1959 continuous rod warhead damage to b-29

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER

CLASSIFICATION CHANGESTO:FROM:

LIMITATION CHANGESTO:

FROM:

AUTHORITY

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

AD325845

unclassified

secret

Approved for public release; distribution isunlimited.

Controlling Organization: British Embassy, 3100Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20008.

DSTL, AVIA 6/20600, 11 Dec 2008; DSTL, AVIA6/20600, 11 Dec 2008

TECH. NOTE MECH. ENG. 297

•

TECH. NOTE MECH. ENG. 297

Reel jQADR

BOBTAIL &um®wsmf lBsmII*M©ltfMâ:Îu,

(FARNBOROUGH)

TECHNICAL NOTE No: MECH. ENG. 297

CM O CO

CONTINUOUS ROD WARHEAD LETHALITY 00 TRIALS AGAINST B.29 AIRCRAFT WINGS Q

(3/16, 4 AND 5/16 inch SQUARE-SECTION RODS) £\J

by

R.G.E.MALLIN, A.F.R.Ae.S., G.I. Mech.E,

C F;CA;K:

V;Y iv.s-.?w

JULY, 1959

Eyr- '^pmouAvr^mvc REGRADTS Dû u,l 5200.10 DOES NOT APPU

<^v

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF H M GOVERNMENT AND ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE PENALTIES ATTACHING TO

ANY INFRINGEMENT OF THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT. 1911-1939

It is intended for the use of the recipient only.and for communication to such officers under him as may require to be acquainted with Its contents in the course of their duties. The officers exercising this power of communication are responsible that such information is imparted with due caution and reserve Any person other than the authorised holder, upon obtaining possession of this document, by finding or otherwise, should forward it. together with his name and address, in a closed envelope to:-

THE SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF SUPPLY. LONDON, W.C.2

Letter postage need not be prepaid, other postage will be refunded. All persons are hereoy warned that the unauthorised retention or destruction of this document Is an

offence against the Official Secrets Act

B32J& CD

i

to

00

^xo^^-Tî

/**-

( c.

r 2

U.D.C. No. 623.4.082.5:531.567:623.562.5:623.746.4

Teohnioal Note No. Mech.Eng.297'J

c July, 1959^

ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT.

-— (FARNBOROUGH)

a CONTINUOUS ROD WARHEAD LETHALITY TRIALS AGAINST

^ % B.29 AIRCRAFT WINGS (3/46/;i AND 5/16 INCH SQUARE-SECTION RODS) ,

<

••*•.

by

R.G'i'E',,-Mallin, A.F.R.Ae.S., G.I. Mech.E.

RAE Ref; ME/B3/907?/RGEM

SUliMARY

This Note records the results of nine static detonations of 3/^6, if and 5/16 inch square-section continuous rod warheads against Boeing B.29 aircraft wings, eight of whioh were loaded to simulate flight conditions at the attack station. The results show that when attacking the inboard lower surface of the wing none of the rods is capable of producing structural kills of the target, even from the most favourable directions of rod approach. Against the wing outboard of the engines, however, all three types of warhead are able to oause complete failure of the wing structure, resulting in a Cat. 'K' kill of the target.

•••

I f\ * " n *'rT* * ft I

Technical Note No. Mech.Eng.297

LIST OP CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 OBJECTS OF TRIAL

3 TRIALS PROGRAMME

4 WARHEADS

5 TARGETS

6 INSTRUMENTATION

7 TRIALS PROCEDURE

8 TRIALS RESULTS

9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

10 COMPARISON WITH U.S. TRIALS

11 CONCLUSIONS

12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF REFERENCES

ADVANCE DISTRIBUTION LIST

APPENDIX

TABLES 1-6

ILLUSTRATIONS - Figs.1-17

DETACHABLE ABSTRACT CARDS

:.*

Page

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

9

9

10

10

11

12-18

APPENDIX

1 - Details of target layout and method of loading 11

LIST OF TABLES Table

1A Summary of continuous rod firings against B29 wings (U.K. firings)

1B Summary of continuous rod firings against B29 wings (U.S. firings)

2 Details of continuous rod warheads used in lethality trials

3 Record of target damage

4 Deflection of target wing tips

5 Record of blast measurements

6 Approximate depths of B29 lower spar booms

- 2 -

12

13

13

14

16

17

18

Technical Note No. Meoh.Eng.297

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Layout of B29 mainplane for oontinuous rod warhead firings 1

Typical section of B29 wing structural box 2

Boeing B29 spar boom sections at attack stations 3

Typical target layout showing wing supports and fuselage cradles 4

Typical target layout showing warhead and blast gauge array 5

Firing 1. Rod damage to unloaded port wing (3/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 6A

Firing 1. Rod damage to spar booms (3/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 6B

Firing 2. Rod damage to loaded starboard wing (3/16 in, rod. Stn.225) 7A

Firing 2. Rod damage to spar booms (3/16 in. rod. Stn.225) ?B

Firing 3» Rod damage to loaded port wing (^ in. rod. Stn.225) 8

Firing 4. Rod damage to loaded port wing (3 in. rod. Stn.225. 1^g flight loads) 9A

Firing 4. Rod damage to spar booms (5 in. rod. Stn.225. 1^g flight loads) 9B

Firing 7» Rod damage to loaded wing lower surfaoe showing discontinuous cut (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 1QA

Firing 7. Damage to wing upper surface (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 10B

Firing 7. Damage to front lower spar boom (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 10C

Firing 7. Damage to rear lower spar boom (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225) 10D

Firing 8. Damage to loaded port wing (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225. Normal attack) 11A

Firing 8. Rod damage to spar booms (5/16 in. rod. Stn.225. Normal attack) 11B

Firing 9. Rod damage to loaded starboard wing showing failure (3/16 in. rod. Stn.442) 12A

Firing 9. Severed spar booms (3/16 in. rod. Stn.4^2) 12B

Firing 6. Damage to loaded starboard wing showing point of failure (£ in. rod. Stn.442) 13A

Firing 6. Damage to wing lower surface looking inboard (£ in. rod. Stn.442) 13B

Firing 6. Severed rear spar (3 in. rod. Stn.442) 130

Firing 6. Severed lower spar booms (5 in. rod. Stn.442) 13D

Firing 5. Damage to loaded port wing showing severed outer section (3/16 in. rod. Stn.603) 14A.

*• 3 " -.-*,-

*

SECRET DISCREET


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Contd.)

Firing 5> Damaged outer wing stub looking inboard (3/16 in. rod. Stn.603) 14B

Firing 5. Damage to severed outer wing section (3/16 in. rod. Stn.603) %0

Firing 5. Damage to severed spars (3/16 in. rod. Stn.603) 14D

Typical warhead detonation and rod strike on wing (3/16 in. rod warhead) 15A

Typical warhead detonation and rod strike on wing (£ in. rod warhead) 1j?B

Starboard wing root showing target support 16

Loading arrangement on the starboard wing 17

-4-

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET

Technical Note No. Meoh.Eng.297

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Previous trials >2 against stationary, unloaded, targets have shown that wing structures having concentrated load-carrying members, such as those of the Boeing B29 and as assumed for the Russian Type 39 'Badger1, are difficult to defeat by continuous rod attaok.

1.2 Limited trials-5 have been made in the U.S.A. in whioh B29 wings, loaded to reproduce level flight stresses in the structure at the point of attack, were defeated by 3/16 and ^ inch square-section continuous rods. It was decided to make similar, complementary, trials in this country, from whioh it was hoped that more data would be obtained on the effectiveness of continuous rods, of various cross-sectional dimensions, against heavy aircraft structures,

1.3 This Note records the results of a series of firings made at the P. & E.E. (Shoeburyness) between April 1958 and January 1959.

2 OBJECTS OF THE TRIALS

2.1 The main objects were:-

(a) To determine the influence of flight loads on the effectiveness of continuous rods when attaoking aircraft wings.

•

(b) To compare the effectiveness of 3/16, £ and 5/16 inch square- section continuous rods when attacking various sections of a loaded wing having heavy spar booms.

(c) To correlate rod damage with direction of rod approach.

2.2 Secondary objects of the trials were:-

(a) To accumulate data on continuous rod effectiveness for use in G.W. warhead lethality assessments.

(b) To determine the magnitude of blast effects from typical continuous rod warheads at representative target distances.

3 TRIAL PROGRAMME

3.1 A total of nine firings was made against structurally oomplete B29 aircraft wings, one of the wings being unloaded when attacked, seven loaded to 1W (level flight cruise condition) and one loaded to 1.5W. Of these, six attacked the inner portion of the wing, two the mid-section and one the outer wing.

3.2 Although, in general, a missile having a continuous rod warhead is equally likely to strike the target from above as from below, it was decided to attack the B29 wings from below, beoause the lower surfaces incorporate the heavy spar booms which the continuous rod must be expected to meet, and defeat, in service.

i»i In eight of the firings, the warhead was detonated in a typical attack position i.e. 45° below ahead and 45° off ahead, relative to the selected station, such that the rod struok the lower surface of the wing at approximately 45° to the normal, producing a chordwise out. In the remaining firing, the warhead was positioned so that the rods struck at normal from below and produced a chordwise cut, a condition thought likely to produoe maximum damage effect.

3.4 The following data were recorded during some or all of the firings:-

-5 -

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


(a) Wing tip deflections during loading and unloading of the wings.

(b) Wing tip deflections before, during and after warhead detonation.

(o) Blast measurements around the warhead.

(d) Mean rod velocities between warhead and target.

3.5 A summary of the firings and of the trial conditions, is given in Table 1A.

4 WARHEADS

4«1 Experimental models of Blue Jay and Red Dean warheads were used to project 3/16, £ and 5/16 inch square-section continuous rods. Details of the warheads used are given in Table 2.

4«2 For the purpose of the trials the warheads were mounted, some 20 to J>0 ft above the ground, on adjustable baseplates secured to a simple tubular structure.

4.3 The slant distance from the centre of the warhead to the mid-chord of the wing interspar region at the station attacked was adjusted,in all the firings, to be 85$ of the theoretioal maximum hoop radius of the continuous rods. Thus, in the trials the slant ranges for the 3/16, £ and 5/16 inch rod warheads were 20, 32 and 25 ft respectively.

5 TARGETS

5.1 The targets used in the trials were full-span Boeing B29 mainplanes, assembled complete with centre fuselage, and mounted in an inverted position, with supports at the wing roots only. Dead weights were placed on the outer wings in eight of the firings to simulate flight stresses at the attack station.

5*2 Details of the method of target mounting and wing loading are given in Appendix 1.

General arrangement drawings of the target layout are shown in Fig.1, and pictorial views of a typical assembly before firing are given in Pigs,4 and 5.

5»3 A typical cross-section of the target wing, and diagrams showing the main cross-sectional dimensions of the spar-booms at the stations attacked (Stns.225, 442 and 603), are given in Pigs.2 and 3 respectively.

6 INSTRUMENTATION

6.1 In Firings Nos. 1 to 4, the maximum vertical deflections of the target wing tips, occurring as a result of rod strike and blast loading, were measured approximately by means of simple graduated probes mounted in frictional supports above and below each wing tip. After firing, maximum deflections could be read off directly from the probes.

6.2 Blast gauges were set up around the warheads in Firings Nos. 1,3 and 4» at the positions shown in Fig.1, to measure the blast pressures associated with detonation of the rod warheads. A typical gauge array is shown in Fig.5*

6,5 The mean velocities of the rods between burst point and target were measured by streak photography or deduced from the time taken by the rods to traverse the stand-off distance, measured by a make and break system. Striking velocities were afterwards computed by A.R.D.E. from retardation data, and are given in Table 1A.

M 6 •*

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET

Technical Note No. Mech.Exig.297

6.4 The instrumentation throughout was provided and operated jointly by the staff of D.A.R.D.E. and S.P.E.E.(S).

7 TRIAL PROCEDURE

7.1 Prior to each firing, static wing tip deflections were recorded during a complete loading and unloading oyole of the mainplane. In all cases, other than Firing No.1 (unloaded target), the wings were then reloaded, deflections being again noted. The warhead was then detonated. Maximum wing tip deflections occurring during the firing, and, in oases where the wing did not fail, during the subsequent unloading, were noted. After Firing No.1, a complete loading and unloading cyole was repeated and defleotions recorded. Prom these deflection readings, any permanent set of the wing could be determined.

8 TRIAL RESULTS

8.1 The damage to each of the wing targets resulting from rod attack is detailed in Table 3 and illustrated in Pigs.6 to 14.

8.2 Wing tip deflections recorded at the various stages of each firing are given in Table 4, and a record of the blast measurements during Firings Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is given in Table 5. Mean rod velocities measured over the distance from warhead to target are included in Table 1A which also gives approximate striking velocities.

8.3 Cine-still photographs of typical warhead detonations and rod impacts on the target are shown in Fig.15.

9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

9.1 The damage resulting from 3/16 inch continuous rod attacks on unloaded and loaded inner wings respectively in Firings Nos. 1 and 2, was broadly similar. In both oases, damage to the spar booms was comparatively minor and thus no significant difference in the effectiveness of the damage oould be established. It was noted, however, that detonation of the warhead oaused much greater deflection of the unloaded wing relative to the loaded specimen. The smaller deflection of the loaded wing was probably duo to the increased target inertia caused by the very heavy masses (7«47 tons) ooncentrated on the outer wing.

9.2 The results of Firings Nos. 2,3,4,7 and 8 indicated that neither the 3/16 inch, 5 inch nor 5/16 inch continuous rods, when impacting at velocities of approximately 3300 f.p.s. and at slant ranges equal to 85$ of their maximum theoretical hoop radii, was capable of defeating the B29 wing inboard of Stn.225, even from a direction of approach thought to be most favourable to the rods. The 1.5g target loading applied in Firing N0.4 (5 inch rod) appeared to cause no increase in damage effect. In all oases the wing continued to support the load after attack without any significant increase in tip deflection. Figs.6-11, relating to Stn.225, show that most of the lower surface interspar skinning and stringers were severed by all sizes of rod, and, in the attacks by 5/16 inch rods, some damage to the wing upper surface occurred by penetration of broken rods through the full depth of the wing. In every case, however, the heavy lower spar booms were insufficiently damaged to cause wing failure. Thus, the effectiveness of the continuous rod against wings having concentrated load carrying members can be related to its ability to damage these members.

9.3 The B29 mainplane is designed to withstand ultimate manoeuvre accelera- tions of 4g 4. Thus, in order to oause failure of the wing in level flight, it may be necessary to reduce the strength of the structure by as much as

-7-

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET

Teohnical Note No. Mech.Eng.297

Ib'/o. In the inner wing lower surface most of the cross-sectional area of the structure, and hence the strength, is in the spar booms and consequently, a reduction in strength of these booms of approximately 75ya can result in failure of the wing.

In an attempt to evaluate the reduction in strength of the spar booms after rod attack, the lower spar booms damaged in Firing No,1 were removed from the wing and subjected to tensile tests. These showed that reductions in strength of the front and rear booms were approximately 50% and 25/5 respectively. These values are well below those required for wing failure. The booms from the remaining five targets will be similarly tested and the results recorded in an Addendum to this Note. It is hoped from these results to obtain a very rough indication of the relative effectiveness of the three types of rod warhead and also of the variation of effectiveness with direction of rod approach.

9.4 The results of Firings Nos.5, 6 and 9 showed that both the 3/16 inch and ^ inch continuous rods, at striking velocities of approximately 3300 f.p.s., were capable of causing complete structural failure of the B29 wing at Stn.442 and outboard, from a typical direction of attack. In this seotion of the wing the spar lower booms are of relatively small depth and failed in all three firings.

In view of the evident importance of spar-boom depth on rod effectiveness, the approximate depths of the lower booms at some stations along the wir.g, including those attacked, are given in Table 6.

9.5 From consideration of the B29 wing spar upper boom dimensions, and the results of the firings against the lower surface of the outboard wing, it is estimated that all the warheads tested would be capable of severing the wing upper surface at almost any station along the spar, wing failure being a probable result.

9.6 Measurements taken during Firings Nos. 1,3 and 4> a"d reported by A.R.D.E. indicate that the blast effects from the experimental 3/16 and £ inch rod warheads are approximately the same as those from the detonation of bare charges of 3.4 lb, and 10 lb, of EDX/TNI : 60/40 respectively. Previous trials-5 have shown that charges of this size would produce negligible target damage even at the shortest warhead stand-off distance used in the rod trials i.e. 20 ft.

9.7 The mean rod velocity measured from warhead to target was very similar for all three warheads and lay between $3G6 and 3540 f.p.s. The striking velocities were estimated to be between 3216 and 3326 f.p.s.

10 CXMARISON WITH U.S. TRIALS

10.1 No direct comparisons are possible between the U.K. and U.S. firings owing to basic differences in attack conditions and target loading.

10.2 Of the three U.S. firings reported^, Firings Nos.2 and 3 were normal attacks from above with 3/16 inch warheads against the upper surface of B29 wings at Stn.210, whilst Firing No.1, which was simultaneous with Firing No.2, and on the opposite wing of the same target, was a normal attack from bolow against Stn.210 of the wing lower surface using a £ inch rod projector. All three firings resulted in complete failure of the wing.

10.3 The U.S. method of loading the target wings differed from that adopted in the U.K. trials, in that the mainplanes in the U.S. trials were supported near the wing tips in the normal flight altitude, the loads being applied at the inner wings and centre fuselage.

- 8 -

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


10.4 Neglecting the possible effects of differences in the methods of target loading, it might appear that the U.K. Firing No.8 and the U.S. Firing No.1 would be comparable. However, in the U.S. Firing, the rod projector was located close to the wing surface to be attacked and, as a projector of this type might contain 30 to 40 lb of H.E., some considerable damage from blast would be expected. This, together with possible effects of the simultaneous detonations in the U.S. trial, may account for the fact that the U.S. £ inch rod firing resulted in wing failure, whilst the U.K. 5/16 inch rod did not.

10.5 The conditions and results of the U.S. trials are summarized in Table 1B.

11 CONCLUSIONS

11.1 The main conclusions are:-

(a) From the results of a limited number of firings there appears to be no significant difference in the damage obtained from similar attacks with 3/16 inch square-section rods, against B29 wing structures in the unloaded, and "loaded to 11" oondition.

(b) Under the conditions of the trial, neither the 3/16, ^ nor 5/16 inch continuous rod warheads is capable of defeating the B29 inner wing at Stn.225, when attacking from below.

(o) All three sizes of rod warhead are capable of severing the B29 wing at, and outboard of, Stn.442 from a typical direction of rod approach (45° below and off ahead).

(d) Rod-warhead effectiveness against wings containing concentrated load carrying members appears to be directly related to the ability of the rod to seriously damage these members.

(e) All three sizes of rod warhead are estimated to be capable of severing the B29 wing upper surface at almost any station along the span, wing failure being a probable result.

12 ACKNOVail^GEMENrS

12.1 Acknowledgements are due to:-

(a) The Stqperintendent, P. & E.E. (Shoeburyness) and his staff for their co-operation in preparing and carrying out the trials, and for permission to reproduce the illustrations.

(b) The Director, A.R.D.E., and personnel of L5 and X1 Divisions for co-operation in the supply of warheads and the measurement of blast parameters and striking velocities.

-9-

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET

No. Author

1 Hancock, D,A.

2 Hancock, D.A.

3 Kempton, M.L.

Zapf, D., Haskell, R.A.

French, P., Mowrer, D.

Technioal Note No. Mech.Eng.297

LIST OF REFERENCES

Title, etc.

Continuous rod warhead lethality test3 against static aircraft targets (3/16" x 3/16" cross section rods). R.A.E. Tech. Note No. Mech.Eng.249. SECRET

Continuous rod warhead lethality tests against statio aircraft targets (3" x -5" cross section rods). R.A.E. Tech. Note No. Mech.Eng.261. SECRET

Terminal, ballistio studies of the continuous rod against aircraft. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Interim Report No. T-923A. CONFIDENTIAL

Summary report on Sidewinder warhead effectiveness study. NAVORD Report 5896 - N.0.T.S.2047. CONFIDENTIAL

Vulnerability of B-29 aircraft to eight-pound bare charges fired externally. B.R.L. Memorandum Report No.942. CONFIDENTIAL-DISCREET

ATTACHED

Appendix 1 Tables 1-6 Figs.1-3 SME 83697/R to SME 83699/R Figs.4-17 Neg. No. 142,675 - 142,689 Detachable abstract cards

ADVANCE DISTRIBUTION LIST

DG/GW D/GWRD (Action)

DA Arm Director RAE Sec 0B(2) DDRAE(A)

DDRAE(E) DGWD AD/GW (P & W) DA Meoh DARDE (2) GW Dept RAE DGof A P & EE (S) Arm Dept RAE DGAGS TIL 60 RAE Library DG(RAF) RAE Bedford Library

Pats 1/RAE

-» 10 «•

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


APPENDIX 1

DETAILS OF TARGET LAYOUT AND METHOD OP LOADING

1 The targets used in the trials consisted of full-span B29 mainplanes assembled complete with the centre fuselage. For convenience in attacking the lower wing surfaoes and also to simplify the wing loading procedure the whole assembly was mounted in an inverted position, supported by two reinforced concrete pillars, located under each wing root, with shaped wooden cradles under the front and rear spar booms, as shown in Pig, 16. The target was restrained in pitch by means of sandbag cradles at the fore and aft ends of the fuselage section, and sandbag cushions positioned below each target wing to restrict secondary damage in the event of wing failure following the rod attack. (See Pig.1).

1.2 In the firings where the target wings were loaded, weights were placed at calculated positions on the outer wings to simulate, at the attack station, the shear forces and bending moments which would normally occur when the aircraft was flying straight and level in non-turbulent air at an all-up weight of 117,000 lb (i.e. with full bomb load and half full load), allowanoe being made for the contribution to loading due to the weight of the wing itself. In Firing No.4 the applied loads were increased in order to represent, at the attack station, the effect of a 1^g manoeuvre.

1.3 In all cases, the weights to produoe the required bending moments and shear forces were supported on wooden platforms, so constructed that the loads v/ere applied through the front and rear spars, (Fig. 17).

Details of wing weights, applied loads and points of application together with the resulting forces at the various attack stations are shown diagrammatically in Fig.1 and detailed in Table 1A.

1.4 In the firings where rod attack did not result in wing failure, the damaged spar booms were subsequently strengthened by means of steel straps spanning the wounds, thus enabling the whole target assembly to be used for a further firing against the opposite wing.

- 11 -

SECRET DISCEEET

SECRET DISCREET

Teohnical Note No. Mech.Eng.297

1 a:

o c •ct

•o

g •-t

o c

•a •rl •a

n 3:

7 v.

g

•a

s

g

•a

1

s 8 c

•4 13 4-.

3

1 T5 0)

d a) «-.

R 3=

3 o o

•

—'

i %

g (0

w 8

«"* « o /i 2 H

1«> I n O ^T

S S d CQ ol

CQ JO

8. CQfH

(SO rH

§

*" ^» 68

CM

a

o

i3?« i a D n

00 « CO

•*>CvT-« 4*

CO

n fa.

CM

8 •r-l (-* «r-t

C? *-.

9

|| *»

ia » n o

:cv

03 CO 1 3SS g Vi «i CO

1— ON C3 83

O

<? o .n «o

853 ipi •

SB b. K\ S ScQ 03*3 tj q .

~£> w

*- m o o)

31 s

(4 (0

»!' si ass $ 0) V*

g*3 •-I "1 S3 u

• Ll 3 a) *-<

*g& 3

0) 3i*ins TO poaaoddns ptro

P3W3AUI soustdujua fisa Sutaoa

*> tA i-H • to 0) «-l

i i^

CM n Si

i& c _•

IS- 3 m

in s i SI §2

«3 0)

CO a a CM CM c<? » a CM a

g it •< o a a <o

I' °3 0) V. A o •

^ss O fl "

g 2i

U -3-

g r-t '

10II 5^ *fii ^ VI

3§-§

g 3

o <u 2/1

°3 11

•SoB 5S«

a) vi /5 o ' o -a 3S-

In

H

St fn

ID

So' CM K>i cr>

* 12 -

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET

Technioal Note No. Meoh.Eng.297

I I

^

GO

a

*

w

-p

0)

o o

•P «5 <j -P

CQ

I EH

. -p <d .rl 3 5 « o

I § -d •H o

r •s a o

I

>d o O N « -H

CQ

.3

s.

3

e=

o •H •P O CD CO

CO

1 O

•3

H

Q O Q O

-P •> 03 CO

II II

q OJCON

oj -d O CD H -r| • •

Iff* racvi 9 I <H

l-H Cj»

| O is 1- O CM H

CD O a

CQ

1

o <*H

3

CM

u a

11 3 CO

-d

1-1

I a U o

CM

£££*U3-S Vi pe^-ioddhs pue Gpnq.Tq.q.B

seirBTduT'BTti ggg Sirpeog

o o

§1

*« *£

ci o ID

O

*-!*••—' Pi

H cd ID io o .g a CO

vo

i "N

x 2 T- CO

CM

^

VO

co X Q si £&

^

CM

t • •rl H

CT\ IQ 19 WH

3 <•<

M • • • •

H | g 3q ^.3 P ^

4-1 Bs Ss f^^

««! • CM UN

CO T- NN

ca •3 3 .5 • • UN

• UN i HI

•rl U -P

H co O rcJ

>> •H -P •P P) •A r*N r- •rl CD O -P • • • a l|C

& 1^- ?J XS O . -p jq y <D EH g H

•3 •p

'd CD (D

3 -d 8 fe & u CD

O K) •H •H •H

£ X t CM X

CO 4) ci r!

vo VO fe Jf* T~ • \ \ <d 0 Ti CD -H

fO UN

rl O N « -H X

X '-W-

X

3 to •

vo •r* X

vo 0 .5 ^> \ 3 0

f^ H* UN

•H •P *d C CO • UN O CD CO • O UN b- O j4* •

CO •

O •

O <t-4 T~ <r- O P CQ

3 CO •P w

-d J3

CD 00 • ON • O

CO • 00 •

p T" ^- •r- IS

Tb +J

Iffl 5 $ % SI «r- V

6=

rO S?o S 3 CO (D »"J H ID CD

^s CD CD R n

a43 3£ TH CD

-d <D

E5 m EH « n ON

Is °8 vo u\ <« CO

•Jl^ •1

CM J- «« W •h •*

1- N^ r^

•p CD

CM

I o

1

I -p co « o

•H

<D

i*N >A • O

'd

1 •rl •P •H W O Pi

CO

o

<HI o

cti

a

•p n3 •H

I cd CO

!

« 13 «

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


TABLE 3

Record of target damage

Firing No.

Trial conditions Details of damage

3/16 in. rod against Stn.225 of unloaded B29 port wing. (45° below and off ahead)

3/16 in. rod against Stn.225 of loaded B29 starboard wing. (45° below and off ahead)

^ in. rod against Stn.225 of loaded B29 starboard wing. (45° below and off ahead)

5 in. rod against Stn.225 of loaded (tgg) B29 port wing. (45° below and off ahead)

5/16 in. rod against Stn.225 of loaded B29 starboard wing. (45° below and off ahead)

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All top-hat section stringers (13) severed. Forward spanwise joint stringer 50$ severed. Groove in front spar lower boom 5 in. deep and in rear spar lower boom 5 in. deep. Leading edge completely severed. No trailing edge present. Wing remained in position. Figs.6A & B

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surfaoe 8 ft 3 in. long. 10 top-hat section stringers severed 3 top-hat section stringers 75$ severed.

Forward I-beam 50$> severed. Cut in rear I-beam 3/16 in. deep. Groove in front spar lower boom % in. deep* Groove in rear spar lower boom ^ in. deep. Wing continued to support load. Figs.7A & B

Continuous chordwise out across wing lower surface except for 5i" in. gap on and forward of rear spar boom. 12 stringers and both I-beams severed. Groove in front spar lower boom 11/32 in. deep. Groove in rear spar lower boom 3/16 in. deep. Two holes 4 in. and 1 in. long in front spar web. Holes in undercarriage v/ell outer rib 12 in., 3? in., 2g- in. long and also two holes 3 in. x 3 in. and 2 in. x 2 in. Wing continued to support load. Fig.8

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All stringers and I-beams severed except 1 stringer 50$ severed. Groove in front spar lower boom •§ in. deep. Groove in rear spar lower boom •£ in. deep. Six small holes in undercarriage well outer rib. Wing continued to support load. Figs.9A & B

Discontinuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface giving 3 cuts 36 in., 20 in. and 48 in. long. All stringers and I-beams severed exoept for 2 stringers at the discontinuities. Groove in front spar lower boom ^ in. deep. Groove in rear spar lower boom £ in. deep. Eight small holes in upper surface interspar skinning. Wing continued to support load.

Figs.lOA,B,C & D

-14-

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


TABUE 3 (Contd.)

Firing No.

Trial conditions Details of damage

8

9

6

5

5/16 in. rod against Stn.225 of loaded B29 port wing. (Normal below attack)

3/16 in. rod against Stn.442 of loaded B29 starboard wing (45° below and off ahead)

^ in. rod against Stn.442 of loaded B29 starboard wing (45° below and off ahead)

3/16 in. rod against Stn.603 of loaded B29 port wing. (45° below and off ahead)

.

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All stringers and I-beams severed except 1 stringer 75$ severed. Groove in front spar lower boom ^ in. deep. Groove in rear spar lower boom 0»4 in. deep. Numerous rod exit holes and tears in upper surface interspar skinning pulling 17 rows of rivets over 2 ft span. Wing continued to support load. Pigs.HA & B

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All structure severed or failed except for part of upper surface interspar skinning. Wins failed completely. Figs.l2A & B

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All structure severed or failed except for 2 ft length of upper interspar skin. Wing failed completely. Figs.l3A,B,C & D

Continuous chordwise cut across wing lower surface. All stringers cut or failed in tension. Wing completely severed. Figs.14AtB,C & D

- 15 -

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


<d 1 3 I 5

o N o CM UN C\J

O CM • •

(A CM CM UNUN

w! o • • • • . . • • • . • • . i <? <?? •¥«? S<? R !3 <?*; ^9 R

SJ -d uNt"^ CM CO -d- CM CMV£>

UN <M UN CM •p J2 r>-r^ <0 O in'f • • Is-"«- r--*- • 5 *d • • • • * . . • nd « W tj . • • • pcj T3

a) -*UN vO ON r-r- o ON <D • OJ UNCO co r»- • o 3 + + + + + + r R 3

a! + + + + s3

<î r, , 4H

• II i UN o UN

CM O • . • I • • • •

3 G 5

• • I !

• ?

• • • • RR •

is • * « PC: • • « PH • • MR •

R

o Vi •H P O 1 s

1 i H *% KNMD mtr\ as rt rt • •

M « « rt •

SH Cu s . • « • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 0 a 1 ^ 99 <?<? a * R » » fc SS R

1 -d Wl <M r>. CM O CM rv. C\J UN

O CM • i- . vO O *NUN <0 UN VO N^y • M3 UN O r->-o t» • « • . . • • . • • « • . • . • • • a5 UN • -J-VO UNUN 99, 99 r-r^- • q UN'X) UNI^- "r- T-

fctf) o *• S V V T- f— CM CM T" T~ S CM T- T- •p" ** CM CM G J + ** + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

h ^ e ID S-i o (1)

<d & 1 o o o o o o o o o o o

M ta -H

1

o o o o o o o m i

EH -H

3 3 3 3 «J ^~> ^d 03 <tf t) <d m T3 13 4

2P ^Tal i i 5*0? ât i i 21 a i •i w o o o ^ o s-^ O o O ^>- o o ( 1 XI XI X) x> X> .Q x> XI XI

t% si K% t% h a! -P

g i tj 3 U as II PH" CO

O -P O -P o 2 PH to

p 8 +2 o +> (S 2Q PL, CO PH CO PH W PH CO PH W PH CO

Srkr fs-r- r^-iv. CM CM ON ON 3 r^-r-- lirtei CM CM CM CM ^D VO ON ON UN 4 CM CM CM CM ^^ vo vo kO MD VO MD . . VO VO • Ô U) >x> vo

• * • • . . G G . • a vo • • » . vX> vo o G G G G G ££ G G HJ • a a G G • • p -p •p -P •P -P Sco

CO a c^c^ CO CiQ G G

CO CO CO CO CO CO p co£ •p -p P CO •I +5 -p p -p -p -p aJ as -p -p aS -p +> •+? if

aS a) a5 aS oS a) a) a) p oS aS aS aS -y if ( ( 3

CO to G G 33 33 33

o o CO w 3 o

c5

3 33 33 aS aS

33 O o o o O O •p -p O o -p O O o o -P -p -p p -p p

V* T~ +> +>

CM o p

p -p -p p o o -p +>

55 55 CO CO • « CM CM

CO CO • • o

CM 55 55 CM CM

r—r—i r-r^ r-r*- T- T- UN UN T- CT% r~r*- ^r>i ON ON

Jf o •

P=«

R n~ CM r*N -* "N vo h- CO ON

G O

•H •P

G O o

I aS o

<D a

I

1 I •Si

ca

EH

<d <D M 1 p 5 G° 9 I p

<D

I G 13 aS fw

| (15 P ,i

a) o P P

888

o o <D

. -p © o p a

• d>H> |

ID 1

«

- 16 -

SECRET DISCEEET

SECRET DISCREET


•P 01 M -H O O * O 01 § ID g « -a co

V r-o *?% CM

T- CM CM r>. -* I^O •^^d-

£j cd -p • 1 • • • • • • • • S* a *\ ^ONVO^ IftOSVO-J

•v

O C t» O oi •H >H O 1^ ifi °0 1*5 td" co r^-d-a

r*.r- i^» N^ •p +> 4> T- K\ IM LT>VJ3 •H oJ W • l • • • • • • • •

8 1 fl CM CM KMAVO N-* -H-ir>vo

P4^

fd • • -p «

.3 0 CM <D I^V H •

e o o1 <+-! CO

t> 01 ffl D V"

-p 3 a

8#"

T- • M 00 ovo cr» O ON ON N^

» • m a -4-

9 o\<sO cr> [v_

• • • • vo f. fr^ ° csi r>- CM 0

CM V" T- T- i~ -p CMT*T-r PH ^0 C!

i2 • ,0 Tj o\ H •rl

O q H

• Is-

m -p g

• -p •

u O CO I • *

ei H ^ ctf • <W T~

BLS £

st me

Peak

essur

.s.i.

CO

a MD LT\v VO

• . • f\ -4- co ir\ • • • • OJ S^-* CT»T- IA .£ •

EH H &* CM 1 t~ T~

J3 1 *

'b •H a\ o S • tf H u o o 0 o M -p ID

(DO

aJ 3 aJ -p • • • • ifM^lAO • • • • j fL^lH o O m 0 0 0

*- CM *^-J m Q 0 T- t- CM t<^ _H/ J3 to ai T- CM s $

5S 0 •p

'C «J B

1 i 1 1 •H

a O <fH •P o

rial

warh

S^ ^^ -p 0)

O •rl 3, <D 3 ID 3 <D

ID

-P a* a 0 ID 3

a< a ID * •rl <D a? •P <*H <0 a) 3 01 H tl IT O ftot

rM Tl o O p, cS 0 a, a W 4» 1 cr a? •P © -p 0 01

O "3 u 3'r!i

O a? u 0 3f; 1 k Mi 3^1 1 0 _^

| 01 9

O >—"N ^—% A

2> • a

| 1 EH

• O , 0

S^ -•41 »«"> U J" rt •

s •*— • •

.5 • • CD

•A H* -l-t 0 o—» >—/ v-^ J25

« 17 -

SECRET DISCREET

SECRET DISCREET


TABLE 6

Approximate depths of lower booms of

Boeing B29 wing spars

Approximate depth of Wing station

(in. from aircraft G ) spar boom (inches)

Front spar Rear spar

100 3.0 2.6 1J7 2.8 3.0 155 Engine 3.9 3.0 177 nacelle 3.9 3.0 203 3*9 3.0 225 3.9 3.0 236 3.2 3.0 271 2.4 2.1 306 2.3 1.9 341 Engine 2.0 1.7 374 nacelle 1.6 1.5 407 1.1 1.3 442 0.8 1.0 476 0.6 1.8

- Transport joint 603 0.7 0.6

« 18 -

SECRET DISCREET

SME..6S6S7/R.

SE

o

© POSITION OF BLAST

GAUGES IN FIRING I

A POSITION OF BLAST

GAUGES IN FIRING 3

X POSITION OF BLAST

GAUGES IN FIRINGS-

DEFLECT I ON

GAUGES

OUTER WIN*' WEK»HT= l,IOOLB^ZZZZ^

FIG. I. LAYOUT OF B.29 MAINPLA WARHEAD FIRINGS.

ZCRET T.N. ME.297.

FIG. I.

INNER WING WEIGHT: 11,000 LB

FRONT ELEVATION WING CUSHIONS

NE TARGET FOR CONTINUOUS ROD SCALE I /I44

SME.83698/R

SECRET T.N. M.E.297.

FIG.2.

8

yvds ^V3\i

8 CD

to

m u. O

WdS lNO^J

u L±J I/)

< y Q-

CVJ

u.

SECRET T. N. M.E. E97.

FIG.3(a-c)

CO) STN. 225

<

3-87"

FRONT

UPPER

CO

6

LOWER,

(b) STN. 442 REAR.

UPPER

1^

3-5"

FRONT

(C) STN.603

o

LOWER i

REAR

FIG.3 (a-c). BOEING B29A SPAR BOOM SECTIONS AT ATTACK STATIONS . ( SCALE: I / 3 )

SECRET TECH. NOTE: MECH. ENG. 297

FIG.4&5

FIG.4. WING SUPPORTS AND FUSELAGE CRADLES (FIRING 2)

FIG.5. WARHEAD AND BLAST GAUGE ARRAY (FIRING 4)

FIG.4 & 5. TYPICAL TARGET LAYOUT

lil < a:

SECRET


FIG.6

FIG.6a. FIRING I. ROD DAMAGE TO UNLOADED PORT WING (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

• -»

* "*

-

*'*\ '^"•"V J ^ 11 '" '

1 *

FRONT LOWER BOOM REAR LOWER BOOM

< a:

FIG.6b. FIRING I. ROD DAMAGE TO SPAR BOOMS (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

SECRET


FIG.7

FIGJa. FIRING 2. ROD DAMAGE TO LOADED STARBOARD WING 3/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)


s

FIGJb. FIRING 2. ROD DAMAGE TO LOADED STARBOARD WING (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

<

SECRET


FIG.8

FIG.8. FIRING 3. ROD DAMAGE TO LOADED PORT WING (1/4 inch ROD. STATION 225)

<

SECRET


FIG.9

FIG.9a. FIRING 4. ROD DAMAGE TO LOADED PORT WING (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 225, I* g FLIGHT LOADS)

FRONT LOWER BOOM

REAR LOWER BOOM

FIG.9b. FIRING 4. ROD DAMAGE TO SPAR BOOMS (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 225, lj g FLIGHT LOADS)

UJ

< a:

SECRET


FIG.IOa&b

FIG.IOa. FIRING 7. DAMAGE TO LOADED WING LOWER SURFACE SHOWING DISCONTINUOUS CUT (5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

FIG.IOb. FIRING 7. DAMAGE TO WING UPPER SURFACE (5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

§

< ec

SECRET


FIG.IOc&d

FIG.IOc. FIRING 7. DAMAGE TO FRONT LOWER SPAR BOOM (5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

FIG.IOd. FIRING 7. DAMAGE TO REAR LOWER SPAR BOOM (5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225)

< a:

SECRET


FIG. 11

LOWER SURFACE UPPER SURFACE

FIG.IIa. FIRING 8. DAMAGE TO LOADED PORT WING (5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225, NORMAL ATTACK)


S FIG.I lb. FIRING 8. ROD DAMAGE TO SPAR BOOMS

(5/16 inch ROD, STATION 225, NORMAL ATTACK)

< a:

SECRET


FIG.I2

FIG. 12a. FIRING 9. ROD DAMAGE TO LOADED STARBOARD WING SHOWING FAILURE (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 442)


FIG.I2b. FIRING 9. SEVERED SPAR BOOMS (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 442)

<

SECRET


FIG. 13a & b

FIG.I3a. FIRING 6. DAMAGE TO LOADED STARBOARD WING SHOWING POINT OF FAILURE (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 442)

FIG. 13b. FIRING 6. DAMAGE TO WING LOWER SURFACE LOOKING INBOARD (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 442)

<

SECRET


FIG.I3c&d

FIG.13c. FIRING 6. SEVERED REAR SPAR (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 442)

FRONT REAR

FIG 13d. FIRING 6. SEVERED LOWER SPAR BOOMS (1/4 inch ROD, STATION 442)

<

SECRET


FIG. 14a &b

FIG. 14a. FIRING 5. DAMAGE TO LOADED PORT WING SHOWING SEVERED OUTER SECTION (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 603)

FIG. 14b. FIRING 5. DAMAGED OUTER WING STUB LOOKING INBOARD (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 603)

<

SECRET


FIG.I4c&d

FIG.I4c. FIRING 5. DAMAGE TO SEVERED OUTER WING SECTION (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 603)

FRONT SPAR REAR SPAR

|

FIG.Hd. FIRING 5. DAMAGE TO SEVERED SPARS (3/16 inch ROD, STATION 603)

< ad

SECRET

• J TECH. NOTE: MECH. ENG. 297

FIG.I5

FIG.15a. TYPICAL WARHEAD DETONATION AND ROD STRIKE ON WING (3/16 inch ROD WARHEAD)

FIG.15b. TYPICAL WARHEAD DETONATION AND ROD STRIKE ON WING (1/4 inch ROD WARHEAD)

<

ft TECH. NOTE: MECH. ENG. 297

FIG.I6&I7

FIG.I6. STARBOARD WING ROOT SHOWING TARGET SUPPORT (PORT WING SIMILAR)

FIG. 17. LOADING ARRANGEMENT ON THE STARBOARD WING (PORT WING SIMILAR)

< a:

DETACHABLE ABSTRACT CARDS

These abstract cards are inserted in Reports and Technical Notes for the convenience of Librarians and others who need to maintain an information Index.

Detached cards are subject to the same Security Regulations as the parent document, and a record of their location should be made on the Inside of the back cover of the parent document.

_ p a T3 4- o K£

un 6 co co a t. P

4-< iT • *. o P CM lTi-3- • o P 0) CO CU • CO •• « • o r--c\i >* -^tKcnr-

CT\ -W fc. CO

face

f th

gain

d ar

Cat

* cO 0 vo ,G

N~\ . P

.... S-, O -X CO CO

cvr^cvi cu 3^ 3 CU co to J3 C

vo cri. VDVO S3 pa co 4-

wer

kill

ach.

war

ng

1

3 -3 o tin c c

£ . tO —i o O O 4-i —' C CO-

rd 1

ural

appr

es o

suit

Sw. OOP —• oa —

O O p X3 cd . cap c I) P P. CU

o ooSl< •-. a; C CO O <* o c o on 3 o P C & l-i » +* T3

CJ\ C C\l —

o) cO P M p CU CO TO cox:

CO tO

the

ng s

s of

thre

ctur

m,a 6-i S P T3 4-1 •n C 3

E- CO cO CO UO OH - 2 P 3) CO C 3 -« rH P

•H T3 P (0 01 UJ •—4 . CO i3 p 5g «<-» t. CO i! CJ O CO 0) CO rH Q S_ CU » to

9 a - c c 4-> X CO-

w < Q t-H Q — B o CO as c -o ~ PtnO > S

1 =*2 4-2w 03 O 0) cu S cu

^o o o C IIHOA CU rH .Q a P cC >- CO P

C-2 6- H to 3 .G .n co Cu p o TO 5 CO b »*-t o. 3 w o

p C4 O CO E-H CO 188 8? "-• 1

-1 w tO — CO 0 p o

w tha

is c

t fa

v engin

ilur

e

. p •5 or: (-CH »I £g o q> o m u p CJ c5

PCD O CO 10 CO

J co BOOJK 62 Q 3=

o s w2BSo. 0 rH •3 o T3 P X3

(-. O c3 co 0 P

S -G u 2 p co JC — oo CO 3C t-' o cu —i rlBPOrt

. P O CO .G 0 1 ?

3 p Qi o to a vo

0) 4-1 P 9 O do Co o 2 U 3»- CH CU

0 3 o 0 *^> Q tn «-• o p c~ o P 3 Q> CU X) 0> O <tf 2 Q O UP -CfiPo) 2 fc. Zia^HOpjo.

8 co a 00 G :• o co cu O

• oo oo c c • a o ll 1"* to .c —

« O 91 J3 C E-i «-< » o -• -> -• P

it i-i 10 to — S cu s g^ vgop

stat

the

targ

the

able

0) o 8- a; 82 Ss

en-*

ffe§l §«§s

R i G

€2 CU rH

CO • *J

O CO 2 CJ

cu P +J 4-. o fO ab o <

O 1>> cu o 6- oi

POO rH 3 O 3 G TO W —• CO 0) *i O ti C rH

o OO O 00 a u p C CU

o 5

U rH tf cu —> o S AJ CO O O 4-i -ft HHtOP

do. H (-, Q, co 3 3 CO cu <0 P o, 0

- ooSi. n 3 o P G U U

1-1 P 0 0 CO 4-1 0 fi

0 O U 3

S_?COPS —I G 3

UOOrih C 3 -J r-l P ii T3 P CO CO

O C-, 0 - to SO. £-• C C

—i 0 15 pun > s cO o 0

050 c 0 i-j S a 0 rH n J3 P 5 JTJ SO

to •

O 0 i-i o to h cu 1 5 l-< 0

0 3 o P 3 o cr P 2 co SZ

- HO C0 Jw —1 — 00 J3 C

St. •»- 3 to o

p CO O 0 CO O >• C 0 Jd O- H p to 4-1 00 3

n C rH a P 0 »H o 10 to CO £•0 0 0 4-. MEe50 to 0 P p 0 JZJ 4-t 0 HfiPOH 3 P O. CO S TO S 0 4-. p U O Si o ti 3 o

4H O 00 n 0 J3 c c P to H O 0 3 3

- > o eg 0 o

c

op c go

o — P -< P — S 0 s „, p CO 0 CO 0 IH 0 rH

_ P £ co j3 n CO 5 to P P P cO

ti

u to

p " 0 CO 0 •

OlBCLP OP-BO cO CO o 4- 4-i 00 TO £., o <j a co 3 0 to M jp G (- rH J3 3 ""

O O 4-. *^ rH rH t, O P

•osaco-a a 3 co 0 co to p p. 0

X) 3 o P G E. & «

1-» p 0 0 tO 4-1 0 t.

0 ot.3 P G to P O

«H G 3 00 O O rH Ei C 3 -H rH P •H T3 P CO 10

2 0 «op a u u G

P —4 0 1- P 4- TO > 2 cO o 0

0 B 0 G 0rH 5 J= 0 rH Q JO P •S XJ ? =C CO E «4-

o. 3 to o — CO o 0 d o > c 0 43 cO 1- tj P CO 4-i op 3

n CH P 0 -"

- CO CO CO X3 TJ O 0 4-1 co p S X3

Li P 0 to 0 p P 0 G 4- 0

to a p B 0 0 4- 53 c. 5 00 t- o u 3 o c

4-0 3 00 jn 0 P oB G C P to HO J) 3 d »

C > o CO oC 0 OP

• tip 00 c c »erq4- o 1- P -H P o -< * 0 5 P M 0 H

"Ills B to 0

S to P J

• • • • S«JoS

• to oo 8 40 OS 4-

K> • P CO

oopg0

to »• o o CO-ri OOP —• oa —• P -a co P c

o c o r> 0 a) P 1-

T3 *

Wtk

|2£P

I 6 a & 6 a CO

U3 00 •-- G

o <u

c-

H a

S^S

1959 continuous rod warhead damage to b-29

Documents