Downloaded from www.clastify.

com by Dhruv Manral

Motion of a parachute

Introduction: I have always been intrigued by the concept of human flight and, in particular, the
flight systems which, in many ways, have created the sense of global interconnectedness which
shapes the modern world. After reading more in-depth about concepts such as terminal velocity
and air resistance, I began to think about the many applications Physics has in various flight
systems, and specifically how Physics can be used in optimizing the efficiency of these systems.
Due to the constraints induced by the COVID-19 Pandemic, I thought that the most practical way
to explore this interest was through the use of homemade small-scale parachutes. Parachutes have
a plethora of applications, ranging from military uses to flight safety systems and thus, I thought
that it was integral to explore ways in which both the efficiency of these tools could be maximized.
Furthering my research, I discovered that the apex vent is used in many parachutes to reduce drag
and the effects of turbulence, which made me wonder how the size of this vent could impact drop
time in a parachute. Upon further study, I discovered that while the introduction of apex venting in
a parachute increases the drop time of the parachute, and makes the opening of the parachute less

om
erratic and more safe, an increase in the radius of this vent does not follow the same trend. This, in

l.c
turn, prompted my RQ: How is drop time in a conical newspaper parachute affected by increases

ai
in the radius of the vent in the apex of the parachute?
gm
Background Theory:
3@

There are two main forces acting on a parachute: a drag force caused by air resistance and the
l1

combined weight of the parachute and the attached mass. Drag force was first recognized by Sir
ra

George Cayley, who actually deduced the relationship between the four forces of flight: weight,
an

drag, lift alongside thrust. A simplified model describing this relationship may be attributed to Lord
m

Rayleigh and is as follows:

vs
ru

1
𝐹𝑑 = 2 ⋅ 𝜌 ⋅ 𝐶𝑑 ⋅ 𝐴 ⋅ 𝑣 2 1 (1)
dh
y
tif

Where:
● 𝜌 is air density
as

● 𝐴 is the cross-sectional area of the canopy of the parachute

Cl

● 𝑣is the velocity

● 𝐶𝑑 is the parachute’s drag coefficient
● 𝐹𝑑 is drag force

Since the cross-sectional area (A) of the parachute can be approximated to the surface of the
parachute, the above equation is a good initial basis for this investigation. Additionally, the velocity
of the parachute may be, with consideration to the kinematics of the parachute’s fall, related
indirectly to the drop-time of the parachute, which is the second variable being explored in this
experiment. For simplicity, we will assume that this parachute is under constant acceleration. The
equation that describes this movement was first established by the Italian polymath Galileo Galilei.
For height ℎ, time 𝑡, initial velocity 𝑣𝑖 , final velocity 𝑣, he set the following equation:
:

1
Wolfson, Richard. Essential University Physics: Volume 1

1
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

1
𝛥ℎ = (𝑣 + 𝑣𝑖 )𝑡
2

Since, in this experiment, the parachute is initially stationary, then 𝑣𝑖 = 0 m / s, and the velocity 𝑣
can be written as:
2𝛥ℎ
𝑣=
𝑡
When substituted in (1), this yields:

1 2𝛥ℎ 2 𝜌⋅𝐴⋅𝐶𝑑 ⋅𝛥ℎ 2

𝐹𝑑 = ⋅ 𝜌 ⋅ 𝐶𝑑 ⋅ 𝐴 ⋅ ( ) = 2 (2)
2 𝑡 𝑡2
The only remaining problem is that the drag force needs to be replaced by an expression which can
be, for the purposes of this experiment, related to the known variable. This issue is easily solvable
through employing a different expression for the drag force, drawing from Newton’s second law.
This law states that the net force acting upon an object is equivalent to the acceleration experienced
by the object multiplied by its mass. This is expressed through the following:

om
𝛴 𝐹𝑦 = 𝑚𝑎

l.c
From this expression and the fact that weight and drag are the only vertical forces acting on the
parachute, it can be derived that:

ai
𝐹𝑑 − 𝑚𝑔 = 𝑚𝑎 gm
𝐹𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎 + 𝑚𝑔 ⇒ 𝐹𝑑 = 𝑚(𝑎 + 𝑔) (3)
3@

Where g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m·s−2).

l1

Returning to Galileo's equations of motion, for a height h, initial speed 𝑣𝑖 , time t and acceleration
ra

a, he established that (Simanek, 2005):

an

1
𝛥ℎ = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
m

2
vs

−1
Since the parachute is being released, and not thrown, 𝑣𝑖 = 0 m·s , and the acceleration can be
ru

written as:
dh

2𝛥ℎ
𝑎= 2
𝑡
y
tif

This, when substituted into (3), gives us:

2𝑚𝛥ℎ+ 𝑚𝑔𝑡 2
as

2𝛥ℎ
𝐹𝑑 = 𝑚( + 𝑔) ⇒ 𝐹𝑑 = (4)
𝑡2 𝑡2
Cl

This provides an expression for the drag force in terms of the height of release and mass. Equating
(2) and (4) gives:
2𝑚𝛥ℎ+ 𝑚𝑔𝑡 2 𝜌⋅𝐴⋅𝐶𝑑 ⋅𝛥ℎ 2
2 =2 ⇒ 2𝑚𝛥ℎ + 𝑚𝑔𝑡 2 = 2𝜌 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝐶𝑑 ∙ 𝛥ℎ 2
𝑡 𝑡2
From this, drop-time can be rewritten as:
2𝜌∙𝐴∙𝐶𝑑 ∙𝛥ℎ 2 −2𝑚𝛥ℎ
𝑡=√ (5)
𝑚𝑔

The only remaining unknowns are the air density and the drag coefficient which have typical
constant values of 1.2 kg·m−3 and 1.75 respectively (Benson).
Plugging these in gives:
4.2𝐴𝛥ℎ 2 − 2𝑚𝛥ℎ
𝑡=√
𝑚𝑔

2
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

The above expression provides a relatively simple, theoretically backed relation between the drop
time of the parachute and its surface area, and hence between the radius of the apex vent and its
surface area, allowing for a strong theoretical framework for the analysis that follows.
Using this model, a theoretical data table may be produced:

Serial no. Radius of apex vent/m Theoretical drop time/s

1 0.01 3.966
2 0.02 3.950
3 0.03 3.924
4 0.04 3.887
5 0.05 3.839
Table 1: Radius of apex vent/m and corresponding theoretical drop time/s for height of 3.5 m

Sample calculation for first row of table 1:

om
4.2𝐴𝛥ℎ 2 − 2𝑚𝛥ℎ
𝑡=√

l.c
𝑚𝑔

ai
gm
For an apex vent with a radius of 0.01 m, the new corresponding canopy surface area will be:
is 0.12567 − 𝜋 × 0.012 ≈ 0.1253 𝑚 2 .
3@

Given that the drop height is 3.5 𝑚, the mass is 0.04 kg and the initial radius of the parachute
l1

canopy is 0.2 m (as specified in the experimental design), the theoretical value for the drop time
ra

may be calculated as:

an
m
vs

4.2 × 0.1253 × 3.52 − 2 × 0.04 × 3.5

𝑡=√
ru

0.04 × 9.81
dh

𝑡 = 3.966
y
tif

This can be more easily visualized through a graph:

as
Cl

−𝟓𝟑. 𝟔𝒙𝟐 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟒𝟑𝒙 + 𝟑. 𝟗𝟕

Graph 1: Theoretical model of drop time/s vs. radius of apex vent/m (self-made, using google
sheets

3
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Hypothesis: Since an increase in the radius of the apex vent would result in a decreased surface
area of the canopy of the parachute, and considering drop time and canopy surface area have an
inverse square relation, my hypothesis is that an increase in the size of the apex vent will result in
a decrease in drop time.

Design:
Independent variable:
● Radius of apex vent
Dependent variable:
● Drop-time of parachute
Control variables:
● The mass attached to the parachute was kept constant and measured to be 0.04 kg . In order
to control this, the same object (a set of keys) was used throughout all stages of the
experiment.
● The length of the strings used was 0.25 m. To control this, the length of each of the eight

om
strings was measured using a ruler.

l.c
● The distance from which the top of the parachute is dropped was kept constant at 3.5m .In

ai
order to control this, the parachute was dropped from the same height throughout all stages
of the experiment. gm
● The number of strings used was 8.
3@

● The radius of the canopy was kept constant and measured to be 0.2 m. This was controlled
l1

by using the same newspaper canopy in each trial.

ra

● Temperature: the temperature in the surroundings was measured to be 20°C. This was not
an

controlled by explicit means, however, since the data was gathered over a relatively short
m

time span inside my home, it was assumed to be consistent.

vs

● The reaction time was accounted for through the use of a video editing software called
ru

SloPro.
dh

Apparatus:
y

● Newspaper (recycled)
tif

● Weighing scale
as

● 3m measuring tape
Cl

● Apple iPhone model 11

● Software used: SloPro
● Clear tape
● Wool Strings (8 used, each 0.3 m in length)
● 1m ruler
● Scissors
● Marker, pencil
● Mathematical compass
● Mass used (set of keys with mass 0.04kg)

Procedure:
1) I used a single, rectangular newspaper and marked a centre point on this. After this, I used
a metre rule to measure 8 points 0.2m from the centre point.
2) Following this, I folded the paper twice into a square and cut a quarter circle shape using
scissors. This, when opened, formed a full circle with radius 0.2m.

4
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

3) After this, I drew 4 lines extending from equidistant points around the circle, each
connecting to an opposite point on the circumference of the circle.
4) Then I cut 8 pieces of woollen string, each measuring 0.25m in length and attached these
to the eight points around the circumference of the circle using clear tape.
5) Following this, I knotted all of these strings tightly together and the centre of the circle,
and, using tape- attached this knot to the 0.04 kg mass(set of keys).
6) In order to perform this experiment, I measured the height (inside the shaft) from the first
and second floors inside my house to the ground floor (using a ladder and measuring tape).
7) After this I cut a circle with radius 0.5cm in the centre of the circle.
8) I dropped this completed model from the aforementioned point with my father recording a
video of the process. The video was taken using a video-editing software (SloPro) that
allowed for shooting at 1000 fps, hence allowing for a more accurate measure of time taken.
9) I repeated this three times to minimize random error.
10) Step (7) was repeated 9 more times, with an additional 0.5 cm being added to the radius of
the apex vent each time.

om
Risk assessment:

l.c
1) Since the experiment was conducted inside the shaft, with me dropping the parachute from

ai
windows on the first and second floors, I made sure that my brother and father, who were
gm
helping with the experimental procedure and keeping track of the time, were a safe distance
from the perceived landing point of the parachute so that they would not get hit.
3@

2) I ensured that I was not leaning over the window (as it was low-lying) so that I did not risk
l1

falling and injuring myself.

ra

Ethical and environmental considerations:

an

1) The newspaper used in the experiment was recycled, so there was no wastage of new paper
m

or other materials while making the parachute.

vs

2) Looking back on the experiment, I could have been more conscious of the amount of clear
ru

plastic tape I used, which I will keep in mind during future investigations.
dh

3) There were no ethical concerns in this experiment.

y
tif

Assumptions:
as

1) The first assumption I made was that my hand was fully extended in all stages of the
Cl

experiment and that hence, the parachute was being dropped from the same height in each
stage of the experiment.
2) The second assumption I made was that the extension in all 8 strings was equal, and hence
the tension in all 8 strings was equal.
3) The third assumption I made was that the direction of air flow and air pressure in the room
remained constant throughout all stages of the experiment.
4) The fourth assumption I made was that the temperature in the room was constant and
therefore that the viscosity of the air was constant throughout all stages of the experiment.

5
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Model:

om
Image 1: Actual, self-taken image of my model without weight attached, shows the initial stage
of the experiment in which the 8 woollen strings are attached to equidistant points on the

l.c
circumference of the newspaper circle.

ai
gm
3@
l1
ra
an
m
vs
ru
dh
y
tif
as

Image 2: Actual, self-taken image of my model with weight attached, shows the finalised model,
Cl

without any apex vent.

Data collection and processing:

I took three trials in order to minimize random error:
Averages of three trials:
In order to make this calculation, I added the drop times for all three trials and divided the result
by three.

6
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Serial no. Radius of apex Drop time/s (±0.001) Average Drop New surface
vent/m for three trials time/s (±0.001) area of
(±0.0005) for three trials canopy/𝑚 2
Trial Trial Trial
1 2 3
1 0.0100 1.716 1.714 1.715 1.715 0.1253 ±
0.0007
2 0.0200 1.710 1.710 1.711 1.710 0.1244 ±
0.0007
3 0.0300 1.673 1.669 1.671 1.671 0.1228 ±
0.0007
4 0.0400 1.624 1.623 1.622 1.622 0.1206
± 0.0008

om
5 0.0500 1.563 1.564 1.563 1.563 0.1178 ±
0.0008

l.c
ai
Table 2: Radius of apex vent/m and corresponding drop time/s for each trial and average drop
time for height of 3.5 m
gm
3@

Sample calculations for first row of Table 2:

l1
ra
an

Since the initial area is 𝜋 × 0.22 = 0.12567 𝑚 2, the new surface area of the canopy may be
m

calculated by subtracting the area of the apex vent from the initial surface area. Using the data in
the first row of Table 2, the new surface area is 0.12567 − 𝜋 × 0.012 ≈ 0.1253 𝑚 2 .
vs
ru
dh

Calculating uncertainties:
- To calculate the uncertainty in the radius of the apex vent, I divided the least count in the
y
tif

metre rule (0.1 cm) by 2, which equals 0.05 cm. I then converted this to m, which equals
as

0.0005m.
- To calculate the uncertainty in the drop time, I observed the least count of the phone’s
Cl

timer, which was 1ms. I then converted that to seconds, which equals 0.001s. As stated
before, the uncertainty in drop time resulting from reaction time was accounted for through
the use of a video-editing software.
- The uncertainty in the surface area of the canopy of the parachute is a fractional uncertainty
which may be written as:
∆𝐴 ∆𝑟
= 2×
𝐴 𝑟
Making ∆𝐴 the subject:
∆𝑟
∆𝐴 = 2 × ×𝐴
𝑟

Sample calculation for uncertainty in surface area of parachute canopy:

Using the above formula:

7
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

∆𝑟
∆𝐴 = 2 × ×𝐴
𝑟

For the first row of Table 2, the surface area of the canopy is 0.1253 𝑚 2 , and the radius of the apex
vent is 0.0100, and the uncertainty in the radius is 0.0005 m. We may write the radius of the
parachute as the radius of the apex vent deducted from the original radius of the parachute (0.2 m):
𝑟 = 0.2 − 0.01 = 0.19𝑚
Hence,
0.0005
∆𝐴 = 2 × × 0.1253 = 0.000659 ≈ 0.0007 𝑚 2
0.19

Graphical analysis:
Below, I plotted a graph of the radius of the apex vent in m (x-axis) versus the average drop time
for the three trials in seconds (y-axis) for a drop height of 3.5m. The software I used for this was

om
Google Sheets.

l.c
ai
−𝟖𝟓𝒙𝟐 + 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝒙 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟏
gm
3@
l1
ra
an
m
vs
ru
dh
y
tif
as
Cl

Graph 2: Radius of apex vent /m versus average drop time/s (self-made, using google sheets)

Noticing the quadratic relationship between the variables as can be seen in the above graph, I
decided that a better idea would be to linearize the graph by instead plotting the radius of the apex
vent squared against the average drop time. This may be seen in the below graph:

8
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

−𝟔𝟓. 𝟗𝒙 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟑

−𝟔𝟔. 𝟒𝒙 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟑

−𝟔𝟓. 𝟒𝒙 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟑

om
l.c
ai
Graph 3: Radius of apex vent squared/𝑚 2 versus average drop time/s, including the maximum
gm
and minimum best-fit trend lines (self-made, using google sheets)
3@
l1

Using graph 2, we may deduce a linear relation including uncertainties based off the best-fit trend
ra

line as well as the maximum and minimum slopes for the best-fit trend line:
an
m

𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑥 = 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑋 = 𝑥 2

vs

𝑦 = −65.9𝑋 + 1.73
ru

𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥 = −66.4

dh

𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −65.4

y

𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛 | − 66.4 − (−65.4)|

tif

𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = = 0.5

2 2
as

Since the y intercept of both curves are approximately the same, the uncertainty in the y intercept
Cl

is negligible.
Therefore the final linear equation including uncertainties may be re-written as:

𝑦 = (−65.9 ± 0.5)𝑋 + 1.73

Or:
𝑡 = (−65.9 ± 0.5)𝑅 + 1.73
2
Where 𝑅 = 𝑟
From graph 1, we can see a clear negative quadratic relationship between the average drop time of
the parachute and the radius of the apex vent of the parachute. Clearly, as there is an increase in the
radius of the apex vent, there is a large decrease in the drop-time of the parachute. This is further
supported through the high R-squared value of 0.993, suggesting a strong negative correlation
between the variables. However, there are anomalies to this trend, particularly at r= 0.02m, which
will be evaluated in further sections.

9
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Result
As can be seen from Graph 1, the average drop time generally decreased with an increase in the
radius of the apex vent. The quadratic equation which models this relation(from graph 1) is:
𝑡 = −85𝑟 2 + 1.19𝑟 + 1.71
A simple linearized model, as derived in the analysis section is:
𝑡 = (−65.9 ± 0.5)𝑅 + 1.73
2
Where 𝑅 = 𝑟
Evidently, there is a clear, strong negative correlation between the two variables being discussed.

Conclusion and evaluation:

My results are in line with my hypothesis, namely that an increase in the radius of the apex vent of
the parachute results in a decrease in the drop-time of the parachute. In the context of current
scientific research (Brighenti et Al.), a similar trend has been identified. Namely, an increase in the
radius and therefore area of the apex vent in a parachute causes an increase in the lift coefficient of

om
the parachute. Since the lift coefficient directly contrasts the drag coefficient, and an increase in

l.c
drag coefficient causes an increase in the drop-time of a parachute, it may be stated that an increase

ai
in the lift coefficient will result in a decrease in the drop-time of the parachute, which is in
agreement with my hypothesis and experimental results. gm
3@

Resulting from my choice of apparatus, there were minor uncertainties in the data, critically the
l1

±0.001 seconds uncertainty in drop-time, and the ±0.0005 meter uncertainty in the measurements
ra

of the radius of the apex vent and canopy of the parachute. A few other minor uncertainties which
an

were not fully accounted for were the uncertainties in the measured mass (±0.001 kg) as well as in
m

the length of the woollen strings used ( ±0.0005 m). However, what was more prominent in the
vs

experiment were the random and systematic errors resulting from the sometimes varying
ru

experimental conditions and choice of apparatus.

dh
y

Critically, it must be noted that due to the experiment having taken place during COVID-19 and a
tif

national lockdown, sufficient experimental materials could not be procured and instead I had to
as

work with recycled newspaper, woollen strings, and weighing scales intended for cooking
Cl

ingredients. Therefore, while this investigation was useful in terms of exploring the relationship
between the radius of the apex vent and the drop-time, it does not accurately represent the typical
conditions in which parachutes are utilised (namely from larger drop heights), and more so, does
not reflect the typical materials and quantities used in parachuting. For instance, parachutes are
most commonly used by humans (who have a much larger mass) and the canopy of the parachute
is typically much larger and made out of more durable materials such as plastic.

Additionally, using the theoretical model derived in the background theory section and the data
procured from it, one can see that while the trend mirrors that of the background theory (an increase
in the radius of the apex vent results in a decrease in drop-time), the values of drop time are higher
than those procured from the experiment. This may be attributed to certain random and systematic
errors, which are evaluated below:

10
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Random errors Impact on experiment Possible improvements to

Fluctuations in environmental
conditions (such as wind
speed and temperature)
Landing location of the
parachute
experimental method
Changes course of parachute
motion, thereby increasing or
decreasing displacement and
consequently decreasing or
increasing drop time.
During the experiment, the
location at which the
parachute arrived was not
constant. Thereby, the
displacement was impacted,
causing increases or
• Repeat experiment
more times.
• Use thermometer to
keep track of
temperature during
course of experiment
• Use of motion
software in order to
more accurately
measure the path of
the experiment.

om
decreases in observed drop
time.

l.c
ai
Systematic errors Impact on experiment Possible improvements to
gm experimental method
3@

Material used for the making The use of newspaper, while • Use of a more durable
of the parachute environmentally beneficial, material, such as a
l1
ra

was not ideal in terms of its plastic sheet or cloth.

• Adding layers to the
an

durability. For instance, in

certain trials, the newspaper
m

newspaper, rather
vs

tore slightly and had to be than having a single

ru

replaced, causing a decrease layer.

dh

in observed drop time.

Material used for strings and The use of thick wool was • Use of thin string in
y
tif

attaching strings inconvenient in terms of attaching the mass to

as

attachment to the newspaper, the newspaper.

as it often broke off from the
Cl

newspaper. More critically,

Measurement of drop-height
the wool may have added a
slight amount of mass to the
parachute, which may have
resulted in a decrease in
observed drop time.
The measurement of drop • Measuring drop
height may have been slightly height from a
inaccurate as the measuring completely vertical,
tape only extended to 3m and slightly shorter
hence a ruler needed to be displacement.
used in conjunction causing
the drop-height to be
decreased/increased.

11
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Dhruv Manral

Recommendations for future investigations:

Some possible investigation ideas based off this investigation are:
1) Exploring the relationship between apex vent radius and drop time from two different
heights
2) Exploring the relationship between apex vent radius and drop time with differently shaped
parachutes
3) Exploring the relationship between apex vent radius and drop time with differing diameters
of the parachute’s canopy

Bibliography:

om
● “Performance of Round Vented Parachutes.” Web.Wpi.Edu, web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-

l.c
project/Available/E-project-042407-

ai
112440/unrestricted/Brighenti_Duffen_Head_Vented_Parachutes_MQP.pdf. Accessed 12
May 2021. gm
● “Lab Measurements and Error Analysis.” Https://Www.Deanza.Edu,
3@

www.deanza.edu/faculty/lunaeduardo/documents/LabMeasurementsandErrorAnaly.pdf.
Accessed 5 May 2021.
l1

● Nobel, Imti. “Parachut Project Report.” Www.Slideshare.Net,

ra

www.slideshare.net/imtisaalahmed1/parachut-project-report. Accessed 3 May 2021.

an

● “Velocity During Recovery.” Www.Grc.Nasa.Gov, www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-

m

12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/rktvrecv.html#:%7E:text=Typical%20values%20of
vs

%20drag%20coefficient,produces%20a%20lower%20terminal%20velocity. Accessed 5
ru

May 2021.
● Wikipedia contributors. “Density of Air.” Wikipedia, 3 May 2021,
dh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air. Accessed 6 May 2021.

y

● History.com Editors. “First Parachute Jump Is Made over Paris.” HISTORY, 18 Oct.
tif

2019, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-parachutist. Accessed 3 May 2021.

as

● Wolfson, Richard. Essential University Physics: Volume 1 (4th Edition). 4th ed., Pearson,
Cl

2019. Accessed 4 May 2021.

● The softwares used in this investigation were Google sheets for the graphs included and
SloPro for measuring and analysing drop time

12