ENGINEERING TEST REPORT FOR THE LEAFLET BOMB QK-15-561.1 C-59430

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 24, 2013
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 30, 1955
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
_CONFIDENTIAL
?^ 8 DATE ~9 eso. 6T_ ?2.
aGe
GWIG COMP OPI TY
GRID CLASS FAMES RE, GL'AS
],. '.. 1. D .2
JUST Z- ._- NEXT REV A.M HR 78
. No.
GONFIDENTRA(~
w*Z
ENGINEERING TEST REPORT
for the
LEAFLET BO iB
Q K45-561.i,
C-59430
Copies
30 June, 1955
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope of The Program
The Engineering Test Program for the Leaflet Bomb was designed to provide
information regarding the operational reliability of the Bomb after it
had been subjected to a wide range of simulated storage and operational
environments. At the time that the Program wa.s initiated, the Client stated
that the field service record of these devices was considered marginal;
as a result, special emphasis. was to be placed by the Program agenda on the
determination of what conditions or' combination of conditions would induce
failures
As with the testing programs conducted for,other devices, the results obtained
from this investigation must be interpreted on a broad basis. Supporting
information, from whatever source available, should be sought and considered
before any final and detailed conclusions are drawn,
B. Authorization
The Engineering Test Program for the Leaflet Bomb was authorized by and
conducted under.Work ?rder'QK 15-561.1.. A total of three thousand four
hundred forty five dollars (5 3,445) 4+ as authorized by this Mork Order to
implement the task. Work on the test program. began simultaneously with
the receipt of a letter of authorization from the Client dated February U.
1955 and-designated MW-M-3 6.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
CON~ID~NTIAC
T,ILBLE OF 'CONTMT,S
I. INTRODUCTION . . #.
IT. SU '>ARRY AND . RECOI ,ELAND TIOI'1S . . . . .
III,. , TEST PROGRAM AND TESTING .PROCEDURES
IV. DESCRIPTION OF L AFL-~:T BOMB3 TESTED .
VI. DISCUSSION A:ID CONCLUSIONS:. 26
QQNF!DENT;L
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
r, ECRET
A. Summary . .
While the Leaflet Bomb is capable of highly reliable performance in its
"as manufactured" condition, it . appears subject to two (2) distinct and
serious types of storage failure. The first failure lies in the fact
that the Bomb cannot survive moderately high storage temperatures for-even
short periods of time. The second failure lies in the fact that it cannot
resist high moisture or water-wetting conditions. Both of these failures
are caused by material characteristics of the Bomb components,,
The failure to survive moderately high storage temperatures is caused by
the fact that, at temperatures of. approximately 140?F and above, the
bitumen waterproofing wrapper of the.black powder time fuze softens and
flows. The bitumen then wets and totally desensitizes the fuze powder in
both initiating and projectile time delay fuzes,.
The low resistance to water and water-vapor is.the result of the highly
hygroscopic nature of black powder. While the waterproofed time fuze does
not suffer from, this source of difficulty, the unprotected quickmatch train,
propellant charge and projectile. burster charge all quickly accumulate.'
moisture when unprotected by the unit-package foil wrapper. Water accum-
ulation in these areas soon causes complete failure of the Bomb,
The combination of these two types of failure acts to limit quite seriously
the maximum conditions under which the Leaflet Bomb can be satisfactorily
stored for even short periods of time. It is a matter of concern, we feel,
that not only the Leaflet Bomb but also those other devices using black
powder time trains and charges cannot withstand even. the minimum acceptable
temperature limit requirements for storage,. ..
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET
`3-
B. Recommendations
Based on the results obtained from the Engineering Test Program for the
Leaflet Bomb, but without benefit from other sources of information, we
recommend that. the following minimum, steps be initiated to govern its
storage and usages
1) An upper temperature limit of 125?F should be npo;sed on both
the short-and long-term storage conditions for the Leaflet
Bomb...No lower temperature limit is required..
Extreme care should be.recomimended to central and field
storage.points,for the protection.of the Leaflet Bomb. gross--
and unit-packages against high humidity and water-wetting
conditions.
4) Field personnel should:be advised to provide protection for the
Leaflet Bomb against water-wetting while it is. in position and
awaiting faring. Use of the unit-package barrier material as a
shelter for the Bomb and a light muzzle--cover for the tube is
All Leaflet Bombs known.to have been stored at temperatures
exceeding 1250F or to have been removed from their 'unit-package
or to. have been water-wetted in their unit-package should be
removed from stock and destroyed,
suggested.
The-similarity of storage limitations between the Leaflet Bomb
and the Thermit Well Incendiary device should be recognized
and, if possible, advantage should be':taken of their mutual
storage requirements,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
FRET : -4-
Based not only on the results of this Engineering Test Program, but also
or. our general experience in'the design of devices for the Client, we
also recommend the following as points for long-range consideration in
the design of future leaflet-distributing. devices-
6) The specification of black powder propellant and burster charges
should be discontinued for all' devices which are by their nature
required to withstand exposure to moisture. While the use of
vapor-barrier unit-packaging materials'has proven useful in the
protection of these devices, the potentially high. failure rate
caused by the hygroscopic nature of black powder strongly.
suggests that this cause should be eliminated at its source4
The serious consideration of nitrocellulose--base propellants
is recommended,
7) The specification of black powder time fuze having a bitumen
waterproofing wrapper-should be discontinued for all devices which
are by their nature required to withstand storage temperatures
in.excess of 125?F for even short accumulative periods of time
(in excess of 12 total hours).,:- While.. we cannot. readily suggest
any co.parable ?flame-initiated time fuze as'a direct alternative,,
we recommend that the use-of percussion brimers.for propellants
and pressed incendiary time delay pellets for burster ignition
be seriously considered?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
III. TEST,PROGRAM 'AND TE$T-ZG PR~DCEOUES
A. Test Program.
The final. test agenda formulated for the Leaflet Bomb ins a combination
of the efforts of both the Client and E:1 and is given in its entirety 50X1
in? Appendix A of this report.- A brief outline of the agenda is given .
here, however, to'form a general background for the evaluation of results:
cited later in this report.
1) Test A Original Sample Performance Test:
Test of fifteen (15) units.in the "as received" condition to-
establish "normialit sample performance.
2) Test I: Accelerated Aging Test (160?F, 90% RH. for 2weeks).
3) Test II: Cycling Tests 4 hrs. 0-125?F,.90% RH; 2.hrs. 0 80?F, 90%
2 hrs. @ -10?F; 16 hrs. 40?F, 22% RH; total of four 24-hr, cycles,
4))T Test III: Safe Storm T~ est: a) 160?F, 22% R'H for .24. hrs.,. test
at room temperature. b) -60?F for 24 hrs., test at room temperature.
5) Test IV: Operating Temperature Limits Test: 'a) 120?F, 22% RH for.
24 hrs. b) -40?F -for 24 hrs.
6) Test V: Safe Transport Test: 4 hrs. 0 40,000 ft.'altitude, room
temperature,.
Test VI: Vibration Test: Vibrate from 25 to 60 cps, 5 cps incre:nent.s,~
15 min. each.
8_) Test VII : Salt Fog Test: Eliminated from: this Program.
21 Test VIII: Rough Handling: Multiple drops from 61 height to solid surface.
10) Test IX: PlMge Test: Eliminated. from this Program.
11) Test X:--Impact Testi it
12) Test XI: Water Submergence: Eliminated from this Program,.
. ~~~~~~/ar 4YE..a L
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24 CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
6-
I T
B. Testing Procedures
1) 'Environmental Conditioning .
.The conditioning of the Leaflet Bombs during the various phases of
this program was for the mostpart the same as that normally used
.,for this type of work in other cases, and, as a result, is not
repeated here. The.few exceptions to this normal procedure.?are
noted in the applicable sections: of the, test, program agenda, as
presented in Appendix A.
Moisture Determination
(a) instrumentations Moisture Detector, Model RC-1, Serial 2187,
Delmhorst Instrument Co., Boonton, New Jersey.
(b) Procedure: ?.. Moisture measurements were made at'three (3)
locations, approximately 1200 apart, at
stations at the top; middle and bottoms of both
the mortar tube and projectile body. The
moisture measurements made by the instrument are
a function of electrical conductivity between
two fixed pins. driven into the material to be
tested.- . The results reported are the average
of 'all: stations.
Moisture content of-the propellant and burster
charges was determined by the weight loss of
weighed' samples after. ?72 hours-1. dessication.
All moisture deteaminations were made immediately
after the removal of the unit package wrapper
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
oZCR T
3_) Field Operation of Bombs
The Leaflet Bombs tested. were normally ignited by means of the
black powder initiating fuze 'provided. In cases where the fuze
was desensitized as the result of bitumen-wetting, it was clipped.
off and . the initiating quick match fuze was ignited directly,
In those cases where the internal projectile time fuze failed to
.function, the projectile was.later disasse..:bled and the.burster
_7
charge ignited to determine:.jts ,condition. If satisfactory ignition
'were,obtained in these cases, the burster charge was marked as "Ol`F
in `.the following tabulations*-
Immediately prior to their-test-firing, all bomb cannisters were
filled with 14 ounces cif dry.-sand and paper. The sand provided
a ' simple method of obtaining the maximum weight - loading allowed by the
specifications; the paper provided an easily visual check on the
air burst-point of the projectile,
4) Field Observations
The height of projectile burst. was measured by triangulation,,
using a transit to sight the burst point over a 200 foot base line,
Accuracy of this method is believed to be within plus or minus,
five (5) feet. The estimation of the maximum height attained by
a Leaflet Bomb projectile.was made by adding'a correction to the
observed. burst height. 'his.correction, in feet, approximated the
drop of the projectile from'its apex of trajectory to its burst
point,.. The accuracy of these-corrections is, of :course, open'to
question since they were based on-non-instrumented estimates; we
believe, however, that they were accurate. to within plus or minus
ten (10) feet,
Where.no projectile burst was obtained, the height observed with the
transit is-the-maximum trajectory height achieved.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
IV. DESCRIPTION OF LEAFLET BM S TESTED
The Leaflet Bombs tested were standard service items received directly from
a stock which had been stored in igloos for an estiiated two-year period.
These items were manufactured by the 50X1
the date of manufacture was not shown on the gross 50X1
packages, although it was believed to be during early 1953x..,
The storage conditions of the Leaflet Bombs, prior to their receipt at
the Reservation and assignment to permanent storage in igloos was again
gown. The satisfactory test results obtained from the teas received"
bombs indicated, however, that these initial storage conditions could
not have been extreme. Subsequent storage conditions in the igloos is
somewhat better known, although the time-cycle factors involved are wholly
open to,conjecture. It is estimated that the temperatures involved under
these conditions were:
Maximum igloo temperature:
8O6F
Minimum
t
32?F
Maximum "
humidity
:
90$ R. Ho
Minimum " .
"
x
50% R.H,
The transportation factor involved in the original "as-received" sample of
Leaflet Bombs was also unknown, although it cannot have been adverse. It
was known, however, that only rail and truck transport were involved..
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET,
V. RBSULTS
A. Test A: Cri ina1 Sam le Performance Test (Test Firing ' s received")
-9-
l) Physical _Insgection:
A total of .20 samples were inspected at the start. of this test,
fifteen (15) for firing tests and five (5) for disassembly and.
-internal inspection. No variation from the original drawings and
specifications was observed,
Although there was no section in the specifications specifically
pointing out the. possible area for. inspection, there did appear,-
however, two (2) cases in which the leaflet cannister was held
tightly in the projectile body by a slight excess of glue used
in assembly; this was not considered a'serious fault, as the chamber
could be removed with a, small amount' of' effort,
2). Moisture Contents
The moisture content of the "as received" mortar tubes and
projectile bodies was determined by conductivity measurements
immediately after the unit-package wrappers were removed from the,
bombs. The.propellant and burster charges were removed from five,(5)
samples and immediately placed under dessication for moisture deter-
mination by weight loss. These results were as follows
MOISTURE CONTENT OF ORIGINAL $A PLB
Location of Measurement
Avg.
Max.
M
win
No. Samples
a). Mortar tube
9.6
10.2
,
9.1
15 samples
b) Projectile base
9.7..
~ 9.3
8.8
15 samples
c). Propellant charge .
4.30
- .
--
5 samples
d) Burster, charge
4.39
5 samples
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
71CF ET
11.
FiringTest
in the preparation of the bombs for firing, the single-faced' corrugated
cardboard liner, used toprotect the projectile in the tube during
shipment, was not removed. This error introduced a considerable
increase in friction between the projectile arid the mortar tube during
firing; its effects. should be taker into Account when the firing results
are considered, since it prevented many of the.projeetiles from reaching
the expected maximum height of trajectory. It also very probably
caused the relatively large number of mortar tube bursts experienced
in this test.
Summary . of Results
The results obtained in the OriginallSanple Performance Test are,
tabulated in Table 11, page 11 of this, report.,
B. Test i Accelerated 3.n _ Test 16o 0 R.H. for 2 weeks
1) 'Physical ins aectLon
...A total of thirty seven units ware used in this test; twenty-eight (28)
were stripped from their unit package wrappers and were inspected
immediately. No variation from the original drawings and specifi-
cations was observed.
2) Moisture Content of Bare Units
Using the same, points of measurement and methods for determination,
the moisture content of the bare '(without unit-package wrapper) units
under various conditions of test were as follows:
(a) Prior to Test ("as received")
aisture Content. -Avg;.
Location of Measurement tax. ' Mm. i San es
Mortar Tube 11.7 7.1 28 samples
Projectile Base 12.2 9.0 .28 samples
-SEC R ET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET
TABULATION OF RESULTS FOR TEST A
ORIGINAL SAt1'LE PERPORrof_' yCE TEST
Bomb Used In
Number Test Tube Pro-.
A-I 9.1 9.2
A-2- 10.1 .. 9.2
Moisture
Avg.
Packaging
Pre-Firing Condition Firing Record
Component Action
Height, Ft.
Time Quick Prop
Proj. Burst
Est.
Obs.
-Fuze Match Chg.
Fuze
Chg..
Max.
Burst
Remarks
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
125
115
11
n
rt
11
IT
85
75
n
tt
rt
:r
n
150
3.32
to
tt
,r
it
_
26
Tube burst-, went.up with projectile. .
tt
IT
If
ti
it
153
153
Tube burst, but projectile unhampered,
11
It
n
n
It
.150
132
If
-t
Slow
It
115
75
Tube burst; prof. burst poor.-
n
n
It
n
n
150
132
r~- -
it
If
IT .
If
150
132
`tube burst
but projectile unham
ered
ti ..
If
It
It
140
132
,
p
.
n .
tr
rt
It
If
?
85
79
Unobserved; projectile height and
burst good.
It
If
It .
If
If
153
153
11
It ?
It
0t
It
il0
.
91
Tube
burst, but projectile unhampered.
Ft
If
n
tt
It
110
11.8
.
A-3 a 9.8 9.2
A-4 j. 10.4. 9.4
A-5 10.2 . 9.4 .
A 6 9.2 9.1
A-7 9.4 8.8
A8 9.5 9.7
A 10 9,7 9.4
A-iO '9.5 9.4
A-U .9.5 9.5
A-12
A 13
A-14
A-15
A
9.7 9.4
10.1 _. 9.6
9.5. 9.0-
9.4 8.9
Note: I. Inner wrapper of single-faced corrugated chipboard was left, in place"around projectiles
during this test. This error accounts for poor heights observed*
.6Q C-1-R b
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET -12
Moisture Content, Avit.
Location of Measurement.
After 24 Hours in Test
Max.
Min. No. Sanples
Mortar Tube
Projectile Base
c) After 48 Hours in Vest
Mortar .Tube
'Projectile Base
43
26 2.9 samples
28 samples
55 29, 25 samples
70 28 25 samples
On the basis: of continued total failure in firing, the test
was. concluded at this point.
Ioisture Content of' Unit-Packaged Units
After l days i.n. Test
Komar Tube 12.5 11.8 11 samples
Projectile-Base 12.6 12.1 11 samples
On the basis of significant. failure .in firing, the test was
concluded at this point.
4) Firing Test Results
a) Bare Units
.
After the first period in test (24. hours' duration) none of ..
the three (3) bare bowbs withdrawn for test firing.could be fired
All time fuzes were found to be. totally desensitized' by melted.
bitumen from-the fuze covering. All. quickmatch igniter trains.
were totally ruined by water-wetting; the same condition was
found in the black powder.propellant and projectile burster
charges.- In each of the above cases the black powder was soggy
with water; none could be ignited by an open flame.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECkT
After 48 hours in test, the bare units were in worse physical
condition than before, in that water-wetting had progressed
further to render entire units soggy and without physical
strength. The units could not be handled without their
collapsing and tearing.
Unit-Packaged Units
After 24 hours in test none of the three (3) packaged Leaflet
Bombs could be ignited by their original ignition time fuzes.
Subatitution of new fuzes in these test units allowed the
ignition and satisfactory performance of the propellant charge,,
The projectile time fuzes, however, had suffered the same de-
sensitization by melted bitumen and, as a result, no projectile
bursts were obtained,
The moisture content of the unit packaged Bombs, however,
showed no significant increase above that of the original sample
range at either the 24 hour test mark or the 7-day test mark.
In view of their continued initiating and projectile fuze
failures, however, the unit-packaged Bombs were removed from
test at this point.
Some difficulty was experienced with the unit-packaged units
which had been conditioned at 160?F for 7 days, in that the
cannisters in five (5) units were glued tightly into the
projectile and could not be removed.
Summary of Results
In view of the fact that-no units subjected to this test could
be fired either at all. (in the case of bare units) or only by
means of new fuzes (in the case of unit-packaged units) firing
results do not exist in useful form and are therefore omitted
S 4 C ET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SEC T - ,
from.this.seetion. A su=-ary appears, however, in Table
of this report.
Test II: Cycling Test`
1) Physical Inspection
A total of nine (9) unit=packaged units were uaed in this section
and were given a physical inspection immediately after their removal.
from test. No variation from' the originaldrawinge'or specifications
was observed..
2) Iioisture Content of Packaged Units.
Using the same points and methods for determination,- the moisture
content, for each-6f the units: in this test was found to be as shown
in the tabulation 'of results, Table III, page. 1.5 of this report,
,3) Firink. Tests
All firings except one were quite satisfactory; the single exception
was caused by a mortar tube burst* .,
4) Su ary of Results
The results obtained in the Cycling Test are tabulated in Table III,
page 15 of this report,,.
a. Test III% ' Safe Storage Test
12 Physical Inspection
A total of twelve (12) units, six (6) bare and six (6) in unit-
package wrappers, were used in. this test. .The bare units were in-
spected 'immediately .prior to conditioning, and the unit-packaged
were given a similar inspection immediately before firing*
variation from the original drawings or specifications was observed.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
TABLE III
TABULATION OF RESULTS FOR TEST II
CYCLING TEST
Pro-Firing Condition
Firing Record
% Moisture
-viz.
Component Action
Height,' Ft.
Packaging
Bomb
Used In
Time
Quick
Prop
Prof. Burst -
Est,
C
bs.
Number
Test
Tube
Pro j.
Fuze
Match
Chg.-
Fuse CY
Max.
B
urst
II-1
Unit Pkg.
.9.8
10.5
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
130
1.17
11-2
10;0
10.3
ar
n
-~
n
r ..
150
".
112
11-3
n
9.7
10.3
ti
,~
tt
n
tt
140
127,
IT 4
10.0
10.6
sr
rt
n
a
145
132
1I-.5
tr
10.5
10.0
n
tt
ss
tt
et
140
123
1X-6
10.1
10.3
it
n
a
n
n
40
B
11-7
9,8
9.7
n
si ,
n
~s .
n ..
140` -
127
11-8
tt
10.8
11.0'
tr
tt
rt
~-
st
140
127
11-9.
10.4
11.5
sr
tt
rt
n
n
125
112
Remarks
Tube burst, went up Faith projectile.
SECS
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
sCIfug
-I&
Moisture content of all units was measured after conditioning in the
test chamber. The results are tabulated in TableIV, pages 17 of this
report. -:.
3 ). Firing Tests
In general, those units subjected.to high temperature (160?F) failed
because'of time fuze desensitization by melted'bitinen. while the
2) ' Moisture Content
tabulation of results shows operational failure ?f several fuzes
.the actual burster charge pounder was in excellent condition-arid
was readily ignited in each case by. an open flame soon after the f iring
test.
Two (2) tube ' bursts. were experienced in" this test..
4) Sumary of -Results
The results obtained in the safe Storage Test are.tabulated in
Table IV, page 17 of this rep?rt,.'
ETest' IV: . Operating Temperature Limits Test
l) Physical Inspection
A. total of eighteen (la) units were-used in this test. No variation
from the original drawings and specifications was observed..
2) Moisture Content
22
Moisture content of =only the bare units was determined, since previous-
tests had indicated that the ;unit package wrapper was capable of preventing
the entrance of water vapor into the.package. The results are tabulated
in Table V, page 16 of this report,
Firing Tests
As previously. experienced with high temperature conditioning, those
units in?.;the 160?F part of this test all showed. failure of the initiating
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
TABLE IV
TABULATION OF RESULTS FOR TEST III
SAFE STORAGE TEST
Pre-Firing Condition
Firing Record -
% Moisture
Avg.
Component Action
Height. Ft.
Bomb
Packaging
Used In
Time
Quick
Prop Pro j..? Burst
Est,
Obs,
Number
Test
Tube
Pro.i.
Fuze
Match
Fuze
Chi
Max. .
Burst
III-1
Bare
9.7
10.7
Fail
OK
OK
Poor
OK
*111
GNP
111,2
10.3
11.0
Fail
H
"
Fail
"
*106.
None
111-3
9.2
11.2
Fail
"
Fail
*106
None
111-4
Unit
Fkg?
12.2
11..9
Fail
u
Fa
.*120..
None
111-5
11.6
10.7
Fail.
Fail
*130
None
III-6
11.8
11.2
Fail
Poor
50
GND
111-7
Bare
9.3
10.4
OK
OK .
OK
OK
OK
135
125
IIZ-B'
10.4
11.7
"
"
Pail
if
*125
None
III-9 .
n
9.8
.11.0
"
"
OK,
"
149
135
III-10-
Unit
Pkg.
11.0
10.8
ff
n
a
127
107
III 11
"
11.7
11.8
"
It
n
"
ff...
.135
125
111-12
11.4-
11.7
"
ft ? -
if
ff
ft
* 46
GND
Observed Height
ci
1
co
-,4
. 0
V4
-rq
Tube burst, went up
with projectile.
Tube burst, went up.
with projectile.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
TABLE .
Firing Record
TABULATION .OF PESULTS FOR TESL IV
OPERATING T. 4PERATM LIMITS `PEST
Pre-Firing Condition
% Moisture
Avg.
Packaging
Bomb Used In
Number Test Tube
Pra .,
IV -1 Bare 9.7
IV-2 10.3
IV-3 fr - 10.5
.IV-4 Unit Pkg:
10.2
10.6
10..7
IV- 5 n tt
iv--6 . tt n - .
-
IV-7 : Bare 9.9
10.8
IV -8 10.3
111
10.5
I1-9 .
11.1
17--10 Unit Pkg,
IV-111
IV12
IV-13 . Bare 9.5
9.6
IV-14 10.3
10.2
IV-15 " 10.1
10.0
IV_ 16 Unit Pkg.. 12.0
13.4-
IV-17 " ?
"
12.0
13.6
W-18- a
is
11.9
12.9
Component Action
Time Quick
Fuze- Match
Fail OK
Fail 0K. Poor
Fail "
Fail "
Fail.
Fail, .
OK
"
0K
it
Height, Ft.
Prop Proj. Burst. Est. Obs,
Fuze- Chg. Maur.. Burst
Poor Poor OK
. 1 25 GNI
Poor Fail
?25
None:
OK. Poor
*137
GND
Poor
97
GF U
"
Fail.
* 97
. Nona
OK
OK
OX
147
137
" .
xr
133
113
U
1r
130
118
tt
n
133
Tt
"
108
.93
n
tt
137
122
0x
ox
OK
135
ag. OK
tt " n
# Observed Heights.
'c,
Delayed-burst after prof.
fell-to ground..
Disassembled for individual
component. tests, -.
15 second delay in?
projectile bursts
4f tV Ii 4t
* 38
GND
R
Tube burst and went up with
projectile.
140
120
64 5
147
132
t
136
121
c+. ~s
134
119
00
CIQ U_
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET
-19-
time fuze. The failure of the projectile time fine was not as
frequent in this test; however,, as in the Accelerated Aging Test
Section. No failure of propellant or burster charge was noted#
Those units subjected tc both the 1201? and -40?F sections, of this
test were 'entirely satisfactory as regards firing results, although
one (1) tube burst was experienced.
gun ary of Results
The results obtained in the operating Temperature Limits Test are
tabulated in Table V, page 18 of this report.
F. Test V; Safe Transport ,Test
1) Phys .cal Inspection
A total of twelve (12) unite were used in this test; six (6) were
stripped,of their unit-package: -wrappers while the remainder were
left packaged. Inspection of both lots showed that there was no
variation from the original drawings.and specifications.
2) Moisture. Content
Moisture content of the units stripped from the unit package wrappers
was measured immediately before conditioning; that of the packaged
units was measured immediately after testing. The results are
tabulated in Table VI,' page 20 of this.reports
3-)_ -Altitude Testing
No effect of increased altitude was noted in any. of the units them-
selves, whether or not they.were packaged during the test. The unit-
pabkages themselves, however, were found-to be subject to "bloating"
as the result of a relative .;increase in internal pressure during the
simulated climb to higher altitudes. This "bloating5 of the package
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
TABLE Vi
TABULATION OF RLSULT'S FOR TEST. V
Pre-Firing Condition
moisture
Avg.,
Packaging
Bomb. Used In
Number Test Tube Pry
V-1 . Bare 9.9 10.4
V- 2 tt 11.6 11.8
V-3 11.4. 11..0
V-4 11.9 11.2
.V_5 10.6 10.8
Vv6 11.6 11.7'
V-7 . Unit Pkg. 10.8 10.6
V--a . tt tt 11.9 11.8
V9. It tt 11.4 10.5
V--10 It tZ 11.~9j 11.3
Y-11 " " 11.7. 11.8
V-12 Tt tt 11.8 .11.6
TRANSPORT TEST
Fir:] n; Record
Component Action
Time Quick Prop Proj Burst
Fuze Match CIg. Fuze Oh&
OK Ox OK OK OK'
tT it 9 tt tt
ct
tt tt tt it
tt tt it it
it tt Slow it
it tt OK '
tt tt Tt Tt . 9
tt tt tt t tt
tt n tt it tt
tt tt tt tt Tt
Tt it it It it
if it it Slow it
Heigtai?,
Est.
Max.
{Otis.
Burst
203 188
192 .182
174 164.
186 176
146 106
119. 109
133
128
115
142
124
157
123
100
137
109
12
Tube burst at. base.,
Late projectile burst (fuze slow)
Late projectile burst
.Note: 1... All projectiles loaded with 14 oz. of sand and. paper:.
SEC
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
by entrapped air from within the Bombs,,.caused a very slight rupture
of only one package; the remainder held
since th. did. not bloat to .any significant degree -except under very
without failure Four (4).
of .the unit... packages exhibited sympti hs o,f slight pin-hole leak
high rates of simul4t4d climb . ( . e?. ,.quick reduction in external
4)
The units subjected to the Safe Tranoport Test.were satisfactory as
air pressure).
Test. Firing;
conditioning,
The results obtained in. the -.Safe Transport Test are -tabulated in:
5) Summary of Results
rather than the result of t
regards the results of test. firing, although one (I) tube burst was
observed. The tabulation shows two, (2) projectile time fuzes whichh
were slow in acting; this is believed to be a manufacturing fault-.
Table VI, page 20 of this reports
G. Test VIt Vibration Test
1) Physical inspection
completed. No variation from the original drawings and Specifications
A total.of -. twelve (12) unite were, used in this. test, all of which
were kept in the unit packages throughout the testing procedure,
Physical examination bias performed. after the .vibration, testing wa
observed..'
2) Moisture Content
Moisture content was measured immediately after-the Vibration. Testirng. .
The results'of these measurements are tabulated in Table VII, page 22.
of this report,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
` TALE VIZ
T'IBULATIO.tt OF RESULTS FOR TEST VI
VIBRATION TEST
Pre-Firing Condition
% Moisture
Avp;.
Firing Record
Component Action Height, Ft.
Packaging
Bomb Used In Time Quick Prop Prod. 3urst Est. -: Obs,_
Number Te6t Tube Pro , Fuze Match C fuze C '. .. Burnt . ,`,
VT-i Unit Pkg.
Vi.-2
vi-3
VI -4
VI-5
VI-6
.t ff
ft ft .
V1-7
VT-B
VI-9
VI-10 .
VT-11.
VI--12
0
11.5 -12.0 OK OK OK OK OK 124 109
11.5 12.0. -~ -~ Vt ~- If
135, 120
0
11,6 11.7 .n ft . It n fr - '.135: 120
11.2 11.5 f f ? tt tt ft If 130. 115
12.1L 12.1 It tt It- M 135-120
.
11.6 11.r~ cs !1 if ti tf ff 109 94,
8.6 10.2
9.5. 10.3
1?2 . 10.5
10-0 10.9
10.2 11.0
.9.3 11.3
OK OK Off
ff ft tt
ft U ft
OK
U.
ft.
it
tf ?U U, 2.r
f- ft ft. tt
126 ill
140 125;
135 120
126 111 _
155 140
150 135.
r: T
Remarks
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET
_23_
3~ . Vibration Testing
Physical inspection of the packaging, packing and the units themselves
showed no damage attributed to the teat conditioning.
4 test Firing.
The units subjected to the .Vibration Test were satisfactory as regards
the results of firing; in view of the fact that these units were
uniformly excellent in their performance, the .results of this test
can be used to supplement those from' the Original Sample Performance
Test, page 11 of this report.
? Summary of Results
The results obtained in the Vibration Test are tabulated in Table VII,
page 22 '.of this report.
H. Test VII: Rough Handling Test
1) Physical Inspection"
A total. of twelve (12)-units were used for this test. In viers of,
the fact that these units were to be intentionally damaged to determine
their physical resistance characteristics, only the bare units were
given a physical inspection at.the beginning of the test. There was
no variation observed-from the original drawings and. specifications.
2) Moisture Content
Only the projectile moisture was measured. in this test, since it
was believed that physical damage to the tubes would cause a large
number of tube bursts in firing and this, in turn, might mistakenly
be attributed to tube moisture content. The results. of these measure-
ments are'tabulated in. Table VIII, page 24 of this report. 'Measure-
ment of moisture in all units was made immediately after removal c'i'
the unit package wrapper.
0. d fir .^ft
1~~ .rs_J
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 { t r,l m
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
TABLE V
TABULATION OF RESULTS FOR TEST VII
Pre-Firing Conditioi
% Moisture
Av*.
ROUGH HANDLING TEST
Firing Record
Packaging
Bomb Used In Time Quick PropProj, Burst
N aber Test Tube Prig Fuze? Match Ch ;s raze- CM.
VIII.
VII-2 .
vii-5
VII-4
VII -5
VII-6
VII-7
VII-8
Unit Pkg.
n 0 -
tt
11
tt
Bare
n
VII--9 Unit Pkg.
VIT10
10.3
10.2
9-7
10.1y
9.9
9.3
9.9
U. 5
10.8
10.5
VII-11.. Bare - 10.5
VII-12 It 10.5
it
fI
Component Action
fi ff tf 9
f! TV tf
IT if
It tt if If
it ft 11 - if
it R1 it If
17
fI ft if 9t
it it ti - ff
Height, Ft.
Obs.
Burst
Remarks
123 93
101 81
150 130
131 111
131 ill
140 130
116 106
108 98
123 108 Tube burst, but projectile unhampered.
25 GND tube burst, went. up with projectile;,
126 ill
123 108
ground burst.-
Observed Heights
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
. ivy" E1
21
Drop Testing
All drop testing consisted-of a free fall froari' a height of ssven (7)
feet the unit being dropped~.to strike in the required position on a
concrete slab. The results obtained were as follows:
Bomb Extent of Testinn Results Obseaeg
4)
VII-1 2-drops each end; total
4 drops. Unit barb*
None significant; slight fra;
of mortar tube muzzle end.
VII.-2. 2-drops'each end; total
4 drops. Unit bare,.
VII-3 2 drops each side; total
4drops. Unit bare.
VII-4 2 drops each side; total
4 drops. Unit bare,
VII-5 Alternate end drops .to.
destruction. Unit bare.
None significant; mortar tube
knocked slightly elliptical.
4th drops Propellant-cavity
cover paper split slightly.
7th dro . Slight show of powder
leakage; cannistsr of projectile
opened up slightly.
120th drop: ' Tube base wooden
plug split. Unit useless.
VII-6 Alternate side drops to 8th s Slight split in
destruction. Unit bare# propellant cavity paper cover;
small leakage.
10th. drop: Increased above split,
opened.second split in paper
cover.
12th drop; Black powder leakage
apparent in considerable quantityy
16th drops Significant leakage
of propellant powder from cavity.
28th drags.. Large leak,'unit
useless.
VII-? through -12: same procedure and sequence was used for testing these
unit-packaged units as was used for the bare units.,.
No damage was observed in any of these units?
Test Pirin
All of the units subjected 'tb. the Rough Handling Test were isatiefacto
as regards the results of firing. These results are tabulated in
Table VU1, page 22 of this report.
Irl
ET
SECR
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SECRET
VI. DISCUSSIQ
Th CONCLUSIONS
Initial inspection of Table ,: "Summary of Failures f mm L11: Test
Conditions" appears to indicate .that failures in the Leaflet Bomb .aecur
in 80% (8.out`of 10) of-the test conditions' considered.. Closer in-
speation. and evaluation of the
failures
however, brings the entire.
picture. into clearer focus and . points out quite clearly those areas
in which the Leaflet Bomb is most susceptible. The analysis of
these areas is as foilowss.
1) Time Fuze Failure
Occurs only under 160?F conditions. . Occurs in 'both packaged ands
unpackaged units. Can. be definitely attributed to the melting
of the bitumen fuze, covering.
2) Quick Match'. Failure
Occurs only in. unpackaged units. Occurs ' only under high 'moisture
.Conditions. Can be definitely attributed to water wetting.
3) Propellant Charge Failure
Occurs only under same'conditi?ns
tributed to water-wetting...
4) Projectile Fuze Failure
as " (2) -Can be definitely at-
Occurs. only under same-conditions as (I).: Can be definitely at-
tributed to the same causes as (3)~
5) Burster Ch Me Failure
Occurs only under same conditions as (2):and We Can be definitely
attributed to the same causes as (2) and
(3)
S --No
. E r
. ..
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
w,n:tviLZ 1
TABLE IX
SU".11ARY OF FAILURES
FROM ALL TEST COIDITIONS
Test Conditioning
"As Received"
160?F --90% RH
160?F 22% RH
120?F - 22% RH
-40?F
-60?F
Cycling
Time Quick Prop. ; Prof. Burst
No. Samples Fuze Match Chg, Fuze '
Bare
Pkg.
Bare
Pkg.
Bare
Pkg,
Bare
Pkg.
Bare
Pkg.
Bare
Pkg.
15
0
28
28
11
11
6
6.
6
6.
3
3
3
3
Bare.
Pkg, 9
Altitude. 40,000 ft. Bare
Pkg. 6
Vibration
Rough Handling
Bare -
Pkg.. 12
Bare 6
Pkg. 6 0
0
-28
28
28
0
0
11
.0
0
0
0
'1 t1
'11.0
9.7
.0
1
0
0
10.6
Tube
Tube Moisture %
Burst Nin,
Avg,
9.1
9.6
11.8
--
0
9.2
9.9
1
11.6
11.9
1-
9.5
10. Q
0
ll.'9
12.0 .
9.9 . 10.12 10.5
9.3
9.8 10. 4
11.7
1144
10.1 10.8
10.2
12.5
10.5
12.2
10.3
12.0
1.9
11.6 . U.9
8.6 10..6 12.1
-7-;'. Er
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
Tube Bursting
Occurs under a wide range of conditions, including the as receivede
sample.. Occurs ,primarily but not,`exclusively in the units which were
tested in the packaged condition. Occurs in tubes having widely
differing moisture contents.
Since this. information is inconclusive, and there was no pattern observed
in th'e method. or configuration of tube bursts, this type of failure would
appear to be random. It is certainly.cau,ed by. excessive breech,pressure
-during firing; this was adequately. proven in Test A, jihen th? cardboard
liner,'was left wrapped around the projectile ',during firing.
If this failure is random
d is caused by excessive. breech pressure,
then it must:'be.attributed to the fact that the design and material Of
the tube has onlylinarginal.strength.for'its function.
Conclusions.
1) The Leaflet Bomb will not fuhcti?n after being stored at a temper.-
ature of 16011F, but can survive a temperature of 1200F.
The.Bomb cannot survive high humidity without being protected.by its
unit package.
3) When stored in its unit package at. temperatures not exceeding
approximately 120?F, the bomb appears to be reliable under all the
simulated-test conditions to which it was. exposed.
Tube failure is random, not depending on any controllable variable.
It appears to be caused by only marginal strength for pits function.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
SEC ET
APPENDIX A
FROM LETTER TO CLIENT, DATED DRCE1 BER 61_1X354
Subjects Proposal for the Modified Engineering Testing
of the Leaflet Bomb
During the writer's ,recent visit to your. office, Messrs.
requested that
submit a proposal fora mo
_29-
.ed 50X1
engineering test.agenda- of the Leaflet Bomb and its unit packaging.. At that
time briefly outllmed the test areas of interest for the bomb. 50X1
The following reflects the agenda developed here at
based on 50X1
50X1
outline and later modified slightly during a telephone conversation
December 2, 1954, between 50X1
In general it is our belief that these tests should be performed primarily
to obtain the maximum amount of-information possible on the effects of moisture
on the black powder propellant and burster charges of the bomb, ' and on the physical
strength of the mortar tubes. Knowing these effects, the.. protection afforded
by the present unit package can be quite easily determined. With this view
point in mind, we propose the following agenda
Test As Original Sample Performance Test .
Since it 'has been reported. to us that : a relatively high failure rate has 'been
experienced in the field with this unit, it is felt that an original., sample per-
formance'test should he conducted before any other environmental tests are per?"
formed. In this manner the reliability of-the igloo-stored units and possible
causes for their field failures can be established. -Should deterioration already
have occurred during storage, the test will ' signal this 'condition and allow the
necessary early revision of the. following test agenda.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
S jK -4 I
1) Fifteen '(15) units required for test.
2) Select ten (10) units for immediate firing, after determining:
a) Percent surface moisture of the mortar tube.
b) General condition of the bomb exterior and'its packaging.
3) Select five (5) units for propellant and'-burster powder inspection.
a)' Remove powder charges, obtain representative samples of each
and dessicate to determine, moisture content.
'Inspect internal components, such as joint bonding,
wrappers, etc.
Test ?, Accelerated. Aging Test (160?F, 90% RH for 2 weeks
1). Thirty seven (37) units required.for:test.
2) Place 28 bare units in test after determining surface. inoisture
.content of each mortar tube.'
a) 'Measure surface moisture content of mortar tube each day.
b) Test fire one unit each alternate -day,
c) Draw charges- and determine powder noisture content, one
wilt each alternate day.
Continue (a), (b) and (c) above until a firing failure point
has been reached; at this point attempt test firing of twc
additional units from sample: Make moisture determinations of
powder and inspect internal components of all units failing to fire.
Dry remaining samples at 1120?F?,-5(j% RH for one week and test.
fire to determine recovery.
3)
Place nine (9) unit packaged units in test and run for two weeks.
At completion of run, strip six (6) units, determine surface
moisture content of mortar. tube, and fire immediately.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24 CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
?31_
b) Draw . powder charges of remaining three (3) units and determine
Test II, C3ycling Test
Four cycles. as follows:
4 hours 0 125?F, 90% RH
2 hours @ 80?F, 90% RH
2 hours 0 -10?F
16 hours -0 460F,, 22% Rte
.Nine (9) unite packaged items required for test. Strip six (6) units
.from unit package after test, determine surface moisture of mortar
tube and fire immediately.
2) Draw powder charge,from three (3) remaining units and determine
moisture content. Inspect internal components.
'3) Compare results -with those from Test-A.
Test III, Safe Storage Testj Part -A (160?F, 22% RH, 36 hours)
1). Six (6) units required for test, three (3) unit, packaged, three (3)
bare.
After coriditionina,,remove items and fire. after 24 hours at room
temperature.
In view of, the insulating properties of both the packaging and the
unit.construction, these units shall be allowed to remain in the
conditioning chamber at 160?F for 12 hours longer than required
.by the nominal test.
Test III, Safe Storage Test, Fart D (-60?F. for 36 hours)
1)' Six (6) units required for teat; three (3).unit packaged', three (3)
2) After c
diti
on
oning,, remove items ;and fire. after 24 hours at room
tem
e
t
r
p
ra
u
e. ,-= ~,,
..J : i lJ 1 1 .LJ
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
3) In view of.the insulating.properties .of both the packaging and the
unit construction, these u its shall be allowed to-remain., in the
conditioning chamber for 12 hours longer than. required by the
nominal, test.
Test IV, Operating Temperature Limits. Test
1) Twelve (12) units required for this test.
2) Depending on the, results obtained ,from Test I; A>ccelerated Aging
Test, the high temmperature test of this unit to determine its
operational limits may or may not be elizrinated. If successful
firing is made at 160?F after 24hours at this temperature in 'rest I,
further high temperature testing shall be eliminated.
limit is determined.
If Test I 'shows failure of the units. to fire, six (6) units will
be tested at 120?F, 22a IRH. Fa-lure of units to fire at this temperatures'
will be followed by successively . reduced:, temperatures until a satisfact647
upper firing temperature limit, ha,s been determined.
Six (6) samples each will br+ subjected to -40?F; an unsuccessful
firing of the unit at this' temperature zei11' be''followed by .successive
increased temperatur.ea until the successful lower firing temperature
Test V, Safe Transport Test (4 hours at 40,000 feet. altitude at room temperature l)
1) Twelve (12) units'required`for test.
2) Subject six '(6) unpackaged- units to test; fire' four (4) immediately
after units have been brought back to ambient temperature, break down
two (2.) units for internal inspection.
Subject six (6) packaged units to test; fire four (4). i_rmnediately after
units have been brought back to ambient temperature, break down two (2)
and inspect.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
-33-
4.) Should the unit package envelope burst because of the high pressure
differential encountered in this test,. six (6) 'additional. packaged
units shall be substituted-and a limit determined for the maximum
-safe altitude at which these units can be transported.
Test VI, Vibration Test (10-60 cps,. in 5 cps: increments, 15 minutes per
increment, mina um acceleration of, 2 gt o )
1) Twelve (12) units required for this test.
2) Submit six ' (6) units to vibration test with.lot gitudinal axes
horizontal. Fire- four (4) units ipmiediately, break down two (2
and inspect.
Submit six (6) units to vibration. test with longitudinal axes
vertical. Fire four (4) immediately,-break dotes two (2).for inspection.
Test VII, Salt Fog Test
This test shall not be. performed, since it is firmly-believed that the Salt
Fog Test would cause immediate and total deterioration of the unit
possibility of recovery by diving.. No-.effect would be made on the 'packaging.
Test VIII, Rough Handling Test (Multiple drops from 6 foot height)
1) Twelve (12) units required for this test.
2)- Subject six. (6) unpackaged units to the following drops, 'two (2)
units per drop.
a) Two drops, each end from 6 feet onto steel plate, longitudinal
a is vertical. Inspect for damage and test fire.
Four drops from 6 feet onto steel plate, longitudinal axis
horizontal. Inspect and test fire immediately. .
c) One unit dropped from 6 feet, alternating ends, longitudinal
axis vertical, until obvious failure occurs. Evaluate damage and,
if possible, test fire. One unit dropped from 6 feet, longitudinal
axis horizontal; continue drops until-obvious failure. Evaluate
failure and., if possible, test fire.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9
lJVl1~l 1LJLli1 I It L
Repeat procedure outlined in'(2) above, using packaged units.
Evaluate damage,. and record additional protection if any afforded
by the unit package. Test fire at ',completion.
Test IX, Plunge Test-. This test shall not be performed in view -o.f .the fact that the effects of
packaging "breathing". can be observed during other?tests, in addition to the.
fact that-it is believed that a'high rate of ternperature change would not cause
physical damage to this unit,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/06/24: CIA-RDP78-03624A000900020001-9