Uncategorized files

Showing below up to 50 results in range #51 to #100.

• 
  FIGURE 5-16. Variation of Drag Coefficient With Cone Angle and Rate of Descent for Solid Fabric Parachutes..jpg 479 × 442; 38 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-17. Variation of Drag Coefficient With Cones Angle and Rate of Descent for 28-Foot-Diameter Solid Textile Parachutes..jpg 497 × 512; 27 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-18. Drag Coefficient Versus Rate of Descent for Two Stable and Two Unstable Parachutes..jpg 593 × 536; 32 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-19. Drag Coefficients, CDo and CDp; Canopy Area Ratio, SpSo; and Diameter Ratio, Dp9Do; as a Function of Suspension-Line Ratio, Le9Do for a 1-Meter-Diameter Model Parachute..jpg 591 × 481; 26 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-2. Two-Hundred-Foot-Diameter Circular, Flat Cargo Parachute..jpg 331 × 370; 11 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-2. Two-Hundred-Foot-Diameter Circular, Flat Cargo Parachute.2.jpg 465 × 524; 103 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-20. Variation of Drag Coefficient With Suspension-Line Ratio for Several Parachute Types..jpg 536 × 549; 51 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-21. Parachute Drag Loss Caused by Forebody Wake..jpg 480 × 534; 47 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-22. Drag Loss of the Apollo 16.5-Foot-Diameter, Ribbon Drogue Chute Caused by Different Forebodies..jpg 502 × 338; 25 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-23. Determination of Effective Forebody Diameter..jpg 472 × 295; 14 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-24. Drag Coefficient Versus Rate of Descent for Various Types of Solid Textile Parachutes..jpg 497 × 519; 52 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-25. Drag Coefficient Versus Rate of Descent for Various Extended-Skirt Parachutes..jpg 435 × 250; 22 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-26. Effect of Suspension-Line Ratio on an 1.8-Foot-Diameter Extended-Skirt Parachute..jpg 355 × 246; 21 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-27. Drag Coefficient Versus Rate of Descent for Various Cross Parachutes..jpg 818 × 578; 60 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-28. Drag Coefficient Versus Rate of Descent for Various Annular Parachutes..jpg 461 × 386; 27 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-29. Effect of Reynolds Number on Drag Coefficient for a Sphere and Various Parachutes.jpg 469 × 351; 29 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-3. Army Paratrooper 35-Foot-Diameter Extended-Skirt Parachute..jpg 334 × 404; 16 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-3. Army Paratrooper 35-Foot-Diameter Extended-Skirt Parachute.2.jpg 519 × 654; 164 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-30. Illustration of Static Stability..jpg 763 × 311; 30 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-31. Graphical Illustration of Dynamic Stability..jpg 673 × 446; 31 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-32. Relationship of Airflow and Stability for Various Parachutes..jpg 717 × 535; 64 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-33. Moment Coefficients Versus Angle of Attack for Guide Surface; Ribbon; and Flat, Circular Parachutes; and for Porous and Nonporous Hemispheres..jpg 581 × 651; 60 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-34. Various Configurations of Parachute Vehicle Attachments..jpg 478 × 691; 36 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-35. Angle and Force Relationships for a Deceleration System Moving in Space..jpg 458 × 188; 10 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-36. Parachute Canopy Inflation Process..jpg 611 × 409; 36 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-37. Filling Distance of a Parachute Canopy..jpg 363 × 107; 7 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-38. Typical Drag-Area-Versus-Time Increase for Various Parachute Types..jpg 498 × 126; 14 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-39. Typical Drag-Area-Versus-Time Increase for Reefed Parachutes..jpg 467 × 152; 13 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-4. Twenty-Four-Foot-Diameter Hemispherical Parachute..jpg 328 × 405; 8 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-4. Twenty-Four-Foot-Diameter Hemispherical Parachute.2.jpg 522 × 651; 134 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-40. Drag-Area Ratio Versus Dimensionless Filling Time..jpg 367 × 401; 24 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-41. Drag-Area-Versus-Time Diagram for the Mercury 64-Foot Ringsail Parachute..jpg 518 × 349; 25 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-42. Drag-Area-Versus-Time Diagram for a Reefed 101-Foot-Diameter Triconical Parachute..jpg 565 × 353; 32 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-43. Parachute Force Versus Time for a Wind-Tunnel Test (Infinite Mass Condition)..jpg 299 × 180; 8 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-44. Force Versus TIme for a Personnel Parachute Drop (Finite Mass Condition)..jpg 299 × 162; 7 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-45. 15.6-Foot-Diameter Ringslot B-47 Approach Parachute Opening Forces..jpg 515 × 475; 52 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-46. Opening Proess and Opening Force Versus Time for a Guide Surface Personnel Parachute Tested at the El centrio Whirl Tower at 250 Knots With a 200-Pound Torso Dummy..jpg 536 × 371; 29 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-47. Rate of Descent Versus Canopy Loading and Parachute Applications..jpg 724 × 515; 68 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-48. Opening-Force Reduction Factor Versus Canopy Loading..jpg 731 × 432; 48 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-49. Apollo Ribbon Drogue Chute Force Fluctuation Caused by Forebody Wake (Inflated Parachute Diameter ,Dp, is 10.7 feet).jpg 460 × 438; 32 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-5. Guide Surface Parachute..jpg 616 × 266; 31 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-5. Guide Surface Parachute.2.jpg 1,002 × 371; 180 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-50. Opening-Force Factor Versus Mass Ratio..jpg 656 × 696; 111 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-51. Opening-Force Reduction Factor, X1, Versus Ballistic Parameter, A..jpg 658 × 549; 74 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-52. Drag-Area Profile for Parachute Inflation Sequence..jpg 624 × 523; 44 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-53. Opening Forces of Various Personnel Parachutes..jpg 596 × 619; 62 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-54. Snatch Force and Opening Force of the Air Force 28-Foot-Diameter Personnel Parachute. With and Without Quarter Deployment Bag..jpg 601 × 520; 52 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-55. Opening Time Comparison of Three Configurations of the 28-Foot-Diameter Personnel Parachute......Standard With Pull-Down Vent Line, and Standard with Spreader Gun..jpg 622 × 388; 44 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-56. Apollo Command Module, Block I, Reefed and Disreefed Opening Forces for a Single 88-Foot-Diameter Ringsail Parachute..jpg 609 × 314; 35 KB
  
• 
  FIGURE 5-57. Apollo Command Module Single Drogue Chute and Main Parachute Test Envelope..jpg 434 × 372; 29 KB