ARS(XAIRFA-GSLA I/GSLA

RFTURN
FND
343
SU92OUTI#4E WEIGHTIUGY)
SUSAOUTMN TO CALCULATE THlE WEIGHT OF THE :1UTE
C
REAL LIV
CflMMONICNTRL/VCB(15SOICT~&L(1QO),TITiEflZI
COMMO~d/READAT/CDS,DSUIoD0LSLSTCOO9XNO, XI
I #WLS#XLR*DVtXHR*SALNOSEAMvVLNO
,CRANGqCCOCF,-CKOEFGRCOE.RLCOEPESLOXNMBR
2) *SLWtLLWSSRW*VBW*RTW,RSWVLW
4 *CRNPORGEOP(W.TOTPOACLHPoRVNTPORXTXMU
A XYP(5014!IMUXAREAYARIEATIS(0!RWTOP(5O),RWROT(50), IX(50),
2 PPCRN,PRGOR,PRCLTHPROTOASAtLAR(50),SO
DOUBLE PRECtsinN VC8.TI'ILE
C NUMBER OF SAILS
C
JJ -SAL NO
SLA*O.O
CLAO.0*
C
cl CLOTH WEIGH4T
C
00 9 J0l950
!Ff SALWGT(J).EO.O.O)SALWGT(J)sSLW
9 CONTINUE
C
C CALCULATE SAIL AREA
0O 10 Ial..JJ
KK-JJ-141
CLARSI (XAIt )XR( I l)/2.0I*xvmgr *SALWGTIKKI
CL AuCL A*CLAP
10 CONTINUE
c SAIL WEIGHT
C
CLAsCL4*XNO
C
c SIISPENSION LINE WFIGI4T
C
ýLAmXNO*(XLS+l2*0l*LLW
f RISER WEIGHT
#tAmI XLRG12*01*( ENO/XIMUI*RSW
C.
344
- 7!ý
NmA*-XNO*2**( XMP*2.0I*RYW
107 FORMAT(1H0,12IA61
104 FOPMATA1HiAV2E45HRý ~I-AG-6 . CH E 0 G N1
C WFIGI4T OF SKIRT SAND-
SKAw(XW*XYCR( l*6O*B
c WEIGHT OF VENT BAND -- --
VSA*( NO*XVCA(JJI46*01VVSW
C WEIGHT OF VENT LINES-- ---
VLAU I 0Y6. 0 *VLNO*VLW - - .
c WEIGHT OF REINFORCING TAPES
PTA=O,.O
RWTOP (11-0*0
-.-. Df 20 fu1.JJ
ISLaJj-I,1
IMISET 1.13.1l )G0 TO 10
____ WO , ( XNO'X YC A( ISL 1+6,..Q)*RTDpI (I _
IF(IS(I 1,LTo2IG0 TO 19
WGGWWGG.(ENOIPXYCBIISLI,6.010*WSOT(II
_19 RTA.RTA*WGG - . -
20 CONT INUJE
W6TuCL A'SLA*R IA*RAA*SKA*VSAVLA.RTA
c WDITF WEEIGHT DATA
WRITEIf. 0061
WPITF(6,3O7UTITLFIJl*Jul1*12
119 FORP4AT12340W F I G 4 T 0 A T At
321) FOROATI1OI401A1I. WFtG'4TS GIVFN IN POUNDS$$

WRItTF(6.32l CL.A
321 FPOP.Art?lmn$AlL FAIIRIC WEIGHT a 9PlO*31
T
WRI FI1.313IR1A
323 FORuArI17HORIýFk WEIG4T 0 vF10*31
UP
ITF,.324)RA A
3I'4 f-ClRNAT12?H0WE1G14Y OF RADIALS - JF10*31
125 FORAT127HOSXIAT 4AND WEIGHT a F03

326 FrnP4ATt?2H0VFNl Rf'ýND WFM1HT *FO3
345
32? FORMAT121HOVENT LINE WEIGHT a FlO.3)
WON TE169328IRTA
328 FORMAT(3ZHOWEtGHT OF REINFORCING TAPES a F1O.31
WRITF(6*3291WGT
314~ FORMA4A136H-TOTAL PARACHUTE ASSENRLY WEIGHT a FIO*31
RE TURN
FNO
SUBROUTINE EXTRP(X1,Y1,X2,Y2*AX9AYl
C
r SUBRnUTINE TO PERFORM EXTR&POLATION
C
DEL X-X2-XI
nELY=iY 2-VI
AYu(IOELY'(AX-Xll) )OMXl*Y1
RETURN
SUBROUTINE INDATA
c SURRflUTTNE TO PRINT INPUT DATA

C
cQU4ON/CDATAIC0OXI5O) .OOX(50).ICD
COMl'UNtRGTRLIPSVR(SOI ,PRSL(SO).TPD
C(nMINOCNC'TRLfVC8(15OI .CTaRLIOO),TITLEg12I
CflM'JfNISA !LSKitE "OI.KB 0)BISO ) ESSO*ASYW 50) ,SAL UGTl 50

COUM4ONREADAT/CDSoflSiJ8O0ZLSLSTCDOO, K0,9X4
I XELS*XLRqOVjXHf9SALNO,SEAMVtdfn
2 ,CRANG*CCOEF,CXOEF*GRCIE*PLCCE*PESLO*XkMBR
3 *SLW#LLW#,SWwV$WRTWoRSWVLW
,CPNPOR,GEOPnRt.TOTPORCLHPORVNTIPORoXTXMI)
I XY0f 50) .XIMU,XARVAVAREAIS450),RWTnP(50),RWBDT4SO),IKISO),

2 PPCQ~N,PRGO)R.PRCLTH.PROTn,ASAIL:,ARI5O) SO
DOIPFN#itfl ROCHKI35).STORDI351,IEKK(9),ADA435)
flOWILE PRECI¶SInN VCFITKTLIE@AOA
F0UIVALfNCF(ROCHK II) COS)
r WPITF TABLE DATA
C
WRITF 16. 3OfTTI
W0JTEIf6,30?)TlL
WRITF IA,327)
1?0A FnRMATlIH0,?l.fl.?2Hl 4 P U T A T A)
I')
17 UrnRMATfIHO.5X,QNCn0 DATA,IRX,14HRIGGtNG VS C0O,13X*14HPULLNESS TARL
32A FflQMATIQ1HQ 0 ýLJB V*6X,1,HCDO.4X.26HPEIk$*OPT* PERSOUDO 1414I.,?X#24
nn 104f) tCo,1.JJ D
346
OOAE-DOOXJI/12.0
1Ff J.EQ.40 IWRlTE 16.328)
M&ITH(.6L391DflAX vtrt0LU.PfSLgJ5 .PSVfJAj4HR(JiaXK-A1jjtXK&i
1040 CONTINUE
3129 F0AMA1f(lx,F9,.36Flo,.31
WRITE (,326)
I!RTTE16,3)81
REWIND) 12
00 1056 1=1934
I-rTC-TRL( IIfQ0.0,QI0GO TO -i9lk
IFICTRL(I! 1E0.1.O1wotTE(1241315VCB452I
GO TO 10S6
1956 .!AApwRnc HK ( II
1Ff IFQ.1)oAnm0A0lI44*0
1FI T.EO4)GO
f TO 19f4
1MF(I.1QiICf TO 1961
IFfl*LTe.IWG' TO 1963
k0 (I.EQ,. 2014OWA04AQ1 00.0
I1Ff IoFeO.15 1 DflfoDAflI.Oi?453
?f.T2GO TO 1961
GO TO 1056%
WttF f ? I96tz I)A0

1961 U
1.JQ67 P ITFfFIý '6401 A
IQ64 FORMAI ,16.?
GOnT 1056?111
1 F6? IP1T 1?1# Af)I I)I
l056 (ONY INIIF
1?31 )AqA( 31
UPIF f6, f)Aj4
UP? T6.
I 'H)AM 5) *i'),AI 61
w ITpF46 , 11) AA 17 . AMAt6
347
WRIT~f6.137)AnAf1IjvA0Allo.,
WR ITE(6,33q)AnA(15),AbA( 161
WR!TE(6s3401ADA!VI4)*ADA(lE)
bIRITE1691421ADA42019 ADAf34t
WRfTE( 6t343)A!)A(??,0~ A(23)
WRITF(&*l44)A2nA(24I .AiAt?51
WRJTF(6,345)ADA(26) .AnA(271
k'RITE(h*')46l&AOA4ŽR*4nA(2Q)
WRITE(6*347I)4A( 3OI,AOA(31)
WRlTEI6,348)LkiAr 32) ADA(31)
WRITF(693O8)
WRITE(6, 307)TITLE
WRITE469126)
WR!TIM63181
WRTTE(6*3491
140 6rVR"AT(1Ho,13X,5Ž'4S.iL INPUT DATA IpEINFOQ"-ING nR 14ON-STANOARD WEI
M 'PfRMAT0.WJ*RH SAIL. N 1O,hiHv8T0i YAPE,)0XdjjHR0Ttf)M TAPE* *OX,1?HC(LD

ITH WE~IGHM~
i)AlD~SALWGT(f1146
T~$ OAV.Ou.flnA0SLW*14440
Go~IS Tnj~o111j?2,v
CrflTO IQ'10
r0 Tfl 194a
11 PR:'PATi1.H M~ft' AliA , * ,6,AE, HNU!~tIf VENTUN

31 'InbIOM1jH Mari Cflffi 14Idts ANSE
Of~ OE.
%1%i nwaTtlsm rtý olnit4 COAF. w *AA2qf.70iofNI.O LiNt1 LOENGH #
14.1 9qP"&v(Z4H Ptrr.#'rC FNC-f4 COFP. *A6*ltq1~Q14N'l4fiR OF VISFOS v #
14 V0AY121" PFA,. TO SLOTS wAb*?0K.18~4U'4R* Of SLOTS 9&,6jý
34bt
343 FORMAT1219H SAIL CLOTH4 WEIGHT * Ab,22X*25HSUSPENSION LINE WEIGHT
I *A61T ,61_
345 FORNATf22H RADIAL TAPE WEIGHT a *A692IX9lSHRISER WEIGHT : iA6l
346 FOIMAT(20H VENT LINE WEIGHT a @A6*23X,1THCROWN POROSITY 9A6)
147 !.)RMAT(22H GEgMETRIC POROSITY = ,A6921X*1I4HTOTAL POROSITY - ,A61
301 FO*KATI1HI,24X,12A6)
307 FOPMAT(IHo*12X,12A6)
10FORt4AT(1SW CLOTH POROSITY 9A6925XI6HVEP4T POROSITY -9A61
30B FORMATIL1 112X 945M I W&f- L f L C U T E 0) E S I G N1
C S~T~1~~ ~SLOT POSIlION AND DIMENSIONS

C
~ON~ON/ o lkTAmCDoxf501 ?Do-x( 5019 flCD ___
CO~/50)5Q, PitL I501vIPD

~QW~t4LtJ~AT/4!R(5k f 0 KA45O).XKS1501!P ____
2 tCRANGCCOEFCKOEF.GkCOEPLCOEPE$LOXNNSR
11 9SLW*LWSSBWYSWRTW*RSWoVLW
___ _ ,C-RMPflRGEOPORTOTPOReCLHPOR.eVIOTPORXIX*JU
-p'AcvN.PRkGDO#,P-C-LTNPROTO.ASAIL.ARI50ISD
Dt"ENSION RDCHKl353,STDROI351*dXXX(9).A0Af351
_______ FIJVALSCEIROCHKI I lCOS I
CALCLOA77S VMTFLATIO?4 POROSITY
"EN AQE CALCULATION4-___ __ _______
VA7E.Am5*VpdTP0R -- -
r 'IFNTr OtAMFTFR CALCULATION
0v-~SQRTfVAPFA*I*?17241
c CALCULATE D!TlENSION OOWN TO TOPSAIL- __-__ - .-
IF(CTRIA95P..NE*2.0)'G TO 90
Best Avall"Ole Cop)y
349
%MARO-SALN0DXNM6R-1. 0
00 95 !s1,N$4%R
95 SLD*SLDSPC(II
XHT*XI4R-( XMARO*XH.SLr)4XHVI
OV-XI4V*I 20*COS(CRANGI)
St AR A=100.0
CALL S'TARE(PERSDI
Gfl TO 80
90 XHV=DV/(2*0*COS;,CRAH3))
C CALCULATE TOTAL POROSITY AREA REQUIRED
TnAR A=SO*TOTPOR
C CALCULATE SLOT AREA REQUIRED
IFfrTRL(301*EO.1.0lG0 TO 1127
SLARAxSO*4GEOPOR-ASAIL)-VAREA
GO TO 112'9
1127 1Ff CTRLfI311EO.1.OIGO TO 1128
SL ARA= TfAR A-IVAR FA+ASkI L*SO I
GO TO 1129
1128 SLARA=Su$CRNPOR-VAREA
C
C CALCULATE AREA PER GORE IN SL3TS
C
1129 GStAsSLARA/XF~f
C
C
C LARGEST WHOLE NUM~BER nF SAILS OF HEMAiT H tHAT CAN OE ADDED
C
YXNBRzSALNO
IOTDST=XYY( 2. XNBPI)-XMV
NA4BR*TNTlT0TDST/XH)
XNMAR=Nt48R
IF(NMBR*GT.,(50-1XNSR)IGO TO 1110
C DIMENSION LEFT FOR SLOfi
C
.DLVI STrTOTDST-XNMSR*XH
r R.ItIGH FOtJAL SL.OT SPAC.ING
GO TO 28
1110 WRITE(6*380)XNMBR,SALNO
IAO FORMAT(16H0 TOO MANY SAfLS#2E12v3)
CALL EXIT
350
CCALCULATE CLOSE~y EQUAL SPACING WIT14II .25 INCm
C
SLTO%'4M8R *SLSPC
TF(SLTn.LTLDtISrfG0 Oro 6
C SET IDENTIFIED SLOT SPACES

C
00 30 lt,,4NMR
SPC( I)xSLSOC
3D CON~TINUE
C ADJUST SPACES fUNEQUALl TO MATCH DIST* TO
WITHIN .25 INCH
KNXXVI
onl 40 I-INmaR
SPCTOT-0..0
C
r ADO *25 INCH TO TOP SLOTS
C
nn 34 Jut9 KWXX
3-4 CIONTINUý
C
C CALCULATE TOTAL SLOT DISTACE
00O 16 Ja.,PNMSR
SPCTOT*SPCTOT*SPC( it
16 CONTINUE
C
r fýHECK FOR SPA(TiNG MATCH
c
fF1 TOT.GTs",LOfT)~GO!TO 42
KNXX=KNX!,1
40 CnNT INUF
C SET TOP SAIL REIG(Th
C
4? XHTzeXH
c
C CALCiiLATF SLOT ARFA
CALL. SLTARFIPFPSDI
C CiiECx Fnik ;)nRf)SITY MATCA.4

PE~fRS0,LTob')(;oj TO 80
C OGIC CHECK FOq SLOT DTRENSMo CHANGE
351
IFiXAREA.LToGSLA VG0 TO 56
F I1
X POI WT. NO OF SLOTS
C
r REDUCE SLOT AREA BY ?NCREAStNG TOP SLOT AND REO'JCING BOTTOM SLOT
c
KNXXwl
001242 Iml,ISTP
0fl1240 Jn1,KNXX
SPC(J4) SPCf 4 1..25
SP~tK*1)=SPC(K+1 1-*2%
1240 CSNTINUE
C
C CALCULATE SLOT AREA
C
CALL SLTARE(PERSDI
C
C CHECK FOR PnROSITY MA&TCH4
C
lF(PERSD*LT,*O5)GO TO 80
KNXXvKNXX.1
f CH4ECK TO SEPS IF BOTTOM SLnT REMOVED
tF(SPCNMBR)*LE&O.O)GO TO 50
124? CONTINUE
C
c REMOVF ALL SLOTS IF*PRECEEDIP4G DOE-S -OT MRVIDE SO.LUTVON
f, BY ADDING ANOTHER SAIL
C
C SE HERNIGH O NWTO.S
C
'(HTuOLfl!ST
c RESFT IDE~NTIFIED SLOTS TO Z.ERO
DO 52 !wlNMSR
52 CONTINUE
C INCREASE SLOTS BY .2S INCH AT A TIME RENDVING 4ATERIAL FROM TOP
56 On 58 I=1.NMRR
XHTmXWT-,A5
4, 352
56 CONTINUE
CALCUCLATE SLOTAREA
I' C
CALL SLTARE(PERSO)
C CHECK FOR POROSITY MATCH

:tFP(FERS0*LT**051GC To O ____0__
C
c CHECK FOR AREA GREATER THAN REQUIfRED
T*('XARkEA.tt.G;SLA )GO TO 56
i4ATCH ;AfEA By REMOVIN4G F4134 SOTTOM SLOTS AND ADDING TO TOP -SA If
C
00ý66 J-'%,KNXX
x"NMRR.J
- SPCAA + I ) *$.P4 _____l
MT'.HT+*25
*66 CONTINUE,
-C CALL.SITAREIPEWSDI
C CHECK FOR CLOSEST COOIITION LESS THAN REQUIRED AND ACCEPT SOLUTION
tF(XAREAoLT*GSLA )GO TOO0 -
KkXX-KNXX~t
'I F kOT Tnm SLOT IS REMOV~r) ACCEP'T SOLUTIO0N ,----,

C
68IF-(SPC(NP4BRl.LF,,O.O)GO TO-80 _
*C CALCULATE SLOTS WH4ERE AREA IS LESS THAN REQUIRED

'C
#IODEL~VuXH
C *NUMBER CIF SAILS AND SLOTS IN FIXE0,POINTFR
I-S At.NO
I(Jj~.T.5'.)CITr 1130
C
c tOFEEMINF4 Lr'CAr!CN Or- SAILS*IN SLOT REIGON
r
OTtFP'fNiF, SA~t. (tOTTOM t0C AT ION
OF
C
3 S3
Y=XYYC 297-l)-spC(jl
XYY(tlI)=-.
C
c DETERMINE GORE WIDTH AT BOTTOM OF SAIL
C
CCCaXXCCE*StN(Y*ANRADI
XYCU. PaxCCC
C DETERMINE SAIL HEIGHT

C
XYH( I)=VELY
C
f, DETERMINE FULLNESS CONSTANT
C
CNST=Y/.XNR
CALL KSFT(CNST*XXKBII)
C
c- DETFPMINE FREF SAIL WIDTH AT SAIL BOTTOM
V1C8( I)wXYKA*CCC
f DTFQNINF COI4STAUCTION WIflYM AT SAIL BOTT04
%9(T~XYCr (I +SEAM
c CACULATF PnSITION nF TOP MF SAIL
VY*YDPLY
KVVI2# I Y
C CALCULATR qnORE Wlf)TH AT TOP OF SAIL
fCCw.X(ýnF*SIN (Y*ANRADI
XYC(2,Y~uCCC,
c CALCULATE FULLNESS CINSTANT

rIlJkTw Y/XHO
CALL KSFT(CNýT,XXKA,2)
C
c nETFRMINE FREP SAIL WIDTH AT SAIL TOP
fA(C~lCIATF C.flNqT~LJCTtlN WIDTH AT SAIL TOP
XA( ThaX(CA (I)SEAm

C. CHECK IF~TOO SAIL
IF(JEQ.2 )OlFLY-XHT
5.354
jaJ-1
t,:(J*GTeOGO TO 82
C
c SET NEW NUMBER FOR~ TOTAL SAILS FLOATING A40 FIXED
c
SAUOR-1
ISNOZI
psE1*Xkl Z4Q*COS iCR&NG) I
RtETURN~
END
SUg-rOUTINE OUTP IT
C MURfUTIRE TOl WRITE OUTPUIT INFOR04ATION

c
COMON~'CvTAYACODXVOS liOOXt'5We CD
COO4N/SA!LSfXA,0),#X!50),ERS~,A8YCO)SA~SLWGT(5O)
C0MND;4/REhfAT/COSDSUB09 nZL.ýSKST tC001, XN, xm
t. #XSqXL~oflVEH~SALNOSEAMVLNO
2 ('AGC6-CDFGCOttEEPS0XIB
4 "RMPGR,GOPL)R,TnTPO~oCLHPOR*VNTP)R*XIXP4U
MflN
AT~SPC ),SI ArEAXHT , X'4VvNtBR txXCOEIANRAfI SITAR ( 501
'XYptOV,X!KUAAV-AAPI 91t5O),RWTOPt5O),RWSO3T(50GIX(!O),
01*F4ION EttCK(3,tSTDJR35).kXXXX(9),ADA(151
PR.St TwO. 0
CRT Te00q
PRSTOTmOsO
0ATlutSU60/2.I0
DATI-C0Sf I ~44o 0
I. .rAY9#VCBA( V(.P6ý ,vCa(,lvCB(3I,!)AT3#VCB(3qI
DAT?ii(;T
l~iT-6 kýVt - ' ý tA7 V B4 1#C (4 1*C (4 V B

13 D T7 V Pi4, ý:F( V.( I V 6 j
XL-CTRL(qS I
(0ATIsXL/$12*0
fOATI3XLP /1 2.0
WRITE16,310)
18(3),DAT2,VCB(37$,VCR1(IR),VCB(19),VC8(3),DATI,VCB(3Ti
nAT1=XL/DSUSO
BAT2=100#O*OV*.*2.*,785-4/SO
VENJPO-DAT2
VEP4T=OV*S2*,'t8S4~l 44*0
DAT'3=0V
WRITEI6.10)
WR!TF(6,1O9)VC8(10).VC9(1.3R.VCS%3)bATIVCBi45),VC8(53h*VCB(54),VC
1FIL3)I.OAT2,VC8(41.),VCt~t26),VCMZ'i,$VCB(3h0DAT3,VCR(391
IATIxXKHP
DAT2zXHP/DSU~rn
DATlu6*44*X4R/XN0
WRITE(691101
WRrrE(6,309)VCB(20IVCB(21),VC8(3),DATIVCS(39),VCfe(35iVCfl(36),VC
1lk(3),DAT2,VCB(45),VC.B(2Z)nVCR(?-3tVCR(3I ,DAT3,VCB(39b
r)ATI*PRCLTH
DAT2=PRCRN
BAT3wPROT$O
WAyTT(6,309IVCBl 28). VCB(32).VCB(3) ,DAT1,VC8(4l),VCB(28b#VCIB(29),vc

I8(3t.DAT2,VCB(41IVC8128IVCB(31),VC8(3) .0AT3,VCB(411
flATI=PRGOR
DAT2-X IMU
WRI TEl6*310)
WRTTE(6,309)VC8(28I).VC8(30).VCB(3hODAT1,VC5(41IVC8(50),VCB(51),VC
18(31 OAT2
WRITF(6,310)
WRY TF16, 310 I
ISNnWs&LNO
TAP =0. 0
TAREA=0O*
00 1)0 T1*1YSNfl
ARA=XVH1!'i*(XYCA(II+XYCE(!tlI2.0
TAR=TAR4Ar4A
XYA( TI ARA
St OX 0 .0
YF( YT&LF*NN'AR I LJX-SLT AR(t I
rARFA TARE ARPA+S LOX
qO CONTINLJF
TAP FA- TARE.A*XN)+ VFNT
X)U~uaSQRT(4O*0*AREA/3.1416)/12.O
TAPE Aw fAPEA/144sO
OATITAREA
356
OATSEO0
DAT3wTAPtEA*CDO
TARFA-TAR*X.ND/14.4&.
TPQR*TAPEA*1.00.01( S0I144*0)
WR!TE(6,3091)VC8(46),VCB(471.VCB(3),DATIVCR(381,VCB(48).VC8(49),VC
I8(IlOAT2,VC8(371hVCB(61,VC8(7IVC8(31,0AT3,VC8(38l
WPITF(6,30R)
WRlTE(6. 30711 TlTL~E( K1 vK-112)
WIRTTE46.3l3)
WRTTE(6,314)
~ M 90 Iul,!SNO
J-tSNO'I+l
XYP(JlaXYPfJI*XNO
____HHRT-'XYY(2.JIIXHP
* MHHHPS=XVYYJlf'lHR
WRITF(6,3i5flXVY 2v~tHHi*4R?,XYCA(J) ,XA1JIX-XCt2,.JI

WR!TE46.316N1,XYH(J),XVAIJ).XSQFXYP(JI
WRITE (6,317)XVYf1 .41 Ht'4HR9.XYCB(J),Xfl(J1,XYe( l9i)
- I..FlT*GT.NM4RIlGC TO 1284
PRSnw(SLTAR(T )/SO)*l00eO*XNO
XS0Fwý.-NO*SLTAP(I 1/144.10
* ~SLTOTh'SLTOT+XSOF
PRS-LTaPR SLT+PPSO
A WRITEi6,319lh9SPCII ).SLTARU(),XSQFP8SO
GO TO 8s
1284 lFuTE,l~SNolr~O TO 88
PA$fz( AtR(JlI/SO)*100*0*XNfl
XSQFmXNn*AR (JI/I k.,0
CRTOT:CRT0T+AhSQF
PR ST OT zPR S 0IT+
WR!TT(4620l2R(,j)#XS0F*PRSO)
!Ff(.F0~f~~t.E~25.0R(I.E.3O1GOTO 89
nO TO QO
99 lF(T.P.O.TSNnr~nG To go
WRITEU(.. ;07)iTit'LHKI .Ka-1.1Z

WRTYYt6vl
W$UTF(6,j31M
W AI T~tl ( , 3i'
WRYT"k (6vl~
y )O C.0N i fN 1)
WRt
Y TV. 3
'S~r O
WIk TTF6 324 )Pk ,,-)
WRITE 169324)VEIOP
WftITE16,329)T&REA
WRITE q69324)TPOR
3?7.1 FONT10144OTOTAL SLOT1V fZ3r $.To
Sg F I
124 FORMAT't'9H PERCENT OF SO a 0Fl201
125 FnPMAT(2@H0TnTAL CRESCENTr SLOT AREA v ,FI29397H SQ*FT.)
327 FnR'4AT41qHOTOTAL VENT AREA - 9FlZ.39TH [email protected]
S70 FORMAT(20NOTOTAL CLOTH AREA a *F12*39?H SQ*FT.)
3400 FORMATM1A697XI1)
301 FOQMAT(lHlv24X.12A6l
302 FORMAT42FIO.O,5419A61
303 FOPMiATfIW,213v3X99A6l
304 FPRMATf7FtO.Oq9qxI1)DSGNCUE
109 FORMAT144HO INSUFFICIENT OATA MGVTOE0 TOOE "CUE
306 FOR04ATI 3FP10*O44X9A61
107 rn0MATIIHO,24X,12A6l
30S FOPMATfIH1.42X.45,4u I N G S A I L C H U T E 0 E S I G 41
InQ FnPMAT(t X,3A6,FlOe3,1XA~,,12X,3A6,F1O.3,1XA6912X,3A6.F~o.3,1XA6I
'410 FORMAT11H)
311 FORMATI43H CHECK 0" AREA AND DIA. FRO" SAIL) SUMMATION)
312 FOftMATjlH0v43%94ZHqG 0 9 E A N D S A I L D E S I G N)
?13 r-OMAT11O5HOSAIL. flSTANCe H/HR SAIL WIDTH SAIL WdOTM
It GORE VlnTH "FIGHT FREE SAIL AREA)
314 FORMAT(117H NOf, FROM APEX LESS SEAR
I AT SAIL OJ7 SAIL SO, IM. SO PTfRIG PER! SOIRING)
'115 FnRMAT(SHO TOP,2X95F12.3)
'416 FDRMATq3XsI2s62Xv4F1Z.5)
317 PnRMAT'f7H ROTTOMeSF12*31
31P ~FnRMA!l50X.1lH(CONTI4tjEn),,
llq f-nAMAT.1OHOSLOT NO* ,13,54X,4F12.51
'ý2 tORM~ATF14HOCRESCENT $LOT,65X,3F12,3)
17, 7fRMAT'50llv1,e2 9Xqq9q!j
BLOCK flATA
"'OM~COT DD 0,DOXI5OhICD
".:I '4-PGTBL/PSYR(50w,PRSL4SO), IPO
"~OMMOMIFULDAT/HMR4(50ý,XKA)5O),XKRq5O),1FD
1!.TA l'l~fOX,PSVvPRSj Ht KKI00,5*.5*,5,
1 10 CHUTE fl!A. CANOPY AREA DRAG AREA NlO* OF GORESLjCHUT

11 ?0 r- fTlf~secnO0 PIGGING LGTHLINF LENGTH RISER LENGTHGIRE L
3(1
10 F~ 6,44 HR/N VENT RADIUS VENT DIA, DVLAMBDA SUB C SUR G
It 40 SU-3 T SU SAI ARE $to~ it / 0 FEET [email protected]
At so PENS. [email protected]%~SySe V!!0*4 TOTAL AREA DIAMETER WOOF
13.54. SIERS Nf S VENT Pmo.
1950190 IWATA
0716 30.00
0717 3490
27 0 -40.0
.7%6 4so0
07915 48.0
500.0
.820 55.0
0825 60.0
2,U3O 70.10
*S142 10.0
98144 9000
0- 8 T; 100.00
eels 110.0
OP35 120.00
A85 130e.0 EN!P&TA
-.24.8 -4.
-.14.1 -30,.4
-9,79 -1.
2.59 4.35
006 3plaENDArA
ki. 4 1.008
EN DAT A
ICo
359

Ad 0745335

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0745335

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0745335

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFFDL-TR-72-3

cy• RINGSAIL PARACHUTE DESIGN

TECHNICAL REPORT AFFDL-TR-72-3

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY

When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for

Copies of this report should not be retu"ned unless return is required by

I.ORIG"INATING ACTIVITY (CvI~sorael Author)

1515 Rancho Conejo Blvd.2bGRU

Ringsaill Parachute Design

4. ORSC RIPTI VL NC 7 ES (Ty'pe -of repott and incluciv* date&)

6. ROJCT O. -None assigned.

I.d. ______ . ept)AFFDL-TR- 72 3

Approved for'Public Release; Distribution.Unlimited,

It. 3 UPPLE64ENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

",US,Govornment Printing Off 1e,1972- 759 -087/674 k UNC i tASSIFIED

RINGSAIL PARACHUTE DESIGN

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

This final technical report was prepared by Northrop Corporation, Ventura

This report was prepared by Northrop Corporation, Ventura Division at

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved.

<;;4, G "ORG•VA. SOLT, JR.

Accumulated performance and weight data are presented in tabular and

Foreword ...... • ........ • ...... .... . ... ii

Section 1 - Introduction ........ . •• •• I1

Section2 Historical Development ................. 3

Section 3 - Performance Characteristics . . •, . . 65

Section 4 Weight and Volume ...................... 117

Section 5 Design Procedures ........ l2 l

Section 6 Design Analysis Methods ................... 139

Section 7 Constru•tion Details .... •........• .• 187

8.6 Cicumiwerential Hand, ... i.......0 ..... 0 193

8.9 The Canopy Asembly ..................... 193

Appendix A - Prominent Ringsail Parachu s, . 203

11 ~Rlnpuail Construeto , n .*.~. ... *..4

14 RngaaIl Parachute Basic 01#meno ano a. A. ..

19, 128. 8 ft D0 Lightweight Version of the Century Ringsail

23 Variation of Ringsail Drag Coefficient with Scale ...... 67

26 Cluster Effects on Ringsail Drag Coefficient. . . . . . . 73

30 Ringsail Opening Load Factors at Altitude -(see

35 Opening Force-Time History for Cluster of Two 128. 8 ft

38 Opening Force - Time- History for a Cluster of Three

40 Pendular Oscillation of Z9. 6 ft DO Skysail During -

42 Oscillation of 128. 8 ft DO Ringsail Descending at

43 Statistical Comparison of Angular Deflections of

46 Typical Ringsail Parachute Reefing Ratios ........... 106

47 Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Development Test Data

48 Century Ringsail Reefed Data ...... ...... : . .. :..,... 108

49 85. 6 ft DO Ringsail (Modified; -7576 of 5th Ring

"-52 88.1 ft D. Ringsail Descending Safely with One Gore.

54 Ringsail Fullness Distribution o *..... . ...... s . 12

59 Typical Static and Dynamic Stability Characteristics I

of Parachutes . **..... . . . . . . .... ....... t o.

60.- Drag Area Growth Exp6nent vs Filling Time I

62 -:Area-Distance Method, Apollo Cluster Test 81-2 ., .. . 163

68' Variation of Relative Porosity with ~p for Typical

APn ara a achute '180 0 2lt

Rngsail ................... . 206

-8 Gore Pattern ansl FullnedIns Di.st ribution 5t 8 0

S82 Gore Pattern and Fulanesd Distribution, PDS 8-9t

11 ~Rlnpuail Construeto , n ..~. ... ..4