Page images

Foreign commercial transports, which before the late 1970's were a negligible factor in total world sales, accounted for about 40 percent of widebody aircraft sales (essentially the only market in which they compete) in the 1979 to 1982 time period. Soviet military aircraft development has continued unabated. If we are to avoid losing transport manufacturing jobs to the Europeans and the Japanese and maintain the other national benefits that result from a leadership role in aeronautics, we must increase our support of aeronautical research and technology. Fortunately, there is much synergism between civil and military aeronautical R&D; both sectors will benefit from expanded research. As we have stated, and as the OSTP study affirms, industry cannot on its own provide this leadership role. It needs government support, particularly for long term, high risk technology programs. We believe that industry and NASA working together, with increased Congressional support, can maintain our preeminence in aeronautics.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to express our thoughts and


[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

QUESTIONS OF Senator Gorton and the AnsWERS THERETO

Question. The fiscal year 1984 budget request contains funding in the Research and Technology Base for the Integrated Program for Aerospace-vehicle Design (IPAD) data management program. Does private industry, in fact, have its own data management programs that provide the same capabilities as the IPAD program? What work is private industry now doing in this area of data management? Answer. IPAD is adressing the major problem of defining and implementing a data base management system for a large scale distributed computer system networked to mainframe computers having very large resident data bases.

Private industry does not have management systems that can satisfactorily handle this problem. In fact, the industry is now taking first steps to implement a Relational Data Base approach that was developed by the IPAD program (RIM).

Private industry has been strongly supportive of the IPAD program, as evidenced by the very active participation of a large number of companies as members of the Industry Technical Advisory Board (ITAB) to IPAD. The industry considers that IPAD has provided, and should continue to provide, a strong and necessary stimulus to the development of management systems for computer-aided design and manufacturing.

QUESTIONS OF Senator Heflin and the AnswERS THERETO

Question. Is your company's computational capability currently a limiting factor in your ability to perform advanced aircraft design work such as Lockheed has often excelled in?

Answer. No, it is not. As you probably know Lockheed is an industry leader in computerized design and manufacture; our licensed system is now in use by many major corporations.

Question. In what time frame would you place the contribution of NASA's proposed numerical aerodynamic simulator to the enhancement of your company's or industry's design capability and efficiency.

Answer. The contribution of this NASA program will not occur at any particular date but rather will provide an evolutionary enhancement. Its use will expand extensively in the future years as the system itself develops. It will allow aerodynamic experimentation to become much more efficient since such efforts would be supported by very sophisticated and almost “visual” analysis techniques.

Question. Was your industry panel able to suggest why the Agency or the Administration has cut off the prop fan development program in fiscal year 1984 without any funding for the flight research phase which seems so clearly encompassed by its own policy statements?

Answer. Our panel simply believed that there were total budget limitations and that the systems programs were reduced because it must have been assumed that these programs were those that could most likely be funded by industry. Further, with limited funds NASA should probably concentrate on the more fundamental research that provides the path to the future.


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor and privilege to be able to present to you today comments on the NASA Aeronautics Program as proposed for fiscal year 1984.

We are heartened by the fact that the Executive branch of the U.S. Government is willing to increase the NASA aeronautics budget for Fiscal Year 1984 to some $300 millions, up 7 percent from Fiscal Year 1983 and do this in this year of budget pressures. Competition for the free world civil air transport business is becoming fierce, as foreign governments recognize the benefits to their society from the high technology air transport industries and establish goals and provide the resources to secure increased shares for themselves. U.S. Industry is being hard pressed to maintain its historical dominance of these markets. NAŠA has a unique role to play in this international competition and it is our desire to assist them in every way possible to realize the maximum benefit for the U.S. and that is what we would like to address for you here today. This concern, as well as a number of related issues, were evaluated by a multi-agency governmental study group under the chairmanship of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, and we want to publicly support their recommendations.

They confirmed the importance of aeronautics to national defense and the national transportation system, and recommended a continuation of the government's role in aeronautical research and technology to "ensure the timely provision of a proven technology base to support future development of superior U.S. aircraft,” and “a safe, efficient and environmentally compatible air transportation system." The study group noted that the aircraft industry is a major U.S. enterprise. It noted that a major factor influencing the future prospects for U.S. manufacturers is the sustained development and availability of new and advanced technology.

Our technology assessments at McDonnell Douglas convince us that there are large potential payoffs still available from aeronautical research and technology effort spanning the full range of NASA activities from fundamental knowledge gained through basic research to the proof-of-concept or technology validation stage so critical before application can be considered for future military or civil aircraft applications. We believe NASA has a unique capability and a unique responsibility in the area of technology validation and it is in this area that we believe the Fiscal Year 1984 NASA program should be strengthened. We do not want to address the R and T base here today. We do want to say that we believe NASA needs to re-establish Systems programs as it is in this area where NASA may make its greatest contribution through the mechanism of multiple technology programs cooperatively and continuously pursued.

Several key system areas have been identified as having high potential payoff in the downstream years which represent programs that are too high risk, too long in return of capital, or are too expensive for industry to do alone. This is where NASA Systems activities are needed to help keep this country competitive. Previous NASA efforts have done much in developing the base Research and Technology in many areas and work has progressed to the point where industry, in cooperation with NASA, has begun to invest its limited research funds in support of several of these proof-of-concept Systems Programs.

Some of the NASA Systems Programs have been outstanding successes in the past, and have given the latest U.S. civil transports dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency. Many of these programs show promise of even further improvements and need to be continued. Specifically, the Systems programs we endorse and should be included in NASA Aeronautics program are:

Subsonic Aircraft Systems which includes Composite Wing Primary Structures, which deserves our highest priority; Laminar Flow Control, which should be funded to continue the successes demonstrated to date; Active Controls, Supercritical Wing and integration effects of these concepts.

Advanced Propulsion Systems which includes the Advanced Turboprop Program, which should be funded in Fiscal Year 1984 to assure realization of and early flight research program, as well as continuation of the successful Energy Efficient Engine and Advanced Turbofan programs.

Reinstitution of an Advance Metals and Structures Systems program to offer benefits across more than aeronautics where metal matrixes, advanced lithium aluminums and advance metals are just now emerging from the laboratories.

As noted previously the foreign government-industry technical community has established R and D programs in many of these technical areas in an attempt to get


ahead of the U.S. industry on future product offerings. We must maintain our momentum in Aeronautics and we look to NASA to help guide us.

These are the principal areas we felt it important to address, and I want to thank the committee for giving us the honor and privilege for being able to focus on these systems studies activities here today.

Thank you.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]



Long Beach, Calif., May 6, 1983.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR GORTON: You have asked me to comment specifically about how useful the results have been to industry from the NASA Terminal Controlled Vehicle, now called the Advanced Transport Operating System in the NASA budget.

Enclosed are comments on this subject from our Flight Test and Operations organization which we have discussed with many people in government. We can only speak for the value of this program to the Douglas Aircraft Company where we have our own extensive research capabilities and not for the rest of industry where the TCV could possibly be more useful.

Thank you for asking us for our views, and I am sorry that they are not more supportive.





(TCV B-737)

1. From the very beginning of the TCV Program, the return on investment of this program has been qualitative only, and most certainly not quantitative.

2. The Douglas Aircraft Company to date, has yet to derive any major beneftis from this program.

3. One of the main purposes of the TCV Program was to increase airport capability by utilizing the microwave landing system and advanced pilot displays (largely through the use of CRT's).

4. It should be interesting to note, that in the FAA's ten year National Aviation Development Program, which is reviewed yearly, still does not forecast operational usage of the microwave landing system, let alone the capacity increase purported by the TCV Program.

5. A major purpose of the TCV Program was dedicated to complete heads down approach and landing. This type of criterion is and was completely inappropriate for commercial operation, yet the program continued and there is nothing today in the vast future for any commercial airplanes designed or to be designed for this type of


6. I should be of interest to note, that the CRT's that are currently in use were independently developed irrespective of the TCV Program.

7. If the budget situation is one that would allow for research for research sake, then having a program like the TCV may be in order.

8. To summarize, it is our position that this program be eliminated for any current or future budget consideration.


U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., Long Beach, Calif., April 18, 1983.

Dear Mr. HEFLIN: I am sorry I have not responded sooner to your letter of March 25, 1983, but it just arrived in my office on April 12.

Your questions focused on an Advanced Turboprop propulsion system and can be answered quite easily regarding the application and risk status level necessary in order to make that application. We at Douglas have been evaluating the concept in detail since 1975.

The funding level for Douglas to recommend is a little more difficult to answer, since it involves a prioritization of other NASA Systems Technology programs and a redistribution of funding from R&T Base to Systems Technology.

Enclosed are our responses to your specific questions. We appreciate your interest and recognition of the importance of the NASA Aeronautics Budget and want to thank you specifically for asking for our opinions on specific programs. Even though the NASA Aeronautics budget may not be very large in comparison to the overall NASA budget, it is a very important and vital building block for the aeronautics industry and the U.S. in maintaining a national resource competitive in the world marketplace.




Question. Do you view the advanced turboprop as a promising propulsion system for airline needs beginning about 1990 in the very extensive medium size, medium range world transport market?

Answer. The Advance Turboprop Propulsion (ATP) System is a concept that seems to offer considerable fuel savings since it was first investigated in 1975 under NASA sponsorship. Douglas has continued to conduct application studies and has focused on the short-haul market area as a first application where the size of the powerplant engines required would be lowest, being on the order of twice the size of the current production engines. Thea early to mid 1990's timing is the earliest window for the system to enter the operational stage.

Question. When would the required technology demonstration program have to be completed to give your company confidence that it could risk design and development of an airplane incorporating that propulsion system in time to compete for that market?

Answer. In order to achieve the early to mid 1990's time period for an operational system the risk of the concept would have to be reduced to a guaranteeable performance in the 1987 time period. For a guaranteeable performance, a large scale flight test evaluation is required so that the technical issues of blade performance, aerodynamic interference with the aircraft, and acoustic treatment could be fully understood. With the data in hand, a production commitment could be made with a high confidence level in the performance of the total system and would be accepted by the airline user.

Question. Of the $30 million augmentation level for NASA's 1984 R&T budget suggested in your statement, how much would you recommend be allocated to the advance turboprop to realistically support that target date?

Answer. To conduct a large scale flight test in the 1987 time period, a Systems Technology budget in the order of $12 to $15 million would be required. Along with this budget a $5 to $8 million R&T Base budget level is considered necessary to work on the supporting technologies. In arriving at the suggested $30 million augmentation of the NASA Aeronautics budget we considered a significant budget reallocation from Base R&T to Systems Technology and a prioritization on rescoping of many of the Systems Technology Budgets.


On behalf of United Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Group, I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to share with you our views on the adequacy of the Administration's budget request for NASA's aeronautics programs. To begin, I would like to compliment the Congress for augmenting both the Fiscal Year 1982 and Fiscal Year 1983 NASA aeronautics budgets. Following your actions, the Administration published its new "Aeronautical Research and Technology Policy" report last November.

This document is an excellent and comprehensive statement, drawing from inputs in twenty-two reports prepared by industry and compiled by an able group of government people, from DoD, NASĂ, FAA and the Department of Commerce, led by Dr. George A. Keyworth, II, Dr. Victor H. Reis and Dr. Louis T. Montulli of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. United Technologies wholeheartedly endorses this new aeronautics policy. Particularly noteworthy quotes from the report


"The United States depends heavily on technical superiority of military aircraft Continued strong advancement in aeronautical R&T is essential for national se"Large gains are expected from continued aeronautical R&T."


"Aeronautical R&T development activities in support of future military and civil applications are largely common. . . A healthy, competitive civil aeronautics manufacturing industry reduces the cost of providing an essential military industrial base."

In previous United Technologies Corporation testimony before this Subcommittee, Mr. Richard Gamble, Group Vice President of United Technologies and President of our Hamilton Standard Division on March 10, 1982, and I on behalf of Pratt & Whitney on April 1, 1982, supported the case for acceleration of the Advanced Turboprop Program, as well as for funding NASA's aeronautics programs, both in the generic Research and Technology base and in Systems Technology.

Some of the points of previous testimony are worth repeating, particularly since many are reflected in the new "Aeronautical Research and Technology Policy" doc


Aeronautics is second only to agriculture in terms of U.S. exports, and ranks number one in net exports.

Civil aeronautics technology contributes tremendously to military aeronautics products, which in turn represented 40 percent of U.S. defense procurement in the Fiscal Year 1983 budget. There is much evidence of NASA contributions to technology which benefited both commercial and military aviation.

It is imperative that the U.S. maintain its position of world leadership in aeronautics. This will require: (1) enormous private resources to finance high technology ventures, and (2) a continuing ability to stave off government-supported foreign competition through U.S. leadership in technological achievement. Our government and industry must work together, more than ever, to maintain first place.

Of prime importance is the continuing long-term generic Research and Technology base effort to advance the state-of-the-art on a broad front in an evolutionary way. In addition, novel concepts of great promise must be investigated and pursued, when appropriate, to establish proof-of-concept. In the propulsion area the Advanced Turboprop or Propfan is a noteworthy example of this.

Foreign government-supported industries are narrowing our country's once-dominant leadership in aeronautics. Foreign manufacturers are already pursuing turboprop aircraft. The French are already in the fourth year of their own advanced propfan program, with the test of a propfan model planned for 1984. The Russians are predicting that propfan Soviet aircraft will enter service in the 1990's, at the same time or even before the West manages to put a propfan into service.

Timing of the Advanced Turboprop Program is critical. Industry must be ready for the market opportunity expected to occur in the early 1990's when current, aging, short/medium range aircraft will need replacement. Studies have shown that there is a potential swing of $50 billion in trade balance hinging on capturing this market.

Much up-front proof-of-concept work, supported by NASA's Advanced Turboprop Program, needs to be done before the U.S. private sector can undertake a new large turboprop aircraft for production. Given our industry's near-term funding requirements, it is unlikely that U.S. industry could commit funding for this proof-of-concept work in a timely manner. In addition, in order to utilize this technology, U.S. industry, at its own risk, will have to invest approximately $2 billion of its own money to develop a product and sell it against foreign competition on the world market.

The fiscal year 1983 NASA Authorization Bill specifically recommended augmenting the Advanced Turboprop Program, with a flight test-bed research program. As yet there has been no action to implement these recommendations and the program has been omitted from the fiscal year 1984 new initiatives. Further, there are no new programs to develop technology to carry large turbofan engines beyond the Energy Efficient Engine (E3) Program. Such long-term technology effort is essential to insure continued U.S. leadership in propulsion for future generations of both turbofan and turboprop engines into the next century. Nearly three-quarters of all current aerospace exports are civil and military transport aircraft. Of the 18.5 billion gallons of fuel consumed in 1980 by U.S. aviation, about two-thirds was consumed by aircraft with large engines (defined as over 10,000 pounds in thrust for a turbofan or 7,500 shaft horsepower for a turboprop). It should also be noted that by far, the major portion of the improvements in jet transport aircraft fuel consumption have come from advances in propulsion systems technology. The greatest potential for fuel savings and trade balance improvement derives from aircraft dependent on large engines and their technology.

NASA's Energy Efficiency Engine Program, known as E3, has provided substantiation of many new propulsion technologies. Many of these have been applied to Pratt & Whitney's PW2037 engine, with 37,000 pounds of thrust, now under devel

« PreviousContinue »