Click for next page ( 140


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 139
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ROLE OF NACA AND NASA IN AERONAUTICS AND NASA'S AERONAUTICS CAPABILITIES Dr. Walter B. Olstad Acting Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology National Aeronautics and Space Administration There are two sets of information that I am going to try and leave with you. The first has to do with the evolution of the role of NACA and NASA in aeronautics from the beginning of NACA up to the present time. The second has to do with NASA's aeronautics capability. I am going to try and give you an appreciation for that capability. I think I was helped to a great extent by the previous speaker, who made some flattering remarks and talked about some of our capabilities. I am going to spend a bit of time with Figure l, which is a kind of timeline. Prior to l9l5, the focus of aviation progress shifted from the U.S. to Europe after the early successes of the Wright brothers, Curtis, and others. The U.S. actually lost its lead in that time and, in fact, some research centers were established in England, Germany, and France, for example. Fortunately, the U.S. government became aware of this situation and decided that something ought to be done. So, in l9l5, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was formed, with its membership composed of leaders from government and universities. There were no industry representatives on the committee. Figure 2 shows the charter for NACA. The emphasis is on the scientific study of the problems of flight and also on their practical solution. The committee was also asked to determine which problems should be experimentally attacked and how to arrive at solutions and practical application. Those were the primary aspects of that NACA charter. When World War I came along and the NACA was just a committee in Washington, their first budget was something like $5000, and they were unable to use all of it. We have learned better since. l39

OCR for page 139
The committee, from what I have read, really did not make any major contributions to the war effort, with one exception. They convened a meeting of all the engine manufacturers and the procurement officers of the services to discuss the problems of aircraft power plants. The meeting brought into sharp focus the problems involved in obtaining more powerful and more reliable engines for military air- craft and developed an arrangement whereby the Society of Automotive Engineers became involved in providing assistance in solving aircraft powerplant problems. A year later, the NACA recommended the estab- lishment of the Aircraft Production Board. A major U.S. contribution to aviation during World War I was the development of the Liberty engine. Much of the effort of the committee at that time was directed toward the establishment of the first research center. Originally it was to be colocated with the Army and with the Navy, all to do R&D at the same place. They chose Langley Field as the location and then the Army decided no, we really want to do our R&D at McCook Field, which later became Wright-Patterson. The Navy decided no, they would stay across Hampton Roads in Norfolk. There was an Army airfield at Langley, of course. On June ll, l920, the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory was formally dedicated. There were three buildings at that time—one housing a tunnel, one an engine dynamometer, and another a research lab. Immediately after World War I, there was considered to be two major problems in aeronautics. The first was aerodynamics, and the second was power plants. NACA chose to work in aerodynamics, and the National Bureau of Standards took on the role in power plants. Actually, they already had that role prior to the establishment of NACA. Also, the committee felt that the industry had excellent facilities and so it really wasn't necessary for the committee to concentrate on aircraft power plants at that time. In l92l, Max Munk joined Langley and brought to it his scientific expertise and his aggressiveness. He was a very prolific researcher, authoring or coauthoring some 57 reports in a period of 5 years. Perhaps more importantly, he was the driving force behind the develop- ment of the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel, which was a major advance in wind tunnel capability at that time. It gave the Langley researchers a capability for controlling Reynolds Number and led to the develop- ment of the NACA series of airfoils, which was one of the major contributions. In l926, the Air Commerce Act was passed. This was a result of a great deal of debate starting in l9l9. The Air Commerce Act estab- lished the national aviation policy and also formed the Bureau of Aeronautics within the Commerce Department. It kept NACA separate from and independent of any other department and kept it as primarily a research organization. There was quite a bit of pressure to bring NACA under the Commerce Department at that time. It was really a lack of agreement on how to do that that kept it from happening and retained NACA's independent status. In l927, Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis. This event really brought aviation to the fore in the U.S. and l40

OCR for page 139
made people aware of it and proud of it and willing to spend money on it. The Propeller Research Tunnel was also developed at Langley that same year, which allowed the development of the NACA cowling. This cowling work had been requested first by the military and then by the industry. It turned out to be a very interesting example of government-industry cooperation in which NACA did the research and developed cowling designs. However, they sent the blueprints out to industry for their comments and recommendations and then worked rather closely with the industry. That activity led to a flight demonstration. It was certainly not prototyping, but it was a flight demonstration of cowling technology and allowed it to be rather easily and quickly incorporated into actual aircraft. The cowling was a major success and the committee capitalized on that success. As a result they were able to advocate successfully the Full-Scale Wind Tunnel and the Seaplane Towing Tank, which were built at Langley in l930. In the late l920s, industry representatives began to serve on NACA technical subcommittees and annual industry conferences were held at Langley. They used to get on the boat in Washington, come down the Chesapeake, stop at old Point Comfort, spend the night, go into Langley for the day, and then get back on the boat to return to Washington. Those conferences later came to be called inspections and became quite a regular thing. However, NACA generally refused to test industry models in their facilities. Industry would come with a request and NACA would respond, "No, we just don't wish to show favoritism to any one company." Almost all of their work was done at the request of the military. There was a very strong military relationship then. However, in l93l, after the Full-Scale Tunnel was built and operating, a policy was established so that industry models could be tested on a fee basis and without any guarantee regarding proprietary rights. All the data were available to the • government and to everybody else. This tended to favor the large, established companies, because it could cost quite a bit to get to the point where a model could be built for testing. In fact, a lot of the way that NACA and, in fact, NASA works with the industry does tend to favor the large, established companies. It is difficult not to. It is certainly difficult to find the innovative individual. NASA certainly can't locate him. He has to find NASA, and sometimes it is rather expensive for him to take advantage of our capability. In l938, there was another act, the Civil Aeronautics Act, which split the Bureau of Aeronautics in the Commerce Department into the CAB and the Civil Aeronautics Administration, which later became the FAA. A»ain, NACA remained independent and again there was pressure to bring NACA in with these other organizations and put them under some other department, but that was resisted. At that time the voice of commercial aviation as opposed to military aviation was strengthened on the committee because the heads of these two newly formed organiza- tions became members. l4l

OCR for page 139
In the late l930s, there was a growth of German aviation activity, also some Soviet activity. The Germans were rapidly building facili- ties. They employed more scientists and engineers in their labora- tories than did NACA, and in general they were better educated than those employed by NACA. This lei to a great deal of concern, and the Special Committee on Future Research Facilities was established to look into the situation. The special committee came up with what they called a mobilization plan in l939, in which it recommended the estab- lishment of a second NACA laboratory. The reasons were, first, to relieve the workload at Langley; second, to disperse the facilities in the event of attack; third, to locate close to a major segment of in- dustry that was now on the West Coast; and fourth, to locate close to available power. The Ames Aeronautical Laboratory was approved and began research in October l940. Also in l939, NACA expanded its subcommittee structure adding a great many industry representatives. So, as time went on the influence of industry on the committee was strengthening, although there were still no industry representatives on the main committee. In l940, the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory was approved, which was to become Lewis. It was something of an afterthought. NACA, as I mentioned, had not been in the engine game. They had, back in the beginning, opted out of it. The recognition came that NACA really needed to do something and that it needed a laboratory. It was decided that it would be in Cleveland in order to be close to the engine indus- try. Research began there in June l942. During World War II, the great bulk of the NACA effort was devoted to cleanup and testing of prototype military aircraft. Every aircraft and engine used in World War II was tested and/or approved in NACA facilities. There was little fundamental research going on due to the press of the work of the day. NACA worked directly with industry. There were many industry representatives on-site. The idea of working through the military first to get to the industry just didn't matter. There was a war going on; there was a war effort. So, the relationship among the industry, the military, and the NACA really grew close. The NACA manpower quadrupled during this period, and the industry and the military grew even faster. At the end of the war, the Administration put together a National Aeronautics Research Policy in which it was stated that NACA was responsible for fundamental research, industry for development, and military for evaluation. There was general agreement on those points although there was no general agreement on what those things meant and where the boundaries were. Also, three industry representatives were named to the main committee for the first time. In the late l940s and l950s, the challenge of supersonic flight was a real impetus to the U.S. aeronautics program. It was partially based on a U.S. response to German progress made during the war, also, I think, partially based on perceived prestige and security issues associated with aviation leadership. It led to the research aircraft program, or the X-series of aircraft, which was a joint NACA-military- industry effort. It worked very much like the wartime effort—very l42

OCR for page 139
close cooperation among the three partners on that activity. Again, industry people at the centers—it really didn't matter who the sponsor of the activity was—everybody was working on the same team. In l949, the NACA High-Speed Flight Research Center was opened. Of course, that has since become Dryden. Also in L949, the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act was enacted with two titlas. Title I was for the building of three wind tunnels for NACA—supersonic tunnels at Langley, Ames, and Lewis. That ?ot changed somewhat because Amas ended up with more than one. According to the intent of the Act, those wind tunnels were primarily for industry use. The industry had a very powerful influence in that Act and the wording of it. Title II led to the es- tablishment of the Air Engineering Development Center, later to become the Arnold Engineering Development Center, in Tullahoma, Tennessee. In the early l950s, the first transonic tunnels were developed. Rockets were used for transonic research. The first V/STOL demonstra- tion aircraft was developed. There was quite a bit of activity going on at that time, with all kinds of facilities. In l958, of course, the Space Age dawned and NASA was formed. This eliminated the committee structure and led to a very different kind of organization than what was the NACA organization. The administrator now was an individual who was really preoccupied with space, because that became the key thing in the program. However, the organization was still independent. It still played no regulatory role. The NASA charter is shown in Figure 3. Al Lovelace spoke about this the other day. There is still an emphasis on the fundamentals of the scientific aspect of the problem of flight, as well as an emphasis on the practical application. There is also, now, an emphasis on preserving U.S. leadership in aviation and also a link with the military. As a result of entering the Space Age and the concentration on that activity, both the manpower devoted to aeronautics and the aeronautics budget within NASA were cut to half their previous levels. Also about this time, the divergence between civil and military requirements for aircraft began to show up, which is an interesting factor in the role that NASA now plays. In the niid-l960s and early l970s, the NASA aeronautics capability was built back to about two-thirds of the previous peak manpower. In l968, NASA bagan some long-range studies of commercial air transportation. These were taken on in cooperation with the FAA and with industry and led to an emphasis on technology for commercial transport. In l975, the Aircraft Energy Efficiency, or ACEE, program was approved, and in some respect this represented a different role. Formally, the Senate requested NASA to provide a plan for improving the efficiency of commercial transport aircraft. Of course they were interested in fuel economy, but they were also interested in the economic and competitive wealth of the commercial transport industry. NASA and industry testified that NASA should go beyond the tradi- tional R&T bounds in this activity and extend to the point where l43

OCR for page 139
results can be readily applied by industry with relatively small risk in terms of development cost and schedule. Some elements of ACEE, but clearly not all of them, represent product improvement activities, such as the Engine Components Improvement program. Most elements of ACEE remain well within the traditional areas. We are about halfway through the ACEE program now, and I feel that it is already proving to be highly successful. We can already point to quite a few accomplishments. The payback from ACEE will be many times the investment. However, I would note that the Administra- tion—you can read OMB there—considers ACEE a one-of-a-kind solution to a particular problem that cropped up and not necessarily a prece- dent. Figure 4 shows some slow, early growth in manpower and then, just prior to the l940s, or right around l940, Ames got going, and in l942 Lewis got going. There was, of course, the tremendous increase in manpower during World War II. Then, there was further growth after the war as NACA got into the supersonic program. With the beginning of the Space Age, in the late l950s, the manpower dropped roughly to half its previous level. Then, there was a recovery over an 8- to l0-year period to the current level, which is about two-thirds of the peak. I might point out that NASA now has more facilities. There is a greater diversity in the kinds of things we do, the number of disciplines we deal with. As a result, NASA manpower is thin. We are certainly spread more thinly than we were at the peak, obviously. The funding history shown in Figure 5 looks like a spectrum of some kind. Those are l980 dollars; so, this has been adjusted for inflation. There were major increases during World War II and during the commitment to the supersonic flight program. The spike at about l950 represents the Unity Plan Wind Tunnel Act. During the late l950s and early l960s, the budget dropped to about one-half the previous level. During the late l960s, it began growing again to where it has even passed the previous peak. There are a number of things going on, of course. Our manpower is less. We are depending more on industry, more on contracting our activities. As I mentioned, there is a greater diversity of disci- pline areas. There is more emphasis on systems kinds of activities and the use of more sophisticated tools. Those tools cost more and also cost more to operate and maintain. There is a need to bring technology closer to application for reasons that have been discussed by other speakers. And program costs have increased faster than the inflation rate. The foregoing provides a background on how we got to today. Now, I would like to talk some about the NASA capability in aeronautics. Unfortunately, we have some numbers on Figure 6 that aren't as meaningful as they should be. What these numbers represent in terms of the staff are the total numbers at those centers. We had meant to give you the numbers devoted to the aeronautics programs only. I am going to read the proper numbers to you and also provide them to you in a separate handout. l44

OCR for page 139
The Civil Service staff devoted to aeronautics at Ames is 655 out of a total of l645. At Langley, it is l482. So, roughly half of the Langley Civil Service staff is directly devoted to aeronautics. At Lewis it is 2Ill, and at Dryden it is 30l. There is some additional manpower in the aeronautics program not located at those four centers. There are, of course, people at head- quarters and a number over at Wallops. The total working directly on the aeronautics program is 3772 in FY l980. The numbers in the right column are correct. Those are what we call the R&D dollars. They do not include construction of facilities, and they do not include salaries and overhead. NASA working relationships are shown in Figure 7. We work with other government organizations as shown. There are many interfaces, a lot of interaction, informally. There is a lot of formal interaction. There are coordinating committees of many different kinds. There are several ways that we work with industry: the advisory committees, technical symposia, workshop conferences, contracts, obviously a very important way we work with industry. We also work with the universi- ties. I should have said more about that earlier. There always has been a tie with the universities. The first chairman of the NACA was Brig. Gen. George Scriven, U.S. Army. Since then all chairmen were civilians. The second chairman was Professor Durand of Stanford and it is interesting that he also received the first contract. No one worried about a conflict of interest because he was obviously the most qualified individual. Now, I want to talk about the individual centers. We will start with Ames. Somewhat arbitrarily we have grouped their capabilities in the four areas shown in Figure 8. The same four areas are shown on the left of the matrix in Figure 9. The column headings represent application areas—generic, general aviation, etc. Where there is a solid symbol, obviously, there is a major emphasis. Where there is an open symbol the activity is applicable but is not the major role or major emphasis at that center. Figure l0 illustrates work in the theoretical and computational analysis area. This particular illustration shows both wLnd tunnel and calculated flow fields. These are calculations performed on the llliac IV. Computational flow simulation is a real strength at Ames. In the wind tunnel experimental investigations area, Figure ll shows an example of V/STOL configuration work with a model tested in the ll-Foot, 40- by 80-Foot, and l2-Foot Wind Tunnels. Additional activities in the ll-Foot tunnel are shown in the lower half of the figure. One of the really nice features about the major Ames facilities is that the same model can be through the speed range from low subsonic to supersonic. Also the power costs are less at Ames than at other centers. Figure l2 illustrates the simulation and human factors area with a picture of the Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft. It represents only a portion of the simulation capability of Ames. In the flight systems research and operations area there are a number of efforts, some of which are shown in Figure l3. One of these is the tilt rotor research aircraft program. There are two of these l45

OCR for page 139
aircraft. One of them is being refurbished after being tested in the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. The other is to be delivered shortly to Oryien, where it will undergo additional envelope expansion flights. There are other flight facilities, like the quiet, short-haul, research aircraft (QSRA) and the rotor-systems research aircraft (RSRA), associ- ated with Ames as well. At Dryden there are a number of areas of activity, as shown in Figure l4. The activities/applications matrix for Dryden is shown in Figure l5. Flight test techniques are illustrated in Figure l6. This shows one of the calibrated cones mounted on the nose of an aircraft, used to obtain flight data to compare with the wind tunnel data in terms of transition Reynolds number; just one of many examples of flight test techniques activities that go on at Dryden. The flight test instrumentation area is illustrated in Figure l7. This is an example of the HIMAT (Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology) vehicle in the flight structural loads rig test equipment. The HIMAT is a particularly interesting vehicle because aeroelastic tailoring was used in its design in an attempt to arrive at the optimum configuration under deflection due to flight loads. It is a remotely piloted vehicle and is one of a couple of remotely piloted vehicles at Dryden; the HIMAT and the DAST, (Drone for Aeroelastic and Structural Tests) (Figure l8). We work with these so that we can do higher-risk flight testing. Langley Research Center capabilities are shown Ln Figure l9 and the matrix is shown in Figure 20. Aerodynamics and flight mechanics are illustrated in Figure 2l. This shows some activities to further improve wind tunnel facilities, magnetic balance work, and crygenic wind tunnel technology. Under this category are the many major wind tunnel facilities at Langley. The area of aeroelasticity is shown in Figure 22. We use tunnels like the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, which was mentioned as the l9-Foot Transonic Freon Tunnel. It provides a very unique capability for doing flutter research. Flutter suppression work as a military model is illustrated here. Figure 23 illustrates the materials, structures, and dynamics area. These are examples of the kinds of things that go on—control, environmental effects, which all feed into safety, relability, and economy. The electronics, avionics, and controls area is shown in Figure 24. Shown here is the new atrlab facility. Other examples of the activities in this area are simulators and the TCV (Terminal Config- ured Vehicle) aircraft. Figure 25 provides an example of efforts in airframe propulsion integration. The 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel is shown. The l6-Foot and V/STOL Tunnels are also used. Acoustics and noise reduction activities are shown in Figure 26. The Aircraft Noise Reduction Laboratory and several scenes within that facility are illustrated. The final capability area at Langley is in vehicle systems techno- logy. Shown in Figure 27 is the Differential Maneuvering Simulator. l46

OCR for page 139
It is a unique facility that has certainly gotten a lot of use in sup- port of the military. I should also mention an important capability at Langley that is not listed Ln Figure l9, and that is Langley's capa- bility in computer-aided design. The four primary capability areas for the Lewis Research Center are shown in Figure 28. They also appear again in the matrix presen- ted in Figure 29. The first capability area illustrated is theoretical and computa- tional analysis (see Figure 30). This is an area of great prouise and recent growth. Computers are now getting powerful enough and we are getting smart enough in our use of the computer to work on the very difficult internal flow problems. Shown is an experimental setup and a comparison of analysis against experiment. Fundamental research is illustrated in Figure 3l. This is an example of advanced diagnostics using a laser velocimeter. Again, and this applies to all the centers, there has been a breakthrough in measurement techniques in the last few years with improvements in electronics and lasers, which allow nonintrusive diagnostics and measurements in the flow field rather than just on the surface of a model. This is very important in propulsion research. Advanced turbine work is shown as an example of component R&T in Figure 32. There are compressor rigs, combuster rigs, power transmission facilities, high-pressure hot section facilities, and the like for doing component technology R&T at Lewis. The engine and propulsion system R&T example shown Ln Figure 33 is of the development and test of an advanced control theory for the F-l00 engine. The static engine test stands, altitude facility, propulsion tunnels, and icing research facility, among others, are used in this kind of activity. So, there is quite an overall capability available in NASA. A rough estimate is that there is a $3-$4 billion replacement value for the NASA aeronautical facilities. There is in-house expertise in all of the disciplines mentioned from fundamental research up to systems technology. Figure 34 displays the capability in an overall matrix that shows a rather complete coverage in critical areas. Thank you. l47

OCR for page 139
111 z III p (0 o z o oc 111 (O 3 EC o < < D s CO CO oc 0. s O U V) U. CO XSERIES in X sx o u S O ID M O in O s O r> < £ O £ g *~ 55 uj CO Hil § il i O Q. CO Q OCR for page 139
cc UJ oc < o z o c/5 (0 i < o < E DUTY OF THE ADVIAORY o u. P Z UJ O coo o co zo i-z i< !El CDH -ID y^^s LU 00 z 0) ill M ZH 00 C UJ UJ OC OCR for page 139
vO l73

OCR for page 139
DC o CO DC UJ UJ DC 111 LL CM W l74

OCR for page 139
in o o III (O LU flC (O LU 00 CM S l75

OCR for page 139
(0O) O l76

OCR for page 139
i o < cc Ul g l77

OCR for page 139
Sft to M Pb l78

OCR for page 139
o o z X o LU H ULJ l79

OCR for page 139
QJ 55 < 'J o o f» l80

OCR for page 139
(0 111 O (0 o O fiC UJ (0 B 3 1 _ OK • • • • OH CCi_ °5 OK ceo V/TTOL € O • • O • • • € 0 E UJ . o . O z UJ o 1- 1- ob FUNDRRN R&T TYTTEMT R FRRIRITIR TURRORT FRIGRT TRl > u < CO < I Q. < O DC - O > < O l8l

OCR for page 139

OCR for page 139