ÜWCLASSIFIED An 256 857 - DTIClittle wonder that fan efficiencies were of the order of 457. for the...
Transcript of ÜWCLASSIFIED An 256 857 - DTIClittle wonder that fan efficiencies were of the order of 457. for the...
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