could be less than half of the SST's, which might ultimately permit overland flight and greatly expand their markets. These aircraft, however, have immense cooling problems. But just as prior years of work on hypersonic flight are now making possible a space shuttle, the current concentration of effort on space shuttle thermal protection systems may accelerate development of hypersonic cruise aircraft. Recent work at Langley and elsewhere has increased our optimism that the HST is feasible.

We tested a flight-weight hypersonic ramjet in our 8 foot high temperature structures tunnel.

We are now planning an R&D program for a relatively small hypersonic research aircraft which we would hope to propose to you in the next year or two, along with some key facilities to support it. If we stop reaching toward future opportunities such as this, we most certainly will never realize them.

Military Aircraft

Langley devotes fully half its wind tunnel time to the support of military aircraft and missile projects. For example, we have recently helped develop a modification to the wing of the F-4 fighter which improves both its spin and maneuvering characteristics. We have spent thousands of hours helping the Navy and the Air Force refine the aerodynamics design of the F-14 and F-15 fighters. We are equally committed to the B-1. Less well known but equally important is our testing of missile configurations where we have helped engineer some important improvements. We also devote testing time to understanding the aerodynamics of foreign equipment, an effort from which we have developed tremendous respect for the competition.

Supporting Research

Behind all these vehicle-oriented efforts lies a great depth and breadth of research in the supporting fields of structures, loads, dynamics and control, materials, avionics, and operating problems. We do significant work in each of these fields and have been trying to focus this expertise on areas of greatest opportunity. To illustrate, during our recent reorganization, we decided to increase our work in the broad field of aircraft structures. This was done because some very important opportunities are clearly visible. For example, there is the great potential of filamentary composites and the use of adhesives in fabrication of aircraft. Both of these weight reducing techniques need flight demonstrations. There is also a unique opportunity for high speed computer to automate much of the aircraft design with better resulting optimization. Accordingly, we modified our Structures Division to include a program to develop new automated design methods. We also organized a new Materials Division to consolidate our materials researchers, and to increase our long standing effort on composite structures.

Even the capabilities in our new Environmental and Space Sciences Division are being brought to bear on aeronautics. Our scientists are using optical radars to probe the atmosphere to detect and study clear air turbulence, trailing wing tip vortices, and pollutants. If we are to conclusively answer the questions about the possible modification of the stratosphere by a fleet of SST's, we must measure its current condition and monitor any departures therefrom. The tunable gas laser is one new approach to this problem.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, a full discussion of our aeronautical program at Langley, our progress and our problems, would take much more time than we have available today. I would hope that the Subcommittee and its staff might honor us with a visit in the not too distant future to inspect the Center and to continue these discussions.

Let me close by reemphasizing our commitment to our role in aeronautics, our desire to accelerate progress, and our need for your continuing support to do so.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I would like to repeat what I told you the last time I had an opportunity to talk before this committee. When I went to Langley 3 years ago I made a conscious effort to assess the state of health of our program within NASA and in the aeronautics industry both in this country and throughout the world and to rate our efforts against the total situation. To make a long story short, it seemed quite apparent to me that aeronautics had suffered somewhat from having

taken a back seat to space and was due some increased effort, and I think that is the situation today.

Mr. HECHLER. That is the understatement of the year.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Thank you, sir. I am glad you said that.

At Langley, a stronghold of aeronautical research for over 50 years, we decided to redouble our efforts and to concentrate on the areas of critical need best suited to our capabilities. We began by undertaking to strengthen our aeronautics staff. We mounted an intensive recruiting campaign for new aeronautical engineering graduates, which culminated in the hiring of about 50 outstanding young men last year. We undertook to automate our wind tunnels to provide more efficient usage and this is proceeding well.

A new V/STOL tunnel became operational early this year, designed to meet special testing requirements in the transition phases of flight from low to high speeds. And, in recognition of the importance of improving our environment, a new Aircraft Noise Reduction Laboratory will be built at Langley, thanks in a large measure to you gentlemen. I must report, however, we are running behind schedule because of unavoidable problems, but hope to make up some of the lost time during construction.

All has not gone as well as hoped. With the succession of cutbacks which will have reduced our manpower ceiling from about 4,200 to 3,600 over a 5-year period, and with continuing responsibilities for high priority aspects of the space program, we have had great difficulty in staffing our aeronautics program. Facing a reduction in staff of about 200 in fiscal year 1972, we have been forced to cancel all hiring of new graduates with minor exceptions. We have also absorbed serious losses in our Staff of skilled technicians who build our models and operate our facilities and equipment. And the need for new facilities continues strong. Overall, I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have made some progress, but not nearly enough.

Now, I would like to skip to some examples of important areas and tell you a little bit of what we are doing and why. First of all, shorthaul air transportation, and I will be brief here because I think Dr. Mark gave a fine summary of the need there and a good example of what we are doing about it.

We also see a real need for a V/STOL air transportation system to relieve congestion at our major terminals, to assist smaller communities in their development, and to open up new business opportunities afforded by better transportation. We have organized a new LowSpeed Aircraft Division to consolidate our effort in this area and to concentrate on a few of the most promising aircraft types for such a system. Our heaviest commitments support the development of an externally blown flap STOL, although we are not neglecting other approaches.

On this particular effort we have made considerable progress here, working primarily with Lewis and the Flight Research Center. Ames is working on a slightly different approach to the program.

Our program reflects, I think, an increased awareness that air transportation is a systems problem, and that a good system must protect the environment and otherwise be a "good neighbor." Accordingly, low noise and low pollution have become pacing design considerations which are the subject of great effort.

Turning to long-range subsonic transports, the current long-range subsonic aircraft are excellent for today's job. But even the new machines which are just coming into service will one day be replaced— probably about 1980. The vast potential market for future years cannot be ignored; it will go to the country with the best aircarft to sell. And because we see evolving technologies which will offer substantial improvements over the existing fleet, we decided to concentrate on the next generation of subsonic transports with a goal toward reducing their adverse effects on our environment, and toward increasing their efficiency, productivity, and safety. Because lead times are long, research must begin now.

May I digress to point out that such improvements in the past have made it possible to hold air fares nearly constant in the face of inflation since 1948, while providing incomparably better transportation. In effect, this meant an equivalent saving in fares to domestic passengers of about $4 billion in 1969 alone.

Mr. WYDLER. You are not talking about the air fares from New York to Washington?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I am talking about transcontinental air transport. Mr. WYDLER. They aren't anywhere like they were. They go up almost on a bimonthly basis, as a matter of fact.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. My data indicate that the transcontinental fares have held nearly constant since 1948 whereas inflation has increased everything else about 60 percent. There were 100 billion passenger miles flown in 1969 at about 7 cents a passenger mile, or $7 billion spent on air fares domestically. If we increase that by 60 percent, that is where the $4 billion number comes from.

To help sustain this progress, we have organized a new transport technology office and have developed an integrated program involving aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, and avionics for the next generation of air transports. One feature of such aircraft will be quieter, cleaner operations, through a combination of improvements. Also, a significant new technology called supercritical aerodynamics will greatly enhance operational efficiencies. Here we have made significant progress during the past year. Our experiments have now progressed to the point where a model transport configuration has indicated capability for flight at near the speed of sound, about 100 miles per hour faster than current transports, with improvements in operating costs as well as speed. Flight tests of the supercritical airfoil section on the T2-C and the F-8 seem to be validating Dick Whitcomb's wind tunnnel on such a machine.

Just a word about supersonic transports, Mr. Chairman. This is a hot issue these days and to take a strong position is certainly to risk being a loser. But I certainly must tell you what my position is. Mr. PELLY. Go right ahead. [Laughter.]

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Langley's commitment to the supersonic transport goes back many years. We have continued to work closely with the DOT and Boeing to help make the SST a success. It is a difficult undertaking, but, in my view an eminently worthwhile one. Many tough problems remain to be solved to meet the goals in range, payload, operating costs, safety, and environmental effects which have been set for the production aircraft. In my judgment, these goals can be met. The two prototype or experimental aircraft could help to teach

us how. I feel that the Nation should proceed with these prototypes as an important step in the solution of remaining problems. If this is done we will later have the option to proceed with production aircraft in a timely way. If we back away from this challenge, the long-range impact on our Nation could be very serious indeed.

Just a brief word about hypersonic transports because I think I have already used up my time.

Hypersonic flight is typical of the very advanced research areas which are suffering from the current wave of relevancy. One might ask, why work on still faster aircraft when we are still debating the SST? I think there are some good answers to this question. I have alluded to a few of them in the material which you can read. I would like to say, however, as a note of progress, that during the past year we tested a flight-weight hypersonic ramjet in our 8-foot high temperature structures tunnel at Langley. The tests were relatively successful.

Dr. Mark gave you a good example of our work on military aircraft, so I will skip my statement on that. I would like to point out something which you may not be aware of, however. We do make a considerable effort at Langley of studying the aerodynamic qualities of foreign equipment and this work has proceeded over many years. I would like to report that we are highly impressed with foreign equipment, the ability of the men who design this equipment, and the obviously good facilities with which they work. I think it gives us all pause to reflect a little bit and at some time you may wish to avail yourselves of a classified briefing on this subject.

The balance of my statement, Mr. Chairman, deals with the area of supporting research, that vast underpinning of the whole program, and I just don't have time to go into that. You have already been briefed at some depth on this subject and I will assume that if you have further questions, you will ask them.

In general, to complete my statement, sir, I would like to say that the full discussion of our aeronautics program, our progress and our problems, would take much more time than I have today. I would hope that the subcommittee and its staff might honor us with a visit in the not too distant future to inspect the Center and to continue this discussion.

Let me close by reemphasizing our commitment to our role in aeronautics, our desire to accelerate progress, and our need for your continuing support to do so.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Cortright.

Mr. WYDLER. How is the wind tunnel at Langley different than the one that they have at Ames?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. The V/STOL tunnel is much smaller. We work with scale models rather than the full-scale machine.

Mr. WYDLER. Thank you.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. We are now ready to hear from Mr. Lundin.

Mr. LUNDIN. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before

you.

Mr. HECHLER. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. BRUCE LUNDIN, DIRECTOR, LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. LUNDIN. When I had the privilege of participating in your hearings on our Nation's aeronautical activities a little over a year ago, I mentioned several technical areas in which future advancements are to be expected, some of the factors which contributed to our strength in this field, and some of the difficulties and problems of concern at the time. With this as a point of reference, I would like to summarize for you today the highlights of our progress in aeronautical research this past year, largely, of course, from the standpoint of my recent experience at the Lewis Research Center. My remarks will, therefore, constitute an updating of where progress is being made, of where our problems are proving to be intractable and of new challenges and opportunities that have arisen this past year.

One year ago, I predicted that significant future advancements were to be found in the fields of avionics, of more thoroughly integrating the man with the rest of the aircraft system, of better understanding the complex interactions between the propulsion system and the aircraft-particularly in the transonic speed regime-and in the somewhat older field of materials. All of these predictions are valid today and, indeed, have been broadened and emphasized as we continue to lay plans and plot our course for the future.

With regard to avionics, and more specifically to propulsion system controls, I am very pleased to report that we are under way on a program of applying the power of the digital computer to integrated engine control. By such a marriage of the computer with the turbine engine, significant gains will be obtained in the performance and operational effectiveness of military aircraft and in the safety and economy of civil aircraft. This program is, I am also pleased to note, a fully cooperative one with the U.S. Air Force in which we share the funding, Air Force personnel establish military requirements and we serve as overall technical managers. The program is structured to satisfy both future military objectives and to provide a broad base of technology for civil applications. Following ground tests at the Lewis Research Center with prototype equipment, flight tests will be conducted by our Flight Research Center with an aircraft provided by the USAŤ. At the present time, an engine is under test in Cleveland with a groundbased research computer and procurement of prototype flight test equipment is underway.

The problems, and technical challenge, of the interactions between the propulsion system and the airframe at transonic speeds continue to be as complex as I had indicated. As I mentioned previously before this subcommittee, this complexity is compounded by the severe limitations of current wind tunnels in this speed range; our research data is, therefore, being obtained from flight tests with an F-106 aircraft. Current emphasis is on the interactions of the exhaust jet with the flow of air around the aircraft-interactions which are significant to aircraft performance and sensitive to the design of the exhaust nozzle of the engine. One rather novel type of jet exhaust system we have been testing is a plug nozzle in which the shape of the flow passage is