Sie sind auf Seite 1von 198

Hi:WT-748

TST"
/

Copy No.

20010312 112

158 A
i-

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE
NEVADA

PROVING GROUNDS
AGENCY
TECHNICAL LIBRARY

March-June 1953
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
APPilES-PER NTPR REVIEW.
DATE //^/-^gga /

Project 54
ATOMIC WEAPON EFFECTS ON
AD TYPE AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT

to)
GRU? V.-W?.*

ThiB docuM^ontains rest


defin^P^eAMmic E
Its^flnsmittal oRwApi&losr
coflnts in any manner to an unauthorized

L. i

DISTRIBUTION STATEMMr P"*ibited.

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

7:

/hffCAJ/'

*Zr&*** JP~\

HEADQUARTERS FIELD COMMAND, ARMEO FORCES SPECIAL WEAPONS PROJECT


SANDIA BASE, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

Reproduced From

' . . ' ,a,;,:;; .r=v. 'J


:

; w**-z**>i

^4^^

Best Available Copy

V/VCtAK,.

j-f
54VJC-31009

w"t

Reproduced Direct from Manuscript Copy by


AEC Technical Information Service
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Inquiries relative to this report may be made to
Chief, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
Washington, D. C.
If this report is no longer needed, return to
AEC Technical Information Service
P. O. Box 401
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Defense Threat Reduction Agency


8725 John J Kingman Road MS 6201
Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

TDANP/TRC

March 2, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO THE DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER


ATTN: OCQ

SUBJECT: DOCUMENT UPDATES

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency Security Office has performed a classification/distribution
statement review of the following documents. The documents should be changed to read as follows:
WT-1628, AD-357954, OPERATION HARDTACK, PROJECT 3.4, LOADING AND
RESPONSE OF SURFACE-SHIP HULL STRUCTURES FROM UNDERWATER BURSTS,
UNCLASSIFIED, DISTRIUBTION STATEMENT A.
WT-1301, AD-341065, OPERATION REDWING, PROJECT 1.1, GROUND SURFACE AIR
BLAST PRESSURE VERSUS DISTANCE, UNCLASSIFIED, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.
WT-748, OPERATION UPSHOT KNOTHOLE, PROJECT 5.1, ATOMIC WEAPON EFFECTS
ON AD TYPE AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT. UNCLASSIFIED, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.
FORWARD TO YOU FOR YOUR COLLECTION
WT-9001-SAN, GENERAL REPORT ON WEAPONS TESTS, UNCLASSIFIED,
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. FORWARD TO YOU FOR YOUR COLLECTION.
POR-2260-SAN, OPERATION SUN BEAM, SHOTS LITTLE FELLER 1 AND 2, PROJECT
1.1, AIRBLAST PHENOMENA FROM SMALL YIELD DEVICES, SANITIZED VERSION.
UNCLASSIFIED, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. FORWARD TO YOU FOR YOUR
COLLECTION.
If you have any questions, please call me at 703-325-1034.

OCO CUU-X-Jw

ARDITH JARRETT
Chief, Technical Resource Center

WT-748
This document consists of 198 pages
No. -L^O

of 260 copies, Series A

OPERATION UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE
Project 5.1

ATOMIC WEAPON EFFECTS ON


AD TYPE AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT
REPORT TO THE TEST DIRECTOR

by

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited

Leo Rogin
Alden C. DuPont
Christian G. Weeber

March 1954

This docum
defined
Its tjdmsmittal

tins restricted data as


Energy
unauthorized

Irson is prohibited

Naval Air Material Center


Philadelphia 12, Pennsylvania

DNA-76-051 18
541VC-31009

ABSTRACT

This report presents measured, observed and calculated data


associated with atomic weapon effects upon the structure of Model
AD aircraft in the vicinity of an atomic explosion. Data covering
weapons effects and airplane structural response to these effects are
presented for aircraft in level flight attitude, tail toward the blast
in a vertical plane containing the burst point. This orientation
represents an escape position of an AD type aircraft following delivery of an atomic weapon.
During Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, this project participated in a
total of five shots. One or the other of two Navy Model AD aircraft
converted to drone configuration was flown in Shots 1, 2, J, 8, and 9.
The slant ranges at burst time involved in these shots varied from
14,400 ft for the AD-2 piloted flight of Shot 1 to 6200 ft for the
AD-2 pilotless flight of Shot 7. In Shot 7, the actual yield exceeded
the planned yield by greater than 30 per cent. The drone aircraft was
positioned for near critical weapon effects and the higher thermal
radiation severely weakened all the blue painted skin on the underside
of the wing. Both the port and starboard outboard wing panels were
torn off at the time of shock arrival as a result of the weakened
skin and combined overpressure and gust effects. A considerable
amount of valuable information on thermal damage to aircraft in flight
was obtained from these panels which were recovered after the test.
Neither panel incurred any significant additional damage due to the
free fall and subsequent ground Impact. Visual analysis of the
structural failures indicated that the aircraft might have survived
had the bottom skin of the wing been bare aluminum or painted heat
resistant white instead of standard blue.
In addition to the above flight tests, aluminum alloy panels of
various thicknesses and paint finishes were exposed at three different
stations on the ground during Shot 9 to obtain supplemental information on the effects of thermal radiation. Effective thermal absorptivity coefficients obtained ranged in value from 0.12 to 0.16. The
results of these tests are reported in Appendix 3.
Measured overpressures were in agreement with the theoretical
values. Measured thermal radiation was seen to be appreciably
greater than predicted as a direct result of ground reflectivity.
Thermal calculations using = 0.55, (albedo) provided good
correlation with test measurements. Peak aircraft accelerations as

measured were approximately double the calculated values; however,


the measured wing and tail loads were in close agreement ^^/ith the
loads calculated using rigid body relationships. Aircraft elasticity
effects, even on this comparatively rigid airplane, were readily seen.
No direct correlation between measured and calculated aircraft skin
temperature rise has been established, although the effects of heat
received, skin thickness, and surface finish, are indicated. The
arbitrary assumption of turbulent or laminar airflow, and corresponding cooling rates, resulted in agreement with the rates as
measured during time histories of skin temperature rise. Results
of metallurgical studies on aircraft skin specimens, begun in an
attempt to determine skin temperature rise in Shot 7, indicated
effects normally associated with temperatures far in excess of those
recorded. This is believed to be due to microscopic thermal concentrations in the grain structure of the material brought about by the
instantaneous application of the thermal pulse. The effects are so
localized that no serious structural consequences, exceeding those
indicated by the thermal data presented in this report, are expected.
Appendix A presents these metallurgical results. Appendix B presents
data on ground panels which may prove useful in further analysis of
the temperature problem.
The use of the data presented in this report for the purpose of
improving analytical methods for predicting the effect of atomic
weapons on Naval aircraft is recommended. Recommendations for future
tests include thermal radiation measurements in flight to further
evaluate ground refleetivity and measurement of time histories of
aircraft skin temperature rise in flight, followed by metallographic
study of the structure.

FORSWORD

This report is one of the reports presenting the results


of the 78 projects participating in the Military Effects Tests
Program of Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, which included 11 test
detonations. For readers interested in other pertinent test
information, reference is made to WT-782, Summary Report of
the Technical Director. Military Effects Program. This summary report includes the following information of possible
general interest.
a.

An over-all description of each detonation, including yield, height of burst, ground zero location, time of detonation, ambient atmospheric conditions at detonation, etc., for the 11 shots.

b.

Compilation and correlation of all project results


on the basic measurements of blast and shock, thermal radiation, and nuclear radiation.

c.

Compilation and correlation of the various project


results on weapons effects.

d.

A summary of each project, including, objectives


and results.

e.

A complete listing of all reports covering the


Military Effects Test Program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The test program reported herein was successfully accomplished


only through the combined efforts of many individuals, both military
and civilian, representing many different agencies. Although individual acknowledgments cannot be made here, the following is a list
of the organizations who contributed to the success of this program:
Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy
Directorate of Weapons Effects Tests,
Armed Forces Special Weapons Projects
Douglas Aircraft Company, El Segundo Division
Electronics Associates. Long Branch, N. J.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept.
of Aeronautical Engineering
Naval Air Development Squadron Five
Naval Materials Laboratory
Naval Ordnance Test Station
Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory
Signal Corps Engineering Laboratory
Special Weapons Center of the Air Force
Wright Air Development Center

$ f ?'* -\ f ;.J"':*n

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
FOREWORD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

11

ILLUSTRATIONS

l6

TABLES
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1

1.2

17
17

1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3

17
17
17

Purpose of Project
Need for Project
Report Objective

Experiment Design
Background
Instrumentation
Analytical Methods
Opsrational Procedures

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS


2.1
2.2

CHAPTER 3

Objective

1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
CHAPTER 2

3
5
'

18
18
18
21
2425

Results
Data and Observations

25
25

2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5

25
28
31
36
41

Shot
Shot
Shot
Shot
Shot

1
2
7
8
9

DISCUSSION

75

3.1
3.2

75
75

General
Thermal Effects

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3

3.4

CHAPTER 4

General
Thermal Radiation
Aircraft Skin Temperature Rise ...

Nuclear Radiation

80

3.3.1
3.3.2

SO
81

Gamma Radiation
Neutron Radiation

Overpressure and Gust Effects

81

3.4.1
3.4.2

81
81

Overpressure
Gust Effects

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

120

4.1

120

Conclusions
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3

4.2

Thermal Effects
Overpressure and Gust Effects
General

. . .

Thermal Effects
Overpressure and Gust Effects

120
121
1Z1

Recommendations
4.2.1
4.2.2

121
. . .

121
122
i2

SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS


APPENDIX A

75
76
76

Metallurgical Tests of Skin Specimens Taken frcm


AD Type Aircraft Exposed in Flight to Thermal
Radiation from an Atomic Explosion

125

A.l

OBJECTIVES

126

A.2

METHOD

126

A.2.1
A.2.2
A.3

RESULTS
A.3.1
A.3.2

APPENDIX B

B.l

Strength Tests
Metallographic Examinations

126
126
127

Strength Tests
Metallographic Examinations

127
127

Effects of Thermal Radiation on Thin Aluminum^


Alloy Panels Exposed on the Ground to an Atomic
Explosion

136

OBJECTIVE

137
10

B.2

BACKGROUND

137

B.3

TEST DESCRIPTION

138

B.4

INSTRUMENTATION

139

B.5

RESULTS

14.0

B.6

CONCLUSIONS

HI

B.7

RECOMMENDATIONS

LU

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195
ILLUSTRATIONS

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12

Model AD Type Drone Aircraft (AD-2)


Bottom View of AD Drone Showing Temperature and
Gamma Measurement Locations

19
20

AD-2, Starboard Aileron Showing Scorched Blue Paint


on 0.016 Skin - Shot 2
,
45
AD-2, Starboard Aileron and Wing Tip Showing
Scorched Blue Paint on 0.016 Skin - Shot 2
46
AD-2, Port Elevator and Horizontal Stabilizer
Showing Scorched Blue Paint on 0.016 Skin - Shot 2 ... 47
AD-2, Port Wing Flap Showing Scorched Blue Paint
on 0.020 Skin and on 0.025 Skin Forming Curved
Portion Aft of Rear Shear Web Facing the Burst
Shot 2
48
AD-2, Port Wing Flap Showing Scorched Blue Paint
on 0.025 Skin Forming Curved Portion Aft of Rear
Shear Web Facing the Burst - Shot 2
49
AD-2, Port Wing Showing Scorched Blue Paint on 0.025
Skin on Hinged Aft Edge of Wing Panel - Shot 2
50
AD-2, Port Wing Panel and Tip Showing Scorched Blue
Paint on 0.032 Skin - Shot 2
51
AD-2, Aperture Between Elevator and Horizontal
Stabilizer Showing Destroyed Rubberized Fabric
Aerodynamic Seal - Shot 2
52
AD-2, Aft of Rear Spar of Horizontal Stabilizer
Showing Burned Fabric Lightening Hole Covers - Shot 2 . . 53
AD-2, Center of Starboard Aileron Showing Burned
Out 0.016 and 0.025 Panels - Shot 7 . .
54
AD-2, Port Aileron Showing Aileron Seal Intact Shot 7
55
AD-2, Port Aileron - Showing Relative Damage to
Various Combinations of Surface Finish and Skin
Thickness - Shot 7
56
11

2.13

AD-2, Starboard Aileron - Showing Thermal Damage to


Aluminized Lacquered 0.025 Skin Compared with Stand57
ard Blue Painted 0.025 Skin - Shot 7
2.14 AD-2, Port Aileron - Showing Thermal Damage to
Aluminized Lacquered 0.025 Skin Compared with Stand58
ard Blue Painted 0.025 Skin - Shot 7
2.15 AD-2, Port Aileron - Showing Relative Damage to
Various Combinations of Surface Finish and Skin
59
Thickness - Shot 7
'
2.16 AD-2, Outboard Port Wing Panel and Wing Tip Showing
Wing Tip Intact. Note how White Star Prote.: r.ed 0.032
Skin - Shot 7
60
2.17 AD-2, Outboard Port Wing Panel Showing Heat Resistant
White Painted 0.032 Plate - Shot 7
61
2.18 AD-2, Outboard Port Wing Panel Showing Aluminized Lacquered 0.040 Plate - Shot 7
62
2.19 AD-2, Tip of Elevator and Horizontal Stabilizer Showing Fabric Lightening Hole Covers and Elevator Tip
6
Intact - Shot 7
3
2.20 AD-2, Topside of Port Wing Panel Showing Scorched Blue
Paint on 0.016 Skin - Shot 7
64
2.21 XBT2D-1, Starboard Aileron Showing Scorched Aluminized
Lacquer on 0.016 and 0.025 Skin - Shot 8
65
2.22 XBT2D-1, Port Aileron Showing Scorched Standard White
Paint on 0.016, 0.025 and 0.040 Skin - Shot 8
66
2.23 X3T2D-1, Port Elevator Showing Scorched Painted Surfaces. Note Skin Ripples on 0.016 Standard Blue Painted and Aluminized Lacquered Surfaces - Shot 8
67
2.24 XBT2D-1, Starboard Wing Flap with Thermal Test Panels
Installed, Outboard Portion - Shot 8
68
2.25 XBT2D-1, Starboard Wing Flap with Thermal Test Panels
Installed, Inboard Portion - Shot 8
69
2.26 XBT2D-1, Port Wing Flap with Thermal Test Panels Installed, Inboard Portion - Shot 8
7
2.27 XBT2D-1, Port Wing Flap with Thermal Test Panels Installed, Outboard Portion- Shot 8
71
2.28 XBT2D-1, Center of Wing Showing Scorched Blue Paint
on 0.032 Skin - Shot 8
?2
2.29 XBT2D-1, Standard Aileron Wing Tip Showing Scorched
Standard Blue Paint on 0.016 and 0.040 Skin. Note
Ripples on Standard Blue Painted 0.016 Skin - Shot 8 . . 73
2.30 XBT2D-1, Starboard Stabilizer and Elevator Showing
Scorched Blue Paint on 0.032 and 0.040 Skin - Shot 8 . . 74
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7

Aircraft and Calorimeter Orientation Relative to Burst . 77


Time History of Measured Thermal Radiation
78
Reflected Thermal Intensity
- Tower Shot
82
Reflected Thermal Unit Source - Air Drop
83
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Thermal Radiation. 84
Measured and Calculated Thermal Radiation Reduced to
1 KT
35
Time History of Measured Aircraft Skin Temperature Rise. 36
12

3.8

Aircraft Skin Temperature Time History for Measured and


Calculated Cooling Rates
87
^.9
Incremental Temperatures Measured in Aircraft Skin with
Heat Resistant White Paint Finish - Shot 8
88
3.10 Incremental Temperatures Measured in Standard White
Painted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8
89
3.11 Incremental Temperatures Measured in Unpainted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8
90
3.12 Incremental Temperatures Measured in Aircraft Skin
with an Aluminized Lacquer Finish - Shot 8
91
J>.lj Incremental Temperatures Measured in Standard Blue
Painted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8
92
3.14 Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin VS the Reciprocal
of Skin Thickness for Different Surface Finish Shot 8
93
3.15 Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin VS the Reciprocal
of Skin Thickness for Different Surface Finish Shot 2
943.16 Comparison of Equivalent Absorptivity for 0.016 and
0.064 Aircraft Skin with Different Surface Finish ... 95
3.17 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Gamma Radiation,
Indicating Structural Shielding Effects
96
3.18 Measured and Calculated Gamma Radiation Reduced to
1 KT in Sea Level Homogeneous Atmosphere
97
3.19 Triple Point Trajectory Curves Indicating Aircraft
Position at Shock Arrival
98
3.20 Measured and Calculated Shock Arrival Times VS Slant
Range
99
3.21 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Overpressure . . . 100
3.22 Measured and Calculated Overpressure Reduced to 1 KT
in a Sea Level Homogeneous Atmosphere
101
3.23 Pressure Ratio VS Density Ratio
102
3.24 Gust Velocity as a Function of Pressure Ratio and
Altitude
103
3.25 Time History of Tail Acceleration and Tail Loads Shot 8
104.
3.26 Time History of e.g. Acceleration, Wing Loads and
Overpressure - Shot 8
105
^.27 Measured Accelerations and Tail Loads - Shot 8
106
3.28 Measured Overpressure and Wing Loads - Shot 8
107
3.29 Time History of e.g. Acceleration, Tail Acceleration,
Tail Loads and Overpressure - Shot 2
108
3.30 Time History of Wing Loads Indicating Shot 2
Estimated Peaks Based on Wing Dynamic Response
109
3.31 Time History of Blast Data - Shot 1
110
3.32 Time History of Blast Data - Shot 9a (First Shock,
Shot 9)
Ill
J.^3 Time History of Blast Data - Shot 9c (Third Shock,
Shot 9)
112
3.34

Comparison of Measured and Calculated Aircraft Normal


Acceleration
13

113

3.35
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.39
3.40
A.l

Comparison of Measured and Calculated Horizontal


i:L
Stabilizer Shear
4
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Horizontal
Stabilizer Bending
115
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Wing Shear .... Ho
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Wing Bending,
117
W.S. 57
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Wing Bending,
W.S. 107 and W.S. 162
11
iiy
Time History of Airplane Pitching Motion

A.2

Photomicrographs Showing Unaffected and Slightly Overheated Aluminum Alloy Sheets


134
Photomicrographs Showing the Effects of Overheating 24S
Aluminum Alloy Sheets
135

B.l
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B.10

Panel Construction
V+z
Frame Construction
}fy
Arrangement of Panels in Frames
144
Tensile Test Specimen
^45
Thermal Energy Indicator Strip Before Exposure
145
Thermal Energy Indicators After Exposure
146
Frame with Mounted Panels and Thermal Energy Indicators. 147
Mounted Panel Showing Temp Tape Installation
14-8
Frame with Temporary Protective Covering
149
Frame at Test Site Before Exposure
149

B.ll
B.12

Temp Tape
150
Frame Number 1 After Exposure - Slant Range 7150 ft,
Theimal Energy 18.3 cal/cm2
150
Frame Number 2 After Exposure - Slant Range 5330 ft,
Thermal Energy 30 cal/cnr
151
Frame Number 3 After Exposure - Slant Range 3800 ft,
Thermal Energy 43 cal/cm2
152
Panel 1 After Exposure - 0.012 In. Thick - Bare Metal -

B.13
B.14
B.15

B.16
B.17
B.18
B.19
B.20
B.21
B.22
B.23

Station 1
153
Panel 2 After Exposure - 0.012 In. Thick - Aluminized
Lacquer - Station 1
153
Panel 3 After Exposure - 0.012 In. Thick - White Lacquer
Station 1
154
Panel 8 lifter Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 1
154
Panel 10 After Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 1
155
Panel 11 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Bare
Metal - Station 1
155
Panel 13 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Aluminized Lacquer - Station 1
156
Panel 15 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - White
^
Lacquer - Station 1
Panel 17 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Sea Blue

Lacquer - Station 1
14

B.24
B.25
B.26
B.27
B.28
B.29
3.30
B.31
B.32
B.33
B.34
B.35
B.36
B.37
B.38
B.39
B.40
B.41
B.42
B.43
B.44
B.45
B.46
B.47
B.48
B.49

Panel 23 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - Sea Blue


Lacquer - Station 1
157
Panel 26 After Exposure - 0.032 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 1
158
Panel 34- After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 1
158
Panel 5 - After Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - Bare
Metal - Station 2
159
Panel 6 After Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - Aluminized
Lacquer - Station 2
159
Panel 7 After Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - White
Lacquer - Station 2
160
Panel 9 After Exposure - 0.016 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
160
Panel 18 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
161
Panel 20 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - Bare
Metal - Station 2
161
Panel 21 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - Aluminized
Lacquer - Station 2
162
Panel 22 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - White
Lacquer - Station 2
162
Panel 24 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
163
Panel 27 After Exposure - 0.032 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
163
Panel 29 After Exposure - 0.040 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
164
Panel 35 After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 2
164
Panel 12 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Bare
Metal - Station 3
165
Panel 14 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Aluminized
Lacquer - Station 3
165
Panel 16 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - White
Lacquer - Station 3
166
Panel 19 After Exposure - 0.020 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 3
166
Panel 25 After Exposure - 0.025 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 3
167
Panel 28 After Exposure - 0.032 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 3
167
Panel 30 After Exposure - 0.040 In. Thick - Sea Blue
Lacquer - Station 3
168
Panel 31 After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - Bare Metal Station 3
168
Panel 32 After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - Aluminized
Lacquer - Station 3
169
Panel 33 After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - White
Lacquer - Station 3
169
Panel 36 After Exposure - 0.051 In. Thick - Sea Blue'
Lacquer - Station 3
170
15

B.50
B.51
B.52
B.53
B.54
B.55
B.56
B.57
B.58
B.59
B.60
B.61
B.62
B.63
B.64
B.65
B.66
B.67
B.68
B.69
B.70
B.71
B.72

Orientation of Elevator Sections for Test Exposure .


Elevator Sections Showing Locations of Test Specimens
and Temp Tapes
Elevator Section 1 - Exposed Side - Station 2
Elevator Section 1 - Unexposed Side - Station 2 . . .
Elevator Section 2 - Exposed Side - Station 2
Elevator Section 2 - Unexposed Side - Station 2 . . .
Elevator Section 3 - Exposed Side - Station 1
Elevator Section 3 - Unexposed Side - Station 1 . . .
Elevator Section 4 - Exposed Side - Station 1
Elevator Section 4 - Unexposed Side - Station 1 . . .
Elevator Section 5 - Exposed Side - Station 2
Elevator Section 5 - Unexposed Side - Station 2 . . .
Elevator Section 6 - Exposed Side - Station 2
Elevator Section 6 - Unexposed Side - Station 2 . . .
Elevator Section 7 - Exposed Side - Station 1
Elevator Section 7 - Unexposed Side - Station 1 . . .
Elevator Section 8 - Exposed Side - Station 1
Elevator Section 8 - Unexposed Side - Station 1 . . .
Equivalent Thermal Absorptivity Coefficient VS Peak
Temperature Attained - Sea Blue Lacquer
Equivalent Thermal Absorptivity Coefficient VS Peak
Temperature Attained - White Lacquer
Equivalent Thermal Absorptivity Coefficient VS Peak
Temperature Attained - Aluminized Lacquer
Equivalent Thermal Absorptivity Coefficient VS Peak
Temperature Attained - Bare Metal
Equivalent Thermal Absorptivity Coefficient VS Panel
Thickness - Sea Blue Lacquer

. 171
172
173
. 173
174.
. 174.
175
. 175
176
. 176
177
. 177
178
. 173
179
. 179
180
. 130
181
182
183
184
185

TABLES
1.1

Calculated Wing and Horizontal Stabilizer Load


Constants

2.1
2.2

Thermal Damage to Aircraft Skin - Shot 7


Summary of Primary Data for All Shots

3.1

Calculated Absorptivity Values - Shot 8

A.l

Summary of Metallurgical Test Results on Skin


Specimens from Model XBT2D-1 Airplane
Summary of Metallurgical Test Results on Skin
Specimens from Model AD-2 Drone Airplane

A.2

B.l
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7

Frame 1 - Panel Test Data


Frame 2 - Panel Test Data
Frame 3 - Panel Test Data
Ultimate Strength and Yield Strength of Unexposed
24 ST Aluminum Alloy Panel Material
Elevator Section Data - Station 1
Elevator Section Data - Station 2
Radiant Energy Measurements
16

^
34
43
80

123
131
186
187
188
189
190
192
194

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1
1.1.1

OBJECTIVE
Purpose of Project

Project 5.1 was established for the specific purpose of


obtaining flight test data and information which can be used in
defining those regions in space which are unsafe for Model AD
type naval aircraft following the delivery of"an"atomic air burst
weapon. Much of the flight test information gathered, however,
was to be generally applicable to the study of weapon effects on
aircraft in the vicinity of an atomic weapon explosion.
1.1.2

Need for Project '

To date, most of the information available for defining


unsafe regions has been either static ground test data or of a
theoretical nature, based to some extent on limited flight data
obtained at comparatively low levels of weapons effects. To
reach optimum effectiveness in atomic weapon delivery it is
essential that the raps in these data be filled.
Specifically it is anticipated that the data obtained by
this project will be used as follows:
a. To experimentally verify or redefine the structurally
safe regions ^or a Model AD airplane flying in the vicinity of an
atomic explosion.
b. To improve methods for analytically determining the
effects of atomic weapons on naval aircraft structures.
1.1.3

Report Objective

The objective of this report is to present the measured,


observed, and calculated data associated with atomic weapon
effects upon the structure of Model AD aircraft in flight in the
vicinity of an atomic explosion. Five separate sets of data,
17

corresponding to Shots
are presented. Direct
presented as observed;
in this report all the
the data presented.
1.2
1.2.1

1, 2, 7, 8,
correlation
however, no
theoretical

and 9, Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE


between certain items of data is
attempt has been made to include
studies necessary to correlate

EXPERIMENT DESIGN
Background

Reference (l) presents procedures for determining the regions


in space which are unsafe for naval aircraft following the explosion
of an air burst atomic weapon. In order to investigate these regions
and their specific application to AD aircraft, two standard blue AD
type aircraft, a Model AD-2, Bureau Number 12236j, and a Model
XBT2D-1, Bureau Number 09103, were converted to drone aircraft and
instrumented for the measurement of atomic weapon effects. (See
Fig. 1.1.)
1.2.2

Instrumentation

The specific items measured were as follows:


a. Burst time; by modified photoelectric cell (blue box).
b. Thermal radiation: by the Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory calorimeters and by thermal cloths, both mounted on
underside of wing; 0 to j>0 cal/cm .
c. Aircraft skin maximum temperatures; by temperature
sensitive papers on reverse side of panels with various surface
finishes;+129 to +579F. See Fig. 1.2, locations 1-16.
d. Aircraft skin and spar temperatures; BN and PN resistance
temperature gages; -100 to +400F and -100 to +250F, respectively.
See Fig. 1.2, locations 17 and 18.
e. Free stream overpressure; by the National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics* pressure pickup on wing tip boom; 0 to 4
psi range, 1000 cps maximum frequency on starboard, 80 cps on port
side.
f. Aircraft normal accelerations at center of gravity and
tail by Statham accelerometers; 0 to 10g, 70 cps (also 10 cps
Giannini accelerometer at center of gravity through JlN/UKR-5
telemeter).
g. Wing bending; by SR-4 strain gage bridges at one inboard
station on starboard side and several stations on port side; to limit
load, 80 cps.
h. Wing shear at one inboard station on port side.
i. Wing torsion at one inboard station on the port side.
j. Horizontal stabilizer bending at'one inboard station on
port and/or starboard side.
k. Horizontal stabilizer shear at one inboard station on
port and/or starboard side.
1. Aircraft altitude; by modified SGR-584 radar,

18

Electronics Associates plot board and telemetering of Giannini


pressure pickups.
m. Aircraft horizontal range relative to burst; by
radar plot.
n. Aircraft velocity by radar and by telemetering of
Giannini pressure pickup.
o. Aircraft pitch and rbll attitude by telemetering of
Giannini pitch and roll gyro.
p. Gamma radiation; by Signal Corps Engineering
Laboratories photographic films; 0-50 Roentgen's. See Fig. 1.2,
locations A-G.

Fig. 1.1

Model AD Type Drone Aircraft (AD-2)

19

n
C

cd

Q
CD
IOO

ui
>

B-8I2D
<0\

oDi

UI

z
o

CO

a.
a.
UI
ii.i u UI
cc -> < r> Q ->. i
u
(0 o _i
(0 CO
UJ (0 CD QQ CO
UI
o
Pi
In
a:
Q
<
oo o
o
_l
O o o a Q Q>
0.
_
(M (0 in (0

UI _J
CL
D
<
CC

z
UI g

{*]

O
a.

a.

.j D _l
-J

u.
a

Ia
UI

a
UI
N

\\\\ ~Dl
*-

< UI u
D
CO CO

u1

o
In
o o
0 o d
h- 00 o><
3
CO

UI Sn
UI

o or
<

UI
I-

a. id N
z ft
2 0. nr z
UI
UI
2 UI 2
i- 5
z>
u
_l
UI
CO ui
iii i < CQ < X cu
o (VI
o
a
m
to
CO (0
O o o o o
d od P
_i

o
en

UI

c^co
li
r

N
Z
u 2 UI < s
D

z
o
0.

<
UI UI
CO

ct

OQ DI
-1 -J u Q
O Z
u or U u
UI I
o
z

I
UI

zZ

its o O CO

< GO

O UI u o

3 3 3< CO_l CU-j:<is


s 0- 1-CL l-0. 3
C2
c
y CO UJQto CO
?o ino ino c5J
s Z 8 8 8 o_>
d c3
d

<\i (O ^ in (0 r- oo <J> c>

q
_i

20

ID

The

information provided by the above instrumentation is


both general with respect to atomic weapons radiation and blast
characteristics and specific with respect to aircraft structural
response to these inputs. The complete load measuring installation
is described m refs (2) and (3). The modified SCH-584 radar used
is described m ref (4). Reference (5) describes the airborne
instrumentation and gives sensitivities for all records.
1-2.3

Analytical Methods

Aircraft test positions were established following the


general procedures described in ref (6).
12'3.1

Aircraft Attitude and Orientation

The aircraft was to be in level flight attitude, tail


towara the blast in a vertical plane containing the burst point,
simulating an escape position of an AD type aircraft following
delivery of an atomic weapon. This was accomplished in all tests.
1.2.3.2

Thermal Effects

T^}emfl effects were considered applicable at tn. The


expression ,or temperature rise in the aircraft skin exposed to
radiation from the burst was assumed to be:
AT_

H-eQ SIN 9
0.833t

(l.l)

In positioning the aircraft for critical thermal effects an


n^nt^nt ab3rbt,ivit^ ^e. of 0.3 was taken for standard blue
painted aircraft skin, considering the minimum skin gage of 0.016
in. Ground reflectivity calculations are based on the methods of
ref (9) using the relationship:

2r
It,
'
3H
x2ho
d
,R>xicrxiu^-<
2[(Ah/h,)+l1
K

ll.68h? (KAh/h,)2+2(Ah/h,)]2

3.
5 ,
[(Ah/h,)2+2(Ah/^]fej
4

(1 2}

'

This equation is valid for the case where h?> h, and as such is
suitable for all shot. (See Figs. 3.3 and23.4)' Mult'lSng lR
R
by the thermal yield in calories (l KT thermal yield = id-12
calories) gives the reflected radiation in calories per centimeter2,
In accordance with ref (20), a thermal yield - .wflSk was used

21

1.2.3.3

Gamma Radiation

Gamma radiation was considered to have no structural


significance. Since the aircraft used in the manned flights were
to receive no appreciable amount, gamma radiation was not considered as a positioning criteria; however, it was calculated and
measured. The following is the method presented in ref (10) for
determining gamma radiation at a given aircraft position: Find
reduced range by multiplying R^ by <y . Using this reduced range
and the angular position of the aircraft with respect to the burst
(e.g., 12 o'clock, aircraft directly over burst; 3 o'clock, aircraft at burst level) find the reduced dosage, D/cr2
for a 1 KT
weapon. (See Fig. 3.18.) Multiplying by the factor a 2 Y gives
the expected dosage. Since the emission of gamma radiation is
time dependent, Fig. 13, ref (8), the aircraft motion is considered
by using a method similar to that given in ref (6) to obtain total
nuclear radiation received on a moving aircraft.
1.2.3.4

Overpressure

Time of shock arrival (Fig. 3.20) must be known in order


to establish the aircraft position at shock arrival for a given
test condition. The free-stream overpressures for the test conditions were based on the data of ref (10), free air or surface
burst depending on the triple point trajectory, corrected for both
height of burst other than sea level and for aircraft test altitude.
The relationships used to correct overpressure and slant range for
burst height are:

'/3
R

H-sL(VPJ

(1.3)

(X)

APH = APSL

(1.4)

For aircraft at test altitudes other than burst altitude the


relationships for overpressure and slant range are:

V Vx

(1.5)
/4

A^APHX(VPH/(VTA)

(1.6)

The slant range at a given overpressure for any yield is obtained


from the known range and yield by
22

(1.7)
Overpressure at the test position can now be predicted.
Fig. 3-22.)
1.2.3.5

(See

Gust Effects

With a given overpressure there is a corresponding


pressure ratio at each test altitude. Density ratios and gust
velocities corresponding to the pressure ratios can be predicted.
(Figs. 3.23 and 3.24.) Reference (11) is a source for these data.
The effect of gust velocity on aircraft is determined in terms of
allowable aircraft load factors. The following equation, given in
ref (6) is used to predict the incremental load factor experienced
by the airplane.

Ag =

SC La

2W

0.3+0.7

U| w sin 9
(1.8)

whe re:
U, =

^(l^-w cos 9)Z+ (w sin 0);

p \/p
/

can be substituted directly for the expression

0.3 + 0.7

in equation 1.8 if

curve is available. For the aircraft used, SC\_a for the wing is
taKen as 1840. Wing and tail loads are assumed to be directly
proportional to the calculated load factor. Structural dynamic
response was not considered in the analysis. The general
expression for the calculated load is
AL = A9

[K,W+K2]

(1.10)

For the wing, the aerodynamic constant Ki, and inertia constant
are both based on the normal spanwise load distribution identical to that for the positive high angle of attack, forward e.g.
condition presented in ref (12), assuming a linear lift curve.
The horizontal stabilizer load coefficients were obtained using
a value of

I<2J

(SCLa )HOR.STAB.//(scLa ) WING =0.206


23

and a normal load distribution proportional to the horizontal


stabilizer chord, based on information from ref (13). These constants are presented, in Table 1.1. Steady state pullouts
performed as a flight check of the load measuring installation
result in measured wing loads in direct agreement with loads
calculated using this table.
TABLE 1.1 - Calculated Wing and Horizontal Stabilizer Load
Constants
Station

Load

W.S.
N.3.
W.S.
W.S.
S.S.
S.S.

Shear
Bending
Bending
Bending
Shear
Bending

1.2.4

57
57
107
162
21
21

I
0.436
37.90
22.08
9.77
0.0799
3.515

K2 x 10-

-1.529
-98.60
-44.30
-17.88
-0.1255
-10.24

Operational Procedures

Two Navy Model AD aircraft, single place, single engine


attack bombers were converted to drones using the Naval Air
iSxperimental Station Type I Remote Control Equipment. One^participated in Shot 1, the other in Shot 9 as manned aircraft in^
preparation for drone operation. Lower range data were obtained
in this manner.
For N0L0 (no live occupant) operations, the drone take-off
was under the control of a pilot at a ground station located beside
the runway. Once airborne, the drone was turned over to a pilot
flying a Navy Model F8F "mother" control plane. Upon arrival at
the test site, control was turned over to a pilot at the radar
plotting board. Using data from the radar plot and. from telemetering direct reading meters, the pilot guided the drone to its
predetermined position relative to the burst at time zero.
Following the test, the "mother" aircraft again took control and
the drone was returned to the base where the pilot at the runway
station controlled the drone landing. An operational tolerance
of 1 sec of time in positioning was allowed at time zero.

24

CHAPTER 2

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

2.1

RESULTS

Records of thermal and blast effects were obtained for all


shots with the exception of Shot 7 where the drone was destroyed
at shock arrival, resulting in the loss of the blast data. Figure
3.2 presents the time histories of measured thermal radiation.
Figure 3.7 presents time histories of measured skin temperature
rise. Figures 3.25 through 3.31 are reproductions of time histories
of measured blast effects. Table 2.2 presents a summary of
primary data for all shots. Numerical data, observations and
photographs for each shot are presented in Section 2.2 below.
2.2

DATA AND OBSERVATIONS

2.2.1
2.2.1.1

2.2.1.2

Shot 1
General Data
Date of Test:

17 March 1953

Test Aircraft:

Model AD-2 Drone; Manned Flight

Type of Test:

300' Tower (T-3) Ground elevation


4025 MSL

Weapon Yield:

15 KT planned; 16.2 KT Radiochemical

Test Conditions
Altitude of Test Aircraft:

17,200' MSL;
12,900' above burst

Temperature at Test Altitude:

-0.4F

25

Pressure at Test Altitudes

7.7 psi

True Airspeed:

359 fps

Slant Range from Burst:

t0, 14,400'j ts, 16,800'

Time of Shock Arrival:

14.4 sec

Aircraft Gross Weight (Shock


Arrival): 13,550 lb
Aircraft Angular Position:

2.2.1.3

tQ, 63; ts, 50*30' from


horizontal; (0)

Effects Data - Shot 1


(1) From Weapon
Thermal Radiation (cal/cm2)
Port Wing Calorimeter:

2.7: (2.9, filter

correction, B%)

Normal to Horizontal Plane:

3.2

Gamma Radiation (r)


Less than

0.1 inside the aircraft

Thermal In Cockpit (cal/cm )


Less than 1.0, from temp, cloth and paper
Free-stream Overpressure (psi)
Starboard wing pressure pickup: 0.3
(2)'On Test Aircraft
Incremental Normal Acceleration (g's)
Center of Gravity Accelerometer: 2.1
Tail Accelerometer:
2.0
Center of Gravity, Calculated:
0.97
Aircraft Attitude Change (deg)
Pitch Gyro:
Roll Gyro:

2.3 Nose Down


1.4 Right Wing Up

26

Incremental Structural Loads Above lg Level Flight - Shot 1


Measured
Load

% of Design
Limit Load

Starboard Wing Bending (Sta. 57)

512 x 103
in. lb.

10.6

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 57)

525 x 103
in. lb.

10.9

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 107) 308 x 103


in. lb.

12.7

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 162) 112 x 103


in. lb.

9.3

Port Wing Shear

(Sta. 57)

Port Wing Torsion

(Sta. 57) -6.5 x 103


in. lb.

0.7

Port Stabilizer Bending (Sta. 21)44.3 x 103


in. lb.

16.7

Port Stabilizer Shear

(Sta. 21)

4.63 x 103
lb.

1.22 x 103 lb.

11.6

15.2

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin, F


(Temperature Gages)

Skin Thickness

Temperature Rise

Standard Blue

0.051

57

Standard Blue

0.040

97

Color

2.2.1.4

Oscillograph Data
See Figure 3-31

2.2.1.5

Observations

Mo visible damage

27

2.2.2
2.2.2.1

Shot 2
General Data
Date of Test:

24 March 1953

Test Aircraft: Model AD-2 Drone; No live occupant


(NOLO) flight.

2.2.2.2

Type of Test:

300' Tower (T-4), Ground elevation


4308' MSL.

Weapon Yield:

40 KT Planned, 24.5 Radiochemical

Test Conditions
Altitude of Test Aircraft:

10,800' MSL; 6200'above


burst.

Temperature at Test Altitude: 33F

2.2.2.3

Pressure at Test Altitude:

9.90 psi

True Airspeed:

477 fps

Slant Range from Burst:

tQ 8100', ts 10,900

Time for Shock Arrival:

8.0 sec

Aircraft Gross Weight


(Shock Arrival):

13,360 lb.

Aircraft Angular Position:

tG, 50; ts, 34


from horizontal; (9;

Effects Data
(1) From Weapon
Thermal Radiation (cal/cnr)
Port Wing Calorimeter:
Tail Calorimeter:
Port Wing Thermal Indicator Cloth:
Tail Thermal Indicator
Cloth:
Normal to Horizontal
Plane:

28

11.5; (12.4, filter


correction, 8%)
9.8; (10.6, filter
correction, 8%)

9.5
11.0
12.8

Gamma Radiation - Shot 2


Location

Dosage

Shielding
Material

Thickness, in.

Inside Cockpit:
Behind Headrest

4.2

Aluminum
Rubber and cloth
Gasoline

On floor, forward

4.2

Aluminum

On floor, port

2.5

Aluminum
Rubber and cloth
Gasoline

Port

6.0

Aluminum

1.55

Starboard

6.0

Aluminum

1.55

8.8

Aluminum

0.040

0.174
0.75
74.8
0.683
O.464
0.75
35.6

Inside Wing Fold:

Inside Rear Fuselage:


Starboard

Free Stream Overpressure (psi)


Starboard Wing Pressure Pickup:
(2)

1.0

On Test Aircraft
Incremental Normal Acceleration (g's)
Center of Gravity Accelerometer:
Tail Accelerometer:
Center of Gravity, Calculated:
Aircraft Attitude Change (deg)
Pitch Gyro:
Roll Gyro:

2.5 Nose down


0

29

3.8
3.6
2.14

Incremental Structural Loads Above 1 g Level Flight - Shot 2


Measured Load

% of Design
Limit Load

Starboard Wing Bending


(Sta. 57)

947 x 103
in. lb.

19.7

Port Wing Bending


(Sta. 57)

829 x 103
in. lb.

17.2

Port Wing Bending


(Sta. 107)

559 x 103
in. lb.

22.9

Port Wing Bending


(Sta. 162)

328 x 103
in. lb.

27.3

Port Wing Shear


(Sta. 57)

9.00 x 103 lb.

22.5

Port Wing Torsion


(Sta. 57)

29.0 x 10
in. lb.

2.1

Port Stabilizer Bending


(Sta. 21)

72.5 x 103
in. lb.

26.7

Port Stabilizer Shear


(Sta. 21)

1.86 x 103 lb.

23.2

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin, op _ Shot 2


Color

Skin Thickness

Temperature Rise

Standard Blue

0.064

>171

<190

Standard Blue

0.051

>171

< 190

Standard Blue

0.051

156

Standard Blue

0.051

*187

Standard Blue

0.040

*225

Standard Blue

0.032

250

Black

0.051

> 171

4 190

Black

0.051

>171

<190

Aluminized Lacquer

0.064

138

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

156

30

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

138

heat Resistant White

0.040

138

Heat Resistant White

0.032

* Temperature gage measurements.


paper measurements.
2.2.2.4

^ 144

>144

( 156

< 156

All other are temperature sensitive

Oscillograph Data

See Figs. 3.29 and 3.30. Values used for the approximately
0.1 sec interruption of strain gage amplifier operation were estimated,
based on damping ratios established using strain gage records from
Shots 1, 8 and 9.
2.2.2.5

Observations

All standard blue paint on 0.016 alclad aircraft skin on


'the under side of the control surfaces was scorched except in the
Immediate vicinity of the rivets (see Figs. 2.1, 2.2 and'2.3). All
standard blue on 0.020 skin was scorched except where in contact
with heavier structural members (see Fig. 2.4). None of the
standard blue paint on .025 skin was scorched with the exception of
the curved portion aft of the rear shear web wnicn was directly
facing the burst point (see Figs. 2.4 and 2.5), and the hinged aft
edge of the outboard wing panel which was exposed to direct radiation
from the underside as well as indirect radiation received through the
aperture between this panel and the aileron (see Fig. 2.6). Slight
irregular scorch on blue paint marks were noted on the underside of
the outboard wing panel on skin up to and including 0.032 (see Fig.
2.7).
The rubberized fabric aerodynamic seals between the elevator and horizontal stabilizer were destroyed (see Fig. 2.8). The
aileron seals were not directly exposed to thermal radiation and
these remained intact. The fabric lightening hole covers on the
horizontal stabilizer rear spar were burned through where direct
thermal radiation was received (see Fig. 2.9). The airplane in
this test had covered wheel wells so the tires were not exposed.
There was no thermal damage to the tires.
2.2.3
2.2.3.1

Shot 7
General Data
Date of Test:

25 April 1953

Test Aircraft:

Model AD-2 Drone; N0L0


Flight, Aircraft Destroyed.
31

2.2.3.2

2.2.3.3

Type of Test:

300 Tower (T-l), Ground


Elevation 4238' MSL

Weapon Yield:

33 KT Planned, 43-4 KT
Radiochenical

Test Conditions
Altitude of Test Aircraft:

10,450' MSLj 5900' above


burst

Temperature at Test Altitude:

43F

Pressure at Test Altitude:

10.08 psi

True Airspeed:

417 fps

Slant Range from Burst:

t0, 6,200'j t, 6700'

Time for Shock Arrival:

3.75 sec

Aircraft Gross Weight


(Shock arrival):

13,400 lb.

Aircraft Angular Position:

t0 73; ts 6030' from


horizontal; (6)

Effects Data
(l) From Weapon
Thermal Radiation, (cal/cm2)
Port Wing Calorimeter:

19.4; (20.9, filter


correction, 8%)
32 to 35 (corrected for l/2
to 3/4 fireball miss)

Normal to Horizontal Plane:

54.6

Free Stream Overpressure (psi) - Shot 7


2.7 estimated.
Based on Project 5.1 flight test data and observation,
as given in this report.
(2)

On Test Aircraft
Incremental Normal Acceleration (g's)
Center of Gravity Acceleration: 16, estimated.
Based on calculated 8.25 g, Project 5.1 flight
32

test data and observation, and assuming that


thermal damage had no effect on acceleration.
Aircraft Attitude Change (deg)
Pitch Gyro:
Roll Gyro:

65 Nose Down
85 Right Wing Down

Incremental Structural Loads Above 1 g Level Flight

Estimated
Load

% of Design
Limit Load

Starboard Wing Bending

(Sta. 57)

3.38 x 106 in. lb.

70

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 57)

3.38 x 106 in. lb.

70

Port Wing Bending

(Sta.107)

2.08 x 106 in. lb.

85

Port Wing Bending

(Sta.l62)

0 .93 x 106 in. lb.

80

Port Wing Shear

(Sta. 57)

35.6

x 103 lb.

90

Port Wing Torsion

(Sta. 21)

50

x 103 in. lb.

Port Stabilizer Bending

(Sta. 21)

304
04

x 103 in. lb.

110

Port Stabilizer Shear

(Sta. 21)

77.79 x 103 lb.

100

Based on Project 5.1 data and observation,


as given in this report.
Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin (F)
Color

Skin Thickness

Temperature Rise

Standard Blue

0.064

500

Standard Blue

0.016

1200

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin (*F) - Shot 7

Color

Skin Thickness

Temperature Rise

Aluminized Lacquer

0.064

400

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

450*

Bare Aluminum

0.066

300

Bare Aluminum

0.016

800

33

Heat Resistant White

O.O64

200

Heat Resistant White

0.016

600

Temperature sensitive paper measurement. All others estimated,


based on Project 5.1 flight test data and observation, as given
in this report.

2.2.3.4

Oscillographic Data

All pertinent oscillographic data for the period after


shock arrival was unintelligible. The time history of thermal radiation measured from burst time to time of shock arrival is included
in Fig. 3.2.
2.2.3.5

Observations

In this test the actual yield exceeded the planned yield


by greater than 30 per cent. Since the aircraft was positioned for
near critical weapon effects based on the planned yield, the resulting thermal radiation severely damaged or weakened all the blue
painted skin on the underside of the wing. The thermal damage to
the aircraft skin is presented in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1

Thermal Damage to Aircraft Skin - Shot 7

Surface Finish

Effects
0.016 Skin Thickness

Figure No.

Standard Blue

Panels missing except for small


circular pieces around each
rivet

2.10; 2.11

Standard White

Panels missing except for edges

2.12; 2.19

Aluminized Lacquer Panels missing except for edges

2.13; 2.14

Heat Resistant
White

Panels remained intact

2.15

Bare Aluminum

Pieces missing; panel broken


along center line

2.15

Standard Blue
Standard White

0.025 Skin Thickness


Panel missing except for edges
Pieces missing; panel broken
along center line

Aluminized Lacquer Panel broken along center line

34

2.10; 2.13
2.12
2.13

TABLE 2.1 - Continued


Surface Finish

Effects

Aluminized Lacquer Pieces missing; panel broken


along center line

Fipure No.
2.14

Heat Resistant
White

Panels remained intact

2.15

Bare Aluminum

Panels remained intact

2.15

0.032 Skin .Thickness


Panel missing except for edges.
NOTE: White lettering gave
added protection.

2.16

Panel remainted intact

2.17

Standard Blue

Eeat Resistant
White

Standard Blue

0.040 Skin Thickness


Pieces missing; panel broken
along center line, except on
narrow panels.
NOTE: White lettering gave
added protection.

Aluminized Lacquer Panel remained


Standard Blue

intact

0.051 Skin Thickness (AL-3-S0)


Skin apparently unaffected; paint
scorched

2.18; 2.14;
2.16

2.18
2.16

The blue 0.025 skin on the hinged aft edge of the outboard
wing panel in some places suffered the same damage as 0.016 skin on
other parts of the wing. This panel was exposed to direct radiation
from the underside as well as indirect radiation received through the
aperture between this panel and the aileron (see Fig. 2.14). This is
seen to be consistent with the damage experienced in Shot 2, as shown
in Fig. 2.6.
The fabric lightening hole covers destroyed in Shot 2 were
replaced with fabric covers coated with aluminized lacquer. These
covers were slightly scorched but not burned through (see Fig. 2.19).
Aileron seals remained intact (see Fig. 2.11). The top side of the
wing gave no indication of thermal damage other than softening of
standard blue paint on 0.016 skin on the aileron (see Fig. 2.20)
where the under side skin was completely destroyed.
No effects directly attributed to overpressure were
noted.

35

The above information was obtained from the wing outboard


panels and sections of the elevator and horizontal stabilizer \*hich
were torn off at shock arrival and received only minor additional
damage due to the fall. Evidence indicates that the wing failure
resulted when the thermally weakened skin was further damaged by
shock effects, thereby reducing the over-all strength of the wing.
The sections of the empennage were torn off when struck by the wing
panels, -

2.2.4
2.2.4.1

2.2.4.2

Shot 8
General Data
Date of Test:

19 May 1953

Test Aircraft:

Model XBT2D-1 Drone,


NOLO Flight

Type of Test:

300' Tower (T-3a), Ground


elevation 4025' MSL

Weapon Yield:

37 KT Planned; 27 KT
Radiochemieal

Test Conditions
Altitude of Test Aircraft:

11,200' MSL;
6,900' above
burst

Temperature at Test Altitude:

39F

Pressure at Test Altitude:

9.8 psi

True Airspeed

386 fps

Slant Range from Burst:

t0, 7200';
ts, 8100'

Time for Shock Arrival

5.6 sec

Aircraft Gross Weight


(Shock Arrival):

12,800 lb.

Aircraft Angular Position:

36

t0, 73;
ts, 58 from
horizontal; (0)

2.2.4.3

Effects Data - Shot 8


(1) From Weapon
Thermal Radiation (cal/cm2)
Port Wing Calorimeter:

17.8j (19.2, filter

Starboard Wing Calorimeter:

24.9; (26.9, filter

correction, 8%
correction, &%

Port Wing Thermal Indicator Cloths


17
Starboard Wing Thermal Indicator Cloth:
Normal to Horizontal Plane:
25.4

27

Gamma Radiation
Do sage

Shielding

Location

(0

Material

Inside Cockpit

28

Aluminum
0. 25 to 0.75 in.
Rubber anc cloth 0 to 0.75 in.
Gasoline
5 to
15 in.

Inside Wing Fold, Por*

38

Aluminum

0.051

38

Aluminum

0.051

Inside Rear Fuselage

4^

Aluminum

0.040

Underside of Starboard Wing

52.5

No shielding

Starboard

Thickness

(2) On Test Aircraft


Free Strean Overpressure (psi)
Port Wing Pressure Pickup:

1.8

Incremental Normal Acceleration (g's)


Center of Gravity Accelerometer:
Tail Accelerometer:
Center of Gravity Calculated:
Aircraft Attitude Change (deg)
Pitch Gyro:
Roll Gyro:

8.1 nose down


4 right wing up

37

8.6
8.5
4.52

Incremental Structural Loads (Above 1 g Level Flight) Shot 8


Measured
Load

% of Design
Limit Load

Starboard Wing Bending

(Sta. 57)

1,970 x 103 in.lb.

41

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 57)

1,950 x 103 in.lb.

40.5

Port Wing Bending

(Sta. 162)

546 x 103 in.lb.

45.5

Port Wing Shear

(Sta. 57)

15.97 x 103 lb.

40.0

Port Wing Torsion

(Sta. 57)

35.00 x 103 in.lb.

Starboard Stabilizer
Bending

(Sta. 21)

154.5 x 103 in.lb.

56.9

Port Stabilizer Bending (Sta. 21)

139.6 x 103 in.lb.

51.4

2.5

Starboard Stabilizer
Shear

(Sta. 21)

3.71 x 103 lb.

46.4

Port Stabilizer Shear

(Sta. 21)

3.54 x 103 lb.

43.6

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin. F


Color

Skin Thickness

Material

Temperature Rise
225

Standard Blue

0.064

24ST

Standard Blue

0.04

75ST

>250

<288

Standard Blue

0.051

24ST

>250

<351

Standard Blue

0.051

24ST

>250

<288

Standard Blue

0.051

24ST

>250

<351

Standard Blue

0.051

Standard Blue

0.040

24ST

>322

< 442

Standard Blue

0.040

24ST

>288

<442

Standard Blue

0.032

24ST

>351

< 442

250

38

Color

Skin Thickness

Standard Blue

0.032

Standard Blue

0.025

Standard Blue

0.020

Standard Blue

Material

Temperature Rise
> 322

< 442

> 401

< 42

24S0

> 482

< 579

0.020

24S0

> 401

< 462

Standard Blue

0.016

24ST

> 442

< 579

Standard Blue

0.016

24ST

>351

<442

Black

0.051

24ST

Black

0.051

24ST

>250

<351

Aluminized Lacquer

0.064

75ST

> 174

< 190

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

75 ST

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

243T

Aluminized Lacquer

0.040

24ST

Aluminized Lacquer

0.025

>351

<442

Aluminized Lacquer

0.020

>351

<442

Aluminized Lacquer

0.016

24ST

> 401

< 482

Standard White

0.040

24ST

> 174

< 225

Standard White

0.020

24S0

Standard White

0.016

24ST

Heat Resistant White

0.040

753T

225

Heat Resistant White

0.040

24ST

156

Heat Resistant White

0.032

24ST

225

Heat Resistant White

0.032

52SH34

>156

<174

Heat Resistant White

0.032

52SH34

>156

<190

52SH34

39

351

225
> 225

< 250

250

250
> 225

< 250

Material

Skin Thickness

Color

Temoerature Rise
>156

<190

24S0

>171

<190

0.020

24S0

>190

<225

Heat Resistant White

0.016

24ST

>171

<225

Heat Resistant White

0.016

24S0

>190

<225

Bare Aluminum

0.040

24ST

225

Bare Aluminum

0.040

24ST

190

Bare Aluminum

0.040

24ST

>225

<250

Bare Aluminum

0.032

52SK34

>225

<291

Bare Aluminum

0.025

Bare Aluminum

0.020

24S0

>288

<322

Bare Aluminum

0.016

24ST

>250

<351

Bare Aluminum

0.016

24ST

>250

<351

Heat Resistant White

0.025

Heat Resistant White

0.020

Heat Resistant White

2.2.4.4

250

Oscillographic Data

Figures 5.25 and 3.26 contain direct reproductions of the


oscillograph traces at time of shock arrival. These traces were
separated as shown to eliminate the overlap of traces brou^it about
by the high level of the measured effects data.
2.2.4.5

Observations

In this test the complete underside of the aircraft was


stripped down to bare aluminum with exception of panels on the
aileron and elevator (see Figs. 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.29 and 2.30)._
In addition, thermal panels consisting of 0.016 to 0.064 alclad aircraft skin with different paint finishes were installed on the
underside of both flaps (Figs. 2.24, 2.25, 2.26. 2.27) as well as
on several locations on the wing.
No thermal damage was visible on any unpainted aircraft
surface. The-0.016 blue painted control surface tips had the
paint completely burned off and the surface itself was badly warped.
Due to the fact that all flap specimens were hand painted under
field conditions, direct visual comparison with specimens prepared
by standard procedures was not readily obtainable; however, the surface damage in all cases appeared consistent with the temperature

10

rise data given under "Results." These temperatures can be taken


as indicative of the thermal damage to the surface finish.
The fabric lightening hole covers destroyed in Shot 2
were replaced with heat resistant white covers. These remained
intact.
The airplane in this test had uncovered wheel wells.
The tires, exposed to direct thermal radiation> were covered with
heat resistant white paint. They experienced no thermal damage.
2.2.5
2.2.5.1

2.2.5.2

Shot 9
General Data
Date of Test:

8 May 1953

Test Aircraft:

Model XBT2D-1 Drone, Manned Flight

Type of Test:

Air Drop, Height of Burst 2432' above


ground, Ground Elevation 3708' MSL

Weapon Yield:

J>1

KT Planned, 26.0 KT Radiochemical

Test Conditions
Altitude of Test Aircraft:

21,900' MSL; 16,400'


above burst

Temperature at Test Altitude:

-17F

Pressure at Test Altitude:

6.26 psi

True Airspeed:

420 fps

Slant Range from Burst:

t0, 16,400'; ts, 18,000'


at first shock; 18,700' at
third shock.

Time for Shock Arrival:

15.5 sec first shock;


19.8 sec third shock

Aircraft Gross Weight (Shock Arrival):


Aircraft Angular Position:

13,150 lb

t0, 85; ts, 64 at first


shock, 60 at third shock;

(e)
2.2.5.3

Effects Data
(1) From Weapon
Thermal Radiation (cal/cm )
Port Wing Calorimeter:

1.9; (2.0, filter correction,

8%) 2.8 to 3.3 (corrected for 1/2 to 3/4 fireball


miss)
Normal to Horizontal Plane: 3.6
Free-Stream Overpressure (psi)
Starboard Pressure Pick-up:
Starboard Pressure Pick-up:

0.5 first shock


0.1 third shock

(2) On Test Aircraft


Incremental Normal Acceleration (g's)
Center of Gravity Accelerometer:

2.3 First Shock,


1.0 Third Shock.
Tail Accelerometer: 2.6 First Shock, 1.1 Third Shock.
Center of Gravity Calculated: 1.42 First Shock, 0.43
Second Shock.
Aircraft Attitude Change (deg)
Pitch Gyro:
Roll Gyro:

3.2 First Shock, 2.4 Third Shock, Nose


Down.
3 First Shock, 3-7 Third Shock, Right
Wing Up.

Incremental Structural Loads above 1 g Level Flight


% of Design
Limit Load
Third
First
Shock
Shock

Item and Location

Measured Load
Third
First
Shock
Shock

Starboard Wing Bending


(Sta. 57)

584 x 103
in.lb.

243 x 103
in.lb.

12.1

5.1

Port Wing Bending (Sta. 57)

524 x 103
in.lb.

230 x 103
in.lb.

11.8

4.8

Port Wing Bending (Sta.l62)

147 x 103
in.lb.

64 x 103
in.lb.

12.3

5.3

Port Wing Shear

4.14 x 1C3 2.7 x 103


lb.
lb.

1Q.3

6.7

18 x 103 -5.5 x 103


in.lb.
in.lb.

1.3

0.4

Starboard Stabilizer Bending ^3.2 x 103 18.4 x 103


(Sta. 21)
in.lb.
in.lb.

15.9

6.8

(Sta. 57)

Port Wing Torsion (Sta. 57)

42

% of Design
Limit Load
First : Third
Shock : Shock

Item and Location

Measured Load
: Third
First
j Shock
Shock

Port Stabilizer Bending


(Sta. 21)

35.7 x 10? 15.5 x 10?


in.lb.
in.lb.

13.1

5.7

Star Stabilizer Shear


(Sta. 21)

1.76 x 10* 600 lb.


lb.

22.0

7.5

Port Stabilizer Shear


(Sta. 21)

1.11 x 103 360 lb. .

13.9

4.5

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin (F)


Color

Skin Thickness

Blue

0.012

Temperature Rise
185 *

^Results of three identical readings.

2.2.5.4

Oscillographic Data

Figures 3.32 and 3.33 present the oscillographic data


associated with the first and third shocks. The second shock, which
occurred 0.5 seconds before the third shock, was so small that no
accurate effects readings could be made.
2.2.5.5

Observations
No visible effects damage.
TABLE 2.2

Test Conditions

Summary of Primary Data for All Shots

Date of Test

17 Mar

Shot 2
(
1
24 Mar

Test Aircraft

AD-2
Manned

AD-2
N0L0

Test Area

T-3
Yucca

Ht. of Burst
(ft MSL)
Ground Elevation (ft MSL)

Shot 1

Shot 7
5
25 Apr

Shot 8
3

Shot 9
)

19 May

8 May

AD-2
N0L0

XBT2D-1
N0L0

XBT2D-1
Manned

T-4
Yucca

T-l
Yucca

T-3 a
Yucca

Frenchman
Flat

4325

4608

4538

4325

5510

4025

4308

4238

4025

3078

43

TABLE 2.2 (Continued)


Test Conditions

Shot 1

Shot 2

Shot 7

Shot 8

Planned Yield
(KT) (Radchan)

15

40

33

37

31

Actual Yield
(KT)

16.2

24.-5

43.4

27.0

26.0

Aircraft Altitude (ft MSL)

17,200

10,800

10,450

11,200

21,900

6200

5900

6900

16,400

Aircraft Ht
12,900
above Burst (ft)

Shot 9

Temp, at Test
Altitude (F)

-04

33

43

39

-17

Pressure at
Test Alt.(psi)

7.7

9.9

10.1

9.8

6.3

Wind Velocity
at Test Alt.
(deg and fps)

270;
67

160;
27

265;
17

210;
25

250;
88

True Airspeed
(fps)

359

477

417

386

420

Aircraft True
Course (deg)

290

270

283

277

Slant Range at
t0 (ft)

14,400

8100

6200

7200

16,400

Slant Range at

16,800

10,900

6700

8100

18.000(a)
18,700(c)

TABLE 2.2

(Continued)

Test Conditions

Shot 1

Shot 2

Shot 7

Shot 8

Shot 9

Aircraft Weight
at tg (lb)

13,550

13,360

13,400

12,800

13,150

Position Relative
to Burst at tQ (deg)

63

50

73

73

85

Position Relative
to Burst at tg (deg)

50.5

34

60.5

58

64(a)
60(c)

44

TABLE 2.2

(Continued)

Test Results
Thermal Radiation*
(cal/cro2)

3.2

12.8

54.6

3.7

25.4

14.4

8.0

3.75

5.6

First
Shock
15.5

Overpressure (psi)

0.3

1.0

2.7

1.8

0.5

0.1

e.g. Acceleration
(Ag) Meas.

2.1

3.8

l6(est)

8.6

2.3

1.0

Tail Acceleration
(Ag) Meas.

2.0

3.6

I6(est)

8.5

2.6

1.1

Time of Shock
Arrival (sec)

Third
Shock
19.8

Incremental Wing Loads


(% of Design Limit Load)
Inboard Bending

11

18

70

40

12

Inboard Shear

12

22

90

40

10

Bending

17

27

110

51

13

Shear

15

23

100

45

15

Incremental Tail Loads


{% of Design Limit Load)

* Normal to horizontal plane.

s##f&f^* '
,...4?fP

_J J* * "mr"
V?

Sr-'"

I
"life

<." m
. SSxw

Fig. 2.1

AD-2, Starboard Aileron Showing Scorched Blue Paint on 0.016


Skin - Shot 2
45

vO
rH

o
c
o
-p

H
CO

a.

I
d

o
o

to
mm.

10

&,

H
F-<

bO

'Scd

o
(H

Q)

rH

cfl cv
o

,a
f*
CO
+i

-P
o
si
CO
i

c\T a
I -H
Q ^!
0 CO

t>0
H

46

Fig. 2.3

AD-2, Port Elevator and Horizontal Stabilizer


Showing Scorched Blue Paint on t).016 Skin Shot 2

47

CO

5?
w
u
o
CM <D

o tn
O 0)

r
OH

+>

(1) al

cq o
H
13 -P
-c; o

O P-,

O TJ
O d)

C
H
hOCV

C
H-P
in SO
^x
-< _, '
fcxO Jsi to

E) C/l fn
H
3
3UNPD
CM
+J O Q)
s-i

OO-P

PL,

< o c
CM
-H
I XI o
Q n)
-< cri&H

CM

'1-~Iiilli|&l/!v -

48

T3

>

o
taO

.5
o
fc

H
Ai

co

ir\
C\J
O

cv

o
C
o CO

p i

H p

nl en
CU b

w
3
0>
m ja
4>
rt
a> Wl
J3 a
o H
f-, o
o 01
o Cn
<D

rH

r/l

.O
hi) <1)

C&

*O

fn
01
Q)
CO XI
CO
P.
ert JH
rH 01
U< <l>

n-,

tu
C M
H o

Is

+>

P H
fn
O

<
a,
o
^ w

CM p
1 h
CJ o
=< fU

ir\
CM

bO
H
UH

4-9

Fig. 2.6

AD-2, Port Wing Showing Scorched Blue Paint on 0*025


Skin on Hinged Aft Edges of Wing Panel - Shot 2

50

CM

-P
O
Si
co
i
H
CO
CM

8
c
o
a.
0)
H

m
<D

.c
o
u
o
o

CO

o
CO

o.

ed

r-f

a.

-p

04

<*,

51

bO

>

xi

C/l

u
m

"'"'ttft.;

N
H
rH CV
H
,0 P
tfl O
-p X
CO w

H
crt

-P H
fl)
O <1)
N> r.o
H

f>

C) H
M-

^,

cR
n

?-.
O (1)
-P -a!
ni
0
(1) H
S-,

>

1
G I*,
(I)
0) Tl
0)
p N
0

tt)
*H

TJ(
X!
>

3 0

-P ft;

(1) TJ
u. (1)

<d

*\

cv1

<<

to
0!
W)
H
U-,

52

>

0
U
P
tn
<D
C_"

O
H
f-,
.>
ctf

TJ
CD
C

ep
tic

1
en
CD
N
H
r-l
H
.O
cti

CO

O
N CV
H

CO

U en
et)

f-.

ft 0

en >
o
u o

WijiM

CO
CD CD
PS rH
O
O

-P

r"
H

CD
>-P

I hO
Q -H

to
H
tx,

53

10
H
<D

PH

cv
O
6

H
O

I
3
be
C

c
o
CD

(4
CO

cd

+*
CO

o
u

o
r-i

Of
bO
H

54

-p

o
1

co
-p

a
CO

c
d)

o
CO
O
U
03

o
a.

CM

Pi

s!

55

o
CO

a
c

H
-P

5
o
03

H
CO

>
O
P
Q)

c O-

rf P

.S

CD CO
F>
H I
P
CO w

H m
CD

CD

A;

tu
-rj

o
CO -H
A!
I CO

-g
& cd
CD
rH .C
r)

CO

" &,
O
P-.

CD

s CO
CV H

I U
Q 3
52 co

C\i

56

T3
<D
U
<D

&

^iJ -P
O

o X
<D

co

H
S
P
H

G
-H
^i
CO

UA

O W
-P O
CD o
to

g3 -g
-p

Q
H
iH efl
03 CL,

E CD

Q) P
r-\
E-H PQ
C
U
H CO
TJ
CO -P
en,
I
-P

s-g

CD
rH TJ
H 0
-Ci

CO

ft

bto Os

O O
H
-P X
CO rO
xLT\

cv cv
I o

9
rH
C\i

57


U
Q) -p

J
1

o c

r
S o
o -
.p (D
-p

a) d
b0v3
cd

73

ctf

0)

c
C -P

15
CO

*H

o
o
+3 C
^ -H
O Jrf

I O

CM

58

3o

!
.a

s
iS
o

-p

a>

bO

sis
H
-P

3 s

1*
CO
I

CO

si
M
(0

CO

3|
-P -H
O

o
CO

ir\

CM

S
59

J>-

'tap"

mr*-tor"

Fig. 2.16

m^jSto*!-.

MM**

<'*' "*'!**,*.

AD72, Outboard Port Wing Panel and Wing Tip


Showing Wing Tip Intact. Note how white star
protected 0.032 skin. - Shot 7
60

'

Fig. 2.17

AD-2, Outboard Port Wing Panel Showing Heat


Resistant White Painted 0.032 Plate - Shot 7
61

Fig. 2.18

AD-2, Outboard Port Wing Panel Shovd.ng


Aluminized Lacquered 0.040 Plate - Shot 7

62

-8
Si

en

HO 1

to
x:

en

crS
-P

a.
N H
H H
H
H ^
XI O
rt P
P CO
CO >
(I)

3
0
-P
c
o

H
fci

-D

g
[0

O h
K a>

>

n o
c o
m
a)
o

fn
O
P
etl

iH

>

rc
W)

d-da>
P
O X!
W)

CH

P,
H
E-<

di

O
* H
C\J fn
X>

CTH
CM
63
iH

U<

63

O
U

o
o

CO
bO

o
ro

P-. CO
bfl I

I
-P CO

Pk H
O
H

0 o

o
H
05 +3

O.
O -H
E-i a)
Pu
CV J5

03

o
cv
CM
hfl
H
&k

^rv.^.v<**.i;^
6*

CO
-p

X
CO

I
O X
U CO

ir\
CO CV
O
bO

5
.c to
CO

o o
<D O
H

a!

c
o
?-.

CO
O

&

O
h Cocd -}
-P
CO -
Q)
* N

H
I
Q
CM

rH
CV
CV
bO

H
CTH

65

-H

-rj
0

CO
p

t*

.. CO

H '

) C
P -H
CO .M
CO
TJ

0) o

O O
h
5 O

CO -o

M cd

O O
.C
CO o

c *
o ^o
Q> O
rH

31
-P O

-if

P-.
H
* c
rH fL,
I
Q <D
CV +3

cv
H

66

to

a>
I-) to

a.

H O
CO

ID

a> a

o cd
03
CO

tu T)
o
CO

&
o
CO

CD

c
P-.

'S

H
cd

&

CO

bOTJ
C

O -H
si cd
co P.

o 3

-p H
cd ,0
!>
0

-P c
^ cd
o +3
a-, to

vO
H rH
I O

<=>

CM O

j
c
JxJ o
cv
cv
faO
H

67

ippsojiigf

Oq

Emdamsmm
''ft*

' />'

" *'&- V"'


-p

' 'i-'t

51ti

^V"^* "*

(1)

'M '.'' " :


k^i?^^.'
;;V
.

- '. "#,;*=

-p

u
0)

X
E-<

o
-p H
H -P
CUP-.
03

r-\ -

fc. ^

c
faO O

-P
O
T3

8
P

n
C

I 05
Q H

><! P-.
-4-

bO
H

68

^mf^m^mm

A'

p
03

0)

EH

to

cd -P

fee?
EH

-p

5 -H

3= -P
- U
{X O

til p-,

, 4 #$$

bfl
c cd

S c

U >
cd T3

.8,5?

\|#*

cog
H

e g

Oi

|vl j- \

, V

69

rl
CM

OH

i^

CO
-P -P
cn o
V X
EH

H
nl

CO

<1> rl
X -P
M U

.C P-.
-P

CTt

ti. O
C rQ

iH +3

In

W)

<S

a *

ad
^

T>
<D

-P
h et)
O -p
P-> cn
G
V H
H
1 co

O H

CM <.
H C

vO

cv
<M
W)
H

fe

70

HP
mm

to

o
CO

a) o
EH -P

*!
a) o

H >
H

bO
*
H -d
IS (D
rH
+3 r-l

O -P
G
>M
H

a. m

AH
i3
O

CV (1)
PL,

CM
H
Pn

71

<D
71
H
PJ

V,
Si

o
U

o
o
CO
t>0

so CO
.c

-P

r/> O

si

tJOCO

i
G

H H
O .*

fc

(1) CM

c9
a
a>

o o
*
iH o
Q -P
CV

eXI H

trt

Pi

to
CM

CM

bC
H
tu

7/.

72

0
H
fi-)

"Ecd i-4B

g ,Q

CO Tf
P fn
CO CO
TJ
TJ

Ja -PS03
8o
o

CO

m
H

60 m

so HP.
x: U
CO
a>
P, -P
H o
H 3

130
^ H
^J
(0 P
o
o
0) -d- co
H O
I
o

V
u
CO

T(

CO

AJ

H
CO

5hH^O
vO

cd O H
*O

O
*
H o TJ
-P

CO O

O +> p

CV

H
K
>< Pk
Ctl

o
<N

CM

W)

H
cr)

p.


<]>

!H

O
O
CO
bO

?o

.c
r/1

to

J-i

n P
-p O
C J3
> cn

fi)
H

T-f H
^
cd co
U
<D
tO
H
H
H

o
n
-9
es)
-p
0!

CD
CV

Tl <"-\
?H o

0)
O C)
,0
SH

es! o
-P
CO -p

v H
rH cfl
1 P-,
U
CV m
H 3

BH

cn
CV

W)
H
U<

74

CHAPTER

DISCUSSION

3.1

GENERAL

The data in this report permit the determination of a relativelycomplete picture of weapons effects on AD type aircraft for a representative escape position following the delivery of an atomic weapon.
In the presentation of these data, certain relationships are indicated
by means of curves superimposed on the basic data. Limited theoretical
analyses were employed in arriving at these curves and it is conceivable that some changes may result when more detailed analytical methods are applied. In all cases, however, the recorded data presented
herein are considered accurate to within 5 percent of the maximum
readings obtained.
3.2
3.2.1

THERMAL EFFECTS
General

Although the flight test thermal radiation and temperature


data as measured on the inside face of the aircraft skin show reasonable consistency and agreement with thermal damage and with expected
values, initial results of metallographic studies of the internal
structure of skin specimens from these flights (Appendix A) indicate
effects normally associated with temperatures far in excess of the
temperatures measured. This condition is believed to be a result of
microscopic thermal concentrations in the grain structure of the
material.. These concentrations are associated with the extremely
rapid rate of thermal radiation. Structural tests on these specimens
indicate no loss in strength corresponding to the indicated metallographic damage. Accordingly the thermal data presented in this report
are considered to adequately represent the thermal information necessary for aircraft structural considerations. The data presented in
Appendix B should prove to be of assistance in further analysis. It
is to be noted that although this phenomenon was not evidenced in the
ground specimens, it is believed that local conditions, such as the
dust layer, might have resulted in this discrepancy.
75

3.2.2

Theimal Radiation

The aircraft and calorimeter orientation relative to the burst


point at t0 for all shots is given in Figure 3.1. Aircraft positions
with respect to Ground Zero at t0 were determined from automatically
plotted radar tracking data. Calorimeter orientations with respect to
the burst points and their fields of view were obtained from motion
picture films taken from GSAP cameras which were essentially mounted
on the axes of the calorimeters. Figure 3.2 gives the value of thermal
radiation as measured by the various calorimeters. These two figures
indicate certain facts with respect to ground reflection. In Shot 8
two calorimeters were used. The port wing calorimeter was pointed
back toward the burst point but aimed above it by approximately 30*.
The starboard wing calorimeter was mounted to measure thermal radiation normal to the wing and was aimed approximately 15 below the
burst point. The direct readings of these two calorimeters were 17.8
and 24.9 cal/cm^ respectively. These values, increased to 19.2 and
26.9 when corrected by + 8 per cent for the quartz filter on the calorimeter; were verified by corresponding readings of 17 and 27 on
identically oriented cloth thermal indicators. The calculated direct
radiation received by these calorimeters is 12.3 and 13.6. Using
ground reflectivity calculations with a least squares value of albedo
of 0.55 based on data from Shots 1, 2 and 8, the calculated total
thermal radiation for these two installations is 20.8 and 25.7. These
values are seen to correspond closely to the true calorimeter readings.
The fact that the starboard wing calorimeter would have been exposed to
maximum effects of ground reflection in addition to direct radiation
from the fireball appears to justify its reading. The effect of reduced ground reflection on the port calorimeter similarly explains its
lower reading. In Shot 9 the position of the fireball is approaching
the 45 field of view limit of the calorimeter and as such it is expected that a large portion of the direct thermal radiation from the
burst would be missed. This is more strongly evidenced in Shot 7
where the fireball is partially outside of the calorimeter field of
view. Almost the entire thermal reading for this condition would be
due to reflected thermal radiation. Considering all such factors,
estimates for thermal radiation received normal to the wing can be
made for the shots in which it was not directly measured. Figures 3.3
and 3.4, based on ref (9), present the reflectivity information used
for this work. A comparison of calculated and measured calorimeter
readings is given in Figures 3.5 and 3.6. The results appear to verify
the ground reflection effect indicated in ref (7), where reflection
from the ground was estimated to be 50 per cent of the direct radiation.
3.2.3

Aircraft Skin Temperature Rise

Temperature rise in aircraft skin, was initially assumed to be


directly proportional to the heat received and to the reciprocal of
skin thickness. The time histories of temperature rise shown on Figure
3.7 indicate that the cooling rate is an important factor in this problem. Figure 3.8 shows the general agreement between measured cooling
76

9P^^*-

o
^

+3
CO

f-.

1-

^
o

L_

-p

<
J

(D

>

o
z

H
-P

<
CC

H
0)

_J
<
H

z
o

o
I

CO

+3
CO

O
CD

-P
<D

5U
o

1o
"3
fi
0)

+>

<H
tfl

U
O
JH

H
Jj

rvi
rvi

(VJ

a)

to

co

<o

cvi

c0lxJ~13A31 V3S NV3W 3A03V NOI1VA313

77

to

rl

CM

if)

it)

CM

2W0/Jvo~NOIViaVti

-1VWYGHJ.

78

^^m&

rates and those calculated following the methods of ref (14), if the
proper assumption of turbulent or laminar flow is made.
A lowering of effective absorptivity values for thinner skin
independently of surface finish is shown in Figures 3.9 through 3.13
for Shot 8 specimens. The curves through the test points were drawn
with an attempt to minimize this effect. Figure 3.14 summarizes these
data in the form of a family of curves based on readings from temperature sensitive papers. Two temperature sensitive gage readings are
included as an indication of the general agreement of data measured by
two different devices. Figure 3.15 is a summary of temperature rise
data from Shot 2. Although the data were limited, it can be seen that
curves of the same characteristic shape fit the points. An indication
of the range of equivalent absorptivities for different surface finish
and skin thickness for Shot 8 and Shot 2 is given in Figure 3.16. The
effect of aerodynamic cooling does not appear to fully explain the
lowering of the effective absorptivity values for thinner skins. This
can be seen in Table 3.1 which compares the equivalent absorptivity
values for representative cases of surface finish and skin thickness
in Shot 8 with absorptivities considering the methods of ref (14). The
same general trend of lower absorptivity for thinner skin is indicated
here. In a discussion of an equivalent absorptivity value it is important to remember that it is dependent on the amount of heat assumed
to be received by the material. Any amount of heat added or lost as a
result of thermal damage to surface coatings will have a tendency to
influence this value. Using average values for these absorptivities
and the assumed normal thermal radiation of 55 cal/cm^, the temperature rise in 0.016 and 0.064 in. skin for Shot 7 was estimated. The
two estimated values for skin with an aluminized lacquer finish appear
to substantiate the 450F temperature rise in the 0.040 in. skin. The
predicted temperature rise appears consistent with the observed damage
for the aircraft skin in this shot. References (15) and (l6) present
the results of preliminary metallurgical studies conducted in an
attempt to determine the approximate temperature attained by the aircraft skin in Shot 7. The data in Appendix A are the results of additional work of a similar nature.
The extreme importance of aircraft skin surface finish is
readily seen in the results from Shot 7. Heat resistant white painted
panels remained intact where similar panels with standard blue paint,
subjected to identical thermal radiation, were completely destroyed.
Bare aluminum held up almost as well as heat resistant white but in all
cases experienced higher temperatures. It is to be noted here that
heat resistant white and standard white paint afford roughly the same
protection as long as the finish is not charred. At thermal levels
high enough to seriously affect the standard white surface, it proves
to be no better than aluminized lacquer. Field analysis of the structural failures which caused loss of the drone in Shot 7 were conducted
by project personnel and representatives of the Structures Department,
Douglas Aircraft Co. Indications are that the aircraft might have survived had the under skin been bare aluminum or painted heat resistant
white instead of standard blue.

79

TABLE 3.1 - Calculated Absorptivity Values - Shot 8


(Turbulent Flow Assumed)

S 13 E C I M E N
Skin Thickness (in.)
Color
Standard
Blue

Bare
Aluminum

A B S 0 R P T I V I T Y
Figure 3.13
Reference (11)
0.232 - 0.398

0.025

0.415 - 0.505

0.040

0.436 - 0.710

0.064

0.483

0.464

0.016

0.159 - 0.232

0.172

0.025

0.245

0.040

0.274

0.064
Heat
Resistant
White

0.262

0.016

0.016

0.103 - 0.141

0.025

0.178 - 0.280

0.040

0.215

0.064

0.256
0.146

0.244

The coating of other thermally vulnerable items, such as fabric


seals and rubber tires, \n.th heat resistant white paint permitted them
to withstand approximately four times the thermal radiation that they
could in their natural state.
3.3
3.3.1

NUCLEAR RADIATION
Gamma Radiation

Gamma radiation was considered to be the most important of the


nuclear radiations. Gamma measurements were made at several locations
on the aircraft. These measurements are presented in Figure 3.17 as
compared to calculated gamma radiation where aircraft motion, density
at point of burst, and aircraft clock position were considered. The
reading underneath the wing, where there was no protection from direct
radiation, was the highest reading. The lower readings, inside the
rear fuselage, inside the wing folds and inside the cockpit for both
Shot 8 and Shot 2, were roughly proportional to the amount of structural shielding associated with these locations. The materials provid80

^ ?^^^^^^^^^TOB

ing shielding are listed under Results for these two shots. The data
from Shot 1 and Shot 9 were too low to be of significance, being less
than O.lr. All pertinent gar-ma infomiation is summarized on the basis
of a 1 KT yield in Figure 3.18.
3.3.2

Neutron Radiation

The effects of neutron radiation were assumed to be negligible


for all test positions.
3.4
3.4.1

OVERPRESSURE AND GUST EFFECTS


Overpressure

Shots 1, 2, 7 and 8 had 300 ft burst heights while Shot 9 had


a burst height of 2400 ft. On the basis of the triple point trajectory
curves in Figure 3.19 it can be seen that the aircraft position for
Shot 9 was in the free air region. For all other shots the aircraft
was in the region of reflection and the calculated pressures were considered to be produced by a weapon with a yield of 1.8 times the given
radio-chemical yield.
For these conditions, measured overpressures were found to be
in close agreement with calculated when the method of ref (17) was
employed in reducing the data. This consisted of taking the best
straight line through that portion of the overpressure record which
exhibited conventional smooth behavior, and extending it back to time
of shock arrival.
Time of shock arrival for ground burst data was found to be in
close agreement with shock arrival times in the region of reflection.
Converting the free air yield of Shot 9 to an equivalent ground burst
yield using the 1.8 reflection factor, brings this point exactly on the
(Figure 3.20) shock arrival curve. A comparison of measured and
calculated overpressure is given in Figure 3.21. Figure 3.22 presents
the measured overpressures in terms of a standard 1 KT free air burst.
The range of pressure and density ratios investigated is indicated in
Figure 3.23. The associated gust velocities are given in Figure 3.24.
The curves included here are good only for standard atmospheric conditions. Since temperature is the factor governing the relationship
between gust velocity and altitude, an equivalent temperature altitude
based on measured temperature must be used for non-standard atmospheric
conditions.
No overpressure damage was noted up to approximately 2 psi.
In no case was any adverse overpressure effect on the structure noted
except when it occurred in conjunction with extremely high skin
temperatures.
3.4.2

Gust Effects

Gust effect's were recorded in terms of accelerations and structural loads resulting from measured overpressures. These records are
reproduced in Figures 3.25 through 3.33. In all cases wing gust
81

effects were noted approximately 0.01 sec after the tail as indicated
in Figures 3 .25 and 3.26.
On the basis of a peak e.g. acceleration reading at a time
associated with peak wing loads, and an average of two peak tail accelerations occurring in the time interval between peak tail and peak
wing loads, excellent correlation was obtained between wing and tail
acceleration. A comparison between these measured accelerations and
corresponding calculated accelerations is given in Figure 3.34. The
measured accelerations are seen to be almost twice the calculated
values for all tests. How much of this is due to elastic structural
/-h 2=3,000

Id"0
9
8
7.

6
5
A'

\
\

^-\

SHOT 7-

*\er

/-h9=.5,000

3'
2

SHOT

SHOT 2
1

^"w

rhi = 11,600
l"9
8
7

6
(M

=7,000
^*"^ \

T
/
/
^ = \:J,340
2

- O

^^O

SHOT 1 -J

H-l

XL
2.
<OhSV
c

-12

10 "
9"

O"
7.

ft.
D

5
C)

Fig. 33

2I

>

S\

1D

i;2

HORIZONTAL RANGE, R^FTX I03


Reflected Thermal Intensity from a Unit SourceTower, hi = 300 ft.
82

14

accelerations affecting the overall acceleration picture and how much


is due to limitations in the theoretical approach to the prediction of
these accelerations must be evaluated by future laboratory tests and
theoretical study. The fact that measured acceleration can be predicted consistently, however, is of great importance in view of the
general agreement between measured and calculated structural loads and
the relationship between load and acceleration (see Equation 1.10).
The comparison between measured and calculated loads is made in
Figures 3.35 through 3.39. Although in this particular airplane the
dynamic overstress appears to approximately compensate for the gust
alleviation, the fact that the recorded loads exhibit frequencies corresponding to first symmetrical bending illustrates the importance of
LEGEND
HEIGHT OF BURST ABOVE GROUND

h,= 2,000 FT
h =3,000 FT

HORIZONTAL RANGE, RH~FTXI03


Fig. 3.4

Reflected Thermal Intensity from a Unit Source


Air Drop h-^ = 2432 feet

83

considering aeroelastic effects even on rigid aircraft. Figure 3-35


shows the time-history of the pitching motion of the drone aircraft
during the period of shock arrival for Shots 2 and 8, indicating that
pitching motion had a negligible effect on aircraft loading during the
first 0.1 sec after shock arrival.

CM

<

zI
o
<

ec

2
QC
UJ

X
H
Q
U

a.

D
(0
<

u
2

CALCULATED THERMAL RADIATION-CAI/CM2

Fig. 3.5

Comparison of Measured and Calculated Thermal


Radiation. Albedo = 0.55
84

0= CALCULATED TO POINT I "^


NO
A = CALCULATED TO HORIZONTAL
REFLECTION
PLANE AT POINT

6.00

O = MEASURED CORRECTED FOR FILTER(+ 8%)


= ^- DIRECT RADIATION MISSED
(D = 3. DIRECT RADIATION MISSED

4.00
3.00

<M
2
J)

V
a
K

3<

>U>

a:
Ld

z
UJ

2.00

STBD WING
PORT WING

1.00
0.80
0.60

PORT WING
-TAIL

0.40
0.30

SHOT 7-

z
o
<

X= TOTAL ON HORIZONTAL PLANE (INCLUDING


REFLECTIVITY)

SHOTS-J

0.20

<
tc
.J

<

ft

UJ
I

SHOT 2

X
O- -PORT WING
X
CH\ PORT

0.10
0.08
0.06

_J

<

fc
H

SHOT ISHOT 9-

0.04
0.03

0.02

0.013.0
Fig. 3.6

9.0
12.0 ^ 15.0
SLANT RANGE ~FTx|Q

6J0

Measured and Calculated Thermal Radiation


Reduced to 1 KT

85

18.0

21.0

&

-P

is
EH

H
CO
-P

f-.

U
H
a;
xf
CD
U

CD
<D

-p

03
H
0)
t:

PI

EH

Jo ~ N3I9WV 3A09V 3umvu3dW3


86

CO
<D
-P

H
rH
O
O
O

0)
-p
CO
H
3
O
H
cd

o
C
cfl
TS
CO
U
CO
CO
0)

f-,

CM

O
-P
00
H

U
-P
c
U
0)
(X

0)

CO
cn
cti
$H

o
U

H
<c!
0

H
(x,

wnwixvw iv/iv
87

600-r

o
^t
o
o

CM
CO
O
O

in
CM

o
o

o
CM
o
o

12
24
36
48
RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS ('/t) ~ IN"'

Fig. 3.9

Incremental Temperatures Measured in Aircraft Skin


with a Heat Resistant White Paint Finish - Shot 8

88

(0

q
d

60

12

24

36

48

RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS ( '/f) ~ IN'1

Fig. 3.10

Incremental Temperatures Measured in Standard


White Painted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8
89

"<t
<o

O
^-

CVJ
ro

odd

in

tO

CM
O
O

O
CM
O
O

36
48
RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS (1^) ~ IN"1

Fig. 3.11

Incremental Temperatures Measured in


Unpainted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8

90

(0

o
o

RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS (Vt) ~ IN'

Fig. 3.12

Incremental Temperatures Measured in Aircraft Skin


with an Aluminized Lacquer Finish - Shot 8

91

*
(0

n
o

o
*<t
o

c\j

en

o
(\l

RECIPROCAL

Fig. 3.13

SKIN THICKNESS ('/t) ~IN -i

Incremental Temperatures Measured in Standard


Blue Painted Aircraft Skin - Shot 8

92

(0
O

12

24

36

48

60

RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS ( '/f ) ~ IN"1

Fig. 3.14

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin vs the Reciprocal


of Skin Thickness for Different Surface Finish Shot 8

93

A=BLUE

12

LEGEND
=ALUMINIZED

24

a=WHITE(HEAT RESISTANT)

36

48

RECIPROCAL SKIN THICKNESS ('/t) ~ IN"

Fig

3.15

Temperature Rise in Aircraft Skin vs the Reciprocal


of Skin Thickness for Different Surface Finish Shot 2
%

60

0.64

0.56

0.48

<0

(O
Q
O

0.40

a.

0.32

>
H

Q.
DC

0.24

CO
CO

<

0.08

'0

008

0-6

0.24

032

0-40

EQUIVALENT ABSORPTIVITY FOR 0.016 SKIN

Fig. 3.16

Comparison of Equivalent Absorptivity for 0.016 and


0.064 Aircraft Skin with Different Surface Finish

95

8
CALCULATED

Fig. 3.17

16

24

GAMMA RADIATION

32
ROENTGENS

Comparison of Measured and Calculated Gamma


Radiation Indicating Structural Shielding
Effects

96

LEGEND
A=CALC. AIRCRAFT IN
MOTION
BsCALC^o POSITION

-1.0-0.01
4

6
7
REDUCED RANGE(d R A

Fig. 3.1 Measured and Calculated Gamma Radiation


Reduced to 1 KT in Sea Level Homogeneous
Atmosphere
97

20
SHOT 9

O 16
x
H
u.

SHOT

ui

(D

SHOT 8
8
SHOT 2

SHOT 7

300 FT BURST HEIGHT


2400 FT BURST HEIGHT

CT

5EF^ '
6

HORIZONTAL RANGE~FTXI03

Fig. 3.19

Triple Point Trajectory Curves Indicating


Aircraft Position at Shock Arrival

98

10

EQUIVALENT GROUND BURST YIELDS


SHOT
1
2
7
8
9a

YIELD
16.2
245
43.4
270
14.5;

r~f

FREE AIR BURST CONVERTED TO EQUIVALENT GROUND


BURST USING 1.8 REFLECTION FACTOR

SLANT RANGED FT X I03

Fig. 3.20

Measured and Calculated Shock Arrival


Times vs Slant Range

99

CX8

1.6

2.4

3.2

CALCULATED OVERPRESSURE ~ PS I
Fig. 3.21

Comparison of Measured and Calculated Overpressure

100

4.0

O
SHOT 7

MEASURED OVERPRESSURE
/CORRECTED TO FREE AIR^
IBURST DATA
)

SHOT 9 a

CALCULATED
(FREE AIR BURST DATA)

Fig. 3.22

5
7 10
20
SLANT RANGE ~ FT XIO3

30

50

M 111

Measured and Calculated Overpressure Reduced to


1 KT in a Sea Level Homogeneous Atmosphere

101

100

1.00

1.04

1.08

1.12

DENSITY RATIO~ fe
Fig. 3.23

Pressure Ratio vs Density Ratio

102

,<^riiHu*iiUKVifl& h

.16

1.20

1.00

L08

1.16

1.24

1.32

PRESSURE RATIO'^p

Fig. 3.24

Gust Velocity as a Function of Pressure


Ratio and Altitude

103

1.40

TRACE NO.
14

TAIL ACCELERATION

SHOCK ARRIVAL,TAIL; 5.6 SECONDS FROM T0


STBD. HOR. STAB. FRONT SPAR SHEAR , STA. 21
STBD.HOR.STAB.REAR SPAR SHEAR, STA. 21

r2

TIME ~ SECONDS X 10

Fig. 3.25

Time History of Tail Acceleration and Tail


Loads - Shot 8

104

TIME ~ SECONDS x 10S-2

Fig. 3.26

Time History of e.g. Acceleration, Wing


Loads and Overpressure - Shot 8

105

yv :>//

INCREMENTAL HOR. STAB. SHEAR STA. 21

5.65
5.70
5.75
5.B0
TIME AFTER BURST~ SECONDS X I02
Fig. 3.27

Measured Aircraft Acceleration and Tail


Loads - Shot 8

106

20
CO

o
X
(0

_J

fO

o
X

<n
CO
_l

INCREMENTAL WING SHEAR

STA.57

15
10
05
-0
INCREMENTAL WING BENDING STA. 162

600
400
200
-0

INCREMENTAL WING BENDING STA. 57

<*)2000
-1500
|000
CO 500
z -0

OVERPRESSURE

2
(f)
1
Q.
0

5. 60

5.65

5.70

5.75

5.80

TIME AFTER BURST~ SECONDSX|0'

Fig. 3.28 Measured Overpressure and Aircraft


Wing Load - Shot 8
107

TRACE NO-

A9-3.8I

CG. ACCELERATION

PORT HORIZ.STAB. BENDING, STA. 21

J
PORT HORIZ. STAB. SHEAR, STA. 21

-OVERPRESSURE

18

SHOCK ARRIVAL, WING,

8.01 SECONDS FROM

-SHOCK ARRIVAL, TAIL; 8.0 SECONDS

FROM

v-2
TIME^ SECONDS X 10

Fig. 3.29

Time History of e.g. Acceleration, Tail


Acceleration, Tail Loads and Overpressure
Shot 2

108

T0
T0

TRACE NO.

STARBOARD BENDING, STA. 57


PORT BENDING, STA. 57-

PORT REAR SPAR BENDING, STA. 57

PORT BENDING, STA. 107


6
PORT BENDING, STA. 162
/
8

PORT FRONT SPAR SHEAR, STA. 57


10

y
SHOCK ARRIVAL,WING; 8.01 SECONDS FROM T0

TIME ~ SECONDS X I0~2

Fig. 3.30

Time History of Wing Loads Indicating Shot 2


Estimated Peaks Based on Wing Dynamic Response

109

SHOCK ARRIVAL TAIL (14.40 SEC3 AFTER %) ^-SHcTARRIV/rW'IG (14.41 SECS AFTER
--- REFERENCE-^

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Stbd. Wing Bending, Sta. 57


8.
Port Horiz. Stab. Shear, Sta. 21
9.
Fort Wing Bending, Sta. 57
10.
Port Horiz. Stab. Bending, Sta. 21
11.
Port Wing Rear Spar Bending, Sta. 57 12.
Port Wing Bending, Sta. 107
13.
Thermal Radiation
14.
18. Over Pressure
Fig. 3.31

'

TQ)

Port Wing Bending, Sta. 162


Thermal Radiation
Port Wing Shear, Sta. 57
Over Pressure
Indicated Airspeed
C.G. Acceleration
Tail Acceleration

Time History of Blast Data - Shot 1


110

BLUE BOX.

'--is'-: 17 '
,'X/ ^\
-^-vv^ .

srC^A^^AO;

. w-^^-'VA

. jfc- 1st SHOCK ARRIVAL WINGfitl5.51 SECS AFTER TQ)j*jf


Wist SHOCK ARRIVAL TAIL ( 15.50 SECS AFTER T0)^KFERENCl$jFH5S01 SECr~
:
TREFERENCE -^
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Stbd. Wing Bending, Sta. 57.5


9. Thermal Radiation
Port H0riz. Stab. Shear, Sta. 21
10. Port Wing Shear, Sta. 57.5
Port Wing Bending, Sta 57.5
11. Over Pressure
Port Horiz. Stab. Bending, Sta.21 12. Stbd. Horiz. Stab.Rear Spar
Port Wing Rear Spar Bending Sta.575
Bending, Sta. 21
Stbd. Horiz. Stab. Front Spar
13. C. G. Acceleration
Bending, Sta. 21
14. Tail Acceleration
7. Thermal Radiation
16. Stbd. Horiz.Stab.Front Spar
8. Port Wing Bending, Sta. 164
Shear, Sta. 21
17. Stbd. Horiz.Stab.Rear Spar
18. Over Pressure
Shear, Sta. 21
Fig. 3.32 Time History of Blast Data - Shot 9a (First Shock, Shot 9)
111

r ' ' T"

BLUE BOC

i4
14r - - -

~.,-v^/v"v

_6
i ^ro*yQ*>^zf<v^^?~s?x^tzK.

j* .w^

-W! 1 "wV^V."-*.

r3rd SHOCK ARRIVAL WING (19.SO SECS AFTER T0>:


J$FERENC|

^7
,A*#UX

-1EFEREN310.
Stbd. Wing Bending, Sta. 57.5
11.
Port Horiz. Stab. Shear, Sta. 21
12.
Port Wing Bending, Sta. 57.5
Port Horiz. Stab. Bending, Sta. 21
Port Wing Rear Spar Bending Sta .57.5 13.
Stbd. Horiz. Stab. Front Spar
14.
16.
Bending, Sta. 21
7. Thermal Radiation
8. Port Wing Bending, Sta. 1&+
17.
9. Thermal Radiation
18. Over Pressure

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fig. 3.33

iijwsS

Port tfing Shear, Sta. 57.5


Over Pressure
Stbd. Horiz. Stab. Rear Spar
Bending, Sta. 21
C. G. Acceleration
Tail Acceleration
Stbd. Horiz.Stab.Front Spar
Shear, Sta. 21
Stbd. Horiz.Stab.Rear Spar
Shear, Sta. 21

Time History of Blast Data - Shot 9c (Third Shock, Shot 9)


112

SHOT 7

OCENTER OF GRAVITY ACCELERATION


GKTAIL ACCELERATION
2

CALCULATED NORMAL ACCELERATION ~Ag

Fig. 3.34

Comparison of Measured, and Calculated


Aircraft Normal Acceleration

113

HOT 8

CALCULATED INCREMENTAL TAIL SHEAR^LbXlO3

Fig. 3.35

Comparison of Measured and Calculated


Horizontal Stabilizer Shear
1U

SHOT 8

O
X

CALCULATED^ MEASURED
O

z
O
Z

_J

u
id

oc
o
z
O
J
DC
D
0
<

CALCULATED INCREMENTAL TAIL BENDING~lrvLbx|03

Fig. 3.36

Comparison of Measured and Calculated


Horizontal Stabilizer Bending

115

4.0

80

12.0

160

CALCULATED INCREMENTAL WING SHEAR~LbX|03

Fig. 3.37

Comparison of Measured and Calculated


Wing Shear - . S. 57

116

20O

2.8

50% DES GN LIMIT


BENDING STA 57
2.4

to

2.0

_l

SHOT 8
MEASURED = CALCULATED

1.6
Id

flu
o
z

_l

1.2

u
2
u
a:

2
a
u
a:

SHOT 2

0.8

-SHOT 9 a

CO
<
J

-SHOT I

5 0.4

0=STARBOARD
EXPORT
SHOT 9c
J

-1

U-

0.4

_l

1_

08

-J

1.2

1.6

CALCULATED INCREMENTAL WING BENDING ~ In. Lb x I06

Fig. 3.38

Comparison of Measured and Calculated


Wing Bending - W. S. 57
117

u.

2.0

O
X
_l

O
Z
Q

Z
u

m
o
z

z
u
E
O
Z

U
E

to
<
UJ

CALCULATED INCREMENTAL WING BENDING ^|n. Lb X 10

Fig. 3.39

Comparison of Measured and Calculated


Wing Bending - W. S. 107 and W. S. 162

118

if)

CO
Q

5
-p

LJ
f)

M
C
H

-P
H

<
>

P-i

_l

<
*

u
o

I
to

s
H

ft

JU
H
<C
<H
O

r?
o

-p

rl

U.

(D

E-i

0C

O H

3
cn
M
H
Pn

if)

Oi

dfl 390N

NMOa 3SON

S33y03CI~3DNVhO 310NV HDlId 3NVlddlV

119

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
4.1.1

CONCLUSIONS
Thermal Effects

a. Thermal radiation on aircraft in flight in clear air is a


result of ground reflection as well as direct radiation from the fireball. Additional thermal radiation may also be received from clouds
through reflection, depending upon cloud location with respect to both
aircraft and burst point. As such, refs (1) and (8) appear to be
inadequate for predicting thermal effects on aircraft in flight unless
reflectivity calculations, such as are outlined in ref (9), are included .
b. Heat resistant white paint provides aircraft skin with a
greater degree of protection from thermal radiation than any^ other surface finish tested. Next to heat resistant white, bare aluminum
appears to offer the best protection against thermal damage. Aircraft
skin painted standard blue is extremely vulnerable to thermal damage,
being able to stand less than one-third of the thermal radiation withstood by skin painted with heat resistant white. Use of white or ligtt
colored paint on tires, aerodynamic seals and other dark colored
materials provides similar protection against thermal radiation.
c. Microscopic thermal damage as indicated by metallographic
tests on aircraft skin specimens does not appear to be an important
factor where structural considerations associated with thermal radiation are involved. Temperature rise measured by temperature sensitive
papers and strain gages on the back of these specimens appear consistent with structural thermal damage and as such are believed to be
applicable to the investigation of aircraft thermal limitations as
treated in this report.
d. Thermal damage to paint finishes, such as standard white,
may modify its absorptivity characteristics. Equivalent absorptivity
for a given finish appears to be affected by skin thickness and aerodynamic cooling. Reference (14) provides a satisfactory means of calculating the cooling rate if the aerodynamic flow conditions are
known.

120

4.1.2

Overpressure and Gust Effects

a. When the yield of the weapon and the position of the airplane are known, the time of shock arrival may be predicted with
negligible error.
b. The methods of predicting overpressures encountered by
aircraft in flight in the vicinity of an atomic blast produce results
which are in agreement with measured values to within 0.1 psi.
c. Overpressure up to at least 2 psi has no adverse effect
on the structure of AD type aircraft. Overpressure effects in Shot 7,
for approximately 3 psi, were masked by the associated thermal damage.
d. The methods of ref (1) used in predicting the acceleration
introduced to AD type aircraft in flight by blast, appear to provide
agreement with a sustained or effective acceleration rather than with
the peak acceleration measured in flight. This is seen as a result of
the close correlation between measured loads and those calculated
using the accelerations determined by these methods.
4.1.3

General

a. Orientation of aircraft in flight with the longitudinal


axis pointed directly away from the burst should result in reduced
thermal and gust effects when compared with the positions investigated in this report.
b. The installations for the measurement of blast effects, as
well as those used for the measurement of thermal effects, had certain
limitations in that the effects as measured may have been modified by
dynamic response characteristics associated with the airplane. Additional information concerning thermal and shock inputs might be
obtained were comprehensive laboratory tests to be conducted to
establish the dynamic characteristics of the complete measuring
systems as installed in the test aircraft.
4.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made, based on data presented


in this report.
4.2.1

Thermal Effects

It is recommended that:
a. Additional thermal radiation measurements in flight be
made when opportunity permits, in order to further evaluate the effect
of ground reflectivity. Time histories of aircraft skin temperature
rise for various thicknesses and surface finishes should be included.
Metallographical studies should be made on all specimens to provide
additional data on measured temperatures and thermal damage.
b. Theoretical methods for predicting temperature rise and
thermal effects on aircraft skin be furthr investigated in order to
provide closer correlation with thermal phenomena as measured and
observed.
121

c. In those atonic weapon delivery problems where critical


thermal conditions exist, consideration be given to the use of a skin
finish of naval aircraft with better thermal characteristics than that
of the standard blue paint. Tires, aerodynamic seals, and other
exposed materials should be similarly protected.
4.2.2

Overpressure and Gust Effects

It is recommended that:
a. Dynamic analysis methods for predicting wing and tail loads
on AD type aircraft be investigated in an attempt to provide additional
correlation with flight test data.

122

SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS


a

Speed of sound at aircraft altitude, feet per second.

du

Speed of sound at burst height, feet per second.

Cps

Instrument operational frequency, cycles per second.

C|_Q

Slope of lift curve, per radian.

Gamma dosage, roentgens.

Normal accelerometer indication, non-dimensional.

Ag

Incremental normal accelerometer indication, non-dimensional.

hi

Burst height above ground, feet.

hQ

Aircraft height above ground, feet.

Ah

Aircraft height above burst, feet,hph

IR

Unit reflected thermal radiation from ground, per centimeter .

MSL

Mean sea level.

NOLO

No live occupant in drone aircraft.

p
A

Atmospheric pressure at aircraft altitude, pounds per


square inch.

Atmospheric pressure at burst height, pounds per square


inch.

Pi

Peak instantaneous pressure, pounds per square inch.

AP

Overpressure, pounds per square inch.

Total thermal radiation, calories per square centimeter,

Range from point of burst to point in space, feet.

R/\

Range from point of burst to aircraft, feet.

Range from point of burst to point in space at burst


altitude, feet

123

Aircraft wing area, square feet.

Aircraft skin thickness, inches.

t0

Time of burst, time zero.

Time of shock arrival, seconds from

T.

Absolute temperature of aircraft altitude, R.

Tu
H
AT

Absolute temperature at burst altitude, R.

Ui

Peak instantaneous aircraft velocity, feet per second.

I).

Initial aircraft velocity, feet per second.

Gust velocity, feet per second.

Weight of aircraft, pounds.

Weapon yield, kilotons.

Angle between horizontal and line joining burst point with


aircraft, degrees.

Albedo, percent of thermal radiation reflected by a point,


non-dimensional.

Fuchs factor, non-dimensional;

1Q

Aircraft skin temperature rise, F.

X~e

Z"(^D~*^T
v

^)

'

fi

Equivalent thermal absorptivity factor, incorporating all


heat loss considerations, non-dimensional.

p
A

Initial ambient density at aircraft altitude, slugs per


cubic foot.

Ambient density at burst altitude, slugs per cubic foot.

Peak air density, slugs per cubic foot,


Altitude density ratio at burst altitude;

12A

H/p

SL

APPENDIX A

METALLURGICAL TESTS OF SKIN SPECIMENS TAKEN FROM


MODEL AD TYPE AIRCRAFT EXPOSED IN FLIGHT
TO
THERMAL RADIATION FROM AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION

by

RICHARD SCHMIDT
JOHN ERTHAL

NAVAL AIR MATERIAL CENTER


PHILADELPHIA 12, PENNSYLVANIA

125

APPENDIX A

METALLURGICAL TESTS OF SKIN SPECIMENS TAKEN FROM


MODEL AD TYPE AIRCRAFT EXPOSED IN FLIGHT
TO
THERMAL RADIATION FROM AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION

A.l

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of these metallurgical tests were:


a. to determine the strength properties of the various aircraft
skin specimens after exposure in flight to the thermal radiation from
an atomic explosion.
b. to determine the approximate magnitude of the maximum
temperature rise in the various aircraft skin specimens by ascertaining whether or not melting of the clad and/or base metal occurred.
A.2
A.2.1

METHOD
Strength Tests

Specimens for tensile tests were manufactured from samples of


the aluminum alloy skin cut from various portions of the underside of
the test aircraft which participated in Shots 2, 7, and 8. Skin
samples were obtained having different thicknesses and surface finishes. Due to the restricted size and/or condition (thermal damage,
etc.) of the various skin panels from which samples were cut, substandard size tensile specimens had to be manufactured.
SR-4 type strain gages were mounted on the various test specimens and tensile tests conducted to determine ultimate strength, yield
strength, and per cent elongation. Where practical, at least three
tensile specimens were obtained and tested from the same skin sample.
A.2.2

Metallographic Examinations

Small specimens cut from each of the various skin samples were
mounted, polished, and subjected to microscopic examination.
By comparing the data obtained from the metallographic examination of these specimens with existing data on the solidus and liquidus
126

temperature of the alloys, an estimate of the maximum temperature


reached by each specimen could be obtained. For example, the solidus
temperature for 24S aluminum alloy is 935F and the solidus of the
cladding is 1190F. If melting has occurred in the base metal and not
in the cladding, the temperature reached was between these values.
A.3

RESULTS

A.3.1

Strength Tests

The physical properties of ultimate strength, yield strength,


and per cent elongation of the specimens tested are listed in Table A.1
for Shot 8 and in Table A.2 for Shots 2 and 7. No attempt has been
made to compare these results with "standard" values due to the fact
that sub-standard size test specimens were used (elongation data not
comparable) and no test specimen material in its original condition
was available for establishing realistic reference standards. However,
the following handbook values as obtained from ref (18) are listed for
the different types of aluminum alloy specimens tested:
Material

Ultimate Strength
psi

Yield Strength,
psi

%
ELongation/2 in.

24S T3 Alclad

64,000

44,000

18.0

24S0

27,000

11,000

19.0

61S T6

45,000

40,000

12.0

75S T6 Alclad

76,000

67,000

11.0

AL3S0

16,000

6,000

30.0

52SH34

37,000

31,000

10.0

52SO

27,000

12,000

25.0

A.3.2

Metallographic Tests

Results of the metallographic examinations indicating the maximum temperatures reached by the test specimens and their microstructural characteristics are listed in Table A.l for Shot 8 and in
Table A.2 for Shots 2 and 7. For purposes of comparison, the maximum
temperatures attained by the different test specimens as measured during Shot 8 are also listed in Table A.l. These measurements were made
by means of maximum indicating temperature sensitive papers covering
the range from 130F to 580F in specified increments. The temperature papers were mounted on the interior surface of the aircraft skin.
Similar data are not available for comparison with the metallographic
test results listed in Table A.2.

127

0
I1

H
P

(D

CO

D
CO

cc
<

bO

o c

r-

</>

H iH
-p -p
OH
a>

r-

-P

X
<

rr

<
<Q
DC

CO

W 0

ld

Ig*
H
-P

E"

CO

rt
to r
cv V

*
O c^

cv V
A

a*s

H
-P

-Nl 3dN0UV0N013

u
ff
r-

ISd

IX
1-

0H3IA

7
u
er

l9d
SS3S

3vwinn

SHOT NO.
AND
SPECIMEN
LOCATION
ON
TEST A/c

0)

-H
+3
pH

-p S
f

^8

rH Q

8
H

-p
M
C
iH
-P

5P
.
C -H
H c
-p f^

d ^

1? F

< -H
+3 -P

^
s
o

H
rH

*0

-|Vlti3XVlN

7f
w
< UJ

3
cv
o
cv

to

to

CV

vr\CV

e*- cv

CV
vO CV

SV

r7V
A

rnV

cn

cn

o.

CV

vO cv

cv

cv
o

o
CV

rH

rH

t-i
O

rH

8
5

CV
t>-

cn
O
o

CV

vO

vO

ITS

CO

to

IT

to
rH

i-H

cv

t-i

3
<0

M3

cv

cv
o
cv

00

8
3

8
<r\

iH

MD
vO

cr\

co

H
P

ET

43

rH

to

E-<
CO

A
ff

to

&
ir\cv

-p
CV
irv

CV

NOMIN
THICKN
AND
COLOt

IS

8
o

<u
S

-P

H
-P

fl>
-P

2uOP
<l-j<OCl

l-H

C
H H
-P -P

rl

SS
CO w

3
CV

3
cv
AC
cd

<D
0

0
O "

O cd

cv r.
o cd

Ac

E^

in rH

a>

Ac

=
rH

-*

CO

cv

CV

EH

3
CV

co

EH

CO

co

CV

co m

SS
S5

O T3
CV U
O cd

IT* T3

CV TS

CV "O

cd 3

128

c 3

CV U
O rt

cd V

cd

-A

CD
cd 3
p cJ

co W

O cd

bD

0
u
cr

0
2
QC

H
-P

o a

^
S

I
n

<
oc

m to
<

a
TF.
EMP.
PE &
AGE
ATA

<r-OQ

-Nl 3dR N0IV0N013

H
+3
H

43

^
'S)
H g

H
CO

o
+>

10
TJ
T3
+5 H
H

S
-P

CJ

S2

*o O

&

la

CO ,0
rH
O

rH
CO

5^
^gs

-p

H
+J 4.1

TH

^ S
o

o
is

H O
o
PQ

rH
H

o
ft

o
o

rH

rH

m to

o
H rH

3v
cv

H rH

av
A

rH
CM

8V

c>-oj

5v

to
t>cv
A

OA

t>rH

cv
o

cv

CM

ii

H
H

iTvCV

V
cv

cv
o

rH

IT
h<0
U

iSd
S-S3bS
ai3iA

r-

iSd
U
SS-3tiS
3-LVWlJLm

rH

8
o

C--

-tf

cv

CV

C^

(V

IT\
U>

ITN
rH

o
ir\

vO

NO

-4"

ir\

cv

zz >o
UO

O
ri
P
-P
CO

""1VI3VW

3
CM

a,

3 P-.

fx<

o:
?ZO
5^ZJ
3UJ

z rx

in

-4

*
r>-

l>-

-*

CV

c^

-d-

C^V

cv

-4

to

to

vO

to

,<0

H
O

cr\

<0

vO
H

-tf

C"\

SHOT
AND
SPEC IM
LOCATI
ON
TEST '

>
6o

o
H
+3

UJ
_J

-H
p -p

r-

<
5

tO

H
-p
H

1
T)

CO

co PQ
rH T3
IT\ U
O cd

EH

3
CM

CM

X
O

1
H
B

rH
PQ
rH

u>
O

rH

fli

F>-,

E-<
CO

EH

CO

cv

CV

CV

1
H

Sa

rH

sO
rH N

O -H
.
O

129

rTrTr^rSAH

CO

4J
+3
V 5

fo

EH

CO

P cd

Oi

1
H

s
3 os

HJ

O -H

O

E-<
CO
ir>
CV

1
*H
S
P

CO

-a:

>r\
CV N
O -H

o
o

-4" N
O -H
C

1,
n


3 5

d^
o
-* N
O -H

<0

bD

<0

IS
E

p*

'S 5

(D O
O -H

H
P

P bO

<

CO
<i-l

fc
ID

CO M

H
-P
O

5S

Vt

r-l
> 4J

H H

73

CD

a
o

0*8
3

p-,

bJ

Sa

H O

ON
PQ

< c
Q.

hi

8
en
H

CV
H

IT

cv
o

A
-Ni y3d- cv
ir\
H
NOIIVONOTJ

H
CV

1-1

IT

to

u
or
I<o

-ISd-

en
fcv

u
1-

0131A

o
z

-ISdSS3U1S-

3vwinn

<0

pH

zz

>l

bO

fn

en
sO
0

NO

IA

<3>

<3>
CV

cv
en

c-

rH

CV

en

CV H

HV

t-\

to
H

en

ITv

NO

u^

to

bO
C
H

H
T3

&

vO

O
iH
XI T3

JS -P
0 cd

vO
rH

tt
2

en

en

*H J
O -P

O
0

bO

C cd

cd *H
X!
1 >

p cd
X

to c

><J

H -H
^ cd
p

03

&

H
Cr,

E-i

E-

CO

CO

cv

CV

cv

-*

EH

0
CO

CV

4
CV

cv

< U

CC

3 nH
CO

T5
C P
CO H

43
01 -p
H H

CO .3

en x;
S

vO
P H

+3 CV

cv t-<
O c

1 o

c O


X O

130

45

NO

H -H

rH g

o >3
i


K O

A*

35

6 ,.
cv g
0 -d
3
f-i H

CO
S

cd

&

H ft

T3

9* 2?

p p

*H

fS
p 0
S O

"A

T3

a,
a, 0
2 P
H

-IVIU31VW

ro

cd

+J
ctf

4-

en
0
en
rH
*
cv

en

on
en
o

NO

tw

<2>
en

>J
CV

vO

rH
ir\

cv

r-\

cv

.fi

8
m

<0

r-i

SHOT
ANC
SPEC IM
LOCATI
ON
TEST

O
O

*<0

NOMIN
THICKN
AND
COLO

^1 o
OH

C-rH

X)

a,

+>

-2

"

i.s
H

si

s
=te

"

l"O
tu

Wi

0
H
D
to

O
bb 0)

4)
-p

h-

-p

o
ss

25

Tf
V (D
O .H
cd *-i
M H

k -d
65 rH

DC

rl
-p

CD

rl

-p

Id

h
to

d)

DC

a>
s

DC
<

Id

tH
p

rl
p
r-i

to

_l

+5

p
rH
Q)

0)

-o

CD 0)
O -rl
cd tu
CM -H
f-l

3 -H

CO rH
O
bO

H
T

0)
U

o 3

Cd "

H
o cd

Q
_J
_J

Id

_1
i*: co
o

o o

.-co
" o

rH O
4> O

en

o
o

18
0) o

o
o
m

en

CP

rH

r-i

Id
DC

ON

rH

ISd
SS3XS

ai3iA

T!
M to

CD

O
CO

-p

o
o

3
&q

m
cy

O ^

t-,
0) o

cd "E

rH

8o

CV

NO

NO

vO

c
o
u

.^IbZH
" ^u** oto
O < u -> u

<D

CO
rH
rl

cv

cv

ZZ

cv

ug ^

rl
-a:
1

to-

E-"
CO

~IVm3-LVW
0
_Jto

^o< o
zx u

COH
CO.
sO
r-lT3
O fn
cd

CO

t
rH

CO

a,
CO

r-i
H

dc

NO

CO

CO

-P

-p

cv
o

NO

*4

CO
rH
H
a!

a
o
u

UOH

UOrH
0>

CO
rH

CO
r-\
rl

ft.

^3
1 Pu

5!
1

E-<

E-<

CO

E-t
CO

cv

CV

c>

C^

1
ffl

8-4-

a>

0)
rH

1
(D

-P 3

P 3

IT\

vO
r-i T)

o &
cd
o

131

CO H

CO

CO

CO

-a

CO rH
CQ
CV Tj

CO

CO

cv

3 d)
-P 3

5=*z.j

CO

a>

o
u

O
0>

rH
rl
CO

9)
-P

+3

<TN

N3

3vwi~in

CD

rH
H
0}

CM

to

5o

rH

O
O

-4

ISd

H
O

0>

rH

o~\

SSBti-LS

(0

5o
0)

iH

u
oc

<D cd
^

CO

to

O
O
CO

CM

to

^H
P

CO M

1O

O
H

0)

a>

^ -p

* Ni U3dto N0IJ.V0N013

0)
o

d>
K

<

1-

M -H
-P

H
+5
rH

SS

Id

to

H
-P
r-i

< DC

Id

W>

bG

<D

T3

cd TJ

U
I
Q.
<
DC

-P bp
3 C

cd

X)
CD

p 3

CO r-i
PQ
ITN

CV X)

o u
cd
o

9 0>
-p 3

CO rH
CQ
CV
O

(H

rt
o

c3 CD

-P 3
CO rH
CO
CV

St
cd
O

o
aj <D
P fl
CO r-i

m
o
c^-S
cd

43

CO

a)

D
CO
U

CC

<

cc

H
P
O
CD
P

\-

CC

3
W

CO

u
H

ss

cd cf

H
-p
rH
0)

rl
H !p
J r-\
r-\ V

3 s
o
*n -H
WJ+J
^

rH

(D

g S3

a> a>
-p -p

<D
+3

M CrJ

h
+>
cd H

g
+>

^ o
tt>

CD

-p -p

S3

S3
o

3
W

3
M W

to

rl
+3
r-i
CD

H
-P
rH
4)

H
-P
O
CD
-P

U .H
CC-P

ng and
lting

CO
1-

<U

-P s

rH

CD 73

rH

+>

+> -P

CD
+>
?>
W

O
CD

Xi
tjfl
.rl
H
CO

-
3
KJ

I
Q.

<

o
o
_1
_l

<
h-

2
*
CO

_J
L." CD

8a

rl
-P

o
CM

rH

rH
r-\

rH

rH H
rH

Nl U3d
NOIJ.VON013

1
1

-*

.no

en
en
to

ISdss-3dis
ai3iA

u
QC

CO

H
O

CM

rH

rH

lS"d

8
o

a>

(D

a>

s-s^d-LSZZ

rH

en

co-

00

e-

CO

EH

rH
NO

c-

-P 3

CO H

rH
in T3
O fc
0$

e-<

CO

l
X
CD

-P 3
CO
CM

3 <D
-p 3

CO rH

o u

cd

CD

H
CO

CD

CM

132

CO
CM

in

OQ

CD
rH

CD

rH
H
=:

33

E-i
CO

&5

CO

CM

CM

CM
1
rl

in
CM -d
O ^
cd

43

rH
H

O.

a>

-P

-p 3

CD
r-{
H
CO

O
O
n

H .H
M E-<

'Scd

CO

CD

rH

p
cd

CO
in

CO

3
i

a:

2 SS

en

u
o

tf

05

CM
NO

S3

E-*

iviusivw
i10

v^

CLO1

<UJ

o
o

vO

CD

a.

rH

-n
o
CM
o

-p

2*
to

s
au

o
o

en

rH
H
03

CM

3vninn

en

CO

en

z ug <"
olbzi^?^f1oc
x
co

cd ^

CD

ft

r^

rH

\~

o
z

a>

ff

r-

.^

CD O
-H
V(

u
1-

rH

CM

CM

D
CO

co
u

8o

in

8d
H

CO H

NOMIN
THICKNI
AND
COLOI

*o
oo

<

H'S

!J
XI

08

3 cd

CD
Cd 43

'S

CD
Cd 43
43 iH

co i
in a)

in

cd
O

8"E

NO

cd

T3

CO

h!J
D
V)
Ld
DC

o c

co

CO -H

>_

H -P
O H

cc

a>

<

^s
o

_
DC

tO

MMH

G -P
H O

+i a)

H +3

1-

a) 3

s w

O
I

a
c

cfl
ttu
T3 G
cd -H
rH -P
O rH

a>

"S

_, o
l.H
a -p

H
+5

O
CD

1-1

(0 +2
3
S3 W

no

(50

M
T) G

rH
CD

T3

C b0
cd G

G
H
+3

5s*^
cd rH

r-i a>

Q)

^-1 S'

S O

bO-H
G -P

U -H
b4J
fn

-P 4J

-p
3

-P a)
rH -P
0) 3

g w

a) a)

C p

H
-P
H
0)

H
+3
rH
(D

O
H
+3

Scd
+3

o
o
43

H
-P

Q>

0)

HJ

a>

s
M

TS

a>

43

ss

o
(0

<

8
H 8 8

Id

_ co

Q
_i

<

_i

-H

cfl J-,

^ oc
a

!H

<t> o

H~S

UJ

43
(0
(1)

CM rH
rH
U

a> O

.H

cd ^

(V.

ir\

a> o

CM

-H

r-\

cd f-.

a)

<n 0

b +
3
c

CO H

U 43
3
CO M

CO M

rH

r-i

(D

43

CM rH
rH

Q *
o 5 o
o H O
H

6 o

f-,

rH O
(D C0

d) t
CQ

<D
43

ra

H -p

G
CO

<o
u

E-5

ISd
SS"3dlS
CH3IA

r-{

8
to

rH

-G

.*
O
o

rH

H
JO

O
IA

CM

>
^

H
CO

rH

O
O

0)

vO

si
o

-o

cd

-d

CD

CM

iSd

ui

CM

CO

f-O

-d
H

u
o

o
u

CO

0)
rH

>

O< uUu
i a. q h-

G
O
U

ID
rH
H

IfN

CD

CD

E-S
8^
x>

ir\

o
u

<

CM

O
O

CO

43

rH

in
irs
O
3

uo <^

<0

NO

CM

CM

dA

O
O

r-t

S^dlS
_
lco 3_LVkNinn

+3

CD

rH

1
O-

c--

co -1

r-{

rH

hand
e ta

cq
<

H
O
9>

cd

Pane

CM

iH

SI
rl
(-1

CD

f-t cd
(D JH
O, CD

E-i

~IVI_3i.VW

CO

CO

-4-

-d

CM

.
< _
DC
ZZQo

NOMI
HICK
AN
COU

<3

CM

u
a:

h-

CM

c*-\

rH

CO

Wing

G
O

C3

t>-

Pane

H
-p

rH

rH

Wing

a>
a3

rH

1-

CM

a>

|
G a)

cd -P
-P -H

CO

CO

^f

-4-

CM

CM

CM

cd
0)

P3 +3
ir\ .H

SO
V
O ft

^> -r)
rH 03
O CD

co
CM

cfl

(a

CO
CM

CO

o a)
a!

1
133

ir\
i>-

t>-

-p
H

Q)

-P

P. >
3 cd

EH
CO

CO
ir\

G
H

0)

p
H

X)

CO

-4-

cd 3
'd
rH 3

>

z
^ 1 s cm
en o

fS a

rl
a
CM 3

MD

LA

O rH

.3
o

"

band.

T3

0)

.032 i

0
1_J
D

-Nl d3dN0I_VDN0~I3

OStO

o
3

IH

o (1)
^
r-t

CO

-d +> G

O .H cd

43

o S co
_________

**s.:

.'-.,. '">"/
*^_

.' " y'"5*^

-**

(a)
Description:

Magnification:

150X

Etched microstructure of sample heated below 900#F.

'1 c ^f'':~~

?' .' /i''

.,_e > ^v--- ..'


'*" '.

(b)
Description:

Magnification:

150X

Etched microstructure of submitted sample showing


evidence of surface melting.

Fig. A.l - Photomicrographs Showing Unaffected and SlightlyOverheated Aluminum Alloy Sheets
134

"ZTt ~^PF~

.,-'< j

o
>%

(a)
Description:

' ' V

Magnification:

250

Etched micrestructure showing the effect of melting


of base metal and unmelted cladding.

s '-

^V

. *K'

-y

-*'.' "

v**?.:

- ^,v > ->?


. ~'r'-\. > V. v-v-^-^'frf ..'-

*-v.

-v.-

**.

-. i""*-

^v>;^*

'-- * *""-- /.It' ">A-c.

t^*l H^> -\4^!* - f

(b)

Magnification:

Description:

250X

Etched raicrostructure showing the effect of melting


.of both the cladding and base metal.
Fig. A.2 - Photomicrographs Showing the Effect of Overheating
24S Aluminum Alloy Sheet

135

APPENDIX B

EFFECTS OF THERMAL RADIATION ON


THIN ALUMINUM ALLOY PANELS EXPOSED ON THE
GROUND TO AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION

by

M. BENNON

NAVAL AIR MATERIAL CENTE


PHILADELPHIA 12, PENNSYLVANIA

136

APPENDIX B

EFFECTS OF THERMAL RADIATION ON


THIN ALUMINUM ALLOY PANELS EXPOSED ON THE
GROUND TO AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION

B.l

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of these tests were:


a. to determine the values of the equivalent thermal absorption
coefficients for aluminum sheet metal panels of different thicknesses
coated with various aircraft lacquers when exposed on the ground to
thermal radiation from an atomic explosion.
b. to determine the magnitude of structural strength changes in
sheet metal panels prepared to simulate aircraft skins after exposure
to radiation from an atomic weapon.
B.2

BACKGROUND

The tests from which the reported data were obtained were made
at the request and with the cooperation of the Bureau of Aeronautics
to obtain data supplementary to that from the drone flight test program during UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE. The circumstances under which these supplementary data were to be obtained required that only passive types
of thermal instrumentation be employed. All test material was exposed
during Shot 9.
A significant variable for assessing the damage to aircraft skin
structure resulting from exposure to radiation of an atomic explosion
is the peak temperature reached by the exposed sheet metal. This peak
temperature for a given level of exposure is a function of surface condition, material composition and skin thickness. For convenience in
assessing the effect of surface condition on peak temperature attained
a coefficient of equivalent thermal absorptivity has been defined as
follows:

137

WCAI1
*
u.
e

(equivalent thermal absorptivity coefficient) = fraction


of QA absorbed by metal to produce temperature rise A T

W =

density of material

C =

specific heat of metal

AT=
t =
Q =
A

QA

maximum temperature rise of metal during exposure


skin thickness
total radiant energy normal to unit area of skin
surface

T5ST DESCRIPTION

Three frames to which were attached 35 24 ST aluminum alloy


panels were placed at each of three stations at various slant ranges
from and with the faces of the panels normal to the intended burst
point of Shot 9. Each panel was hinged along its upper edge to permit free rotation except for the frictional restraint offered by a
sheet metal clip bearing on the stiffener attached to the lower edge
of the panel. This frictional restraint was intended to initially^
maintain the orientation of the panel with respect to the burst point
but not offer appreciable restraint against the blast pressure wave.
The panels were of various thicknesses and four types of surface
preparation. The surfaces of one group of panels were in the bare
"as received" condition. The other three groups received a conventional wash primer coating followed by a 2 mil coat of Military
Specification MIL-L-7178 cellulose nitrate lacquer on the surface
to be exposed. One of these groups received a glossy sea blue (color
#623) coat. A second group received a white (color #511 with omission of the blue tint) coat. A third group received an aluminized
coat. On the back close to the center of each panel was attached a
Temp Tape temperature indicator. Each of the three frames carried
along its upper edge a set of passive type thermal energy indicators.
Figures B.l and B.2 show the details of the panel and frame construction. Figures B.5, B.7, 3.8, B.9 and B.10 show the thermal energy
indicators on their mounting strip, a frame with mounted panels and
thermal energy indicators, an illustration of a Temp Tape installation, a frame with the temporary protective covering (removed before
the test exposure), and a frame set up at the test site with its
supporting braces.
In addition to the three frames, four AD airplane elevator sections were exposed at each of two of the three frame stations. The
orientations of the elevator sections are shown in Figure B.50.
Each elevator section carried either two or three Temp Tapes on the
inside skin surface of the exposed side.
138

Each panel carried an identifying number. The arrangement of


panels in the frames is given in Figure B.3.
The actual burst point differed somewhat from the intended; however, the cosine of the angle between the lines from intended burst
point and actual burst point to a frame in all cases exceeded 0.97.
Slant ranges from actual burst point to the frames were as follows:
Station 1 (Frame 1) - 7150 ft
Station 2 (Frame 2) - 5330 ft
Station 3 (Frame 3) - 3800 ft
The AD airplane elevator sections were located at Stations 1 and 2.
After exposure tensile test specimens (Figure B.4) were cut from
the panels and elevator sections and yield and ultimate strength data
measured.
Locations and numbering of the elevator tensile specimens and
Temp Tapes are given on Figure B.51. Specimens were taken in pairs
from directly opposite sides of the section, one from the exposed and
one from the unexposed side. An "E" is added to the identifying number
for the specimen taken from the exposed side.
B.4
B.4.1

INSTRUMMTATION
Temperature Indicators

Peak temperatures reached by the sheet metal surfaces of the


test specimens were recorded by Temp Tapes. These devices were developed by the University of Dayton under contract with the Wright Air
Development Center. They consist of a fiberglas fabric coated on one
side with a pressure sensitive adhesive to which are attached an array
of 24 temperature sensitive discs each approximately l/ in. in diameter. The discs are of two types, the four to indicate the highest
temperatures are thin low-melting-point metals, the melting of which
indicates that certain temperatures have been exceeded. The other
sensitive discs are of the material developed by the Quartermaster
Research Laboratories (see ref(19)). They consist of a black absorbent paper base coated with white organic compounds of suitable melting
points. When the coated surface of the paper reaches the melting point
of the coating, the coating melts and is absorbed by the paper making
the surface appear darker. Figure B.ll shows the adhesive coated side
of a Temp Tape and the temperature indicating discs. The Temp Tapes are
fastened by means of the pressure sensitive adhesive to the desired
surface. Calibrations made by the Naval Materials Laboratory were
employed in interpreting the Temp Tape data. The highest temperature
indicated on the Temp Tape is 640F. Peak temperature indicated was
generally taken as the average between the highest positive melting
temperature indicated and the lowest positive non-melting temperature
indicated. Several of the indicator discs which were found to be
unreliable were neglected in reading the data.
B.4.2

Thermal Energy Indicators


The thermal energy indicators consisted of mounted cotton and
139

wool fabrics and maple-wood blocks. The degree of destruction or


charring of the material when compared to the degree of charring under
known conditions of irradiation provided an indication of the amount
of radiant energy to which the indicators were exposed. The
materials were provided by the Naval Materials Laboratory which also
evaluated the resulting data.
B.5

RESULTS

Test data on the panels are presented in Tables B.l, B.2 and
B.3 Ultimate and yield strength of unexposed test specimens taken
from the same 24ST aluminum alloy sheets from which the exposed panels
were fabricated are presented in Table B.4. Photographs of the panels
in the three frames after the test exposure are shown in Figures B.12,
B.13 and B.14. Individual photographs of the 35 panels after the test
exposure are shown in Figures B.15 to B.49, inclusive. As shown in
the photographs, some of the specimens were distorted or damaged as a
result of their striking the back of the mounting cage at time of
shock arrival.
Test results on the type AD airplane elevator sections are presented in Tables B.5 and B.6. Photographs of both the exposed and
unexposed sides of the individual elevator sections are shown in
Figures B.52 to 3.67, inclusive. Data for the equivalent absorptivity
coefficient against peak temperature attained for each type of surface
are presented in Figures B.68 to B.71. Data for the equivalent
thermal absorptivity coefficient vs panel thickness for sea blue
lacquered surfaces are plotted in Figure B.72.
Radiant energy at the three stations are presented in Table B.7.
Values are given as indicated by the passive indicators mounted on the
frames. In addition values extrapolated from measurements made by the
Naval Materials Laboratory along the line of test frames utilizing
metal foils are presented. The Naval Materials Laboratory data were
used for the computations in this report as they were considered to
represent more accurately the conditions at the various panel stations. In the case of Station 3 no value was available from the
frame indicators.
The scatter in the thermal data obtained (Figures B.68, B.69,
B.70, B.71, and B.72) obscures many of the trends which would probably
otherwise be more distinct. Two such relationships are the expected
increase in equivalent absorptivity coefficient with increasing sheet
metal thickness and with declining total thermal energy. For the sea
blue lacquered panels sufficient data exist to permit plotting the
data by stations to demonstrate the trend (Figure B.72). A larger
number of panels and temperature indicators having a more closely
spaced set of temperature indications would have afforded more satisfactory data. Some uncertainty exists as to the rapidity of response
of the temperature indicators, any lags in response would tend to make
the peak temperature readings somewhat lower than the true peak for
short temperature pulses.

HO

In frame 1, panels and 10, although of the same gage metal


and having similar coatings, experienced markedly different peak temperatures, the plate closer to ground reaching the higher temperature.
An explanation for this behavior is not presently available.
B.6

CONCLUSIONS

Based on test results, the following conclusions are made:


a. As indicated in Figures B.68 through B.71, the limited data
obtained show considerable scatter and accurate determination of the
values of equivalent thermal absorptivity coefficients cannot be made.
Since deterioration of the lacquer surface has occurred in some of the
panels due to charring or flaming or the presence of a dust film prior
to thermal exposure, the coefficients obtained in these cases may not
be representative of the original type surface.
b. The expected increase of equivalent thermal absorptivity
coefficient with increasing panel thickness and decreasing thermal
irradiation is indicated by the set of data plotted on Figure B.72.
c. As indicated in Tables B.l through B.4, tests conducted on
exposed and unexposed specimens of the 24ST panel material show, in
general, only a slight reduction in strength properties due to the
heating cycle. In a few cases melting of the panels has occurred as
shown in Figures B.39 and B.42.
B.7

RECCttfrMflJATIONS

It is recommended that:
a. Further measurements and associated analytic studies be made
to obtain a detailed quantitative picture of the factors influencing
the peak temperature rise in coated thin metal panels.
b. Where practicable in future field test programs, attempts be
madeto obtain temperature-time histories on similar test panels.
c. Attempts be made to improve the existing Temp Tape type of
device to provide more reliable indicators in place of those which
have proven unsatisfactory, with a possible increase in both temperature range and number of temperature indications, such instrumentation
to be used where a large number of points are to be instrumented with
minimum effort or where tine-history recording equipment cannot be
employed.
d. That data be obtained to permit the dynamic error in peak
temperature data obtained from Temp Tapes to be evaluated.

241

142

X
(0
UJ

a.

n-T-

ILJ.

-II

n-

I
^

-i'

*
X
h-

o
z -*"
c*
o X
_l
H

z
a:

-p
W

o
o

aq
bo

?9tr-

143

PANEL- 10
SEA BLUE
LACQUER
0.016 IN.
PANEL-17
SEA BLUE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-3
WHITE
LACQUER
0.012 IN.
PANEL-15
WHITE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-2
ALUMINIZED
LACQUER
0.012 IN.
PANEL-13
ALUMINIZED
0.020 IN.

PANEL-I
BARE
METAL
0.012 IN.
PANEL-11
BARE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-23
SEA BLUE
0.02 5 IN.

PANEL-26
SEA BLUE
0.032 JN,

PANEL-34
SEA BLUE
0.051 IN.

PANEL-&
SEA BLUE
0.016 IN.

FRAME NO. I

PANEL-9
SEA BLUE
0.016 IN.

PANEL-7
WHITE
0.016 IN.

PANEL-5
PANEL-6
ALUMINIZED BARE
0.016 IN.
0.016 IN.

PANEL-24
SEA BLUE
0.025 IN.

PANEL-22
WHITE
0.025 IN.

PANEL-21
ALUMINIZED
0.025 IN.

PANEL-20
BARE
0.025 IN.

PANEL-18
SEA BLUE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-27
SEA BLUE
0.032 IN.

PANEL-29
SEA BLUE
0.040 IN.

PANEL-35
SEA BLUE
0.051 IN.

FRAME NO. 2

PANEL-19
SEA BLUE
0.020 IN.

PANEL- 6
WHITE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-I 4
ALUMINIZED
0.020 IN.

PANEL-12
BARE
0.020 IN.

PANEL-36
SEA BLUE
0.051 IN.

PANEL-33
WHITE
0.051 IN.

PANEL-32
ALUMINIZED
0.051 IN.

PANEL-31
BARE
0.051 IN.

PANEL-25
SEA BLUE
0.025 IN.

PANEL-2 8
SEA BLUE
0.032 IN.

PANEL-30
SEA BLUE
0.040 IN.

FRAME NO.3

Fig. B.3

Arrangement of Panels in Frames

LU

<D

<D

&
P.

P
CO

4
u
ID

<D

w
H

to

U5

CO

IJJ
##g#wH'--

w*.. -

^i-., 'i-, ^*f

+3

e
CO

u
o

t3

CO

C<

vO

m
fr.

'

BKisPS

U6

' tu

>-:h i! 1

* Wr*

Fig. B.7

^^

Frame with Mounted Panels and Thermal


Energy Indicators

U7

a
a
a
a
a
iiiiiiiiiiiii

mi

IIIIIIIIIIIII
a

aaa

imiiiiiii
iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiii
I
IIIIIIIIIIIII

in
i m
ii \

Fig. B.8

!!

3!
Mounted Panel Shov/ing Temp Tape Installation

MB

Fig. B.9

Frame with Temporary Protective Covering

Fig. B.10

Frame at Test Site before Exposure

H9

WS

INCHES

Fig. B.ll Temp Tape

Fig. B.12
I

Frame No. 1 after Exposure - Slant Range 7150 ft,Thermal


Energy 18.3 c&l/ca?150

CJ

C CO

H O
CO
I

O
C^i

CD >>
U 60
CO CD

*I

-P 0)

ctj E-i

CV

>

U
xi o

<D <D
S tip
CD

t-t

U c

PQ
H

151

Fig. B.14

Frame Number 3 after Exposure - Slant _


Range 3800 Ft, Thermal Energy 43 cal/cra

152

M trt
-P
(V ro
H
O 1

o
1

<u
&

ff)

U
(1)
"i
0<

5
i-l

&

(
+3

C\J

0
^

3
i

H .*
<D o
H
fll -C
H. H

~o
H

hO
rl

fc

H
CJ C
O
o rH
p
1 IT)
P
(1) CO

f-.
2 1
m
Q H
p* <ti
X

*W:

P
fxj <i>

$H

L*A

III

(!) a>
-p u
Hl

H X
Q)

3
p-

ir\
H

b
H

(^

153

C
O

M H
P
s m
H -p
CO

o
o

?-.

CD

jlm

m
N

a>

cn

-J
CD

3
H

U (J
Q)

tw

rt
(1)

c CO

to

H -M
0)

C H
cr< X
P-i H
to
r-{

cq

feO

n
fr-,

M
CN;

H H

P
ctl

O -P
CO
1
1
CD
U

2 CD
0) d,
o a*
CL, o

(3 &
Vi CD
0) -P

-P rl
CM

c^

,c
1

H X
(1)

L. E-i

rH

01

r)

fe

154

H
O
CM iH

O
H
1 -P
CO
<D P
S-. en

3
(D

i
H
crt
P
CD

&
^
^ a

CD
P
<H
CO

H
H

0)
SH

&
1

H ^
a>

P-, H

o
Cxi

P3

to
H
(x.

H
vO p
H CO
O P
CO

o
1

Q)

CO

?* 31
3 a
co o

& 0)
2
u rH
0 PQ
p

S
o

r-i

\
V

cd

a>

en
I

H ^
0) o
H
cd
&< fH

, 1..

CN

pq

.
t0
H
.

155


M H
O

cv
o

H
-P
a?
+3
i co
a)
^
2
m

1
(1)

EL,

a1

u
-f

W^ C)
crt
t-1

w
u

0) a)
-P +3
H
it

<M

ir.

H .*
0) o
C H
crt

eu

cv
CM

CP

bn

fc

c
o

rl
M -P
crt
O +3

rv rn

o
1

u
(i)

<D

CT<

,3

s,

T)

5^ a>
W N
H
k C
a> H

-p
HI

crt

H
C
1

a) o

P*
H

cv
m

&c
H
fe

156

IH

M O
H

IT\ -p
CV 03
O +J

0) 0)

3 &

CO
O

cti

A
CD CO
-P

erf a)
CV

H .Jci
a>
-rl
CO .fi
0L< H

C
M O
H
O P
CM crt

o
1
<D

I
S-.

a>

en 3
o
B.S
a)3
u H
0) CU
-p
H

cd

r-

m
<u
en
I

H J
(1) o
H

a.
c^\
cv

bO
H

Pn

157

E-i

C
M o
H
H -P
ITN crt
O -P

rn
1

f-,

a>
u

Q>

H
3 o
w O

CO

a)
3
H

0>
-P

crt
erf (11

to

<H

en

<r\ 1
H ^

(1)

a.

vO
Oi

CP

bf

ti

rH

H O
H
C\J -P
r^\ CTl
O P

ro
1

fc

<l) (I)

"tH

3 o

m o
o crt
&hJ

a>

?H H

<

<rt

crt (1)

cv

rn
l

r-H ^
(1) O

H
Xi

P-. EH

IT

cv
PQ

fcf
H
Cn

158

cv

o1
-P

H
v0
H
O

1
-p

en
I

u
a>

-i
CT1

a> O
u
2 3
m
o T>
9< (1)
&

u r)
Q> pl
P 3

3
MD

H
(1)

fi
ctl
a, n

<o
CM

GQ
W)
H
&4

vO CV
H
O ti

* o
o H
1

-P
crt
-p

Q)

co

&
tn
o

(1)
-p

d
-p

13(58
A

H .*

a>

O
H

fit H

rcv

ra
txo
H
Cn

159

cv

M H
-P
vO 1
H P
O </)

k
(1)

0)

-<

T3

CM

c*J

tu
en

u rr*

a3

H
t, ttl
<D
p TO

H X
(U o
C| H
3 X!
OH

EH

cn

tj
H
li,

C CM

O
H
O P
id
-P

<_>

o
1

en
1

<u
^ u
3 V
m X
o rr1
>+ o

CO

(H 3)
0) P
-p rt

>

H
a>

^J

iH
CO 1
PH E-i

o
cv

en

agp

hj)
H
&4

160

ITN
CV CV
O

o o

H
1 P
at
CO P
U 3

CO

Q< H

is

CO
P

CD

u s
J

-p (0
1H

^
w
o
CV

H M
U> f)

p^ H
CV

en
m
.
K)
r4
H

CV

C
H O
H
O P
CV ert
o P
tn

o
1

i
fn
CD

CO
k 3
3 o'
to
o ai
Ut t-l

iS4
^

d)
pi
H
0) UJ
-P
H tf
m (U
0

H
H

(/)
1

(P o
H

P-I IH

m
CQ

W)
H

fn

161

Oi
IA C
CV O
H
P
CO
P
1 CO

CD
h
d
CO

1
IH

a>

a &o
M
crt

u cu
CD

P -P
H H
cd

fS

CM
CM

H .JU
CD

S
PH EH
-*

en
CQ

bO

CV

C iH

M p
cd

lf\ +5

(V CO
O
i

CD

<D
U

a1
o

2
m
O

CO
H-l

(**>t Tl

Uj
PH

a)

%
H
CM

0)
N
H

H
J
1

H .

CD o
C H

c Xi
(U EH

OA
c^

CQ

W)
H

fe

162

cv

3S

rl
CV -P
tn CO

O -P

CO

,x

1
d>

u
Q)

&&
ra
Q

CO

<D
2

..*'

* $%
*,.. *>

' -%',

v;v:, '
"

y
/''

r v

f* rH
cq

-P

H
C6
t>

<M

CO
<D
CO

da> *o
cd Jd
a. e-<

vO

en*

60

CM

a c

H o

rl

lf\ 4J
CV
O

cri

-P
ro
o
1

a>

?H
(1)

h 31
3 a
c

&

CD

JH

rH

a>

-P

m
CO

-*
cv i

H AS
d) o
H
CO

P*

IA

CQ

00

El
163

E-i

cv
c
o

H
H 4->
ir\
o -P
f.'l

1
(I)

u
(1)

u 0
3
m r)
o erf
O.f-1

fn
CD

P
<H>

crt

<D
p

H
ixi
CTt

a>

CO
UA
f^
H
0>

%
OH

E-i

to
c>

CQ

Oi

C
H o
H
-P
at
P

-tf

ro
1

1
h
a> <1)
u 3
2 C*
V) o
o m

ft(-a

<

3
u rH
<u m

M0
Jf**1

-p
CO

^ a?
o
cv

Vi-A

CO
i

H AJ

a> o

ft

FM

PH

E-+

>

o^

ff)

'

to
fc
H

164

en
C
o
fi H

M 4->
01
O -P
(V m

o
1
(1)

i
fn

a>
0
cr

$3
o
PHTJ

CO
N

.3

0)
p

01 H

-4H i
H X

u> o
* .C
C H

IX. En
O

-*

d)

bO
H
1^

fi

(V

(.)
m c
o o

H
i -P
oi
<D P

en

(0
O

r5*

Cl>
U

P* H
Q ni
fxj p

*% ,
#

a>
H

01

Pi

<n

0)

:u
i

H ,*
(1) o

PH EH

cr^
en

ra
*
bO
H
li,

165

OA


M o
H
O P
(V IT)
O +3
7)

a> a>
u PV

a)

trt

ft^

#? *

P
H
W

J(D
+5
M
til

crt
<D
W

0->
i-i

H -M

a o

rt

nJ J
H< bH

cv

-d-

CO

to
H

fc,

M C\
O
fV o
o H

<1)

CO
-P
1 C/J

?H

-( ^

a>
o
R< a*
o

in

cfl

t-1
k
0) CD
-p -P
<M H
5

jg

NO

rH

a>

PL, E-i

-*
cq

b
H
U,

166

c^

H
CM P
C"\ c
o -P

ro

L>
1
0)

%4

fc
a>
~s
o*

2
UJ O
O af
.-1

*
u rH
0) w
p
H m
(13 <D
rn
G)
cv 1
H ^
a> o

c ,c
G* E-

3
CQ

U)

c^v
M O
H

ir\ +J

Q* crt
O -P

en

O
1
0)

2
to

1
U

a>
g.
a1
o
a!

&

a)
3
u H
a> tq

-p
<+-!

01

ir\
CV

<0

<u
m
i

M
a> o
c H
* X!

PH &H

o~\

-tf
CQ

tjfl

f*.

167

M
H

ir\ O
O

O
H
-P

a>

-P

2
tn

u
o

n)

CO

4" a
-p

OJ

(1)

-p 1)

S 51
H

en

H j
(I>

A H

sO

-4"

CO

bO
H

fo

en
d

M
-.
O
O

ftf.

o
1

H
*-P

+3
I

u
&

& 0)
pj

^ rH
m
+>
<i-< cB
crt a)
0)

01

en

H X
4> o

P-.

EH

UN

168

ti

en

rH
lf\ O
O H
-P
O oi
-P
1 C/J

2 1
S &
o ri

u cr

1;

S t-i01
u

ID a>
-P -P

S
en

C\
<1>

^
l

(X, fri

3
m

00

ti
CA

H
H P
01
H -p
lA CO
O
1

o
1
0

&
to

fn

a)
2
a1
o
f-J

& T)

k
0>
-P P
*H P

C\i

en

3
1

H ^!
0) O
c H
c
&4 EH

ra

CQ

.
bO
H

fc.

169

\.

Fig. B.49

Panel 36 after Exposure - 0.051 In.


Thick - Sea Blue Lacquer - Station 3

170

171

r~:

t=xn

<

i
1
1

ca j

:
i
1

\\

"

<

CO

CO

z
o
co

a
E-<
P.

0)

sCO
03

c
e
rt

OQ

8.

CO

8
H
o

ii j

EDO

'

(0
CO

z
o
I.

EH
H

O
CO

JZDZJ
1

-p
CO
CD

CO

r-f

o
o

<

(-1

<0 co
<
Ul 1

2
o

i.i
CL
(0
K
CO
Ul
h-

(0

R r

CO
Ul

u.

H I-

<
1-

y
oc

D
H
<

EDO

'
CM

CO

CO
CO

tzxn

|
CO

ii

..J

..-i _

bC

H
-P
o
Q>

CO

ii

u rr

_l Ul
CO Q.

Z 2

in

ui Ul
h- h-

cO

z
o

8n

aco

172

H
PQ
&0
H

fa

s
%
+>
O
(0
CO

IS

1
S

in

ISP

fP'l^-

CNJ

H
-p o
o H
<D P
CO d
-P
(4 CO
O
-P 1
crt
> Q)
a) Tl
H. H
W CO
C\f
IA

ra

W)
rH
tx.

173

r
o

P
O
CO cti
P
^ CO

3'
<p -d
W CO

#
fe

||||

174

1m
o

<r\
C i

rl
P

H
(D
to

-p

U CO

1'

> a>

W CO

pq
M
H

T3
O

c^v

eH

H G
P o
H
<1> -P
CO CO
P
(4 CO

p
crt

>
<n

d
vO
ir\

fp

W)

175

1
0)
Tj
H
CO

"8CO

a
X

O -H

m to

3cd .
> <D

A
PQ
b0

5!

<D

(0

H
-P

(D

C
O
-H
-P

en eg
-p
fn en

3> '

(D T3
H -H
P4 CO
CO
PQ

176

g0)

'-1

(I)

J=>

tf\
C CM

O
H C
+5 O
H
<D -p
CO eri
-P
fn en
O
+3 i

cd

> a)

<i> r)
H H
W CO

if?
AT ,
ITft,

d>
to

iA

c
o

H
-P

r\?

V P
CO cd
-P
SH CO
O
-P 1
cti

* rt

vO

W)

177

H
CO

<D
CO

9*
S
vO

o c

-P
O H
U) -P
CO J
+5
CO

u
o

-p
cd

>
to

d)

'd

rl
CO

r^

vO

CQ

b
H
U<

vO

cv

H
-P

co

c>

H
0) -P
CO
P
CM

m
u
o
-p

crt

t> a>

<i> T)
iH H

o;

vO

pa

tu':
H

fc

178

co

T3
CO
CO
O

&
0

a
o

H C
P O
o H
Q) -P

co
fn

O
-P

a)

>

Ct)

to
i

co

(l) T)

CO

ir\
vO

CO

M
H

fr.

CO

I
.'"=?;
fi rH
O
H C
-P
O H

a)
co

-P
cd
P

CO

-2 1
T)
d Hco
crt

CO

3
PQ

W)
H
fl4

179

CQ

C
r-i

H c
P
O H
(!) P
ro cd
P
h C'i

-p
ert

J> 0
a> n

H H
W CO
sO
N

cq

,
w>

H
fn

180

t.

<
(0

UJ

Ul T m

zU

<J >:

<

(0

en

UJ
m 11

1 ^

o
u

o
o

i (0O>n rviQ
H <Mojfn"<ttn
OOOOO
UJ c! 6 6
z i t i i i i

PQ
(d

<D
CO

0<X>BD

I
C

El
p

CO
P
-4->

<

Id

u
2
p
CO

0)

0)
En

b
<

CD

Ld

p.
S

CO
Q>
PH

co

>
B1

*l
*<J

*a.

eP

Ul
r-

_l
Ul

[3

0>
H

H
H
<H
0)

o
o
11

z
<
ct

H
P

*:
<

>

co

3<

<

H
f*
0>

c
Q)

H
c

>

tO

iD

Tt

(f)

CVl

>

c)

>Y 1N3DLU30D AHA! idyosov l N3"ivAino:\


181

bo
t*4

(O
u

<n

o
z

o
z

&

O
CO

rvjooin

CD
-P
H

CVl(\JiO

oqqqq
cioo
iiii

9Ho<KD

73
CD

o
o
in

H
CO
-P
-P

u.
0

Q
U

o
o

<
hI<
ui

I
CD

j
CO
CD

a,

Q:

DC
Ul
D_

CD
H
O
H

o
_J
Ul

o
o

(0
*

<

>J

p
p
u
o
CO

Ul

CO

e
x:
H

sCD
H
cd

.5
W

o
o
d

3V 1N3IDUJ300 AlAlldy090V lN3nVAinD3

182

PQ

CM
bO
H

$ (0
UJ

#
UJ

INCI-

INCI

WJ

UJ

X (\J<DOif)
h(\lc\|tn
_J oqooo
UJ

ooooo

i i i i
z #o<ixa
<
Q.

o
o

<0

u.
o
Q
UJ

Z
<
ui

o
o a:
m
a:

?
UJ

Q.
UJ
_J
UJ

z
o
o

<
UJ
Q.

a)
<D

EH

1
H
a)

4h4o

CO

-h-\-

V 1N3DUJ3CO AllAlldOS9V lN31VAinr>3


183

O
O
fO

o
PQ

H
1

en
<n (0
J

z
U
X
_J

Ul
X
U

P
<D

(/)
Ul
-X

a>

fc

o
z

o
o

(0

(MoJ
o ooo

u.

z dodo
Ul

c
-p
+3

a)

ui

<
h1<
Ul
t

o D
o 5
in

0)

(T

Ul

OL

<c

-p
CO

0)

p*
0
EH

.M
cfl
CD
PH

CO

>

2
Ul

H
_l

Ul

Z
<
OL

<

o Ul
o u.
*

a)
H

H
H

0)

>

-p
H

>

-P

a,
o
CO

<
cfl

e
0)

x:

E-<

sa)
>

o
o
fO

CM

da*

d
CQ

3V-1N3DIJJ30D AllAIidaOSSV lN3TVAin03

184

JO
H

* V 1N3IDUJ30D AllAlldOSQV iN3nVAin3

135

TABLE B.I

YIELD
STRENGTH
PSI

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
-PSi-

METAL
THICKNESS
INCHES

EQUIVALENT
ABSORPTIVITY
COEFFICIENT^ e

PANEL
NUMBER

PEAK TEMP.
RISE
F ABOVE 62 F
AMBIENT

FRAME NO. I PANEL TEST DATA


THERMAL ENERGY-18.3 CALORIES PER CM'

0.012

BARE
METAL

406

0235

64,900

47,300

0012

ALUMINIZED
LACOUER

530

0.306

65,700

48,700

0012

WHITE
LACQUER

217

0.125

68,200

50,400

0.016

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

>578

65,100

52,900

10

0-016

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

456

0352

66,200

48,700

II

0.020

317

0.306

67,500

45,200

13

0O20

288

0278

66,900

43,900

15

0020

WHITE
LACQUER

154

0.148

67,500

45,100

17

0O20

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

337

0 325

67,100

46,700

23

0025

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

381

0.459

66,800

45,500

26

0.032

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

315

0485

66,400

43,400

34

0.051

244

0600

70,200

47400

CC
D
<0

BARE
METAL
ALUMINIZED
LACQUER

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

186

TABLE B. 2

0-016

0016

a.

V)

BARE
METAL

YIELD
STRENGTH
PSI

u
u

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
PSI-

PEAK TEMP
RISE
F ABOVE 62 F
AMBIENT
EQUIVALENT
ABSORPTIVITY
COEFFICIENT

METAL
THICKNESS
INCHES

PANEL
NUMBER

FRAME NO. 2 PANEL TEST DATA


THERMAL ENERGY 30 CALORIES PER CM

530

0.249

64,500

51,300

ALUMINIZED
LACQUER

337

0158

67,600

51,800

0.016

WHITE
LACQUER

406

0.191

63,400

45,500

0.016

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

469

0220

59700

37,000

18

0020

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

530

0.312

66,500

49,600

20

0025

BARE
METAL

530

0389

66,600

50,400

21

0025

ALUMINIZED
LACQUER

406

0298

64,600

44,900

22

0.025

WHITE
LACQUER

211

0-155

67,900

47,000

24

0025

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

469

0344

69,300

47,500

27

0.032

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

406

0-312

65,300

44,300

29

0.040

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

340

0400

65,500

42,400

35

0.051

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

317

0-475

68,800

45,400

187

TABLE B. 3

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
PSI

YIELD
STRENGTH
PSI
44,800

65,500

47,600

57,800

36,400

59,700

39,700

0308

57,500

38,600

0.384

62,700

48,600

66,300

53,400

0.356

68,400

45,200

340

0-356

69,700

46,700

456

0478

70,500

50,000

METAL
THICKNESS
INCHES

64,400

PANEL
NUMBER

0.197

12

0.020

BARE
METAL

14

0.020

ALUMINIZED
LACQUER

16

0.020

WHITE
LACQUER

19

0.020

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

25

0.025

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

>578

28

0.032

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

469

30

0.040

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

469

31

0051

BARE
METAL

32

0051

ALUMINIZED
LACQUER

340

33

0.051

WHITE
LACQUER

36

O05I

SEA BLUE
LACQUER

id

D
<0

EQUIVALENT
ABSORPTIVITY
COEFFICIENT

PEAK TEMP
RISE
F ABOVE 62F
AMBIENT

FRAME N03-PANEL TEST DATA


THERMAL ENERGY-43 CALORIES PER CM

TEMP
TAPE
MISSING
481
TEMP
TAPE
ILLEGIBLE
TEMP
TAPE
MISSING

>578

188

TABLE B.4
ULTIMATE STRENGTH AND YIELD
STRENGTH OF UNEXPOSED 24 ST
ALUMINUM ALLOY PANEL MATERIAL

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
P.S.I.

YIELD
STRENGTH
RS.I.

0.012

67,500

49,800

0.016

66,400

49,100

0020

65,200

44,200

0025

69,300

47,200

0032

69,200

4^800

0.040

68,800

49,000

0.051

70,400

49,700

METAL
THICKNESS
INCHES

189

TABLE B5
ELEVATOR
SECTION DATA - STATION
24STALCLAD- SLANT RANGE-7I50FT

I
AMBIENT TEMP 62 F

ELEVATOR
SECTION #3
"A" TEMP TAPE-403F
"B"TEMP TAPE-592 F
TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

1
IE
2
2E
3

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED

3E
4
4E

EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

METAL
THK IN
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032

YIELD
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH PSI STRENGTH
61,500
61,000
61,300
58,800
67,900
64,000
64,600
66,700

ELEVATOR SECTION**
"A'TEMP TAPE-I80F
"B"TEMP TAPE-351 F
TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

1
IE
2
2E

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

3 *
3E*
4
4E

METAL
THK IN
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.040
0.040
0.032
0-032

52-SO ALUMINUM ALLOY

190

44,700
46,500
45,600
44,000
52,500
46,000
NO DATA
NO DATA
.,
C TEMP TAPE-235F

YIELD
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH PSI STRENGTH
62,300
62,700
61,700
63,100
28,000
33, 500
66,200
67,500

PSI

47,000
46,200
45,900
47,300
15,900
16,700
48,300
49,700

PSI

TABLE B5
(CONTINUED)

ELEVATOR SECTION4*?
VTEMP TAPE-226F

*B"TEMP TAPE-35IF

TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

1
1 E
2
2E
3
3 E

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.032
0.033

62,600
58,300
62,400
58,400
70,200
67,600

44,700
41,800
4 5,300
43,100
56,300
52,300

4
4E

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

0.032
0.032

63,300
64,200

37 , 700
49, 800

METAL
THK IN

ULTIMATE
YIELD
STRENGTH PSI STRENGTH

PSI

ELEVATOR SECTION*^
VTEMP TAPE-306*F
TEST SPECIMEN
NO
1
IE
2
2E
3 *
3E*
4
4 E

V TEMP TAPE-NO DATA V TEMP TAPE ~2 79 F

SECTION
SIDE
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

52-SO ALUMINUM

METAL
THK IN

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH

YIELD
PSI STRENGTH

0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.040
0.040

62,500
NO DATA
62,800
62,300
28,800
28,900

0.032

65,300
66,000

0.032

ALLOY

191

PSI

44,200
45,600
47,000
45,600
NO DATA
NO DATA
46,500
47,000

TABLE B6
ELEVATOR
SECTION
DATA
STATION
24ST ALCLAD - SLANT RANGE-5330FT
ELEVATOR SECTION #l
"A" TEMP TAPE- NO DATA
TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

1
IE
2
2E
3
3E
4
4E

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPO SED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

"B"TEMP

METAL
THK IN
0.016
0.018
0.016
0.017
0.032
0.033
0.032
0.032

2
AMBIENT TEMP 62 F

TAPE->640F
YIELD
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH PSI STRENGTH
60,500
51,600
61,300
51,700
66,300
65,000
67,000
66,700

PSI

49,900
32,300
45,600
34,800
52,300
48,000
55,000
50,600

ELEVATOR SECT ION 2


VTEMP TAPE-NO DATA
TEST SPECIMEN
NO
1
1 E
2
2E
3
3E
4
4E

SECTION
SIDE
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

"B"TEMP TAPE- NO DATA


METAL
THK IN

YIELD
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH PSI STRENGTH

0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016

62,300
57,300
62 , 500
59,300

47, 100
41,000
47,700
37,700

0.032
0.032

65,900
66,800

0.032
0.032

66 , 700
65 , 7 00

51,100
48,800
54,200
50,500

192

PSI

TABLE B6
(CONTINUED)

ELEVATOR SECTION* 5
"A"TEMP TAPE-468F

tt

B"TEMP TAPE-)640F

TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

METAL
THK IN

1
IE
2
2E
3
3E
4
4E

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH

YIELD
PSI STRENGTH

63,900
63,300
64,600
62,500
68,700
68,000
70,300
68,200

PSI

46,300
50,000
44,800
47,000
54,900
53, 800
56,600
55,300

ELEVATOR SECTION*6
V TEMP TAPE-408F

""TEMP TAPE-NO DATA

TEST SPECIMEN
NO

SECTION
SIDE

1
IE
2

UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED

0.016
0.016
0.016

67,300
62,000
64,300

41,800
48,100
45,700

2E
3
3E
4

EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED
UNEXPOSED
EXPOSED

0.016

59,900
64,900
64, 000
60, 800
57, 600

45,600

4E

METAL
THK IN

0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032

193

ULTIMATE
STRENGTH PSI

YIELD
STRENGTH

52,300
49,200
50, 300
45,700

PSI

TABLE B.7
RADIANT ENERGY MEASUREMENTS
STATION SLANT ENERGY FROM PASSIVE ENERGY VALUES
EXTRAPOLATED FROM
RANGE INDICATORS ON FRAMES
NML DATA CALORIES
CALORIES PER CM2
FT.
PER CM2
1

7150

15

18.3

5330

32

30.0

3800

>44

43.0

194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Bureau of Aeronautics Structures Memorandum No. 33 of April 1952,


Effects of Airburst Atomic Weapons on Naval Aircraft, Secret
Restricted Data.
(2) Naval Air Material Center Report No. ASL NAM DE-260, Part I of
April 1952, Instrumentation of Model AD-2 Airplane, BUNO 122363
for Blast Tests. Calibration of the AD-2 Airplane Wing for Flight
Load Measurement.
(3) Naval Air Material Center Report No. ASL NAM DE-260, Part II of
January 1953, Instrumentation of Model AD Airplanes for Blast Tests;
Load Calibration of the Horizontal Stabilizer of the AD-2 Airplane;
BUNO 122363. and Load Calibration of the Wing and Horizontal
Stabilizer of the XBT2D-1 Airplane, BUNO 09103.
(4) Naval Air Material Center Report No. ASL NAM AD-276 of 17 August
1953, Modernization of/and Use of NAXSTA Radar Tracking Equipment
for Structural Flight Test Programs.
(5) Naval Air Material Center Project No. TED NAM AD-260, Reports to
be issued, Instrumentation of Model AD Airplane for Atomic Blast
Test.
(6) Naval Air Material Center Report No. ASL NAM DE-260.2, Part I of
February 1953, The Positioning of Model AD Drone Aircraft for the
Investigation of Critical Atomic V/eapons Effects, Secret
Restricted Data.
(7) Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, Operation Tumbler-Snapper,
Project 8.3 Report WT-543 of March 1953, Thermal Radiation from
a Nuclear Detonation, Secret Restricted Data.
(8) Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Report, Department of the
Army Technical Manual TM 23-200, Department of the Navy OPNAV
Instruction 003400.1, Department of the Air Force AF0AT 385.2
of October 1952, Capabilities of Atomic Weapons, Secret.

195

(9) Bureau of Aeronautics Report DR-1434, Part I of June 1953 and


Part II of November 1953, Reflection of Radiation from an
Indefinite Plane.
(10) Bureau of Aeronautics Report DR-1485 of April 1953, Atomic
Weapon affects from Standpoint of Air Delivery Vehicles,
Secret Restricted Data.
(11

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautical Engineering Report of January 1950, Handbook of
Normal Shock Relationships.

(12

Douglas Aircraft Company Report No. ES 6613 Vol. 1 of


December 1944, Wing Loads. Model XBT2D-1.

(13

Douglas Aircraft Company Report No. ES 6705 of March 1945,


Empennage Loads, Model XBT2D-1.

(14

Bureau of Aeronautics Structures Project Report No. 42 of


August 1953, Analytical Determination of the Effect of Aerodynamic Cooling on the Temperature of a Metal Plate Heated
by an Atomic Bomb Thermal Pulse, Confidential Restricted Data.

(15

Douglas Aircraft Co. Report No. ES 17329 of May 1953, Skin


Samples Tension Tests, Confidential

(16

Douglas Aircraft Co. Laboratory Report No. ES-3 134 of May


1953, Short Time High Temperature Radiant Head Studies, Secret,

(17

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, Operation Tumbler


Project 1.2 Report WT 512 of February 1953, Air Pressure
vs Time, Secret.

(18

Aluminum Co. of America Handbook, ALCOA Aluminum and Its


Alloys, pgs. 113-114.

(19

Quartermaster Research and Development Laboratories, Pioneering Research Laboratories Research Service Test Report No.
GC-30 of October 1951, Temperature Indicator Papers.

(20

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, Report No. 903 of


November 1953

196

DISTRIBUTION
Military Distribution Categories 5-21, 5-30, and 5-60
Copy

Copy
ARMY ACTIVITIES

3
6

1*-

7
8-

10- 13

1k- 18
19
20- 22
23
21*
25
26

27
28
29- 30
31- 32

33- 31*
35- 36
37
38

39
i*o
1*1
1*2

U3
1*1*- 1*5

1*6- 1*7

1*8- 50

51
52

53
51*

55- 56
57

58

Asst. Chief of Staff, G-3, D/A, Washington 25, D.C.


ATTN: Dep. CofS, G-3 (RR&SW)
Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, D/A Washington
25, D.C. ATTN: Director of Research & Development
Chief of Ordnance, D/A, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN:
OEDTX-AE
Chief ignal Officer, D/A, P&O Division, Washington
25, D.C. ATTN: SIGOP
The Surgeon General, D/A, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN:
Chief, R&D Division
Chief Chemical Officer, D/A, Washington 25, D.C.
The Quartermaster General, CBR, Liaison Officer, Research and Development Div., D/A, Washington 25, D.C.
Chief of Engineers, D/A, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN:
ENGNB
Chief of Transportation, Military Planning and Intelligence Div., Washington 25, D.C.
Chief, Army Field Forces, Ft. Monroe, Va.
President, Board #1, OCAFF, Ft. Bragg, N.C.
President, Board #2, OCAFF, Ft. Knox, Ky.
President, Board #3, OCAFF, Ft. Benning, Ga.
President, Board #1*, OCAFF, Ft. Bliss, Tex.
Commanding General, U.S. Army Caribbean, Ft. Amador,
C..Z. ATTN: Cml. Off.
Commander-in-Chief, European Command, APO 128, c/o PM,
New York, N.T.
Commander-in-Chief, Far Ea3t Command, APO 500, c/o PM,
Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe, APO 1*03, c/o PM,
New York, N.Y. ATTN: OPOT Div., Combat Dev. Br.
Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific, APO 958, c/o
PM, San Francisco, Calif. ATTN: Cml. Off.
Commandant, Command and General Staff College, Ft.
Leavenworth, Kan. ATTN: ALLLS(AS)
Commandant, The Artillery School, Ft. Sill, Okla.
Secretary, The AA&GM Branch, The Artillery School, Ft.
Bliss, Tex. ATTN: Lt. Col. Albert D. Epley, Dept.
of Tactics and Combined Arms
Commanding General, Medical Field Service School,
Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft. Sam Houston, Tex.
Director, Special Weapons Development Office, Ft.
Bliss, Tex. ATTN: Lt. Arthur Jaskierny
Commandant, Army Medical Service Graduate School,
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington 25, D.C.
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.
ATTN: Prof, of Ordnance
Commandant, Chemical Corps School, Chemical Corps
Training Command, Ft. McClellan, Ala.
Commanding General, Research and Engineering Command,
Army Chemical Center, Md. ATTN: Deputy for RW and
Non-Toxic Material
Commanding General, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md.
(inner envelope) ATTN: RD Control Officer (for
Director, Ballistics Research Laboratory)
Commanding General, The Engineer Center, Ft. Belvoir,
Va. ATTN: Asst. Commandant, Engineer School
Commanding Officer, Engineer Research and Development
Laboratory, Ft. Belvoir, Va. ATTN: Chief, Technical
Intelligence Branch
Commanding Officer, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J.
ATTN: 0RDBB-TK
Commanding Officer, Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia 37, Pa. ATTN: Mr. C. C. Fawcett
Commanding Officer, Army Medical Research Laboratory,
Ft. Knox, Ky.
Commanding Officer, Chemical Corps Chemical and Radiological Laboratory, Army Chemical Center, Md. ATTN:
Tech. Library
Commanding Officer, Transportation R&D Station, Ft.
Eustis, Va.

59
60
61

62- 68

Director, Technical Documents Center, Evans Signal


Laboratory, Belmar, N.J.
Director, Waterways Experiment Station, P0 Box 631,
Vicksburg, Miss. ATTN: Library
Director, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 7th and
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington 25, D.C.
Director, Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins
University, 7100 Connecticut Ave., Chevy Chase, Md.
ATTN: Library
Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge, Term.
(Surplus)
NAVY ACTIVITIES

69- 70
71
72
73
71*

75- 76
77

78
79- 80
81
82
83
81*- 87
88
89
90

91
92- 93
91*
95

96

97
98
99
100
101
102

103

197

Chief of Naval Operations, D/N, Washington 25, D.C.


ATTN: OP-36
Chief of Naval Operations, D/N, Washington 25, D.C.
ATTN: OP-37MOEG)
Director of Naval Intelligence, D/N, Washington 25,
D.C. ATTN: 0P-922V
Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, D/N, Washington
25, D.C. ATTN: Special Weapons Defense Div.
Chief, Bureau of Ordnance, D/N, Washington 25, D.C.
Chief, Bureau of Ships, D/N, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN:
Code 31*8
Chief, Bureau of Yards and Docks, D/N, Washington 25,
D.C. ATTN: D-1*1*0
Chief, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, D/N, Washington 25, D.C.
Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, D/N, Washington 25, D.C.
Chief of Naval Research, Department of the Navy
Washington 25, D.C. ATTN: LT(jg) F. McKee, USN
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Fleet Po3t
Office, San Francisco, Calif.
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, U.S. Naval
Base, Norfolk 11, Va.
Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington 25, D.C.
ATTN: Code A03H
President, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, Calif.
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Schools Command, U.S.
Naval Station, Treasure Island, San Francisco,
Calif.
Commanding Officer, U.S. Fleet Training Center, Naval
Base, Norfolk 11, Va. ATTN: Special Weapons School
Commanding Officer, U.S. Fleet Training Center, Naval
Station, San Diego 36, Calif. ATTN: (SPWP School)
Commanding Officer, Air Development Squadron 5, VX-5,
U.S. Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, Calif.
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Damage Control Training
Center, Naval Base, Philadelphia 12, Pa. ATTN: ABC
Defense Course
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Unit, Chemical Corps
School, Army Chemical Training Center, Ft. McClellan,
Ala.
Joint Landing Force Board, Marine Barracks, Camp
Lejeune, N.C.
Commander, U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver
Spring 19, Md. ATTN: EE
Commander, U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver
Spring 19, Md. ATTN: EH
Commander, U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver
Spring 19, Md. ATTN: R
Commander, U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, Inyokern,
China Lake, Calif.
Officer-in-Charge, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Res.
and Evaluation Lab., U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Huenema, Calif. ATTN: Code 753
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical Research Inst..,
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda ll*, Md.

jpnlff]

Copy

Copy
lOH
105
106
107-110

111-112
113
Ilk
115

116-122

152

Director, C.S. Naval Besearch Laboratory, Washington


25, D.C. ATTN: Code 2029
Director, The Material Laboratory, New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn, N.T.
Commanding Officer and Director, U.S. Navy Electronics
Laboratory, San Diego 52, Calif. ATTN: Code lt223
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory, San Francisco 2k, Calif. ATTN: Technical
Information Division
Commanding Officer and Director, David W. Taylor Model
Basin, Washington 7, D.C. ATTN: Library
Commander, U.S. Naval Air Development Center, Johnsvllle, Pa.
Director, Office of Naval Besearch Branch Office, 1000
Geary St., San Francisco, Calif.
Officer-in-Charge, U.S. Naval Clothing Factory, U.S.
Naval Supply Activities, New York, 3rd Avenue and
29th Street, Brooklyn, N.T. ATTN: BSD Division
Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
(Surplus)

153-1514
155-160
I6I-I62
I63-165
166
167
168
169-170
171-177

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

AIB FORCE ACTIVITIES


123
12li
125
126

127-128
129
130

131
132
133

I3U
135
136-137
138
139
\kO
1IH-IH2
1^-3-150
151

Asst. Secretary of Defense, Research and Development,


D/D, Washington 25, D.C.
U.S. National Military Representative, Headquarters,
179
SHAPE, APO 55, c/o PM, New York, N.Y. ATTN: Col.
J. P. Healy
180 Director, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, OSD, Bm
2E1006, Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C.
181 Asst. for Civil Defense, OSD, Washington 25, D.C.
182 Armed Services Explosives Safety Board, D/D, Building
T-7, Gravelly Point, Washington 25, D.C.
183 Commandant, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk 11,
Va. ATTN: Secretary
Commanding General, Field Command, Armed Forces Spe181*-189
cial Weapons Project, PO Box 5100, Albuquerque, 5. Max.
Commanding General, Field Command, Armed Forces, Special
190-191
Weapons Project, PO Box 5100, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
ATTN: Technical Training Group
Chief,
Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, Washington
192-200
25, D.C.
Technical Information Service, Oak Hidge, Tenn.
201-207
(Surplus)
178

Asst. for Atomic Energy, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN: DCS/0
Director of Operations, Headquarters, USAF, Washington
25, D.C. ATTN: Operations Analysis
Director of Plans, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25,
D.C. ATTN: War Plans Div.
Director of Research and Development, Headquarters,
USAF, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN: Combat Components
Div.
Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN: AF0IN-1B2
The Surgeon General, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25,
D.C. ATTN: Bio. Def. Br., Pre. Med. Div.
Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S.
Air Forces Europe, APO 633, c/o PM, New York, N.Y.
ATTN: Directorate of Air Targets
Commander, U97th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron
(Augmented), APO 633, c/o PM, New York, N.Y.
Commander, Far East Air Forces, APO 925, <7 > San
Francisco, Calif.
Commander, Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force
Base, Omaha, Nebraska. ATTN: Special Weapons
Branch, Inspection Div., Inspector General
Commander, Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB, Va.
ATTN: Documents Security Branch
Commander, Air Defense Command, Ent AFB, Colo.
Commander, Air Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB,
Dayton, 0. ATTN: MCAIDS
Commander, Air Training Command, Scott AFB, Belleville,
111. ATTN: DCS/0 GTP
Commander, Air Research and Development Command, PO
Box 1395, Baltimore, Md. ATTN: BDDN
Commander, Air Proving Ground Command, Eglin AFB,
Fla. ATTN: AG/THE
Commander, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
Commander, Flying Training Air Force, Waco, Tex.
ATTN: Director of Observer Training
Commander, Crew Training Air Force, Randolph Field,
Tex. ATTN: 2GTS, DCS/0

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ACTIVITIES


208-210

211-213
2ll*-219

220-221
222
223-260

198

AEC, Oak Ridge, Tei

Commander, Headquarters, Technical Training Air Force,


Gulfport, Miss. ATTN: TA&D
Commandant, Air Force School of Aviation Medicine,
Randolph AFB, Tex.
Commander, Wright Air Development Center, WrightPatterson AFB. Dayton, 0. ATTN: WC0ESP
Commander, Air Force Cambridge Research Center, 230
Albany Street, Cambridge 39. Mass. ATTN: CRQST-2
Commander, Air Force Special Weapons Center, Kirtland
AFB, N. Max. ATTN: Library
Commandant, USAF Institute of Technology, WrightPatterson AFB, Dayton, 0. ATTN: Resident College
Commander, Lowry AFB, Denver, Colo. ATTN: Department
of Armament Training
Commander, 1009th Special Weapons Squadron, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C.
The RAKD Corporation, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica,
Calif. ATTN: Nuclear Energy Division
Technical Information Service, Oak Bidge, Tenn.
(Surplus)

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Classified Technical


Library, 1901 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D-C
ATTN: Mrs. J. M. 0'Leary (For DMA)
Los Alamoa Scientific Laboratory, Report Library, PO
Box 1663, Los Alamos, N. Mex. ATTN: Helen Redman
Sandia Corporation, Classified Document Division,
Sandia Base, Albuquerque, N. Mex. ATTN: Martin
Lucero
University of California Radiation Laboratory, PO Box
808, Livermore, Calif. ATTN: Margaret Edlund
Weapon Data Section, Technical Information Service,
Oak Bidge, Tenn.
Technical Information Service, Oak Bidge, Tenn.
(Surplus)