Just what does the public want? Last year Piper Aircraft brought out this airplane, exhibit F, a Piper Clipper. It sold for $2,995 and carried four at 112 miles per hour, giving about 18 miles per gallon. Surely that would count as cheap transportation; about 6 cents an airplane-mile on an extensive-use basis. But you never know. They've been outsold this year by Cessna with their four-place 170, which is roomier, 10 or 15 miles an hour faster, and costs twice as much.

You also think of slow landing speed and small-field performance when you think of Piper. Some think that slow landing is the secret of mass acceptance.

Piper also now has what he calls his Super Cub. It is a really spectacular up-and-down airplane and will cruise around 105 miles an hour.

For crop dusting and spraying, for ranch and farm use in the Midwest, it has a steady market. But Piper's Clipper, or, as the later model is known, his small four-place Pacer, is outselling the Super Cub, even though it lands much faster.

There are others, some 20 additional models in all, which could be cited, not counting four now at Fort Bragg in an Army Ground Forces competition.

But the foregoing illustrations should suffice to show that the private and industrial user has today a wide selection of aircraft from which to choose; also that he is unpredicatably choosy.

He also has a wide selection of prices-on down, in fact, to many incredible bargains at from $750 to $1,500 in the used-plane market which are going begging.

Some of the proponents of S. 2984 may say, "Yes, that just proves the point; the second-hand markets are glutted with bargains because these airplanes lack utility." But that isn't true. The market is glutted because a lot of people were oversold on personal flying during the war and rushed in without a proper understanding of what the personal airplane can and can't do for you. Those people have gotten out, or are trying to get out, but a lot have also stayed.

There are about three times as many people actively using airplanes for business and pleasure purposes now as there were before the war. some of them are people who can afford to fly purely for the pleasure it affords them. Most of them find that for the type of business travel they engage in, that is, not on a rigid schedule, the modern airplane not only saves them money but increases their productivity. Most of them would like to go faster. Some of them would like to land a little more slowly. All of them would like lower first costs. But, as stated earlier, they find their biggest problem is the weather. I would say, in all, that the private airplane is finding its way. is doing it in a free, natural manner, without subsidy of any kind. Its greatest future development lies in an opportunity to continue to seek its own level without Government aid beyond those things which are a proper concern of Government, namely, aids to navigation and traffic control, where traffic control is needed.

It

It must be remembered, too, that when you talk about private flying you are talking about private flying in the United States, for there isn't much anywhere else.

In England there are approximately 250 privately owned airplanes and about 250 owned by Government-subsidized flying clubs.

In France there is about the same situation. In both these countries all airplanes are built directly by the Government.

This system has produced neither any reasonable use of private airplanes in those countries nor has is produced any miracle airplanes. As a matter of fact, our present American airplanes out-fly and outsell in the export market anything those countries have to offer.

Why, then, should we be put out of business by our own Government? With S. 2984 law, no one who did not receive subsidy could afford to stay in the aircraft business and compete with those who did.

It is hardly necessary to point out that, from that point on, all would be lost, for you know better than anyone else how bureaus work. Nothing less than full and complete and rigid control would satisfy them, and they'd get it. Then you'd have a disappearance of competition and of the consumer writing the specifications as he now does and should always be allowed to do in a democratic country. The question which you are considering is the nationalization of an industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams, do you have any questions?
We thank you, Mr. Collins. We understand your language.
Our next witness is Robert Fulton, manufacturer.

Are you the steamboat Fulton, or just another? [Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF ROBERT FULTON, PRESIDENT,
CONTINENTAL, INC.

Mr. FULTON. Well, I sometimes claim they dug me up, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you here. You may proceed in your own way.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, sir.

I am president of Continental, Inc., a small corporation operating entirely on a free-enterprise basis in Connecticut.

I come here representing only myself and, possibly because of my position with this organization, those who are interested in free enterprise.

As such, I have the feeling that you have quite an assignment with this problem. You have almost two irreconcilable forces that you are trying to bring together.

The bill in question undoubtedly has a great many merits. I can see them particularly from the point of view of an individual with a small organization attempting to finance it, to go out and raise money with which to do it.

You might be slightly familiar with what we have been doing during the past 3 years. We have, during the war, been occupied with the development of equipment for the Air Forces.

In the process of doing that, we flew all over the United States, found constantly that we were not getting what we considered sufficient utility out of the aircraft. The airplane would take us some place in a considerable hurry, would put us down at an airport, and would leave us stranded.

We came to the conclusion that man basically lives on the face of the earth, that he can get up in the air for a short length of time; he can travel at a high speed, he can get to a destination in a hurry, but when he gets back on the ground again, which he inevitably

must in short order, he is there stranded, and some form of local ground transportation is mandatory. It is an economic necessity. However, with an aircraft, which we looked at, we saw it had an engine, it had controls, it had a place to sit. It had all the basic component parts of the vehicle, and yet you could not drive it down the

road.

As a result, we determined that the only thing to do was to leave behind the parts that stopped you from driving it down the road, and go into the business of making a machine that could be both flyable and driveable, thereby giving what we considered to be important utility to the aircraft.

That immediately brought up the problem of how will we finance it? How will we go about doing it?

Well, we had made a little bit of money in the process of developing equipment and manufacturing it during the war for war purposes. With that we set up a small plant. We went to work on this job. We soon used up what funds we had available, and had to raise more.

It became strictly a free-enterprise proposition. I have become, as a result of doing that, or at least I should say I have had a good deal of experience, in going out and actually raising the funds.

I know what questions people ask. They ask, "How many of these machines are you going to sell? What are your markets?"

To be perfectly honest with the people with whom I am speaking I have to admit that I do not know. I feel that we have a potential market; I believe in it personally. I believe in the product that we are making, and that it is right, and, if we can successfully produce the article, that other people will feel the same way and will use it and, as a result, I believe I have been reasonably successful in obtaining the necessary funds, and have carried the product or the development of our product to the point where today it is successful, and I feel that in effect that is a very important part of the development of this industry. It can be pointed out that private enterprise has not succeeded in putting across the proper type of aircraft design. I would take exception with that.

I feel that a tremendous amount of money has been invested in this business, in this development work. As a matter of fact, I would put it this way: that the $5,000,000 which it is proposed to be brought forth by this bill would not even in any way match the endeavor that is going in from the point of view of free enterprise today in doing it.

True, many people can point out that the present aircraft manufacturers are not spending very much money on development work. However, I am sure that there are at least 30 or 40 individual organizations in the country today, many of them very small organizations like our own, with limited resources, that are spending far in excess of this in terms of services rendered, in terms of thinking and hard work put into the project.

If, for example, I were given a contract as a result of funds made available by this bill, it would probably cost the Government somewhere between, and I should hardly admit this, but it would cost five and six times what it would cost presently for us to do with respect to our work.

In other words, we will turn to the Government and say, "If we are going to do it on a contract basis, it will cost so much per hour, so much for engineering, and so much for this and that."

Today, because we so thoroughly believe in what we are doing, we will do it for 10 cents on the dollar; we are willing to work harder, to produce something that we sincerely believe in, and if the Government had to buy that same belief on a strictly cash basis on top of the table, we would naturally say, "Well, you would have to pay what you would have to pay if you went into the open market to buy it," and I believe this type of bill runs the very critical danger of discouraging that free enterprise, of making those who are interested in going out, like ourselves, and in producing something which we feel fills the need, and which is really the basis of free enterprise that, in turn, as a result of filling that need we will gain a profit from it, and everything will go along for us. We think that it stands the severe danger of disappearing; that the private individual will simply figure that he cannot compete with the Government.

Now, as I understand it-I do not know a great deal about this bill, to be frank with you--I learned about it only last week, I have been so busy on our own development work that we have not had any time to be concerned with what is going on in the legislative end of it but, as I understand it from talking to several people last night, the purpose of the bill really is not to have the Government go out on its own without any consideration for the manufacturer or the free enterpriser, or otherwise to decide what they want to have done, and go ahead and spend the money to do it.

It is rather to have the Government act as a source of income or a source of funds to which the individual manufacturer, like ourselves, can go instead of having to go to individual independent banking interests and obtain backing for what we are doing.

From that point of view, in many ways, I think it is an admirable thing. It makes it possible for the manufacturers to get the money from one source or another; provided, however, that it does not in any way interfere with the free-enterprise system.

If in this bill there can be included some way by which there is a competition put into it, whereby a man feels that he is competing for something against other people, and in turn has an opportunity to gain by giving, then, I think that you have got something that will be extremely good and will be helpful.

On the other hand, if it is strictly an affair where a group of men sit down and decide that, in effect, they want the moon, they want the straight-up machine, and that it will have uncanny performance and will sell for an extremely low amount of money, I rather question that it will be possible to get that without the expenditure of considerably more money than would be expended if the free-enterprise system were allowed to work on its own.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you, Mr. Fulton, for giving us your views; and your views are very well expressed indeed.

Mr. FULTON. Senator, may I interrupt long enough to invite you, if you care to, to come out and see our machine which we have outside? We have driven our airplane to your front door, and if it would interest you, it is out there at your disposal.

The CHAIRMAN. I would certainly like to see it, but I do not know that I have time. I have to finish up this hearing and get down there on the floor of the Senate, but I do appreciate your invitation, and the first opportunity I have, I hope to see your machine and, perhaps, ride in it.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, sir. I would be delighted.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Collins, did you want to leave these exhibits with us?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Leave them with us, thank you.

You may proceed, Mr. DeHaven.

STATEMENT OF HUGH DEHAVEN, MEMBER, CORNELL COMMITTEE FOR AIR SAFETY RESEARCH

Mr. DEHAVEN. My name is Hugh DeHaven. I am a member of the Cornell Committee for Air Safety Research, and I am authorized to speak for this committee in the matter of prototype aircraft, Senate bill 2984.

We have considered this bill, and the committee endorses its objectives.

The committee views the stagnation in design, production and use of personal aircraft with regret. We have seen the postwar concept of an air-minded nation fade to the point of sterility.

We have watched the production of Luscombes, Taylorcraft, Aeroncas, Swifts, Bellancas, and Ercoupes decline, and with this decline have seen too many who have had great hopes and large stakes in the personal aircraft industry abandon their hopes and enter other fields of endeavor.

The manufacturers who have gone bankrupt and those who still struggle to survive are belatedly aware that their product is not reasonably acceptable to the public.

Those who still are in healthy financial shape recognize that what they have to sell can reach only an extremely small and limited market. If conditions continue without change only this small and extremely limited market will remain.

Private flying will, in the future as in the past, be held to those who can pay high costs, who will risk present hazards, and who will put up with the limited utility imposed by weather, and by aircraft which are designed basically to go only from airport to airport.

It is in the national interest that we see factories reopened and that production and design be stimulated in the personal aircraft field.

Without reserves of instructors, pilots, maintenance men, craftsmen and production at grass roots levels of flying in this country, we can be seriously embarrassed for immediate aviation reserves in the event of future air-borne warfare.

The obstacles on which so many dreams of popular flying have foundered are deeply rooted, but if American ingenuity and enterprise can be encouraged and assisted, past obstacles can be uprooted, and new hopes for a vast expansion for production and use of personal aircraft can be generated.

The Cornell committee does not foresee any reasonable possibility of radical new and important improvements in the design of an aircraft incorporating the safety and utility which will make such an aircraft widely acceptable for public use without Government assist

ance.

The committee does not regard this prototype bill as being limited in its scope to the building of prototype aircraft approximating anything that can be readily visualized today.