11 - Supersonic parachutes Lingard.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Viking testing – transonic drag loss
Drag summary Conical ribbon - effective to M2.0 Hemisflo - effective to M3.0 Hyperflo - < M 4.0 Ballute - good at all Mach numbers but low drag coefficient <strong>Supersonic</strong>-X <strong>Supersonic</strong> DGB - good for low q up to M2.0
Page 1 and 2:
Parachute Seminar 3rd International
Page 3 and 4:
Requirements high drag to weight ra
Page 5 and 6:
Ribbon parachute drag coefficient
Page 7 and 8: Supersonic parachute behavior Cd 0.
Page 9 and 10: Supersonic Flow Compressibility Hig
Page 11 and 12: Flow around a hollow hemisphere Mac
Page 13 and 14: Hemisflo - M 1.9 Shock waves
Page 15 and 16: Flow around a hollow hemisphere and
Page 17 and 18: Supersonic parachute behavior
Page 19 and 20: Flow around a disk-gap disk gap-ban
Page 37 and 38: Wake effects M Forebody Shock 1 Sho
Page 39 and 40: Ribbon flutter modified pressure di
Page 41 and 42: Conical Ribbon Parachute
Page 43 and 44: Hemisflo Parachute More refined sha
Page 45 and 46: Supersonic-X Supersonic X parachute
Page 47 and 48: Disk-Gap Disk Gap-Band Band tested
Page 49 and 50: Hermes Testing Test decelerators: s
Page 51 and 52: Ribbon parachute drag coefficient
Page 53 and 54: Drag coefficient vs M
Page 55 and 56: Huygens DGB main ogive wake Cd 0.75
Page 57: Galileo testing - transonic drag lo
Page 61 and 62: Stability vs M
Page 63 and 64: Inflation distance as function of M
Page 65 and 66: Aerodynamic Heating stagnation temp
Page 67 and 68: Aerodynamic Heating high temperatur
Page 69 and 70: Design guide 2 sometimes a multi-st
Page 71 and 72: Design guide 4 if aerodynamic heati
show all

11 - Supersonic parachutes Lingard.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?