Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

National Academy Press
Washington, D.C.
1994



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 R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1994

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This study was supported by Contract NASW-4003 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available in limited supply from: The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD Duane T. McRuer, Chairman, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Chairman, Systems Technology, Inc., Hawthorne, California Bernard L. Koff, Chairman, National Aeronautical Test Facilities Study, Executive Vice President, Engineering and Technology, Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida Steven Aftergood, Senior Research Analyst, Federation of American Scientists, Washington, D.C. Joseph P. Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Space Industries International, Inc., Washington, D.C. James M. Beggs, Senior Partner, J.M. Beggs Associates, Arlington, Virginia Guion S. Bluford, Jr., Vice President and General Manager of Engineering Services Division, NYMA, Inc., Brook Park, Ohio John K. Buckner, Vice President, Special Projects, Lockheed Fort Worth Company, Fort Worth, Texas Raymond S. Colladay, Vice President, Business Development & Advanced Programs, Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver, Colorado Ruth M. Davis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pymatuning Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia Steven D. Dorfman, President, Telecommunications and Space Sector, General Motors Hughes Electronics, Los Angeles, California John M. Hedgepeth, President, Digisim Corporation, Santa Barbara, California Takeo Kanade, Director, The Robotics Institute, and U.A. and Helen Whitaker Professor of Computer Science and Robotics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Jack L. Kerrebrock, R.C. Maclaurin Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Donald J. Kutyna, Corporate Vice President, Advanced Space Systems, Loral Corporation, Colorado Springs, Colorado John M. Logsdon, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Robert R. Lynn, Bell Helicopter Textron (retired), Euless, Texas Frank E. Marble, Richard L. Hayman and Dorothy M. Hayman Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Professor of Jet Propulsion, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology,Pasadena C. Julian May, Executive Vice President, Tech/Ops International, Kennesaw, Georgia Bradford W. Parkinson, Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California Alfred Schock, Director, Energy System Department, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Germantown, Maryland John D. Warner, President, Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, Washington Advisor to the Committee Alexander H. Flax, Senior Fellow, National Academy of Engineering

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities Staff JoAnn Clayton, Director Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer* Thomas C. Mahoney, Senior Program Officer Allison C. Sandlin, Senior Program Officer Noel E. Eldridge, Program Officer Paul J. Shawcross, Program Officer Anna L. Farrar, Administrative Associate William E. Campbell, Administrative Assistant Susan K. Coppinger, Administrative Assistant* (through June 1994) Beth A. Henry, Project Assistant Mary T. McCormack, Senior Project Assistant Ted W. Morrison, Program Assistant* * Staff assigned to the National Aeronautical Test Facilities Study

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities PREFACE The United States is engaged in a serious global economic competition with the established economies of Europe and Japan and with emerging industrial economies elsewhere in Asia and the former states of the Soviet Union. This competition includes the aerospace market, a segment of the economy that the United States has dominated and from which it has profited for decades. The National Facilities Study (NFS) 1 documents that foreign competition in aeronautics has reduced U.S. market share in commercial aircraft by 30 percent during the past 25 years. If other nations achieve a higher level of technology in this area, erosion of the U.S. market share is likely to accelerate, with accompanying reductions in balance of trade and jobs. Wind tunnel ground test facilities are used to develop, evaluate, and verify the performance of new aircraft, particularly with regard to lift, drag, and moment characteristics. Wind tunnel testing allows engineers to evaluate analytically derived models and update the design prior to and during flight test, well before production release. The availability of adequate wind tunnel test facilities supported by improved computational modelling will allow aircraft manufacturers to shorten the design cycle, improve the quality and producibility of their final products, and avoid costly changes during production. In 1992, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) opened discussions with the Departments of Defense, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce, and the National Science Foundation regarding the development of a long range plan for aerospace test facilities. The result of these interagency discussions was the formation of the National Facilities Study, which was carried out by one oversight and four task groups, supported by various working groups. Study participants included industry personnel to ensure that product requirements were properly considered by the task group that focused on aeronautical facilities. During 1993, NASA asked the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) to review the NFS report. The ASEB subsequently agreed (1) to form an ad hoc committee on space facilities and (2) to independently examine projected requirements for and approaches to the provision of needed aeronautical ground test facilities. This report documents the results of this effort, which responded to the following task elements: to review and critique aeronautical research and development (R&D) requirements for subsonic, transonic, propulsion, supersonic, and hypersonic ground test facilities as presented in the final report of the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities (Volume II of the NFS report);2 to review and critique the recommended facility approaches (including modification, consolidation, or phaseout of existing facilities and construction of new facilities) in the final report of the Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities; to consider alternative ways that recommended facility needs might be addressed (e.g., by pooling resources internationally in the construction of new facilities or in new practices that would make the use of foreign facilities more amenable); and to assess the priorities presented in the task group's final report. 1   National Facilities Study. 1994. Volume 2: Task Group on Aeronautical Research and Development Facilities Report. April 29, 1994. 2   The NSF Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities focused on ground-based aerodynamic and aeropropulsion facilities in order to accommodate limitations on time and resources. The results of the National Facilities Study and the National Aeronautical Test Facilities Study should not be used to assert that types of facilities that were outside the scope of their deliberations are unimportant to the future of the U.S. aeronautics industry, even though such facilities are not discussed in the resulting reports.

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities Review of detailed design, cost, siting, and programmatic issues were not included within the scope of the ASEB's effort, although this report does contain some general comments on these topics. This study focused on the aeronautics components of the NFS final report: Volume II, Task Group on Aeronautical Research and Development Facilities Report (approximately 450 pages),3 and Volume II-A, Facility Study Office on the National Wind Tunnel Complex Final Report (approximately 1,000 pages).4 Based on these reports, previous studies by the National Research Council, and other available information, the ASEB studied various approaches for developing the facilities needed by the U.S. aeronautics industry. In some cases, the board endorsed specific options. In other cases, where insufficient data are available, it identified key areas of concern and parameters that government and industry should more fully explore before making final decisions on how to proceed. The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board would like to thank those who enabled it to successfully complete this study, particularly H. Lee Beach, Jr., L. Wayne McKinney, and the other members of the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities; each of the participants in the National Aeronautical Test Facilities workshop (listed in Appendix B); Alexander H. Flax, who served as an advisor to the committee; and the independent reviewers—who must remain anonymous—who critiqued this report prior to final editing and publication. Bernard L. Koff Chairman, National Aeronautical Test Facilities Study 3   Volume II contained separate appendices documenting the results of each working group: the Facility Benchmarking Working Group, which documented the capabilities of operational development wind tunnels; the Aerodynamics and Acoustics Working Group, which studied subsonic, transonic, and supersonic facility requirements; the Strategy Working Group, which examined acquisition strategy, user access policy, and pricing policy; the Propulsion Facilities Working Group; and the Hypersonic Facilities Working Group. 4   The Facility Study Office was a separate organization consisting of personnel from NASA and the Department of Defense that worked together at Langley Research Center from May through December 1993. It supported the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities by providing detailed financial and technical assessments of selected low speed and transonic wind tunnel design options. Copies of Volumes II and II-A of the NFS report should be requested from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C., 20546-0001.

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities CONTENTS     List of Figures and Tables   ix     List of Acronyms and Abbreviations   x     Executive Summary   1      Recommendations Reinforcing the Key Thrusts of the National Facilities Study,   1      Recommendations Going Beyond Those of the National Facilities Study,   5  1.   U.S. Response to Changing Facility Requirements   9      Introduction,   9      Origin of Major U.S. Facilities,   9      Historical Impact of Ground Testing,   10      Current Situation in Commercial Aviation,   10      Acquiring New Facilities,   11      Historical Summary,   11      References,   12  2.   Subsonic and Transonic Facilities   13      Introduction,   13      Importance of Ground-Based Facilities,   14      Scaling Parameters,   15      Computational Simulation,   16      Tunnel Pressure and Model Design Considerations,   17      Wind Tunnels in the Development Process,   17      Influence of Faster Design/Test Cycle,   18      Wind Tunnel Design Requirements,   19      Preliminary Design and Costs,   21      Economic and Environmental Factors,   22      References,   24  3.   Supersonic Facilities   27      Introduction,   27      Prior Studies,   27      The Challenge,   27      National Facilities Study Supersonic Facility Requirements,   28      References,   30  4.   Propulsion Facilities   31      Introduction,   31      Facility Overview,   31      Engine Development,   32      Propulsion Facility Requirements,   35      References,   36

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities  5.   Hypersonic Facilities   37      Introduction,   37      Prior Studies,   37      The Challenge,   37      National Facilities Study Hypersonic Facility Requirements,   38      References,   39  6.   Additional Considerations and Future Directions   41      Introduction,   41      Pricing Policy and Facility Usage,   41      Facility Management,   42      Acquisition Strategy,   43      Site Selection,   44      Overall Priorities,   44      Scope of Current Studies,   46      Integrated Test and Evaluation Methodologies,   46      Aeronautical Facility Long-Range Planning Issues,   47      References,   48  7.   Summary   51      Overall Assessment of Volume II of the National Facilities Study Report,   51      Recap of the Findings and Recommendations of the National Aeronautical Test Facilities Study,   51      References,   55  Appendix A:   National Facilities Study Terms of Reference   57  Appendix B:   National Aeronautical Test Facilities Workshop Participants   61  Appendix C:   National Facilities Study Participants   63  Appendix D:   Aeronautical Speed Regimes and Test Parameters   65

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities List of Figures and Tables  Figure 2-1   Effect of Reynolds Number on Wind Tunnel Measurements of Aircraft Pitching Moment During Take-off and Landing   16  Figure 4-1   Improving Core Performance of Turbopropulsion Systems   32  Figure 4-2   Trends in Overall Efficiency of Subsonic Turbopropulsion Systems Indicating a Target Goal in 2000+ for High Efficiency   33  Figure 4-3   Comparison of Exhauster Capability of the Aeropropulsion Systems Test Facility and New Bypass Engines   35  Table ES-1   Proposed Capabilities of New Low Speed and Transonic Wind Tunnels   2  Table 2-1   Proposed Capabilities of New Low Speed and Transonic Wind Tunnels   14  Table 2-2   Prediction Errors Associated with Development Testing at Low Reynolds Number   15  Table 2-3   Illustration of Potential Improvements in Aircraft Performance   23  Table 3-1a   Recent Studies of Supersonic Ground Test Facilities   28  Table 3-1b   Recent Studies of Supersonic Ground Test Facilities   29  Table 5-1a   Recent Studies of Hypersonic Ground Test Facilities   38  Table 5-1b   Recent Studies of Hypersonic Ground Test Facilities   39  Table 6-1   Comparison of Wind Tunnel Operating and Capitalization Costs   42

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ADP Advanced Ducted Propulsor ASEB Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board ASTF Aeropropulsion Systems Test Facility CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics FSO Facilities Study Office GAO General Accounting Office NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics NAE National Academy of Engineering NAS National Academy of Sciences NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NFS National Facilities Study R&D Research and Development SFC Specific Fuel Consumption

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities

OCR for page R1
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities This page in the original is blank.