Page images

year. So as we talk about the NASA budget, I think it is important that we focus on the small dollars as well as the big dollars, because they have a lot of things going on within the NASA programs that can achieve real results in safety as well.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to review with members of this committee, the very serious challenges facing our industry in view of the highly competent government-subsidized competition we are seeing from our foreign manufacturers. It is difficult to undertand why some of these programs are being reduced to token levels in the budget-cutting process. We believe our industry is a national asset which for many years has set the general aviation standards throughout the world and has annually contributed, until recently, a positive trade surplus to our Nation's balance of payments.

We are being victimized by our foreign competition that generally subsidize their aviation industries to create jobs and increase their market share around the world. And one important area in which the U.S. Government can contribute to the vitality of the aviation industry is in research and technology. It is obvious that it is up to the Congress and this committee to take the necessary actions to achieve this goal.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Senator GORTON. Would you outline for me what you would consider to be the respective responsibilities of the general aviation industry on the one hand and NASA on the other hand to help the industry achieve the level of excellence and dominance that it did a few years ago?

Mr. STIMPSON. Well, I still think we have the excellence and dominance. I think we are being matched from abroad now because they have good technology abroad, as good as we have here. The things that NASA, I think, can do most effectively and be most helpful in is the utilization of its facilities and its expertise and its personnel in some of these programs we have talked about here today where the U.S. industry does not either have the research dollars to do this now or that NASA has had other work going on. We get a lot of fallout also from some of the programs that you heard described by the large transport people today.

Now, sometimes these economies of scale can be transferred down to our programs. Sometimes they cannot. For example, the small engine program that we talked about today. It is very difficult to take what they have done in the large engines and put it in the small engines. This is one area where-and this is why we put such a high priority for NASA proceeding with this.

So I would say in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, some of these programs which are beyond us to undertake from a risk sharing ability right now are those where NASA has the expertise through their facilities.

Let me give you another example. A few years ago at Langley, NASA bought a bunch of airplanes that had been damaged in the flood at Piper Aircraft. Using their lunar landing apparatus, they took these airplanes and they crashed them one after another, and we learned some very valuable information from these crash tests, information which is now going into some of our airplane designs. None of us have that sort of facility in any of our plants anywhere

throughout the country (throughout the world, for that matter) to crash airplanes from an altitude and get that sort of information. So I think it needs to be a well-defined program.

In the past we have been very critical of NASA when they get into programs that we do not think they should be in, where we are doing it ourselves. We say please stay out of that. We do not need your help in this program. Or they can help us in programs of this type, and we certainly encourage it.

Senator GORTON. Thank you. Senator Trible?

Senator TRIBLE. In your judgment, what is the primary reason for the success of our foreign competitors in the general aviation area of late? And what is private industry doing to regain its preeminent position?

Mr. STIMPSON. Well, I think the success has been their determination to get into the aircraft manufacturing business, the ability of their governments to finance every phase of research, design, production, and then help finance their products abroad, and they consider it a top priority national project. And they have selected their marketplace, like the turboprop commuter aircraft market, or the business jet market. They have been selective in selecting their markets, and they have done well.

And I think the challenge we face is to keep our technology ahead and make sure we do not fall behind in technology. And second, we have some very serious trade problems, and I know we are not talking about trade today, but there is the issue of unfair trade practices where they have been able to penetrate our markets with sweetheart financing deals financed by their governments. That has been another very real reason why they have proceeded to penetrate our marketplace with such success. [The statement follows:]



We appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the adequacy of the Administration's 1984 budget request for aeronautics. the 35 companies in GAMA manufacture 95 percent of the aircraft, engines and component parts used in general aviation. General aviation aircraft are the intercontinental business jets flying faster than airliners, the commuter aircraft that now serve many of our cities, and turboprop and piston engine-powered aircraft serving business and personal transportation needs.

Research and development have long been important to our industry. Until recent years, our competition came primarily from within our own own ranks, and new technology applications often had a significant impact in the marketplace. Our manufactuers have historically invested about five percent of their sales dollars in R&D, and they continue with a substantial commitment today.

However, given the debilitating effects of world-wide recessionary economies over the past few years, the total R&D investment dollars have decreased with our sales which were down 30 percent in 1982. Unit deliveries are down 75 percent from three years ago.

During this same period, competition from foreign manufacturers—especially in the business jet and turboprop classes-has increased significantly. Aided by strong support from their governments-from capital investment to R&D funding to export finance subsidies-these competitors have taken aim on the United States market, and have enjoyed an incredible degree of success: about 60 percent of their total sales are made here. Forty-three percent of all the business jets and 50 percent of the 15-19 passenger turboprops sold in the United States last year were manufactured by foreign firms. This is more than just a challenge to our industry; it constitutes a serious threat to our national pride and leadership in aviation.

The long-term effects of such market penetration-especially if sustained-are not hard to postulate. Already the toll on employment in our industry has reached record levels. The positive balance of payments, contributed for years by our industry, became a trade deficit in 1981 and continued through 1982 when import dollars exceeded exports.


Continuing development, research and engineering have brought new technological advances that will lead customers to the marketplace. Among them are new pressurized, cabin-class singles and single engine turboprops. Our goals are efficiency and speed: single piston engine cruise speeds over 200 knots; twin engine piston speeds of 300 miles per hour; single engine turboprops covering 350 miles per hour and turboprop twins topping the 400 mile per hour mark. Meanwhile, our new jet designs are flying 10,000 feet above the airlines, avoiding airway congestion while operating with very high efficiency and outstanding performance. All of these technological advances bode well for a strong, product-oriented recovery. Facilities and plants have been or are being modernized or expanded at a number of locations to meet future demand.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) statement released in November 1982 is most encouraging. Overall, we think this is a forthright and constructive statement. The conclusion, that continued research in aeronautics is in the national interest, is particularly welcome in view of past attempts to deemphasize the federal government role in aeronautical research. This White House acknowledgment of the importance of government-sponsored R&T is most timely, especially for our industry. There is a finite limit as to what our individual companies can do and, with the dramatic increase in government-supported competition from abroad, the U.S. Government has a vital role to play. Given the unique and superb NASA facilities, computer capabilities and expertise, the U.S. can outpace the competition if the necessary programs are adequately funded.

As we review the NASA budget request in the area of "Aeronautical Research and Technology," we are indeed encouraged by the $63.9 million increase over the 1983 estimate. That encouragement is short-lived, however, when we examine the Administration budget and find that NASA's request has been adjusted downward by $43.6 million. The reductions are hard to understand when one considers the findings in the OSTP Study and the competitive success our trading partners are enjoying in our marketplace with their technologically sophisticated airplanes. We are particularly concerned that most of the projects which appear to have the greatest potential for the general aviation industry have been reduced or zeroed out. Accordingly to NASA, the budget request before you includes only $7.1 million for the general aviation sector.


Included in this group is the Advanced Turboprop System which involves research in the high-speed, .8 mach number propeller; the entire $8.7 million original NASA proposal has been eliminated. To remain competitive world-wide, this technology is very important. The Congress recognized the importance of this program in 1983 by adding $15 million after the Administration had zeroed out the program. We ask that this Committee take similar action in 1984.


The tremendous gains in performance, efficiency, reliability, noise and emission levels we have seen in larger engines underscore the great potential for improvements in small engines. This is an area receiving priority attention by our overseas competitors. The $4 million requested is a modest sum to initiate a program that can pay big dividends in the foreseeable future. The $4 million originally programmed would be the first installment on a 5-year, $50 million effort that we strongly support.


This is another program funded by the Congress at $3 million in 1983 but eliminated in 1984. It explores the question of synthetic, alternate fuels for use in aircraft powerplants. We should not let a temporary fuel glut this year wipe out the recognized need to look to the long-term availability of fossil fuels and consider alternatives.


This program has great potential for the general aviation industry, and another one which the Congress funded in 1983 despite a zero budget request. The Administration has again sent to the Congress a zero budget request for 1984. The importance of composites to the industry is underscored by major, on-going, companyfunded projects. Nonetheless, the support of NASA in this new technology area is vital to its development and we encourage the Congress to provide funds in 1984 again as they did last year.

Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to review with the members of this Committee the very serious challenges our industry faces from a growing number of highly competent, government-subsidized foreign manufacturers. It is difficult to understand why general aviation research and technology is reduced to a token level of effort in the budget-cutting process. The industry is a national asset which for many years set the general aviation standards the world over, and annually contributed a trade surplus to our nation's balance of payments. This situation has changed radically in the last two years. We are being victimized by foreign governments that generously subsidize their aviation industries to create jobs and increase their market share around the world. One important area in which the United States Government can contribute to the viability of its aviation industry is in research and technology. It is obvious that it is up to the Congress to take the necessary actions.

Senator TRIBLE [presiding]. I thank you very much for your testimony today, and I can assure you that this committee is going to do all it can to provide an adequate measure of support for the general aviation industry through the important activities of NASA. Thank you, Mr. Stimpson.

Mr. STIMPSON. Thank you very much, Senator Trible.

Senator TRIBLE. OK. Next we will have a Space Shuttle and fifth orbiter panel. Dr. Klaus Heiss, Dr. Michael Yarymovych, and Dr. Stanley Rosen. And anyone else you might have with you that you wish to bring forward.

Welcome, gentlemen.


Dr. YARYMOVYCH. Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael Yarymovych, I appear here as president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The AIAA is a nonprofit technical society with over 34,000 members who are engineers, scientists and students engaged in every sector of the aerospace profession from industry to Government to the universities.

The institute's professional membership is divided into 68 sections around the country. To further scientific and technical advancement, we have 51 technical committees covering every aspect of the aerospace profession. Our testimony today does not necessarily represent a consensus of our membership anymore than one administration is a perfect representation of the will of all the people. Our testimony represents the expertise of a select group of our members who were given this responsibility by me in my capacity as president of the institute. We welcome the opportunity to offer an outside perspective on our Nation's role in space.

As we observe the 25th anniversary of NASA, we recognize the need to build on our heritage and to maintain a balanced and dynamic civil space program within the fiscal constraints of the 1980's.

As we have consistently reported to the subcommittee in the past, the NASA program is, in our opinion, the wrong slice of the Federal budget in which to trim our Nation's relatively modest ongoing investment in research and development.

To this end, last year we generally endorsed the level of NASA space activity proposed by the administration while pointing out several areas where an increased investment was justified. We commend this subcommittee, as well as the entire Congress, for appropriating more resources for NASA than were originally requested.

As President Reagan clearly recognized in his state of the Union address, we live in a country ever more dependent on technology for its strength and survival. We therefore feel confident that there are few ways to better invest in the Nation's future than in the space program, an area which today commands a relatively small portion of the Federal budget.

For this reason, as well as others expressed in our written statement, we are compelled to advocate a more vigorous civil space program for fiscal year 1984 than that which has been proposed by the administration.

One of the key components of our national space program is, of course, the space transportation system. In your invitation to us to appear before this committee you specifically asked us to address ourselves to issues regarding the Space Shuttle, including the need to procure additional orbiters, and our assessment of the market for Space Shuttle operations.

Whereas our submitted statement contains detailed commentary on all aspects of the proposed NASA budget, we will confine our brief remarks here this morning to the subject of the Space Shuttle.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the AIAA issued a paper detailing our view of U.S. national space policy in May 1982. I would like to submit the full paper for the record.

Senator TRIBLE. It will be made part of the record of these proceedings.

Mr. YARYMOVÝCH. Thank you.

Two areas of that paper specifically addressed the Space Transportation System. First, we recommended that it should be a goal of the U.S. space program to, and I quote, "achieve routine access to space through continued commitment to an operational space transportation system sized to meet both current and projected needs for defense, commercial, science and foreign users.

[ocr errors]

To accomplish this goal, we further recommended that the United States should "continue and expand the evolutionary development of a versatile operational space transportation system adequate to support projected traffic demand, incorporating elements to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of carrying freight and personnel not only from the Earth into orbit but also between various Earth orbits and other trajectories." And "should initiate procedures to determine the optimum operational mode for the

« PreviousContinue »