Guidelines for Reducing Helicopter

Parasite Drag
Charles N. Keys
Senior Aerodynamics Engineer
Robert Wiesner
Vehicle PerformanceManager
Boeing Vertol Company
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania

AC, = drag increment

This paper presents an analysis of the considerations
involved in reducing the drag of new helicopter fuselage
configurations within practical design constraints. In-
cluded are drag reduction guidelines for fuselage com-
ponents such as the nose section, cabin, afterbody, hubs,
engine naceiles, landing gear and protuberances. The
guidelines are based primarily on wind tunnel test data
and analytical studies conducted on numerous tandem and
single rotor aircraft.
NOTATION
= frontal area, ft2
= drag coefficient based on frontal area
= fuselage cabin section equivalent diameter
JZq77, ft
= engine momentum drag, lb
= nacelle diameter, f t
= equivalent flat plate area, ft2
= hub interference drag factor
=length of fuselage, f t
= length of afterbody subject to lateral con-
traction, f t
= length of afterbody subject to longitudinal
contraction, f t
= mass flow, lb sec/ft
= f r e e stream dynamic pressure, lb/ft2
= nose section/canopy corner radius, f t
= airfoil thickness to chord ratio
= engine exhaust velocity, ft/sec
= free stream velocity, ft/sec
= fuselage width, ft
= pylon width, ft
= afterbody camber, ft
= distance between engine nacelle and
fuselage, ft
=hub to pylon gap, f t
= fuselage angle of attack, deg
31
= engine exhaust cant angle, deg
6
INTRODUCTION
The importance of reducing helicopter cruise
power requirements is increasingly evident in
light of the higher speed demanded of new heli-
copter designs and the current energy crisis.
As cited by Stepniewskil in Fig. 1,the energy
consumption per person of current transport
helicopter configurations i s generally above the
level of other short haul modes of transportation.
Means available to improve forward flight per-
formance include optimizing the rotor geometry
to reduce the induced and profiie power require-
ments, and designing a low drag airframe to
minimize parasite power requirements. As shown
by the breakdown of level flight power required
in Fig. 2, the maximum reduction in power is
achieved by reducing the airframe or parasite
drag, since this represents over 45% of the total
power required. A secondary benefit provided
by the reduction in parasite drag is the improve-
ment in the flow environment behind the fuselage.
For single rotor aircraft, the increase in wake
momentum will result in improved tail rotor and
stabilizer effectiveness.
The drag levels of current production and ex-
perimental helicopters a r e summarized in Fig. 3 .
As shown, current transport helicopters have
weight to drag (equivalent flat plate area) ratios
of 1000 o r less. The helicopter component drag
breakdown associated with this level is illustrated
in Fig. 4 for a typical single rotor vehicle. This
data was developed from drag/weight trends and
reflects an aircraft with side loading access,
conventional articulated main and tail rotor hubs,
 32 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY
700 MACH 2
Y
SUPERSONIC
TRANSPORT

0 TRANSPORT
200 TILT-ROTOR
u,

Z SHORT-RANGE
2
JET TRANSPORT
+
L
I,

lo 1
30 50 70 100 200 100 lam ISM
SPEED mph

Figure 1. Energy consumption index.

2 MAX GROSS WEIGHT -1000 LBS
and engine nacelles positioned adjacent t o the
airframe. As noted, the largest drag producing
items a r e the hub and landing gear, which account Figure 3. Drag summary for current helicopter con-
f o r over 50% of the total aircraft drag. Also figurations.
contained in Fig. 4 a r e the component drag levels
obtainable through the use of the drag reduction
drag levels by over half. An improvement of this
concepts discussed in this paper. These con-
magnitude corresponds to a 30% decrease in
figuration improvements inc1;de such items a s
cruise fuel consumption.
retractable gear, faired hingeless main rotor
hub, flex s t r a p tail rotor, and streamlined fuse- GUIDELINES
lage, with properly positioned and faired pro-
The development of the external lines of a vehicle
tuberances. Incorporation of these potential r e -
represents a trade-off between the aerodynamic
ductions will result in an aircraft with 66% lower
drag, a s witnessed in Fig. 5, and will reduce the
current disparity between fixed wing2and helicopter Drag l e v e l o f c u r r e n t
0 production
configuration
'I SEA LeVEL/STANDARD DAY
$$:?;.potential d r a g l e v e l
......
"'.of new d e s i g n

Figure 4. Drag breakdown for typical 20,000-lb single

rotor helicopter.
JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 33

,OGUNSHIP HELICOPTER MODEL

DATA (CANOPY + FUSELAGE)

RADIUa
CANOPY
CORNER A AIRCRAFT CANOPY DATA
(REFERENCE 3 ) CORRECTED
/Lcmm
TURBOPROPS
RC FOR FUSELAGE EFFECTS
/
.16[
0
/' /D
d / 0
P
/" & / O n

P ' /TURBOPROP
TRANSPORTS
EXECUTIVE

BOMBER

I
.
'0
.
.04
..
.08
..
.12
..
.16
.
.
.20
.
.
.24
CORNER RADIUS/FUSELAGE WIDTH RATIO,RC/W
/ HELICOPTER DRAG
LEVEL
pooo Figure 6. Effect of canopy corner radius on fuselage drag

rn
rn CURRENT PRODUCTION witnessed in Fig. 7 is due to the favorable pressure
n HELICOPTERS gradient which exists between the leading edge
10 20 30 40 50 and the aft portion of the nose.
GROSS WEIGWT - 1000 LB Cabin Section. The helicopter cabin is com-
posed of a constant section in response to load
Figure 5. Helicopter/fixed-wing aircraft drag trends. carrying requirements. To reduce the drag of
the cabin, originating from c r o s s flow effects
at cruise angle of attack (trim drag), it is desirable
shape, weight, and manufacturing cost. To assist that the c r o s s section shape be circular. The
in studies aimed a t determining the optimum com- variation in fuselage drag with cross section shape
bination of these factors, design guidelines for
reducing parasite drag a r e discussed below. The
0 CH-47 NOSE
data used t o develop these guidelines a r e based El SYMMETRICAL NOSE
on the results of wind tunnel tests and analytical
studies conducted during the development of
numerous tandem and single rotor aircraft in-
cluding the CH-46, CH-47, BO-105,HLH and
YUH-61A.
Basic Fuselage
The basic fuselage consists of the cockpit en-
closure o r nose section, cabin, and afterbocly/tail
boom. The following discussion addresses the
key items involved in minimizing the drag of these
components.
Nose Section. The shape of the noge section
is generally dictated by visibility considerations.
Of critical concern in selecting a low drag nose
shape is the corner radii. As shown in Fig. 6,
a t corner radii to fuselage width ratios (RJ w )
below 0.1, there is a noticeable increase in drag.
Changes in nose contour f r o m a symmetrical
-12 -8 - I . . . . .
0 4 8
to an asymmetrical shape, a s utilized on most
helicopters, produce little o r no change in drag
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG

a s depicted in Fig. 7. The relative insensitivity Figure 7. Effect of fuselage nose section shape on drag.
 34 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

TYPICAL SINGLe ROTOR

0 HELICOPTER w h TEST DATA
AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE
DATA (WFEWNCE 3 )

FUSELAGE ANGLE
OF ATTACK -
DEG.

I FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK, a - DEG

I Figure 8. Effect of fuselage cross-section shape on drag.

Figure 10. Effect of afterbody camber on lift and drag.

is illustrated in Fig. 8 for a quar re,^ ~ i r c u l a r , ~

and typical helicopter c r o s s section. As shown, doors should be flush with the surface contours and
the drag r i s e of a square fuselage section is four door tracks recessed.
times greater than a circular section at 5" angle Afterbody. The afterbody shape represents
of attack. In addition t o the use of a circular the largest d r a g contributing a r e a of the basic
fuselage to minimize cabin drag, windows and fuselage. By tapering the afterbody lines gradually,
the adverse pressure gradient is minimized and
flow separation is avoided. The incremental
pressure drag a s a function of contraction ratio
! (1, JD-Contraction Length/Equivalent Cabin diam-
a = O0 LATERAL eter) is illustrated in Fig. 9. The fuselage pressure
CONTRACTION
RATIO drag was derived by subtracting the estimated
z SYMBOL A I R C R A F Ta ~ Y/D*
- skin friction drag f r o m wind tunnel test result^.^
V M-47 0 As noted, a contraction ratio of at least 2.0 is
CH-47 MOD. 1.3 required to obtain minimum afterbody pressure
0 BO-105 0.7 drag. The optimum 1,/D value for minimum
BO-105 1-07 total drag (pressure plus skin friction) is between
MOD. 2.0 and 2.5. The data shown in Fig. 9 includes
0 YUH-61A 2.1 bodies with and without lateral contraction indi-
cating that pressure drag is reduced by lateral
contraction, longitudinal contraction o r a com-
bination of both.
Many afterbody designs a r e prohibited from
utilizing the ideal contraction ratios and shapes
due t o design requirements. Rear loading after-
body configurations, for example, often possess
negative camber and small lateral contraction
ratios. As shown in Fig. 10, negative afterbody

I Figure 9. Effect of afterbody contraction ratio on drag. camber shifts the fuselage z e r o lift angle of
 JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 35

;/D*=-. 275 I I \
STRAKES OFF

CH-46 TYPE
AFTERBODY
ON SURFACE
. - 0 4 AFTERBODY
a
U

0
LATERALCONTRACTION
RATIO. QXY/D*

Figure 11. Effect of camber on drag. VORTICES

attack and minimum drag point to higher angles
of attack relative to symmetrical configurations.
Since most helicopters cruise at angles of attack
of from -5 to -T,this shift tends to increase
the drag and cruise download. A summary of
the drag r i s e due to negative camber is presented
in Fig. 11 over a range of contraction ratios.
As noted, the drag penalty due to negative camber
i s reduced by employing increased lateral con-
traction. More data is required t o totally define
the interaction between camber and contraction;
however, the available data indicates that a lateral
contraction ratio of 1.3 o r higher is required t o
minimize the drag due t o negative camber.
Two techniques which a r e employed to reduce
the drag of cambered r e a r loading afterbodies
a r e the installation of strakes and the ,use 'of high
crown designs. These techniques, illustrated in
Fig. 1 2 , ~ swere
~ developed f o r fixed wing a i r -
craft such a s the Belfast and C-141, respectively.
The high crown achieves drag reduction by de-
creasing the static pressure on the upper portion
of the afterbody, thereby redirecting the local
airflow. This results in an increase in the ef-
fective lateral contraction ratio and an increase
in ramp a r e a pressure.
The strakes function t o reduce drag by forcing
the two fuselage vortices formed by the inter-
section of a i r from the side and bottom of the
afterbody off the surface and downstream. The
suction created by vortices is reduced by dis-
pacing them from the surface.
Drag reductions associated with high crown
I
and strake installations were verified during
wind tunnel tests of a CH-46 model. As shown
in Fig. 13, the CH-46 engine compartment ef-
fectively raised the afterbody crown line which
AWAY FROM
SURFACE
5
STRAKES INSTALLED ON THE BELFAST W 1
HIGH CROWN.LILIE
\
HIGH CROWN AFTERBODY ON' THE C-141
Figure 12. Utilization of high crown afterbody and strakes
on fixed-wing aircraft.
resulted in an 8% reduction in basic fuselage
drag. Strakes provide approximately the same
drag reduction a s the high crown line as illustrated
in Fig. 13. The strake installation on the CH-46
also provides an improvement in directional
stability.
Although negative camber provides an unfavorable
increase in drag, positive camber can be employed
to shift the drag bucket to a desired nose down
cruise angle of attack. An example is the spoiler
installation on the BO-105, which was designed
to deflect the turbulent fuselage wake and trailing
vortices away from the tail rotor, thereby im-
proving directional stability. This installation
consists of a 2 ft2 flat plate mounted on the lower
portion of the fuselage. As shown in Fig. 14, the
positive camber effect caused by this installation
36 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER

STRAKE DRAG

-
-8 -4
FUSELAGE ANGLe OF ATTACK

HIGH CROWN
ENGINE COMPARTMENT DRAG
0 4
-
8
DEG

FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG

I CROWN
ENGINE C O ~ A R T + N T

BO-105 CRUISE a

-20 -10 0 10 20
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG
Figure 13. Effect of strakes and high crown afterbody on Figure 14. Effect of BO-105 spoiler on lift and drag.
the CH-46 helicopter fuselage drag.

associated with this installation is a deciding

reduced the fuselage drag by an amount equal factor in determining i t s usefulness.
t o the pressure drag of the spoiler, and resulted To achieve drag values below the faired designs
in no drag penalty at the -7" cruise angle of attack. will require the development,of new hub concepts
M a i n Rotor Hub
A summary of hub drag trends is presented in
Fig. 15 a s a function of maximum gross weight.
As shown, aircraft with hingeless rotor systems
have hub drag values approximately 30% l e s s
than corresponding articulated configurations.
This percentage is attributed to the absence of
flap and lag hinges, the removal of lag dampers,
and the installation of streamlined shank shapes.
Utilizing the hingeless rotor a s a base, it is shown
in Fig. 15, that an additional reduction in hub
drag of approximately 30% is achieved by fairing
the center section, pitch bearing housing, pitch
arms, and blade attachment fittings. Similar
attempts to fair articulated rotors were unsuc-
cessful because of the large number of cutouts
required to allow for flap and lag motion.
Boundary layer control (BLC) techniques (air
injection or blowing) in conjunction with hub
fairings have been used to reduce hub drag. As
4 6 8 10 20
MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT* -
4 0 60
1000 LB
*THRUST PER ROTOR FOR TANDEM
ROTOR AIRCRAFT
noted in Fig. 15, BLC provides a small benefit a t
cruise angles of attack; however, the power penalty Figure 15. Hub drag trends.
JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 37

a ,/s r u m M B rUTI
7 I,, IUu: w. DIlr

OL 4 8 12 16
v 20 24 28 32
HUB T O PYLON GAP, I N

Figure 17. Effect of hub/fuselage gap.

Landing Gda?'
A summary of landing gear drag trends is pre-
sented in Fig. 18 for wheeled gear, skid gear
and faired skid arrangements. As shown, the
skid gear is 40% lower in drag than the wheel
gear. Additional reductions in skid gear drag
a r e achieved by utilizing streamlined section
tubing in lieu of the conventional circular shapes.
The magnitude of wheeled gear drag depends
HUB-PYLON INTERFERENCE on the configuration (i.e., tricycle, quadricycle,
number wheels per strut, etc.); however,-for
DRAG FACTOR, Ki
typical installations, up t o 50% of the drag of
wheeled gear is due t o the wheels. Wheel frontal
Figure 16. Effect of hub/pylon gap on interference drag.
areas, therefore, should be minimized within
ground flotation requirements, and the distance
between t i r e s on dual wheel configurations kept
with low frontal a r e a s such a s the flex strap con-
t o a t least one t i r e width to reduce mutual inter-
cept. The advantages of the flex strap design a r e
the low profile shank and center section, due
t o the elimination of the pitch bearing housing
and flap/lag hinges. Flex s t r a p type main rotor
hubs have been flown on small aircraft such a s
the OH-6; however, they have not, a s yet, been
evaluated on larger transport size helicopters.
A sizeable percentage of the hub drag is due
to hub/fuselage interference effects. As shown
in Fig. 16, the interference drag decreases rapidly
a s the hub to fuselage clearance is increased.
However, a s shown in Fig. 17, a s the hub height
is increased, more of the rotor shaft and controls
a r e exposed, which increase the basic hub drag
and offset the interference drag reduction. To
benefit from the reduction in hub interference
drag with height requires that the controls be
hidden inside the shaft and the swashplate placed 4 6 810 20 40 60
at the base of the shaft a s on the Enstrom F-28. MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT - 1000 LB
This permits the installation of a thin low drag
shaft fairing. Figure 18. Landing gear drag trends.
38 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

ameter from the fuselage. Nacelle installations

which a r e situated closer than a 0.8 diameter
due t o width restrictions or other considerations
require sizeable juncture fairing to insure low
wHEEIEDGEAR2
AFe = 6.5FT drag.
m Protuberances
cl
WEIGHT
Protuberances include such items a s antennas,
lights, handholds, and windshield wipers. The
drag of bluff body protuberances a r e relatively
large because they operate a t a subcritical Reyn-
olds number. The use of fairings and selective
positioning can result in sizeable drag reduction
benefits. Reference 3 notes that the optimum fine-
ness ratio (length to height) of half body or blister
type fairings is 10 to 1, with the nose or forebody
contour of sufficient length to avoid a blunt leading
edge.
An example of the drag benefits of streamlining
protuberances is illustrated by the antenna wind
tunnel test data shown in Fig. 21. As noted, the
/ (REFERENCE 6 ) antenna configuration consists of a 1-in. diameter
tube on both sides of the fuselage. The penalty
I for this installation is 1.2 ft2. Replacing the tube
100 120 140 160 180 200
CRUISE SPEED - KT with a 25% thick streamline strut contour reduced
the antenna drag by 50% (optimum airfoil c r o s s
Figure 19. Effect of gear retraction on cruise fuel. section fineness ratio is 3.7).
Items such a s antennas and lights a r e best located
aft of the cockpit a r e a due to the supervelocity
ference e f f e ~ t sThe
. ~ best method to reduce gear observed in the cockpit region and relatively small
drag obviously is retraction; however, the drag boundary layer growth. Low protuberance drag is
saving must be evaluated against the weight empty achieved only when all door tracks, footsteps,
penalty. The trade between weight empty increase handholds and door handles a r e recessed and
and cruise fuel saving associated with gear r e - rounded edges a r e incorpora'ted on all items
traction is shown in Fig. 19 for a 20,000 lb air- protruding into the a i r stream.
craft. The assumed weight empty penalty for
gear retraction is 1%of gross weight, or 200 lb
f o r the depicted vehic1e.Q~ noted, f o r a two-
hour mission, gear retraction is desirable for
aircraft with design cruise speeds above 145 kts.
For aircraft designs a t o r below this point, gear
retraction is not beneficial from a payload stand-
point.
Engine Nacelle
For aircraft configurations with the engines
mounted externally, it is important t o (1) stream-
line the external lines of the nacelle and (2) min-
imize the interference drag between the nacelle
and fuselage. The guidelines for minimizing
afterbody drag previously discussed a r e applicable
to defining the shape of the nacelle.
The impact of the nacelle location relative to
the fuselage on interference drag is illustrated DISTANCE RATIO, y/Dn
in Fig. 20. As shown, minimum nacelle drag is
obtained when the unit is located 0.8 to 1.0 di- Figure 20. Effect of nacelle location on interference drag.
JANUARY 1975
26-
CYLINDRICAL
CROSS SECTION
I , I
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG.
Figure 21. Effect of streamlining on antenna drag,
Momentum Losses
Momentum losses occur when the a i r stream is
diverted into the aircraft f o r the purposes of
cooling the transmissions, hydraulic systems and
engines, and providing a i r for the heating-ventila-
tion systems. A momentum loss also results due
to the change in velocity of the a i r entering and
exiting the engines at high speedi.
Large size cooling a i r inlets a r e required to meet
the high power, hot day hover cooling requirements
of various components (i.e., transmission oil)
with blowers employed to circulate the a i r . The
drag penalty for this type of installation is min-
imized by providing generous inlet radii to prevent
a i r spillage from producing separation, and direct-
ing the exhaust a i r f r o m the system aft to recover
a portion of the inlet momentum loss.
The momentum drag o r thrust of the engine a s
a function of the aircraft forward speed, mass
flow, exhaust velocity and cant angle is stated
below:
Dm = m ( V , - V , cos 6)
As noted by this equation, the engine momentum
drag is zero o r negative (thrusting) when V , cos
6 2 V,,. Therefore, to minimize the engine drag,
the exhaust cant angle utilized should be kept to
a minimum and the exhaust diffusion minimized to
maintain maximum exhaust velocity. Typically,
turboshaft engines provided by the manufacturer
include tail pipe designs which produce positive
thrust a t speeds below 150 kt a s shown in Fig. 22.
However, ejectors which consist of a shroud over
the tial pipe a r e often added to the basic engine
design to provide additional hover cooling and
reduce back pressure to provide increased engine
GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 39
power. The additional diffusion caused by the
ejector results in reduced Ve and increased drag.
Therefore, from a forward drag reduction view-
point, the degree of ejector cooling should be
minimized.
Roughness and Leakage
To reduce the drag due to roughness and leakage,
all doors, windows and access panels (including
fasteners and hinges) should b e designed flush
with the skin and sealed to prevent leakage. Leak-
age is particularly prevalent in low pressure
regions such a s the nose and pylon a r e a s where
the use of flush seals about the hub and door/
window openings will help minimize drag.
Surface roughness drag is reduced through the
use of butt joints on all exterior airframe struc-
tures, and flush rivets on streamlined components
(fuselage, tail and nacelle). Studies4 indicate that
the drag increment due to the discrete roughness
of streamlined VTOL aircraft components is re-
duced f r o m 9 to 5% through the use of flush rivets
over the entire aircraft. Flush rivets employed
over the forward one-third of the components
reduces the penalty from 9 to 7%.
GUIDELINES SUMMARY
A cockpit enclosure corner radius of 0.1 (or
greater) fuselage width is required f o r low
nose pressure drag.
WEIGHT FLOW = 9 LB/SEC
(2) ENGINES
EXHAUST
N VELOCITY
2: I DRAG
;/ " THRUST
, , I
60 100 140 180 220
AIRSPEED - KT
Figure 22. Example of engine momentum drag/thrust.
40 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER
The fuselage c r o s s section shape should in-
' generous inlet radii and the exhausts directed
clude generous corner radii to reduce the
drag due to c r o s s flow effects at cruise angles
of attack. A circular c r o s s section is desirable.
' An afterbody contraction ratio of 2.0 to 2.5
is required to minimize the afterbody pressure
drag which is the largest contributor to basic
fuselage drag.
.
Cambered r e a r loading afterbodies require a
lateral contraction ratio of 1.3 o r higher to
reduce the drag penalty due to camber. High
crown and strake installations a r e also effec-
tive in reducing cambered afterbody drag.
' Hingeless rotor hubs possess l e s s drag than
articulated configurations. Both hingeless
and elastomeric hub designs, due to their
reduced blade root motion, a r e more easily
adaptable to fairing installations which can
provide up to a 40% reduction in drag.
, No significant reduction in hub drag for current
designs is achieved by increasing the hub/
pylon gap, because of offsetting effects of in-
creased shaft and control drag, unless the
pitch links a r e placed inside the shaft and a
thin fairing designed around the shaft.
. Cooling air inlets should be designed with
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY
aft to reduce momentum drag.
Skid gear a r e typically 40% lower in drag than
wheeled gear. F o r wheeled gear configurations,
retraction is desirable f r o m a performance
standpoint at cruise airspeeds of approximately
145 kt o r above (two o r more hour mission).
REFERENCES
1. Stepniewski, W. Z., "Civilian Vertical-Lift Systems
and Aircraft," presented at Aeronautica ' I 3 US/USSR
Symposium and Display, Moscow, Russia, July 1973.
2. Stepniewski, W. Z., "Basic Aerodynamics and Per-
formance of the Helicopter," VonKarman Institute/
AGARD Lecture Series No. 63, Brussels, Belgium,
April 1913.
3. Hoerner, Dr. Ing., S. F., "Fluid-Dynamic Drag," pub-
lished by the author, 1965.
4. Gabriel. E., "Drag Estimation of V/STOL Aircraft,"
Boeing Vertol Report D8-2194-1, September 1968.
5. McCluney, B., "Improving the Belfast," FLIGHT
International, August 1967.
6. Davis, S. M. and Wisniewski, J. S., "User's Manual
for Hescomp the Helicopter Sizing and Performance
Computer Program," developed under NASA Contract
No. NAS2-6101 for the NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, California, September 1973.