페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

The committee does not feel that the objectives of S. 2984 should be directed toward building another aircraft which, in substance, would be a motor, a propeller, and a pair of wings. It would be the hope of the committee that the funds visualized under S. 2984 would be used to encourage research which suggests some possibility of breaking away from conventional tractor and pusher aircraft design.

An increasing number of designers believe that the concept of jet thrust, boundary layer control and induced flow holds promise of direct lift, low landing speeds, and cruising speeds, which conceivably could alter all past concepts of utility, safety, and costs of flight.

These, of course, are concepts and hopes. Unfortunately they are costly hopes which cannot be explored with the limited funds now available for research in the personal aircraft industry.

Unless such concepts are explored, where is the hope of leaving the wing engine and propeller combinations of the past, and what is the hope for the future?

Š. 2984 can open possibilities and hopes which surely will languish, and in many cases will die, without Federal encouragement and aid.

The Cornell committee for air safety research heartily endorses the objectives of this bill, and feels that the future of private flying will be most seriously hampered without the incentives, research, and assistance which this bill can provide.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. DeHaven, do you think this bill S. 2984 is adequate for the purpose that you have outlined?

Mr. DEHAVEN. You mean in the amount of funds?
Mr. SWEENEY. Yes; in the organization.

Mr. DEHAVEN. I believe when this committee—when your committee has considered it, and worked over it along the lines suggested by Mr. Snow, that the thing is evolving toward something very important.

I do not know whether in its immediate verbiage it is complete and satisfactory; I believe you will be able to work it and shape it toward its proper ends.

Mr. SWEENEY. Did you hear Mr. Snow's testimony when, and particularly when, he described the revolutionary type of plane that he thought was necessary in order to obtain the utility that would make the small plane a really useful vehicle?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I am sorry, I do not think I was here.

Mr. SWEENEY. He described a plane that would fly at least 200 miles an hour and could fly at zero speed, and those are the most important characteristics.

I wanted to ask you if you thought that was a feasible thing to look toward in the development of such a revolutionary type aircraft.

Mr. DEHAVEN. I do not think—I am not an aerodynamitist; I do not think it would be for me to answer that question.

I do not think it would be a mistake to work toward that end. If we do not do it, somebody who is a little smarter than we are, in Russia, for example, will do it, because what man dreams, he will accomplish, and what he dreams he will achieve, and we are not working toward anything new in this country, and I am sorry to see it.

Mr. SWEENEY. Another question: Is the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics helping in this development at this time or are they bending all their efforts toward the larger military type of aircraft?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I believe you have already heard testimony indicating that the National Advisory Committee is very much pressed by Government in all matters, and in all types of aircraft which exceed mock ones, that is the speed of sound.

There is available a great deal of engineering data, engineering aerodynamic data, which NACA has and which, I believe, will be largely used in two prototype aircrat which are now being built, one of them being the Koppen-Bollinger plane, and the other is the Texas · A. and M. crop-duster.

Mr. SWEENEY. Then, you think any research information is being available and is being used also by the small plane manufacturer?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I believe it is available, and I believe it is being used. That is so, but I think we will have basically an aircraft which is subject to gusts and to danger in gusts, perhaps due to its slow landing speed, which is vulnerable to ice, which has not got substantially zero speed utility, that is, it cannot land on a spot, and which has not got the high-cruising speeds which some day will be achieved.

· Mr. SWEENEY. Just one other point. Do you think that the Government funds under such a bill should be used to develop complete aircraft, or just aircraft components, devices, such as the cross-wind landing gear?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I believe the judgment of the committee proposed under the bill could decide those things.

It might be that the committee would judge that we need something very radical and very new, and devote most of its funds to those enterprises which held some promise of something radical and new.

On other cases they might say that we merely believe that we should build another prototype of an aircraft which combines everything we have.

I believe, however, that it would be desirable to shoot at higher targets than that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Davis? Mr. Davis. Do you see this bill as a threat to private enterprise? Mr. DEHAVEN. Definitely not; definitely not." Mr. Davis. You do not. You visualize it as more or less basic research? Mr. DEHAVEN. I would hope to see it mostly applied toward that end.

Mr. Davis. I see. That is all, Senator.

Mr. DEHAVEN. May I, in further response to that question, say this: that I know of two, let us say, inventors or dreamers—whatever you wish—who, at present, are seeking funds and who believe that new combinations will do new things, and that those combinations are available.

It will take a rather large amount of money, not any $15,000 or $20,000 or even $100,000 to tackle and explore those things. I believe that if funds are available, that there would be a possibility of something new developing, and I believe that possibility must be considered.

Mr. SWEENEY. Are people like that able to go to the NACA to find out whether their dreams are scientifically feasible?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I do not believe that we can ever judge whether a dream is scientifically feasible.

Mr. SWEENEY. I was trying to draw a distinction between whether it was scientifically feasible on paper as contrasted with the problems of actual development of prototype development.

Mr. DEHAVEN. I did not understand the question, if you were asking a question.

Mr. SWEENEY. That was the sense in which I was asking whether those kinds of inventors could go to the NACA for help.

Mr. DEHAVEN. I believe not. Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Does that finish your testimony, Mr. DeHaven? Mr. DEHAVEN. Could I add just three words or more, after that last answer?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. DEHAVEN. It may exist as a possibility, but it does not work out that the NACA will grant much in the way of funds to projects outside NACA. That is all, sir. · The CHAIRMAN. Well, even though they do not grant funds, will they review one of the so-called dreams that you mentioned? Will they review it and pass on it, give their opinion as to whether it is feasible or not feasible, without getting into the field of funds or investments?

Mr. DEHAVEN. I do not think I could answer for NACA policy, Senator, on that. I think it would be quite an easy thing to determine.

The CHAIRMAN. You think we should ask them instead of you?
Mr. DEHAVEN. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Beck, you have an additional statement to make?

Mr. BECK. In the past, many private organizations and individuals with ideas regarding light aircraft design and development which later proved to have real merit have not been albe to win the attention or assistance of the NACA because of the preoccupation of this agency with the research programs and ideas of people and organizations already prominent in aviation.

The CHAIRMAN. Our last and final witness will be Charles A. Parker. ·

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. PARKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL AVIATION TRADES ASSOCIATION Mr. PARKER. My name is Charles A. Parker, presently serving as executive director of the National Aviation Trades Association, composed of 33 State chapters with approximately 2,000 members who are fixed-base operators throughout the country.

This association unfortunately has not established their position relative to S. 2984, but I would like to report the general feeling for the need for improved aircraft in the personal plane category.

I am particularly aware of this need after having been engaged in aircraft sales for nearly 10 years.

Design development has been much like the dog chasing its tail, and it has not, as production figures will show, succeeded in getting on to its own feet by its own devices.

Now, this industry provides a backlog of national defense through its pool or air know-how and facilities through its encouragement of air participation by the public, by providing jobs for thousands of

specialists, and also by maintaining going airports which are part of our national airport system, to the tune of 50 to 75 percent in some States.

This backlog is being lost. Companies, employees, and facilities, are steadily on the decline.

Now may be the time, therefore, to do something radical to break the stalemate by opening the way for what we need above all, namely, improved design and development in the personal-type aircraft.

This, as it can be seen, not only is of value to the industry, as generally outlined, and to the national economy, but also of direct value to the military.

In the capacity of an aircraft distributor before and since the war, I have pleaded with manufacturers for development to answer the shortcomings I have found in the products, and which my prospects have readily detected.

The manufacturers' answer has invariably been that due to prohibitive costs of change and development they were reluctant to gamble on change, particularly radical change, or they were simply unable to put up the necessary development funds.

As a result, little change and little improvement has taken place.

Those who now are attempting to bring out a more suitable product plus many who have tried, have gone through large sums of money, perhaps all their funds, to complete the required preliminary design and testing, and many a fine idea has hence utterly failed or even now is staggering at a time when we are desperately in need of development.

It was my hope, that as the GI flight-training activities receded that aircraft embodying real development and of such appeal would be available to pick up the slack and take us off on a new and sound economic tack.

Such has not been the case. Note, for example, that only about. 150 personal-type aircraft were built in January of this year.

Here in 1950 I ask, where are the folding wings to reduce hangar costs? Where is the dual power unit driving one propeller for greater safety, or the light twin-engined development? Where is there one new amphibian for the operator to market offering real and proven usefulness? Where is there an airplane at a price with a really practicable change of pace from its needed 30 miles and hour or less to say, approximately 150 miles an hour? Or finally, where is there just one approved rotable type airplane?

Well, gentlemen, there are none. The prospects, with the industry left to its own devices, are slim, and this phase of the aviation industry continues to decline, lose its valuable people and facilities and pool of aviation know-how.

We are at the point where something is needed to break the vicious circle. I am in favor of S. 2984 if this bill will help the fellow with a partially developed or nearly fully developed idea to get over the critical hump and into production.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

That finishes us up for this morning. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., an adjournment was taken, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, May 12, 1950.)

PROTOTYPE AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENTS

FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1950

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment at 10 a. m., in the committeeroom, United States Capitol Building, Senator Homer E. Capehart presiding.

Present: Senator Capehart.

Senator CAPEHART. The committee will come to order. I believe our first witness is Mr. James G. Ray, speaking for the feeder airlines.

You may proceed in your own way and take as much time as you care to.

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. RAY, AIRLINE CONSULTANT

Mr. Ray. My services are retained by a number of the local service airlines for work of a technical and operational nature. Because of this relationship I know of the great need for a modern aircraft with which to bring the benefits of air service to the smaller more isolated cities and towns.

I am heartily in favor of Senate bill 3504. Its aim is certainly in the right direction. However, there is a serious question as to whether the proposed remedy goes far enough in the case of the feeder prototype. It is this aspect of S. 3504 I would like to bring to the attention of your committee.

The domestic certificated airlines flew 367,653,925 miles during 1949. Of this number, 160,813,043 miles were flown with DC-3 aircraft. Thus, 43.74 percent of the total miles were flown with a prewar aircraft, originally designed in the early thirties and now obsolete.

The DC-3 is obsolete because of the great progress that has been made in the art of designing and building aircraft in the last decade. An aircraft can be built now to carry the same load and operate for considerably less cost per mile.

This greater efficiency is gained in two ways. Structurally, the aircraft can be built lighter for a given pay load. With less structural weight, less power is required, which means less engine weight and less weight for fuel. Aerodynamically, the aircraft can be built to slip through the air with less resistance. This increase in speed automatically lowers operating cost per mile.

Under the Civil Aeronautics Act the air carrier's mail pay as set by the Civil Aeronautics Board is based on its actual operating costs.

139

67500—50

10

« 이전계속 »