: problem. It will provide financial means to encourage engineers and inventors to concentrate on the specific problem, without which they could do little. It provides risk capital for development in a field where such is not available. The bill does not insure that the patient will be cured any more than if it were directed toward the cure of cancer in the medical field. Everyone will agree, however, that cancer research is very important, without which there can be little hope for the final cure. Although the writer is a firm believer in private enterprise and individual initiative, it appears that some Government help must be forthcoming if headway is to be made within a reasonable period of time. The personal aircraft industry is sinking fast and needs assistance. DAVID BIERMANN, General Manager, Hartzell Propeller Co., Piqua, Ohio. Mr. SNOW. Well, thank you very much, sir, for your time and consideration. The CHAIRMAN. I have two or three questions which have been handed to me. They are not my questions. The first one is: Your association believes, as I understand you, that the manufacturers of small personal-type aircraft either cannot or will not make the improvements that you feel are necessary without some kind of help. On what evidence do you base this conclusion? Mr. SNOW. Well, sir, I am glad you asked me that. In the report that I referred to in my statement, which I am leaving with you, we tell you about our entire study of this subject, and during it we contacted every manufacturer of light aircraft that we could find out about, and the number was 11, I think; and of those 11 manufacturers, 7 were in favor of some sort of Government assistance in research and development; 3 of them were more or less neutral, and only 1 of them was opposed to the idea, and that one, incidentally, was a manufacturer, a very successful manufacturer, of aircraft with the military services. So, he had nothing to worry about. But I have in this report some very interesting quotations from letters from manufacturers, which I would be glad to leave with you; if you are interested, I could read them to you now. I do not want to take your time. or, The CHAIRMAN. You can insert them in the record, if you want to make them a part of the record, if they are not too long. Mr. SNOW. No, sir. Here they are; they comprise 1 page. I think they are interesting. The CHAIRMAN. Let us put them in. (The documents referred to follow:) EXCERPTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALS, PRESENTED AT NEW ORLEANS OCTOBER 31, 1949. (Chairman, Crocker Snow, Massachusetts; W. L. Anderson, Pennsylvania; Herbert Fox, Tennessee; A. W. Meadows, Texas) Bollinger and Tully, in the Harvard Business School study, Personal Aircraft Business at Airports, say: "The basic weakness of the industry was found to be attributable not so much to the obvious inadequacies of capital and management employed in sales and service operations, as commonly supposed, but more to inherent limitations of the product itself." Delos Rentzel, Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, in a statement before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, comments that— "Small, personal-type aircraft in the United States number about 90,000. Although this total is impressive, sales of small planes have dropped off sharply in the past 2 years, and this potentially important segment of our economy shows signs of stagnation. A growing number of people believe that the natural expansion of private flying is being stifled by lack of utility in our present types of small aircraft. To some extent, this is a matter of engineering and design changes to bring increased usefulness and lower operating costs to the smallplane owner.' William B. Stout, in a guest editorial in Aero Digest, soliloquizes in part: It is a debatable question whether the private-owner airplane industry has gone permanently into the doldrums, whether this is an autum or winter of privateairplane purchasing interest, or whether the loss of interest in present-type airplane is permanent. No matter which is true, the industry only can place the blame on itself. Except for betterments in engines and details, we are building the same old pre-first World War airplane whose usefulness and utility has been added to only by more reliable machinery for safety and more airports for terminals. Practically nothing has been done toward making a small air vehicle of wide usefulness. The basic fault of all private airplanes is lack of utility." Grover Loening, speaking before the Institute of the Aeronautical Science, complained that current private aircraft “actually do not go where the individual really wants to go. Second, and with some reluctance, we came to the conclusion that the Federal Government was the only agency, public or private, capable of providing the money necessary for the research and development that almost everyone seems to think is necessary and possible. We tested this thought on industry, various associations, and specialists in aviation, with illuminating results. The most representative industry association, the AIA, seems to be opposed to this idea, but we find that opinion in the industry itself is divided. Furthermore, we learned that industrial leaders were generally very conversant with the whole problem, and were willing to give us studied, frank, and useful opinions and suggestions. Of 11 manufacturers who commented, 7 were in favor of Government financial participation, with varying reservations as to method and details. Only one was strongly opposed, and three were more or less neutral. While all of the comments are pertinent, several seem especially to merit repetition. A manufacturer of light aircraft says in part: "We heartily favor any intelligently conceived program which will share the costs incident to the research, experimental and, development work involved in the eventual production of new models and types of aircraft. The producers of light aircraft have almost without exception borne these costs singlehandedly as an implicit part of their over-all cost of doing business, and this has, to a degree, made their approach to the development of new designs singularly conservative. Any such program must, however, maintain in full economic focus all of the multiple factors which extend before and beyond the mere creation of a single prototype aircraft of whatever design or intrinsic capabilities." Another manufacturer feels that "With the present tremendous cost of new aircraft development, it appears clear that some type of Federal aid must be provided. The two questions remaining are: What Government agency should undertake the work? and How can such a program be brought into being?" An aircraft accessory executive writes: "No one seems to deny that funds must be forthcoming if better and more useful aircraft are to be obtained. It also seems to be clear that if these developments are to be sponsored only from the corporate profits of manufacturing companies, radical or unusual developments must of necessity be tried out very slowly, and funds will not be too plentiful, particularly in periods when only a very small market is available." The representative of one aeronautical research organization says: "Although I deplore the lack of risk capital and competitive, free enterprise which in the past would have made such a proposal unnecessary, I do not foresee that any radical development, improvement, or increase of production of small aircraft can be assured or that a new type of personal aircraft can be widely tested for public acceptance without Government funds." TEXAS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Mr. A. W. MEADOWS, DEAR MR. MEADOWS: I received your letter and copy of the bill being considered for introduction to Congress relative to the sponsoring of the design, development, testing and modification of prototypes of aircraft intended primarily for commercial or private use, but adaptable also for auxiliary military service, and am of the opinion that unless funds are provided for this purpose no appreciable gain will be accomplished in advancement of design and utility of private aircraft. None of the light plane manufacturers are in a position to spend the necessary money in this respect and consequently any changes now being made to existing aircraft are of a minor nature. The setting up of a yearly appropriation for the purpose of improving and developing the design of aircraft for private use would, I am sure, receive the full support of all aviation enthusiasts. Yours very truly, Mr. CROCKER Snow, ROBERT MCCULLOCH. RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO., Chairman, Research and Development Committee, Massachusetts Aeronautics DEAR MR. SNOW: I appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing me as you did on September 23, concerning proposals of the research and development committee of the National Association of State Aviation Officials, to institute an aircraft development program financed by the Government but carried out by private industry. With the present tremendous costs of new aircraft development, it appears clear that some type of Federal aid must be provided. The two questions remaining are: what Government agency should undertake the work, and how can such a program be brought into being. As you know, we are members of the Personal Aircraft Council of the Aircraft Industries Association, and they coordinate common industry problems. We feel the matter of new aircraft development is an appropriate one for the Personal Aircraft Council and we believe it will be helpful if the National Association of State Aviation Officials made some contacts with the manager, Mr. Joseph T. Geuting (610 Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C.). As a matter of interest, it is our belief that the logical agency to set up such a program is the Army Field Forces because, more than any other aircraft user, their requirements are almost precisely parallel to those of the private owner or business corporation, where operation from small, short, unprepared fields, for example, is a major factor. You will be interested to know that Mr. Geuting has had a number of very interesting discussions with the top level of the Field Forces, and we believe he can give you some very interesting background. In closing, may I express our interest in your own ownership of a Navion plane and many ways in which you have found it valuable to you both personally and in your position as head of the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission. I am sure that you can well realize the close parallel between your own operations and those of the Field Forces, and are proud of the fact that the Field Forces and National Guard are now operating several hundred Navions. Very truly yours, AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, RYAN AERONAUTICAL Co., OCTOBER 15, 1949. Washington, D. C. (Attention: Mr. Joseph T. Geuting, Jr.) GENTLEMEN: This letter is our answer to your letter of October 5 wherein you requested our considered comments upon a general proposal advanced by the research and development committee of the National Association of State Aviation Officials. We have taken the necessary time, we believe, to analyze this general proposal thoroughly, and to view all of the ramifications and implications incident to it in an objective manner. As one producer of personal aircraft we offer herein not only our opinions on the proposal, but also our reasons for these opinions. There are as follows: 1. We heartily favor any intelligently conceived program which will share the costs incident to the research, experimental and development work involved in the eventual production of new models and types of aircraft. The producers of light aircraft have almost without exception borne these costs single-handledly as an implicit part of their over-all cost of doing business, and this has, to a degree, made their approach to the development of new designs singularly conservative. 2. Any such program must, however, maintain in full economic focus all of the multiple factors which extend before and beyond the mere creation of a single prototype aircraft of whatever design or intrinsic capabilities. 3. The formulation of design requirements and specifications by a general council supported by government funds, as is proposed, becomes unwieldy if one realizes that using agencies such as Air Force are fully capable of reciting their own requirements and that the requirements of such a using agency are not necessarily compatible with or adaptable from designs intended primarily for industrial or private use. 4. Also, the guidance of such a general council in this development of designs intended for industrial and private use would not insure that developed designs would ever be put into production. The average light plane manufacturer has developed an unusually canny knowledged of what the general public wants badly enough to be willing to pay for, and such a manufacturer might not want to take the risk of producing an item the demand for which could be considered debatable. 5. Further, during the period of incubation attendant to new design development and by reason of the publicity surrounding such a project, sales of current models would probably suffer. Some potential buyers would await the development of this "ideal" aircraft soon to be produced. (We refer you to Air Commerce Bulletin, vol. 5, No. 6, dated December 15, 1933, for a parallel circumstance, i. e., a $700 airplane.) 6. However, we believe, that the psychological and economic factors underlying the mass public acceptance of personal aircraft are the basic determinants in this entire situation. Any product, no matter what it is nor how good it is must be sold to the public. Public acceptance is a matter of gradual evolution. It involves overcoming prejudices and inertia and conservatism. It also involves timing in the working out of a multiplicity of interrelated factors. 7. We do not believe it possible to revolutionize our industry and to turn it into a high volume business in any short span of time merely by creating an airplane "differing radically" from those available today. Such a step would help, were it possible, but mass acceptance is a matter of decades, not a few years, as a little backward looking will reveal. 8. In reviewing the personal plane industry and its growth and development over a period of nearly three decades, it is our considered opinion that the evolutionary pattern which has observably developed is attributable to the inherent advantages of the airplane over other transportational forms. Such advantages are basically two in number and are (a) speed, and (b) flexibility. The evolutionary process has tended toward harnessing these advantages in a competitively economic fashion, which involves not only cost but also, by logical extension, reliability and safety. 9. We maintain, and are adequately supported in our contention by the numerous disasters of a financial nature which have overtaken designers and manufacturers who, in the past, have tried to go contrary to the evolutionary trend, that an airplane is a vehicle of great utility but that such utility is specifically circumscribed by physical and economic limitations. Projects of this sort fail of their purpose because one characteristic is emphasized at the expense of a balanced design. 10. We, therefore, view with considerable suspicion any proposal which centers around the development of a "radically different" aircraft to create "greater utility". We assume that the intention underlying such a proposal is to combine in a single package as many features, based on known principles as will enable such an aircraft to perform beyond the inherent capabilities of presently available aircraft. This is to be done without sacrifice of present favorable characteristics and without disturbing substantially the present cost structures. 11. We wish to point out that while slow and hovering flight characteristics have been developed, as in the autogiro and helicopter, that this has been done at vast increases in initial, operating and maintenance costs, and at the expense of advantageous weight and speed characteristics. Aircraft of this type have thereby been rendered useful for specific applications only and removed from a general utility category. 12. We point out, too, that utility is a matter of availability in time. Aircraft inherently incapable of safe flying at night or in "weather" have a potential use factor of less than 50 percent, i. e., perhaps 8 hours average out of the 24 over a year's period. We hold that an extension of this potential use factor to approximately 95 percent which has been achieved in military and airline flying is the result of a compendium of developments including ground facilities instrumentation, electronic devices, and equipment, and pilotage techniques and is not necessarily an extension of the basic capabilities of the aircraft. 13. We believe that the achievement of "greater utility" in personal and industrial aircraft is a far broader problem than can be answered fully by just designing a "radically different" aircraft. We deem it impossible to construct an aircraft at economically feasible cost which will combine in one package the mobility of an automobile, the speed and flexibility of a fighter and the availability of an airliner, while retaining the simplicity and dependability of a Piper Cub. 14. We do favor concerted effort to design and to build aircraft to accomplish specific purposes and to provide specific utility within the periphery of the multiple compromises which must always be made to achieve such specific purpose and utility, provided a solid requirement for an economically feasible quantity of such aircraft exists. 15. To summarize our thinking let us say that we believe the achievement of greater utility in personal aircraft, which is the basis of the NASAO proposal, will come through the development of many types of aircraft for many specific jobs and not through the development of one type with all-embracing capabilities. We further believe that the production of any type of aircraft, insofar as its greatest utility is concerned, is interwoven with the concurrent development of navigational aids, radio, radar, ground facilities and similar adjuncts the cost of which is eventually brought within the economic grasp of the personal and industrial user. In short, when the cost per mile per person involved in personal flying approaches that of competitive transportational forms, and when the user of the personal plane can be certain of its safe availability in bad weather as well as good and in darkness as in daylight, then personal flying will have come of age, and industrial applications will follow. We stand ready to be accused of being reactionary in our viewpoint, but feel, instead, that we are being realistic. We like to think of our product as a business machine which has many economic applications in all phases of man's activities throughout the world. We cannot today think of it, at its present stage of evolution and development (age 46), as aught but a complicated mechanism to be treated with respect and subject to limitations which are too frequently misunderstood. Very truly yours, PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP., The CHAIRMAN. Have you any opinion about the other prototype bills now before the committee? Mr. SNOW. Yes, sir; but not as well formulated as this one. I have thought about two of them, of the number of other bills. The CHAIRMAN. We have 237, 426, 2301, 2984, 3504, and that is the one that the Departments are for, and then the last one introduced was 3507. Mr. SNOW. Those are the two. I have not opinion on any except those last two, and I have, for what it may be worth, some opinions on those; 3504 is the one that calls for a testing program. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. SNOW. Costing 121⁄2 million. It seems to me offhand that the objective is good. We are way behind on jet airplane development, the turbo-prop. But I wonder, |