6

Additional Considerations and Future Directions

INTRODUCTION

Beyond the central topic of what aeronautical ground test facilities the United States will need in the future, some additional considerations bear mentioning. For example, the terms of reference for the NFS note the importance of policy issues regarding possible joint funding of new facilities by government and industry, shared usage of facilities, and facility management and operation. The ASEB recognizes the importance and potential impact of nontechnical issues on the overall process of upgrading U.S. ground test facility capabilities. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on selected issues of this type.

PRICING POLICY AND FACILITY USAGE

The NFS report recommends establishing a pricing policy for development testing that would charge domestic users of new wind tunnels for both direct and indirect costs. The report asserts that this pricing policy will maximize effective use of new wind tunnels. Additionally, the NFS recommends charging foreign users higher fees that include capitalization costs, presumably to allow international customers to share in paying for the capital costs of these facilities.

The NFS emphasizes the importance of operating costs by making them one of the three key parameters used to characterize the proposed new low speed and transonic wind tunnels. The ASEB agrees that operating cost is an important characteristic of any facility involved in the development of commercial products, because facility usage is likely to be a strong function of user costs in a highly competitive business such as the commercial aeronautics industry.

A comparison of operating cost goals and the amortized cost of construction shows that user fees will grow significantly if they include the amortized cost of construction. As shown by Table 6-1, the wind tunnel cost and performance goals established by the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities result in anticipated hourly operating costs of $5,000 and $16,000 for the low speed and transonic wind tunnels, respectively. Depending on the assumed usage, the amortized cost of construction varies from as little as $3,600 per occupancy hour per facility for a 40-year facility lifetime—if no interest charges are included—to as much as $19,300 per occupancy hour—if interest on capitalization costs are computed at an annual interest rate of six percent. Including these costs in the pricing structure could greatly increase user fees, thereby counteracting the benefit of building new facilities with lower operational costs.20

The ASEB takes no position on what pricing policy should govern the use of particular ground test facilities. However, changes in pricing policy should be carefully considered to avoid invalidating the assumptions upon which estimates of future facility usage are based. This is especially

20  

This analysis assumes that the two proposed wind tunnels can be constructed using commercial business practices for $2.55 billion. The National Facilities Study estimates that standard government procurement procedures would result in an acquisition cost of $3.2 billion, which would correspondingly increase the amortized cost of construction.



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 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities 6 Additional Considerations and Future Directions INTRODUCTION Beyond the central topic of what aeronautical ground test facilities the United States will need in the future, some additional considerations bear mentioning. For example, the terms of reference for the NFS note the importance of policy issues regarding possible joint funding of new facilities by government and industry, shared usage of facilities, and facility management and operation. The ASEB recognizes the importance and potential impact of nontechnical issues on the overall process of upgrading U.S. ground test facility capabilities. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on selected issues of this type. PRICING POLICY AND FACILITY USAGE The NFS report recommends establishing a pricing policy for development testing that would charge domestic users of new wind tunnels for both direct and indirect costs. The report asserts that this pricing policy will maximize effective use of new wind tunnels. Additionally, the NFS recommends charging foreign users higher fees that include capitalization costs, presumably to allow international customers to share in paying for the capital costs of these facilities. The NFS emphasizes the importance of operating costs by making them one of the three key parameters used to characterize the proposed new low speed and transonic wind tunnels. The ASEB agrees that operating cost is an important characteristic of any facility involved in the development of commercial products, because facility usage is likely to be a strong function of user costs in a highly competitive business such as the commercial aeronautics industry. A comparison of operating cost goals and the amortized cost of construction shows that user fees will grow significantly if they include the amortized cost of construction. As shown by Table 6-1, the wind tunnel cost and performance goals established by the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities result in anticipated hourly operating costs of $5,000 and $16,000 for the low speed and transonic wind tunnels, respectively. Depending on the assumed usage, the amortized cost of construction varies from as little as $3,600 per occupancy hour per facility for a 40-year facility lifetime—if no interest charges are included—to as much as $19,300 per occupancy hour—if interest on capitalization costs are computed at an annual interest rate of six percent. Including these costs in the pricing structure could greatly increase user fees, thereby counteracting the benefit of building new facilities with lower operational costs.20 The ASEB takes no position on what pricing policy should govern the use of particular ground test facilities. However, changes in pricing policy should be carefully considered to avoid invalidating the assumptions upon which estimates of future facility usage are based. This is especially 20   This analysis assumes that the two proposed wind tunnels can be constructed using commercial business practices for $2.55 billion. The National Facilities Study estimates that standard government procurement procedures would result in an acquisition cost of $3.2 billion, which would correspondingly increase the amortized cost of construction.

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities true for large facilities such as the proposed subsonic and transonic wind tunnels that are designed to accommodate a particular level of operational use. Table 6-1 Comparison of Wind Tunnel Operating and Capitalization Costs WIND TUNNEL OPERATING COST GOALS   Low Speed Wind Tunnel Transonic Wind Tunnel Polars per hour* 5 8 Operating cost (per polar) $1,000 $2,000 Operating cost (per hour) $5,000 $16,000 *A polar is a single test run consisting of 25 data points. AMORTIZED COST OF CONSTRUCTING EACH FACILITY (Single facility cost of $1.275 billion amortized over 40 years)   Principal Only Principal plus Interest (6% APR) 100% Duty $32 million/year $85 million/year Cycle $3,600/occupancy hour $9,700/occupancy hour 65% Duty $32 million/year $85 million/year Cycle $5,600/occupancy hour $14,900/occupancy hour 50% Duty $32 million/year $85 million/year Cycle $7,300/occupancy hour $19,300/occupancy hour Finding 6-1: Pricing policy can have a significant impact on user fees. The size of user fees, in turn, is likely to influence user demand, which is an important factor in planning the construction of new facilities. Recommendation 6-1: The government should make pricing policy an integral part of the decision-making process that it uses for major new ground test facilities. The government should carefully consider any subsequent changes in pricing policy to ensure that they do not compromise the economic viability of its facilities. FACILITY MANAGEMENT The NFS report identifies several options for managing new wind tunnels —by NASA, jointly by NASA and the Department of Defense, or by a consortium involving industry and government—but it does not recommend a particular course of action.21 The U.S. aeronautics industry frequently conducts test programs using NASA and Department of Defense wind tunnels. Historically, Department of Defense facilities are inclined to be more production-oriented. The design of NASA facilities, on the other hand, has tended to emphasize research capabilities over productivity (NRC, 1988). The NFS report recommends taking immediate action to reduce the projected cost ($2.55 billion) and schedule (eight years) of acquiring new low speed and transonic wind tunnels. The ASEB agrees that reducing cost and schedule is an important goal, but it cautions against using management-directed cost and schedule estimates to provide the illusion of achieving this goal. The management structure that the federal government establishes to implement and 21   The cost estimates prepared by the Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities (see Volume IIA of the task group's final report) assume that final design and construction of the proposed low speed and transonic wind tunnels are completed by a single prime contractor.

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities oversee the acquisition of new facilities has the potential to be a determining factor regarding the ultimate success of those efforts. For example, joint agency programs that require multiyear appropriations will suffer if changes in personnel, departmental priorities, or other factors over the course of time cause sponsoring agencies to change their expectations and priorities in ways that destroy the consensus upon which the program was founded. If one partner unilaterally decides to reduce its financial contribution, it can place the entire investment at risk. This risk is heightened with long-term, high-value programs, because there is more time for consensus to break down, and the fiscal pressures are larger. The importance of establishing an effective and efficient management approach is amplified by the prospect of shared funding and usage of facilities between government and industry. Industry members that help pay for facility construction are likely to demand a special relationship in formulating pricing and usage policies. Finding 6-2: Management structure, including agency sponsorship, can materially impact the ability of large acquisition programs to meet their cost and schedule goals. Management structures that feature oversight or sponsorship by multiple agencies or organizations tend to increase schedule and cost risk, especially for expensive, long-term programs. Recommendation 6-2: The government should select a facility management structure that minimizes cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. ACQUISITION STRATEGY In developing its baseline cost and schedule estimates for constructing new low speed and transonic wind tunnels, the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities assumed that the tunnels would be built using normal government procurement practices. As noted in the previous section, the task group recommends taking immediate action to reduce the cost and schedule of these facilities, and it identified the use of commercial acquisition practices as one way to achieve this goal. The ASEB agrees that federal procurement practices tend to increase cost and schedule requirements. Using a government/industry consortium to construct these facilities with a combination of federal and commercial business practices is one way to address this issue.22 The NFS report identifies three options for funding the construction of the proposed subsonic and transonic wind tunnels: industry only; a government/industry consortium; and government only. After assessing these options, the NFS “envisioned that the facilities will be constructed primarily with government funding,” and it concluded that “funding by industry alone is not a viable source of capitalization.” However, it also determined that the possibility of obtaining funding jointly from government and industry “could not be ruled out” and it recommended conducting “further studies to look at innovative funding approaches and government/industry consortia arrangements.” The ASEB agrees that this area deserves further study. Finding 6-3: Construction of new facilities using an acquisition process unimpaired by the full weight of federal acquisition regulations would reduce cost and schedule requirements. Recommendation 6-3: The proposed low speed and transonic wind tunnels should be acquired using the most efficient combination of federal and commercial acquisition practices. 22   NASA and several members of the U.S. aeronautics industry have formed such a team to develop and evaluate preliminary designs for the proposed tunnels.

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities SITE SELECTION The Facility Study Office23 identified site selection as a “critical problem area that must be resolved as soon as possible” (NFS, 1994). It noted that site selection influences both acquisition and operating costs, and that site selection should be completed prior to preliminary design review to avoid unnecessary cost growth or schedule delays. In January 1989, after the Department of Energy selected Dallas/Fort Worth as the preferred site for the superconducting super collider, the General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated the site selection process (GAO, 1989). The super collider, like the proposed new wind tunnel facilities, was highly coveted because of the economic stimulus that its construction and operation would provide to the community in which it would be located. The GAO made a single recommendation in its report: advocates of specific sites should be provided with as much information as possible regarding evaluation criteria in order to allow them to make a more informed decision on whether to prepare a formal site proposal. The Wind Tunnel Program Office should ensure that its site selection process follows this recommendation. Attachment seven to Volume II-A of the NFS report responds to this recommendation by listing and describing numerous evaluation factors, such as available transportation, electric power, natural gas, water, weather, existing infrastructure, site conditions, work force availability, the nature of the local community, and environmental factors.24 Evaluation factors are grouped in 11 areas, which are weighted to show their relative importance. In addition to the GAO report referenced above, the GAO produced two additional reports in 1989 in response to congressional concerns about the super collider site selection process. These reports concluded that the Department of Energy—which used a National Research Council committee to identify a short list of best-qualified sites—seemed to have acted properly in evaluating the proposed sites. Finding 6-4: For facilities such as the proposed low speed and transonic wind tunnels, which will require large technical staffs and huge amounts of energy, selection of a less-than-optimum site will degrade the efficiency and increase the cost of facility construction and operation, particularly if power availability restricts wind tunnel operating hours. Recommendation 6-4: If a decision is made to build the proposed tunnels, the site selection process should proceed in a timely fashion. In order to optimize the cost-effectiveness of the proposed new wind tunnels, the process should focus on objective criteria—such as those contained in Volume II-A of the NFS final report—that are directly related to the mission of the proposed facilities. OVERALL PRIORITIES Volume II of the NFS report concludes that “the largest and most critical need is for new high Reynolds number, high productivity subsonic and transonic wind tunnels.” The ASEB concurs that these wind tunnels should be the next development facilities built, because they will enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. transport aircraft industry, whose health is essential to the future of aeronautics in the United States. Economic survival of the air transport manufacturers is mandatory for the United States to preserve the industrial base necessary to maintain a large positive balance of trade in aeronautics and to carry out future 23   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. 24   If industrial partners are involved in managing facility acquisition, they are likely to request inclusion of additional factors, such as proximity to their primary manufacturing sites. For example, when the Boeing Corporation recently contemplated private construction of new wind tunnel facilities, it required potential sites to be accessible by air travel from its facilities in Seattle, Washington, in six hours or less.

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities programs in both aeronautics and space. These facilities are also important to meeting Department of Defense needs for future military aircraft (Yates, 1994; Leaf, 1994; Gideon, 1993). Construction of new supersonic, hypersonic, or propulsion development facilities is not a current priority. Additional research is needed before undertaking construction of suitable next-generation supersonic and hypersonic development facilities (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 5). There is also no immediate imperative to start work on new aeropropulsion development facilities pending better definition of future requirements (see Chapter 4). Regarding the relative importance of the subsonic and transonic wind tunnels, the ASEB agrees with the government and industry participants in the NFS that the transonic facility is of greatest importance. The NFS report concluded that improvements in aircraft cruise performance, which would result from testing in a new transonic wind tunnel, have greater leverage on aircraft operating costs than high lift performance during take-off and climb, which is tied to low speed wind tunnel testing. This encourages a development sequence for the two tunnels that favors the transonic tunnel. In addition, a new U.S. transonic facility is needed to adequately respond to the challenge raised by the new ETW (European Transonic Wind Tunnel). As discussed in Chapter 2, no U.S. facility can effectively compete with ETW as a development facility. On the other hand, the pending recommissioning of the 12-foot low speed tunnel at NASA's Ames Research Center, which has a Reynolds number capability of 10 million, will provide U.S. manufacturers with an interim alternative to continued use of European low speed facilities. Nonetheless, the U.S. needs a new high-productivity, high-Reynolds-number (30 million) subsonic wind tunnel as soon as possible. Such a facility will enable U.S. industry to advance the state of the art of aircraft design and position itself to compete effectively for future sales of commercial transport aircraft, which are projected to exceed one trillion dollars over the next 20–25 years. Implementing the key recommendations of the NFS report in the supersonic, hypersonic, and propulsion areas would cost significantly less than the cost of building the proposed subsonic and transonic facilities. Thus, the decision whether to execute those recommendations need not be tied to the decision-making process for the new development facilities. Instead, the merit of the proposed supersonic and hypersonic facility research should be compared with the benefit of other potential research efforts under consideration by NASA and the Department of Defense. They should be funded as part of a comprehensive effort to advance supersonic and hypersonic vehicle design and test capabilities. The same is true for subsonic and transonic facility research, which the NFS report does not address, but which the ASEB believes is important to the long-term viability of development testing in these speed regimes. Historically, about half of the gains in aircraft performance have been the result of improved propulsion systems. Accordingly, the ASEB unequivocally recommends conducting the proposed study of propulsion test facility requirements. The minimal cost of this activity far outweighs the potential penalty of failing to properly project future needs in this area. The ASEB concurs with the recommendations of the NFS regarding facility consolidation and closure. The proposed actions seem to be a prudent compromise between the competing objectives of maintaining overall test capabilities and reducing overhead costs associated with the existing ground test infrastructure. Recommendation 6-5: The ASEB recommends acquisition of new transonic and subsonic wind tunnels as the number one priority in the area of development wind tunnels. If both facilities are not acquired in parallel, then the transonic facility should lead the subsonic facility. Research related to subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic facilities should be prioritized and executed as coordinated efforts that involve other related research programs conducted by NASA and the Department of Defense. A study of future propulsion facility

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities requirements should be pursued independently of these other activities. SCOPE OF CURRENT STUDIES Development of advanced aircraft is a complex, iterative process. A wide variety of disciplines must come together synergistically if the final product is going to rank best in the world. However, the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities did not evaluate all types of aeronautical research and development facilities. Rather, it focused on ground-based aerodynamic and aeropropulsion facilities in order to accommodate limitations on time and resources. Thus, the NFS report says little or nothing about the possible need for advanced, more-capable vertical flow spin tunnels, rotorcraft whirl towers, facility instrumentation technologies, computational facilities, structural test facilities, sonic fatigue test facilities, temperature and vibration test facilities, system operational test facilities, flight and cockpit simulators, or flight test facilities. Similarly, this National Research Council report does not analyze requirements for these types of facilities. However, this does not imply that the ASEB has determined that the types of facilities not addressed are adequate. In fact, the references cited in this report specifically recommend taking action to correct shortcomings in many areas not examined by the NFS. Nonetheless, the kinds of facilities mentioned above are not discussed in this report because they are outside the study scope that was agreed upon by NASA and the National Research Council. Finding 6-6: The National Facilities Study and this National Research Council study have not analyzed requirements for many types of important aeronautical test facilities, such as vertical flow spin tunnels, rotorcraft whirl towers, computational facilities, and flight test facilities. Recommendation 6-6: The results of the National Facilities Study and this National Research Council 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. The work of the NFS Task Group on Aeronautical R&D Facilities should be augmented to develop a comprehensive view of future requirements for aeronautical ground test facilities. Furthermore, any effort to develop new wind tunnels should be structured to take maximum advantage of the synergy that exists between ongoing advances in the technologies associated with ground, flight, and computational facilities. INTEGRATED TEST AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES Aircraft manufacturers are working to reduce the acquisition and ownership costs of state-of-the-art aircraft. One way to achieve this objective is to reduce the time it takes to design new products and bring them to market. Another is to achieve performance goals with more-producible, lower-cost designs. Accordingly, industry is more fully integrating its test and evaluation methodologies to combine simulation methodologies (i.e., computational methods, ground testing, and flight testing) with development processes for the airframe, engines, and other individual aircraft systems. This integration applies throughout the acquisition cycle, from concept development through production, deployment, and operational support. For example, multidisciplinary computational modeling of aerodynamics, structures, and heat transfer processes early in the development process can enable the use of joint, simultaneous testing of aerodynamics (using wind tunnels) and engine performance (using propulsion test facilities). This combination can accurately predict the full-scale flight performance of each engine-airframe design

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities combination under consideration (Kraft, 1993). Integrated test and evaluation can also improve overall aircraft performance by showing designers how individual component design changes impact the entire vehicle. By more fully accounting for the interactions between aircraft systems, this process facilitates the design of systems that optimize aircraft producibility and performance. Integrated design methodologies may only produce subtle design changes, but in a highly competitive environment such as aeronautics, performance gains and lower production costs are important competitive advantages. Finding 6-7: Judicious use of more-effective test and evaluation methodologies can maximize the impact of new and upgraded facilities on the competitiveness of the aeronautics industry. Recommendation 6-7: Facility development efforts should ensure that new and improved physical assets are designed to accommodate foreseeable advances in test methodologies and other disciplines that will affect facility effectiveness. This will require coordinating advances in ground test capabilities with planned improvements in computational and flight test capabilities. AERONAUTICAL FACILITY LONG-RANGE PLANNING ISSUES This document and the referenced reports describe many challenges faced by the U.S. aeronautics industry and why both new and upgraded ground test facilities are needed to adequately address them. However, the effort to satisfy these requirements should not overlook other nontechnical issues that are also essential to the future success of the domestic aeronautics industry. Although these issues are often complex and not easily solved, their resolution is generally not contingent upon large allocations of fiscal resources. The following examples are taken from previous studies of aeronautical ground test facilities. Advanced Planning. The highest priority recommendation of the report Aircraft and Engine Development Testing (NRC, 1986) concerned the need for “a policy incorporating advanced planning and early funding commitments for testing and test facility preparation.” The National Research Council actually considered this policy issue to be more pressing than the technical shortcomings of available facilities. The report 's number three recommendation emphasized this point by calling for annual reviews of current and projected facility weaknesses relative to the requirements of vehicle development programs. Six years later, a different unit of the National Research Council formed a committee that included none of the participants in the 1986 study.25 This new study evaluated the ground test facilities at Arnold Engineering Development Center. The first recommendation of the report produced by this study also focused on the need for long range planning (NRC, 1992). The ASEB strongly agrees with the importance of taking the long view in planning major new facilities. Experience with current facilities indicates that the service life of major new facilities could easily extend to the middle of the next century. The long-term utility of major new facilities will be greatly enhanced if their designs are based on a broad view of future test requirements.</> The need for more-effective planning was further emphasized by an Aeronautics Advisory Committee report on NASA's aeronautical facilities. Five of its seven recommendations discussed ways to improve facility planning, including development of a “rolling ten-year plan, updated annually” (NASA, 1991). The ASEB strongly agrees with the importance of taking the long view in planning major new facilities. Experience with current facilities indicates that the service life of major new facilities could easily extend to the middle of the next century. The long-term utility of major new facilities will be greatly enhanced if their designs are based on a broad view of future test requirements. Facility Utilization. The National Research Council has determined that pricing policies governing the use of federally-owned facilities can impede the ability of military and 25   Aircraft and Engine Development Testing was authored by a committee of the NRC's Air Force Studies Board. The 1992 report on facilities at Arnold Engineering Development Center was authored by a committee of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities industry customers to effectively use those facilities (NRC, 1992). Funding Policy for Facility Construction. In its 1991 report, the NASA Aeronautics Advisory Committee concluded that NASA's process for construction of facilities was too inflexible, particularly with regard to the provision of adequate funding for preliminary engineering reports and design work associated with complex research facilities. Failure to adequately fund such activities unnecessarily reduces the accuracy of preliminary cost estimates and project schedules (NASA, 1991). Facility Maintenance Standards. The first problems identified by the report Review of Aeronautical Wind Tunnel Facilities (NRC, 1988) concern NASA's failure to establish and live up to “common experience-based standards for the maintenance and improvement of major experimental facilities” and the lack of a timely process to authorize critical, unexpected facility repairs. The National Research Council's 1992 report on facilities at Arnold Engineering Development Center confirmed that failure to fund a minimal level of maintenance and repair was a continuing problem. Finding 6-8: The service life of major new facilities could easily extend to the middle of the next century. Furthermore, the need for long-range planning of facility needs is a recurrent theme in past studies of aeronautical ground test facilities. Assigning the responsibility to study future requirements and conduct long-range planning to a permanently established body would provide greater continuity than the current process of relying on intermittent, ad hoc committees. Delegating this responsibility to an existing body could achieve the desired goal without adding to the number of government advisory panels. Recommendation 6-8: Long-range planning of future requirements for national aeronautical ground test facilities should be carried out on a continuing basis by a permanently established body such as an interagency advisory group or standing committee. The designated body should work with relevant government agencies and industrial groups to resolve policy and procedural issues that diminish the effectiveness of current and future facilities. REFERENCES GAO (General Accounting Office) . 1989 . Determination of the Best Qualified Sites for DOE's Super Collider . Washington, D.C. : General Accounting Office . Gideon, F.C., Jr. 1993 . Draft Mission Need Statement AFMC 004-93 . Aircraft/Propulsion/Avionics/Test and Evaluation Infrastructure Capability . Air Force Materiel Command . July 19, 1993 . Kraft, E.M. 1993 . Trends in Aerodynamic Testing . Calspan Corporation/Arnold Engineering Development Center . Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee . Leaf, H. 1994 . Future Military Requirements Relative to Aeronautical Test Facilities . Briefing by Lt Gen Howard Leaf, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force Test and Evaluation, presented to the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, National Aeronautical Test Facilities Workshop, at the National Research Council, May 17, 1994 . NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) . 1991 . Report on NASA Aeronautics Facilities: The Process and the Plan . NASA Advisory Council, Aeronautics Advisory Council, Ad Hoc Review Committee . Washington, D.C. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration . NFS (National Facilities Study) . 1994 . p. 4 . Volume II-A: Final Report of the Facility Study Office . Hampton, Virginia : National Aeronautics and Space Administration . NRC (National Research Council) . 1986 . Aircraft and Engine Development Testing . Air Force Studies Board, NRC . Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press . NRC. 1988 . Review of Aeronautical Wind Tunnel Facilities . Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, NRC . Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press .

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities NRC. 1992 . Future Aerospace Ground Test Facility Requirements for the Arnold Engineering Development Center . Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, NRC . Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press . Yates, R.W. 1994 . Memorandum for Headquarters U.S. Air Force Test and Evaluation from Headquarters Air Force Material Command . Defining Department of Defense Requirements for the National Facilities Study . March 1, 1994 . Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio .

OCR for page 41
Assessing the National Plan for Aeronautical Ground Test Facilities This page in the original is blank.