ÜWCLASSIFIED

An 256 857 ßepAoduced

fy Ute

ARMED SERVICES TECHNICAL INFORMATION AGENCY ARUNCTON HALL STATION ARLINGTON 12. VIRGINIA

UNCLASSIFIED

NOTICE: When government or other drawings, speci- fications or other data are used for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely related government procurement operation, the U. S. Government thereby Incurs no responsibility, nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Govern- ment may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or other- wise as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

J

1^

\cr)

C:

^i GO

o

,3°

A S T I A

JUN 1 1961

. , . A

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

v^ £> &

U. S. Army Transportation Research Command Fort Eustis, Virginia

Project Number: 9-38-01-000, TK902 Contract Number: nA44-177-TC-524

SOME NOTES ON THE P-GEM

by

T. E. Sweeney and W. B. Nixon

Department of Aeronautical Engineering Princeton University

Report No. 537 January, 1961

Agencies within the Department of Defense and their contractors may obtain copies of this report on a loan basis from:

Armed Services Technical Information Agency

Arlington Hall Station Arlington 12, Virginia

Others may obtain copies from:

Office of Technical Services Acquisition Section Department of Commerce Washington 25, D. C.

The views contained in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of the Army. The information contained herein will not be used for advertising purposes.

Approved by:

C. D. Perkins, Chairman Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Princeton University

FOREWORD

The Princeton twenty-foot ground effect machine, first operated in

October 1959, has recently been modified to include a 180 HP Lycoming

engine replacing the former 43 HP Nelson engine. During the past several

months the machine has undergone certain trials while plans and instru-

mentation were being prepared for the second major flight test program.

As a result of these trials, observations have been made that are inter-

esting not only to the writers but to many of our visitors active in the

field of ground effect research. While the Princeton group, as with

most research teams, normally leans toward quantitative results to describe

a phenomenon under investigation, we feel in this case that a qualitative

paper is indicated as an interim report.

It is our hope that this paper will to some extent point up one of

the values of a research machine such as the P-GEM in that certain oper-

ational problems may be more rationally predicted for the more sophisticated

machines now under development in many quarters.

Princeton research in this field is under the sponsorship of the

U. S. Army, TRECOM and under the direction of Professor C. D. Perkins

of Princeton University.

- i

i SUMMARY

Certain observations are reported in a qualitative manner regarding

operational and other flight experiences with the Princeton 20 ft. Ground

Effect Machine. Comments on the fan-inlet problem, stability and stabi-

lizing devices, and operations over land, water and snow are made as a

result of many hours of operation of the P-GEM. Tentative conclusions

are drawn which largely reflect the authors1 opinions as influenced by

the observations.

- 11

TABUE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

Discussion 2 A - The Fan-Inlet Problem 3 B - Comments on Performance and

Stability 4 C - Over Water Characteristics of P-GEM 7 D - Over Snow Characteristics of P-GEM 8

Concluding Remarks 11

References 14

Figures

Distribution List

- ill -

I. INTRODUCTION

The many parameters that have been devised to completely describe the

behaviour and acceptability of an aircraft frequently fall short of tell-

ing the entire story. While it is not suggested that all significant quan-

titative data have been acquired on the P-GEM, or any other manned GEM for

that matter, certain qualitative observations have been made which indicate

the probable magnitude of some operational problems. Also, and of equal

value, these observations help point the way to the solutions of the prob-

lems so far encountered.

The P-GEM as originally built was powered by a 43 HP Nelson engine.

A brief flight test program was conducted and reported upon early in 1960

(Reference 1). It seemed evident that the performance of the machine was

not sufficient to permit significant flight research; therefore, it was

decided to install additional power. The usual vicious circle resulted.

Because of the additional weight and power of the new engine, additional

structure, fuel and ballast were required. In addition, the original

electric servo controls were changed to a direct mechanical system and

strengthened for the new higher jet velocities.

The results, however, have been rewarding. Even though there has

been a 50% increase in gross weight, performance has substantially im-

proved and our capability of conducting significant flight experiments

has been vastly enhanced. Later sections of this paper will define this

new performance in more detail.

While this report deals largely with the modified P-GEM, two experi-

ments made with the 43 HP version subsequent to the publication of

Reference 1 will be discussed.

1 -

II. DISCUSSION

Figure 1 shows the original P-GEM and the modified version of the

machine. The major external differences are an enlargement of the inlet

duct from four feet to five feet in diameter, the installation of a

four-bladed fan designed to absorb 180 HP, the addition of external fuel

tanks, and the raising of the cockpit canopy four inches. Fuel tanks

were placed outboard to avoid further deterioration of internal efficien-

cy, and considerable electronic gear associated with the former servo

control system were removed from the interior of the machine for the

same reason. Otherwise there has been no change in the internal aero-

dynamics of the machine.

Prior to the installation of the larger engine, an internal effi-

ciency (^Tj/PTj) was estimated to be between 45 and 50%. It was real-

ized that a great improvement in performance could be effected by the

addition of more sophisticated internal ducting. It was decided, how-

ever, that the desired performance could be achieved more expediently

by adding power rather than by removing power losses. This decision

would have been intolerable for an operational machine; however, it is

justifiable in an experimental craft intended primarily to investigate

control and static and dynamic stability. It is conceded that the

present capability of the P-GEM could be achieved with substantially

less installed horsepower if the rather poor internal aerodynamics

were improved.

'

A. The Fan - Inlet Problem

The first fans designed for the 43 HP P-GEM were designed to load

the Nelson engine to a full throttle sea level condition to 4000 RPM.

The fact that this did not occur, even after a systematic increase in

root blade angle, led to a re-exaraination of the design assumptions.

It was originally assumed that the inflow velocity would be uniform

and parallel, although it was recognized even then that the shape of

the inlet would undoubtly influence the distribution to some extent.

In order to converge more rapidly on the "correct" fan for the machine,

the inlet was very carefully probed with both static and total pressure

tubes. This experiment revealed that, far from being uniform and par-

allel in nature, the in-flow was in fact varying across the inlet in

a parabolic fashion. Figure 2 shows this velocity distribution and

how the duct seemingly influences the in-flow field. The effect of

this parabolic distribution on the fan designed for a uniform in-flow

velocity was to reduce the fan tip angle of attack to approximately

0° for the greatest fan root angle tested. There is, therefore,

little wonder that fan efficiencies were of the order of 457. for the

best of this first series of fans.

The results of this fan-inlet study were incorporated into the

design of the fan for the 180 HP engine. It appears from the RPM/

manifold pressure relationship in the modified P-GEM that we are still

significantly far from the "correct fan"; however, a rapid convergence

on the solution of the problem has been made. In this respect it is

desired to point out that an extensive study of the literature dealing

with ducted fans indicates work yet to be done in this area of fans

operating very near a faired inlet. Of most significance is the work

done at Mississippi State College under the direction of the late

Dr. August Raspet (Reference 2).

The estimated effect of the new inlet on the inflow distribution

in the modified machine produced a fan design with zero blade twist and

a blade angle of ß ~ 17°. This fan was designed to absorb 180 HP at

2900 RPM and 28.5" Hg. manifold pressure. But It has been observed in

operation that with the radial stabilizing slots closed (see Figure 3),

the maximum manifold pressure at 2900 RPM is approximately 24.5"Hg.

This represents a brake horsepower absorption of 150 HP. With the

radial slots open, however, the manifold pressure at 2900 RPM is ap-

proximately 26.5" Hg. indicating a horsepower absorption of 169 HP.

• This may be a function of the mass flow change as Internal total pres-

sure drop is changed by opening additional slots. This would directly

change the fan blade angle of attack and L/D of the blade section. In

any event it is seen that the fan needs modification to fully utilize

the installed horsepower. Experiments presently are being designed

to determine the precise operating conditions of the fan for various

conditions of RPM and stabilizing slot opening.

B. Comments on Performance and Stability

The 43 HP version of the P-GEM was finally capable of approxi-

mately 12 inches of ground clearance and had, at that altitude, ap-

proximately neutral static stability in the hovering condition. The

gross weight was about 1100 lbs.

The modified P-GEM with full fuel load has a gross weight of 1600

lbs. and a maximum hovering altitude of approximately two feet with the

stabilizing slots closed. Under the condition of minimum fuel load the

gross weight is approximately 1450 lbs. and the maximum hovering alti-

tude appears to be between two and two and a half feet, again with the

stabilizing slots closed. In both of these conditions, however, the

machine is statically unstable. Tests with the radial stabilizing slots

open showed the machine to be positively stable at full throttle to the

extent that it was possible for the pilot to hover "hands-off" the

controls. With an intermediate fuel load the maximum hovering altitude

appeared to be no more than approximately eighteen inches, with stabi-

lizing slots open, which certainly appears to be a high cost in hover-

ing performance to achieve inherent static stability.

An interesting observation with the radial slots closed was that

at full throttle, even though the machine was unstable in hovering, its

response to a disturbance was such that the pilot could manage to keep

a level attitude. This means that the rate of response to an external

disturbance was Low enough for the pilot, by working very hard, to act

as a rather effective stabilizer. It must be said, though, that on

occasion the pilot gets in phase with the disturbance with the result

that one edge of the machine will lightly touch the ground.

It has also been observed that the static instability appears to

I 5 -

vanish in forward flight. In this respect it should be remembered that

the P-GEM in forward flight is in a marked nose down attitude so that a

slight loss in average height or the angle itself might be influencing

this apparent stability. Experiments are being planned to shed ad-

ditional light on this rather favorable characteristic.

Regarding maximum speed: the P-GEM develops horizontal forces by

tilting in the appropriate direction. Thrust is somewhat enhanced by

the tail rotor which produces an additional 15 to 20 lbs. of static

thrust, although the main function of this rotor is to produce torque

about the normal axis for directional control. The 43 HP version of

the machine, which could produce an average ground clearance of 10 to 12

inches when tilted, had a maximum speed on level ground in a zero wind

condition of approximately 23 m.p.h. The 180 HP version of the craft

has an average ground clearance of 20 to 24 inches and consequently

can be inclined to a much greater angle. But it has a maximum air-

speed of only 26 to 27 m.p.h. While this performance might at first

glance appear to be discouraging, it was by no means unexpected. Since

the machine has greater thrust at the greater negative angles of attack,

the lack of a substantial increase in maximum speed must obviously be

due to additional drag. It is reasonable to expect that there is an

increase in drag due to a change in P^ ; however, it is also clear that

there is a much greater momentum drag at the higher ground clearances

since the augmentation ratio is greatly reduced. This case can be

easily argued by referring to Figure 4 and by the following relationships

,

Momentum drag can be expressed as

mV across the boundaries 1 and 2

or Djj-mV - (1)

Considering the relationship

A « i or L - A mv^ (2) mvj J

the ratio Vjv, becomes

L/I>M " A ^ (3>

or for the general case for zero momentum recovery, or

L/DM " A Vj/V C1"1? ) (4)

where >J is the momentum recovery factor.

C. Over Water Characteristics of P-GEM

Early in 1960, over water trials were conducted with the 43 HP

P-GEM with most interesting results. The water area, a farmer's pond

of several acres located near the Forrestal Research Center in Princeton,

was at the time perhaps two to three feet deep in the center gradually

shallowing to the banks. The surface conditions were quite calm dis-

playing only the slight chop due to a 12 kt. wind.

The first of several encouraging observations was that the water

spray due to the jet efflux was minimal and did not seem to exceed two

feet in height. No spray was ingested in either the hovering or for-

ward flight case (see Figure 5), and the spray presented no visibility

problems to the pilot even though the cockpit canopy is very close to

the periphery of the machine. It should be emphasized, however, that

the reason for this lack of a water spray problem is the relatively

- 7

low jet velocities. The average dynamic pressure in the nozzle was

approximately 3.5 lbs. / ft.2. This is a good confirmation of NASA,

Langley, findings that dynamic pressures below 5.0 lbs. / ft. should

present no spray problems.

The second interesting observation was that the machine was capable

of landing and rising from the water surface with the same ease and lack

of problems associated with this operation over land. It was further

observed that the P-GEM seemed to hover slightly higher over water than

over land at the same power setting. If this impression is correct, it

is not completely clear why it is so. One plausible explanation is that

the presence of the peripheral water spray, even though light, serves

as a hydro-curtain or skirt to retard the escape of the jet efflux.

In the forward flight regime over water it was found that maneu-

vering (turning) was enhanced by banking the inside edge of the machine

until this portion of the craft was into the water enough to serve as

an effective keel. By this means much tighter turns could be made over

water than over land due to the additional side force auailable to re-

sist skidding out. From film records of these trials it has been ob-

served that a bow wave was created in forward flight over the shallower

portion of the pond but this was not noticed over the deeper water. It

is not certain, though, that the bow wave was not caused by the nose of

the P-GEM dipping into the water on the occasion of the observation.

D. Over Snow Characteristics of F-GEM

The 43 HP version of the P-GEM was tried, on one occasion, over

fresh snow early in 1960. During the heavy snows of the winter of

1960-61 the 180 HP P-GEM has been repeatedly tested over both new and

old snow.

The most conclusive observation made was that there are many differ-

ent conditions of snow and that these are constantly varying - also that

the P-GEM behaved differently over each of these varying snow conditions.

It is not possible to accurately report behaviour of the craft as a func-

tion of snow condition since the authors are incapable of classifying

snow, but within this limitation the following observation is considered

generally correct: the two extremes of snow conditions are on one hand

a dry powdery surface and on the other a heavily crusted surface. As

one might guess, GEM operation over the former produces quite a snow

cloud - the magnitude of which is probably dependent upon jet velocities.

But it has been observed that operation of the P-GEM over a lightly

crusted snow produces little or no snow cloud unless a landing wheel or

the periphery of the machine breaks the crust, which then does result

in a cloud.

These two extremes produce relatively minor operational difficulties.

By far the most troublesome is an intermediate wet snow condition. It

has been found that operations over this type of surface can be carried

out successfully as long as forward speed is maintained. At approxi-

mately 25 m.p.h. the P-GEM manages to outrun the snow cloud to the degree

that the forward one third of the machine is clear while the remainder

of the machine is completely invisible in the cloud. At these speeds the

blowing snow does not seem to adhere to the surface of the machine.

However, in hovering flight the recirculating wet snow rapidly builds up

- 9

on the upper surface of the craft. In the case of the P-GEM with its

light base loading, this build-up of wet snow in the hovering state was

sufficient to almost ground the machine within a time period of approxi-

mately two minutes. This, of course, was due to the weight of snow taken

aboard.

An interesting characteristic of the P-GEM and presumably, to a

greater or lesser degree, of all ground effect machines is the ability

to jump over obstacles slightly higher than the maximum hovering height

of the machine. This has been observed in driving the machine from a

cleared ramp onto a snow covered field with a mound of snow (from a snow

plow) separating the two areas. Figure 6 shows diagramatically the

technique used in hopping the P-GEM over a snow bank several inches

higher than the hovering height of the machine for any given weight

condition. It will be observed (Figure 6-a) that the machine in hover-

ing flight at two lengths from the snow bank had approximately two feet

of ground clearance. Figure 6-b shows the P-GEM in an attitude of

maximum acceleration, while Figure 6-c shows the sharp pull up required

for the nose wheel to clear the mound. Finally, Figure 6-d shows the

machine in forward flight having passed the snow bank without scraping

the surface.

It seems evident that the width of the mound contributed greatly

to the machine's ability to make the jump since the very presence of

the broad obstacle beneath the base helped lift the craft without physi-

cal contact. However, it is not suggested that this maneuver would

enable the P-GEM to clear successfully a rail fence of the height of

the snow mound.

10

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS

From the foregoing description of the several operational character-

istics of the P-GEM, certain tentative conclusions can be drawn:

a) The combined fan-inlet- problem is one requiring more work

to approach the fan efficiencies which are theoretically possible. Close-

ly associated with this problem is the matter of the over-all internal

aerodynamics of -i GEM, which to date has not received all of the atten-

tion which will be required in order to produce an economical machine.

It appears that of great importance to the internal efficiency of a GEM

is the amount of turning the air must undergo. Configurations requiring

least turning of the air will undoubtedly have a great advantage, power-

wise, over those requiring considerable turning.

b) Of the several methods of achieving inherent stability at

the higher values of "/d, considerable performance loss is associated

with the radial slot method. It is not yet known how this power cost

for stability compares with other methods (i.e., dual peripheral nozzle,

discreet holes in base) but steps are being taken to determine the

relative performance losses associated with the various known methods

of stabilizing GEM's. - -

It is certainly premature to make firm judgements in this matter

of static stability. The authors do, however, have the growing feel-

ing that automatic stabilization devices might prove far more economical.

Experiences with the 43 HP version of the P-GEM, which had servo operated

control vanes, pointed up the lack of concern one may have for the usual

- 11 -

considerations of electronic reliability. The characteristics of a

GEM are such that great compromises may be made in this respect even

to the extent of a complete fly-by-wire control system integrated with

the automatic stabilization system. The reason for such an approach is

that the hard-over signal or other control malfunction is inherently

not of the same danger level as in the case of a conventional aircraft.

It is felt from flight experiences that the performance loss due to

automatic stabilization devices is trival compared to that loss due to

the one type of aerodynamic stabilization tested.

c) It appears from analysis and flight test that the lift/

tnomentuir. drag ratio as expressed by /Dm = A v-'/V(l-h) is the dominant

term in defining the performance envelope of any GEM. Performance

envelope is here defined as the height, power, speed relationship.

d) It is interesting to note that a statically unstable

GEM can be maneuvered and that the static instability appears to van-

ish in forward flight. This statement is qualified to include only

the type of GEM which achieves its horizontal force due to tilting the

lift vector. The statement is also, at this time, restricted to a

circular configuration.

e) Over water operation of GEM1s appears to offer certain

advantages in slightly increased hovering performance and increased

maneuverability by utilizing some portion or protuberance of the

machine as a keel.

f) Landings and take-off are as easily accomplished from

water as from land, and good confirmation has been obtained for NASA

- 12

findings of a lack of an over water spray problem if jet dynamic pres-

sures are below 5 lbs./ft. .

g) GEM operational problems over snow vary greatly with the

snow surface conditions. The most serious snow problem encountered with

the P-GEM has been with uncrusted snow wet enough to adhere to the sur-

face of the machine in hovering flight. However, it has been found

that even this type of snow does not seem to adhere to the machine at

air speeds of approximately 25 miles per hour.

h) It is felt that much more could be learned from a few

new research GEM1s operating in specialized fields in order to accu-

rately point up vital areas for further research and development. It

is accordingly suggested that this be done as soon as possible to

hasten the day of fully operational vehicles.

- 13

REFERENCES

1. Nixon, W.B. and Sweeney.T.E., "Preliminary Flight Experiments with the Princeton University Twenty-Foot Ground Effect Machine", Princeton University Aero. Eng. Report No. 506, February, 1960.

2. McNay, D.E., "Study of the Effect of Various Propeller Configurations on the Flow about the Shroud", Aero. Physics Dept. Mississippi State College, Research Report No. 14, February, 1958.

- 14 -

DUCT FLOW PATTERM AND JNFLOW VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION

(P-GEM - ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION^

T I MPPROX. PLANE OF FAN DUCT WALL'

loo

90

ao

60

SO

INFLOW VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION <3> JOR ABOVE FAN PLANE

IO 20 30 Ao SO SO 70 ao 90 100

BLADE RADIUS , %

FIGURE 2.

/-RADIAL STABILIZINS SLOTS

,'Y AXIS N X AXIS

4 e--45'

SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF BASE OF P-GEM

FIGURE 3

ALART PROGRAM Technical Report

Distribution List

ADDRESS NO. OF COPIES

1. Chief of Transportation Department of the Army Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: TCACR (2)

2. Commander Wright Air Development Division Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio ATTN: WCLJA (2)

3. Commanding Officer U. S. Army Transportation Research Command Fort Eustis, Virginia ATTN: Research Reference Center (4) ATTN: Aviation Directorate (3)

4. Commanding General Air Research and Development Command ATTN: RDLA Andrews Air Force Base Washington 25, D. C. (1)

5. Director Air University Library ATTN: AUL-8680 Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (1)

6. Commanding Officer David Taylor Model Basin Aerodynamics Laboratory Washington 7, D. C. (1)

7. Chief Bureau of Naval Weapons Department of the Navy Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: Airframe Design Division (1) ATTN: Aircraft Division (1) ATTN: Research Division (1)

ADDRESS NO. OF COPIES

I

8, Chief of Naval Research Code 461 Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: ALO

9o Director of Defense Research and Development Room 3E - 1065, The Pentagon Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: Technical Library

10. U. S. Army Standardization Group, U.K. Box 65, U. S. Navy 100 FPO New York, New York

11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1520 H Street, N. W. Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: Bertram A. Mulcahy

Director of Technical Information

(1)

(1)

(1)

(5)

12. Librarian Langley Research Center National Aeronautics & Space Administration Langley Field, Virginia

13. Ames Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Agency Moffett Field, California ATTN: Library

14. Armed Services Technical Information Agency Arlington Hall Station Arlington 12, Virginia

(1)

(1)

(10)

15. Office of Chief of Research and Development Department of the Army Washington 25, D. C. ATTN: Mobility Division

16. Senior Standardization Representative U. S. Army Standardization Group, Canada c/o Director of Weapons and Development Army Headquarters Ottawa, Canada

(1)

(1)

ADDRESS NO. OF COPIES

17. Canadian Liaison Officer U. S. Army Transportation School Fort Eustis, Virginia (3)

18. British Joint Services Mission (Army Staff) <- DAQMG (Mov & Tn) 1800 "K" Street, NW Washington 6, D. C. ATTN: Lt. Col. R. J. Wade, RE (3)

19. Office of Technical Services Acquisition Section Department of Commerce Washington 25, D. C. (2)

20. Librarian Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences 2 East 64th Street New York 21, New York (2)

21. U. S. Army Research and Development Liaison Group APO 79 New York, New York ATTN: Mr. Robert R. Piper (1)

o d Cd 4-) <u ^ (-1 o 01 „ b (U g c C o i-l U-l o 0) 0 ;s V) <4-i o 0> X i h w - i •H 4J r- < 01 t-H M z o r^ j TJ C cit t» '-I <t u C -H M • • U 1 CM

3 XI 0) w pa •u -d- in ^ o u c C 5 i o S 5 H St O a H

00 C-J c o w «a ON

o o iH I B ^4 o „

C •D s H t

o o o B tfl r^- o •H >. ■ 13 D r-- 1 m 4J 5S a. e C i-H O 4J (0 •H m cfl 1 •-< u 1) o

0)

C g >* -J -7 ' o oo a. o 0) o E—( 01 *. < ro 0J < > 4J c c r~ 3 I od

•H 0) Z <u o PI a> c o o u X u^ 13 3 c 3 ■H 0 - iu

•H M w B z O "H C o , O

S3 ±* B IM

w o M cc u 4J tn 01 ~ £2 4J t o tn o ^ B. tj o; T) c g H 3 O CL 4-1

c "-lr-(

o u 5 M £1 c ! w cn o M c

Cu a w es —i o &. 9

o c w 4J 01 >. h-l Cl c 0) o

Rh i E c c O H m O 0) o z W H-4 u OJ X i

^ W " 3 •w 4J r-.

"Ü 01 »—* to » O r- 9 "O c CO OJ ^-i <t Q C -H )-i ■ « (-1 1 CM

s= 3 .C CJ w FQ 4J ^ U-l

5 o u c c <t > 01

H {• o ^ u O P H

ön CNi

c O H <f ON

IO H o c l-( i

B ki 01 M

>-i H O c -Jj -) w tl i o c o 4 r^ O M >^ • 1 •o a r-~ i m 4J z Pi c B ^ O 4-1

ta ■r-* i) CD 1 ^-i 1-1

a U) n g 1-1 «* l o o l-l c Ps <t oa a, u 01 0 p 01 r «a m oi

<?. > 4-J C c r^ Q ■ cd ■H 01 25 0) 0 ro ON

c o B 01 X LO -a 3 c 3 >r- O - 0)

*H w w Z z o -w C u 1 O Z 1-1 O p-> z 4-1 -H

4-1 o M CQ O iJ UJ

8) r. z 4J CO O 01 o kl a. M 01 cfl C 4-' B H » c a- 4-1 -"-l •—1

•H c a. c o -o 9 l-l 0) o i aj r^ cue

EU Q ^j cü i—1 O P- 3

IM Cd

c

0) r-l 13 C cB C "H tl 3 J3 01 o o c l-i eg 0) O S o

c

s H

c c X

o

CJ r»

1-4 I NJ 4-i <)• m C <*■ i o ^ o u Q H

M og C O

Cd i-4

ON

CM

o 0 1—1 i

K 1-1 CJ M 01 • 5^ >, H o

c ■< ■-j W u o 0 Ü « r- o

•H ^ • 1 X) p r- w 4J z Gu c c i—I O 4J ID 'H a) ra i ■—i u OJ m f» P <-) ■O- 1 o o u c ►, <I co a. o 01 0 H OJ « s <ri oi

<3 > 4-1 c c h« l OS •H QJ Z 01 o ro ON C o o 01 X in -O 9 c 3 >H 0 - 0)

'H OT w z z O ft C 0 0. , O

Z 4-1 Z 14-1

4-1 o w 03 u 4-1 Ü1 OJ ^ z 4-1 < a) o en u -. • • 1-1 Cu >-i 0J c« c 4-1 £ H S o Bi 4-1 f-i i—i •H o. a. a o o

§ V4 01 Q 1 01 <n o u a PM a CO Hi ^-i CJ p* PI

c 4-1 u >

a O 01 • t«- o fr. c e c H IM 8 11 0 z u, IM u 01 X 1 1— M ^ 3 •^ 4J r~. CO 01 •—* w z o r~ CO ■d c sd «•-••* •a- c ■H ki kl 1 CM J S J3 C w CQ 4J <t m U c o c C <J i z ki X 0J o «C CJ

O Q H 3 ts X Ö H 3t

00 CN c O td

vD CN US c O-' m H B 0

t4

r-. i

CJ - c OJ • 2 >. H O c < l-l W 1-1 1 o '(— O « r~ o to >. X) D r^ i m 4-J Z P- C C r-l O 4-1

tl •r- w eg . rH M U cr- * M •^ <r i o Ü VJ c s ;>. <t 00 o.

■< 01 >

c 4-

p 01 a e r-

i m 0J a i oi

•H 0J z OJ c fl O (3 i-J o OI X IT-; TS p P 3 O • Ol

•n-l tn & z 0 Z 0 -I-I e P 0 Z "M O p.- ■ o z 4-1 -i-l

4-1 o Cd CQ U 4-1 U3 01 ^ z M • CS O (0 u < i-l a- M (U «i c 4- 1 H is 0 a 4-i ■'-) ■—1

■H CL o. C O CJ

§ kl 01 Q ; OJ m O V4 c Pi Q OT OS r—1 O PL4 Pi

•H 1 H i •r^ 1 01 i

4J •iH C l-l 1 c 3 4-1 •l-l c l-l i g 3 cd h ■w 0) U •y »—* cd l-l •r-l 01 l-i r-l

4J a> J3 *J 01 cd IM u 01 Xi 4J 01 cd U-l •H D. CJ cd u. u c •l-l a. CJ cd 5i u c .-1 X 01 •o ? O •d •r4 1—1 X s T3 3 o X) •H id ■ £ c ■ 01 C 3 « M U-l o; CO 3 cd ■ ■M OJ CO cr w M •a O i- cd cr 4-1 4-1 T3 O l-i cd

X! O p^ c cd X o >% c cd «t 60 0) 4-1 cd en w cd 00 01 4-1 cd en 10

•H y-i •H i—i ^ CO C ■M U-l •H 1—1 u in c c ^-1 m f-H 3 B O a r-l U-l i-H 3 C o •rl M-l W •r-( i-i O O •r-i •H U-l w •r-l l-l O o •H

XI 0) Ä •H c X 01 x: •H 0 •o u ■a (d > en •H •a u -Ö cd > in ■H

01 0) c 4-1 o ?-. 3 O. OJ 01 c 4J o >. 3 0. 4J JC 3 M c ^-l 0 4-1 X 3 in c i—i 0 M ■l-l O Ü) cd O l-l iJ o in cd o 0 o l-i « c 1 - o c M *. c E a - o. o 6 o 0 to l-U CJ B o o to 0) •o 0) •H 14-4 CJ H 01 ■V 01 •H U-l o l-l

M c . r-l 4-1 o O ^1 e • .—i 4-1 o O (0 4-1 x cd 01 X <d 4-1 X cd 01 X

a y-i o u 4-1 > 4-1 <B U-J c h 4-1 > u u ^H l-l 0J ^-1 •r-l 3 l-i •—I u 01 i—l —1 3 <d C8 o a. Qu P 4-1 cd cd n o o- Q. 3 «J id

c Cvl O U) cd • a CN O in cd * U) o 4-J 01 4-1 01 en in o 4-1 01 •u 01 CO

d •H C 0) ■a i-i C 43 c a •H a 01 X) u c X C 0 4-1 o r—( e 01 4-1 o o 4-1 o 1—1 c 0J 4J 0

•rJ t« 4-1 c cd cd H •r-l •r-l td 4-1 c cd cd H •H

4J u 01 •^ 4-1 4-1 u M 01 •i-4 4J 4-1

cfl <u o 1 « CO CJ cd id 01 CJ 1 « in U cd > A c c 0) cd 01 > > P- c c IT. cd < 01 > 1-1 o •r-) CD 0) £ I—1 l-i i-i o •r-l cd 01 s 1—1 u a U U-l o 01 Q U-l OJ 01 l-l U-l o 01 M U-4 OJ CO 00 eu •H ■o Q 01 in m Ml eu •H XI CJ 01 10

J3 c 0J > cd i 1-1 X X c 01 > cd 1 1-1 X 0 •r-( 0) X! 0) e B4 o o •H Ol X 01 e e-, 0

•a JS u T3 ^ •o X 4J T3 i^ c )-i 4-1 01 01 T—1 01 c 1-1 4-1 01 01 r-l 01

•H M c Ü0 l-l ja 01 X •H cd c 00 u X QJ X <d 3B M o c cd 4-1 60 4-1 CO BO X o c cd «J 00 4-1

4J 0) 4-1 ■H 1-4 4-1 01 4-1 •H 1-1

U i-i •H 0) N 3 U-l cd >. u l-l •.-I in N 3 u-i id ^ 01 » 4-1 •H O o .—I X 01 3 4-1 •H 0 0 ,—i X u M c T—1 c u u c T-H a

ai w 0J •r-l U) c X -o 01 in 01 •r-l in c XI XI C 0) X O Ü 01 g 01 g X o o 01 ti u g (8 x> •H ■•H u c c £ cd •o •r-l •r4 o t« c o 4-1 c fcj X c cd c o 4-1 c 4-1 £ c B 0) CJ CO td cd 3 01 e U CJ in cd cd 3 OJ

01 w > • >

•H 1 01 1 •rH 1 01 i

4J •^ C l-l i c 3 4-1 •r-l d 14 i d 3 cd l-l •H OJ 14 3 ^ td 1-1 •H 01 u 3 •-I

4J OJ X 4-1 OJ cd U-l 4-J 01 X 4-1 01 td U4

•H D. o id a. i-i c •r-l 0- a td a- 14 d i—l X cd X) 3 o T3 ■H i 1 •A td XI 3 0 •a •rl

cd 01 X c id 01 £ d 3 cd r. U-l 01 in 3 td r U-l 01 in er 4-1 4-1 "0 0 u cd cr «J ■u ■a 0 u to

M Ü >. c cd X tj >. d cd cd 00 OJ 4-1 cd in in td 00 01 4-1 cd in in

•r^ U-l •H ^-i u in C • rl u- • H r— IJ tn c c 1—1 U-l i—i 0 c o c rH U-i rH 3 d 0 .J U-l M •iH i-i 0 o •r-l ■r-l U-l W •r-l 1-1 0 o •H

X 01 X ■l-l C X 01 X • H c XI 1-1 XI cd > in ■r4 ■a l-l TD td > tn •H

01 01 c 4-1 o >1 3 Ok 01 01 d 4-i o >N 3 a 4-1 Xi 3 in c ^ o ^J X 3 in d r-l 0 1-1 4-1 O in cd O i-i 4J 0 in td u o O l-i •• e g c w o 0 1-1 " d E d - a. Ü B o 0 in a o E o o in

01 ■o 01 •r-l U-l o l-i 01 XI tu ■r-l U-i u 14 i-i c --I 4-1 O o M d 1—1 4-1 C C

cd 4J X cd 01 X' td 4-1 X Tt OJ X OJ U-l o u 4-1 > 4J OJ u- 0 1-1 4-1 > 4J l-l i-H 14 01 ^ •H 3 h r-l 1-4 01 i—l •l-l 3 cd cd O D. a 3 4-1 tfl cC td o a a- 3 4-1 CO

c CN O in td d CM 0 in to v U) o 4J OJ 4J 01 in in o 4-1 01 -u» 01 in c •H c OJ XI i-i c X c C ■r4 d 01 X) 14 d X d 0 4-) 0 i—l c 01 4-1 o O 4-J o rH d 01 u 0

•H cd •u c cd T) H •l-l •r4 M 4-1 d td to H •rl

4-1 l-l 0) •r-l 4-1 4-1 4J M 01 •r-l 4-1 4-1

cd 01 Ü 1 •^ in o td « 01 u 1 r- in o tfl > Pu e c in cd • OJ > > P- d d in cd • 01 > l-l o •H cd 01 S 1—1 i-i 1-1 0 •H td 01 y^ r-l u 01 l-l U-l u 01 w 14-1 01 01 l-l u- ü 01 W U-i 01 10 00 CM • H XI a 01 in tn 00 »4 •r-l T3 O 01 tn X c OJ > cd i l-l X X d OJ > td i 14 X 0 •r-l 01 X OJ B pi 0 o •r-l 01 X 01 E 9* 0

XI X 4-1 XI ^ XI X 4-1 XI >, c l-l 4-1 OJ 01 1—1 01 a u w 01 01 rH 01

•H cd c 00 14 x: 01 X •r4 cd d 00 l-l X 01 X cd 00 X O c cd ij 00 4-1 td OD rd 0 d cd 4J 00 4-1 4J OJ 4-1 • H 1-1 4-1 01 4J •H u u l-l •r-l in N 3 U-l cd ►, u M •r-l 10 N 3 U-l CO >v

OJ 3 4J •H 0 o I—I X OJ 3 4J •r-l c o rH X CJ l-l c i-H c CJ 14 d l—l d

OJ in 01 • H 10 c X T3 01 in 01 ■H tn d X X) e 01 P X o u OJ d 01 | X 0 u 01 c o P cd T3 •H •r-l o d o cd XI —1 •H Ü cd c o 4-1 e 4-1 X c cd d o 4-! d 4r X d B 01 o in cd cd 3 01 E OJ CJ in cd cd 3 OJ

-*■

/

UNCLASSIFIED

'

UNCLASSIFIED