ThePower

forFlight NASA’s Contributions 

to Aircraft Propulsion

Jeremy R. Kinney
ThePower

forFlight NASA’s Contributions 

to Aircraft Propulsion

Jeremy R. Kinney
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Kinney, Jeremy R., author.

Title: The power for flight : NASA’s contributions to aircraft propulsion / 

Jeremy R. Kinney.

Description: Washington, DC : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

[2017] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017027182 (print) | LCCN 2017028761 (ebook) | ISBN 

9781626830387 (Epub) | ISBN 9781626830370 (hardcover) ) | ISBN 

9781626830394 (softcover)

Subjects: LCSH: United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration–

Research–History. | Airplanes–Jet propulsion–Research–United States–

History. | Airplanes–Motors–Research–United States–History.

Classification: LCC TL521.312 (ebook) | LCC TL521.312 .K47 2017 (print) 

| DDC 629.134/35072073–dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017027182

Copyright © 2017 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the official positions of the United States Government or of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This publication is available as a free download at

http://www.nasa.gov/ebooks

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC
iii

Table of Contents

Dedication v

Acknowledgments vi

Foreword vii

Chapter 1: The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958.................................1

Chapter 2: NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975..................................................... 49

Chapter 3: The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975 ...................... 73

Chapter 4: The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989 ......................... 103

Chapter 5: Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998........... 139

Chapter 6: Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008..................................... 167

Chapter 7: Toward the Future ........................................................................ 217

Abbreviations 233

Bibliography 239

About the Author 273

Index 275

v

Dedication

To Cheryl and Piper
vi

Acknowledgments

Any author is in debt to many who help with the research and writing process. 

I wish to thank series editor Dr. Richard P. Hallion for asking me to participate 

in this project and for providing help and understanding at critical moments 

during my research and preparation of the final manuscript. Tony Springer 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate offered stalwart help and thoughtful counsel as 

he oversaw this series and my participation in it.

I received invaluable assistance from other NASA staff members. At 

Headquarters in Washington, DC, I would like to thank archivists Jane Odom, 

Colin Fries, and John Hargenrader of the History Program Office and Gwen 

Pitman of the Photo Library. At the Glenn Research Center, Robert Arrighi 

and Marvin Smith of the History Office and Chief Dhanireddy R. Reddy and 

Deputy Chief Dennis Huff of the Aeropropulsion Division were of extraordinary help. James Banke served as a thoughtful commentator on the manuscript. 

Bob van der Linden, Howard Wesoky, Melissa Keiser, and Allan Janus of the 

Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, 

provided important support. For assistance with photographs held by industry, 

Matthew Benvie of General Electric, Marie Force of Delta Airlines, Mary E. 

Kane of Boeing, and Judy Quinlan of Northrop Grumman facilitated access.

The research and writing of history is a communal effort, and historians 

necessarily stand on the shoulders and exploit the work of others who have gone 

on before. I have acknowledged in the text and the bibliography the authors 

of several critical previous works that have addressed the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)/NASA legacy in aircraft propulsion. This 

book would not have been possible without the foundation provided by these 

individuals. Nevertheless, readers should realize that all errors of fact, interpretation, or omission are solely my own.

My wife, Cheryl, has been a devoted supporter and a beloved taskmaster as 

I worked to manage both personal and professional schedules. We welcomed 

our beautiful daughter, Piper, during the writing of this book, and I greatly 

love and appreciate them both for so unselfishly letting me dedicate myself to 

this project over many months, days, and evenings.
vii

Foreword

The New York Times announced America’s entry into the “long awaited” Jet Age 

when a Pan American (Pan Am) World Airways Boeing 707 airliner left New 

York for Paris on October 26, 1958. Powered by four turbojet engines, the 707 

offered speed, more nonstop flights, and a smoother and quieter travel experience compared to newly antiquated propeller airliners. With the ChampsÉlysées only 6 hours away, humankind had entered into a new and exciting age 

in which the shrinking of the world for good was no longer a daydream.1 Fifty 

years later, the New York Times declared the second coming of a “cleaner, leaner” 

Jet Age. Decades-old concerns over fuel efficiency, noise, and emissions shaped 

this new age as the aviation industry had the world poised for “a revolution 

in jet engines.”2

 Refined turbofans incorporating the latest innovations would 

ensure that aviation would continue to enable a worldwide transportation 

network. At the root of many of the advances over the preceding 50 years was 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

On October 1, 1958, just a few weeks before the flight of that Pan Am 707, 

NASA came into existence. Tasked with establishing a national space program 

as part of a Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet 

Union, NASA is often remembered in popular memory first for putting the 

first human beings on the Moon in July 1969, followed by running the successful 30-year Space Shuttle Program and by landing the Rover Curiosity on 

Mars in August 2012. What many people do not recognize is the crucial role 

the first “A” in NASA played in the development of aircraft since the Agency’s 

inception. Innovations shaping the aerodynamic design, efficient operation, 

and overall safety of aircraft made NASA a vital element of the American aviation industry even though they remained unknown to the public.3

 This is the 

story of one facet of NASA’s many contributions to commercial, military, and 

general aviation: the development of aircraft propulsion technology, which 

provides the power for flight.

NASA’s involvement in the development and refinement of aircraft propulsion technologies from 1958 to 2008 is important for three reasons. First, 

at the most basic level, NASA’s propulsion specialists pushed the boundaries of the design of power plants for both subsonic and supersonic flight. 

Innovations that emerged from NASA programs included ultra-high-bypass 
The Power for Flight

viii

turbofans; advanced turboprops; and refined systems reflecting the desire for 

more efficient, quieter, cleaner, and safer engines. The second reason explains 

how NASA achieved that success. The Agency played a major role as an innovator, facilitator, collaborator, and leader as it interacted with industry and other 

Federal agencies, primarily the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the 

Department of Defense (DOD). NASA’s involvement in aircraft propulsion 

as, in the words of longtime propulsion specialist Dennis Huff, a “technology broker” highlights the continual presence of the Federal Government in 

the creation of technology.4 The third reason is that, as a result of NASA’s 

efforts, the U.S. aircraft propulsion industry has led the world consistently in 

the development of new technology with improved performance, durability, 

environmental compatibility, and safety.5 Overall sales of military, commercial, 

and general aviation engines accounted for 25 percent of the entire aviation 

industry’s revenues for 2006.6

NASA has four major aeronautical centers that deal with aircraft propulsion 

issues based on their collective expertise: Langley Research Center in Virginia, 

Ames Research Center and Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, 

and Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field in Ohio. Glenn is NASA’s primary propulsion facility.7

 Glenn’s research facilities include five wind tunnels, the Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory, the Engine Research Building, 

the Propulsion Systems Laboratory, and the Flight Research Building.8

 More 

importantly, it is the specialists of Glenn and the other Centers who have served 

at the core of the Administration’s work in aircraft propulsion. The work of all 

propulsion researchers at NASA falls under the programs of the Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate, with an overall goal to advance breakthrough 

aerospace technologies.

Airplanes incorporate synergistic technologies that embody four primary 

systems: aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, and control. The development 

of these internal systems into an overall practical and symbiotic system has 

been at the core of the airplane’s success over the course of the 20th century. 

Aircraft designers must maintain a balance among lift, drag, thrust, and weight. 

In other words, without an equal balance among the four forces of flight, 

where the wings and propulsion system must generate enough lift and thrust 

to overcome the weight and drag of an airplane’s structure, the airplane is 

incapable of flight.9

The purpose of an airplane’s propulsion system is to create thrust, the force 

that propels an airplane through the air. The combination of a propeller and an 

internal combustion piston engine was the first practical system and remains 

in widespread use to this day. A propeller is an assembly of rotating wings, 

or blades, which converts the energy supplied by a power source into thrust 

to propel an airplane forward the same way a wing generates lift to make an 
Foreword

ix

airplane rise upward. Replacing the piston engine with a gas turbine to drive a 

propeller resulted in the turbine propeller, or “turboprop,” engine. The propeller and its power source are the most efficient at moving a large mass of air for 

thrust at speeds of up to 500 miles per hour.

The second type of propulsion system, the jet engine, which is another type 

of gas turbine, emerged during World War II and serves as the dominant propulsion system for high-performance military and commercial aviation since 

it is most efficient at speeds of over 500 miles per hour. A jet engine takes in 

air, compresses it, mixes it with vaporized fuel, ignites it, and pushes it out to 

create thrust. The main parts of a jet engine that accomplish that process are 

the inlet, compressor, burner, turbine, and exhaust nozzle.

There are different types of gas turbine engines to suit the specific needs of 

the various types of aircraft. The oldest configuration is the turbojet, which is a 

pure jet that produces a lot of thrust at the expense of high fuel consumption. 

The addition of a large, enclosed, multiblade fan to a turbojet harnessed higher 

efficiencies while developing the high thrust of the turbojet. The fan created 

a secondary airstream that bypassed the rest of the engine and contributed to 

the overall production of thrust. The bypass ratio—the correlation between 

the mass flows of air traveling in those two pathways—is a gauge of propulsive 

efficiency. The widespread introduction of turbofans in the 1960s represented 

a dramatic jump in efficiency for jet-powered aircraft. Supersonic fighter aircraft feature afterburners for short bursts of extra speed. The injection of fuel 

into the hot exhaust stream produces additional thrust at the cost of high 

fuel consumption for increased engine power at takeoff, climb, and cruise. In 

turboprop and turboshaft engines, the turbine section takes energy from the 

exhaust gas stream to turn a propeller or rotor in addition to the compressor.

Propulsion technology is more than just piston engines; propellers; gas 

turbines; and individual components such as compressors, turbine blades, 

and disks. Support technologies, called accessories, include control apparatus; 

oil; fuel; and hydraulic pumps, lubricants, and fuels. Moreover, as you will see 

in this book, there are interrelated technical goals rooted in efficiency, noise, 

and emissions. Issues related to airframe integration, primarily engine nacelle 

placement and inlet and exhaust design, also can affect propulsion systems.

This is a survey of NASA’s work in aircraft propulsion from its origins as 

the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) to the early 21st 

century. It stands as a point of departure rooted in an extensive body of work 

that addresses the topic, and it is supported by primary source material. It 

introduces NASA’s role in the technology while taking into account economic, 

political, and cultural dimensions. In these pages, you will meet members of 

a national aeronautical community that shaped aircraft propulsion. The dramatic development and use of aircraft propulsion technology were the result 
The Power for Flight

x

of a communal response to challenges and concerns that tell us much about 

the priorities, goals, and determination of a society that needed engines and 

related systems for military, commercial, and general aviation.

The chapters in this book survey six major eras and themes from NASA’s 

involvement in the development of aircraft propulsion. Chapter 1 presents 

the history of aircraft propulsion through the story of the NACA, from the 

early flight period to the early days of the Cold War. Originally dedicated to 

the piston engine–propeller combination, the NACA shifted its focus during 

the emerging turbojet revolution. The Committee’s work in high-speed flight 

continued until its dissolution in 1958. The newly created NASA and its support of military high-speed and commercial subsonic flight during the 1960s 

and 1970s is the subject of chapters 2 and 3. NASA’s propulsion program 

stood at the intersection of military, industrial, and academic research as it 

worked to refine the military airplane and first addressed public concerns that 

persist today over the place of the commercial jetliner in American life. The 

first national programs for a commercial supersonic transport (SST) serve as 

the bridge between the two worlds. The establishment of the Aircraft Energy 

Efficiency Program of the 1970s and 1980s, presented in chapter 4, reflected 

NASA’s desire to nurture and, in some cases, reinvent turbofan and turboprop 

technology during a chaotic period of oil embargoes and escalating fuel prices.

While the propulsion focus at NASA Glenn is at the center of this book, 

another NASA Center figured prominently in the development of new 

propulsion-related technologies. Chapter 5 discusses the flight research programs dedicated to digital engine controls and thrust vectoring at Dryden 

Flight Research Center (now the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center) 

from the late 1960s to the 1990s. Chapter 6 documents NASA’s late-20thcentury efforts to direct its own research programs in efficiency, noise, and 

emissions and to participate in joint endeavors that complemented the work 

of other Government programs. Chapter 7 addresses the shift in focus for 

NASA’s aircraft propulsion efforts and what the future might bring. This book 

concludes with a brief discussion of NASA’s achievements in aircraft propulsion 

in the context of the Agency’s first 50 years.
Foreword

xi

Endnotes

1. Paul J.C. Friedlander, “Jet Age Prospect,” New York Times (October 26, 

1958): 25.

2. Matthew L. Wald, “A Cleaner, Leaner Jet Age Has Arrived,” New York 

Times (April 9, 2008): H2.

3. Robert G. Ferguson, NASA’s First A: Aeronautics from 1958 to 2008

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-2012-4412, 2013), pp. 3–4.

4. Dennis Huff, telephone conversation with author, August 29, 2013.

5. James Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” in NASA’s 

Contributions to Flight, Vol. 1: Aerodynamics, ed. Richard P. Hallion 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-2010-570-Vol 1, 2010), p. 735.

6. Aerospace Industries Association, Aerospace Facts and Figures 2008

(Arlington, VA: Aerospace Industries Association of America, 2008), 

p. 8.

7. NASA Glenn has had several different names over the years. During the 

NACA period, it was known as the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory 

(AERL, 1941), the Flight Propulsion Research Laboratory (1947), and 

the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory (1948). With the creation of 

NASA, the laboratory became Lewis Research Center (1958). NASA 

modified the name of the Center on March 1, 1999, to honor former 

Mercury astronaut and Ohio Senator John H. Glenn. This study will use 

the appropriate name according to the historical period being discussed.

8. Glenn’s other fields of expertise are power, communications, and microgravity science.

9. A helpful guide to understanding the operation of aircraft engines for the 

nonspecialist is Pushing the Envelope: A NASA Guide to Engines (Cleveland: 

NASA Glenn Research Center EG-2007-04-013-GRC, 2007).
xii

Shown above is a Republic XP-47M Thunderbolt fighter, complete with Hamilton Standard 

propeller and Pratt & Whitney radial engine, installed in the Altitude Wind Tunnel at the Aircraft 

Engine Research Laboratory in September 1945. (NACA)
1

CHAPTER 1

The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion,

1915–1958

The primary American civilian Government agency concerned with aeronautical research and development from the early flight era to the advent 

of the Space Age following the shock of Sputnik on October 4, 1957, was 

the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). According to 

the Naval Appropriation Act of March 3, 1915, the NACA possessed total 

freedom to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, 

with a view to their practical solution,” as well as a responsibility to “determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked” in the United 

States. Furthermore, the act allowed the NACA to “direct and conduct research 

and experiment in aeronautics” at laboratories placed under its control.1 From 

its creation in 1915, the NACA exemplified the Government’s commitment 

to continued aeronautical progress. Acting as a coordinator for the military, 

the aviation industry, and research universities, the NACA set the pace of 

American aeronautics.

The core structure of the NACA was the committee framework. Inherent 

in the structure of the Committee were the specialist subcommittees dedicated 

to specific disciplines within aeronautics, which included groups addressing 

power plants, propellers, lubricants and fuels, and other topics that dealt with 

fundamental challenges in the development of propulsion technology. Their 

formation reflected the identification of areas that required further research and 

development before they reached a level of maturity that facilitated practical 

commercial and military use.2

In addition to conducting fundamental research in propulsion technology, 

the NACA’s central role in disseminating its and the aeronautical community’s 

information was present in the propulsion sphere, too. NACA publications in 

the form of technical reports, notes, and memoranda featured the Committee’s 

research, contracted research, and translations of foreign articles of interest to 

American aeronautical engineers.3 The committee went one step further by 

continuing to sponsor the critical Bibliography of Aeronautics initiated by Paul 

Brockett of the Smithsonian Institution to cover the period 1909 to 1932.4
The Power for Flight

2

The NACA and the Beginnings of 

Its Propulsion Research

Known for his effective leadership of the NACA in terms of promoting its 

overall role in fundamental research during his tenure, George Lewis started 

his career in aircraft propulsion. He earned his master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University in 1910 and taught engineering as a 

professor at Swarthmore College until 1917. Lewis joined the Clarke Thomson 

Research group, a private foundation established in Philadelphia in 1918 for 

the promotion of “the advancement of the science of aviation” with a particular 

focus on propulsion systems. As a member of the Power Plants for Aircraft 

subcommittee, he authored a technical report on aircraft engine valves before 

joining the NACA in 1919.5 Clarke Thomson made his fortune manufacturing 

electric trolley cars and established the research group during World War I.6

Engines: The Heart of the Airplane

To better understand internal combustion engine problems, Langley power 

plant engineer Marsden Ware and his colleagues created the NACA Universal 

Test Engine in 1920. Ware was a 1918 graduate of the mechanical engineering 

program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. The single-cylinder 

test engine featured a 5-inch bore, a 7-inch stroke, and a head assembly that 

facilitated a wide variation of compression ratios and lift and timing of the 

intake and exhaust valves, as well as the capability to connect a number of 

accessories such as magnetos. Ware’s initial investigations centered on increasing horsepower through increased compression ratio and altered valve timing 

rather than the more intuitive increase in throttle settings.7

During the 1920s and 1930s, the next steps in the development of aircraft 

propulsion technology were an unknown. The dominant propulsion system 

in the United States consisted of the reciprocating piston engine—specifically 

the radial, air-cooled configuration—and the propeller.8 In 1940, Langley 

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory’s Power Plants Division focused on the 

“conventional, incremental” approach to the reciprocating engine. There was 

no place for new and unconventional systems of powering aircraft. The division 

focused on improving the cooling properties of the air-cooled radial engine, 

specifically on the improved design of cylinder fins, baffles, and shrouds.9

 It 

was the point of view of former United Aircraft Corporation President Eugene 

E. Wilson that, since the piston engine was a well-known quantity in the 

1920s, the NACA really had no way to advance the state of the art through 

fundamental research.10

Nevertheless, in September 1934, Langley opened the Aircraft 

Engine Research Laboratory. Designed primarily by Carlton Kemper, 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

3

Addison Rothrock, and Oscar W. Schey, the facility included dynamometers, equipment for fuel-spray research, and a two-stroke cycle test bed. Their 

research focused on increasing the power and efficiency of engines. The NACA’s 

limited but important work on designing air-cooled cylinder fins, examining fuel behavior, and addressing the relationship between octane and highcompression engines took place there.11

Propellers: Rotating Wings with a Twist

While the NACA may not have had much to offer in terms of innovating new 

power plants, its research programs in the development of propeller technology 

set the standard for technical excellence and Government-university collaboration. The NACA-sponsored propeller program conducted by two Stanford 

University professors is an excellent case study of that relationship.12

Until the completion of Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in June 

1920, the NACA coordinated and conducted all of its experimental research 

through contracts with research universities. One of the earliest and most 

consistently funded programs was propeller research. The NACA’s first annual 

report in 1915 acknowledged the lack of consistent propeller data regarding efficiency as one of the general problems facing American aeronautics. 

In its efforts to refine, develop, and perfect the propeller, the NACA enlisted 

the help of Government researchers and university professors from across the 

Nation but concentrated its main effort at Stanford University near Palo Alto, 

CA. As the 1920s progressed, the NACA became involved with aeronautical 

research, including propeller research, at major American universities such as 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), New York University, the 

University of Michigan, and the California Institute of Technology.13

Despite regular use in airships, however, propeller development through 

the late 18th and 19th centuries was more the result of empiricism than established theory.14 In France in 1885, Russian-born Stefan Drzewiecki devised a 

theory for calculating propeller performance based on measured airfoil data 

that, had they been used by the aeronautical community, would have greatly 

affected propeller development. Known today as the blade-element theory, 

Drzewiecki’s theory considers the propeller to be a warped airfoil, each of 

whose segments represents an ordinary wing as the segments travel in a helical path. Drzewiecki was the first to calculate the forces on blade segments to 

find the thrust and torque output for the entire propeller as well as innovating 

the use of airfoil data to determine propeller efficiency. Drzewiecki published 

various papers and texts beginning in 1885 and ending with Théorie Générale 

de l’Hélice Propulsive in 1920.15

Along with being the first successfully to develop a practical flying machine, 

Wilbur and Orville Wright were the first to address the propeller from a 
The Power for Flight

4

theoretical and overall original standpoint. The Wrights came to the conclusion during the winter of 1902 and 1903 that a propeller was not a screw, but a 

rotary wing, or airfoil, which generated aerodynamic thrust to achieve propulsion. With that concept established, they built upon the revolutionary wind 

tunnel experiments they used in designing the wings for the 1903 Flyer. The 

Wrights successfully designed propellers that were efficient enough to transfer 

power from their 12-horsepower internal combustion engine to achieve powered flight. The Wrights created the world’s first true airplane propeller and 

a theory to calculate its performance that would be the basis for all propeller 

research and development that followed.16

Figure 1-1. While they emphasized their Flyer’s control system as their unique contribution to 

the development of flight, the Wrights’ propellers were equally revolutionary. (National Air and 

Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM 9A05000)

Individual investigators, most notably Gustave Eiffel in France and D.L. 

Gallup of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in the United States, continued propeller research and development in the 1910s. The Europeans who worked with 

Drzewiecki’s theory found it to be largely unreliable but still effective in designing propellers of 70 to 80 percent efficiency. Thus, a significant knowledge of 

how to design a quality propeller existed by 1916. What did not exist was an 

effective collection of propeller data to aid designers in creating theoretically 

feasible and aerodynamically efficient propellers.17
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

5

The NACA’s first annual report in 1915 acknowledged the lack of consistent 

propeller data as one of the general problems facing American aeronautics. 

The need for “more efficient propellers,” able to retain their efficiency over a 

variety of flight conditions, was a primary concern. Identifying the need, the 

NACA suggested a solution. Unaware of the Wright brothers’ findings, the 

Committee acknowledged the existence of “competent authorities” on marinepropellers who would be able to transfer their expertise to the refinement of 

propeller design.18 The “competent authorities” that the Committee alluded to 

were professors William F. Durand and Everett P. Lesley, the two individuals 

responsible for the NACA’s propeller studies at Stanford University.

An 1876 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and professor 

emeritus from Cornell University’s prestigious Sibley College of Engineering, 

William F. Durand (1859–1958) served as the head of Stanford’s mechanical 

engineering department beginning in 1904. A noted authority on marinepropellers, he became interested in aeronautics, specifically propellers, in 1914. 

His influential article of the same year, “The Screw Propeller: With Special 

Reference to Aeroplane Propulsion,” which appeared in the Journal of the 

Franklin Institute, secured his charter membership in the NACA and bridged 

the gap between marine and aeronautical engineering. The article also inaugurated a prestigious career in aeronautics. Durand held the NACA chairmanship 

from 1916 to 1918, membership and the secretary’s position on the influential 

President’s Aircraft Board in 1925, and a charter trusteeship with the Daniel 

Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics beginning in 1926.19

Everett P. Lesley was an equally important member of the Stanford propeller 

research team. He received a master’s degree in naval architecture from Cornell 

University and served for two years at the Navy’s Experimental Towing Tank. 

Lesley came to Stanford’s mechanical engineering department in 1907 with 

a considerable knowledge (like Durand) of marine-propellers. One historian 

characterized Lesley as a versatile engineer with an “outstanding ability to make 

things work in the laboratory,” a quality crucial to the success of the Stanford 

propeller tests.20

Durand proposed at the NACA’s first meeting in 1915 that the committee 

sponsor extensive propeller investigations at Stanford University. In doing so, 

he initiated a 13-year relationship between the two institutions.21 Stanford 

University received its first contract for propeller research in October 1916; 

unfortunately, the specific amount of this initial contract is not available. 

Durand personally participated in the awarding of the NACA’s research contracts to Stanford University. His selection reflected the NACA’s belief that the 

most qualified individuals, no matter their affiliation to the committee, should 

have the opportunity to conduct research.22 The objective of the initial research 

and the 11 experiments that followed, however, involved the refinement of 
The Power for Flight

6

engineering practices that benefited overall airplane design, not just propeller 

design. There were differences between strict propeller design and the need to 

select and incorporate efficient propellers into airplane design. Propeller design 

involves the meticulous creation of an efficient airfoil, while airplane design 

requires that work to be already predetermined.23 Perceiving the propeller as 

a major component within the technical system of the airplane reflected the 

Committee’s desire to fulfill its goal of working toward the practical solution 

of the overall problems of flight.

Later, in June 1918, Durand illustrated the technical systems approach 

to airplane design before the Royal Aeronautical Society of Great Britain. 

In his delivery of the Annual Wilbur Wright Memorial Lecture, entitled 

“Some Outstanding Problems in Aeronautics,” Durand succinctly voiced the 

NACA’s position on propeller refinement within the broader sphere of airplane 

design. He defined a typical powered, heavier-than-air flying machine as “an 

airplane-motor-propeller combination” in which each of the three components was totally dependent on the others. The propeller was responsible for 

one crucial function in this relationship: converting the motor’s energy into 

propulsive power to enable the aircraft’s wings and fuselage to generate lift.24

Durand and the NACA clearly believed that propeller research at Stanford 

University would significantly contribute to the development of American 

aeronautical technology.

Before embarking upon in-depth research, Durand and Lesley first had to 

oversee the construction of the Stanford University Aerodynamical Laboratory 

during the fall and winter of 1916–1917. Funding for laboratory construction 

came from the initial propeller research contract of October 1916. Intent on 

starting experiments by the spring of 1917, the Stanford professors wanted the 

facility completed immediately to expedite research. They designed an Eiffeltype wind tunnel with a 5.5-foot throat and a 55-mile-per-hour maximum test 

stream speed. The specific instruments the Stanford professors incorporated 

into the laboratory were dynamometers for calculating thrust and torque, a 

revolution counter, and an airspeed meter.25

The interaction between the NACA and Stanford University from 1915 

to 1917 indicates the existence of a Government-research subrelationship. As 

the NACA Chairman, Durand influenced the shaping of a national aeronautical research and development policy that stressed the overall development of 

the airplane through a technical system approach. As university researchers, 

Durand and Lesley gained prestige from performing and publishing research 

for the Government. The university itself benefited from the new facilities. 

Individual leadership, university research, and direct Federal funding strengthened the subrelationship between the NACA and Stanford University.
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

7

Durand and Lesley conducted a broad-based study of propeller performance entitled “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers” for the NACA 

from 1917 to 1922. The most important contribution of this groundbreaking 

series of experiments was the establishment of a standard table of propeller 

coefficients available to designers through mathematical calculation and wind 

tunnel studies. During the 5 years of testing, the knowledge of and expertise in 

calculating propeller performance grew incrementally and created new avenues 

of experimentation.26

Durand and Lesley’s initial goal for the 1917 experiments involved the 

development of a series of design constants and coefficients derived from wind 

tunnel tests on 48 standard propeller model shapes. They intended to use the 

results as a final check against propeller data obtained from other aeronautical laboratories, the Drzewiecki theory, and full-flight experiments. By crosschecking these methods and the methods of other researchers, Durand and 

Lesley hoped to establish a standard methodology for continuing aeronautical research. The results of the tests, expressed in graphical form, encouraged 

Durand and Lesley to assert that their model propeller data contributed to the 

refinement of propeller design by a significant amount.27

For 1917, the NACA appropriated $4,000 for Durand and Lesley’s propeller research at the newly completed Stanford Aerodynamical Laboratory. This 

figure was 56 percent of the total budget of $7,100 for the Committee’s special 

reports for the entire year, indicating the significance the Committee placed 

on propeller studies. That budget was second only to the $68,957 awarded 

for the construction of the Committee’s research laboratory at Langley. The 

total NACA appropriation for 1917 was $87,515.70.28 Of the NACA’s total 

appropriations awarded up to the middle of 1918, 38 percent of it was for the 

Stanford propeller studies.29

The NACA authorized continued propeller research at Stanford University 

for the summer and autumn of 1918. Confident in the success of their previous study, Durand and Lesley continued with their standard model propeller 

studies as well as experimenting with a variable-pitch propeller.

Speaking before the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain earlier in June 

1918, Durand identified this propeller configuration as important to the overall refinement of airplane efficiency. He believed that development of a workable variable-pitch propeller was “of the highest order of importance” and 

“outstanding as one of the appliances for which the art of aerial navigation is 

definitely in waiting.”30

Paralleling Durand’s opinions was the NACA’s public request for assistance 

in the development of variable-pitch propellers. In the June 1, 1918, issue of 

Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, the NACA’s Special Sub-Committee on 

Engineering Problems reported that no significant progress had been made in 
The Power for Flight

8

the area. The committee’s call to arms regarding the development of a variablepitch propeller exemplifies the overflow of Government-sponsored university 

research into the private sector and indicates the overall importance of the 

new configuration.31

Earlier in the spring of 1919, the NACA reorganized its infrastructure in 

a way that further cemented the bonds of the Government-research subrelationship. The Committee abolished all of its subcommittees and created three 

technical and three administrative committees. The three technical committees, Aerodynamics, Power Plants, and Aircraft Construction, monitored all 

research for the NACA. The Committee on Aerodynamics specifically retained 

direct control of all aeronautical research at Stanford University and Langley 

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory later in 1920. Of the administrative groups, 

the Governmental Relations committee worked to coordinate between Federal 

agencies, and the Committee on Publications and Intelligence aimed to make 

the NACA an overall source of technical information. The Bureau of Standards, 

the Army’s Engineering Division, and the Navy’s Bureau of Construction and 

Repair provided their reports to the NACA as a courtesy for increased dissemination of knowledge.32

Durand and Lesley collaborated in a reexamination of their previous experimental propeller research in 1922. Having gained a better understanding of 

the intricacies of propeller theory, they synthesized their previous reports in 

a new report to provide systematic propeller design data in a usable form.33

Noted aerodynamicist Max Munk asserted that the Stanford University propeller study was “the most perfect and complete one ever published.” He judged 

the experiments were “selected and executed in the most careful way” and that 

Durand and Lesley’s methodology was “excellent.”34

Durand and Lesley’s “Experimental Research in Air-Propellers” expanded 

from one general model propeller study into four more complementary analyses of propeller efficiency. What they do illustrate, however, is the increasing complexities of engineering research and the extent to which the Federal 

Government would support further inquiry. The combined “Experimental 

Research on Air-Propellers” became the point of departure not only for the 

NACA’s propeller research, but for the ever-growing Government-research 

relationship between Stanford University and the Committee.

As Durand and Lesley’s experiments in collecting the systematic data necessary for propeller design progressed, they diverted their attention toward a 

new avenue of propeller specialization: vertical flight. Earlier in 1918, Durand 

had accepted the chairmanship of the NACA’s subcommittee for Helicopters, 

or Direct-Lift Aircraft.35 Not until 1921 did the Stanford Aerodynamical 

Laboratory investigate model propellers for use in helicopters.
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

9

The “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers” study was successful because 

the model propeller families were of already-established designs. Durand and 

Lesley were simply testing the viability of a certain methodology that confirmed predetermined calculations. In their efforts to experiment with new 

and unproven propeller designs, they acknowledged the need for further 

evaluation of the correlation among model propeller tests, airfoil theory, and 

full-flight testing.36 What resulted was an increasing sophistication of the 

NACA-sponsored research at Stanford University.

During the spring and summer of 1924, comparative experiments between 

standard model propeller testing and full-flight testing resulted in a collaborative effort between the NACA’s Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory 

and the Stanford Aerodynamical Laboratory. Lesley traveled to Virginia to 

conduct the full-flight tests while Durand directed the model propeller tests 

at Stanford.37

Rather than discouraging airplane designers in their search for aerodynamically efficient propellers, the comparative testing made them aware of 

the inconsistencies of applying model propeller data to full-scale designs.38

An NACA report issued the same year attested that researchers “can never rely 

absolutely” upon model data until they verify the data through full-flight tests.39

The comparative study between model and full-scale propellers rekindled 

another aeronautical problem that Durand first identified in his June 1918 

address to the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain. He believed that the 

“widest and most important outstanding problem in connection with airplane 

propulsion” was the aerodynamic relationship between the propeller and the 

airplane itself.40 As stated before, the NACA and Durand did not consider the 

propeller experiments to be of singular value, but one of importance to overall airplane design. Furthermore, aircraft structures, the fuselage, and wings 

directly affected the performance of propellers in flight conditions. In the last 

series of Stanford propeller studies conducted by Durand and Lesley from 1923 

to 1929, the professors independently researched the integration of propellers 

into airplane design.41, 42

Aeronautical engineering knowledge concerning the inclusion of the propeller into overall airplane design had grown dramatically by 1930. Durand 

and Lesley’s methods added sophistication to an increasingly complex field of 

propeller design. In one respect, their research influenced the NACA’s 1925 

decision to improve its propeller research facilities at the Langley Memorial 

Aeronautical Laboratory. Their exposure of the inadequacies of theoretical 

and model propeller testing convinced the committee that the hybridization 

of full-flight testing with wind tunnel testing was necessary.43 The completion 

of Langley’s Propeller Research Tunnel (PRT) in 1927 marked the end of the 
The Power for Flight

10

Stanford Aerodynamical Laboratory’s importance as the center of the NACA’s 

propeller research.44

As has been discussed, the interaction between the Stanford Aerodynamical 

Laboratory and the NACA during the period 1915 to 1930 clearly illustrated 

the Government-research subrelationship within an embryonic militaryindustrial-research complex. Acting on Government mandate, Durand and 

Lesley pursued research in the hope of advancing the technical development 

of American aeronautics. The partnership between Stanford and the NACA 

precipitated a growing interdependency between the Federal Government and 

academe. As a result of this Government-research subrelationship, the level 

of knowledge of incorporating propeller design into overall airplane design 

matured during the 1930s.

As the engineers of the Langley Laboratory designed and constructed the 

tools for continued work in aeronautics, they were able to make their own 

investigations into basic propeller research. Early tests of blade profiles in the 

Variable-Density Tunnel (VDT), however, proved unsatisfactory. What the 

NACA needed was the ability to test the aerodynamic properties of full-scale 

propellers. This need led to the opening of the PRT.45

After the opening of the PRT, Langley researchers utilized other tunnels 

such as the 24-Inch Jet Tunnel. During World War II, Langley was the center 

of the NACA’s study in improving propellers with high thrust at high speeds. 

The majority of the work on propellers took place in the 8-Foot High Speed 

and 16-Foot High Speed tunnels, the latter under the direction of John Stack. 

Melvin N. Gough conducted a simultaneous flight research program. Theodore 

Theodorsen and his colleagues in the Physical Research Division investigated 

vibration and flutter.46

The NACA’s principal contribution to propeller development in the 1930s 

was improved propeller efficiency at high speeds. The RAF-6 and ClarkY airfoils 

proved sufficient through the 1920s and 1930s. As aircraft speeds increased, 

shock waves and compressibility decreased efficiency. Langley sponsored three 

programs addressing propeller efficiency conducted by Fred Weick in the PRT, 

Eastman N. Jacobs in the VDT, and John Stack in 24-Inch High Speed Tunnel. 

During the 1930s, propellers realized efficiencies of 80 to 85 percent for aircraft that cruised at 300 to 350 miles per hour (mph). The NACA recognized 

that efficiencies dropped to 70 percent as speeds increased and made propeller 

development a major focus.47 The NACA announced a new family of airfoils, 

the 16-series, which resulted from using the thin airfoil theory. Thin airfoils 

facilitated faster and more efficient propeller blades. Distribution to the Army, 

Navy, and manufacturers ensured that the 16-series became the new choice 

for high-speed propellers.48
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

11

NACA researchers also worked to refine the aerodynamic properties of a 

propeller blade along its entire length with airfoil sections called cuffs. Blade 

design reflected a compromise where most of the blade was an airfoil, but the 

portion where it attached to the hub, called the root, was round for structural 

strength. In 1939, Langley researchers in the Full-Scale Tunnel investigated a 

single-engine fighter that was theoretically capable of 400 mph with the right 

propeller but could not yet reach that speed with a conventional propeller 

root-shape. To each blade root, they attached airfoil-shaped cuffs that covered 

over 45 percent of the blade. The increased blade area enabled the fighter to 

reach 400 mph at 20,000 feet. Langley carried on with extensive research on 

cuffs that allowed for the modification of existing blade designs.49 The North 

American P-51 Mustang fighter was modified with blade cuffs for increased 

performance, and cuffed propellers likewise improved the cooling of radial 

engine designs such as the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and—very significantly, 

because of its notorious cooling and engine fire problems—the four-engine 

Boeing B-29 Superfortress long-range bomber.

Figure 1-2. The use of propeller cuffs on fighters like the P-51 Mustang maximized the 

aircraft’s overall performance. (National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 

NASM 7A35592)
The Power for Flight

12

In 1941, John Stack and his colleagues at the 8-Foot High Speed Tunnel 

began work toward the development of a propeller that would be efficient 

at 500 mph at 25,000 feet. They believed that blades of varying widths and 

combinations and based on the 16-series airfoils were the key. They determined 

that an 111⁄2-foot dual-rotation propeller, comprising two tandem three-blade 

propellers, would exhibit 90 percent efficiency when coupled with an engine 

of 2,800 horsepower. The blades were called paddle blades, for the increased 

production of thrust came from their having a larger chord length from the 

leading to the trailing edge of the blade. Continued wind tunnel and flight tests 

revealed promising areas of research into expanding propeller performance, 

centering on blade airfoil sections that would offer higher critical speeds, that 

is, the point where the drag of the blade began to rapidly increase, reducing 

propeller efficiency. George Gray regarded the 16-series as the “first family 

when it comes to speed” due to its superiority to other types of blade sections. 

Using wider, or paddle, blades and expanding the number of blades increased 

the overall area for producing thrust. Dual contrarotation, the use of two sets 

of propellers connected to one engine and rotating in opposite directions (one 

clockwise, the other counterclockwise), alleviated torque roll, the sideways 

direction imparted by single propellers (which could roll an airplane on its 

back if a pilot too-rapidly manipulated the throttle at low speeds and high 

power settings), and maximized the energy of both propellers. (Though used on 

some aircraft, such as later Supermarine Seafire fighters in Britain, the postwar 

Fairey Gannet antisubmarine aircraft, and a variety of Soviet-era transports 

and bombers, the dual-contrarotating propeller has always been more of an 

exception to conventional design than a mainstream design element). Langley 

researchers revealed that new and efficient propellers could have up to eight 

blades.50 By the end of the war, the NACA had provided important avenues 

for the continued refinement of the airplane propeller.

While the NACA made no contributions to the mechanical design of propellers during the interwar period, its research staff did succeed in reducing revolutions per minute (rpm) while increasing horsepower, speed, and 

efficiency. At the beginning of the 1930s, two- and three-blade propellers 

using RAF-6 and Clark Y airfoils generated speeds between 150 and 250 mph 

for engines with 500 and 1,100 horsepower at 1,800 to 1,500 rpm with an 

overall efficiency of 83 percent. Work during the period 1935–1941 resulted 

in four-blade propellers utilizing an NACA 2409-34 airfoil that was able to 

absorb 1,600 horsepower at a speed of 350 mph at 1,430 rpm with efficiency 

of 87 percent. At the end of World War II, a six-blade dual-rotation propeller 

with NACA 16-508 blades was able to absorb 3,200 horsepower at 900 rpm 

at a speed of 500 mph with an overall efficiency of 90 percent.51
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

13

Other Propulsion-Related Technologies

Ever mindful of new areas to investigate, the NACA kept evaluating the 

state of aeronautical technology, especially as it pertained to propulsion. The 

Subcommittee on Aircraft Fuels and Lubricants focused on another challenge 

facing aviation: high-octane fuels and engine knock. In an internal combustion 

engine, a spark plug ignites a fuel-air mixture that is compressed at the top of 

the cylinder by the piston. The resultant explosion, characterized as a flame 

front with an accompanying increase in temperature and pressure, pushes 

the piston down. Efforts to improve engine performance, primarily increased 

compression, by operating at higher rpms, or supercharging, introduced the 

possibility of “knock,” the uncontrolled combustion of fuel-air mixture in 

an internal combustion engine that led to mechanical damage and unsafe 

temperatures in the cylinders and pistons.52 Cearcy D. Miller’s invention of a 

high-speed photography process capable of up to 40,000 frames per second 

captured the combustion process and permitted the determination of the exact 

moment engine knock began.53

The introduction of high-octane aviation fuel offered new challenges to the 

operation of aircraft engines. Fuels with high anti-knock properties facilitated 

higher compression ratios and leaner fuel-air mixtures that provided increased 

power for brief periods, primarily during takeoff and conditions warranting 

War Emergency power, or 100 percent of the engine’s output. Those conditions also rapidly exceeded the engine’s cooling capability. Engine designers 

turned to an old trick, the injection of water along with the fuel-air mixture, to 

achieve direct cooling of the cylinders and pistons. The water simply absorbed 

heat, evaporated, and exited through the exhaust as steam as it offered a 15- to 

25-percent surge in power as it increased knock resistance.54

NACA researchers worked to refine the process of water injection. They 

determined that the optimum amount of water for injection was 1 pound 

for every 2 pounds of fuel. Full-scale tests with that mixture showed that a 

2,100-horsepower engine could be boosted to 2,800 horsepower for brief periods of up to 6 minutes. The research also revealed that water injection prevented 

knock by speeding the movement of the flame front through the cylinder.55

Two propulsion projects the NACA pursued in the 1920s and 1930s were 

the Roots blower, or supercharger, and the diesel engine. Commonly used 

in industrial and automotive applications, a Roots blower consisted of two 

cycloidal rotors that pumped air into an engine’s intake upon each revolution. 

The compressed air increased performance as an airplane flew at higher altitudes, restoring a level of power normally seen only at lower, denser altitudes. 

Marsden Ware dedicated a considerable amount of research to the 88-pound 
The Power for Flight

14

device and found it to be rugged and smooth in operation; he advocated its 

expanded use by aircraft engine makers.56

The engine community did not see potential in the Roots blower. Pratt & 

Whitney engineer Luke Hobbs remarked that the Roots was bulky, and heavy. 

Additionally, it operated at a high temperature, which distorted the structure 

and leaked air, which in turn affected the needed compression to force air into 

the engine.57 Despite those problems, U.S. Navy Lieutenant C.C. Champion, 

Jr., flew an experimental Navy Wright XF3W-1 Apache fighter equipped 

with the NACA-designed Roots supercharger to a world-record altitude of 

38,419 feet on July 25, 1927. The Roots served as the first stage to the Pratt 

& Whitney Wasp engine’s own geared centrifugal supercharger, which became 

an industry standard. The use of the Roots blower for Champion’s flight and 

subsequent record-breaking altitude flights by fellow naval aviator Lieutenant 

Apollo Soucek in the XF3W-1 in 1929–1930 became the only significant 

examples of the use of noncentrifugal, nonturbine superchargers in aircraft.58

The NACA conducted exhaustive research directed toward the development 

of aircraft diesel engines during the late 1920s and through the 1930s. The work 

centered on injection-system development and combustion-chamber design. 

All work was fundamental and used single cylinders for research and not actual 

engines. There was hope for flying diesels such as the 1931 Collier Trophy–

winning design by Packard and advanced designs from Europe, but with the 

advent of high-octane fuels, conventional spark-ignition engines offered better 

performance. There were virtually no diesel engines in widespread use by the 

outbreak of World War II. Despite the extensive and pioneering research from 

1927 to 1937, the NACA’s diesel engine program, in the words of one of 

America’s leading propulsion specialists, C. Fayette Taylor, “found no practical 

application.”59 The primary focus on diesel engines throughout the most of the 

1930s proved to be a costly diversion.60

The NACA had a role in continued refinements to the piston engine. The 

injection of water or a water-alcohol mixture into the cylinder to cool the 

combustion chamber enabled greater compression ratios and, for the most 

part, eliminated the problem of engine knocking. The reduction in temperature 

increased performance, especially when used with modifications such as turboand supercharging. Pratt & Whitney initiated the development of water injection shortly before World War II in collaboration with the Materiel Division at 

Wright Field. The NACA followed up with research.61 Immediately after the 

war, water-alcohol injection proved especially beneficial for military transports 

and commercial airliners at takeoff and for fighter aircraft that needed short 

bursts of extra speed and power.62
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

15

Propulsion Integration: Beginnings 

of Engine-Airframe Matching

Up to World War II, the NACA was known primarily for its pioneering 

fundamental work in aerodynamics, specifically drag reduction. The NACA 

model of engineering methodology centered on experimental parameter variation, a systematic process of elimination based on repetition and the variation of parameters until an ideal solution for an engineering challenge was 

found. The application of that knowledge to making a foundation technology of the aeronautical revolution—in this case, the radial, air-cooled piston 

engine—aerodynamically feasible became a hallmark of the NACA’s work. The 

American aeronautical community, recognizing the engine’s light weight for 

the horsepower produced and its simplicity placed a major emphasis on the 

radial engine. New and fast “express” aircraft like the Lockheed Vega benefited 

greatly from the inclusion of a 450-horsepower Pratt & Whitney Wasp in their 

design. Unfortunately, the protruding cylinders of the radial engine—a “wheellike” engine that is both broad and flat in the airstream—created a great deal 

of drag for an otherwise streamlined airplane.63

Fred E. Weick and his colleagues at Langley addressed the fundamental 

problem of incorporating a radial engine into aircraft design in the PRT. The 

wind tunnel’s 20-foot opening allowed them to test full-size aircraft structures. 

Their pioneering work on a new engine-encircling structure, called the NACA 

cowling, simultaneously reduced drag and improved engine cooling.

The NACA cowling arrived at the right moment to increase the performance of new aircraft, and it became a standard design feature on radial-engine 

aircraft, whether high-speed commercial express aircraft, military fighters and 

bombers, or general aviation designs. Famous aviator Frank Hawks flew his 

scarlet-red Texaco Lockheed Air Express, with an NACA cowling installed, 

from Los Angeles to New York nonstop in a record time of 18 hours and 

13 minutes in February 1929. Tests of a Curtiss AT-5A Hawk fighter with an 

NACA cowling increased its top speed from 118 mph to 137 mph, equivalent 

to adding 83 horsepower to the engine. The National Aeronautic Association 

recognized that the NACA’s contribution to overall aircraft design was so great 

that the association awarded the Committee its first Collier Trophy in 1929 

for its innovative work.

The combination of aerodynamic streamlined design, radial engines with 

NACA cowlings, variable-pitch propellers, retractable landing gear, and other 

innovations resulted in the “modern airplane.”64 The Douglas DC series was 

the most successful of these new aircraft. The first, the DC-1, debuted in July 

1933 with the major innovations of the aeronautical revolution, including 

an advanced NACA-designed airfoil and radial engines covered with NACA 
The Power for Flight

16

cowlings. It led to the DC-2 of May 1934, which carried 14 passengers while 

cruising at 212 mph. The follow-on DC-3 of December 1935 carried 21 

people and became the most popular and reliable propeller-driven airliner in 

aviation history.

Figure 1-3. This image shows NACA cowling #10 in the Langley PRT. (NASA)

The AERL and World War II

Surrounded by representatives of both the military and industry, the NACA’s 

Director of Aeronautical Research, George Lewis, broke ground for the 

Committee’s new Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) at Cleveland 

on January 23, 1941. As he drove a special pick with a nickel-plated head into 

the ground, the NACA transferred its highly successful model of fundamental 

research into the field of aircraft propulsion, all to benefit the American aviation industry.65 War raged in Europe and Asia, with the potential of American 

involvement becoming increasingly certain. The creation of the AERL reflected 

the widely held belief that the United States needed to retain superiority in 

aeronautical technology vis-à-vis Europe in the late 1930s, especially in propulsion. After American entry into World War II in December, the NACA and 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

17

the AERL embarked upon a widespread program—not to innovate through 

basic research, but to evaluate, develop, and refine existing piston engine and 

propeller technology for the war effort.

Figure 1-4. The Douglas DC-1 and other “modern” aircraft benefited greatly from NACA innovations. (Rudy Arnold Photo Collection, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 

NASM XRA-8489)

The AERL had its origins in the late interwar period and reflected the 

work of a new member of the Committee, George Mead. Mead was a legendary engine designer known for his Pratt & Whitney Wasp and Hornet 

radial engines. A 1916 graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT), he began to work with aircraft engines as an experimental engineer at 

the Wright-Martin Company in New Brunswick, NJ, during World War I. 

He also served as engineer-in-charge of power plant research at McCook Field 

before becoming chief engineer at Wright Aeronautical in Paterson, NJ. In 

1925, he cofounded Pratt & Whitney Aircraft with Frederick B. Rentschler 

and assumed the title of vice president and chief engineer. With the creation 

of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation in 1929 from the nucleus of 

Pratt & Whitney, he rose to a technical leadership position within America’s 

leading manufacturer of airframes, engines, and propellers. After retiring from 

United Aircraft in 1939, he accepted President Roosevelt’s appointment to 

the NACA. His fellow members quickly elected him vice chairman, and he 

assumed leadership of the Power Plants Committee.66

Acting upon Charles Lindbergh’s recommendations, Mead formed the 

Special Committee on New Engine Research Facilities to establish the design 
The Power for Flight

18

of a new NACA aeronautical laboratory in Cleveland, OH. The centerpiece of 

the new facility would be an Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), which simulated 

an altitude of 30,000 feet at 490 mph and allowed focused testing of engines, 

superchargers, and propellers individually or as complete propulsion systems. 

Other facilities included wind tunnels and laboratories capable of investigating 

model and full-scale engines; fuels and lubricants; and components including superchargers, carburetors, instruments, and fuel and ignition systems. 

Ultimately, the new propulsion laboratory would be at the intersection of the 

work of the NACA, Government, industry, and the military. The NACA was 

to fill the gap left open by industry with an emphasis on development and 

production, not fundamental research, rooted in national defense and ensuring 

the future of commercial aviation.

Before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 

NACA Chairman Vannevar Bush requested $8.4 million for the construction 

of a new laboratory focused on aircraft propulsion. His appeal was not an easy 

proposition that won ready acceptance. There was considerable resistance, 

centered on the nature of research versus development, as well as the cost, 

from Congress and engine manufacturers. The House committee members 

misunderstood the difference between fundamental research and engineering 

development and questioned the need for additional Government funding. 

The manufacturers felt the money was better spent in the form of direct grants 

that allowed them to focus on developing their specific products. The NACA 

endeavored to take competition and exclusion out and introduce fundamental 

engineering into the equation.67 The Dunkirk evacuation and the fall of France 

in June 1940 added additional impetus to the creation of a dedicated aircraft 

engine research laboratory. The First National Defense Appropriations Act of 

June 1940 authorized the new laboratory.

Cleveland was a leading center of aviation. It was home to Thompson 

Products, the maker of automotive and aircraft engine parts, primarily the evercrucial intake and exhaust valves found in all aircraft engines. Every September, 

hundreds of thousands of people swarmed the grandstands and displays of the 

National Air Races. The city on the Lake Erie shore was also a water, rail, road, 

and air transportation hub connecting the East Coast, the Midwest, and the 

West. Thompson Products president Frederick C. Crawford led the effort to 

bring the NACA to Cleveland. The city made 200 acres adjacent to the airport 

available to the Federal Government for just $500. On November 25, 1940, 

Cleveland civic leaders proudly announced the city’s selection as the site for 

the new flight propulsion laboratory.68

The NACA’s activities in Cleveland during World War II were far from fundamental. World War II resulted in a change in focus. The NACA in Cleveland 

focused on improving the performance and reliability of existing engines 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

19

produced by Wright Aeronautical, Pratt & Whitney, and Allison, which was 

an impetus created by Chief of the Army Air Forces, General Henry H. “Hap” 

Arnold. He was a supporter of the laboratory from the outset and took the 

opportunity to redress what he believed to be the failure of aircraft manufacturers to produce high-performance military fighter engines.69

Four Langley Power Plants Division sections, led by Oscar Schey, Benjamin 

Pinkel, Addison Rothrock, and Charles Stanley Moore, arrived in Cleveland. 

Schey was chief of the Supercharger Division. A graduate in mechanical engineering from the University of Minnesota, he joined the NACA in 1923, where he 

became well known for his work on the Roots supercharger. His promotion of the 

use of valve overlap and fuel injection in piston engines to reduce supercharger 

requirements were innovations ignored in the United States but enthusiastically 

received in Nazi Germany.70 The Thermodynamics Division, led by another 

propulsion expert, Benjamin Pinkel, focused on turbosupercharger research, but 

their engine exhaust redesign increased the power available to high-performance 

Figure 1-5. The Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory in Cleveland, OH, supported the United 

States aviation production program during World War II. Much of the development work involved 

straightforward evaluation of propeller-and-engine combinations on torque stands to determine 

their overall power. (NASA)
The Power for Flight

20

aircraft, including the Merlinpowered North American P-51 

Mustang long-range fighter.

71

Figure 1-6. The NACA employed a large number of 

women at its laboratories. This researcher is testing 

the chemical properties of fuels and lubricants at the 

The Aircraft Engine 

Research Laboratory’s first new 

research program, beginning 

in October 1942, involved the 

Allison V-1710 V-12 engine. 

The V-1710 was the only highperformance liquid-cooled 

inline engine available in the 

United States in the late 1930s. 

Curtiss selected it to power 

its P-40 fighter, which first 

flew in October 1938. After 

December 7, 1941, American 

pilots found the P-40 unable to 

outmaneuver more advanced 

German and Japanese fighters in combat, especially at 

high altitudes, though it was 

a rugged and otherwise very 

useful aircraft, particularly for 

low-altitude operations. The 

increased refinement of the V-1710 was a full effort by all four divisions at the 

AERL. Schey’s division focused on the supercharger; Addison Rothrock and 

his colleagues in the Fuels and Lubricants Division investigated knock limitations in the cylinder heads;72 Pinkel’s group worked to improve cooling; and 

Charles Stanley Moore’s Engine Components Division addressed the refined 

fuel-air distribution in the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor.

The teams at the AERL succeeded in getting more power out of the V-1710, 

and later turbosupercharged variants powered the futuristic Lockheed P-38 

Lightning, which was capable of speeds approaching 400 mph at altitudes of 

up to 30,000 feet. Nevertheless, the NACA researchers saw the V-1710 as a 

flawed design that wasted their efforts during the chaotic early days of World 

War II. Exchanging the V-1710 on the North American NA-73 for a British 

1,650-horsepower Rolls-Royce Merlin engine with a two-stage supercharger 

made the resultant P-51 Mustang the fastest and highest-flying Allied piston 

fighter to enter operational service during the war, with speeds approaching 

450 mph and at altitudes of up to 40,000 feet.73

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory in 1943. (NASA)
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

21

Figure 1-7. This schematic drawing of the Altitude Wind Tunnel at the AERL indicates the industrial 

scale of the NACA’s work in aircraft propulsion research. (NASA)

The AWT was the centerpiece facility of the AERL.74 At the cost of $6 million, it was unrivaled in its capability to test full-scale engines and propellers in 

simulated altitude conditions. The researchers in Cleveland addressed the next 

major engine development problem facing the American aviation production 

program, the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engine, when the AWT 

opened in May 1944. Four turbosupercharged 18-cylinder R-3350s, each rated 

at 2,200 horsepower, powered the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, then the most 

advanced airplane in the world, with a highly refined streamlined design, allmetal monoplane construction, retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin, 

and an advanced electronically based centralized defensive weapon system 

incorporating remotely operated turrets fired by gunners in sighting cupolas. 

Capable of carrying 16,000 pounds of bombs and cruising at 235 mph at 

altitudes of up to 30,000 feet, the B-29 was also the only strategic bomber 

that could reach Japan from American air bases in the Pacific. But it had a 

drawback: the R-3350, one of the most complex piston engines ever produced, 

experienced overheating and catastrophic engine fires due to rushed development. Tests in the AWT led to improved exhaust turbines and the elimination 

of high-altitude fuel-vaporization problems, which increased the B-29’s payload capacity by 51⁄2 tons and permitted improved high-altitude operation.75

Beginning in November 1944, units of the U.S. Army Air Forces’ 20th Air 

Force initiated the strategic bombing of Japanese cities, culminating in August 

1945 with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Power for Flight

22

The journal Aviation argued that the history of the NACA and the success 

of American aviation were intertwined during the late 1930s and 1940s. In 

terms of the global air war during World War II, the editors proclaimed that 

the Committee was the “force behind our air supremacy” in early 1944.76

Gas Turbines Usher in a Second Aeronautical Revolution

Early on August 27, 1939, test pilot Erich Warsitz took off from the Rostock 

airfield near the Baltic Sea in the world’s first gas turbine–powered, jetpropelled airplane, the Heinkel He 178. The power plant was a Heinkel HeS 3 

centrifugal-flow turbojet, which was capable of 838 pounds of thrust and could 

propel the small silver airplane at speeds of up to 360 mph. Watching the flight 

was Hans von Ohain, the engine’s young inventor, and Ernst Heinkel, the 

speed-obsessed sponsor of the project.77 The 5-minute flight, which took place 

just 5 days before the Nazi invasion of Poland that signaled the outbreak of 

World War II, ushered in the second aeronautical revolution and the next great 

age in aviation history, the Jet Age. Britain followed with its own jet aircraft, the 

experimental Gloster E.28/39, which first flew on May 15, 1941, in Cranwell, 

England. By the late summer of 1944, both Nazi Germany and Great Britain 

introduced operational jet fighter aircraft (the Messerschmitt Me 262 and the 

Gloster Meteor I), and the world’s air forces scrambled to catch up. The United 

States flew its first jet aircraft, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet, on October 1, 

1942, at Muroc Dry Lake (now Edwards Air Force Base) in California—but 

its engines, though built by General Electric (GE), were derivatives of a design 

by Britain’s Frank Whittle, whose first flightworthy engine had powered the 

Gloster E.28/39.78

The invention of the jet engine and the requisite engineering to make it 

and the aircraft that followed viable equaled the achievement of the Wright 

brothers and constituted a second revolution in aeronautics. As a new and 

revolutionary type of propulsion system, the jet engine allowed airplanes to 

fly higher and faster than ever before. The reaction of the aeronautical community to that new technology resulted in a generation of new airplanes with 

remarkably new capabilities.

Unlike many aeronautical innovations, the turbojet engine was not of 

American origin. Simultaneous events in Great Britain and Germany in the 

1920s and 1930s brought about the creation of this new propulsion technology by two pioneers: Sir Frank Whittle and Dr. Hans von Ohain. As a Royal 

Air Force officer with an engineering background, Frank Whittle sought an 

alternative to the piston-engine-propeller combination and theorized, using 

Newton’s third law of physics, that a gas turbine could be used to produce jet 

propulsion. His patent for a gas turbine–powered jet propulsion concept in 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

23

1930 went unnoticed by the British Government as well as the international 

aeronautical community. After receiving his advanced degree in mechanical 

sciences at Cambridge, Whittle found private support to develop his invention and founded Power Jets, Ltd., in March 1936. The first complete engine, 

the W.U., or Whittle Unit, ran on a test stand in April 1937, becoming the 

first jet engine in the world to successfully operate in a practical fashion. The 

British air ministry contracted Power Jets to build a flying engine, while Gloster 

Aircraft received another contract to build a jet-propelled airplane. The Gloster 

E.28/39’s W.1X engine produced 860 pounds of thrust at speeds of up to 

338 mph. The Royal Air Force introduced the Gloster Meteor into operational 

service in July 1944, making it the first and only turbojet-powered airplane to 

serve with the Allies during World War II.79

Figure 1-8. This image shows America’s first jet: the Bell XP-59A Airacomet. (Bell Helicopter 

Textron via National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM 90-6683)

A young Ph.D. with a degree in physics from Göttingen University in 

Germany, Hans von Ohain, patented an aeronautical gas turbine engine in 

November 1935. He and a friend constructed a promising, but small, working 

demonstration model with private funds. With a letter of introduction from 

his mentor at Göttingen, von Ohain met with aircraft manufacturer Ernst 

Heinkel, a self-confessed high-speed enthusiast, who quickly gave the young 

physicist a job developing what became Germany’s first jet engine. The collaboration proceeded rapidly. Von Ohain moved from hydrogen to gasoline 
The Power for Flight

24

as the fuel to make the engine practical for flight. Heinkel engineers designed 

a purpose-built airframe for the new engine. The Heinkel He 178 flew on 

August 27, 1939, making it the world’s first gas turbine–powered, jet-propelled 

airplane in history to fly. Von Ohain’s HeS 3B engine generated 838 pounds 

of thrust and propelled the He 178 at speeds of up to 360 mph.80

The success of the He 178 and von Ohain’s engine encouraged the German 

air ministry to pursue the development of jet-propelled aircraft during World 

War II. Junkers Motoren Werke began work on a new design, the Jumo 004, the 

world’s first practical axial-flow jet engine, under the direction of Dr. Anselm 

Franz, the head of the company’s supercharger group. The axial-flow compressor design consisted of an alternating series of rotating and stationary blades, 

where the overall flow path essentially moved along the axis of the engine. The 

004 series powered the Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a Schwalbe (“Swallow”)—

the first practical jet airplane—that first flew on July 18, 1942. Able to fly well 

over 500 mph, the Me 262 was a spectacular symbol of what jet aircraft could 

and would do over the next 50 years of flight.81

Figure 1-9. The NACA created the Altitude Wind Tunnel to test full-scale piston engines and 

propellers in simulated altitude conditions. The first tests of a turbojet engine took place in 

February 1944. During the spring of 1945, researchers installed a full-size Lockheed YP-80A 

Shooting Star fuselage with a GE I-40 engine for high-altitude evaluation. The tests led to data 

that predicted the engine thrust at all altitudes, which contributed to the operational success of 

America’s first practical jet fighter. (NASA)
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

25

With its impressive record in making the airplane better through the interwar period, the NACA failed to recognize the significance of jet propulsion, 

the single most important development in aviation during the second half of 

the 20th century, and trailed far behind Great Britain and Germany. On the 

question of jet propulsion, Mead, the head of the influential Power Plants 

Committee, remarked in December 1942, “I doubt whether such a revolutionary change in propulsion could be developed in time to be of use in 

this war....”82

Catching Up with Europe

By the time the United States entered World War II, it was already behind in 

the “race” with Great Britain and Germany to develop a workable jet aircraft. 

The American aeronautical engine industry underwent a transition to meet 

the challenge of engineering the new technology. In the process, one established company, Wright Aeronautical, left the business, while another, Pratt 

& Whitney, persevered, and a new one, GE, rose to the challenge. By 1960, 

America was a leading member of a new aeronautical gas turbine industry, 

thanks, in large measure, to the NACA’s work.

The NACA was completely unaware of the impending “turbojet” revolution. Its researchers believed that the continued evolution of the piston engine 

was the future direction of propulsion technology. The design and operation 

of the AERL reflected that practical purpose.83 The American aeronautical 

community concentrated on present and immediate needs that reflected the 

dominance of the piston engine and propeller as the primary propulsion system 

during the interwar period. When faced with fighting a global aerial war, the 

American military embraced that standard and wedded it to large-scale production programs to avoid the strategic mistake of putting too much emphasis 

on new technologies that would only be practical in the long term and after 

costly research and development, not immediately and on aerial battlefields 

around the world.84

The two major American manufacturers of aeronautical engines were 

Wright Aeronautical and Pratt & Whitney. Both were pioneers in the field 

and were responsible for the dominance of the piston engine during the 

interwar and World War II periods. Wright’s innovative designs included the 

610-horsepower V-1400 racing engine that powered famed aviator Jimmy 

Doolittle’s Schneider Trophy–winning Curtiss R3C-2 Racer in 1925; the 

225-horsepower J-5 Whirlwind that powered Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis

in 1927; and the four 2,200-horsepower R-3350 turbosupercharged radials 

of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which spearheaded the American strategic 

bombing campaign against Japan in 1944–1945, serving as the world’s first 
The Power for Flight

26

atomic-armed bomber as well. Former Wright Aeronautical employees created 

Pratt & Whitney in 1925 to design and market the Wasp radial engine, which, 

like the Wright J-5, was a key marker in the emergent technology leading to the 

modern commercial and military aviation in the 1920s and 1930s. The need for 

aircraft that could fly faster than current technology, such as the combination 

of the powerful and established radial engine with the constant-speed propeller, 

would allow was becoming more urgent almost daily.

The impetus for aeronautical gas turbines came from within the aviation 

community. Airframe manufacturer Lockheed Aircraft Corporation began 

work on its L-1000 turbojet in 1940 in the first serious American attempt to 

work with the new technology. Nathan C. Price came to Lockheed in the late 

1930s to develop steam turbines for aircraft but then turned to a gas turbine 

instead. His hiring coincided with the company’s realization that a new type 

of power plant was needed to attain radically higher speeds. Lockheed vice 

president of engineering Hall L. Hibbard committed the company to the 

project since he believed that no engine manufacturer would build the engine.85

Lockheed developed the L-1000 for the L-133, an entirely new aircraft that 

relied entirely upon jet propulsion for power and control through small jets in 

the wingtips. Lockheed designers predicted that the new airplane would reach 

625 mph at 50,000 feet. Lockheed was ready to develop both the engine and 

airframe by 1941 and formally submitted its plans to the Army Air Forces in 

1942. Discussions continued until May 1943, when the Army Air Forces told 

Lockheed that other companies had been working on other jet engine designs 

since 1941. The Army Air Forces awarded Lockheed a long-term contract in 

mid-1943 and designated the L-1000 the XJ-37. Lockheed transferred Price, 

his staff, and the design to the Menasco Manufacturing Company in 1945.86

Northrop Aircraft began work on a turboprop aircraft during the late 1930s. 

A gifted Czech engineer, Vladimir H. Pavlecka, who brought his enthusiasm 

for using a gas turbine to drive a propeller from Europe, directed the effort. But 

his imaginative design, the aptly named Turbodyne, bogged down in a series 

of mismanaged Government contracts throughout the 1940s, though it was 

successfully flown in the nose of a Boeing B-17 flying test bed.87

Aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney experimented with a turboprop in 1940. Engineer Leonard S. Hobbs and researcher Andrew Kalitinsky 

of MIT designed an engine, called the PT-1, that featured a free-piston reciprocating diesel compressor and a turbine wheel geared only to the propeller. 

Pratt & Whitney undertook the program as an experimental development 

effort that would generate design knowledge; consequently, the PT-1 was not 

meant for production. By 1945, the private long-term venture cost $3.3 million ($32 million in modern currency).88
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

27

Official American development of aeronautical gas turbine engines was 

more reactionary than innovative during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Due 

to recent German developments, the American military was very interested in 

rockets by 1938. General Arnold asked the NACA to investigate the issue in 

1941. Members of the newly created Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 

headed by the venerable William F. Durand, included the NACA, the military and naval air organizations, the Bureau of Standards, and the leading 

engineering universities. The Committee’s industrial representatives were not 

aircraft engine manufacturers, but makers of industrial and marine-turbines: 

Westinghouse, Allis-Chalmers, and General Electric (Schenectady).89

Arnold requested that the leading aircraft engine manufacturers, Pratt & 

Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, and Allison, be excluded for two reasons. First, 

their exclusion would prevent them from opposing any new developments that 

would offset their primacy in the aeronautical marketplace. Second, exclusion 

prevented them from diverting financial and engineering resources away from 

the conventional engines that the Army was using to fight the war once the 

United States entered World War II. The companies received no information 

about gas turbine development before 1945.90

Durand urged the development of jet over rocket propulsion within the 

Committee, which recommended that the U.S. Government issue contracts 

with Westinghouse, Allis-Chalmers, and GE’s turbine group at Schenectady. 

This recommendation was quite remarkable since the mainstream aeronautical 

community still believed that jet propulsion was not practical in 1941.

The three companies submitted very different designs. Westinghouse and 

Allis-Chalmers worked directly with the Navy. The former submitted a turbojet—called the 19A—that became the only original 1942 American design 

to fly before the end of the war. The small engine produced 1,200 pounds 

of thrust and flew as a booster for a Goodyear FG-1 Corsair (a co-produced 

derivative of the better-known Chance Vought F4U-1 Corsair) in January 

1944. The improved 19B generated 1,365 pounds thrust and was the primary 

power plant for the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom in January 1945, the first Navy 

pure jet fighter to land aboard an aircraft carrier. Allis-Chalmers produced a 

turbine-driven ducted fan, but it suffered from a slow development program. 

The Army’s cooperation with GE’s turbine group at Schenectady resulted in 

the TG-100 turboprop. All three engines represented what would become 

the standard configuration for aeronautical gas turbines: an axial rather than 

centrifugal compressor driven by a turbine wheel.91

The most well-known American aeronautical gas turbine program was the 

importation and development of Whittle’s design. Army representatives working with the Royal Air Force in England learned of the British turbojet program 

early in 1941. Great Britain’s dire situation regarding the threat of an imminent 
The Power for Flight

28

Nazi invasion convinced the British Government to assist the United States in 

jump-starting its gas turbine program. General Arnold inspected the Whittle 

engine and saw the flight of the Gloster E.28/39. Wright Field engineering officer Colonel David Keirn arrived in England in August 1941. He returned with 

the W.1X and drawings of the W.2B production engine on October 1, 1941, 

for delivery to GE. The British Government sent an early Whittle engine and 

drawings of the latest design to the Supercharger Division of General Electric 

at West Lynn, MA, in October 1941. GE’s expertise in interwar turbine and 

turbosupercharger development made it the obvious choice to develop the 

American military’s first jet engine. A number of British engineers, including 

Frank Whittle, followed to give their input. GE’s improved centrifugal-flow 

Whittle turbojet engine, the I-A, generated 1,250 pounds of thrust.

Figure 1-10. Captured German jet technology, especially the Junkers Jumo 004B axial-flow 

turbojet, was of considerable interest to NACA researchers at the Aircraft Engine Research 

Laboratory in the immediate post–World War II period. (NASA)

On October 1, 1942, test pilot Robert M. Stanley took off from Muroc Dry 

Lake in America’s first jet airplane, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet. Propelled by 

two GE I-A engines, the Airacomet reached a speed of 390 mph in the skies 

over the high desert of California. Just a few months earlier, the world’s first 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

29

practical jet airplane, the Messerschmitt Me 262, had first flown in Germany at 

speeds of up to 540 mph. As America’s first foray into jet aircraft, the Airacomet 

was a humble start since it exhibited performance equal to only the best pistonengine propeller-driven fighters. It appeared that the United States was behind 

in the development of a new and revolutionary technology.92

During the summer of 1943, Keirn received permission to inform the 

NACA of GE’s work on the turbojet engine. That information directly led 

to the construction and staffing of the Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory with 

Kervork K. Nahigyan as the new section’s head in September 1943. The unremarkable one-story building surrounded by a barbed-wire fence and located 

at the edge of the Cleveland airport runway featured “spin pits” that absorbed 

flying debris created by failed compressors.93

There were initial steps to work of equal value in the development of gas turbine engines and engine superchargers. In 1938, the NACA precipitated work 

on axial-flow compressors, the configuration found in all of today’s jet engines. 

This work, initiated by Eastman N. Jacobs and Eugene W. Wasielewski, was 

followed up by considerable work at Langley. Jacobs was a highly influential 

researcher due to his work on symmetrical section laminar-flow airfoils; the 

application of airfoil theory, a hallmark of the NACA’s interwar work, to the 

design of multistage compressors led to a more comprehensive understanding 

of compressors.94

Jacobs’s engine received full endorsement by Durand’s Special Committee 

above the other ideas submitted by the spring of 1941. Its ducted fan configuration consisted of a piston engine and a two-stage axial compressor. Air entered 

the duct and was compressed, mixed with atomized fuel, and ignited in the 

combustion chamber. The heated gas exited through a high-speed nozzle to 

propel the engine forward. The engine was a modified version of the power 

plant used by Secondo Campini to power the Caproni N.1 and quickly became 

known as “Jake’s Jeep.”95 There were many development problems related to 

the axial-flow compressor, but it was very clear that the NACA believed that 

the configuration was the correct path.96

The rapid advance of pure gas turbine engines and the flight of the XP-59A 

caused the Army to cancel the ducted fan engine originated by Eastman Jacobs 

at Langley in February 1943, though it lingered officially until the Durand 

Committee canceled it on April 15, 1943. The failed Jeep played a role in 

future turbojet development in the United States as a point of departure for 

axial-flow compressor research, but it contributed nothing further.97 The axial 

compressor of the first turbojet developed by the GE Schenectady group, the 

3,750-pound-thrust TG-180 (J35), benefited from the NACA’s research, but 

the compressor first flew in a Republic XP-84 Thunderjet in February 1946.98
The Power for Flight

30

The NACA’s failure to anticipate the pure turbojet developments in 

Germany and Britain prior to the Second World War seriously damaged its 

reputation with the military, particularly with Hap Arnold’s Army Air Forces. 

Afterward, due to its failure to anticipate jet propulsion before 1941 and the 

distraction of the failed Jacobs ducted fan during the critical early years of 

the war, Arnold effectively took the NACA out of the leading edge of aircraft 

propulsion by giving GE the task of developing the Whittle engine. Instead, 

the NACA was given the task of testing already-developed engines from GE 

and Westinghouse in its Static Test Laboratory.99

All in all, the NACA’s Cleveland engine laboratory had a remarkable blind 

eye when it came to jet propulsion. No consideration was given to the field at 

all in the development of the facility. The great potential significance of the 

jet engine was enunciated by George Lewis in August 1943.100 Afterward, by 

March 1944, a complete transformation toward work on jet propulsion had 

occurred at the agency.101 Meanwhile, in October 1943, Kervork Nahigyan 

and his staff in the Static Laboratory built and tested the first afterburner, a 

direct byproduct of the work on the burner for Jake’s Jeep.102

Abe Silverstein and his group adapted the AWT to test jet engines and 

acquired hands-on experience in jet technology. During the AWT facility’s 

first runs in February 1944, NACA researchers used the AWT to support 

new turbojet technology, specifically the 1,600-pound-thrust GE I-16 turbojet 

installed in a complete Bell P-59 Airacomet fuselage. The Cleveland laboratory’s use of the AWT produced a succession of turbojet advancements that 

resulted in a surge of thrust capabilities in the late 1940s and early 1950s. 

In June 1944, Lockheed’s YP-80A Shooting Star became the first jet aircraft 

completely manufactured in the United States and the first U.S. aircraft to 

fly faster than 500 mph. The Altitude Wind Tunnel was used in the spring 

of 1945 to study the performance of the Shooting Star’s two 3,750-poundthrust GE I-40 engines at high altitudes. An attempt to forecast thrust levels at 

altitude, based on sea-level measurements, was successful, and a performance 

curve was created to predict the I-40’s thrust at all altitudes. The production 

P-80 fighter with the I-40 engine proved a great success in the early days of 

the U.S. Air Force, spawning two important derivatives, the T-33 trainer and 

the F-94 interceptor.103

Lewis was the only facility capable of testing gas turbines in a comprehensive 

manner during the immediate postwar period. The NACA researchers there 

would build upon this experience to become the U.S. Government’s experts 

in jet propulsion technology immediately after the war.
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

31

Figure 1-11. This image shows America’s first jet engine: the General Electric I-A Engine. 

(National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM 9A11739)

NACA Research Transitions from Piston to Jet

During the early days of the Cold War, the aeronautical propulsion industry 

was at a crossroads. Would it continue with propeller-driven piston engine 

aircraft or go with the new jet technology? In 1945, the piston engine was 

the main power plant for aviation. Within 3 years, there were multiple alternatives.104 The NACA’s propulsion research in Cleveland transitioned from 

wartime development troubleshooting to long-term fundamental research. In 

December 1945, a laboratory plan divided agency research into nine categories 

with varying emphasis: turbojets (20 percent); turboprops (20 percent); continuous ramjets (12.5 percent); intermittent ramjets (5.5 percent); rocket engines 

(4 percent); reciprocating engines (13 percent); compound engines (reciprocating engine and turbosupercharger) (15 percent); icing research (5 percent); and 

“engines for supersonic flight” (5 percent). The priorities reflected the overall 

shift toward fundamental research, with clear lines of responsibility between 

the NACA and industry, which reflected overall the National Aeronautical 

Research Policy approved in March 1946.105
The Power for Flight

32

The NACA renamed the AERL as Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in 

September 1948 to honor George W. Lewis (1882–1948), the NACA’s first 

Executive Officer and Director of Aeronautical Research. In a lecture before 

the Industrial College of the Armed Forces that fall, the NACA’s Director 

of Aeronautical Research, Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, identified the existence of a 

“technical revolution” in the immediate postwar period. In 1945, the propellerdriven four-engine Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber and the Lockheed 

straight-wing P-80 Shooting Star turbojet fighter were on the cutting edge 

of military aircraft technology. The swept-wing and turbojet-powered Boeing 

B-47 Stratojet and North American F-86 Sabre fighter loomed on the immediate future’s horizon in 1949. Dryden outlined its characteristics, which consisted of two areas, aerodynamics and propulsion, and the central purpose, 

speed. The revolution required new airframe configurations and a replacement 

for the reciprocating piston engine.106

Dryden continually justified the need for innovation in turbojet engine 

research and, by extension, for Lewis Laboratory. The work mirrored the state 

of the art in technology to keep up with Soviet developments, especially as they 

pertained to the air war over Korea. Dryden conceded that American manufacturers were capable of producing first-class turbojet, ramjet, turboprop, and 

rocket engines, but they had yet to make one that was fuel-efficient and made 

entirely with materials sourced in the Western Hemisphere. What would make 

that possible would be a vision rooted in the accomplishments and experience 

of the past combined with ingenuity and research in science and technology.107

It is important to realize that Dryden was talking about military, not civil, 

aircraft, since he believed that “at the present time...civil aviation looks to be 

a very unimportant phase.”108

The transonic region between Mach 0.75 and Mach 1.25 constituted a particular area of interest in the early years of the Jet Age. Wind tunnel test technology had not yet adequately caught up with the speed potential of the jet engine, 

necessitating the use of specialized research aircraft that effectively used the sky 

as a laboratory. Along the way, a number of difficulties were discovered that 

required solutions. Tests of the new Convair YF-102 delta-wing jet fighter indicated unexpectedly high drag rise, a problem overcome by an extraordinarily 

gifted NACA researcher, Richard Whitcomb, who postulated the transonic 

area rule. Modified with a so-called “wasp waist” fuselage that had a higher 

fineness ratio than the original design’s, the production F-102 became a great 

success and a Cold War mainstay of the Air Force’s Air Defense Command. 

Whitcomb’s revolutionary ideas about transonic drag rise and fuselage shaping 

influenced the design of all subsequent transonic high-performance airplanes.

But if concepts such as the area rule and other advanced aerodynamic 

shaping ideas were to be implemented, they required power plants capable of 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

33

propelling aircraft into the flight regimes where they could work. In Lewis’s 

case, its research on turboprops, jet engines, ducted fans, compressors, cooled 

turbines, stable afterburning, and advanced propulsion concepts such as ramjets and rockets greatly advanced aircraft capabilities into the postwar era.109

The NACA conducted as well as sponsored important research in aircraft 

engine technology during the post–World War II period.110 The arrival of 

German scientists in the United States created an influx of advanced knowledge, which included Ernst Eckert’s groundbreaking work on heat transfer. 

Laboratory staff also quickly built up an unequaled expertise in aircraft engine 

testing that placed them between the hardware-oriented industry and theoretical academic researchers. That caused considerable tension regarding the issue 

of the dissemination of information generated by Government researchers 

and the proprietary rights of manufacturers. Nevertheless, Lewis researchers 

excelled at gaining a broader understanding of turbojet design and sharing that 

information. The pivotal 1956 “Compressor Bible,” rooted in the work on 

Jake’s Jeep, was made available on a confidential basis to industry.111 By the 10th 

anniversary of the opening of Lewis, Hugh Dryden confidently announced, 

“The United States no longer trails in jet propulsion.”112

These developments did not guarantee success for America’s aircraft engine 

industry. Wright Aeronautical and its parent corporation, Curtiss-Wright, 

emerged from World War II in a sound economic state, but their leaders 

favored a dividend for shareholders rather than investing heavily in gas turbine 

research. Curtiss-Wright executives decided that a spare-parts, maintenance, 

and repair business for Wright radial engines would be the primary focus of 

its aeronautical engine program. By 1960, the company had devolved into a 

subcontractor supplying aircraft subassemblies and component parts for its 

former competitors—a cautionary tale about the failure to innovate and keep 

up with the times.113

Pratt & Whitney had more success. Encouraged by the U.S. Navy, the 

company bought the license for the Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet in 1948 and 

manufactured its J42 and J48 variants, which powered the Grumman F9F 

Panther carrier-based jet fighter (which fought Soviet MiG-15s powered by 

the Klimov VK-1, the Soviet variant of the Nene).114 Pratt & Whitney oversaw 

the introduction of the most important turbojet engine of the early postwar 

era, the J57. The new engine, the first capable of generating 10,000 pounds 

of thrust, powered America’s frontline aircraft of the Cold War, including 

the B-52 Stratofortress intercontinental bomber, the North American F-100 

Super Sabre, and the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. With over 21,000 J57s in 

service by 1960, Pratt & Whitney was one of the world’s leading gas turbine 

engine manufacturers.115
The Power for Flight

34

Despite the emphasis on military aircraft, the development of turbojet 

engines for commercial use was reaching a new level of importance. The 

Pratt & Whitney JT3s that powered the pioneering Boeing 707 and Douglas 

DC-8 airliners as they opened the age of mass jet travel were adaptations 

of the highly successful J57 military engines. Lewis Associate Director Abe 

Silverstein and Physics Division Chief Newell D. Sanders proclaimed in April 

1956 that the “age of the jet transport has arrived.”116 Although these engines 

were designed for speed above all other criteria, they caused specific problems 

in the areas of noise, reliability, and safety, among other issues, when compared 

to piston engines.

Toward the Turboprop

The apparent primacy of the jet in the immediate years after World War II 

led one popular aviation writer to ask, “Has the propeller a future?”117 The 

propeller community conducted numerous wind tunnel and flight research 

experiments in conjunction with similar investigations by industry to see 

Figure 1-12. Besides the turbojet, NACA researchers in Cleveland, OH, investigated other 

new propulsion technologies. The first turboprop flown in the United States, the GE TG-100A, 

underwent tests in a streamlined nacelle to determine the performance characteristics of the 

compressor and turbine in the Altitude Wind Tunnel in late 1946. (NASA)
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

35

if they could provide the answer. One focus was on developing supersonic 

propellers capable of taking long-range transport aircraft into the transonic 

regime between Mach 0.8 and 1.2.118 At the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory 

in Virginia, NACA engineers created a “propeller research airplane” by installing an Aeroproducts propeller in the nose of a McDonnell XF-88B test bed 

(the predecessor to the far more capable F-101A Voodoo). The flight program, which ran from 1953 through 1956, revealed a propeller design that 

was 79 percent efficient at a speed of Mach 0.95.119

Such promising programs appeared to be futile in the early days of the Jet 

Age. At a 1949 NACA conference on transonic aircraft design, a Hamilton 

Standard engineer, having just reported on the results of wind tunnel tests 

on a supersonic propeller for a U.S. Air Force contract, remarked that when 

there was a choice between a propeller and a jet engine, “even if the propeller 

is good, it is not wanted.”120 The aeronautical community faced many developmental problems with supersonic propellers in the 1950s, and the propellers 

seemed unnecessary if jet technology provided equal or better performance. A 

major challenge was reducing the noise that resulted from the shock waves at 

the blade tips. The four-blade supersonic Aeroproducts propeller on the Air 

Force’s experimental Republic XF-84H propulsion test bed, which offered 

mediocre performance overall, generated such high-intensity noise and resonance effects that it rendered bystanders sick.121 The NACA, which targeted 

foreseeable fundamental aeronautics problems facing America, lost interest 

and disbanded the longstanding Subcommittee on Propellers for Aircraft in 

1957 as the four-decade history of the organization came to an end. Propellers 

as a major research area disappeared in the early days of NASA (established 

in 1958).122

Establishment of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory

The Lewis Laboratory in Cleveland struggled to keep up with the rapid pace 

of aircraft engine development in the wake of World War II. With a war 

mentality in full effect, the NACA marshaled its resources to help develop 

and refine new aircraft, missile, and rocket engines for the American military. 

Design work began in 1948 on a facility with expanded capability as tensions 

between East and West increased during the early days of the Cold War. Two 

14-foot-diameter and 24-foot-long test chambers, called Nos. 1 and 2, combined the static sea level test stands with the complex Altitude Wind Tunnel, 

which recreated actual flight conditions on a larger scale. The new Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory (PSL) opened 4 years later in 1952 as full-out war raged 

on the Korean Peninsula. The PSL was the only facility in the United States 

capable of operating increasingly powerful and complex large, full-size aircraft 

and rocket propulsion systems in simulated altitude conditions. The ability to 
The Power for Flight

36

control the test environment was important in the advancement of the aircraft 

engine systems and placed the researchers of the PSL at the cutting edge of 

propulsion development in the 1950s.123

PSL No. 1 hosted exclusively turbojet tests as the first truly powerful and 

American-designed axial flow designs emerged. The Air Force requested the 

help of the NACA’s Cleveland laboratory in improving the afterburner performance of the prototype GE XJ79-GE-1 afterburning turbojet in 1957. 

The J79, destined to become the iconic engine of the early Mach 2 era (it 

propelled such mainstays as the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter, the McDonnell 

F4H-1 Phantom II, the Convair B-58A Hustler, and the North American 

A3J-1 Vigilante), featured innovative variable stators designed by GE engineer 

Gerhard Neumann. The variable stators helped maintain efficient compression of the airstream during all flight regimes as the air was progressing to the 

engine face. PSL tests simulating speed and altitude conditions of Mach 2 at 

59,400 feet revealed that modification of the fuel system and flame holder 

increased combustion efficiency by 19 percent, reduced pressure drop, and 

lowered fuel consumption by 10 percent.124 The combination of GE’s J79 with 

the Air Force’s Lockheed F-104A Starfighter supersonic interceptor in 1958 

won the two companies a shared Collier Trophy for 1958.

Figure 1-13. This image shows the General Electric J79 in PSL No. 1. (NASA)
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

37

Early Ramjet Research

With the Cold War pushing the need for expanded nuclear and conventional 

capabilities, the United States embraced captured Nazi technology and repurposed it in its struggle against the Soviet Union. One area in which German 

scientists (and Soviet ones as well) had made significant advances was in the 

design of ramjet engines for aircraft and missile systems. A ramjet, consisting 

of an inlet, combustion chamber, and exhaust nozzle, is the simplest and lightest form of high-speed propulsion within the atmosphere. The NACA had a 

long heritage of conducting ramjet research dating to the early postwar era, 

launching a variety of small ramjet test vehicles from a modified Northrop 

P-61C Black Widow mother ship, and using a special test pylon installed on 

the P-61 so that it could test special “two dimensional” ramjet configurations. 

(One of the P-61 project pilots was future X-15 research pilot and GeminiApollo astronaut Neil A. Armstrong.) The designers of the surface-launched 

Boeing IM-99 Bomarc pilotless interceptor missile and the North American 

SM-64 Navaho supersonic intercontinental cruise missile incorporated hybrid 

propulsion systems for higher performance. Rockets boosted these missiles into 

the air; once the missiles were up to speed, ramjets propelled them to their 

Figure 1-14. In this image, a Marquardt RJ43 ramjet engine for the Boeing IM-99 BOMARC 

pilotless interceptor missile is being prepared for testing in PSL No. 1 in 1954. (NASA)
The Power for Flight

38

targets. PSL researchers investigated ramjets for these platforms from 1954 to 

1956. The Bomarc relied upon two 28-inch-diameter Marquardt RJ43 ramjets to propel it above Mach 2. PSL researchers evaluated the responsiveness 

of the fuel control system and the pneumatically actuated shock-positioning 

control unit that was crucial to supersonic operation.125 For the Navaho’s twin 

48-inch-diameter Pratt & Whitney XRJ47s, they investigated ignition, burner 

and flame holder designs, fuel flow control, and overall engine performance as 

they ran the engine at Mach 2.75 and simulated altitudes between 58,000 and 

73,000 feet.126 The advent of faster-response intercontinental ballistic missiles, 

budgetary problems, and difficulties in making ramjets practical made the 

Navaho short-lived, but the Bomarc became a standard surface-to-air missile 

for the United States and Canada, tasked with defending the North American 

continent against incoming Soviet nuclear bombers.127

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion

Researchers at Lewis also investigated a new frontier for aviation: nuclear 

propulsion. Abe Silverstein believed that it was a new opportunity to extend 

the range and speed of aircraft and to collaborate with the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC) and the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft 

(NEPA) program initiated in 1946. That interest coincided with the opening 

of the Plum Brook Station and its nuclear research reactor in Sandusky, OH, 

in 1956. Silverstein believed that Lewis could contribute to studies related to 

the effects of radiation on materials and reorganized the Lewis research groups 

to reflect that focus. Unfortunately, the impracticality of a nuclear-powered 

airplane, owing to the excessive weight of the airborne reactor and environmental concerns, led to the cancellation of the program in 1961. The Federal 

Government invested $1 billion in the failed project, which included both 

GE and Pratt & Whitney. As interest in a nuclear-powered airplane waned, 

NEPA and Lewis interest shifted to the development of a nuclear rocket for 

space travel instead, a subject beyond the scope of this study.128
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

39

Endnotes

1. Annual Report of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 

1915 (hereafter “NACA AR,” followed by year) (Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1916), p. 9.

2. Alex Roland, Model Research: The National Advisory Committee 

for Aeronautics, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4103, 1985), 

pp. 29–30.

3. For examples from German publications, see A. Heller, “The 300 h.p. 

Benz Aircraft Engine,” translated from Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutsche 

Ingenieure (1920), NACA Technical Note No. 34 (1921) (hereafter 

“NACA TN,” followed by the number and year); and Otto Schwager, 

“Notes on the Design of Supercharged and Over-Dimensioned Aircraft 

Motors,” translated from Technische Berichte, vol. 3, NACA TN 7, 1920.

4. The Bibliography of Aeronautics appeared in separate volumes during the 

period 1921–1936.

5. NACA AR 1918, pp. 25–26. See E.M. Nutting and G.W. Lewis, “Air 

Flow Through Poppet Valves” (Washington, DC: NACA Technical 

Report No. 24, 1918) (hereafter “NACA TR,” followed by the number 

and year), p. 25.

6. Luke Hobbs, interview by Walter T. Bonney, October 27, 1971, file 

001018, p. 11 of transcript, NASA Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA History Program Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 

(hereafter “NASA HRC”).

7. Marsden Ware, “Description of the NACA Universal Test Engine and 

Some Test Results,” NACA TR 250, 1920; James R. Hansen, Engineer 

in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958

(Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 

1987), p. 423.

8. Edward Constant identifies this paradigm as “normal technology” 

that reflects the status quo in the history of technical systems. Edward 

W. Constant, The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution (Baltimore: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1980), pp. 10–11.

9. Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and 

American Propulsion Technology (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4306, 

1991), p. 43; Oscar Schey, Benjamin Pinkel, and Herman H. Ellerbrock, 

Jr., “Correction of Temperatures of Air-Cooled Engine Cylinders for 

Variation in Engine and Cooling Conditions,” NACA TR 645, NACA 

AR 1939.

10. Hobbs interview.
The Power for Flight

40

11. See NASA TN 634 and TRs 634, 644; and Hansen, Engineer in Charge, 

p. 450.

12. For a history of the program from the viewpoint of the development 

of engineering methodology, see Walter G. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller 

Tests of W.F. Durand and E.P. Lesley: A Case Study in Technological 

Methodology,” Technology and Culture 20 (1979): 712–751.

13. “Problems,” NACA AR 1915, pp. 13, 15; Roland, Model Research, 

pp. 33, 46; Roger E. Bilstein, Orders of Magnitude: A History of the 

NACA and NASA, 1915–1990 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4406, 

1989), p. 4.

14. J.L. Nayler and E. Ower, Aviation: Its Technical Development (London: 

Peter Owen/Vision Press, 1965), p. 156; R.T.C. Rolt, The Aeronauts: A 

History of Ballooning, 1783–1903 (New York: Walker and Co., 1966), 

pp. 82, 203. Pioneer French aeronaut Jean-Pierre Blanchard used a 

hand-cranked propeller on the first flight across the English Channel in 

1785. Jean Baptiste Marie Meusnier, the “father of the dirigible,” initiated the trend toward using propellers in his airship designs during the 

same period.

15. Walter G. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests of W.F. Durand and E.P. Lesley: 

A Case Study in Technological Methodology,” Technology and Culture

20 (1979): 718–719; Fred E. Weick, Aircraft Propeller Design (New 

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1930), pp. 37–38.

16. Tom D. Crouch, A Dream of Wings: Americans and the Airplane, 1875–

1905 (New York: Norton, 1981; reprint, Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press, 1989), pp. 33, 294; Peter L. Jakab, Visions of a Flying 

Machine: The Wright Brothers and the Process of Invention (Shrewsbury, 

England: Airlife, 1990), pp. 184, 194–195.

17. “Work of the Committee,” NACA AR 1915, p. 12; Vincenti, “AirPropeller Tests,” pp. 718–719.

18. “Problems,” NACA AR 1915, pp. 13, 15; Vincenti, “Air-Propeller 

Tests,” p. 720. Vincenti asserts that there are inherent similarities in 

marine-propeller and air-propeller research, specifically regarding methodology. For a contemporary view of the relation between aeronautical 

and marine engineering, see Jerome C. Hunsaker, “Aeronautics in Naval 

Architecture,” Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers 32 (1924): 1–25.

19. Frederick E. Terman, “William Frederick Durand (1859–1958)” in 

Aeronautics and Astronautics: Proceedings of the Durand Centennial 

Conference Held at Stanford University, 5–8 August 1959, ed. Nicholas 

J. Huff and Walter G. Vincenti (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 

pp. 4–7. Durand’s life spanned the growth of the NACA and American 
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

41

aeronautics. In 1933, Durand left the NACA—only to return for the 

duration of World War II to head the Committee’s jet propulsion 

investigations.

20. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests,” p. 722. This article was later incorporated into Vincenti’s What Engineers Know and How They Know It: 

Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 1990).

21. Terman, “William Frederick Durand,” p. 7.

22. Roland, Model Research, pp. 33–34.

23. “General Problems,” NACA AR 1916, p. 14; Vincenti, “Air-Propeller 

Tests,” pp. 718, 721–722.

24. William F. Durand, Wilbur Wright Memorial Lecture, “Some 

Outstanding Problems in Aeronautics,” NACA AR 1918, pp. 33, 39.

25. William F. Durand, “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers,” NACA 

TR 14, 1917, pp. 87–88, 91. Even though Lesley is denied equal 

authorship, Durand acknowledged Lesley’s importance to the tests and 

completion of the report within the body of the text. Vincenti, “AirPropeller Tests,” p. 722. Vincenti describes the Eiffel-type tunnel as having a “free-jet test seam inside a closed room, tapering intake and exit 

channels, and return flow within the surrounding building.”

26. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests,” pp. 727, 729.

27. Durand, “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers,” pp. 83, 85; 

“Summaries of Technical Reports,” NACA AR 1917, p. 27.

28. “Financial Report,” NACA AR 1917, p. 30.

29. Roland, Model Research, p. 46.

30. William F. Durand and E.P. Lesley, “Experimental Research on AirPropellers, II,” NACA TR 30, 1918, p. 261; Durand, “Some Outstanding 

Problems,” pp. 31, 41–42.

31. “Problems in Propeller Design,” Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering 4 

(June 1918): 108.

32. The final administrative group was the Personnel, Buildings, and 

Equipment committee. Roland, Model Research, p. 74.

33. William F. Durand and E.P. Lesley, “Experimental Research on AirPropellers, V,” NACA TR 141, 1922, p. 169; “Report of the Committee 

on Aerodynamics,” NACA AR 1922, p. 39. 

34. Max M. Munk, “Analysis of W.F. Durand’s and E.P. Lesley’s Propeller 

Tests,” NACA TR 175, 1923, p. 291.

35. NACA AR 1918, p. 13.

36. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests,” pp. 732–733.
The Power for Flight

42

37. William F. Durand and E.P. Lesley, “Comparison of Tests on Airplane 

Propellers in Flight with Wind Tunnel Model Tests on Similar Forms,” 

NACA TR 220, 1925, p. 273.

38. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests,” p. 734.

39. D.W. Taylor, “Some Aspects of the Comparison of Model and FullScale Tests,” NACA AR 1925, pp. 265–266.

40. Durand, “Some Outstanding Problems,” pp. 41–42.

41. E.P. Lesley and B.M. Woods, “The Effect of Slipstream Obstructions 

on Air-Propellers,” NACA TR 177, 1923, pp. 313, 332; Vincenti, “AirPropeller Tests,” p. 737.

42. William F. Durand, “Interaction Between Air-Propellers and Airplane 

Structures,” NACA TR 235, 1926, pp. 107, 109. This would be the 

next-to-last test conducted by Durand on behalf of the NACA.

43. Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests,” p. 739.

44. For more information on the importance of the Propeller Research 

Tunnel in the subsequent aeronautical revolution of the late 1920s and 

1930s, see Hansen, Engineer in Charge.

45. Fred E. Weick and Donald H. Wood, “The Twenty-Foot Propeller 

Research Tunnel of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,” 

NACA TR 300, 1929; George Gray, Frontiers of Flight: The Story of 

NACA Research (New York: Knopf, 1948), p. 208.

46. Gray, Frontiers of Flight, pp. 208–209.

47. Ibid., p. 208.

48. John Stack, “Tests of Airfoils Designed To Delay the Compressibility 

Burble,” NACA TN 976, 1944; Gray, Frontiers of Flight, pp. 210–211.

49. Gray, Frontiers of Flight, pp. 212–213.

50. Ibid., pp. 213–215.

51. Ibid., p. 216.

52. Stephen L. McFarland, “Higher, Faster, and Farther: Fueling the 

Aeronautical Revolution, 1919–1945,” in Innovation and the 

Development of Flight, ed. Roger D. Launius (College Station, TX: Texas 

A&M University Press, 1999), p. 101; Robert Schlaifer and Samuel 

D. Heron, Development of Aircraft Engines and Aviation Fuels (Boston: 

Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, 

1950), p. 568.

53. Miller authored a series of reports on this topic that appeared during the 

period 1941 to 1946. See Cearcy D. Miller, “A Study by High Speed 

Photography of Combustion and Knock in a Spark-Ignition Engine,” 

NACA TR 727, 1942; Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 24.

54. McFarland, “Higher, Faster, and Farther,” p. 117.
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

43

55. Ernest F. Fiock and H. Kendall King, “The Effect of Water Vapor 

on Flame Velocity in Equivalent CO-O2 Mixtures,” NACA TR 531, 

1935; Addison M. Rothrock, Alois Krsek, and Anthony W. Jones, “The 

Induction of Water to the Inlet Air as a Means of Internal Cooling in 

Aircraft Engine Cylinders,” NACA TR 756, 1943; McFarland, “Higher, 

Faster, and Farther,” pp. 117–118.

56. Marsden Ware, “Description and Laboratory Tests of a Roots Type 

Aircraft Engine Supercharger,” NACA TR 230, 1920, pp. 451–561.

57. Luke Hobbs, interview by Walter T. Bonney, October 27, 1971, file 

001018, NASA HRC, p. 11.

58. C. Fayette Taylor, Aircraft Propulsion: A Review of the Evolution of Aircraft 

Piston Engines (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971), 

pp. 72–73.

59. Taylor, Aircraft Propulsion, p. 60. For more on the NACA’s diesel studies, see Arthur W. Gardiner, “A Preliminary Study of Fuel Injection 

and Compression Ignition as Applied to an Aircraft Cylinder,” NACA 

TR 243, 1927; A.M. Rothrock, “Hydraulics of Fuel Injection Pumps 

for Compression-Ignition Engines,” NACA TR 396, 1932; and A.M. 

Rothrock and C.D. Waldron, “Effects of Air-Fuel Ratio on Fuel Spray 

and Flame Formation in a Compression-Ignition Engine,” NACA 

TR 545, 1937.

60. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 24.

61. Addison M. Rothrock, Alois Krsek, and Anthony W. Jones, “The 

Induction of Water to the Inlet Air as a Means of Internal Cooling in 

Aircraft Engine Cylinders,” NACA TR 756, 1943.

62. Taylor, Aircraft Propulsion, p. 67; Jack Connors, The Engines of Pratt 

& Whitney: A Technical History (Reston, VA: American Institute for 

Aeronautics and Astronautics [AIAA], 2010), pp. 143–144.

63. Hansen, Engineer in Charge, pp. 123–140.

64. Donald W. Douglas, “The Development and Reliability of the Modern 

Multi-Engine Air Liner,” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society 40 

(November 1935): 1042.

65. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 1.

66. Cary Hoge Mead, Wings over the World: The Life of George Jackson Mead

(Wauwatosa, WI: Swannet Press, 1971), pp. 214–219.

67. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 9.

68. Ibid., pp. 11–13.

69. Ibid., p. 19.

70. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 24–25; Hansen, Engineer in Charge, 

p. 422.

71. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 25.
The Power for Flight

44

72. A.M. Rothrock and Arnold E. Biermann, “The Knocking Characteristics 

of Fuels in Relation to Maximum Permissible Performance of Aircraft 

Engines,” NACA TR 655, 1940, pp. 267–288.

73. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 26–27.

74. The AWT was dismantled in 2008.

75. Mead, Wings over the World, pp. 156–157; Dawson, Engines and 

Innovation, pp. 27–31.

76. “NACA: The Force Behind Our Air Supremacy,” Aviation 43 (January 

1944): 175.

77. Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, VA: 

AIAA, 2001), pp. 91–93.

78. The Gloster E.28/39 and the first Bell XP-59A are on exhibit in national 

museums, the E.28/39 in Britain’s Science Museum, South Kensington, 

London, England, and the XP-59A in the National Air and Space 

Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

79. Frank Whittle, “The Birth of the Jet Engine in Britain,” in The Jet Age: 

Forty Years of Jet Aviation, ed. Walter J. Boyne and Donald S. Lopez 

(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1979), pp. 3–16, 20.

80. Hans von Ohain, “The Evolution and Future of Aeropropulsion 

Systems,” in Jet Age, ed. Boyne and Lopez, pp. 29–34, 36.

81. Anselm Franz, “The Development of the ‘Jumo 004’ Turbojet Engine,” 

in Jet Age, ed. Boyne and Lopez, pp. 69–74.

82. Mead quoted in Mead, Wings over the World, p. 270.

83. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 19.

84. James O. Young, “Riding England’s Coattails: The U.S. Army Air 

Forces and the Turbojet Revolution,” in Innovation and the Development 

of Flight, ed. Roger D. Launius (College Station, TX: Texas A&M 

University Press, 1999), p. 271.

85. J.R. Kinney, “Starting from Scratch?: The American Aero Engine 

Industry, the Air Force, and the Jet, 1940‒1960,” AIAA Report 2003-

2671, July 2003, p. 3.

86. Ibid., p. 3.

87. Ibid., p. 3.

88. Ibid., p. 3.

89. Ibid., p. 3.

90. Ibid., pp. 3–4.

91. Ibid., p. 4.

92. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 41; Kinney, “Starting from Scratch?,” 

p. 4.

93. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 42.
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

45

94. John T. Sinnette, Oscar W. Schey, and J. Austin King, “Performance of 

NACA Eight-Stage Axial-Flow Compressor Designed on the Basis of 

Airfoil Theory,” NACA TR 758, 1943.

95. Macon C. Ellis, Jr., and Clinton E. Brown, “NACA Investigation of a 

Jet-Propulsion System Applicable to Flight,” NACA TR 802, 1943.

96. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 48–49.

97. Ibid., pp. 42, 55, 57.

98. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 54; Kinney, “Starting from 

Scratch?,” p. 5.

99. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 57; Roland, Model Research, p. 185.

100. Minutes of the Meeting of the Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 

August 18, 1943, National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA) record group (RG) 255, p. 11; Dawson, Engines and Innovation, 

p. 57.

101. Report to the Executive Committee, March 16, 1944, NACA Executive 

Committee Minutes, NARA RG 255, box 9.

102. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 58.

103. Langley Research Center, “World War II and the NACA,” fact sheet 

FS-LaRC-95-07-01, July 1995, available online at http://www.nasa.gov/

centers/langley/news/factsheets/WWII.html (accessed May 1, 2012).

104. Hugh L. Dryden, “Research and Development in Aeronautics,” October 

4, 1948, Publication No. L49-25 (Washington, DC: Industrial College 

of the Armed Forces, 1948), p. 27.

105. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 70.

106. Dryden, “Research and Development in Aeronautics,” p. 27.

107. Hugh L. Dryden, “Jet Engines for War,” January 23, 1951, NASA HRC 

file 40958, pp. 5, 6.

108. Dryden, “Research and Development in Aeronautics,” p. 16.

109. Dhanireddy R. Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at 

NASA Glenn Research Center,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering 26 

(April 2013): 202.

110. Taylor, Aircraft Propulsion, p. 67; Connors, The Engines of Pratt & 

Whitney, p. 95.

111. Irving A. Johnsen and Robert O. Bullock, eds., Aerodynamic Design of 

Axial-Flow Compressors (Washington, DC: NASA SP-36, 1965), pp. iii, 

1–8; Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 127–144.

112. Dryden, “Jet Engines for War,” p. 3.

113. Kinney, “Starting from Scratch?,” p. 5.

114. Connors, The Engines of Pratt & Whitney, pp. 201–212.
The Power for Flight

46

115. Kinney, “Starting from Scratch?,” p. 5.

116. Abe Silverstein and Newell D. Sanders, “Concepts on Turbojet Engines 

for Transport Application” (paper presented to the Society of Automotive 

Engineers [SAE] Aeronautic Meeting, New York, April 10, 1956), p. 1, 

NASA HRC, file 41567.

117. William Winter, “Has the Propeller a Future?,” Popular Mechanics 89 

(February 1948): 171.

118. Eugene C. Draley, Blake W. Corson, Jr., and John L. Crigler, “Trends 

in the Design and Performance of High-Speed Propellers,” in NACA 

Conference on Aerodynamic Problems of Transonic Airplane Design: A 

Compilation of Papers Presented, September 27–29, 1949, NASA TM-X56649, pp. 483–498; John V. Becker, The High Speed Frontier: Case 

Histories of Four NACA Programs, 1920–1950 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-445, 1980), pp. 135–138.

119. An Allison XT38 turboprop engine powered the Aeroproducts propeller. Jerome B. Hammack, Max C. Kurbjun, and Thomas C. O’Bryan, 

“Flight Investigation of a Supersonic Propeller on a Propeller Research 

Vehicle at Mach Numbers to 1.01,” NACA RM L57E20, 1957, pp. 

5–6; Jerome B. Hammack and Thomas C. O’Bryan, “Effect of Advance 

Ratio on Flight Performance of a Modified Supersonic Propeller,” 

NACA TN 4389, September 1958, p. 5.

120. Thomas B. Rhines, “Summary of United Aircraft Wind Tunnel Tests of 

Supersonic Propellers,” in NACA Conference on Aerodynamic Problems of 

Transonic Airplane Design: A Compilation of Papers Presented, September 

27–29, 1949, NASA TM-X-56649, p. 448.

121. Stephan Wilkinson, “ZWRRWWWBRZR: That’s the Sound of the 

Prop-Driven XF-84H, and It Brought Grown Men to Their Knees,” 

Air & Space (July 2003), available online at http://www.airspacemag.

com/how-things-work/zwrrwwwbrzr-4846149/ (accessed on January 

12, 2016).

122. Becker, The High Speed Frontier, p. 136.

123. “New Altitude Test Facilities Aid Improvements of Turbojets,” NACA 

AR 1952, pp. 4–6; Robert S. Arrighi, Pursuit of Power: NASA’s Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2012-

4548, 2012), p. 15. Arrighi’s work is the point of departure for discussing the PSL.

124. Harry E. Bloomer and Carl E. Campbell, “Experimental Investigation 

of Several Afterburner Configurations on a J79 Turbojet Engine,” 

NACA RM E57I18 (September 23, 1957).
The NACA and Aircraft Propulsion, 1915–1958

47

125. R. Crowl, W.R. Dunbar, and C. Wentworth, “Experimental Investigation 

of Marquardt Shock-Positioning Control Unit on a 28-Inch Ramjet 

Engine,” NACA RM E56E09 (May 18, 1956).

126. George Vasu, Clint E. Hart, and William R. Dunbar, “Preliminary 

Report on Experimental Investigation of Engine Dynamics and Controls 

for a 48-Inch Ramjet Engine,” NACA RM E55J12 (March 16, 1956).

127. Robert S. Arrighi, “History: Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 & 2, 

Ramjets and Missiles (1952–1957),” December 3, 2012, http://pslhistory.

grc.nasa.gov/Ramjets%20and%20Missiles.aspx (accessed September 

25, 2013).

128. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 184–185. Also, see Mark D. 

Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station, 

1955–2005 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2006-4317, 2006).
48

NASA maintained an active research program with its Lockheed YF-12 Blackbirds from 1967 to 

1979, which included propulsion-focused investigations. The Blackbird at top carries the experimental “coldwall” heat transfer pod on a pylon beneath the fuselage in 1975. (NASA)
49

CHAPTER 2

NASA Gets to Work,

1958–1975

The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite into Earth’s orbit on October 4, 1957, 

initiated a major shift in American aeronautical research and development. 

The National Air and Space Act of July 1958 dissolved the NACA and created 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the following 

October. A primary goal of NASA was to create and then manage America’s 

civilian space program, which would enable the United States to compete with 

the Soviets in putting the first humans in space and, ultimately, on the Moon. 

The Cold War–infused space race was on. The first “A” in NASA, aeronautics, 

dealt with improving flight in the atmosphere. It worked in competition against 

the “S” in NASA, the space program. In the opinion of Congressman George 

P. Miller, the latter clearly overshadowed the former during the Agency’s first 

decade.1

 Nevertheless, NASA’s work in aircraft propulsion during the 1960s 

and 1970s reflected the Agency’s contributions to military high-speed flight 

and subsonic commercial aviation, which included the first in-depth studies 

into improved fuel economy and the growing public concern over engine noise 

and emissions.

The NACA’s seminal legacy in aeronautics changed dramatically with the 

creation of NASA. Quickly, the personnel, tools, and techniques used to investigate aircraft propulsion challenges became enlisted in the space race. The 

research conducted in the PSL at Lewis, created to evaluate gas turbine and 

rocket engines for flight in the atmosphere, is a case in point. After Sputnik in 

1957 and the creation of NASA in 1958, the Cleveland facility shifted its focus. 

PSL researchers made important contributions to the Pratt & Whitney RL-10 

liquid-fueled rocket that powered the Centaur and Saturn upper-stage rockets. 

They also worked on the first stage of the Apollo program’s Saturn V rocket. 

They investigated the distinctive contoured nozzle for the groundbreaking 

Rocketdyne F-1 engines and the failed 260-inch solid rocket motor alternative.2

The 1960 staff and resource priorities for the Lewis Research Center reflected 

the new focus on space. Advanced propulsion research investigating chemical 

rockets, nuclear propulsion, and electric propulsion and power generation 

represented 35, 20, and 14 percent, respectively, of the work conducted in 
The Power for Flight

50

Cleveland. Fundamental research into fluid mechanics, heat transfer, instrument and computing research, and radiation physics constituted 24 percent 

of the laboratory’s efforts. Finally, air-breathing engine research in support 

of advanced military projects such as the North American XB-70 Valkyrie 

long-range supersonic nuclear bomber and its GE J93 engines represented 

only 7 percent.3

Crossing the Hypersonic Frontier: The X-15

NASA continued the high-speed programs of the NACA in the form of the 

X-15 flight research program (1959–1968), which investigated hypersonic 

flight at five or more times the speed of sound at altitudes reaching into space. 

Launched from the wing of a Boeing B-52 mother ship, the X-15 was a true 

“aerospace” plane with performance that went well beyond the capabilities 

of existing aircraft powered by air-breathing engines within and beyond the 

atmosphere. North American Aviation of Los Angeles, CA, had a special challenge in designing the X-15. For propulsion, a Reaction Motors XLR99 rocket 

engine produced 57,000 pounds of thrust. At hypersonic speeds, the air traveling over an airplane generated enough friction and heat that the outside 

surface of the airplane reached a temperature of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. 

North American used titanium as the primary structural material and covered 

it with a new, high-temperature nickel alloy called Inconel-X. The X-15 relied 

upon conventional controls in the atmosphere but used reaction-control jets 

to maneuver in space. The long, black research airplane, with its distinguishing 

cruciform tail, became the highest-flying airplane in history. In August 1963, 

the X-15 flew to 67 miles (354,200 feet) above Earth at a speed of Mach 6.7, 

or 4,534 miles per hour. Overall, the 199 flights of X-15 program generated 

important data on high-speed flight and provided valuable lessons for NASA’s 

space program.4 The use of rocket power to propel an air-launched aircraft into 

the hypersonic range was successful, but it also illustrated the need for other 

forms of propulsion for practical high-speed flight.

NASA’s Participation in the National 

SST Program, 1961–1971

NASA’s work in high-speed commercial aviation, centering on ever-faster 

airliners, culminated with the ill-fated supersonic transport (SST). With the 

subsonic jet airliner an everyday technology in the 1960s, the next step was 

building an SST. Achieving supersonic commercial flight in the 1960s was 

viewed by many as the next logical triumph of American civil aviation, proof 

of the United States’ enduring technological superiority in aerospace. America 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

51

had revolutionized international air transport in the piston era, and then in the 

early turbojet era. Now, many saw extending that dominance into supersonic 

civil air transport service as the next logical step.

Figure 2-1. This image shows the North American X-15 research airplane. (National Air and 

Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI 77-14083)

The Secretary of the Department of Defense (DOD), Thomas S. Gates, Jr., 

and the administrators of NASA and the FAA, T. Keith Glennan and Elwood 

R. Quesada, respectively, issued a joint recommendation in October 1960 to 

initiate a national program for the development of a commercial SST. The reasons were many. The creation of an SST was in the national interest because it 

would guarantee American leadership in commercial aviation, which was vital 

to the Nation’s economy, security, and prestige. The technical foundation was 

there with the long tradition of supersonic research in the United States that 

had culminated with the recent B-58 and B-70 bomber programs. The research 

and development cost of any SST would be beyond the capabilities of a single 

company and airline to support. The sheer magnitude of the project required 

Government leadership, funding, and technical expertise combined with the 

participation of industry. They predicted that supersonic transports, “either of 

foreign or of United States origin,” would dominate worldwide commercial air 
The Power for Flight

52

routes as early as 1970.5 Working toward the creation of a practical American 

SST as part of a Nationwide effort was the kind of challenge NASA endeavored 

to take on, especially since it was already doing that with the space program.

Figure 2-2. The failed Boeing 2707 and its four GE4 turbojets represented NASA’s first work 

toward a supersonic commercial airliner. (NASA)

DOD, NASA, and the FAA—with the support of President John F. 

Kennedy—initiated a design competition between the leading aircraft manufacturers. The Government chose Boeing’s Model 2707 design in December 

1966, and General Electric received the contract for its four engines, designated 

GE4. The engines for the new SST could not be military power plants. They 

had to be as fuel-efficient, quiet, and reliable as standard airliner engines at 

both supersonic and subsonic speeds. The latter included takeoff, landing, and 

loitering in a holding pattern.6

Almost immediately, a national debate began that centered on the cost of 

development, predicted to total $5 billion, and the environmental impact. 

Many groups objected to the prospect of experiencing frequent sonic booms, 

which had been an area of particular interest for NASA (and continues to this 

day).7

 On Wednesday, December 2, 1970, the Senate voted unanimously to 

regulate public exposure to sonic booms by prohibiting flights of civilian SSTs 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

53

over the United States. Senate Bill S. 4547 went further to ensure that when 

SSTs became a reality, they would operate in compliance with noise limitations 

established by the FAA.8 Others expressed grave concerns over expected exhaust 

pollution expelled from the four GE4 turbojets and their theoretical contribution to possible deterioration of the ozone layer. Environmental concerns aside, 

the cause for the program’s demise was the fact that it was not commercially 

viable. The research and development costs weighed against actual aircraft 

and engine orders from commercial airlines rendered the 2707 economically 

unsustainable. The Senate canceled funding for the program by a vote of 51 

to 46 in March 1971.9

The Valkyrie and the SST

Figure 2-3. The XB-70 was the world’s largest experimental aircraft when the Air Force and 

NASA partnered to use the canceled bomber as a flying laboratory to generate data for future 

supersonic aircraft. The controllable internal geometry of the inlets maintained efficient airflow to 

the six YJ93 turbojets. (NASA)

NASA enlisted the Air Force’s experimental North American XB-70 Valkyrie 

into its collection of research airplanes as part of the national SST program.10
The Power for Flight

54

The Valkyrie was the epitome of the phrase “higher, faster, and farther.” North 

American engineers had designed it as a strategic nuclear bomber, capable of 

cruising at altitudes of over 70,000 feet and at speeds greater than Mach 3. The 

largest and heaviest supersonic airplane ever flown, it underwent 9 long years 

of development related to the refinement of its aerodynamic configuration, its 

heat-resistant structure, and its afterburning turbojet propulsion system at a 

then-year cost of $1.5 billion. Journalist Keith Wheeler proclaimed that “no 

sky has carried anything like the XB-70.” 11

Six innovative General Electric YJ93 turbojet engines, situated in a central 

bay underneath the fuselage, produced thrust equal to two-thirds of the power 

needed to propel the nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise. Awarded a $115 million development contract, GE engineers at the Evendale plant worked to 

double the power without increasing the weight under the direction of Bruno 

Bruckmann. Building on previous company experience and lessons learned 

from the J79 program, they introduced rare alloys, variable-pitch stators to 

increase the intake of air for more power on demand, and special techniques 

to offset overheating and vibration. The operating environment of the YJ93 

was extreme. The engine itself ran at its optimum level with air at a pressure 

of 30 pounds per square inch, heated to 650 degrees Fahrenheit, and moving 

slower than the speed of sound. Yet the mission of the XB-70 placed the engines 

in an environment of low pressure, atmospheric temperatures of –65 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and flight speeds of 2,000 mph. The solution was high-speed inlet 

ducts 60 feet in length that heated the air, compressed it, and slowed it down 

to 350 mph before it entered the front face of the engine compressor. One 

YJ93 “monster engine” generated 30,000 pounds of thrust, with a thrust-toweight ratio of 6:1, which meant it was capable of pushing forward 6 pounds 

for every pound it weighed.12

Before squadrons of Valkyries were able to join the ranks of the Strategic Air 

Command, Congress canceled the program in 1961, citing development costs 

and questions regarding the feasibility of its being a strategic nuclear bomber, 

given the rapid development of Soviet surface-to-air missiles as well as air-toair interceptors capable of traveling above Mach 2. Congress did allow the 

construction of two airframes for research and development purposes, something they later denied when canceling the funding for the SST a decade later. 

NASA’s Flight Research Center (subsequently Dryden and now the Armstrong 

Flight Research Center) envisioned the XB-70 as a flying test bed for addressing the problems faced by the national SST program. NASA and the Air Force 

entered into a joint $50 million assessment program in March 1966. The tragic 

collision with a Lockheed F-104 Starfighter that resulted in the loss of NASA’s 

chief research pilot, Joe Walker; Valkyrie copilot Carl Cross; and the second 

XB-70A aircraft on June 8, 1966, altered that partnership. NASA took over 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

55

the entire program and focused on acquiring SST-related flight data involving 

such issues as sonic boom ground overpressures, autopilot performance as the 

aircraft transited varying atmospheric pressures and dynamic conditions, and 

cruise efficiencies and performance. Much research was done on analyzing 

inlet performance. During the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight, 

the presence of airflow distortion and turbulence induced compressor stall. 

The other specter was the reduction of noise. Experimentation on the XB-70A 

led to better understanding of propulsion and airframe integration, especially 

regarding mixed compression inlets, used on the design of other supersonic aircraft. Flights of the XB-70 also contributed to the growing body of information 

available to the National Sonic Boom Program, which confirmed the impracticability of allowing SSTs to operate over the continental United States.13

Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research

Advocates of the SST moved past its cancellation to create a new program to 

continue research and development, albeit on a much smaller scale. NASA 

established the Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research (SCAR) Program in late 

1971. Langley managed the overall project. In the new NASA model, contracts went out to manufacturers and the NASA Centers supplemented their 

work with focused studies. The SCAR propulsion effort at Lewis consisted of 

two programs.

The first program, the main engine-related project, was the variable-cycle 

engine (VCE). It addressed the noise and emissions problems of the GE4 by 

exhibiting the best characteristics of both a turbojet and a turbofan. Turbojets 

were most efficient at supersonic speeds but were loud and inefficient at subsonic speeds. Conversely, turbofans offered subsonic efficiency and lower noise 

but were less efficient at higher Mach numbers. A VCE offered both configurations. Both Pratt & Whitney and GE received development contracts, and 

the interplay between Lewis, the military, and manufacturers resulted in two 

different engine designs.14 Reflecting the importance of computer simulation 

and modeling embodied in the emerging field of computational fluid dynamics 

(CFD) to predict aerodynamic behavior, Lewis researcher Larry Fishbach facilitated the use of a new design code with the Naval Air Development Center. 

This code, called the Navy-NASA Engine Program, simulated the proposed 

technical scenarios for the engine designs.15

The second program, the Experimental Clean Combustor Program (ECCP), 

emerged in response to the anticipated introduction of Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) airport emissions standards (and is discussed in more 

depth in chapter 3). Tests of the experimental engines took place from 1978 

until the termination of SCAR in 1981. Economic inflation, Federal budget 
The Power for Flight

56

reductions, and the need for NASA to keep the Space Shuttle Program funded 

outweighed any justifications for another Government-funded supersonic 

commercial airliner program.16

Nevertheless, the propulsion research of SCAR proved to be longstanding. 

Environmental research revealed that an advanced SST’s effect on the ozone 

layer, which was a major concern during the 1960s, would be less harmful than 

previously believed. (The true culprit proved to be chlorofluorocarbons used as 

the delivery medium in aerosol spray cans.) The VCE program accelerated the 

capability of Pratt & Whitney and GE to use and experiment with advanced 

design codes, materials, and structures while incorporating the new parameters 

of noise and emissions reduction into their engines. As historian Eric Conway 

noted, the VCE was successful “solely on its merits as a technology program” 

despite the fact that it did not lead to a flight-ready engine.17

NASA and the Lockheed Blackbird Family

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance airplane was the fastest piloted 

aircraft with air-breathing engines in history when it entered service in the 

U.S. Air Force in 1966. It could fly higher and faster than any Soviet fighter 

or missile by cruising at Mach 3 near the upper edge of Earth’s atmosphere 

at altitudes above 85,000 feet. The sinister and futuristic-looking Blackbird 

featured a sleek delta wing that spanned 55 feet, a fuselage 100 feet long, and 

a height of 18 feet. The Blackbird received its name from the special paint 

covering its outside surfaces. The paint and the titanium alloy structure underneath allowed the skin of the airplane to withstand high-speed aerodynamic 

heating caused by the friction of the air passing over the surface, absorb radar 

signals, and serve as camouflage in the dark sky at high altitudes. The initial 

variant was the A-12, the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) replacement 

for the Lockheed U-2 spyplane. The single-seat A-12 gave rise to several twoseat derivatives, one of which was the M-12, a mother ship for the GTD-21 

reconnaissance drone; the YF-12A interceptor; and the SR-71 strategic reconnaissance aircraft. Created by the highly successful Advanced Development 

Projects division of Lockheed Aircraft—better known since World War II 

as the “Skunk Works” in an homage to the moonshine still featured in Al 

Capp’s Li’l Abner comic strip—the SR-71 served on the frontlines of overhead 

atmospheric reconnaissance through the Cold War and afterwards, until it 

was finally retired in 1998.

Two conventional Pratt & Whitney J58 turbo-ramjet engines, each generating 30,000 pounds of thrust, powered the Blackbirds. They had to operate 

across a wide range of speeds and conditions in flight, from a takeoff speed of 

over 200 mph to a maximum cruise of 2,200 mph, or Mach 3.3. Innovations 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

57

based on advanced thermodynamic design enabled the J58 to generate all-out 

thrust at high Mach speeds and operate efficiently at high temperatures. The 

Skunk Works team designed a complex air inlet and bypass system for the 

engines to deter supersonic shock waves from moving inside the engine intake 

and causing flameouts.18

Figure 2-4. Originally designed as a fighter during the Cold War, the YF-12 proved more 

important as a NASA research airplane. (NASA)

NASA facilities were significant to the design and development of the 

Blackbirds. Lockheed went to Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, CA, to 

evaluate the critical relationship between the airframe and the engine inlet system. 

After the Blackbird was publicly announced in 1964, NASA saw an opportunity 

to use it as a platform for flight research into the high supersonic (greater than 

Mach 3) regime. The Agency and the Air Force entered into a joint flight research 

program at Dryden Flight Research Center using the canceled fighter variant of 

the Blackbird, the YF-12A, on December 10, 1969. Subsequently, the program 

added a modified SR-71A flight-test aircraft, redesignated the “YF-12C,” to 

the study effort. For the propulsion component of the program, the goal was 

to establish a baseline of engine performance data for present and future use to 

serve as a validation for computer predictions and wind tunnel tests. Dryden 
The Power for Flight

58

managed and coordinated the overall program and was responsible for developing a cooperative control system. Lewis conducted analyses on the inlet designs, 

performed full-scale tests in the 10- by 10-foot wind tunnel, performed engine 

calibration tests, and developed a new control system. Ames took charge of the 

design, analysis, and testing of all wind tunnel models.19

Besides investigating better inlets and controls, boundary layer noise, heat 

transfer under high Mach conditions, altitude performance at supersonic 

speeds, and overall airframe-propulsion system interaction, the YF-12A/C flight 

research program investigated the problem of inlet “unstart.” The phenomenon 

resulted from improperly matched airflow where internal pressure forced the 

internal standing shock wave to “pop” out of the inlet. The resultant loss of 

thrust induced exaggerated yaw, pitching, and rolling and threatened to destroy 

the airplane. The flightcrews imposed a program of deliberate unstarts to familiarize themselves with recovery procedures and to influence an improved inlet 

spike design on the production SR-71. Overall, the YF-12 program generated 

a wide range of data on variable-cycle engine and mixed-compression inlet 

operation for the benefit of future supersonic aircraft design.20

As the YF-12 program gained momentum at Dryden, NASA worked to 

make supersonic aircraft quieter at Lewis. The evaluation of inlets and exhaust 

nozzles began with ground tests by the Wind Tunnel and Flight Division. 

Researchers placed microphones at intervals around the test rig to measure the 

direction and level of the noise. The downside was that the ground reflected 

the sound waves and compromised the test results. Flight tests of a modified 

Convair F-106 Delta Dart took place at Selfridge Air Force Base in Michigan. 

The installation of a GE J85 turbojet under each of the F-106’s delta wings 

resulted in a generalized engine-airframe combination similar to that of a future 

supersonic aircraft. During the tests, the research pilot flew as low as 300 feet 

with the main J75 engine at idle so that a microphone tape recorder station 

on the ground could obtain good noise signals. NASA engineers installed 

experimental nozzles on the J85s for each test run.21

Fixing the F-111: Overcoming Classic 

Engine-Airframe Mismatch

The General Dynamics F-111 supersonic all-weather multipurpose tactical 

fighter bomber was the product of an ill-considered 1961 Department of 

Defense plan initiated by Secretary Robert McNamara. The Tactical Fighter 

Experimental, known widely as TFX, would fulfill both an Air Force supersonic 

strike aircraft requirement and a Navy fleet-defense interceptor requirement. 

That these two requirements were basically incompatible did not prevent the 

program from being advanced by Secretary McNamara, who saw a chance to 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

59

achieve both joint-service “commonality” and acquisition savings. Not surprisingly, the program proved to be seriously flawed; the Navy variant, the 

F-111B, was so heavy that it never entered service, and the Air Force variant, the F-111A, was underpowered and proved unable to meet the original 

performance requirement. Eventually, the F-111 design was made to work, 

and the final F-111F “Aardvark” was a remarkably successful strike aircraft, as 

exemplified by its performance in 1991 in the first Gulf War, together with an 

electronic warfare variant, the EF-111A “Sparkvark.”

Figure 2-5. NASA contributed greatly to improving the design of the General Dynamics 

F-111A. (USAF)

One of the challenges of the F-111 program was that it incorporated a 

new innovation for American military aircraft: a variable-geometry, or swing, 

wing. When fully extended, it facilitated short takeoffs and landings. When 

fully swept, it enabled the F-111 to attain speeds of up to Mach 2.5, exceeding 920 mph at less than 200 feet altitude. The variable-sweep wing had first 

appeared on the Bell X-5 research airplane, which the Air Force and the NACA 

had extensively tested in the 1950s. Though attempted unsuccessfully on 

Grumman’s XF10F-1 Jaguar naval fighter in the mid-1950s, the F-111 represented its first practical application. Other American and foreign swing wing 

aircraft included the B-1 strategic bomber, the F-14 fighter, and the MiG-23. 

From the beginning, a multitude of problems centered on making one airplane 

meet the requirements of two services and their disparate missions beset the 

TFX program, along with continuous technical challenges. In November 1962, 
The Power for Flight

60

Secretary McNamara selected the General Dynamics design instead of a rival 

design offered by Boeing due to the former’s greater commonality between 

the Air Force and Navy designs, but he did so over the objections of the 

program’s evaluation committee (and later by Congress). General Dynamics 

moved forward with the development of the new F-111A for the Air Force 

and the F-111B for the Navy.

The F-111 was the first combat airplane in the world powered by afterburning turbofans. Still new to aviation, turbofans exhibited different airflow 

characteristics from those of turbojets and were sensitive to pressure distortion 

between the bypass duct and the engine core. For optimum operation, the inlet 

airflow of a turbofan had to be uniform or the engine would experience “compressor stall,” where abnormal airflow led to a dramatic reduction in operating 

pressure that affected overall power, often referred to as “flameout.” The F-111 

designers chose quarter-round inlets and placed them under the wing roots 

next to the fuselage for optimum performance for the low-level mission. They 

reduced drag but introduced airflow disturbances into the inlet. The extreme 

range of operational mission profiles for the F-111—ranging from the supersonic dash in dense air at sea level to the high-speed cruise at extreme altitudes, 

with a wide range of speeds and flight attitudes in between—exacerbated the 

problem. The two Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines were highly susceptible to 

stalling, something General Dynamics discovered even before the first F-111 

test flight in December 1964.22

NASA had not contributed to the initial inlet design of the F-111. NASA’s 

focus, through John Stack and other aerodynamicists at Langley, was initially 

on the variable-sweep wing and overall aerodynamic refinement of the aircraft 

for the supersonic low-level nuclear mission. Langley and Ames actively supported the development program in many areas, which amounted to the most 

extensive wind tunnel support ever provided for one aircraft by NASA or the 

NACA.23 Langley engineers were finding indications of problems with the 

inlet, but these were a byproduct of their other work, and their concerns were 

lost in the bureaucratic hustle that characterized the development of the F-111 

in the 1963–1965 period. The staff at Lewis was fully engrossed in programs 

supporting the space program and ballistic missile development.24

That changed, however, when the inlet-engine compatibility problems 

arose. Immediately, NASA was asked to investigate the problem. In March 

and April 1965, Ames conducted an investigation into the use of vortex generators, small fins used to control airflow, to minimize distortion in the F-111 

supersonic inlet system. NASA researchers shared the results with General 

Dynamics’ engineers, who left the meetings with detailed design drawings. 

The F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review Committee, with members 

representing General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney, the Air Force, and the Navy, 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

61

as well as researchers from Ames and Lewis, met in September and October 

1965 to discuss engine control problems, inlet distortion evaluation, engine 

development, and an estimated stall-free envelope.25

The solution put forth by General Dynamics was the so-called Triple Plow I 

inlet, which the Air Force approved for production in early 1967. The design 

modified the splitter plate between the front of the intake and the fuselage to 

divert turbulent boundary-layer air that hugged the fuselage, incorporated 

hydraulically extended engine cowls, and integrated 20 vortex generators into 

each inlet. Pratt & Whitney introduced a less-temperamental TF30 engine. 

The modifications improved performance, but they still did not fully satisfy the 

Air Force engineers in the F-111 Systems Program Office at the Aeronautical 

Systems Division of Air Force Systems Command, located at Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base, OH. They worked through the late 1960s and offered a better 

solution in the form of the Triple Plow II inlet, characterized by an enlarged 

inlet duct and major structural changes. It provided a full-capability flight 

Mach/maneuvering envelope free of compressor stalls.26 The final cost to fix 

the inlet-engine compatibility problem was over $100 million.27

Only the Air Force’s F-111 went into service, beginning with the F-111A 

in 1967, because the Navy’s variant, the F-111B, grew too heavy and was too 

underpowered to fly from aircraft carriers and serve in the fleet air defense 

role. After solving the structural problems, the Air Force went on to operate successive strike, strategic bomber, and electronic warfare versions of the 

F-111 in Southeast Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East through 1998. 

The strategic bomber variant, the FB-111A, flew into the 1990s. The Royal 

Australian Air Force, the only foreign customer for the aircraft, operated the 

F-111C from 1973 to 2010.

Overall, the F-111 experience was an extremely cautionary tale for the 

American aerospace industry on the issue of commonality and on the problems 

of airframe-engine integration. For the long term, the research conducted to 

solve the inlet-engine compatibility problems related to the F-111 proved 

beneficial to the development of later American military aircraft, including the 

Grumman F-14 Tomcat, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, General Dynamics 

F-16 Fighting Falcon, and Rockwell B-1 Lancer.28

Developing and Refining Advanced 

Military Aircraft Engines

The Military and NASA Lewis’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL)

Since its creation, NASA supported engine development for American aircraft. 

In 1966, with much of the work on the Apollo program already accomplished, 
The Power for Flight

62

NASA’s PSL refocused attention upon the jet engine, which continued to grow 

in size, sophistication, complexity, and performance. Ironically, it involved a 

bit of catch-up: with the researchers and facilities in Cleveland committed to 

space during the 1956–1966 focus, the PSL had been relatively subordinated 

in air-breathing engine development by the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering 

Development Center in Tennessee. This facility, inspired by the German Kochel 

high-speed tunnel complex discovered at the end of the Second World War, had 

opened in 1951 and quickly gained a reputation for analytical excellence using 

a variety of tunnels, shock tubes, and other research tools. As well, the PSL had 

been somewhat supplanted (though to a lesser degree) by the growing capabilities of industrial research facilities maintained by the aeropropulsion industry 

itself. Lewis Research Center created a new Airbreathing Engine Division in 

1966. The organization had at its disposal the Propulsion Systems Laboratory, 

a new Quiet Engine Test Stand, the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, 

and the Agency’s Convair F-106 Delta Dart research aircraft to study turbofans.

Figure 2-6. A research technician checks the installation of a J85 engine in PSL No. 2 in 

1974. (NASA)

To better determine the baseline performance characteristics of any 

engine undergoing evaluation, the Lewis engineers chose the compact, 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

63

4,350-pound-thrust GE J85 turbojet for calibration studies. The J85 was one 

of GE’s most successful engines. Small and powerful at 3,000 pounds of thrust, 

it had the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any American-built jet engine. GE 

had based its compressor on an experimental five-stage NASA design, which 

included high-stage loading technology.29 The American military used the 

engine in a wide range of aircraft that included the Northrop T-38 Talon and 

F-5 fighter family, the North American T-2 Buckeye trainer, and the Cessna 

A-37 Dragonfly (a trainer modified for light attack). Comprehensive testing 

established the desired transonic nozzle inlet temperature and pressure and 

gas flow rate, which allowed researchers to determine the J85’s gross thrust 

within a margin of error of less than 1 percent. With the methodology in 

place, they could rationalize the testing of new nozzle and compressor designs 

and noise-reduction technology not only for future tests in the PSL, but also 

in test aircraft and other facilities, using the known characteristics of the J85 

as a baseline.30

NASA placed new emphasis on increasing the performance of turbofans 

in the early 1960s, seeking as well to reduce their noise to make them commercially practical. The turbojets that powered the first commercial airliners 

consumed large amounts of fuel in relation to the distances they carried aircraft, 

which affected airline revenues and operating costs. The addition of a large, 

enclosed, multiblade fan to a turbojet harnessed the efficiency of the propeller 

while developing the high thrust of the turbojet. The unprecedented 60- to 

80-percent leap in efficiency increased thrust, improved fuel economy, and 

reduced noise. The introduction of the new “turbofan” facilitated the success of 

low-cost, long-distance air transportation and military flight in the early 1960s.

The first practical American turbofan engine, General Electric’s 

16,000-pound-thrust CJ805-23 aft-fan, was ready for flight in 1959. It resulted 

from considerable pioneering research and financial expense on the part of 

both GE and the NACA, primarily in the newly emerging field of CFD. 

Unfortunately, the airplane it was destined to power, the Convair 990 airliner, 

was not yet ready. The delay worked against the subsequent market success 

of the CJ805, allowing rival Pratt & Whitney time to catch up with a rival 

front-fan design, the JT3D. Though initially resistant to the idea of the turbofan, Pratt & Whitney beat General Electric to the market by replacing the 

first three low-pressure stages of the JT3 turbojet with two fan stages, which 

improved thrust and fuel economy while reducing noise. The resulting JT3D 

generated 18,000 pounds of thrust, and the airlines quickly adopted it for the 

707 and DC-8 aircraft in 1960. Operators could convert their JT3s into JT3Ds 

with a simple kit, an extraordinarily attractive enticement. Pratt & Whitney 

produced over 8,000 JT3D engines and dominated the growing market for 

commercial turbofan engines in the early 1960s. In 1990, Jack Parker, head of 
The Power for Flight

64

GE Aerospace and Defense, ruefully remarked, “We converted the heathen, 

but the competitor sold the bibles.” 31

Figure 2-7. This image shows the Grumman F-14A Tomcat. (Northrop Grumman)

From that competitive beginning, turbofans became the engine of choice 

for both military and commercial applications, for they greatly increased range 

thanks to their better fuel economy. But they were not an unalloyed blessing. 

For the U.S. Air Force and Navy, low-bypass turbofans offered better fuel economy over turbojets while still providing high thrust and supersonic capability. Unfortunately, the extreme conditions in which military aircraft operated 

caused problems in overall efficiency, which affected the overall performance 

of the next generation of military aircraft. The 25,000-pound-thrust Pratt & 

Whitney TF30 afterburning turbofan slated for the Grumman F-14A Tomcat 

and the General Dynamics F-111 twin-engine supersonic variable-sweep aircraft suffered from decreased engine pressures at high altitudes and distorted 

airflow that reduced the stability of the compressor. Many F-14As were lost 

from engine failures, in part because a loss of power in a single engine could 

cause the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable spin, thanks to its widely placed 

engine layout. Indeed, one Grumman test pilot, Charles “Chuck” Sewell, 

who ejected over the Atlantic from an F-14A that experienced engine failure, 

quipped, “If the engines say Pratt & Whitney, the seats should say MartinBaker,” a reference to an outstandingly reliable ejection seat manufacturer. 

For the subsequent TF30 tests in PSL No. 1, engineers devised a system of 

nozzles that injected air into the test chamber airstream that simulated those 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

65

disturbances and enabled the engineers to chart the probability of engine stalling under various conditions.32

After the Vietnam War, the services had a number of new aircraft under 

development that required NASA analytical assistance. In the mid-1970s, 

the staff of the PSL and the U.S. Air Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base collaborated on a Full-Scale Engine Research 

(FSER) program to investigate flutter, inlet distortion, and electronic controls. The project focused on two service engines: the General Electric J85-21 

(a new variant of the proven J85 and used in the Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II 

lightweight fighter) and the Pratt & Whitney F100, a very-high-performance 

engine intended for the new McDonnell-Douglas F-15A Eagle and General 

Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon, two high-priority defense programs. For 

the J85 portion, the PSL targeted internal compressor aerodynamics and 

mechanical flutter caused by distortion in the airflow. The collection of data 

documenting the unique differences between flutter and instability led to better 

understanding of the phenomena in jet engines.33

Figure 2-8. Shown here is the McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle. (Boeing)

Of the two programs, the F-15 and the F-16, the F-15 was by far the most 

critical, for it was essential (as was the Navy’s F-14) for maintaining American 

air superiority in the face of rapidly changing air combat threats. The F-15 

was one of the first so-called “fourth generation” jet fighters, with advanced 

stability augmentation (though it was not, like the slightly later F-16, a “fly 

by wire” design); an optimized aerodynamic and control configuration for 
The Power for Flight

66

superb agility; and two powerful new afterburning turbofan engines, namely, 

the Pratt & Whitney F100. Even before the aircraft took to the air, General 

James Ferguson, commander of Air Force Systems Command, made note of 

the already “substantial contribution” made by researchers at Langley, Ames, 

Lewis, and the Flight Research Center to the evolution of the program.34

NASA officials discussed with the Air Force the specific propulsion choices 

facing the F-15 as the design moved forward prior to its first flight in 1972. 

The Air Force had a choice of using either a conventional short or advanced, 

but yet-to-be-proven, long blade chord compressor to guarantee high performance and efficiency. The Lewis Laboratory was well suited to assist due to its 

experience in troubleshooting the F-14A’s Pratt & Whitney TF30 with special 

instrumentation developed and procured for that effort. Brigadier General 

Benjamin Bellis, director of the F-15 System Program Office (SPO), emphasized that he wanted all the NASA help and support he could get regarding 

the Eagle’s two Pratt & Whitney F100 afterburning turbofan engines, which 

were experiencing unanticipated reliability and safety issues.35 The result was 

a collaborative meeting that also provided a basis for closer coordination and 

partnering, an outcome NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher hailed as forming the “basis for future cooperation and supportive efforts on the engine side 

similar to what we have on the airframe side.”36

The Pratt & Whitney F100 was a new-generation military low-bypass 

turbofan that featured variable compressor and fan blades rather than the 

traditional static types found on earlier designs. These new engines required 

better and more rapidly adjusting engine control systems that handled multiple 

parameters and variables while increasing overall accuracy and response. The 

Air Force requested that NASA develop and test such a system on an F100 

engine. The PSL team at Lewis offered the testing facilities; Pratt & Whitney 

provided the engine and design data; and Systems Control, Inc., of Palo Alto, 

CA, created the basic computer logic for the controls. The team began with 

the creation of a digital controller utilizing a linear quadratic regulator and 

tested it in computer simulations in 1975. Full-scale F100 testing in the PSL 

began in mid-1977.37

The amount of work taking place within the PSL led to the construction 

of two additional test chambers—at the cost of $14 million—that opened in 

February 1972. Designated Nos. 3 and 4, the structures reflected the lessons 

learned in Nos. 1 and 2. They were larger, at 40 feet long and 24 feet in diameter, and simpler in construction, with the shared exhaust cooler that gave the 

facility its distinctive Y-shape. More importantly, they enabled researchers to 

test engines twice as powerful as any in existence at the time, with simulated 

altitudes of up to 90,000 feet and speeds of up to Mach 3 in No. 3 and Mach 6 

in No. 4.38 PSL Nos. 1 and 2 continued in operation until 1979, when their 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

67

limited capacity compared to the cost of operations rendered them obsolete. 

They sat unused until their demolition in 2009.39

Figure 2-9. This image shows a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine installed in the much larger PSL 

No. 4 in 1981. (NASA)

Despite the success of the PSL and other propulsion programs at Lewis, 

the 1970s were a tumultuous time for the Center’s staff and especially for 

Bruce Lundin, who became the Center Director in 1969. His desire to expand 

Lewis’s role in commercial aviation faced considerable challenges. NASA overall faced budget cuts that led to the termination of permanent civil service 

positions in the wake of the end of the Apollo program and fragmented the 

research community. Continued uncertainty related to interagency competition with the new Department of Energy (DOE), along with the inability 

of Lundin and Headquarters in Washington to work together effectively, led 

to the Director’s resignation in 1977. More importantly, the nature of the 

research changed. Rather than retaining a degree of independence rooted in 

basic research, Lewis managed contracts to industry or served as one piece of 

a national puzzle managed from Headquarters in Washington, which emphasized short-term development.40
The Power for Flight

68

Endnotes

1. George P. Miller, “NASA,” in Congressional Record (hereafter Cong. 

Rec.), 92nd Cong., 1st sess., vol. 117, December 14, 1971, p. H12545, 

copy available in the NASA HRC, file 012336.

2. “1962–1972: The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis News (October 20, 

1972): 4–5, available at http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/PSL_Assets/History/

C%20Rockets/First%20Decade%20of%20Centaur%20article%20

(1972).pdf (accessed August 15, 2013); Robert S. Arrighi, “History: 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 & 2, Rocket Engines (1958–

1966),” December 3, 2012, http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/Rocket%20

Engines.aspx (accessed August 14, 2013).

3. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 179.

4. Dennis R. Jenkins, Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of 

the X-15 Research Airplane (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2000-4518, 

2000), pp. 21–44, 119.

5. Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Defense, and NASA, “A 

National Program for a Commercial Supersonic Transport,” NASA 

TM-X-50927, October 1960, pp. 1–3.

6. Ibid., pp. 17–18.

7. Ira Schwartz, ed., Third Conference on Sonic Boom Research Held at NASA, 

Washington, D.C., October 29–30, 1970 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-255, 1971).

8. Senate Daily Digest, December 2, 1970, p. D1216, copy available in 

the NASA HRC, file 012336.

9. Erik M. Conway, High-Speed Dreams: NASA and the Technopolitics 

of Supersonic Transportation, 1945–1999 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 2005), p. 152.

10. Richard P. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–

1981 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4303, 1984), pp. 178–181.

11. Keith Wheeler, “The Full Story of the 2.8 Seconds That Killed the 

XB-70,” Life 61 (November 11, 1966): 128.

12. Keith Wheeler, “Building the XB-70,” Life 58 (January 15, 1966): 77, 79.

13. Richard A. Martin, “Dynamic Analysis of XB-70-1 Inlet Pressure 

Fluctuations During Takeoff and Prior to a Compressor Stall at Mach 

2.5,” NASA TN D-5826, 1970, pp. 1–2; Terrill W. Putnam and Ronald 

H. Smith, “XB-70 Compressor-Noise Reduction and Propulsion 

Performance for Choked Inlet Flow,” NASA TN D-5692, 1970, p. 1; 

James St. Peter, The History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development 

in the United States: A Tradition of Excellence (Atlanta: International Gas 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

69

Turbine Institute of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

1999), p. 263; Hallion, On the Frontier, pp. 185–186.

14. Warner L. Stewart, “Introduction: Session III-Propulsion,” in Proceedings 

of the SCAR Conference Held at Langley Research Center, Hampton, 

Virginia, November 9–12, 1976 (Hampton, VA: NASA CP-001), 

pp. 337–338.

15. L.H. Fishbach and Michael J. Caddy, “NNEP: The Navy-NASA Engine 

Program,” NASA TM-X-71857, December 1975, p. 1.

16. Conway, High-Speed Dreams, pp. 170–174.

17. Ibid., p. 188.

18. Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum, “Lockheed 

SR-71 Blackbird,” November 11, 2001, https://airandspace.si.edu/

collection-objects/lockheed-sr-71-blackbird (accessed January 18, 2017).

19. James A. Albers, “Status of the NASA YF-12 Propulsion Research 

Program,” NASA TM-X-56039, March 1976, pp. 1–2, 10; Hallion, 

On the Frontier, pp. 191, 193–194; Peter W. Merlin, “Design and 

Development of the Blackbird: Challenges and Lessons Learned” (AIAA 

Paper 2009-1522, presented at the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences 

Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 5–8, 2009), pp. 28, 30–31, 37.

20. Hallion, On the Frontier, p. 193; Peter W. Merlin, Mach 3+: NASA/

USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979 (Washington, DC: NASA 

History Division, 2002), pp. 16–19, 43.

21. NASA, “Nozzle Design Reduces Jet Noise,” September 8, 1970, NASA 

HRC, file 012336; H. Dale Grubb to Roman C. Pucinski, October 7, 

1970, NASA HRC, file 012336.

22. Robert F. Coulam, Illusions of Choice: The F-111 and the Problem of 

Weapons Acquisition Reform (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 

1977), pp. 176–180.

23. Staff of the NASA Research Centers, “Summary of NASA Support of 

the F-111 Development Program, Part I-December 1962-December 

1965,” NASA Langley Working Paper 246, October 10, 1966, p. 2.

24. U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations, TFX Contract 

Investigation (Second Series), part 2, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., March 25–26, 

April 7, 9, 14, 1970, pp. 345–348; Coulam, Illusions of Choice, p. 191.

25. NASA Research Centers, “Summary of NASA Support of the F-111 

Development Program,” pp. 23, 27–28.

26. G. Keith Richey, “F-111 Systems Engineering Case Study,” Center for 

Systems Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology, March 10, 

2005, pp. 64–71, http://www.afit.edu/docs/0930AFIT14ENV125%20

2-2.pdf (accessed January 13, 2016).
The Power for Flight

70

27. Coulam, Illusions of Choice, pp. 167, 184–186.

28. Donald L. Hughes, Jon K. Holzman, and Harold Johnson, “FlightDetermined Characteristics of an Air Intake System on an F-111A 

Airplane,” NASA TN D-6679, March 1972, p. 1; Richey, “F-111 

Systems Engineering Case Study.”

29. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, 

pp. 296, 298.

30. Charles M. Mehalic and Roy A. Lottig, “Inlet Temperature Distortion 

on the Stall Limits of J85-GE-13,” NASA TM-X-2990, 1974, pp. 1, 

14–15.

31. Jack Parker, quoted in George E. Smith and David E. Mindell, “The 

Emergence of the Turbofan Engine,” in Atmospheric Flight in the 

Twentieth Century, ed. Peter Galison and Alex Roland (Boston: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers, 2000), p. 143.

32. Roger A. Werner, Mahmood Abdelwahab, and Willis M. Braithwaite, 

“Performance and Stall Limits of an Afterburner-Equipped Turbofan 

Engine With and Without Inlet Flow Distortion,” NASA TM-X1947, 1970; Willis M. Braithwaite, John H. Dicus, and John E. Moss, 

“Evaluation with a Turbofan Engine of Air Jets as a Steady-State Inlet 

Flow Distortion Device,” NASA TM-X-1955, 1970. Sewell quote from 

a conversation he had with Richard P. Hallion at Edwards Air Force 

Base in 1982. See also Robert S. Arrighi, “History: Propulsion Systems 

Laboratory No. 1 & 2, Return to Turbojets (1967–1974),” December 

3, 2012, http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/Return%20to%20Turbojets.aspx

(accessed August 15, 2013).

33. “The Fan-Compressor Flutter Team,” Lewis News (February 3, 1978), 

available online at http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/PSL_Assets/History/

F%20Turbofan%20Engines/Full%20Scale%20Engine%20

Program%20article%20(1978).pdf (accessed August 16, 2013); Robert 

S. Arrighi, “History: Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 & 2, 

Turbofan Engines (1974–1979),” December 3, 2012, http://pslhistory.

grc.nasa.gov/Turbofan%20Engines.aspx (accessed August 15, 2013).

34. James Ferguson to Thomas O. Paine, October 17, 1969, NASA HRC, 

file 011664.

35. Albert J. Evans, “Visit to F-15 Systems Program Office, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, September 13, 1971,” September 21, 1971, 

NASA HRC, file 011664.

36. James C. Fletcher to Robert C. Seamans, Jr., October 8, 1971, NASA 

HRC, file 011664.

37. John R. Szuch, James F. Soeder, Kurt Seldner, and David S. Cwynar, 

“F100 Multivariable Control Synthesis Program-Evaluation of a 
NASA Gets to Work, 1958–1975

71

Multivariable Control Using a Real-Time Engine Simulation,” NASA 

TP 1056, October 1977, pp. 1–4. See also W.J. Deskin and H.G. 

Hurrell, “A Summary of NASA/Air Force Full-Scale Engine Research 

Programs Using the F100 Engine” (paper presented at the 15th AIAA, 

SAE [Society for Automotive Engineers], and ASME [American Society 

for Mechanical Engineers] Joint Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 

June 18–20, 1979); and B. Lehtinen, R.L. Dehoff, and R.D. Hackney, 

“Multivariable Control Altitude Demonstration on the F100 Turbofan 

Engine” (paper presented at the 15th AIAA, SAE, and ASME Joint 

Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, NV, June 18–20, 1979).

38. Lewis Research Center, “The Propulsion Systems Laboratory,” Brochure 

B-0363, March 1991, available online at http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.

gov/PSL_ Assets/History/E%20PSL%20No%203%20and%204/

Propulsion%20Systems%20Lab%20No.%203-4%20brochure%20(1991).

pdf (accessed August 15, 2013).

39. Robert Arrighi, “Demolition of PSL No. 1 and 2 (1980–2009),” 

December 3, 2012, http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/Demolition.aspx (accessed 

January 3, 2013).

40. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, pp. 201–215.
72

NASA technicians prepare for a jet engine noise test on the airfield at Lewis Research Center in 

1967. (NASA)
73

CHAPTER 3

The Shift Toward Commercial

Aviation, 1966–1975

By 1970, the United States aviation industry manufactured 74 percent of all 

commercial aircraft in the free world, with $3 billion in revenues generated 

by overseas business—thanks, in large part, to NACA and NASA aeronautical research conducted from 1950 to 1970. But as NASA worked to improve 

military turbofans, there was a growing fear that United States was falling 

behind as a world leader in commercial aviation technology. Competition from 

state-supported manufacturers in Europe in the form of Airbus Industrie and 

recently Rolls-Royce, Ltd., was growing, and consequently there was a continued push in Congress to keep American aeronautics moving forward. The 

United States appeared to be behind in the development of new technologies 

such as Vertical and Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL), following its controversial decision to choose, largely for nontechnical reasons, to abandon its 

effort to develop a supersonic transport that could travel faster than Mach 2.5. 

The House Committee on Science and Astronautics was fully aware of the 

“increasing deficiencies” in the national aeronautical effort. Congressman 

George P. Miller (D-CA) of California was an especially vocal supporter of 

NASA. The Agency had the talent and expertise to confront national problems, but it needed the full support of the Government to do so. Otherwise, 

the future security and prosperity of the United States was in “great peril.”1

American manufacturers GE and Pratt & Whitney dominated the turbofan 

market and invested considerable funding in meeting the needs of the airline 

industry. For them, the bottom line was increased fuel efficiency. NASA took 

the lead in two areas that did not affect the bottom line—noise and emissions—and aimed for considerable reduction, with engines up to 10 decibels 

(dB) quieter and 60 percent cleaner as the 1960s and 1970s progressed.2

 From 

the late 1920s to the present, commercial airlines have consistently pursued 

the increase of payload capacity and engine efficiency. Since the 1960s, they 

have had to recognize a third driving force in aviation: compliance with the 

FAA’s noise regulations.

By the early 1970s, noise in everyday life was an increasingly widespread 

social concern. The World Health Organization stated in the Washington News
The Power for Flight

74

that noise was “the curse of modern times and a major environmental problem.”3

 The scientific measure of sound intensity, most commonly heard as 

noise, is the decibel. The threshold of pain starts at 120 dB, while 140 produces 

permanent damage. While the decibel is a specific term for the level of sound 

output, acoustics researchers use “PNdB,” or “perceived noise in decibels,” 

to measure the sound affecting people in the vicinity of an aircraft. In early 

aircraft noise research, PNdB was the subjective “measure of annoyance” that 

reflected the overall intensity of a sound, its frequency content, and how people 

responded to it. But the special circumstances of the aircraft noise problem 

characterized by whining jet aircraft passing overhead necessitated a better 

and more relevant measure and resulted in the defining of a more appropriate 

and relevant noise measurement unit, the effective perceived noise in decibels, 

or EPNdB. The EPNdB accounted for two additional factors beyond PNdB: 

first, it gave more importance to tones in the noise spectrum, and second, it 

accounted for the duration, or rise and fall, of a sound. In essence, EPNdB 

provided the single number that expressed the measure of the total annoyance 

a person experienced as an airplane flew over.

A four-engine commercial airliner of the 1960s or early 1970s generated 

95 to 120 EPNdB at takeoff, which was a potential cause of hearing damage 

to the general populace and detrimental overall to the quality of life around 

airports. In a world full of “chattering jackhammers, whining motorcycles, and 

roaring jetliners,” Representative William F. Ryan (D-NY) asserted, “the right 

to a quiet, peaceful environment is as basic as the right to clean air and water 

and pure food.” The EPA led the effort to limit noise emissions as it had done 

for air and water, but Congress planned comprehensive legislation addressing 

noise in the 1970s. Congress specifically authorized the FAA to muffle “the 

loudest source of urban noise”: low-flying jet aircraft.4

Early in the Jet Age, communities and environmental activists recognized 

that noise and emissions were significant byproducts of jet travel. While other 

parts of an aircraft generated noise in flight, the jet engine was the greatest 

source. In terms of their effect on people on the ground, jet aircraft are loudest 

during takeoffs and landings. At takeoffs, the exhaust gases from the engine 

mix with the cooler air outside the engine to create a roar. As an airliner 

approaches a runway to land, the pilots reduce power to slow down, which 

creates a hissing noise. NASA’s overall gas turbine research and development 

program focused on increasing the fuel efficiency of high-bypass-ratio engines. 

Although fuel efficiency was the goal, any innovations in that area had to 

avoid increased engine noise, which was a factor to which the public reacted 

negatively beginning in the 1960s. NASA began investigating the relationship 

between turbofan-cycle characteristics and engine noise levels, size, and performance in 1966. Agency researchers learned that the fan generated the highest 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

75

noise forward from the inlet and aft from the fan discharge ducts. NASA held 

the first of several conferences on aircraft noise at Langley with Government, 

industry, and academic participation in October 1968.5

The FAA and Federal Aviation Regulation 36: 

Regulating Aircraft Noise

A year later, in 1969, the FAA responded to congressional legislation calling 

for reduced aircraft noise with increased regulation; the agency consistently 

updated those rules over the years.6

 The FAA adopted Part 36 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FAR), which stopped the increase of noise levels by subsonic turbojet airliners and dictated noise measurement, valuation, and level 

requirements for new aircraft. The FAA amended Part 36 in 1977 to establish 

three categories of jet aircraft that reflected the noise each class generated at 

takeoff, climb, and descent. Stage 1 represented the oldest and noisiest airliners, primarily the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8 powered by four 

Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans each. Stage 2 included Boeing’s 727 and 737 

and the McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80, which were noisy aircraft with, 

respectively, three and two Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans. New generations 

of turbofans powered Stage 3 aircraft, which included an updated 737 and the 

new Boeing 757, Airbus A319, Fokker 100, and various regional jets; these 

were the quietest of all jets. Overall, the FAA’s goal was to see Stage 1 and 2 

aircraft either retired from service in the continental United States or retrofitted 

to meet the quieter and more stringent Stage 3 standards.7

The FAA adopted Part 36 of the FAR in December 1969 and applied it to 

the type certification of new aircraft such as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, 

Lockheed L-1011, and Boeing 747-200. The rule subsequently expanded to 

cover all aircraft produced after December 31, 1974. The FAA emphasized 

that the purpose of the new rule was “not to force the modification or retrofit 

of older airplanes,” but rather to encourage each operator to adopt whatever 

means of achieving compliance was best suited to their individual economic 

situation. An operator could replace older airliners with new updated aircraft, 

retrofit the current fleet, or execute a mixture of those options.8

A turbofan engine generates noise simply by its operation. The fan, which 

pulls air into the front of the engine, produces noise in much the same way a 

propeller does. Additionally, each individual fan blade generates its own noise. 

Once past the fan, the airflow follows two paths: through the fan bypass duct 

surrounding the engine and through the inner core duct. Inside the fan duct, 

the swirling airflow caused by the fan requires stabilization with stator vanes 

to remove the swirl. The interaction between the two, often described as waves 

rolling onto a beach, produces tones heard as the distinctive piercing sound 
The Power for Flight

76

emitted by many engine designs. Additionally, turbulent airflow interacting 

with the stators creates rumbling broadband noise as well. In the engine’s core 

duct, there are three more sources of noise. As the compressor rotors squeeze the 

airflow, rows of stators separate each rotor stage to straighten the flow, which 

produces more clamor. Then there is the explosive mixture of the compressed 

air and atomized fuel in the combustors. The resultant high-temperature and 

high-pressure combusted air violently interacts with the statorlike turbine to 

drive the fan and the compressor rotors. Finally, the two flows traveling through 

the fan and core ducts exhaust into the air to the rear of the engine. The mixing 

of the two types of exhaust with each other and the outside air generates broadband noise aptly named “jet noise.”9

Jet Noise as Public Policy Crisis: 

The Quest for Solutions

Nacelle Acoustic Treatment: First Effort at a Technological Fix

NASA was already well on its way to making the Nation’s airliners quieter in 

the 1960s.10 Langley managed the Nacelle Acoustic Treatment program beginning in 1967.11 NASA concluded its research program in 1970. Both Boeing 

and Douglas conducted research under contract to NASA. The technology 

demonstrated that noise at landing could be reduced 12–15 dB for the 707 and 

7–10 dB for the DC-8. In an October 1970 letter to Representative Roman C. 

Pucinski (D-IL), NASA Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs H. Dale 

Grubb asserted that the research revealed “an immediate and practical way 

to reduce significantly the noise of present aircraft.” The solution involved 

the retrofitting of nacelles with acoustic treatment. Grubb explained that the 

program was a quick fix to provide some relief while NASA and the aviation 

industry worked on more-effective noise-reduction methods, primarily the 

initiation of steep landing approaches, the installation of new and better fan 

assemblies on engines, and the design of a new “Quiet Engine.”12 Through 

the 1960s and 1970s, NASA offered both short- and long-term solutions to 

reduce noise and made those simultaneous efforts a major part of its research 

program for several years.

Yet, as Forbes noted, the FAA faced a paradox. On one hand, it needed 

to carry out its congressional mandate; on the other, it could not afford to 

jeopardize the financial stability of the airline industry. Noise-reduction programs were estimated to cost between $300,000 to $1 million per airliner, 

or $250 million to $1 billion overall. Moreover, FAA Administrator John H. 

Shaffer was not totally convinced of the economic and technical feasibility of 

retrofitting the Boeing 707 fleet, the workhorse airliner, with noise-suppression 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

77

equipment despite NASA’s successful 707 and DC-8 experiments. The 707 

tests involved a complete redesign of the engine pods and the installation of 

over 3,000 pounds of insulation into each of the four engines. The successful 

reduction in noise decreased the 707’s range by 200 nautical miles. If the conversions did work, it would take up to 4 years to complete the program. There 

was also the question of who would actually do the work and pay for it. The 

FAA’s policy of “treading softly” thus pushed back the issuance of any effective 

commercial aircraft noise-reduction regulations to late 1971.13

NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher spoke before an Agency-sponsored 

conference on civil aviation near Langley in November 1971. He outlined 

NASA’s central role in meeting the challenge of aircraft noise reduction, which 

was based on a growing record of success. Fletcher also echoed changing priorities in the aviation industry overall. He admitted that it was no longer enough 

to think in terms of more power, lift, and speed. For Fletcher, if NASA wanted 

taxpayers to continue to support civil aviation, the Agency had to adopt the 

motto “Fly Quiet!”14

The Growing Clamor over Aircraft Noise

By then, airport noise had become a national concern. The problem of aircraft 

noise was reaching a fever pitch in 1970, especially in the densely populated 

Northeast. Noise suits against airports increased as local communities grew 

larger and urban development transitioned to suburban sprawl. Representative 

Allard K. Lowenstein (D-NY) exclaimed that the FAA’s apparent failure to 

enforce its own regulations resulted in a “nightmare of noise” for many of 

his constituents who lived near Kennedy International Airport, then the East 

Coast’s major international civil airport. The Congressman demanded that the 

FAA require the immediate installation of “noise-muffling” materials on the 

apparent swarms of first-generation jet airliners—primarily the Boeing 707 

and Douglas DC-8—that clouded the skies over Kennedy. He also took exception to an FAA ruling that addressed the reduction of noise for soon-to-beintroduced airliners like the Lockheed L-1011 and the Douglas DC-10, while 

another exempted the new Boeing 747 jumbo jet altogether. The older, noisier 

airliners would contribute to increased congestion for decades. Lowenstein and 

approximately 50 of his House colleagues met with FAA Administrator Shaffer 

to discuss the noise problem.15 The city of Boston filed a $10.2 million noisepollution suit against the Massachusetts Port Authority, the operator of Logan 

International Airport, and 19 individual airlines in September 1970. The city, 

represented by Mayor Kevin H. White, wanted the money to soundproof 15 

nearby schools and provide reimbursement for the lost air rights over the city, 

the depreciated real estate value of the schools, and the fact that the area was 
The Power for Flight

78

no longer fit for educational purposes. Some communities went so far as to 

ban late-night flights.16

The experience of congressional response to community concerns led to the 

creation of a champion for aircraft noise reduction. After joining the House 

in 1963, Representative John W. Wydler (R-NY) from Long Island met with 

unhappy constituents from the western part of his district near the edge of 

Kennedy Airport. Their passionate pleas for help resulted in his waging an 

8-year, career-defining “jet noise fight” in Congress. He became a member 

of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, which also dealt with 

aeronautics. Wydler and his colleagues saw that the first step was to support 

NASA research in jet noise and the development of a “quiet” engine that would 

yield actual hardware for use by the airline industry. The programs began in 

March 1964 and September 1966 respectively. Wydler was also on the committee overseeing the creation of the new Department of Transportation (DOT), 

which opened in April 1967 and assumed administrative control of the FAA. 

The Jet Aircraft Noise Control Bill passed by Congress in June 1968, legislation 

Wydler originally sponsored in the House, gave the FAA the power to regulate 

aircraft noise; that power centered on requiring the airlines to implement new 

noise-reduction technology regulations.17

Interagency Noise Study Efforts Lead to Reliance upon the EPNdB

The departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation 

sponsored a study of aircraft noise and abatement at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport in 1971. Sixteen miles from midtown Manhattan in 

southeastern Queens, the New York airport hosted 19.6 million passengers in 

1968 and employed up to 40,000 people. Other studies focused on O’Hare 

International Airport (Chicago), Bradley International Airport (Hartford, 

CT), and Cape Kennedy Regional Airport (Melbourne, FL). The studies recommended the installation of noise mufflers on commercial aircraft engines, 

the implementation of revised takeoff and landing procedures, and the rapid 

development of NASA’s Quiet Engine. The combination would potentially 

reduce the noise-contour area by 40 percent, which meant 45 percent fewer 

people would be affected.18

NASA and the FAA advocated the two-segment landing approach. For 

takeoff, the pilots climbed quickly away from the airport. As they accelerated, they retracted the flaps to reduce drag and gain more speed. At landing, the airliner moved toward the airport at a steep 6-degree approach; as 

it neared the runway, the pilots changed the attitude to the normal 3-degree 

glide slope. This practice decreased the amount of time the airliner spent at 

low altitudes over populated areas and subjected fewer people to noise. The 

adoption of the method required the adaptation of air traffic control procedures 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

79

and navigation equipment for improved safety in bad weather conditions, but 

no actual changes in the aircraft.19

Figure 3-1. A researcher takes aircraft noise readings as part of an airport environmental 

control study. (NASA)

The FAA first required airlines to retire or upgrade their noisiest Stage 1 

aircraft, such as the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8, by 1985. The 

installation of a “hush kit,” or mufflers, cost an operator between $2 million 

and $3 million to make them Stage 2–compliant. As that deadline approached, 

the major airlines paid for conversion or ordered new and improved airliners 

that already met the FAA’s noise standards.20 NASA established the procedures 

for the retrofitting of equipment that reduced fan noise levels on the Boeing 

707 and Douglas DC-8, the highly successful commercial airliners of the 1960s 

and early 1970s.21
The Power for Flight

80

Congressional lawmakers, the FAA, the airline industry, and NASA differed 

in their approaches on how best to go about reducing aircraft noise. The options 

included installing new architectural structures at the airports, modifying existing aircraft, or working toward the design and manufacture of new aircraft and 

engines that cost upward of $30 million each.22

To indicate the effect of sound on the quality of life, the FAA’s noise regulations specifically referenced EPNdB and set maximum limits at specific ground 

locations near an airport. The installation of sound-measuring equipment 

determined EPNdB at takeoff, along a line parallel to the runway at takeoff 

called the sideline (3.25 nautical miles for three-engine aircraft, 3.5 nautical miles for four), and at landing. Landing noise was the worst because it 

intensified as the aircraft flew closer to the ground and required measuring 

equipment 1 nautical mile (1.15 miles) from the touchdown path and 370 feet 

below the airplane. For new and larger airliners such as the 747, the limit was 

108 EPNdB. For new aircraft equivalent to the 707, the EPNdB restrictions 

were 104 at takeoff and 106 for the sideline and landing. Actual 707 and DC-8 

aircraft exceeded those levels.23

Instituting Noise Abatement: The Search for an Operational Fix

Noise was a problem at many levels. Community disdain for noisy airports prevented the construction of several more specialized and quieter airports because 

of the challenges facing developers to even acquire land at all. Centralized, 

all-purpose airports promoted economic efficiency, but they also increased 

noise, congestion, and pollution. The expansion of short-haul services compounded the problem because the aircraft available were noisy and worked best 

from airports close to city centers, which were unavailable due to community 

resistance. NASA and DOT released their joint report, Civil Aviation Research 

and Development (CARD) Policy Study, in May 1971. The 2-year study was an 

effort to establish national goals and policies for aeronautics and aviation. It 

focused on several critical areas, including noise abatement, airway and airport 

congestion, and the lack of adequate low- and high-density short-haul aircraft 

systems.24 The central message was that the aviation industry, with appropriate 

Government assistance, had to do a better job of tailoring technology to solutions that met those problems, which were complicated and interrelated. DOT 

and NASA recognized that paying attention to sociological, economic, and 

engineering factors was the key to the solution. The Washington Post believed 

that prescription made sense for both the industry and the public.25

The results of the CARD study lead to a number of conclusions regarding 

NASA research and development priorities. Aircraft noise abatement deserved 

the highest priority because of widespread concern for the environment and 

because that program’s success affected the solutions to other problems. 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

81

Congestion was next because its solution involved an organized effort directed 

at the combination of air traffic control; runway capacity; ground control of 

aircraft; terminal processing; access and egress; parking; and airport location, 

acquisition, and development. A new short-haul system could help relieve 

congestion at existing airports. The CARD study acknowledged that constant 

improvements in technology for long-haul vehicles and their propulsion systems were essential to continued U.S. leadership.26

In response to the CARD study, Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe 

and NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher announced the establishment 

of a new Joint Office of Noise Abatement in October 1971. DOT official 

Charles R. Foster was director, while Walter F. Dankhoff of NASA served as 

deputy director. The new organization retained the original DOT office with 

the addition of NASA personnel at Lewis. The consolidation took place as a 

measure to better manage the national program to address noise in current 

and future transportation systems.27 To avoid duplication, NASA, DOT, and 

the FAA had to approve all programs jointly. Specifically, DOT and the FAA 

worked to gather noise information, which included retrofitting current aircraft 

to gain a better understanding of the nature of noise and its effect on communities, as well as to better inform regulatory functions.28

DOT and NASA would approach the problems in different ways. The 

new joint office identified four distinct methods of modifying the propulsion 

systems for narrow-body airliners, which included the Boeing 707, 727, and 

737, as well as the Douglas DC-8 and DC-9. DOT continued with nacelle 

acoustic treatment and jet suppression. NASA directed its efforts toward both 

modifying the fans in existing engines and combining them with new acoustic 

nacelles and developing a new engine altogether. Independent reviews of each 

would determine the method endorsed and adopted by industry.29

Up to 1971, NASA worked in two main areas. Researchers worked to gain a 

better understanding of the generation and propagation of aircraft noise. They 

also went the extra step to investigate various techniques for suppressing the 

noise of current and expected subsonic commercial transports. The Langley 

Nacelle Acoustic Treatment and Lewis Quiet Engine programs were examples 

of NASA’s work in that area.30

In a May 1972 memorandum to Edward E. David, Jr., the science advisor 

to President Richard Nixon, and William Morrill of the Office of Management 

and Budget, NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher, DOT Under Secretary 

James M. Beggs, and FAA Administrator John H. Shaffer outlined the joint 

program to address the noise generated by narrow-body airliners powered by 

Pratt & Whitney turbofans.

Specifically, the problem was with the JT3D-powered Boeing 707 and 

Douglas DC-8 and the JT8D-powered 727, 737, and DC-9. The Joint 
The Power for Flight

82

Noise Abatement Office, with the support of Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, and 

McDonnell Douglas, worked to create a complementary relationship between 

technical feasibility and the regulatory process. Regarding the retrofitting of airliners, the office offered “baseline” and “expedited” programs. The former relied 

upon funding levels included in President Nixon’s 1973 fiscal year budget. The 

latter alternative was created for the benefit of the House Subcommittee on 

Aeronautics and Space Technology. It used only acoustically treated nacelles 

as the basis for regulation while providing leeway for the airlines to invest 

in front-fan modification to meet increasingly stringent regulations.31 The 

problem inherent in retrofitting aircraft with acoustically treated nacelles or 

new engines with quieter fans, or in purchasing new Quiet Engines, was the 

question of who would pay for the technology.

Refan: Going Beyond the Nacelle and Treating the Engine Itself

Noise absorption material inside a nacelle was not fully effective in reducing 

the noise of the exhaust jet pushing an airliner through the sky. That low-pitch 

roar, caused by the interaction of high velocity exhaust gases with the bypass 

and surrounding air, required a different solution. The only way to reduce that 

type of noise was to lower the jet velocity by replacing the fan with a larger one 

that used more energy from the exhaust jet and reduced its velocity.32 NASA’s 

Refan Program investigated the feasibility and cost of modifying the JT8D 

turbofan that powered the 727, 737, and DC-9 airliners to reduce noise during 

the period from 1970 to 1975. Going beyond the acoustic modification of 

a nacelle led to improved noise reduction, decreased fuel consumption, and 

increased efficiency in turbofan engines overall.33

There was considerable impetus to make the JT8D a more efficient, quieter, and cleaner engine. Introduced in February 1963 on the Boeing 727, the 

low-bypass JT8D was a commercial derivative of the Pratt & Whitney J52 

military turbojet. The engine series covered the thrust range from 12,250 to 

17,400 pounds and powered 727, 737-100/200, and DC-9 aircraft. In the 

early 1970s, Pratt & Whitney was well on its way toward producing more 

than 14,000 JT8Ds, which early on had earned the nickname “workhorse of 

the airline industry.”34

Flight tests in 1975 revealed that engines with the refan engine modification 

generated 5 to 10 EPNdB below then-current noise levels of the JT8D-powered 

aircraft at all three FAR 36 measuring points. At the approach point, the noise 

reduction at takeoff was substantially greater with the engine modification than 

with acoustic treatment alone. For example, the total effect on the community 

around the airport would be to reduce the 90-EPNdB or louder noise levels 

heard during a takeoff and landing operation of a 727 airplane by 75 percent. 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

83

Acoustic treatment alone accounted for a 30-percent reduction—significant, 

but not sufficient to ameliorate local concern.35

The cost of modifying JT8D engines and installing new nacelles, of course, 

was more expensive than simply adding acoustic treatment to an existing 

nacelle. The technology included a larger-diameter single-stage fan; increased 

spacing between the inlet guide vanes, fan, and stator blades; an optimized 

number of blades; an internal mixer nozzle to reduce exhaust velocity; and a 

sound-absorbing lining. NASA worked with the FAA and DOT to provide 

the airlines with the data needed to inform their decision on whether or not to 

utilize refanned JT8D engine technology along with other options.36

Boeing continued to collaborate with NASA on the Refan Program. The 

manufacturer installed three JT8D-115 refans, developed by Pratt & Whitney 

under contract to NASA, on a 727 for flight tests at Boeing’s Boardman, OR, 

airfield. While NASA’s goal was simply to retrofit all existing engines, Boeing 

and Pratt & Whitney went further, identifying a possible new 727 derivative, the 727-300B. Equipped with 19,300-pound-thrust JT8D-217 refans, 

the new “stretched” 727-300B offered less takeoff noise and improved fuel 

efficiency. United Airlines wanted the refan and played an important role in 

the design of the -300. Boeing’s sales staff sought out more purchasers for 

the refined airliner that cost $2 million more than the non-refan version of 

the 727.37

However, the buyers never materialized before both the older 727 and DC-9 

aircraft went out of service. Nevertheless, Pratt & Whitney had considerable 

success reengineering the JT8D engine for use in updated versions of the 

McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and the twin-engine Boeing 737 introduced in 

1980 and 1981 respectively.38 The JT8D-217 and -219 introduced in the early 

2000s provided Stage 3 noise compliance; steeper, faster, and quieter climb 

rates; enhanced short-field performance; and an approximately 10-percent 

increase in fuel economy over long distances.

The Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation Research and 

Development of the House Committee on Science and Technology chaired 

by Dale Milford (D-TX) conducted public hearings on aircraft noise abatement during the fall of 1976. The resultant report recommended that the FAA 

sponsor NASA’s increased research in noise-reduction technology. Overall, 

the subcommittee urged the creation of a coordinated noise-abatement program within the framework of national transportation policy. Specifically, they 

advised the Secretary of Transportation to consider the Sound Absorption 

Material (SAM) retrofit option for its short-term feasibility while taking into 

account the long-term benefits of the more expensive programs such as Refan 

and the purchase of new aircraft.39
The Power for Flight

84

In reaction to a directive by President Gerald R. Ford, the FAA issued regulations at the end of 1976 requiring that all commercial jet aircraft be in compliance with Federal noise standards by 1985. The ruling affected 75 percent 

of the national commercial aviation fleet, which included the Boeing 707, 720, 

727, and 737; the McDonnell Douglas DC-8 and DC-9; the Convair 990; the 

British Aircraft Corporation BAC One-Eleven; and even the early 747-100 

jumbo jet. Of those, 8 out of 10 were technically in violation of the thencurrent noise regulations implemented in 1969. The airlines and other commercial operators of jet aircraft had the option of either modifying or replacing 

jet engines that generated noise levels exceeding those specified in Part 36 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations. Those levels ranged from 93 to 108 EPNdB 

depending on the weight of the aircraft.40

The next step was to retire or upgrade all Stage 2 aircraft to Stage 3, which 

required entirely new engines. A considerable portion of aircraft in commercial 

aviation, approximately 4,500 aircraft, or 70 percent of the airline fleet, were 

Stage 2–certified. They included the 727, the workhorse for the airlines, with 

about 1,750 in service in 1987. The solution was to retrofit the tri-jet’s two 

side engines with NASA-influenced Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217 refans. The 

update improved fuel efficiency by 10 to 15 percent and increased range from 

1,500 to 1,800 miles.41 Pratt & Whitney introduced the derivative JT8D-200 

series in October 1977 on the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 airliner. With the 

new 49.5-inch fan, it generated over 19,000 pounds of thrust at a bypass ratio 

of 1.78:1.42

NASA’s Anti-Noise Initiatives from 

Quiet Engine Program Onwards

Quiet Engine Program

Congressional posturing and critiques of the modern world aside, NASA’s 

eventual response to the noise problem was the initiation of the Quiet Engine 

Program (QEP). GE was the principal contractor working with the Agency. 

The new engine that their engineers developed had the potential to reduce 

subsonic jet engine noise 15–20 PNdB below the levels generated by a Boeing 

707 or McDonnell Douglas DC-8, definitely increasing the quality of life for 

the people living within 5 to 10 miles of a major airport.43 Once NASA and 

GE proved the technology, the FAA could enforce increasingly strict noise 

regulations based on a new generation of standardized Quiet Engines. In other 

words, NASA acted as the problem solver for the environmental noise movement, manufacturers, and the airline industry. William Hines of the Chicago 

Sun-Times believed that while getting the program started represented a minute 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

85

portion of NASA’s 1970 budget, a mere $9 million, it offered immense dividends in “peace of mind” for the country.44

NASA considered the Quiet Engine to be a long-term solution because 

the program would take a considerable amount of time before it became a 

reality. It also involved different partners. The Agency’s role was to determine 

the design parameters. The manufacturers were to make it a reality and then 

the regulatory agencies needed to approve the engines. Ground tests began 

in 1972 at General Electric, with additional tests carried out at Lewis. NASA 

estimated that the cost of the entire program would be $300 million and that 

a flight engine would be ready by 1975.45

James J. Kramer led the QEP at Lewis from the beginning in 1966. Kramer 

joined the NACA in 1951 and worked in both aircraft and rocket propulsion. 

Before leading the program, he managed the 260-inch solid rocket program at 

Lewis. In 1971, he became the chief of the new Noise and Pollution Reduction 

Branch of the Aeronautical Propulsion Division at NASA Headquarters.46

The Quiet Engine was not a retrofit program. It was a technology demonstrator for the development of future engines and aircraft. GE finished and tested 

the first full-scale fan assembly during the spring of 1971. NASA was confident 

that the low-noise objectives were going to be met.47 The first ground tests of a 

Quiet Engine began in late August 1971 at GE’s Peebles, OH, test facility. The 

goal was to develop a 22,000-pound-thrust engine 15 to 20 dB quieter than 

the 1950s-generation engines on 707 and DC-8 airliners. To meet that goal, 

project engineers designed a high-bypass-ratio engine with a low-noise fan that 

had a lower rotational speed, a higher bypass ratio, adjusted tolerances between 

rotating and stationary parts, and honeycomb acoustic material installed in the 

flow passages to muffle sound. They were optimistic they were going to meet 

that goal. The most promising design, called Engine A, featured the gas generator core GE used on its CF6 and TF39 engines, which powered the Douglas 

DC-10 airliner and Lockheed C-5A Galaxy transport. Ground tests involved 

operating the engine at takeoff and landing conditions with different inlets 

and exhaust nozzles installed. Engineer Harry Bloomer reflected that it was a 

“smooth running engine” that exhibited no vibration, structural stress on the 

fan, or visible smoke in the exhaust. Once GE completed its part of the test 

program, Engine A traveled to Lewis for installation in an acoustic nacelle for 

complete propulsion system testing.48

Lewis displayed Engine A, fresh from additional tests, at its May 1972 

Aircraft Noise Reduction Conference in Cleveland. Over 300 engineers from 

the aviation industry attended and learned of the ongoing progress of the 

$21 million project. Tests revealed that installation of the Quiet Engine on a 

four-engine airline would generate only 90 EPNdB at simulated takeoff and 
The Power for Flight

86

landing conditions. Airliners in service at that time generated 116 EPNdB at 

takeoff and 118 EPNdB at landing.49

Solving the ills of the first generation of American airliners, exemplified 

by the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, was going to be expensive. At a press 

conference at NASA Headquarters in March 1972, Kramer remarked that the 

economic factors in the development of the Quiet Engine were substantial. 

Quiet Engines would be no more expensive in operation than the new generation of turbofans found on the Boeing 747 and Douglas DC-10. Retrofitting 

the aircraft that needed the quieter engines the most, the 707 and DC-8, was 

the challenge. Kramer provided an estimate from McDonnell Douglas, one of 

the contractors for the program, that it would cost between $5 and $6 million 

to take one aircraft out of service, install four Quiet Engines and nacelles, and 

return the aircraft to airline service. Reporter David Bresket of the New York 

Daily News responded that the airlines were not going to “retrofit anything” 

at that price. Kramer answered, “I agree.”50

NASA realized that engine modification was cheaper than creating new 

engines. NASA awarded 4-month, noncompetitive contracts to Pratt & 

Whitney, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas to develop Quiet Engine designs. 

Pratt & Whitney received $1.2 million to design modifications to its JT3D and 

JT8D turbofans, which powered virtually all narrow-body airliners operating 

in the United States. The engine maker’s engineers concentrated on replacing 

two-stage fans with one-stage fans to reduce engine whine and exhaust noise. 

Boeing and McDonnell Douglas both received $800,000 and focused on the 

methods and materials of the acoustic treatment of engine nacelles to absorb 

fan noise. A secondary function of the contracts was the reduction of exhaust 

emissions. NASA estimated that the overall cost of this particular part of the 

program would be $5.6 million.51

Experimental Clean Combustor Program

Accompanying the concern over aircraft noise was growing public unease 

over air pollution in the United States. For aviation, the EPA’s 1979 Standard 

Parameters addressed the levels of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (THC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and smoke in aircraft engine exhaust 

emissions.52 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United 

Nations agency responsible for worldwide commercial aviation regulation, 

released increasingly stringent NOx emissions standards beginning in 1981.53

In addition to the retrofit program to install acoustic materials to reduce noise 

in engine nacelles in the early 1970s, NASA also initiated a program to remove 

the distinctive black exhaust generated by jet engines. The airlines simply 

made the modifications at the regularly scheduled maintenance interval of 

6,000 hours.54 NASA reacted with a number of internal and contract studies 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

87

to address the problem of CO, THC, and NOx. The most comprehensive program was the Experimental Clean Combustor Program (ECCP) for turbofan 

engines conducted in partnership with GE and Pratt & Whitney, which had 

its origins in the defunct SCAR program.55

The ECCP was a multiyear, major contract effort. The primary program 

objectives were to generate clean and efficient combustor technology for the 

development of advanced commercial turbofan engines with lower exhaust 

emissions than those of current aircraft.56 The program, which started in 

December 1972, consisted of three phases. First, Lewis researchers evaluated 

low-pollutant combustors as they investigated multiple-burning-zone combustors, improved fuel distribution and preparation, and the staging of combustor 

airflow. After selecting the most promising configurations, they went about 

refining them for optimum performance. The program concluded with the 

demonstration and evaluation of the new combustor innovations in full-scale 

CF6 and JT9D turbofans in 1976.57

For their engines, GE and Pratt & Whitney developed a two-stage combustion process wherein a pilot zone addressed low-power engine CO and 

THC emissions while a main zone regulated high-power NOx emissions. 

They approached the process in different ways.58 Pratt & Whitney developed 

an axial series arrangement called Vorbix (vortex burning and mixing) that 

employed multiple burning zones and improved fuel preparation and distribution.59 GE introduced a double annular axially parallel design that featured 

a characteristically short combustor for multistage burning. Both approaches 

achieved substantial reductions in all pollutant categories, meeting the 1979 

EPA standards for CO, THC, NOx, and smoke at percentages of reduction 

that reached 69, 93, and 42 percent respectively.60 While there was enough 

information to “declare victory” regarding reduced NOx emissions, it would 

not be until the mid-1980s that the need influenced actual development on 

the part of the manufacturers.61

V/STOL Q/STOL QUESTOL

Despite considerable effort on the part of NASA, the United States was well 

behind the rest of the world in research and experimentation on V/STOL by 

1970. The United Kingdom was a leader in the technology with its Hawker 

Siddeley Harrier reconnaissance/strike-fighter. The Harrier used a unique “bedpost” approach to vertical flight, with an engine, the Rolls-Royce Pegasus, that 

had twin “cold” nozzles off its compressor and twin “hot” exhaust nozzles. 

The four “legs” of thrust thus generated enabled the aircraft to take off, hover, 

and land. The nozzles could then be “vectored” aft to enable the aircraft to 

accelerate into wingborne (aerodynamic lifting) flight. This engine, developed 

by Sir Stanley Hooker, made practical the transonic V/STOL strike aircraft, 
The Power for Flight

88

something long sought but never previously achieved. As an important example 

of international collaboration in the late 1960s, NASA assisted the British 

Government with the testing of the P.1127 Kestrel, the developmental test and 

evaluation forerunner of the Harrier; NASA later operated one (designated the 

XV-6A) at Langley Research Center.62

NASA’s role included free-flight and transonic tunnel model testing at 

Langley in 1959 and 1960, led by Deputy Director John Stack, a Collier 

Trophy recipient for the conceptualization of both the first supersonic research 

airplane and the transonic slotted-throat wind tunnel. In mid-1962, NASA 

research pilots Jack Reeder and Fred Drinkwater became the first non-British 

pilots to fly the P.1127. Their report facilitated the funding to establish the TriService XV-6A Kestrel Evaluation Squadron. NASA engineer Marion “Mack” 

McKinney validated the P.1127’s ability to transition from hovering to forward 

flight with a one-sixth scale free-flight model in the Full-Scale Tunnel. Another 

model featured small maneuvering jets powered by hydrogen peroxide. The 

program was an international effort, with Hawker providing the basic design 

and NASA providing its experience with the Bell X-14 (an earlier vectoredthrust test bed) and the construction of the model; the Air Force funded all of 

this work.63 In addition to military V/STOL aircraft, NASA worked toward 

the development of new short-haul Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) airliner 

designs to alleviate travel problems in high-density areas such as the Northeast 

Corridor and the West Coast. NASA let competitive contracts with several 

companies to identify the optimum design for a practical STOL transport.64

Figure 3-2. The Kestrel V/STOL research aircraft. (NASA)
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

89

But V/STOL was not an unalloyed blessing. Whatever noise problems conventional jet aircraft experienced were greatly magnified by V/STOL aircraft 

as they took off under engine-borne lift and then transitioned to aerodynamic 

lift, transiting back to engine-borne lift for their descent to land. NASA was 

well aware of the noise problem with V/STOL aircraft. At one of the earliest 

NASA-sponsored conferences dedicated to the topic in 1960, Langley researchers identified the basic challenges. One thing was clear: the main source of 

noise from V/STOL aircraft was the different types of propulsion systems 

configured to power them through the air. At the time, viable options included 

pure helicopter, turbojet, or turbofan lift systems or the tilt-wing turboprop. 

Minimizing the adverse noise generated by a V/STOL aircraft fell into two 

areas based on commercial or military application. Regardless of whether it was 

a commercial aircraft flying over a housing community or a military aircraft 

trying to avoid detection in a war zone, each problem had its own solution. 

Lightly loaded rotor blades, propellers with low tip speeds, and turbofan and 

similar ducted fan engines would alleviate complaints from civic groups. For 

military missions, overall sound reduction would enable the operation of aircraft at increasingly lower altitudes.65

NASA’s movement toward quieter V/STOL aircraft gained momentum 

over the course of the 1960s. Because of significantly greater restrictions on 

aircraft noise around city centers, researchers explored ways to reduce the noise 

generated by low-noise fans and sonic inlet choke devices and investigated 

methods of reducing the noise in augmenter wing flap systems. The latter featured a particular focus on the reduction of the “scrubbing” noise associated 

with the flap system of an externally blown flap vehicle. Also, low emissions 

were a concern. NASA fully expected to carry the program through to the 

construction and flight of a quiet STOL engine technology demonstrator.66

In response to the CARD study, NASA announced in August 1971 the 

initiation of the Quiet-STOL, or Q/STOL, aircraft program, a joint effort 

with the FAA and the U.S. Air Force to relieve aircraft noise and congestion. 

Manufacturers had until October 15 to submit a proposal for the design and 

construction of two experimental STOL transports that incorporated propulsive lift. STOL required 2,000 feet or less of runway. Propulsive lift used the jet 

engines to produce lift to augment aerodynamic lift generated by the wings and 

flaps. The aircraft were part of a NASA flight research program that would lead 

to an operational, environmentally friendly, economical, and safe turbofanpowered STOL transport. NASA saw the development of STOL systems as 

valuable to the aviation industry because they would enhance short-haul transportation, which covered 500 miles or less and accounted for 60 percent of air 

traffic in 1971; alleviate noise and congestion at airports; and modernize the 

military’s tactical airlift operations. NASA also envisioned that the Q/STOL 
The Power for Flight

90

Figure 3-3. The QSRA made over a dozen landings on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk during naval flight 

trials near San Diego, CA, in August 1980. (NASA)

program would generate the data needed for technical development and the 

establishment of rules for certification and operation. Eventually, this program 

led to the development of a specialized test bed, the NASA Quiet Short-Haul 

Research Aircraft (QSRA), which flew an extended series of flight trials, including landing and taking off from the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk.

67

The Q/STOL program was one of several projects managed by the NASA 

Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART). OART was responsible for providing technical support for the advancement of civil and military 

aviation. OART was also generating the technical basis for the development 

of quiet, nonpolluting STOL engines.68

At a STOL conference hosted at Ames in October 1972, Agency researchers shared their goals. They aimed to reduce aircraft engine noise, exhaust 

emissions, airport congestion, and other factors that stymied the growth of 

the national air transportation system. NASA envisioned that a quiet and 

clean STOL transport designed to operate from small airports would be both 

compatible to surrounding communities and convenient to the ever-increasing 

number of air travelers. The conference included a specific session on quiet 

STOL propulsion.69
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

91

NASA spent quite large sums of money on STOL programs. The shortlived Quiet Experimental Short Takeoff and Landing (QUESTOL) program 

of the early 1970s focused on new 50- and 100-passenger airliners designed for 

a revolutionary and novel aerial transportation network of short-haul routes. 

New and smaller (under 2,000 feet) runways, combined with aircraft capable 

of operating from them safely and quietly, provided a way to alleviate the 

aerial traffic jams over the United States, especially the Northeast Corridor 

connecting Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. The key to 

low-speed performance and maneuverability was a high wing and T-tail configuration, engines mounted closer together and to the fuselage, and externally 

or internally blown flaps. Regarding the latter, cool thrust from a new type of 

turbofan with exhaust temperatures in the range of 350 degrees Fahrenheit 

directed over or through the trailing flaps generated more lift. All of those components led to an airliner capable of steep takeoffs and descents that reduced 

noise in the areas surrounding the airport and efficient cruise at 20,000 feet 

while carrying enough passengers to make an airline profitable.70

A considerable number of STOL research contracts went to Hamilton 

Standard, a veteran propulsion company that had pioneered the development 

of the variable-pitch propeller. The funding allowed the company to transition 

its theoretical work on variable-pitch fans of the 1960s into practical experimentation. Just as the variable-pitch propeller was more efficient and offered 

better performance than its fixed-pitch counterpart, a variable-pitch fan offered 

efficiency, safety, and maneuverability. The development of the new design, 

called the Quiet-Fan (Q-Fan), was also quieter at 95 EPNdB and facilitated 

STOL performance. The company initiated and funded its own private highbypass, variable-pitch fan engine research and development program from 

1969 to 1971. The work involved the creation of new analytical methodology 

for aerodynamics, structures, and acoustics and extensive work investigating 

the operational capabilities of variable-pitch fan engines, including the muchdesired quiet and reverse-thrust capabilities. Engineers working with chief of 

preliminary design Richard M. Levintan began with testing a 1/3-scale model, 

which led to the construction of a full-size demonstrator engine based on the 

proven Lycoming T55-L-11 turboshaft. With QUESTOL funding from Lewis, 

Hamilton Standard and Lewis engineers conducted a formal test program of 

their 20-inch-, 4.5-foot-, and 6-foot-diameter Q-Fans from September 1972 

through February 1973.71

NASA’s Advanced Concepts and Missions Division at Ames and Hamilton 

Standard worked together on a Q-Fan for general aviation aircraft in the early 

1970s. The researchers believed that the continued growth of general aviation through the late 1980s depended on improved aircraft safety, utility, 

performance, and cost. They saw the compact, low-noise Q-Fan propulsor 
The Power for Flight

92

concept as the answer. The combination of a reciprocating or rotary combustion engine with the Q-Fan offered exciting new possibilities. They would meet 

the expected noise and pollution restrictions of the 1980s while facilitating 

a new generation of general aviation aircraft with cleaner airframe designs.72

QCSEE

The purpose of the focused and more successful Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul 

Experimental Engine (QCSEE, pronounced “Quick-See”) program in 1974 

was to demonstrate the advanced propulsion technology developed during the 

QEP for QUESTOL’s 125- to 150-passenger short-haul airplane and NASA’s 

follow-on powered-lift QSRA program to reduce airport congestion, aircraft 

noise, and air pollution. The U.S. Navy also voiced its interest in applying the 

technology to a V/STOL transport capable of operating from aircraft carriers. 

The $30 million QCSEE program had three specific goals: the development of 

environmentally friendly and economical short-haul propulsion technologies, 

the generation of data for use by the Government in setting future regulations, 

and the transfer of the technology and data to industry.73

NASA researchers started with investigations of thrust performance, fan 

design, and thrust-to-weight ratio for both over-the-wing and under-the-wing 

configurations. A major emphasis of the program was low noise and emissions 

characteristics that were to conform to the EPA’s 1979 pollutants standards. 

The research expanded to investigate other ideas, including reduced fan-tip 

speeds, optimized rotor and stator ratios, and acoustic treatment techniques 

to reduce both high-frequency fan and turbine noise and low-frequency combustor noise.74

Lewis awarded GE the QCSEE contract. In terms of performance, the 

new engines needed to incorporate an efficient and quieter high bypass ratio 

and generate enough power to enable steep takeoffs and landings. Under the 

leadership of senior designer A.P. Adamson, GE constructed two QCSEE 

fan assemblies, one with conventional blades and another with variable-pitch 

blades developed in concert with Hamilton Standard. An F101 engine served 

as the core for both. To achieve the high bypass ratio, GE utilized a reduction 

gearbox that allowed the fan assembly to rotate at much slower and quieter 

speeds. The GE engineers utilized a large number of metal reinforced composites, which were cheaper and easier to fabricate, for the fan blades and casing, 

the gearbox housing, the front frame, and the exhaust nozzle. GE regarded its 

participation in QCSEE as a valuable experience.75

The two 20,000-pound-thrust QCSEEs were identical internally. For shortrunway operation, both engines relied upon the wing flaps to deflect the jet 

exhaust for increased lift. The primary external difference between them was 

the method of mounting the engine to the wing. The GE engine employed 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

93

the conventional under-wing pod installation found on virtually all multiengine jet aircraft. NASA’s design featured an unorthodox mounting on top 

of the wing with a distinctive half-moon nozzle, which protected people on 

the ground below from noise.76

Lewis and GE evaluated both QCSEEs, and the results in terms of noise, 

emissions, and fuel consumption were dramatic. They were 8 to 12 EPNdB 

quieter than the quietest engine then in use on the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 

and Boeing 747 wide-body airliners, the GE CF6. That meant they were 

16 EPNdB below FAA standards and 9 EPNdB below the stricter standards to 

be implemented in the 1980s. QCSEE technology offered a way to reduce that 

noise “footprint”—the area on the ground, directly below the aircraft, that was 

subjected to the takeoff and landing noise of the airliner—to approximately 

1 square mile, which was 40 times smaller than the footprint of the Boeing 

707. The researchers achieved the reduction in noise by slowing the velocity of 

the engine exhaust by increasing the bypass ratio and by other design features 

including the use of acoustically absorbent materials.77

The QCSEEs provided cleaner emissions and lower fuel consumption. The 

technology reduced two of the most problematic air contaminants from jet 

engines, CO and THC, by approximately 80 percent and 97 percent respectively. 

The new design principles incorporated by GE into the engine combustion 

system enabled the technology to meet increasingly stringent EPA standards. 

The QCSEE engines offered fuel savings of 10 percent. Glenn researchers and 

GE engineers achieved those savings by substituting lightweight, nonmetallic 

composite materials of equal or greater strength for much heavier metal components found in the engine cowling, frame, and fan blades.78

NASA asserted that engine manufacturers could incorporate the technology into their higher-thrust engines—those with a thrust in excess of 

40,000 pounds—that powered the largest commercial airliners.79 It was 

applied to the experimental QSRA developed jointly by NASA and Boeing 

that utilized the over-the-wing upper-surface blowing technology combined 

with four Avco-Lycoming YF-102 high-bypass turbofans during its test flight 

program from 1978 to 1980, but it did not achieve commercial application.80

Nevertheless, the QCSEE program anticipated many of the technical features 

pursued in the design of turbofan engines in the early 21st century. Both GE 

and Pratt & Whitney incorporated high-bypass-ratio engines in the range of 

10:1 to 12:1, low-pressure-ratio variable-pitch fans, variable-area fan nozzles, 

advanced acoustic liners, digital electronic controls, clean combustors, reduction gearing, and composite components into their new products.81
The Power for Flight

94

Fuels

While NASA worked to enhance the turbofan engine, the Agency’s researchers also directed their focus to aircraft fuels. NASA’s Research and Technology 

Advisory Council Committee on Aeronautical Propulsion convened an Ad 

Hoc Panel on Jet Engine Hydrocarbon Fuels that met at Lewis through the 

1970s. Membership included NASA researchers and representatives from 

the Environmental Research and Development Agency, the Air Force’s Aero 

Propulsion Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and the Naval Air 

Propulsion Test Center headquartered in Trenton, NJ. The panel, carrying 

on in the tradition of the defunct NACA fuels and combustion subcommittee, met to discuss the state of the art in fuel development at NASA and 

other agencies, covering topics from improving burning properties to creating 

alternative synthetics.82

The panel submitted four recommendations to guide NASA’s future support of an alternative fuel research program. First, the Agency was to initiate 

a supporting combustion research program. Second, researchers were to stay 

abreast of candidate alternative fuels to assess their toxicity or safety problems. 

Third, NASA was to carry out the research needed to provide the authoritative 

performance relationships as the basis for the preparation of fuel specifications. 

Finally, NASA was to develop and maintain an up-to-date analysis of alternative 

fuel economics and availability that made full use of all data sources.83

Lewis researchers dedicated a considerable amount of effort to investigating 

alternatives to traditional oil sources. Their evaluation of JP-5/Jet A fuel refined 

from Paraho-processed shale in a single combustor revealed no difference in 

combustion when compared to petroleum-derived fuel. Lewis contracted with 

Atlantic Richfield to perform the laboratory synthesis of jet fuel from coal 

and shale. In-house studies explored new synthetic crude oils, the design of a 

hydrotreating laboratory to process coal and shale into oil, and the determination of the effects of relaxed fuel specifications on combustor performance. 

The work at Lewis complemented the research conducted by the Agency’s 

partners on the panel. Both the Air Force and the Navy were investigating the 

potential of coal and shale crude oil as the basis of jet fuel. The Navy conducted 

engine tests, while the Air Force conducted long-distance flights with a North 

American T-39 Sabreliner powered with JP-4 fuel refined from Paraho shale 

crude.84 In January 1979, researchers at Langley compared liquid hydrogen, 

liquid methane, and synthetic aviation kerosene and concluded that the last 

was the most economical option.85

The Naval Energy and Natural Resources Research and Development 

Office, which provided NASA and its Department of Defense partners with 

their supplies of synthetic fuels for testing, determined that no technical barriers existed to increasing the production of fuels derived from shale, coal, and tar 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

95

sands by 1980. Nevertheless, increasing the supply of jet fuel faced economic 

and environmental challenges. The office estimated that fuel derived from shale 

required an increase in production from 900 barrels per day in 1975 to 250,000 

per day in 1980. The more widely available coal needed to expand from 10 

barrels per day to 6,000. Tar sands, which presumably existed in quantities 

similar to the remaining reserves of domestic petroleum, required starting the 

refining process from scratch—from no barrels to 7,000 a day within 5 years.86

I. Irving Pinkel, a consulting engineer and former head of the Physics Division 

at Lewis, prepared a report for the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and 

Development (AGARD) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

in 1975 on the future of aviation fuels based on discussions with leading experts 

in the NATO countries. Technology could do only so much. Advanced turbofan engine components offered an estimated 15-percent reduction in fuel 

consumption. Pinkel stressed that “any great gains in fuel consumption would 

probably be by use of other engine concepts such as turboprops.” While petroleum sources continued to dwindle, Pinkel emphasized that over the course of 

the next half century, the American and European aviation industries would 

have to accept fuels very different from those available in the mid-1970s due 

to escalating costs and plummeting availability.87

Overall, the panel argued that any high-level work on aircraft fuel conservation technology had to include fuel properties, especially regarding how they 

were to be affected by changing resources. In other words, a national fuel effort 

that started at the oil refinery would be the only way to contribute to aircraft 

efficiency overall.88
The Power for Flight

96

Endnotes

1. George P. Miller, “NASA,” Cong. Rec., 92nd Cong., 1st sess., vol. 117, 

December 14, 1971, p. H12545, copy available in the NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

2. Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at NASA Glenn 

Research Center,” p. 202.

3. “Too Many Decibels Are Making Us Ding-a-Lings,” Washington News

(June 8, 1972): 2.

4. Peter C. Stuart, “Congress Raises Voice To Soften Noise,” Christian 

Science Monitor (March 3, 1972): n.p., copy available in the NASA 

HRC, file 012336.

5. Charles W. Harper, “Introductory Remarks,” in Progress of NASA 

Research Relating to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft: A 

Conference Held at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, October 

8–10, 1968 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-189, 1968), n.p.; “NASA 

Noise Conference Planned,” NASA News Release 77-221, October 14, 

1977, NASA HRC, file 012336.

6. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 398.

7. FAA, “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification,” 

Advisory Circular 36-4C, July 15, 2003; U.S. Congress, Office of 

Technology Assessment, Federal Research and Technology for Aviation, 

OTA-ETI-610 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 

pp. 78–79.

8. “FAA Issues Noise Regulations for Older Jets,” Department of 

Transportation News Release 76-121, December 28, 1976, copy available in the NASA HRC, file 012336.

9. Glenn Research Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter: 

Glenn Effort Will Reduce Engine Noise,” NASA Release FS-1999-07-

003-GRC, July 1999, available at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/

pdf/84790main_fs03grc.pdf (accessed July 7, 2013).

10. The NACA initiated noise-reduction studies in the early 1950s and, 

in response to the findings of President Eisenhower’s airport commission, created a Special Subcommittee on Aircraft Noise in 1952. J.H. 

Doolittle, The Airport and Its Neighbors: The Report of the President’s 

Commission (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1952), 

p. 45; Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” p. 737.

11. NASA Acoustically Treated Nacelle Program: A Conference Held at Langley 

Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, October 15, 1969 (n.p.: NASA 

SP-220, 1969), pp. 11–12.
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

97

12. H. Dale Grubb to Roman C. Pucinski, October 7, 1970, NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

13. “Shhh...,” Forbes (March 15, 1970): 31.

14. “NASA Chief Welcomes Jet Noise Challenge,” NASA News Release 

71-222, November 3, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336.

15. “Lowenstein Says FAA Won’t Curb Jets’ Noise,” New York Times

(February 21, 1970): 55.

16. “Noise Suit,” Washington Post (September 10, 1970): A24.

17. John W. Wydler, “Noise,” in Cong. Rec., 91st Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 116, 

June 1, 1970, pp. E4989–E4991, copy available in the NASA HRC, file 

012336.

18. William F. Ryan, “Aircraft Noise Abatement at JFK International 

Airport,” in Cong. Rec., 92nd Cong., 1st sess., vol. 117, June 14, 1971, 

pp. E5783–E5784, copy available in the NASA HRC, file 012336.

19. “Press Briefing: NASA Aircraft Noise Abatement Research,” NASA News

(March 31, 1972): 6–7, NASA HRC, file 012336; Banke, “Advancing 

Propulsive Efficiency,” p. 740.

20. Agis Salpukas, “Advances: Rebuilding Planes To Cut Noise,” New York 

Times (November 18, 1987): D8.

21. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 398.

22. Douglas B. Feaver, “Ford Pledges To Abate Airport Noise,” Washington 

Post (October 22, 1976): A19.

23. William Hines, “NASA’s Quiet Engine Still a Long Way in Future,” 

Chicago Sun-Times (June 7, 1970); “Press Briefing: NASA Aircraft 

Noise Abatement Research,” NASA News (March 31, 1972): 4–5, 

NASA HRC, file 012336.

24. George P. Miller, “NASA,” in Cong. Rec., 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 

vol. 117, December 14, 1971, p. H12545, copy available in the NASA 

HRC, file 012336.

25. “DOT and NASA and Noise,” Washington Post (August 29, 1971): B6.

26. C.A. Syvertson, “Civil Aviation Research and Development (CARD) 

Policy Study,” in Proceedings of the Northeast Electronics Research and 

Engineering Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, November 2–5, 1971

(Newton, MA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 

1971), p. 58.

27. “DOT/NASA Noise Abatement Office Established,” NASA News 

Release 71-213, October 21, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336. The 

interagency members included the Office of Management and Budget, 

the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency.
The Power for Flight

98

28. Albert J. Evans to Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and 

Technology, “Back-Up Information Regarding Progress Status and 

Plans of NASA Aircraft Noise Reduction Programs,” March 3, 1971, 

NASA HRC, file 012336.

29. James C. Fletcher, James M. Beggs, and John H. Shaffer, memorandum 

for Edward E. David, Jr., and Donald B. Rice, “Reduction of Noise 

from Existing Aircraft,” February 9, 1972, NASA HRC, file 012336.

30. Evans to Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, 

“Back-Up Information Regarding Progress Status and Plans of NASA 

Aircraft Noise Reduction Programs.”

31. James C. Fletcher, James M. Beggs, and John H. Shaffer, “Reduction of 

Noise from Existing Aircraft,” May 17, 1972, NASA HRC, file 012336.

32. Gerald D. Griffin to Henry M. Jackson, July 23, 1974, NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

33. Jeffrey L. Ethell, Fuel Economy in Aviation (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-462, 1983), pp. 6–7.

34. The bypass ratio for the JT8D is 0.96:1. Pratt & Whitney, “JT8D 

Engine,” n.d. [2013], available at http://www.pw.utc.com/JT8D_Engine

(accessed August 30, 2013); Bill Gunston, The Development of Jet and 

Turbine Aero Engines, 2nd ed. (Somerset, England: Patrick Stephens, 

Ltd., 1997), p. 183.

35. K.L. Abdalla and J.A. Yuska, “NASA Refan Program Status,” NASA 

TM-X-71705, 1975; Gerald D. Griffin to Henry M. Jackson, July 23, 

1974, NASA HRC, file 012336.

36. Dennis L. Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft Noise 

Research,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering 26 (April 2013): 233.

37. “Boeing Studies Refanned 727 Benefits,” Aviation Week & Space 

Technology (January 13, 1975): 24–25.

38. Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft Noise Research,” 233.

39. House Committee on Science and Technology, Aircraft Noise Abatement 

Technology, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, S. Rept. W, pp. iii–iv.

40. Douglas B. Feaver, “Ford Pledges To Abate Airport Noise,” Washington 

Post (October 22, 1976): A19; “FAA Issues Noise Regulations for Older 

Jets,” Department of Transportation News Release 76-121, December 

28, 1976, copy available in the NASA HRC, file 012336.

41. Agis Salpukas, “Advances: Rebuilding Planes To Cut Noise,” New York 

Times (November 18, 1987): D8.

42. Gunston, The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines, p. 183.

43. J.J. Kramer and F.J. Montegani, “The NASA Quiet Engine Program,” 

NASA TM-X-67988 1972, p. 1.
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

99

44. William Hines, “NASA’s Quiet Engine Still a Long Way in Future,” 

Chicago Sun-Times (June 7, 1970), quoted in NASA Current News, June 

10, 1970, NASA HRC, file 012336.

45. H. Dale Grubb to Roman C. Pucinski, October 7, 1970, NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

46. “Kramer Heads Jet Noise Research Program,” NASA News Release 

71-170, September 7, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336.

47. Evans to Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, 

“Back-Up Information Regarding Progress Status and Plans of NASA 

Aircraft Noise Reduction Programs.”

48. “First Quiet Engine Noise Tests,” NASA News Release 71-156, August 

27, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336; M.J. Benzakein, S.B. Kazin, 

and F. Montegani, “NASA/GE Quiet Engine ‘A’,” Journal of Aircraft

10 (February 1973): 67–73; Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to 

Aircraft Noise Research,” p. 232.

49. Charles Tracy, “New Quiet Engine To Cut Jet Noise,” Cleveland Press

(May 15, 1972): 8.

50. “Press Briefing: NASA Aircraft Noise Abatement Research,” NASA 

News (March 31, 1972): 10, NASA HRC, file 012336.

51. “Three Contracts Let for Quiet Engines,” NASA News Release 72-166, 

August 15, 1972, NASA HRC, file 012336.

52. NOx is a generic term for the mono-nitrogen oxides NO (nitric oxide) 

and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) that result from combustion in an engine.

53. Caitlin Harrington, “Leaner and Greener: Fuel Efficiency Takes Flight,” 

in NASA’s Contributions to Flight, vol. 1, Aerodynamics, ed. Richard P. 

Hallion (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010), p. 791.

54. Miller, “NASA,” p. H12545.

55. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 402.

56. Daniel E. Sokolowski and John E. Rohde, “The E3 Combustors: Status 

and Challenges,” NASA TM-82684, 1981.

57. R. Niedzwiecki and R. Jones, “The Experimental Clean Combustor 

Program: Description and Status,” SAE Technical Paper 740485, 

February 1, 1974, p. 1.

58. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 402.

59. R. Roberts, A. Peduzzi, and R.W. Niedzwiecki, “Low Pollution 

Combustor Designs for CTOL Engines: Results of the Experimental 

Clean Combustor Program” (AIAA paper 76-762, presented at the 12th 

AIAA/SAE Joint Propulsion Conference, Palo Alto, CA, July 26–29, 

1976), p. 1.

60. Richard W. Niedzwiecki, “The Experimental Clean Combustor Program: 

Description and Status to November 1975,” NASA TM-X-71849, 
The Power for Flight

100

1975; R. Niedzwiecki and C.C. Gleason, “Results of the NASA/General 

Electric Experimental Clean Combustor Program” (AIAA paper 76-76, 

presented at the 12th AIAA/SAE Joint Propulsion Conference, Palo 

Alto, CA, July 26–29, 1976), p. 14.

61. Statement of Dr. Meyer J. Benzakein, Chair, Aerospace Engineering, 

Ohio State University, before the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 

March 16, 2005, available at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.

html?pid=15785 (accessed September 12, 2014).

62. Anthony M. Springer, “NASA Aeronautics: A Half-Century of 

Accomplishments,” in NASA’s First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives, ed. 

Steven J. Dick (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2010-4704, 2010), p. 199.

63. L. Stewart Rolls, “Characteristics of a Deflected-Jet VTOL Aircraft,” 

in NASA Conference on V/STOL Aircraft: A Compilation of the Papers 

Presented at Langley Research Center, Langley Field, Virginia, November. 

17–18, 1960 (Langley Field, VA: Langley Research Center, 1960), 

pp. 171–176, available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.

gov/19630004807.pdf (accessed August 21, 2015); St. Peter, History of 

Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, pp. 351–352, 362.

64. Miller, “NASA,” p. H12545.

65. Domenic J. Maglieri, David A. Hilton, and Harvey H. Hubbard, “Noise 

Considerations in the Design and Operation of V/STOL Aircraft,” in 

Conference on V/STOL Aircraft, pp. 269–284.

66. Evans to Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, 

“Back-Up Information Regarding Progress Status and Plans of NASA 

Aircraft Noise Reduction Programs.”

67. “Quiet-STOL Program Started,” NASA News Release 71-146, August 

4, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336.

68. Ibid.

69. “STOL Conference at Ames,” NASA News Release 72-201, October 

11, 1972, NASA HRC, file 012336.

70. Ben Kocivar, “QUESTOL: A New Kind of Jet for Short Hops,” Popular 

Science 200 (May 1972): 78, 80, 84.

71. R.M. Levintan, “Q-Fan Demonstrator Engine,” Journal of Aircraft 

12 (1975): 685; “Q-Fan Undergoing Aerodynamic Testing,” Aviation 

Week & Space Technology (October 16, 1972): 59; Michael Wilson, 

“Hamilton Standard and the Q-Fan,” Flight International 103 (April 

19, 1973): 618.

72. M.H. Waters, T.L. Galloway, C. Rohrbach, and M.G. Mayo, “Shrouded 

Fan Propulsors for Light Aircraft” (SAE paper 730323, presented at the 
The Shift Toward Commercial Aviation, 1966–1975

101

Society of Automotive Engineers Business Aircraft Meeting, Wichita, 

KS, April 3–6, 1973).

73. C.C. Ciepluch, “A Review of the QCSEE Program,” NASA TM-X71818, 1975; Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft Noise 

Research,” p. 232.

74. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 398; 

C.C. Ciepluch, “Preliminary QCSEE Program Test Results” (SAE 

paper 771008, presented at Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace 

Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, November 1977).

75. Robert R. Garvin, Starting Something Big: The Commercial Emergence of 

GE Aircraft Engines (Reston, Virginia: AIAA, 1998), pp. 163–164.

76. “NASA Aircraft Test Engines Promise Noise, Pollution Reduction,” 

NASA News Release 78-138, September 11, 1978, NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid.

80. M.D. Shovlin and J.A. Cochrane, “An Overview of the Quiet ShortHaul Research Aircraft Program,” NASA TM-78545, November 1978.

81. Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft Noise Research,” p. 232.

82. NASA Research and Technology Advisory Council Committee on 

Aeronautical Propulsion, “Meeting Minutes: Ad Hoc Panel on Jet 

Engine Hydrocarbon Fuels,” October 15, 1975, NASA HRC, file 

011150, pp. 1–3.

83. Ibid, p. 4.

84. Ibid, pp. 4–6.

85. R.D. Witcofski, “Comparison of Alternate Fuels for Aircraft,” NASA 

TM-80155, 1979; Harrington, “Leaner and Greener: Fuel Efficiency 

Takes Flight,” pp. 815–816.

86. NASA Research and Technology Advisory Council Committee on 

Aeronautical Propulsion, “Meeting Minutes: Ad Hoc Panel on Jet 

Engine Hydrocarbon Fuels,” p. 6.

87. Ibid, pp. 6–8.

88. Ibid, p. 9.
102

GE’s E3 demonstrator of 1983 reflected advances in fuel efficiency and noise and emissions 

reductions that benefited from NASA support and research in turbofan development. (NASA)
103

CHAPTER 4

The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency,

1976–1989

In the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the United States assisted Israel, which 

was desperately fighting a defensive war, by supplying it with aircraft, tanks, 

ammunition, weapons, and intelligence. The war marked an important stage 

in the evolution of integrated air defenses, and afterward, America embarked 

upon an intensive program of electronic warfare research that would lead to 

more sophisticated antimissile attack systems and the development of the 

F-117 and B-2 stealth aircraft. But of more immediate consequence was 

the imposition of a brief yet crippling oil embargo upon the United States, 

undertaken by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 

in retaliation for America’s having supported the Jewish state. It reduced 

the amount of oil available to the United States by almost 20 percent, or 

three million barrels a day. The resultant decrease in petroleum products and 

increase in prices created an energy crisis that affected the lives of everyday 

Americans.1

 For the airlines, the embargo resulted in a near-disastrous cut in 

the supply of, and an increase in the price of, jet fuel. The Nixon administration implemented mandatory Federal control of jet fuel, heating oil, and 

middle distillate supplies on November 1, 1973, which set supplies at lower 

1972 levels. With the number of people traveling by air growing exponentially, 

the outcome commercial air carriers wanted least was to reduce service. For 

American Airlines’ legendary Chairman C.R. Smith, there was “no chance” 

that the airlines could survive a 10-percent reduction in current schedules 

due to fuel rationing.2

With oil prices low through most of the 1960s, there seemed to be no concerns over fuel efficiency in aviation. With cheap fuel and turbofan engines, 

which operated at about 65 percent efficiency, the airlines were making 

increased revenues. That perspective changed as the OPEC embargo sent the 

United States and Europe reeling. No longer would energy sources be unlimited or cheap in Western societies, whose technological infrastructure depended 

on oil. While automakers reacted with compact, fuel-efficient cars and drivers 

adapted by traveling less, the airlines were in a dire situation. They could not 

drive away customers by reducing service or raising ticket prices as they faced 
The Power for Flight

104

an escalation of fuel prices that was estimated to be between 20 to 50 percent.3

Successive oil crises that have stymied the West since the 1970s have caused a 

serious reevaluation of what constitutes performance in aviation. Specifically, 

fuel consumption has become a matter of economic survival.

There was a technical impetus reflecting these changes. The era of “higher, 

faster, and farther” reached a technical plateau during the latter half of the 20th 

century. Operational high-performance aircraft speeds and altitudes, which 

had been consistently increasing since December 1903, peaked at Mach 3.3 

and 85,000 feet around 1970, with the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird strategic reconnaissance aircraft, powered by Pratt & Whitney J58 turbo-ramjet 

engines. The choices designers made changed to reflect an emphasis on other 

parameters. Issues of electronic flight and propulsion control, aerodynamic 

and propulsive efficiency, fuel efficiency, lower costs, improved reliability 

and safety, and awareness of environmental issues related to emissions and 

noise augmented and often superseded the decades-old driving philosophy 

of aircraft design based solely on altitude, speed, and range.4

 In terms of fuel 

efficiency and emissions, the 1970s presented NASA with an opportunity 

to, in the words of one historian, “reclaim its mantle at the forefront of 

aeronautics research.”5

Aircraft Energy Efficiency: 

Onset of a Transformational Program

Echoing that shift in emphasis, the U.S. Senate Committee on Aeronautical 

and Space Sciences, chaired by Senator Frank E. Moss (D-UT) and 

Barry M. Goldwater (R-AZ), recognized the threat to the American airline 

industry and the aviation industry in general. The Senate requested that 

NASA address the issue of increased fuel prices and anticipated oil shortages in 

January 1975.6

 NASA offered a solution for the fuel crisis. Speaking before the 

Committee, Administrator James C. Fletcher asserted that there was potential 

to halve the fuel requirement for commercial jet aircraft by 1985. He advocated low-drag wing shapes, lightweight composite materials, improved engine 

efficiencies, and modified flying procedures to reduce landing time. Fletcher 

argued that the implementation of those new technologies and practices on the 

2,100 commercial airliners in American service would amount to $1.3 billion 

year, or the equivalent of 333,000 barrels a day in fuel savings.7

With political pressure intensifying, NASA formed the Aircraft Fuel 

Conservation Technology Task Force in February 1975 to explore potential options. The team formulated a 10-year plan that consolidated existing 

propulsion, aerodynamics, and structures programs into the Aircraft Energy 

Efficiency (ACEE) program, which would cost $670 million while promising 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

105

to reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent, or over 600,000 barrels of oil 

a day.8 The Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences held hearings, 

which included considerable debate for and against the program, during 

the fall and winter of 1975. In the end, the program received approval and 

recommendation for implementation during fiscal year 1976. The reasons 

for approval were many. Increased fuel efficiency would stimulate the U.S. 

aviation industry and give both air carriers and manufacturers a competitive 

edge in world markets while encouraging conservation and American energy 

independence. Overall, taking on such a monumental challenge was appropriate for the Federal Government through NASA due to the technical risks 

involved and the nonproprietary role the Agency would play in disseminating 

the program’s results to all of industry.9

The ACEE was what has been termed a “focused” research and development 

program. In other words, NASA allocated large amounts of funding and engineering resources to mature fundamental technology successes already underway to create full-scale demonstration technology. Overall, NASA intended the 

program as a partnership with industry with a clear path of technology transfer 

originating from the Agency.10 The project also facilitated parallel and intertwined research into noise and emissions since needed improvements in one 

sphere affected the others. As a result, the fuel-savings-oriented ACEE program 

incorporated NASA’s most comprehensive noise and emissions effort to date.11

The industry and Government partners in the ACEE program addressed 

six major areas divided into three groups. The aerodynamics effort included 

the Energy Efficient Transport and laminar flow control, while the structures 

portion addressed composite materials.12 Lewis Research Center, under the 

leadership of program manager Donald Nored, managed the propulsion component, which represented three levels of development toward reducing fuel 

consumption. For the short term, the Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program targeted a 5-percent reduction in existing engines, specifically the 

Pratt & Whitney JT8D and JT9D turbofans and the GE CF6 that powered 

the majority of airliner fleets around the world. The Energy Efficient Engine 

(E3

, also EEE, and pronounced “E-cubed”) turbofan program was intended 

to decrease fuel consumption by 12 percent in the new engines of the late 

1980s. NASA leaders believed that new fuel-conserving technology exhibiting increased thermodynamic and propulsive efficiencies would appear in 

derivative or entirely new commercial engines as early as 1983. The Advanced 

Turboprop Project (ATP) offered the most fuel savings, upwards of 15 percent, 

for its intended introduction in the early 1990s. NASA believed in the possibility of efficient, economic, and acceptable commercial turboprop airliners 

capable of cruising at Mach 0.8 and at altitudes above 30,000 feet.13
The Power for Flight

106

The energy crises of the 1970s and high fuel costs made all three propulsionrelated ACEE programs, and their required expenses, palatable, but in different ways. The ECI and E3

 dovetailed with the conservative nature of the 

commercial aviation industry by offering refinement and the advancement of 

the current state of the art, the turbofan engine. The ATP, on the other hand, 

was a radical departure from the norm, with the potential of the propeller’s 

return to the forefront of commercial aviation. Donald Nored remarked, 

“The climate made people do things that normally they’d be too conservative 

to do.”14

ACEE 1: Engine Component Improvement

Beginning in 1975, the ECI Program consisted of two parts that focused on 

improving the performance and fuel efficiency of new production engines 

and three specific turbofan engines already in service with the introduction 

of advanced components. The Performance Improvement (PI) effort led by 

John E. McAulay at Lewis addressed the GE CF6 and the Pratt & Whitney 

JT8D and JT9D. Those engines—the first generation of American turbofans 

introduced in the United States—were instantly successful, and the aviation 

industry anticipated their long-term use into the early 21st century. The Engine 

Diagnostics effort addressed the reduction of performance deterioration by 

1 percent after the CF6 and JT9D engines had gone into service by focusing 

on revised maintenance procedures.15

The PI effort began with a feasibility study that included extensive industry 

cooperation. Eastern Airlines and Pan American worked in a direct advisory 

capacity with NASA. Both GE and Pratt & Whitney collaborated directly 

with Boeing, Douglas, United Airlines, and American Airlines in advisory 

capacities. Pratt & Whitney formed a partnership with Trans World Airlines 

to create a cost/benefit methodology. Regardless of the particular details of the 

partnerships, the interaction provided the appropriate modeling to simulate 

airline usage and provided the basis for estimating the needed level of engine 

modification to improve efficiency.16

A derivative of the TF39 turbofan that powered the Air Force’s Lockheed 

C-5A Galaxy, the CF6, was GE’s first major high-bypass turbofan engine for 

the commercial aviation market upon its introduction on American Airlines’ 

McDonnell Douglas DC-10 aircraft in 1971. The 40,000-pound-thrust 

engine was ideal for the ECI program. The modular design that facilitated the 

incorporation of easily removable and interchangeable components for better 

maintenance made it easier to modify for increased performance. Part one of 

the project addressed reducing the fuel usage of the CF6. The initial goal was 

to achieve a 5-percent reduction by 1982. The research team identified an 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

107

improved-efficiency fan blade, a short core exhaust system, and an improved 

high-pressure turbine as promising methods.17

Figure 4-1. Three General Electric CF6 engines powered the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. (Boeing)

The CF6 turned out to be the long-lived engine the researchers of the 

ECI program anticipated. Besides McDonnell Douglas, both Boeing and 

Airbus incorporated the CF6 into their wide-body and long-distance airliners, including the 747 and A300, as the major airlines used them on their 

long-distance commercial routes all over the world. By 2012, the CF6 had 

become the most-produced high-bypass-ratio turbofan to date, with 7,000 

units delivered to more than 250 operators in 87 countries. Overall, they 

accumulated 367 million flight hours. Choosing a successful engine that 

would have operational longevity was a key to the success of the ECI and a 

stunning example of the ability of NASA to target a problem and work to 

make it better.18

Pratt & Whitney also stood to benefit greatly from the ECI program. The 

14,000-pound-thrust JT8D low-bypass turbofan debuted on the Boeing 727 

in 1964. It quickly became one of the most successful commercial jet engines 

ever built, with over 673 million flying hours. Pratt & Whitney produced 

more than 14,750 for use on the Boeing 737 and the McDonnell Douglas 

DC-9 and MD-80.19

The 45,000-pound-thrust JT9D was the first high-bypass turbofan from 

the Connecticut manufacturer and the first to power a wide-body airliner 
The Power for Flight

108

after its introduction on Pan Am’s Boeing 747s in January 1970. Besides the 

747, JT9Ds powered the Boeing 767, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and 

the Airbus A310.20

Figure 4-2. The Boeing 727 featured three Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans. (Boeing)

For Pratt & Whitney, the ECI advanced the state of the art in its engine 

designs. The program demonstrated the advantages of updated cooling, sealing, 

and aerodynamic design in the JT8D high-pressure turbine and compressor. 

For the JT9D, improved component technologies included thermal barrier 

coatings, ceramic seal systems, advanced turbine clearance control, and singleshroud fan design. Even though the work was Government-funded, the results 

were proprietary. Pratt & Whitney directly applied the knowledge learned to its 

new 38,000-pound-thrust PW2000 turbofan designed for the new Boeing 757 

twin-jet airliner. Nevertheless, Pratt & Whitney shared the data with NASA, 

which transferred the technology to its E3

 program.21

The 16 ECI program technology improvements are listed on the following 

page by engine, along with the consequent percentage of reduced Specific Fuel 

Consumption (SFC) values at cruise achieved as of 1980.22
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

109

Figure 4-3. The high-bypass Pratt & Whitney JT9D powered a new generation of airliners, 

including the Boeing 747 jumbo jet. (NASA)

Concept SFC at Cruise (% Reduction)

Pratt & Whitney JT8D Engine

High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Improved Outer Seal 0.6

DC-9 Nacelle Drag Reduction 1.2

HPT Root Discharge Blade 0.9

Trenched High Pressure Compressor Blade Tip 0.9

Pratt & Whitney JT9D Engine

3.8-Aspect-Ratio Fan 1.3

HPT Active Clearance Control 0.65

HPT Vane Thermal Barrier Coating 0.2

HPT Ceramic Outer Air Seal 0.4

General Electric CF6 Engine

CF6 Improved Fan 1.7

CF6 Short Core Exhaust Nozzle 0.9

CF6 New Front Mount 0.1

CF6 Improved HPT 1.3–1.6

DC-10 Reduced Engine Bleed 0.7

HPT Roundness/Clearance 0.4–0.8

HPT Active Clearance Control 0.3–0.6

Low Pressure Turbine Active Clearance Control 0.3
The Power for Flight

110

Overall, the ECI technological improvements included the reduction of 

clearances between rotating parts, a decrease in the amount of cooling air 

needed, and the aerodynamic refinement required to raise component efficiencies. GE and Pratt & Whitney incorporated most of the technologies into their 

production engines.23 Overall, the ECI was a success for three reasons. First, 

there was the short time in which the manufacturers incorporated the improvements into their engines. Turbofans incorporating ECI technology powered the 

new airliners of the 1980s, namely the Boeing 767 and McDonnell Douglas 

MD-80. Second, the enthusiasm on the part of the manufacturers for the 

results further cemented a strong relationship with Lewis, especially for GE. 

Finally, the ECI maintained the American aviation industry’s edge over that of 

the rest of the world as those improved engines and the airliners they powered 

continued to dominate a large share of the commercial aviation market.24

ACEE 2: Energy Efficient Engine Turbofan

NASA’s interest in a fuel-conserving engine began in the early 1970s. With 

the creation of the ACEE program, the program became the Energy Efficient 

Engine (E3) project. This second-tier effort worked toward the development 

of a new generation of advanced fuel-efficient, high-bypass turbofans with 

operational introduction in 1984. These new engines were not modified turbojets or squeezed into compact nacelles. They were dedicated turbofans that 

incorporated large fan sections to increase the amount of air that bypassed the 

core engine. The efficiency of an engine was an expression of configuration, fuel 

consumption, cruise speed, and bypass ratio. In the mid-1970s, a turbofan like 

the GE CF6 with a high 5:1 bypass ratio cruised at Mach 0.8 and consumed 

the most fuel. The legacy QCSEE project revealed that a turbofan with an even 

higher 12:1 bypass ratio consumed 10 percent less fuel at Mach 0.7.25

The specific goals of the E3 program targeted the reduction of fuel usage 

by at least 12 percent and the rate of performance deterioration by at least 

50 percent while improving direct operating costs by 5 percent. Additionally, 

any new technology had to meet future FAA FAR 36 noise regulations and 

EPA exhaust emission standards. The E3 program was not intended to create 

a complete engine, but to create technology for use in future engines. It was 

up to the discretion of the manufacturers to decide when a new or modified 

advanced fuel-conserving engine that integrated E3 technology was ready and 

commercially viable in the aviation market.26

Carl C. Ciepluch managed the project at Lewis and supervised the individual $90 million E3

 contracts awarded to GE and Pratt & Whitney. Each 

company, which was responsible for obligating $10 million of their own funds, 

faced three major challenges. First, they were to design a Flight Propulsion 

System (FPS) that served as the engine platform for determining and evaluating 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

111

the component configuration and new technology advances. Second, they 

investigated those new innovations through full-scale design, fabrication, and 

testing. Finally, the engine makers were to integrate the advanced components into an engine system for evaluation in an operational environment.27

Achieving the E3 goals required aerodynamic, mechanical, and system technologies that were well in advance of current production engines and required 

successful demonstration in component rigs, a core engine, and a turbofan 

ground-test engine.

A NASA-led team consisting of the two engine makers and including 

Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed defined the engine configurations based on 

airplane/mission definition and engine/airframe integration. They identified 

the GE CF6-50C and Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A as the points of departure. 

The new 36,000-pound-thrust engines would exhibit higher turbine inlet temperatures for better fuel economy and higher pressure ratios of 50 percent, 

which was a 20-percent increase from the original goal.28

E3 allowed the team members to go beyond the simple refinement of 

existing turbofan designs that had their origins in the 1950s. With NASA’s 

support, they pushed into new territories focusing on components, nacelles, 

exhaust-gas mixers, control systems, and accessories. The estimated fuel savings increased to 15 percent. Improved components accounted for half of that, 

with the remainder coming from refined engine cycles and mixer nozzles.29 

The basic E3 engine featured a single-stage fan, a 4-stage low-pressure compressor, a 9- or 10-stage high-pressure compressor, a 2-zone combustor, a 

single-stage high-pressure turbine, a 4-stage low-pressure turbine, and a mixer. 

Despite the similarities, GE and Pratt & Whitney went about developing 

new and different engine configurations and component technologies from 

1976 to 1984.30

GE integrated its E3 components into an actual engine. A crucial focus was 

the annular combustors. GE’s E3 combustors were a continuation of the twostage combustor studies initiated by the earlier Experimental Clean Combustor 

Program (ECCP). That work contributed to a broader knowledge of how to 

reduce emission levels before the challenging work on engine performance and 

operation began.31 At the end of the program in 1985, Donald Y. Davis, the GE 

E3 program manager, reported that it met all goals for efficiency, environmental 

considerations, and economic payoff. The FPS exhibited 16.9 percent lower 

specific fuel consumption than a contemporary CF6 engine while cruising at 

Mach 0.8 at 35,000 feet. In terms of direct operating costs, the FPS offered 

reductions of 8.6 percent for a short-haul domestic transport and 16.2 percent 

for an international long-distance transport. Moreover, GE’s design met the 

noise- and emissions-compliance goals.32
The Power for Flight

112

Pratt & Whitney focused more on the development of individual technologies, with an emphasis on the fan and core components rather than on 

a complete engine. While some of the evaluated components exceeded the 

efficiency goals, others did not. As a result, the engineers in Hartford estimated 

that the overall reduction in specific fuel consumption in a flight engine would 

be 15 percent, with direct operating costs at 5 percent. With the exception of 

NOx levels, the components failed to meet the EPA’s emissions requirement.33

Carl Ciepluch of Lewis, Donald Davis of GE, and David Gray of Pratt & 

Whitney proclaimed the E3 a success at the $200 million program’s completion 

in 1985. They were confident that the technology developed during its course 

was, and would continue to be, effectively employed in both current and future 

advanced transport aircraft engine designs.34 Later estimates claimed that the 

performance of the E3 demonstration engines exceeded the expectations of the 

program even more, with overall fuel use reduced 18 percent and operating 

costs lowered between 5 and 10 percent.35

The experience and generated knowledge of the E3 led to the introduction of 

new engines from GE and Pratt & Whitney. One of the program’s legacies was 

its role in the great “engine war” of the early 1990s that surrounded the anticipated introduction of the revolutionary Boeing 777 airliner in 1996. Boeing 

bet its own future as a manufacturer on a twin-engine aircraft. Two engines 

were cheaper to maintain, but required certification for Extended Range Twin 

Operations (ETOPS) over water. The three leading engine manufacturers—

Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and GE—held 20, 19, and 14 percent of the 

world commercial airliner market, respectively, in 1994. The engines they 

developed for the 777 were the largest and most powerful ever produced, 

with ratings in the area of 100,000 pounds of thrust. Their fan sections were 

approximately 10 feet in diameter, with an overall size nearly as wide as the 

fuselage of a Boeing 737. Pratt & Whitney invested $500 million into the 

PW4084, which was less fuel-efficient but easier to maintain. Rolls-Royce 

spent approximately $1 billion on the Trent series. GE spent $1.5 billion to 

develop the GE90 family, which generated the most thrust. The comparable 

size and performance of each placed more emphasis on the financial negotiations and airline partnerships. The payoff was huge. At $10 million or more 

per engine, potential sales of $60 billion over 20 years were possible. As of 

April 1994, Pratt & Whitney led with 64 orders, while Rolls-Royce followed 

with 56 and GE with 54.36

The replacement for the highly successful and long-lived JT9D, the 

Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engine series, took advantage of E3 technology. It 

featured single-crystal materials, powdered metal disks, low-NOx combustor 

and turbine technology, and improved full-authority digital electronic control 

(FADEC). The 86,760-pound-thrust PW4084 was the launch engine for the 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

113

777, which entered service in 1995. The follow-on PW4098, certified in 1998 

for the 777-200ER and 777-300, was the first engine to operate with approval 

for 207-minute ETOPS. Overall, several airlines used the PW4000 series on 

many of their wide-body aircraft, including the Airbus A310, A300-600, and 

A330; the Boeing 767; and the MD-11.37

Figure 4-4. Pictured is a Boeing 767 with Pratt & Whitney PW4000 turbofans in the mid-1990s. 

(Delta Air Lines)

The GE90 also reflected the legacy of GE’s involvement in the E3 program with its 10-stage high-pressure compressor that developed an impressive 

23:1 pressure ratio. After entering service in 1995, GE90s powered variants 

of the Boeing 777, including the long-range 777-300ER model. One of the 

latter completed an unprecedented five-and-a-half-hour ETOPS flight in 

October 2003. The GE90 was regarded as the most fuel-efficient, silent, and 

environmentally friendly engine in commercial service in the early 21st century. It is also the largest in size and output, with the GE90-115B capable of 

115,000 pounds of thrust. The Guinness Book of World Records honored the 

GE90 as the “World’s Most Powerful Commercial Jet Engine” in 2001.38
The Power for Flight

114

ACEE 3: Advanced Turboprop Project

Figure 4-5. This image shows the GE36 UDF installed on the Boeing 727 demonstrator for flight 

tests. (National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM-9A11738)

On August 20, 1986, a Boeing 727 airliner took to the skies from the civil 

flight-test center at Mojave Airport, CA, on the first flight-test exploration of 

GE’s new GE36 Unducted Fan (UDF) ultra-high-bypass (UHB) turboprop 

engine. The new engine, instantly recognizable by its two rows of fan blades on 

the outside of the nacelle, offered the potential of a 25- to 45-percent increase 

in efficiency over existing turbofan engines. An astute industry observer, Craig 

Schmittman, noticed that parked on ramps and the desert, off the runway, were 

the “dinosaurs” of the early civil aviation Jet Age, the “fast and thirsty” airliners 

of the 1950s and 1960s that were no longer economical in a world beset by 

high fuel prices and increased concern for the environment. Manufacturers 

proposed new aircraft like the McDonnell Douglas MD-91, a UDF-powered 

100- to 150-passenger airliner that offered reduced fuel consumption and 

increased revenues for the airlines of the 1990s. For Schmittman, a “new era 

in jet aviation” had begun, and it was not a question of if, but when, the airlines would embrace UHB technology.39 The UDF was one of two new and 

advanced turboprop engines that reflected the central role of NASA’s ATP 

project from 1976 to 1987. The ATP, which garnered the prestigious Collier 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

115

Trophy for 1987, amounted to a reinvention of the turboprop and a possible 

revolution in aeronautics.

The reemergence of the propeller as a viable high-performance propulsion 

technology in the late 20th century resulted from NASA’s search for more fuel 

savings. In 1974, Lewis engineer Daniel Mikkelson met with Carl Rohrbach, 

who worked for the last major propeller manufacturer in the United States—

Hamilton Standard of Windsor Locks, CT—to discuss an advanced turboprop concept with multiple highly loaded, swept blades called a “propfan.” A 

turboprop was efficient in terms of thrust and fuel economy, and it generated 

less noise than both piston and turbojet engines. There was an additional two 

decades of experience in the use of computational fluid dynamics and structural 

mechanics in the design of supersonic wings, helicopter rotors, and fan blades. 

The application of that knowledge to the propeller was the key to increased 

fuel savings. As part of the ACEE, the ATP aimed to address the technical 

issues inherent in turboprop engines that, if overcome, would encourage the 

engines’ increased use by manufacturers and commercial air carriers. As with 

the E3 project, the new system needed to be safe, efficient, and clean overall.40

The ATP was a large-scale, multimillion-dollar collaborative effort between 

NASA, industry, and academia. On the NASA side, each of the four aeronautics 

Centers—Lewis, Langley, Dryden, and Ames—played major roles in providing 

research expertise, test and evaluation equipment facilities, and management 

of over 40 industrial contracts and 15 university grants. The industrial partners included Hamilton Standard, GE, Lockheed, Allison, Pratt & Whitney, 

Rohr Industries, Gulfstream, McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing, who also 

brought expertise, their own development facilities, and specialist and airframe 

perspective to turboprop development. University researchers also played a 

major role.41

To achieve those goals, the ATP went through four major phases. The preliminary phase from 1976 to 1978 involved proving the initial concept that a 

propeller could maintain efficiency at higher Mach numbers. Lewis contracted 

with Hamilton Standard in April 1976 for the design, construction, and testing 

of 2-foot-diameter single-rotation (SR) propfan models. As those tests took 

place, Lewis and Hamilton Standard engineers became increasingly excited 

about what an ATP would offer aviation. In contrast, they faced considerable 

reluctance on the part of a larger aviation industry firmly committed to the 

turbofan engine, a fact that the Kramer Commission made apparent in 1975.42

Nevertheless, the Hamilton Standard tests generated the necessary efficiency 

data to influence the formal establishment of the ATP in 1978.43

The next phase of program, from 1978 to 1980, addressed four important 

enabling technologies necessary for the design of a new ATP. First, researchers 

used a new tool, the computer, to analyze blade sweep, twist, and thickness to 
The Power for Flight

116

increase cruise efficiency with new design codes. Second, a byproduct of that 

work, which included extensive in-flight acoustic testing of propfan models on 

NASA’s Lockheed Jetstar multipurpose test bed aircraft maintained by Dryden 

Flight Research Center, was the ability to make the blades quieter in operation 

to alleviate internal and external noise. The perfection of an aerodynamically 

efficient turboprop installation was the third component, which revealed the 

ideal mounting in a nacelle on top of the wing for the best results. Finally, there 

was the mechanical design of the drive system, especially the pitch-change and 

gearbox mechanisms, that were both durable and economical to maintain. This 

led to a proposal to modify an Agency Gulfstream with a full-size propfan.44

Figure 4-6. This drawing shows a proposed propfan installation on a modified NASA Grumman 

Gulfstream test bed. (NASA)

As the work on enabling technology continued, Government, industry, and 

military studies initiated by NASA investigated the increased application of 

advanced turboprop aircraft over turbofan-powered aircraft. Ames contracted 

with McDonnell Douglas in 1979 to explore the possibility of integrating 

a propfan system into a DC-9/MD-80–type airliner. The resultant report 

concluded that a propfan installed on the aft portion of the fuselage was an 

important alternative to wing mounting. Lockheed Aircraft, under contract to 

Langley, initiated an Advanced Cargo Aircraft Study that revealed that the use 

of propfans reduced fuel consumption by 20 percent, noise by 15 percent, and 

the required runway length by 25 percent. Lewis awarded study contracts to 

McDonnell Douglas and Beech Aircraft for business aircraft, and those studies yielded similar results. (In its analysis, however, Beech indicated that the 

investment required for the new technology was an economic pitfall that would 

outweigh any significant financial returns.) With technical direction from 

Lewis, the U.S. Navy awarded contracts to Boeing, Grumman, and Lockheed 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

117

to evaluate concepts for subsonic, multipurpose, carrier-based aircraft. They 

determined that the use of propfans helped increase mission duration and loiter 

time, which was desirable from the perspective of operators.45 Those studies 

worked to overcome the initial industry and operator resistance to the ATP.

The next phase of the ATP, large-scale integration of the propfan technology, took place from 1981 to 1987. Up to that point, the model tests and 

manufacturer studies were promising, but it was another matter to incorporate 

those data into full-scale experimental propfans. NASA initiated the LargeScale Advanced Propfan (LAP) project in 1981. Hamilton Standard received 

the contract for the design, fabrication, and ground testing of a LAP with a 

pitch-change mechanism and the production of additional propfans for flight 

testing. The propeller maker finished the SR-7L in September 1985. Initial 

tests indicated that the blades vibrated in excess of their design threshold, 

which placed the program’s major emphasis on structural integrity over blade 

efficiency and noise.46

After constructing the first full-scale propfan assembly, the SR-7L, Hamilton 

Standard sent it to the Propeller Laboratory of the Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base for static testing of aerodynamic performance and blade stability. Since 

1928, the Air Force and its predecessor organizations had operated three large 

whirl test rigs for the purpose of establishing the strength and endurance of specific propeller designs. While thrust, torque, centrifugal force, and gyrostatic 

moments could be calculated mathematically, physically whirling a propeller in 

excess of a propeller’s operating regime provided concrete results, especially for 

determining overall safety. Air Force engineers tested the SR-7L at 1,900 rpm 

at 6,000 shaft horsepower, which generated 9,000 pounds of thrust. Tests confirmed that the design did not present any unanticipated structural problems 

in the blades or weaknesses in the pitch-change mechanism. NASA engineers 

added new tools to the Air Force process. They used the Air Force’s optical 

system and a laser measurement apparatus developed by their fellow researchers 

to measure blade deflection caused by aerodynamic and centrifugal loads. They 

also made one of the first applications of another innovation, Laser Doppler 

Velocimetry (LDV), to measure flow velocities.47

The next step was high-speed rotor tests in the S1MA Continuous-Flow 

Atmospheric Wind Tunnel in Modane, France. Capable of Mach 0.5 to 1 

performance, the tunnel was part of the extensive Office National d’Etudes 

et Recherches Aérospatiales (ONERA) in eastern France. Built from a nearly 

complete Nazi wind tunnel found at war’s end in Austria and brought across the 

border into France, the tunnel was capable of evaluating the 9-foot-diameter 

SR-7L at Mach 0.8 at conditions of 12,000 feet of altitude. Two series of tests 

with the SR-7L assembly in two-, four-, and eight-blade configurations took 

place from 1986 to 1987. The full loading tests in Modane were limited to two 
The Power for Flight

118

blades due to the power limitations of the drive rig. The four- and eight-blade 

tests were conducted at lower power ratings. Despite those facility limitations, 

the tests led to the verification of the aerodynamic analyses and model data.48

Evaluation of the SR-7L propfan continued within the context of a complete turboprop system as part of the Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) project. 

As the contractor, Lockheed-Georgia had the task of verifying the structural 

integrity of the blades and the acoustic properties of a large-scale propfan 

at cruise conditions. The PTA consisted of five elements: (1) combining a 

large-scale advanced propfan with a drive system and nacelle; (2) proof-testing 

the system at Rohr Industries’ Brown Field facility near San Diego; (3) conducting a series of model tests to confirm aircraft stability and control, handling, performance, and flutter characteristics; (4) modifying a Gulfstream II 

aircraft; and (5) flight-testing the propfan installed on the left wing of the 

modified aircraft.49

The joint NASA-industry team set about the necessary wind tunnel tests of 

the supporting technology and the modification of the engine hardware. The 

concept development and enabling technology phases of the ATP determined 

that a top-mounted, single-scoop inlet with a boundary layer diverter between 

the inlet and the top of the nacelle was the best method of directing air to 

the gas turbine engine. Further investigations exposed the inadequacy of that 

configuration. The propfan system required an S-duct diffuser that allowed the 

measurement of pressure recovery and flow distortion all the way from the inlet 

to the compressor face in the 570 engine. Lockheed-Georgia tests completed 

in October 1984 yielded 99 percent pressure recovery and acceptable flow 

distortion levels. In fact, the design of the inlet increased airflow to the compressor, creating a veritable supercharger effect, by 4 percent. Engineers selected 

and modified an Allison Model 570 engine and T56 gearbox as the basis for 

the SR-7L propfan drive system. Allison tested the components beginning in 

September 1985, and the assembly proved more than adequate.50

NASA conducted tests of 1/9-scale models of the PTA aircraft in its wind 

tunnels from 1985 to 1987. The configuration of the PTA was unorthodox. The 

platform was a model Gulfstream II business jet with two turbofans mounted 

on the rear fuselage. The addition of the propfan system on the left wing and a 

static boom on the right introduced considerable design and flying challenges 

in terms of aeroelastics, stability and control, performance, handling, and flowfield characteristics. Technicians in the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Freon 

Tunnel at Langley investigated the aeroelastic instability to determine overall 

structural integrity. Personnel in the 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel and the 4-Meter 

Tunnel conducted high- and low-speed tests respectively to evaluate overall 

stability and control of the Gulfstream II propfan configuration. Researchers 

took that model, split it in half into a semispan model, and conducted a flow 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

119

survey test of the propfan and plan configuration in the Lewis Transonic Wind 

Tunnel in January 1987. Speeds ranged from Mach 0.4 to 0.86, and the angle, 

or tilt, of the nacelle from the wing ranged from –3 to 2 degrees.51 Each of 

these tests proved successful upon completion.

PTA ground static tests of the complete propfan, engine, gearbox, and 

nacelle took place in May and June 1986. Rohr Industries, a leading manufacturer of aircraft engine nacelles, performed the tests at its Chula Vista, CA, 

facility south of San Diego. They confirmed that the propfan system’s fuel 

consumption, operability, structural integrity, and acoustic characteristics were 

all within the specified limits.52

In July 1986, the propfan system arrived at Lockheed-Georgia’s facility in 

Savannah for installation on the Gulfstream II, which led to extensive modification of the business jet. Internal additions included the required lines for 

the fuel, hydraulic, electric, compressor bleed air, and instrumentation for 

the propfan system and test instrumentation, which included monitoring 

consoles and over 600 sensors. New external structures included strengthened 

wings and flaps and four booms. The static and dynamic balance booms on 

each wing aided controllability with the propfan installed, and the microphone boom on the left wing measured free-field noise. The flight-test boom 

in the nose measured aircraft speed, angle of attack, and yaw. Lockheed technicians finished the installation and modifications in February 1987. The 

NASA Airworthiness Committee 

approved the PTA aircraft for flight 

test the following March.53

Figure 4-7. The propfan on the Gulfstream II. 

(NASA)

NASA and Lockheed-Georgia 

conducted flight tests of the modified Gulfstream II from April to 

November 1987. The program concentrated on systems evaluation, 

operability, structural integrity, efficiency, and noise. The initial flights 

involved air starts at altitudes of 

5,000, 6,000, and 10,000 feet and 

moved on to high-altitude research 

between 5,000 and 35,000 feet at 

speeds ranging between Mach 0.4 

and 0.85. The PTA team traveled 

to NASA Wallops Flight Facility 

in Virginia for low-altitude noise 

testing at speeds of 190 knots at 
The Power for Flight

120

altitudes between 850 and 1,600 feet. High-altitude, en route noise data collection was conducted in cooperation with the FAA, including by a NASA 

Learjet mapping the noise pattern below the PTA in flight. Overall, the flight 

tests confirmed the initial estimates made in the early 1970s by NASA that 

the propfan offered a 20- to 30-percent reduction in fuel costs over existing 

turbofan propulsion systems.54

The single-rotation propfan was one configuration explored by NASA and 

its industry partners during the ATP. There was an inherent problem with that 

system. As a conventional propeller rotates and produces thrusts, it leaves a 

swirl of air behind it that degrades both propulsive and aerodynamic efficiency. 

A design utilizing two propellers, one in front of the other and rotating in 

different directions, offered three advantages that would contribute to the 

overall goals of the ATP. First, counter-rotating propellers removed swirl and 

increased fuel efficiency by 5 percent. Second, they offered twice the power of 

a single-rotation system of the same diameter. Finally, they facilitated a compact design mounted on the rear fuselage of an airliner, which helped alleviate 

interior cabin noise and resulted in a “clean” wing with improved lift-to-drag 

characteristics. The development of an advanced counter-rotating turboprop 

offered a solution to problems related to aerodynamic interaction between the 

blade rows, aeromechanical stability (the relationship between air flow and 

structural integrity), and acoustics.55

NASA recognized that investigation into counter-rotating advanced turboprops, or propfans, required the use of test rigs in wind tunnels. The process of 

designing and fabricating rigs to test 2-foot-diameter counter-rotating assemblies began in 1983; these assemblies enabled the testing of both tractor and 

pusher configurations in wing or fuselage installations. NASA contracted with 

Hamilton Standard and GE for the design and fabrication of several models. 

Those models, mounted on NASA’s test rigs, underwent evaluation in wind 

tunnels and acoustic facilities operated by NASA and the primary contractors 

as well as by Boeing and United Technologies.56

Hamilton Standard’s dual-rotation CRP-X1 design represented a tractor propfan configuration. In tests conducted in the United Technologies 

Research Center (UTRC) 8- by 8-Foot Wind Tunnel from April 1985 to 

March 1986, engineers evaluated the design’s aerodynamic performance, structural integrity, and aeromechanical stability. The aerodynamic efficiency was 

measured at 86 percent at Mach 0.75, which was 8 percentage points higher 

than the efficiency of the company’s most successful single-rotation propfan. 

Hamilton Standard researchers tested both tractor and pusher configurations 

of the CRP-X1 in the UTRC Low-Speed Acoustic Research Tunnel from 

April to June 1986. They learned that varying the angle of the propfan overall 

brought noise levels down. To better understand blade efficiencies, Hamilton 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

121

Standard developed with Lewis engineers a flow visualization method based on 

a three-dimensional Euler solution and a high-resolution grid. Their charting 

of leading-edge vortices and flow streamlines paralleled physical tests using the 

flow of oil during low-speed tests at the UTRC.57 While this program yielded 

impressive results and was a glowing example of industry-Government collaboration, Hamilton Standard’s CRP design never reached the full-size test 

and evaluation stage.

Independent of NASA, GE began investigating the feasibility of a 

25,000-pound-thrust commercial counter-rotating turboprop engine for a 

150-passenger aircraft in 1983. Company engineers ventured from conventional turboprop design by choosing not to use a complicated gearbox. In 

previous designs, a system of gears ensured that the propeller and the gas turbine turned at their individually ideal rpms. GE elected to remove the entire 

challenge of designing a gearbox capable of 20,000 shaft horsepower and, 

instead, to drive the two rows of blades with turbine stages powered by the 

core section from an F404 military turbofan. In other words, the power from 

the exhaust of the core engine was transmitted to the blades directly, without 

a gearbox; although unorthodox, this approach was simpler, lighter, and more 

efficient at higher horsepower ranges.58 Performance estimates indicated a 32:1 

bypass ratio, a 4:1 thrust-to-weight ratio, and a specific fuel consumption of 

0.52 at Mach 0.8 and 35,000 feet. Estimates put fuel consumption at 30 percent less than that of most contemporary turbofan engines and 50 percent 

lower than that of engines used on 150-passenger airliners. GE called their 

new proprietary UHB concept an “unducted fan,” or UDF, with the company 

designation GE36.59

NASA supported GE through contracts administered by Lewis starting in 

early 1984. The work focused on the initial design and ground tests, which 

alleviated GE’s startup risks and accelerated the overall development time for 

the UDF. The shared objectives centered on the successful demonstration of 

the gearless propfan concept as a viable alternative to turbofan engines. The 

partnership consisted of scale-model, full-scale fan blade, and static engine 

tests, as well as the design of the nacelle and specific engine components.60

Eager to pursue the new idea, GE engineers designed and fabricated three 

counter-rotating model rigs for the aerodynamic, acoustic, and aeroelastic testing of various blade designs, speeds, and blade row spacing. One model went 

to Boeing for low- and high-speed testing in the company’s 9- by 9-Foot Low 

Speed Wind Tunnel and 8- by 12-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel in May 1984. 

The second went to GE’s Cell 41 Vertical Anechoic Chamber in November 

1984. The third, through a cost-sharing contract with NASA, went to Lewis for 

high- and low-speed testing in the 8- by 6-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel and 9- 

by 15-Foot Anechoic Low Speed Wind Tunnel in July 1985. The collaborative 
The Power for Flight

122

tests revealed that the spacing between, and the diameters of, the blade rows 

were instrumental in reducing overall noise. Throughout the entire process, 

GE used NASA data to design or refine the unique UDF components. Rig 

testing of the counter-rotating turbine at Lewis revealed that the F7-A7 blade 

set had the highest efficiency—82.5 percent, at Mach 0.72.61

With the concept in hand, GE invited NASA to partner in the development 

of a gearless propfan demonstrator. Beginning in late August 1985, GE began 

ground tests of a complete UDF engine at its Peebles, OH, test site. After a 

series of structural failures that appeared between October 1985 and February 

1986, GE realized the blades needed strengthening. With the help of NASA, 

GE devised better and stronger ways to construct the blades for the UDF. At 

the conclusion of testing in July, the UDF had completed 100 hours of testing. 

Half of those hours consisted of concentrated endurance testing over a 2-week 

period during that last month. The UDF generated 25,000 pounds of thrust 

at sea level, with specific fuel consumption of 0.24, which was approximately 

20 percent better than the fuel consumption of contemporary turbofans. GE 

engineers operated the UDF through the full range of flight conditions, including a demonstration of reverse-thrust capability, which was a common feature 

used on turbofan-powered airliners for slowing the aircraft down at landing.62

The next step was for the UDF to take to the air. GE and NASA began 

planning flight tests of the UDF in early 1985. The purpose was to confirm 

existing test results and to operate the engine at the speeds and altitudes flown 

with turbofans, primarily Mach 0.8 at 35,000 feet, to determine its suitability 

as a replacement propulsion system. GE and NASA joined with Boeing for 

the first round of collaborative tests on a 727 airliner during the summer of 

1986. GE bore the responsibility of modifying the 727, installing the UDF in 

place of the right-side JT8D turbofan, and conducting the test program. NASA 

facilitated the use of Government-owned hardware, including the Agency’s 

Learjet, and cleared the experimental airliner for flight. Both parties shared 

all data. Flights began on August 20 at GE’s facility in Mojave, CA, with the 

normal airline operations profile being achieved by the following December. 

Beginning in January 1987, the GE-NASA team measured the outside acoustic properties and experimented with interior modifications to alleviate cabin 

noise. The program concluded the following February with a total of 41 hours 

of flight time. The UDF exhibited 30 percent lower fuel consumption than 

the JT8D and noise levels that were elevated but were a promising beginning 

for refinement toward commercial implementation.63

GE and McDonnell Douglas partnered in 1986 for further tests of a UDF 

engine installed in place of the left JT8D turbofan on an MD-80 airliner in 

anticipation of placing the system on the market. The primary goals of the 

McDonnell Douglas UHB Demonstrator program were to further reduce noise 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

123

by continuing experimentation with the number of blades used in the two fan 

stages and to design a quieter passenger cabin. To achieve that, they compared 

the noise produced by an 8- by 8-blade engine versus a 10- by 8-blade configuration during a test program that ran for most of 1987. The latter engine 

produced a lower primary tone, which, unfortunately, did not fully meet FAR 

36 noise requirements. Carbon fiber fan blades were crucial to the design. In 

September 1988, the UHB demonstrator flew across the Atlantic Ocean to go 

on display at the world aviation industry’s Farnborough Air Show in England.64

GE moved from that point to continue work on a commercial UDF engine 

with an improved actuation system and refined aerodynamic, mechanical, 

and acoustic design, with an anticipated introduction in 1992. McDonnell 

Douglas fully intended to offer the UDF configuration as an option for its 

customers in the early 1990s, whether it was as a retrofit for existing airliners 

or brand-new aircraft.65

Figure 4-8. The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 UHB Demonstrator is shown with the 578-DX 

engine. (NASA)

In 1986, Hamilton Standard, Pratt & Whitney, and Allison began work on 

their 578-DX demonstrator engine, which incorporated the knowledge generated by the joint NASA-industry ATP studies. They started with the power 

section from an Allison 571 industrial gas turbine and a FADEC system derived 

from the Pratt & Whitney PW2037 turbofan. Unlike the GE36 UDF, the 578-

DX’s transmission system consisted of a complex reduction gearbox between 

the low-pressure turbine and the propfan blade. The Pratt & Whitney–Allison 
The Power for Flight

124

team believed that the gearbox, developed in collaboration with NASA, offered 

important advantages and was an overall improvement over earlier designs 

used in turboprops. The 578-DX featured a lighter turbine, a smaller-diameter 

nacelle, and a more efficient match of turbine and propeller rotational speed 

with an estimated 4- to 6-percent increase in efficiency over that of the UDF. 

Flight testing of the 578-DX installed on a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 began 

at Mojave, CA, in April 1989, with an anticipated commercial introduction 

in 1992.66

There was much enthusiasm for these new propeller-driven propulsion 

systems over the course of the 1980s. The March 1985 issue of Popular Science

ran a cover story that asked the seemingly controversial question, “So Long, 

Jets?,” as the aviation industry pondered the possibility that “propellers may 

be on the way back.”67 Despite the obvious economic benefit due to lower fuel 

consumption, NASA and the manufacturers could not simply say that these 

were new propellers. The head of GE Aircraft Engines, Brian Rowe, recognized 

that the public believed that fans found in jet engines were “modern” and that 

the “old technology was propellers”; this knowledge shaped how the developers 

presented the new advances. NASA and its industry partners coined “propfan,” while GE emphatically called their design a fan.68 McDonnell Douglas 

engineers, considering the installation of advanced turboprop engines on the 

MD-80 series of airliners, called them “propulsors.”69

Despite the potential fuel savings and a marketing campaign that attempted 

to overcome the public’s resistance, propfan-driven and UDF-powered aircraft 

did not appear in the 1990s. Issues of technical and economic risk, reliability, 

maintenance, purchase price, and ride quality required further exploration as 

the programs went on permanent hiatus. Michael A. Dornheim, engineering 

editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology, believed that UHB airliners had 

to offer a 10-percent reduction in overall operating costs before airlines would 

seriously consider implementation. With fuel between 50 and 65 cents a gallon, 

there was no incentive to pursue propfan technology. Even if the price of fuel 

rose to $1 a gallon, he felt that the technology was not “quite there” anyway 

and required more development.70 In the end, a drop in oil prices negated the 

need for manufacturers and airlines to reequip with advanced turboprop aircraft that were estimated to cost between $3 and $10 billion to develop. They 

continued to use existing turbofan-powered aircraft.71

The technological achievement of reinventing the turboprop, however, did 

not go unnoticed. The National Aeronautic Association (NAA) awarded NASA 

and its industry partners the 1987 Collier Trophy for the development of an 

advanced turboprop propulsion technology for new, fuel-efficient, subsonic 

aircraft propulsion systems. NASA alone invested approximately $200 million 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

125

in the project. Lewis’s ATP represented the most significant fuel savings and was 

the most revolutionary of all the technologies explored in the ACEE program.72

ACEE in the Big Picture

During the 1970s and 1980s, NASA strove to be the voice that would shape the 

future of aircraft propulsion through its efforts to alleviate fuel consumption, 

noise, and emissions. The three propulsion programs of the ACEE, born out of 

the chaos of the energy crisis, represented a balance between the near, intermediate, and long terms. The ambition and the sheer scope and size of the ACEE 

led one observer to christen it the “Apollo of Aeronautics” for NASA and the 

American aviation industry.73 NASA believed that the programs of the ACEE 

stimulated the industry with an estimated 5-year “jump in technology.”74

NASA funded the ECI and E3 programs to develop technologies suitable 

for energy-efficient turbofans. In both the near and intermediate terms, their 

work at Lewis constituted the most significant contributions to improving fuel 

efficiency for turbofans and commercial aircraft overall.75 The most beneficial 

ACEE program for industry was E3 since it reinforced and improved the existing turbofan paradigm rather than creating an entirely new technology like 

the ATP, which faced considerably more hurdles, not all of them technical. 

E3 allowed engine manufacturers to invest in new innovations at a lower cost. 

Since engine development was a high-risk proposition, Government funding 

and research support made it possible. Both GE and Pratt & Whitney incorporated E3

 high-efficiency turbofan technology into their pioneering GE90 

and PW4000 engines designed for the groundbreaking Boeing 777 airliner 

in 1995.76 Meyer J. Benzakein, the chair of the aerospace engineering department at Ohio State University and a former GE engineer, assessed NASA’s 

impact on jet engine technology before the House Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics in March 2005. To Benzakein, without NASA’s E3 and the earlier 

QEP, GE would not “have had the composite fan blades, the high pressure-ratio 

core, or the low emission double annular combustor that put [the company] 

in a leading position in the industry.”77

The technical legacy of ATP was significant. A new generation of “commuter 

propellers” driving turboprop airliners emerged in the 1990s. With NASA data 

in hand, Hamilton Standard and Hartzell Propeller of Piqua, OH, introduced 

further refinements to the variable-pitch propeller. Advanced electronic control 

allowed for immediate response in flight and on the ground. Echoing trends in 

fuselage construction and duplicating the work on the SR propellers, propeller 

makers engineered blades made from composite materials—which included 

carbon fiber, Kevlar, fiberglass, and foam—that resulted in a 50-percent reduction in weight. These new blades also featured innovative airfoil profiles that 
The Power for Flight

126

benefited, once again, from the pioneering aerodynamic research by NASA in 

the United States. To handle the increased power of turboprop engines, like 

the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 series, without increasing noise or the 

individual diameter or blade width of a propeller, designers chose five- and 

six-blade configurations.78 As for the propfan and UDF, that knowledge and 

technology are “on the shelf” waiting for the next fuel crisis that may potentially push for their justified expense and implementation in the future.79

Perhaps the greatest achievement of the ATP was the collaboration between 

NASA, industry, and academia that advanced the state of the art in turboprop 

technology. Overall, the ATP required the technical expertise of the three 

NASA research Centers and the involvement of both industry and academia. 

Of the 40 contracts to the aviation industry, the primary contractors were GE 

for the UDF, Hamilton Standard for the LAP, and Lockheed-Georgia for the 

PTA. Over 15 grants went out to universities across the United States.80

Improving General and Business Aviation

General aviation constitutes any kind of flying other than scheduled commercial airlines and military aviation. The category represents a myriad of aircraft 

types and airborne activities, including aerial demonstration and sport, agricultural dusting, business travel, cargo transport, firefighting, flight training, 

recreation, and utility operations.

During the 1950s, the NACA’s aeronautical research program focused almost 

entirely on meeting the challenges of high-speed flight during the second aeronautical revolution. It was not until the early 1960s that NASA began to devote 

limited attention to general aviation on a sporadic basis. NASA researchers held 

a series of meetings with general aviation manufacturers in 1967. As a result, 

NASA searched its research database of over 10,000 technical documents for 

new avenues of assistance for that particular sector of American aviation. By 

1970, NASA had initiated studies investigating aerodynamic characteristics, 

control, handling, avionics, and propulsion.81

CARD and Its Impact on NASA-FAA General Aviation Research

The impetus to help general aviation grew stronger in the early 1970s. The 

CARD Policy Study released in 1971 identified general aviation safety as an 

area for Federal Government involvement. The study identified noise and 

emission problems caused by larger general aviation aircraft, but it did not 

anticipate the public concern over the environmental impact of the general 

aviation fleet.82

The mainstream awareness of the environmental impact of flight carried 

over into general aviation. NASA entered into a joint program with the FAA 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

127

and industry to reduce noise and exhaust emissions to meet current and proposed 

standards. The first step was the investigation of minor engine modifications and 

the extent of possible emissions reduction. Another program experimented with 

hydrogen injection. It was believed that the introduction of small amounts of 

gaseous hydrogen into the fuel-air mixture permitted cleaner engine operation 

and reduced fuel consumption. A parallel program begun in 1975 existed for 

small turbofan engines found on business jets and was to lead to new and cleaner 

engine designs.83

Echoing the impetus to make jet engines cleaner in the 1970s, NASA 

directed considerable effort toward reducing emissions from the aircraft piston 

engines that dominated general aviation. With the endorsement of the EPA, 

NASA partnered with the FAA in supporting studies of general aviation piston 

engine emissions and potential ways to reduce them in 1973. They awarded 

grants to engine makers Avco-Lycoming and Teledyne Continental to conduct a three-phase program. Phase I evaluated five different engine types to 

determine the effects of variations in fuel-air ratio on emission levels and other 

operating characteristics such as cooling, misfiring, roughness, power, and 

acceleration. Conceiving minor design modifications to those engines to reduce 

emission levels without degrading desirable operating characteristics constituted Phase II. Phase III involved the testing of those modifications. The staff 

of the FAA’s National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC) near 

Atlantic City, NJ, performed independent checks on Phase I engines, while 

NASA developed new testing equipment at Lewis for basic engine technology studies over the long term. Lewis worked closely with the FAA as the 

two organizations expanded the emissions studies. Through additional grants 

in October 1975, Lycoming and Continental explored advanced emissionreduction technology concepts that included unusual engine configurations 

and cycles that offered the potential of greater fuel economy and lower weight, 

cost, and maintenance.84

NASA’s involvement in the piston engine emissions studies was an example 

of the Agency’s cooperative style. NASA maintained contact with both the 

FAA and the EPA through two channels. At the researcher level, representatives from each organization interacted at the respective facilities in Cleveland, 

Atlantic City, and the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 

(NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, MI. The respective program managers and administrators for each also met in Washington, DC, which enabled Lewis to plan 

NASA’s longer-range activities while complementing the short-term goals of 

the overall project.85

NASA researchers also focused on the propeller to increase noise reduction and efficiency. Influenced by the groundbreaking aerodynamic knowledge of Richard Whitcomb, they incorporated supercritical airfoil shapes into 
The Power for Flight

128

propeller blades. Researchers evaluated a shrouded propeller in Langley’s FullScale Tunnel in 1974, which led to evaluations of a variable-pitch ducted fan 

in 1975. Increased testing resulted in the collection of noise and thrust data on 

two-, three-, and five-blade propellers, which in turn led to greater knowledge 

of free, unshrouded propellers and ducted fans.86

Work on general aviation propellers continued on into the late 1970s and 

1980s. NASA’s general aviation technology program addressed the refinement 

of propeller technology for small aircraft. The Agency conducted numerous 

wind tunnel and flight tests of general aviation propellers to investigate thrust 

efficiency and acoustic characteristics. A joint project between NASA, the 

EPA, Ohio State University, and MIT resulted in a new, quiet general aviation 

propeller design. Tests revealed a flyover noise reduction of 5 decibels, while 

climb performance improved at slower speeds with a tradeoff loss of cruise

speed performance. Researchers in the Lewis 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel evaluated a propeller with the DR Incorporated Pro Wake Survey 

Probe installed. Researchers flight-tested a new design on a Cessna 206 

flight demonstrator.87

Figure 4-9. The Learjet represented a new departure for general aviation, the “bizjet.” (NASA)

QCGAT: Toward the Quiet and Clean Turbofan Engine

The first jet designed specifically for business aviation, the Learjet, first flew in 

October 1963. A new family of “bizjets,” powered by small turbojet and turbofan engines, emerged. By the end of the 1970s, business aircraft accounted for 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

129

38 percent of intercity air passenger traffic in the United States.88 With business 

aviation becoming a growing force in American air travel, NASA searched for 

ways to make a contribution. The Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan 

(QCGAT) engine program initiated by Lewis in 1976 worked to apply NASA’s 

advances in large turbofan noise and emission reduction to the design and 

development of turbofan engines with thrust levels below 5,000 pounds for 

general aviation aircraft without compromising performance. The QCGAT 

program was NASA’s first foray into the area of aeronautical propulsion for 

general aviation.

QCGAT project manager G. Keith Sievers remarked that the program 

“should not be a major constraint on the future growth of turbofan-powered 

aircraft in general aviation.” The program aimed to reduce flyover noise levels 

by between 10 and 14 percent, which amounted to a reduction in perceived 

noisiness between 50 and 60 percent. Overall, Sievers believed the program was 

able to reduce the noise “footprint” of a business jet by 90 percent. Compared 

to a commercial airliner, a business jet was quiet, but NASA wanted to see if it 

could maximize noise reduction even further without degrading overall performance. Once the aircraft application was selected, the effective noise reduction 

goals ended up being 15–20 PNdB below the FAA’s FAR 36 Stage 3 standard.89

Lewis awarded contracts to the Garrett AiResearch Manufacturing 

Company of Phoenix, AZ, and Avco-Lycoming of Stratford, CT, to develop 

the candidate engines. To achieve a reduction in noise and pollution while 

decreasing or maintaining fuel consumption levels, the joint NASA-industry 

team introduced the ideas pioneered in the Quiet Engine and Refan programs 

found only on the largest turbofans. The team reduced the velocity of the 

engine exhaust; redesigned the interior parts of engine to reflect advances 

in acoustics, which included sound-absorbing materials to reduce the noise 

produced by the fan, compressor, and turbine; added internal exhaust mixers; 

and eliminated fan inlet guide vanes.90

By 1979, testing by the manufacturers and at Lewis achieved the primary 

goals of the QCGAT program. There was a significant reduction of engine 

noise and pollutant emissions. The Avco-Lycoming engine exceeded NASA 

goals outright, while the Garrett AiResearch engine achieved them cumulatively. 91 The engine noise profile proved to be 10 to 14 decibels lower than the 

quietest business jet engine at the time, corresponding to a 50- to 60-percent 

reduction in perceived noise. The program also demonstrated a 54-percent 

reduction in carbon monoxide, a 76-percent reduction in unburned hydrocarbons, and significant reductions in nitrogen oxides.92

The theories, techniques, and concepts developed for large turbofan engines 

could be successfully applied to their smaller and less-powerful counterparts. 

Garrett AiResearch went on to apply the advanced acoustic technology of 
The Power for Flight

130

the QCGAT program technology into the fan, low-pressure turbine, exhaust 

nozzle, and nacelle of its latest TFE731 turbofan engine. The compound mixer 

nozzle mixed the bypass and core thrust together before it left the engine, which 

improved thrust while reducing noise and smoke emissions. The improved 

TFE731 entered service in 1983 and became the engine of choice for modernizing existing business jets like the Dassault Falcon and the British Aerospace 

BAe 125 series.93

Figure 4-10. The Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor Facility at Lewis. (NASA)

As part of NASA’s program to advance small gas turbine engine technology, 

Lewis opened the Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor Facility in April 1988. 

Operational compressors in turboprop and turboshaft engines measured a 

small 8 inches in diameter and rotated at high rpm. In a reversal of the tradition 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

131

of building models in anticipation of full-scale tests, Lewis researchers installed 

an oversized, 60-inch steel model compressor that they rotated at a much 

slower 1,920 rpm. The large diameter facilitated the mounting of advanced 

instrumentation, while windows in the side enabled researchers to use the 

laser Doppler velocimeter system to visualize the airflow along the compressor channels. The testing verified advanced computer codes and enabled the 

creation of detailed models that reduced the time required to design future 

generations of fuel-efficient engines intended for helicopters and general aviation and commuter aircraft. As a result, the work conducted there provided a 

more thorough understanding of airflow in the geometrically complex channels 

of a centrifugal compressor.94

Aircraft Propulsion Research in the 1980s: In Sum

At the end of the 1980s, the United States continued to lead the world in 

aeropropulsion technology for military, commercial, and general aviation aircraft. NASA was a significant part of that achievement through the demonstration and introduction of new innovations through the ACEE and general 

aviation program. Lewis continued to serve as NASA’s center of research in 

aeropropulsion technology. The Center hosted approximately 500 high-level 

representatives of aeropropulsion, airframe, and related industries; numerous 

smaller companies; several Government agencies; and the academic world at 

the “Aeropropulsion ’87” conference in November. The purpose of the 3-day 

meeting was to present an unclassified and comprehensive summary of the 

aeropropulsion research accomplished at Lewis during the decade.95

NASA Deputy Associate Administrator Robert Rosen opened the meeting 

with a talk addressing the themes of change and challenge that the Agency 

faced. There had been great achievement in the development of innovative 

propulsion technologies, but he wanted the attendees to take note of what lay 

ahead. Increasing competition with foreign manufacturers, the exponential 

growth of air travel, and dwindling Government budgets threatened America’s 

technical ascendancy. The goal of NASA, and of Lewis, was to make sure 

that the Agency’s aircraft propulsion program accomplished three things: The 

research had to be fundamental and at the leading edge. A successful transfer 

of that knowledge had to be made to industry to reap the benefits. Above all 

else, the cooperation between the Government and the rest of the aeropropulsion community, which included industrial, Government, military, and 

academic partners, had to be as good as it possibly could be. That was the 

only way the “tremendous capability” of Lewis could make aircraft propulsion 

technology better.96
The Power for Flight

132

Endnotes

1. James C. Tanners, “Fueling Inflation: Sharp Increases Seen in Prices 

of Gasoline and Most Other Fuels,” Wall Street Journal (October 31, 

1973): 1.

2. Richard Witkin, “Government Control of Jet Fuel May Lead to 10 

Percent Cut in Flights,” New York Times (October 13, 1973): 36.

3. Roy D. Hager and Deborah Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-495, 1988), p. v.

4. John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight, 7th ed. (New York: 

McGraw-Hill, 2012), pp. 46–49. For John Anderson, “farther,” or 

distance, is a result of design requirements for specific aircraft and is 

not as fundamental a performance parameter as “higher” (altitude) and 

“faster” (speed).

5. Harrington, “Leaner and Greener: Fuel Efficiency Takes Flight,” p. 817.

6. United States Senate, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 

United States Senate, 1958–1976 (Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1977), pp. 9, 56–57, 85–86.

7. “Halving of Fuel Needs for Jetliners Is Seen,” Washington Post (February 

7, 1975): A9.

8. NASA Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, “Aircraft Fuel 

Conservation Technology Task Force Report,” NASA Technical 

Memorandum No. X-74295 (September 10, 1975), pp. 18–53. 

Predecessors to the ACEE program included the Advanced Transport 

Technology (ATT) and the Energy Trends and Alternate Fuels (ETAF) 

programs of the mid-1970s. ATT addressed cruise aerodynamics, the 

area-rule fuselage, supercritical airfoils, composite materials, active controls, and advanced propulsion technology. ETAF investigated laminar 

flow control and winglets and supported propulsion studies focusing on 

engine cycle, refined and new component technology, and the construction of advanced turbofan demonstrators. GE and Pratt & Whitney 

both received contracts to study fuel efficiency and explore advanced 

unconventional engine concepts. Ethell, Fuel Economy in Aviation, 

pp. 6–7.

9. Mark D. Bowles, The “Apollo” of Aeronautics: NASA’s Aircraft Energy 

Efficiency Program, 1973–1987 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2009-

574, 2010), pp. 16, 23–24.

10. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. xiii, xv.

11. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 398.

12. Those three ACEE programs, composite structures, the Energy Efficient 

Transport, and laminar flow control fall outside the boundaries of this 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

133

study but were equally important components of the push toward aircraft efficiency.

13. D.L. Nored, “Propulsion,” Astronautics and Aeronautics 16 (July–

August 1978): 47; J.M. Klineberg, “Technology for Aircraft Energy 

Efficiency,” Paper A79-14126 03-03 in Proceedings of the International 

Air Transportation Conference, Washington, D.C., April 4–6, 1977

(New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1977), pp. 127–171; 

Mark D. Bowles and Virginia P. Dawson, “The Advanced Turboprop 

Project: Radical Innovation in a Conservative Environment,” in From 

Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy 

Research Project Winners, ed. Pamela E. Mack (Washington, DC: NASA, 

1998), p. 324.

14. Donald Nored, quoted in Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. xiii.

15. John E. McAulay, “Engine Component Improvement Program: 

Performance Improvement,” AIAA-80-0223 (paper presented at the 

12th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 14–16, 1980), p. 1.

16. McAulay, “Engine Component Improvement Program: Performance 

Improvement,” pp. 1, 5.

17. A.J. Albright, D.J. Lennard, and J.A. Ziemanski, “NASA/General Electric 

Engine Component Improvement Program” (paper presented at the 14th 

AIAA/SAE Joint Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, NV, July 25–27, 

1978), p. 1, available online at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=

19780061189&hterms=propulsion+lewis+1979&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%

2520matchallpartial%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DPublication-Date%

7C0%26N%3D0%26No%3D40%26Ntt%3Dpropulsion%2520lewis%

25201979 (accessed August 18, 2013).

18. GE Aviation, “The CF6 Engine Family,” 2012, at http://www.geaviation.

com/engines/commercial/cf6/ (accessed August 18, 2013).

19. Pratt & Whitney Media Relations, “JT8D Engine Family: The Low-Cost 

Performer,” October 2012, at http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/JT8D_

Engine/pdf/B-1-7_commercial_jt8d.pdf (accessed August 18, 2013).

20. Pratt & Whitney Media Relations, “Pratt & Whitney’s JT9D Engine 

Family,” October 2012, http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/JT9D_Engine/

pdf/B-1-8_commercial_jt9d.pdf (accessed August 18, 2013).

21. W.O. Gaffin, “NASA ECI Programs: Benefits to Pratt & Whitney 

Engines” (paper presented at the 27th ASME International Gas Turbine 

Conference and Exhibit, London, England, April 18–22, 1982), available online at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19820051913 (accessed 

August 18, 2013).
The Power for Flight

134

22. McAulay, “Engine Component Improvement Program: Performance 

Improvement,” pp. 5, 9. Specific fuel consumption was the weight of 

the fuel consumed per pound of thrust per hour.

23. Louis J. Williams, Small Transport Aircraft Technology (Washington, DC: 

NASA, 1983; repr., Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2001), 

pp. 37–38.

24. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. 77–78.

25. “Fuel Per Passenger-Mile,” NASA HQ RA76-336, August 13, 1975, 

NASA HRC, file 011151.

26. Ethell, Fuel Economy in Aviation, pp. 29–30.

27. Ibid., p. 30; Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 79.

28. Ethell, Fuel Economy in Aviation, p. 31.

29. Ibid., p. 31.

30. Carl C. Ciepluch, Donald Y. Davis, and David E. Gray, “Results of 

NASA’s Energy Efficient Engine Program,” Journal of Propulsion and 

Power 3 (November–December 1987): 562–567; St. Peter, History of 

Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 399.

31. Ciepluch, Davis, and Gray, “Results of NASA’s Energy Efficient Engine 

Program,” p. 561; St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine 

Development, p. 402; Daniel E. Sokolowski and John E. Rohde, “The 

E3 Combustors: Status and Challenges,” NASA TM-82684, July 1981; 

D.L. Burrus, C.A. Chahrour, H.L. Foltz, P.E. Sabla, S.P. Seto, and J.R. 

Taylor, “Combustion System Component Technology Performance 

Report,” NASA CR 168274, July 1984.

32. D.Y. Davis and E.M. Stearns, “Energy Efficient Engine: Flight 

Propulsion System Final Design and Analysis [GE Design],” NASA 

CR-168219, August 1985, pp. 1–8, 147.

33. Ciepluch, Davis, and Gray, “Results of NASA’s Energy Efficient Engine 

Program,” pp. 565–567.

34. Ibid., p. 567.

35. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal Research and 

Technology for Aviation, OTA-ETI-610 (Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1994), p. 78.

36. David Field, “Engine Makers in Three-Sided ‘War’ To Provide Power 

for Boeing 777,” Washington Times (May 17, 1994): B7, B12; St. Peter, 

History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 398.

37. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, “Pratt & Whitney 

PW 4098 Turbofan Engine,” 2007, Registrar’s File 20070002000. 

38. “Boeing 777-300ER Performs 330-Minute ETOPS Flight,” October 

15, 2003, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boeing-777-300erperforms-330-minute-etops-flight-72530852.html (accessed January 15, 
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

135

2016); GE Aviation, “The GE90 Engine Family,” 2012, http://

www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ (accessed June 30, 2013).

39. Craig Schmittman, “Ultra High Bypass (UHB),” Aerospace-Defense News

(1989), available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxVAaIsfPIY

(accessed July 5, 2013).

40. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. 122–123; Bowles and Dawson, 

“The Advanced Turboprop Project,” pp. 321, 323; Hager and Vrabel, 

Advanced Turboprop Project, p. 2.

41. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 122.

42. “Aircraft Fuel Conservation Technology Task Force Report,” p. 44.

43. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. 122, 125–126; Hager and Vrabel, 

Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 6–10.

44. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. 127–128; Hager and Vrabel, 

Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 11–42.

45. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, pp. 127–128; Hager and Vrabel, 

Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 43–48.

46. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 128; Hager and Vrabel, Advanced 

Turboprop Project, pp. 52, 55.

47. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 56–57.

48. Ibid., p. 57. See also ONERA, “S1MA-Continuous-Flow Wind Tunnel,” 

2009, http://windtunnel.onera.fr/s1ma-continuous-flow-wind-tunnelatmospheric-mach-005-mach-1.

49. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, p. 59.

50. Ibid., pp. 60, 62.

51. Ibid., pp. 63, 65.

52. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 128; Hager and Vrabel, Advanced 

Turboprop Project, p. 67.

53. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 69, 71.

54. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 133; Hager and Vrabel, Advanced 

Turboprop Project, pp. 71–74.

55. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, p. 75.

56. Ibid., p. 76.

57. Ibid., pp. 77–79.

58. Philip Schultz, quoted in Craig Schmittman, “Ultra High Bypass (UHB).”

59. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 84, 86.

60. Ibid., pp. 86–87.

61. Ibid., pp. 80–82, 88–90.

62. Ibid., pp. 91–93.

63. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 93–97.

64. GE Aviation, “Aircraft Engine History and Technology,” 2009, http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lip8lPWFLo (accessed July 2, 2013).
The Power for Flight

136

65. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. 98–101.

66. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, p. 101; “Whatever 

Happened to Propfans?” Flightglobal, June 12, 2007, http://www.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/whatever-happened-to-propfans-214520/

(accessed July 2, 2013).

67. Jim Schefter, “New Blades Make Prop Liners as Fast as Jets,” Popular 

Science 226 (March 1985): 66.

68. Martha M. Hamilton, “Firms Give Propellers a New Spin,” Washington 

Post (February 8, 1987): H1.

69. Greg Johnson, “Something New for Airliners: Propellers,” Los Angeles 

Times (June 16, 1986): SD-C1.

70. Michael A. Dornheim, quoted in Craig Schmittman, “Ultra High 

Bypass (UHB).”

71. “Whatever Happened to Propfans?”

72. Bowles and Dawson, “The Advanced Turboprop Project,” p. 342; 

Johnson, “Something New for Airliners: Propellers”; Hager and Vrabel, 

Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. vi–vii.

73. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. xx.

74. Ethell, Fuel Economy in Aviation, p. 30.

75. Bowles, “Apollo” of Aeronautics, p. 60.

76. GE Aviation, “Aircraft Engine History and Technology”; Reddy, 

“Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at NASA Glenn Research 

Center,” p. 202.

77. Dr. Mike J. Benzakein, “The Future of Aeronautics at NASA,” statement before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee 

on Science, House of Representatives, in Cong. Rec., 109th Cong., 1st 

sess., serial no. 109-8, March 16, 2005, available at http://commdocs.

house.gov/committees/science/hsy20007.000/hsy20007_0.HTM (accessed 

September 12, 2014); Miller, “NASA,” p. H12545.

78. Patrick Hassell, “A History of the Development of the Variable Pitch 

Propeller” (paper presented before the Royal Aeronautical Society, 

Hamburg Branch, Hamburg, Germany, April 26, 2012); George 

Rosen, Thrusting Forward: A History of the Propeller (Windsor Locks, 

CT: United Technologies Corporation, 1984), pp. 84–90.

79. Bowles and Dawson, “The Advanced Turboprop Project,” p. 342.

80. Hager and Vrabel, Advanced Turboprop Project, pp. iii, 105.

81. “General Aviation Technology Program,” NASA News Release 75-65, 

March 1975, available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.

gov/19770074219_1977074219.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.
The Quest for Propulsive Efficiency, 1976–1989

137

84. Joseph P. Allen to Charles F. Lombard, March 22, 1976, NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

85. Ibid.

86. “General Aviation Technology Program,” NASA News Release 75-65.

87. Williams, Small Transport Aircraft Technology, pp. 40–41.

88. “Test Engines Promise Less Noise from Small Aircraft,” NASA News 

Release 79-24, March 2, 1979, NASA HRC, file 012336.

89. “Quieter Engines for Small Aircraft Possible, Tests Show,” Aviation 

Week & Space Technology 16 (March 16, 1979): 1; R.W. Koenig and 

G.K. Sievers, “Preliminary QCGAT Program Test Results,” NASA 

TM-79013, 1979; Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft 

Noise Research,” p. 250.

90. “Test Engines Promise Less Noise from Small Aircraft.”

91. R.W. Heldenbrand and W.M. Norgren, AiResearch QCGAT Program, 

NASA-CR-159758, 1979, p. 3; J. German, P. Fogel, and C. Wilson, 

“Design and Evaluation of an Integrated Quiet Clean General Aviation 

Turbofan (QCGAT) Engine and Aircraft Propulsion System,” NASA 

CR-165185, 1980.

92. Mary Fitzpatrick, “Highlights of 1979 Activities: Year of the Planets,” 

NASA News Release 79-179, December 27, 1979, p. 18.

93. Richard A. Leyes II and William A. Fleming, The History of North 

American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines (Reston, VA: AIAA, 1999), 

pp. 683–684, 723–724.

94. Jerry R. Wood, Paul W. Adam, and Alvin E. Buggele, “NASA LowSpeed Centrifugal Compressor for Fundamental Research,” NASA 

TM-83398, June 1983, p. 1; photo 88-H-123, April 14, 1988, NASA 

HRC, file 011151.

95. Aeropropulsion ’87: Proceedings of a Conference Held at NASA Lewis 

Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, November 17–19, 1987, NASA 

CP-3049, 1990, pp. iii, 13.

96. Robert Rosen, “The 1987 Aeropropulsion Conference: Change and 

Challenge,” in Aeropropulsion ’87, pp. 1–12.
138

Dryden researchers used a NASA F-15 to test the Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) 

system from 1981 to 1983. (NASA)
139

CHAPTER 5

Propulsion Control Enters the 

Computer Era, 1976–1998

Through the first half of the 20th century, engine diagnostic systems primarily 

consisted of a pilot physically monitoring gauges indicating oil pressure, 

temperature, and fuel capacity on the instrument panel. That basic humanmachine interface evolved into the development of automated onboard 

diagnostic systems. Those new systems assessed engine health and recorded 

data for postflight troubleshooting and maintenance through the use of 

mathematical models.

Engine Controls from the Piston Engine 

to the Afterburning Turbofan

The configuration of piston engine control systems up to the early 1930s 

reflected a direct and simple approach that was, at its core, similar to that of 

other internal combustion engine systems. The pilot manipulated the throttle 

to set the amount of power needed. Carburetors or fuel injectors metered the 

appropriate amount of fuel to the engine’s combustion chambers. As airflow 

for combustion and flight conditions changed, the system maintained the 

power at the desired level.1

The introduction of the jet engine in the 1940s brought new challenges. The 

parallel rise of aviation electronics created new avenues that enabled growing 

sophistication, increased capability, and better control of the new technology. 

That development represented four phases during the latter half of the 20th 

century. The initial phase, from 1942 to 1949, witnessed the first steps toward 

new control systems and highlighted the limitations of existing technology. The 

growth phase marked the rise of practical applications of military and commercial jet aircraft from 1950 to 1969. The electronic phase, from 1970 to 1989, 

witnessed the pioneering introduction of new and revolutionary engine control 

systems, while the period 1990 to 2002 marked their increased integration.2

The first U.S. jet engine, the British-derivative centrifugal-flow GE I-A, 

featured a hydro-mechanical governor upon its introduction in 1942. The 

governor metered the fuel flow going into the engine to be proportional to 
The Power for Flight

140

the difference between the speed set by the pilot and the actual speed of the 

turbine. A minimum-flow stop in the fuel-metering valve prevented “flameout,” or the extinguishing of ignition in the combustion chamber, caused by a 

pilot’s incorrect throttle setting or overzealous acceleration. A maximum flow 

schedule prevented the engine from going too fast or overheating. This system 

possessed the basic components for controlling a single-spool turbojet engine 

during the early days of the Jet Age.3

Figure 5-1. Pictured is the North American F-86D Sabre. (United States Air Force via National 

Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM 74-3342)

In 1948, GE introduced its new J47 turbojet. It became the first axial-flow 

engine approved for commercial use in the United States, as well as a mainstay engine for the American military through the early Jet Age into the late 

1960s. The most notable applications included the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, the 

first operational jet bomber for the Strategic Air Command, and the MiGmastering North American F-86 Sabre of Korean War fame. The engine featured a standard and reliable hydro-mechanical fuel control for its combustion 

chambers. In a variant used on the F-86D, K, and L interceptors, the J47 

incorporated a thrust-increasing afterburner, one of the earliest engines to do 

so. The afterburner’s electronic fuel control relied upon fragile vacuum tubes 

for operation, which proved unsatisfactory in the harsh environment of the 

turbojet, characterized by high heat and vibration. In collaboration with GE, 

NACA researchers at Lewis conducted testing in the Altitude Wing Tunnel 

(AWT) that revealed a solution to the problem. GE first utilized frequency 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

141

response techniques to control the J47 afterburner. NACA testing indicated 

that noise in the speed sensor, coupled with the high gain of the speed governor, limited the operation of the engine. GE and NACA engineers used the 

time-domain step response analysis method to fix the problem by reducing the 

control gain at altitude. The industry-Government cooperation established a 

knowledge base for the design of newer and better engine controls.4

Edward W. Otto and Burt L. Taylor III at Lewis studied the behavior of 

single-shaft turbojet engines in 1948. They focused on shaft speed because 

it was nearly equivalent to thrust and could be easily and more accurately 

measured. Otto and Taylor learned that the transfer function from fuel flow 

to engine speed, regarded as the dynamic characteristic of a turbojet engine, 

could be represented by a first-order lag linear system with a time constant.5

Engine capabilities increased in the 1950s with new twin-spool turbojets 

like the Collier Trophy–winning Pratt & Whitney J57 and high-compressionratio, bypass-flow turbofans. Engine control technologies followed suit. The 

state of engine control technology matured to incorporate variable-geometry 

controls at the compressor stator, intake, and nozzle. The increased complication posed challenges to effective evaluation by testing alone. A development 

that took place outside of aviation, the introduction of increasingly sophisticated computer technology, facilitated the use of computer-based real-time 

dynamic simulations for engine control design and analysis. Researchers James 

R. Ketchum and R.T. Craig at Lewis initiated this work with electronic analog 

computers in the early 1950s. They simulated the response of a turbojet engine 

to a step change in fuel flow and validated the results, which proved applicable 

to different types of gas turbine engines.6

 That first step toward the accurate 

simulation of complex engine dynamic behavior led to further advancements 

that kept the cost and time involved in control design development and validation in line with those of other technologies.7

 In other words, efficient engine 

control would not be a bottleneck in the development of new aircraft. By the 

late 1960s, researchers were contemplating moving beyond traditional control systems and architectures to new ones making use of emergent powerful, 

lightweight airborne computers.

The Advent of Digital Electronic Engine Control

The advent of stability augmentation had stimulated controls research that 

evolved into electronic flight control. Research in the 1950s had led to evermore-heavily “augmented” aircraft that preceded the genuine “fly-by-wire” 

aircraft of the 1970s–1980s pioneered by NASA.8 First applied to aircraft flight 

controls, electronic control then migrated to propulsion controls as well. The 

introduction of more powerful and sophisticated military and commercial 
The Power for Flight

142

turbofans in the 1970s and 1980s taxed the capabilities of decades-old hydromechanical engine control systems. To continue with them meant increasing 

their size, weight, and expense, which introduced ramifications regarding the 

design and performance of the aircraft overall.9

Integrated Propulsion Control, Highly Integrated Digital 

Electronic Control, and Adaptive Engine Control

At the request of the U.S. Air Force, NASA researchers at the Dryden Flight 

Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert of California 

and at Lewis had assisted in the development and flight test of the first digital integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) to be flown in an aircraft in 

1976. The team, which included Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and Honeywell, 

selected an F-111 as the platform for two primary reasons. First, the aircraft 

featured a variable-geometry inlet and two afterburning turbofans, which 

allowed experimentation with the left-side engine while the other remained 

unaltered to ensure flight safety. Second, the IPCS proved capable of duplicating the standard hydro-mechanical inlet and engine controls that manipulated 

the inlet spike and expanding the cone, fuel supply, compressor bleed, and 

nozzle area. Flight tests in 1976 exhibited faster throttle response, increased 

thrust, extended range at Mach 1.8, and—perhaps most importantly for the 

F-111—stall-free operation. The success of the IPCS in enhancing propulsion 

systems in terms of efficiency, operability, reliability, and maintenance led to 

the widespread use of digital inlet-engine controls technology in both military 

and commercial aircraft.10

As well, NASA used its F-15 to investigate and demonstrate a new method 

of obtaining optimum aircraft performance with computer-controlled engines 

called Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control (HIDEC).11 The experimental program explored new innovations to improve engine diagnostics, 

control, and efficiency. The major components of HIDEC were a Digital 

Electronic Flight Control System (DEFCS), a Digital Electronic Engine 

Control (DEEC), an onboard general-purpose computer, and an integrated 

architecture that allowed all of the components to interact with each other.12

A full-authority DEEC regulated the operation of the F-15’s PW1128 

turbofan. The DEEC scheduled and maintained the engine operating point 

through the use of two main control loops. The first used the main burner fuel 

flow to regulate the low rotor speed. The second controlled engine pressure with 

actuation of the nozzle throat area. The DEEC also controlled the front and rear 

compressor variable vanes. The system monitored seven individual parameters: 

fan and high-pressure compressor speed, engine face and fan turbine inlet 

temperature, and engine face, burner, and augmenter pressure. An RS-422 

universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) bus transmitted the data 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

143

to onboard computers for processing by a priority-selected cache algorithm.13

In addition to the mechanical and analog electronic flight control system found 

on operational U.S. Air Force F-15s, the F-15 HIDEC also had a dual-channel, 

fail-safe digital flight control system. Engineers could program it using any of 

the major computer languages, including Pascal, Ada, and FORTRAN. H009 

and Military Standard 1553B data buses linked all of the electronic systems 

together.14 The DEEC program was a major step in increased computer control 

of key engine functions. The Air Force specified them for the F100 engines 

powering the F-15 and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters, and 

Pratt & Whitney incorporated them into the new PW2037 turbofans that 

powered the Boeing 757 airliner.15

Figure 5-2. NASA, the Air Force, Boeing, Honeywell, and Pratt & Whitney used the prototype 

F-111E for integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) flights from 1975 to 1976. (NASA)

A critical problem to increased jet engine performance was compressor 

stall. NASA began to address the problem in 1983 with the development of 

the Adaptive Engine Control System (ADECS). The integrated and computerized flight and engine control systems monitored the engine stall margin—the 

amount that engine operating pressures needed to be reduced to provide a 

margin of safety—based on the flight profile and real-time performance needs. 

That information allowed the ADECS to maximize engine performance that 

would otherwise be held in reserve to meet the stall margin requirement. 

In essence, the ADECS exchanged excess engine stall margin for improved 
The Power for Flight

144

performance. As a result, the ADECS increased thrust, reduced fuel usage, 

and lowered engine operating temperatures.16

Figure 5-3. The F-15 HIDEC is shown in flight over the Mojave Desert. (NASA)

ADECS research and demonstration flights began at Dryden in 1986. The 

F-15 displayed increased engine thrust from 8 to 10.5 percent at 10,000 and 

30,000 feet, respectively, and up to 16 percent lower fuel consumption at 

30,000 feet. The increased engine thrust improved the rate of climb 14 percent 

at 40,000 feet and reduced time to climb from 10,000 feet to 40,000 feet by 

13 percent. Increases of 5 to 24 percent in acceleration were also experienced at 

intermediate and maximum power settings, depending upon altitude. Overall, 

engine performance improvements in terms of rate of climb and specific excess 

power were in the range of 10 to 25 percent at maximum afterburning power. 

The research pilots tried to induce stalls to validate the ADECS methodology, 

but no amount of aggressive maneuvering could cause one.17

Performance Seeking Control: Progressing Beyond HIDEC and ADECS

The integration phase of the history of engine control systems from 1990 to 

2002 saw dual-channel FADEC systems become the standard for jet engines.18

Another NASA F-15 HIDEC flight research program that worked to optimize 

overall engine operation was the Performance Seeking Control (PSC) project, 

which began during the summer of 1990. Previous control modes used on the 

HIDEC aircraft utilized stored schedules of optimum engine pressure ratios for 

an average engine on a normal day. PSC used highly advanced techniques that 

identified the condition of the engine components and optimized the overall 

system for best efficiency based on the actual engine and flight conditions 

encountered on a given day. Specifically, the new system employed integrated 

control laws to use the digital flight, inlet, and engine control systems to ensure 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

145

the availability of peak engine and maneuvering performance at all times. The 

overall result was that PSC reduced fuel usage at cruise conditions, maximized 

excess thrust during accelerations and climbs, and extended engine life by 

reducing the fan turbine inlet temperature. A byproduct was the capability to 

monitor the degradation of engine components. When combined with regularly scheduled preventative maintenance, the PSC enabled greater operational 

efficiencies and longevity for high-performance aircraft.19

The PSC system could be applied to a wide variety of aircraft but was 

especially suited to high-performance military aircraft. Pratt & Whitney used 

the self-tuning onboard model in its advanced engine controllers, including 

those on the F119-PW-100 engine used on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 

aircraft. The manufacturer applied other aspects of HIDEC technology in the 

improved F100-PW-229, the most widely used fighter engine in the world, 

to increase performance and operational longevity. The flight demonstration 

and evaluation performed at NASA Dryden in the F-15 HIDEC contributed 

to the rapid transition of the technology into operational use.20

Figure 5-4. Shown is the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. (U.S. Air Force)

Response to Tragedy: 

Toward Propulsion-Controlled Aircraft

A series of aircraft accidents through the 1970s and 1980s illustrated the need 

for better methods of flight control. One of the surprising outcomes was the 
The Power for Flight

146

demonstration of how engine throttle manipulation could alleviate the problem as a “last resort” flight control system.

In April 1975, a U.S. Air Force Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transport evacuating 

300 orphans from Saigon, Vietnam, as part of Operation Babylift, lost all flight 

controls in the tail after the rear bulkhead failed. Left with only roll control, 

the pilots used their throttles to regain limited pitch (up and down) control 

authority. The giant transport entered into a motion called a phugoid, a roller 

coaster–like oscillation of pitching up and slow climbing followed by pitching 

down and rapidly descending. Despite the crew’s best efforts, the lumbering 

transport crashed on approach to Tan Son Nhut Air Force Base, causing the 

loss of 139 on board; tragically, many of the dead were young children and 

infants being evacuated.

A decade later, in August 1985, Japan Airlines Flight 123 suffered an 

explosive decompression in the rear fuselage after taking off from Tokyo 

International Airport. The decompression blew most of the vertical stabilizer 

away and disabled all hydraulic control. The crew flew the uncontrollable 747 

with the throttles and electrically actuated flaps for half an hour before the 

plane disastrously crashed into Mount Takamagahara, resulting in the loss of 

all 520 people on board. Overall, more than 1,100 crew and passengers died 

following the failure or destruction of hydraulic control systems by 1996. 

Other flights encountered close calls that were just as terrifying. In one case, in 

April 1977, after a horizontal stabilizer jammed, the crew of a Delta Air Lines 

Lockheed L-1011 avoided a stall by using their throttle controls to change the 

aircraft’s pitch, managing to land safely.21

A major wake-up call came during the summer of 1989. At 2:09 p.m. on the 

afternoon of July 19, United Airlines (UAL) Flight 232, a McDonnell Douglas 

DC-10, rose swiftly from Denver’s Stapleton International Airport, bound for 

Chicago. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 was a tri-jet with an engine on each 

wing and in a nacelle integrated into the vertical fin of the aircraft. At first all 

went well, and the big jetliner climbed to its cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. 

Then, at 3:16 p.m., a loud bang followed by vibration and shuddering alerted 

the crew that the plane had just experienced a catastrophic engine failure. The 

fan disk in the center GE CF6 engine had disintegrated because of an undetected fatigue crack, scattering shrapnel that disabled all hydraulic systems 

used for aircraft control. Consequently, the plane’s control columns and rudder 

pedals were useless. It seemed certain that the plane would shortly plunge 

7 miles to Earth, killing all aboard in a horrific crash.22

The determined and courageous flight crew—Captain Alfred C. Haynes, 

First Officer William R. Records, Second Officer Dudley J. Dvorak, and 

Training Check Airman Captain Dennis E. Fitch—were not about to give 

up, and for not quite 45 minutes, they ingeniously controlled the DC-10 as 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

147

best they could by manipulating the thrust of the two remaining engines on the 

wings. They overcame the challenge of compensating for oscillations in pitch 

and roll by manipulating the engine throttles as they tried to make their way 

to Sioux City, IA, for an emergency landing. But despite their best efforts, the 

ailing DC-10 could not be controlled with any degree of precision. Thus, at 

4:00 p.m., as the crippled airliner approached to land, its right wingtip touched 

the ground first, followed by the right landing gear. The DC-10 then skidded, 

rolled over, burst into flame, and cartwheeled across the runway, coming to 

a rest, blazing furiously. Of the 296 people on board, 111 were killed and a 

further 172 injured, 47 seriously (one of whom died a month later).23 The 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that no amount of 

training could prepare other aircrew to cope successfully in a similar situation 

with existing equipment and encouraged the research and development of a 

backup flight control system. “Under the circumstances,” the Safety Board 

concluded, “the UAL flightcrew performance was highly commendable and 

greatly exceeded reasonable expectations.”24

The Sioux City crash was a tragedy, and in its accident report, the NTSB 

recommended “research and development of backup flight control systems 

for newly certificated wide-body airplanes that utilize an alternative source 

of motive power separate from that source used for the conventional control 

system.”25 The response from NASA was typical of the Agency’s search for 

solutions to common challenges and problems facing the operation of aircraft. From the 1970s until the end of the 20th century, NASA flight research 

conducted at Dryden contributed to the development and demonstration of 

advanced integrated flight and propulsion control system technologies that 

contributed to the maneuverability, fuel efficiency, and safety of new generations of aircraft. Once again, the research airplane became just as an important 

a tool for NASA’s work in propulsion as the computer and wind tunnel.26

During a commercial flight to St. Louis shortly after the Sioux City disaster 

in 1989, Frank W. “Bill” Burcham, the Chief Propulsion Engineer at Dryden, 

started to ponder whether there was a solution: a backup landing technique—

one that relied solely upon the thrust of its engines—for an aircraft that had 

lost its flight controls. The key was using digital engine control computers 

found in contemporary airliners. Burcham sketched on a cocktail napkin the 

basic system that became the propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) concept. 

Beginning with the control stick, the system went to a DEFCS computer, 

then individually to the right and left engines, which then routed to the F-15 

HIDEC. A connection between the DEFCS and HIDEC kept the system 

integrated. By the end of the flight, Burcham and his fellow traveler, NASA 

project manager Jim Stewart, had a test program outlined.27
The Power for Flight

148

Figure 5-5. Bill Burcham’s sketch of the PCA concept. (NASA)

Burcham’s goal was to create a backup landing system—based solely on the 

thrust of an aircraft’s engines—for aircraft that had lost their flight controls. 

The key was using technology already found in the latest aircraft: digital flight 

and engine control computers. The question was whether that equipment 

could be utilized for that purpose. PCA amounted to a reconfiguration program where Burcham and Stewart’s team replaced traditional means of control 

with a new system based on engine thrust.28

The first step in the program was to ascertain if a pilot could alter the 

course of an airplane through the use of engine throttles, or Throttles Only 

Control (TOC). By manipulating the throttles, a pilot could maneuver the 

airplane with two forms of thrust. Collective thrust controlled flightpath, or 

lateral control, while differential thrust controlled bank angle.29 Starting in the 

simulator, Burcham had the F-15’s controls locked in place. A pilot himself, 

he maneuvered the aircraft using only the engine throttles. He advanced one 

throttle and retarded the other to roll the aircraft. Pushing both throttles forward pitched the nose up. Pushing them back dipped the nose down. After a 

few crashes, Burcham was able to safely land the F-15 in the simulator.30
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

149

The software model of an aircraft and its flying environment found in a 

simulation offered flight experience without the risks of actually being in the 

air. Besides the airplane’s various systems, including the propulsion system, the 

simulator included an airport and weather, which all amounted to “an elaborate 

video game” for the research team. “Flying” the Dryden Boeing 720 simulator 

revealed that a PCA aircraft suffered from a lethargic response of the engines 

to control inputs during TOC.31

PCA firmly straddled both worlds of flight control and propulsion research. 

In response, both communities were lukewarm to the idea initially, and it 

played to very mixed reviews. One initially skeptical engineer remembered, 

“PCA wasn’t intuitively obvious,” while another labeled it as “hare-brained!” 

NASA Headquarters feared premature regulatory action by Federal agencies 

centered on safety that would curtail manufacturer interest and development before the idea could be fully explored. They advised Dryden Director 

Ken Szalai to discontinue work on PCA.32

Nevertheless, the work continued, and it fortified the reasons for the program. The addition of well-known research pilot and former Space Shuttle 

astronaut C. Gordon Fullerton to the team instantly added credibility. He 

experienced the same problems with the lethargic response of the controls. If 

pilots continued to use the control stick, they would expect the same quick 

response as from traditional flight controls, which could lead to fatal errors 

from over- or under-compensation. Fullerton suggested a new control system 

based on the twin thumbwheels used in autopilot systems. One wheel controlled lateral movement while the other offered longitudinal movement. To 

answer the concern over what would happen to a PCA-controlled aircraft in 

bad weather, Dryden engineer Joe Conley designed and incorporated an instrument landing system (ILS) component.33

PCA in Flight Test: The F-15 and MD-11 Experience

With an influx of funds from the Air Force, Burcham went in search of a 

research aircraft for the project. NASA Dryden’s extensively instrumented 

McDonnell Douglas F-15 could be employed for the tests, and the F-15 simulator at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis would be available for setup and 

preparation of the flight-test program. Earlier projects had left the aircraft 

loaded with test instrumentation from programs like HIDEC, as well as two 

computer systems, a digital flight control computer (FCC) and DEEC, which 

were programmable and capable of communicating with each other in flight. 

Researchers incorporated interim control-system software to produce a slower 

engine response at low power settings to emulate the characteristics of highbypass turbofan engines. But there was a disadvantage with the F-15 as well, 

in that the close proximity—just 1 foot—between the two Pratt & Whitney 
The Power for Flight

150

engines was not ideal for controlling and evaluating the differential thrust 

between the left and right power plants.34

The first dedicated TOC flight took place on July 2, 1991. Nearly 2 years 

later, the program realized a significant achievement when Fullerton landed 

the F-15 using only engine power to turn, climb, and descend on April 21, 

1993. Fullerton descended in the F-15 in a shallow approach to approximately 

20 feet above the runway. The rate of descent increased dramatically, but the 

veteran test pilot brought the aircraft down safely and effectively proved the 

capability of the PCA system. Burcham remarked that while the technology 

was proven for incorporation into future aircraft designs, he hoped “it never 

has to be used.”35 A series of guest pilots from industry and the military went 

on to fly the F-15 in a series of trial approaches and go-arounds, and their 

enthusiasm for PCA was unanimous.36

Figure 5-6. Gordon Fullerton uses only engine power to land the NASA F-15 at Dryden on 

April 21, 1993. (NASA)

The next step in the program concerned expanding the flight research program to include an actual multi-engine airliner, the type of aircraft Burcham 

and the rest of the team originally envisioned for PCA. That required the 

expansion of institutional involvement beyond Dryden. During December 

1992, industry and airline executives, Government administrators, and NASA 

Center Directors met in Washington, DC. Dwain Deets, acting Director of 

Dryden Research Engineering, and Burcham presented the case for PCA. They 

faced resistance within and outside NASA. They had to navigate internal NASA 

resistance to PCA, which came mostly from Langley. The Center in Tidewater 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

151

Virginia was traditionally the facility that investigated problems in subsonic 

aeronautics. Second, they needed the endorsement of industry. Boeing especially had been unconvinced of the potential of PCA. Bob Whitehead, Director 

of Subsonic Transportation in the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology 

(OAST), who convened the meeting, believed that industry had to support 

the project for it to receive the appropriate funding and move forward. He 

introduced the topic and set in motion a roundtable discussion of the program. 

At the end of the meeting, everyone was in agreement that the PCA project 

should move forward. They created a full-fledged Government-industry collaborative project with $2.5 million in funding.37

McDonnell Douglas became the primary contractor. The company built the 

latest-generation airliners, which were a perfect example of the type of aircraft 

that needed PCA. The MD-11 was a three-engine wide-body airliner derived 

from the earlier DC-10, but with the latest computerized full flight control 

system and digital engine controls. The company started with simulations, to 

which the initial reactions were very good.38

Figure 5-7. In August 1995, Gordon Fullerton brings the MD-11 in for the first PCA landing of 

an airliner. (NASA)

With the help of Drew Pappas, McDonnell Douglas project manager, the 

project received an MD-11 for flight testing. The first PCA flight over the 

manufacturer’s Yuma, AZ, facility occurred on August 27, 1995. The pilots 

climbed to 10,000 feet and turned on the PCA system. It held the wings level 

and on the desired flightpath with minor deviations in direction and altitude. 

Two days later, Gordon Fullerton flew the MD-11 during its first landing 
The Power for Flight

152

under engine power alone at Edwards Air Force Base, which offered longer, 

wider, and safer runways. After successive approaches that went as low as 100, 

50, and 10 feet, Burcham proceeded to land at a sink rate of 4 feet per second. 

The video recording of the landing revealed that the control surfaces remained 

motionless as the engines guided the airliner down to the runway.39

To spread the word, NASA invited two dozen guest pilots to fly the PCAequipped MD-11 on a flightpath that included an approach within 100 feet 

of the runway during November 29–30, 1995. They represented Government 

agencies including NASA, the FAA, the Air Force, and the Navy; manufacturers McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Airbus, and Honeywell; airlines such as 

American, Delta, Japan Air, Royal Flight of Saudi Arabia, and Swissair; and the 

aviation press, Aviation Week and Flight International. The addition of the ILS 

software and an autoflare brought improved control and proved the potential 

for hands-free emergency touchdowns. One of the guest pilots commented 

that PCA changed “what had been a very challenging, if not impossible, situation into what could be considered a textbook lesson with no exceptional 

pilot skills required.”40

The next step in the program was to fly the MD-11 with its three hydraulic systems completely disabled. Burcham’s original intention was to directly 

address the tragedy of Flight 232, which was a standard scenario in all the 

aircraft simulations from the beginning of the project. In reality, PCA needed 

to show that in the event of the loss of the hydraulic system, control was possible. Also, unlike the pioneering August 29, 1995, flight, the flight surfaces 

in the event of control failure would not be straight and neutral; they would 

be stuck in or would float to different positions, which would affect stable 

control. Initially, test pilot Dana Purifoy flew the airliner over the Pacific in 

September in the “Whiskey” test area, where there was uninterrupted room 

to conduct further flight tests without endangering anyone on the ground. 

Fullerton flew the next flight over the Mojave Desert in November. The final 

test, on November 28, presented exactly the kind of scenario that Burcham 

envisioned. With all hydraulics disabled, Fullerton and the flight-test crew flew 

the MD-11 under the control of PCA.41 The test by the NASA-industry team 

clearly demonstrated the capability of PCA.

While the November 1995 MD-11 flights proved the capability of PCA to 

increase airliner safety, the potential of implementation was another matter. 

The system only benefited airliners equipped with FADEC—a minority 

amongst then-current commercial fleets. A full two-thirds of airliners did not 

have FADEC, and their service-life projections were for decades—into the 21st 

century. In other words, PCA was a solution for an airline fleet that had yet to 

exist. The FAA was not going to implement a safety standard that could not 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

153

yet be applied. Nor was a cost-conscious industry going to make the necessary 

investments to facilitate the incorporation of PCA.42

All along, the Dryden researchers worked together with their contemporaries at Ames Research Center on devising real-world-scenario simulations 

for PCA. They began with a full PCA system for the Boeing 747. One flight 

simulation saw the airliner lose its hydraulic system at 35,000 feet and roll 

upside down. The use of the PCA system righted the airplane, leveled the 

wings, and brought the behemoth down for a safe landing. Another simulation demonstrated how, with the loss of flight controls and one engine, pilots 

could use PCA to transfer fuel from one tank to another to counterbalance 

an airliner’s center of gravity toward the operating engine. An industry-NASA 

team led by John Bull expanded its focus on other aircraft, including the 

Boeing 757, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet multirole fighter, and 

the advanced McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III transport. These 

simulations addressed a variety of in-air emergencies and how PCA could help 

avoid tragedies like Flight 232.43

In response, Burcham set out to work to develop a simpler and cheaper 

version of PCA to facilitate near-term implementation in existing designs in 

May 1995. After a discussion with a Delta Air Lines pilot, he sketched a new 

concept that eliminated the need for changing engine control software. “PCA 

Lite,” as it was called by Ken Szalai, utilized systems most aircraft already had 

installed. The autothrottle and the digital thrust trim system provided pitch 

and lateral control respectively. For PCA Lite, John Bull and Ames researchers demonstrated effective simulations for a number of aircraft ranging from 

military fighters to jumbo jets.44

At the lowest tier of airliners in commercial aviation were aircraft with no 

digital engine controls, meaning they had neither autothrottle nor an engine 

thrust trim system. “PCA Ultralite” was a method wherein a pilot operated 

the throttles for lateral control manually. To improve the process, the DrydenAmes partnership added a flight director needle in the cockpit that indicated 

cues that the pilot used to manipulate the throttles. Evaluations of the system 

at Ames in 1998 substantiated the results.45

PCA was an inexpensive technology that required only software modification and aircrew training to achieve widespread implementation. There were 

factors that stymied progress in that direction. There was the question of the 

rigorous process of FAA certification. It also remained for the airline industry 

and the manufacturers to want to incorporate the technology. A Honeywell 

software engineer involved in the project, Jeff Kahler, estimated optimistically 

that PCA would be 100-percent effective if commercial and military aviation 

adopted it for everyday use.46
The Power for Flight

154

In the absence of installed PCA systems becoming part of new aircraft, 

NASA continued to push TOC and PCA. Burcham and Fullerton continued 

to advocate TOC as a means of safely flying and landing a crippled airplane. 

They suggested techniques for flying with throttles only and making a survivable landing using the principles of TOC.47

The lingering challenge for TOC/PCA was fast engine response. That 

parameter was a major issue for the system’s latest incarnation, Integrated 

Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC), which was a program sponsored by NASA’s 

Aviation Safety Program in 2009. Researchers believed that through the use 

of a Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation (C-MAPSS) 

developed at Glenn, an engine controller could be modified for faster response 

and overthrust operation, defined as speed in excess of throttle setting, for more 

power in emergency situations. The modification did have its drawbacks, primarily increased wear on the engine with the possibility of catastrophic failure. 

The biggest challenge was creating a universal system capable of being adapted 

to the specific characteristics of individual engines.48

Thrust Vectoring for Propulsion Control

While PCA offered increased safety in the operation of a crippled airplane, 

another form of propulsion control, thrust vectoring, enhanced the maneuverability of high-performance military aircraft. In the wake of the American air 

combat experience during Vietnam, aircraft manufacturers introduced a new 

generation of fighters capable of dogfighting. In these new aircraft, if a fighter 

pilot pulled sharply back on the control stick, the nose would pitch up while 

the fighter continued in its original direction. Engineers called the angle of 

the aircraft’s body and wings in relation to its flightpath the alpha, or angle of 

attack. The problem with high-alpha maneuvers was that airflow disturbances 

resulted in loss of wing lift, which degraded control and overall performance. 

NASA initiated the High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program (HATP) in 

1987 to address that problem in partnership with the Department of Defense, 

industry, and academia. Besides state-of-the-art fighter jets, potential applications of HATP research included hypersonic vehicles and high-performance 

civilian aircraft.49

The primary objectives of HATP were to provide flight-validated aircraft 

design tools and to improve the maneuverability of aircraft at high alpha. The 

program placed particular emphasis on aerodynamics, propulsion, controllaw research, and handling qualities, which required participation from all 

four research Centers. Langley managed the program and, in partnership with 

Ames, conducted wind tunnel testing and calculations using advanced control laws and CFD. Lewis’s and Dryden’s responsibilities centered on inlet 

and engine integration and flight research respectively. NASA received an 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

155

early-model McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, an aircraft known for its high 

maneuverability, as surplus from the U.S. Navy and modified it for the HATP 

mission with the designation F/A-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV).50

Figure 5-8. The use of thrust vectoring in the HARV program was an important precedent for 

later programs. (NASA)

The HARV flight research program consisted of three phases. The first and 

third flight-test phases were not directly related to propulsion modifications.51

The second phase, 193 flights conducted between July 1991 and June 1994, 

explored the use of vectored thrust to enhance maneuverability and control 

at high angles of attack. Primary contractor McDonnell Douglas designed 

a multi-axis thrust-vectoring system for installation on the exhaust nozzles 

of the F/A-18’s two GE F404 turbofan engines. The system consisted of a 

research flight control system that directed three paddle-like vanes, one set 

for each engine, made from the heat-resistant alloy Inconel, to deflect engine 

thrust. Dryden project manager Donald H. Gatlin described it charitably as 

“crude” and never intended for an operational aircraft.52 Nevertheless, the 

system worked when the conventional aileron, rudder, and stabilator (a slabsurfaced combined horizontal stabilizer and elevator) aerodynamic controls 

were ineffective. The thrust-vectoring system increased the high-alpha capability of the F/A-18 by a third, up to 70 degrees. Additional modifications 
The Power for Flight

156

to the HARV included a sophisticated engine inlet pressure measurements 

system between the inlet entrance and the engine face. They measured pressure fluctuations of up to 250 Hertz at over 2,000 samples per second, which 

contributed to a broader understanding of what happened to engine airflow 

under extreme maneuvering.53

While the HARV thrust-vectoring nozzles permitted high-alpha investigations, the technology offered only a temporary means of evaluation for 

the program. NASA’s Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles 

(ACTIVE) program specifically investigated thrust vectoring for application in 

future subsonic and supersonic commercial and military aircraft. Fighters benefited from enhanced maneuverability, while airliners like the much-anticipated 

300-passenger Mach 2 High-Speed Civil Transport would allow drag and noise 

reduction through smaller control surfaces supplemented by thrust vectoring.54

They also wanted to build upon previous thrust-vectoring programs while 

introducing the new element of safety.55 NASA and the Air Force were the 

Government partners; McDonnell Douglas and Pratt & Whitney served as the 

industrial partners. Project manager Don Gatlin remarked that ACTIVE was 

“an example of government and industry cooperating to bring an important 

technology to maturity.”56

NASA began the preparation of a two-seat F-15B transferred from the 

U.S. Air Force for that purpose in 1993 at Dryden.57 ACTIVE relied upon 

an Inner Loop Thrust Vectoring (ILTV) system for control. It integrated the 

F-15’s standard aerodynamic flight control surfaces, ailerons, stabilators, and 

rudders with thrust vectoring so that the pilot controlled the aircraft with 

both the control stick and the rudder pedals. Pratt & Whitney’s Large Military 

Engines Division developed the axisymmetric system, which featured a pair of 

pitch and yaw (left and right) balanced beam nozzles for each of the two new 

F100 turbofan engines. They were capable of redirecting engine exhaust flow 

up to 20 degrees in any direction. The system was much lighter than previous 

thrust-vectoring designs, and Pratt & Whitney designed it for easy retrofitting 

to existing aircraft as well as direct installation in future aircraft. An advanced 

Improved Digital Electronic Engine Controller (IDEEC) system, strengthened duct cases able to withstand the vectored thrust, and improved engine 

mounts and rear fuselage construction completed the fighter’s modification to 

the ACTIVE configuration. Ground testing of the nozzles began in November 

1995 at the Air Force Flight Test Center’s universal horizontal thrust stand.58

ACTIVE flight testing began in March 1996. The NASA goal was to fly 

up to 100 hours at speeds of up to Mach 1.85 and at angles of attack of up 

to 30 degrees.59 A series of four flights between October 31 and November 1, 

1996, witnessed the first time thrust vectoring was accomplished at speeds 

approaching Mach 2.60 In regard to the flight program, which ran through 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

157

1998, Jim Smolka, the ACTIVE project pilot, enthusiastically commented on 

the “exceptional handling” he and his fellow NASA research pilots experienced 

flying the F-15. For those early flights, the integrated system operated only 

at higher altitudes for the purposes of pilot familiarization. ACTIVE chief 

engineer Gerard Schkolnik remarked that one major accomplishment was the 

use of the pitch-vectoring control. The pilots trimmed the stabilators to steady 

the F-15 in flight and pitched the aircraft up and down with its exhaust. The 

next phase was to use the system throughout the entire flight from takeoff 

to landing.61

Figure 5-9. The Pratt & Whitney pitch-yaw balance beam nozzle system enabled vectoring 

horizontally (yaw) and vertically (pitch). The ACTIVE program achieved the first supersonic 

yaw-vectoring flight on April 24, 1996. (NASA)

During the summer of 1997, the ACTIVE team incorporated Lewis’s 

High Stability Engine Control (HISTEC) project into its flight program. A 

joint effort by Lewis, Pratt & Whitney, the Boeing Phantom Works (formerly 

McDonnell Douglas at St. Louis), and the Air Force’s research laboratories 

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, HISTEC’s goal was to improve engine 

operating stability to encourage the development of higher-performance military aircraft and more fuel-efficient commercial airliners. In combat, fighter 

pilots employed dogfighting maneuvers such as high angles of attack (up to 

25 degrees), full-rudder sideslips, windup turns, and split-S descents, which 

created turbulent flow at the engine inlet.62
The Power for Flight

158

To avoid sudden in-flight compressor stalls and engine failures, the NASAindustry team created a computerized system called Distortion Tolerant 

Control, which sensed inlet airflow distortion at the front of the engine and 

made the necessary trim changes to accommodate changing distortion conditions in real time. The end result was a higher rate of engine stability in adverse 

airflow conditions.63 The two engines facilitated the installation of the highspeed processor and control instrumentation and equipment on only one of 

the F100-PW-229 engines for increased safety. The flight program consisted 

of two phases. The first, flown during July and early August 1997, gathered the 

needed baseline date. The second took place during the remainder of August 

and used those data, stored in the Stability Management Control, in the F-15’s 

electronic engine control, which inputted commands into the right engine to 

accommodate airflow distortion.64 The primary benefit of Distortion Tolerant 

Control was its ability to set the stability margin requirement online and in 

real time. That allowed reduction of the built-in stall margin, thus maximizing 

propulsive performance. The result, as expressed by John DeLaat, NASA Lewis 

research engineer, would be “higher-performance military aircraft and more 

fuel-efficient commercial airliners.”65

The successful completion of the HARV and ACTIVE flight research programs resulted in a better understanding of aerodynamics, the effectiveness of 

flight controls, and airflow phenomena at high angles of attack. Armed with 

that experience and that of the Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability X-31 and 

F-16 Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring (MATV) programs that ended in 1995, the 

American military aircraft industry moved on to incorporate high-angle-ofattack technology into new aircraft.66

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the U.S. Air Force’s advanced air 

superiority fighter of the early 21st century, is a case in point. Its dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans generated approximately 

35,000 pounds of maximum thrust per engine. The propulsion system incorporated pitch-axis thrust vectoring with a range of plus or minus 20 degrees, 

which made the fighter extremely agile at both supersonic and subsonic speeds. 

With thrust vectoring, a pilot could fly the F-22 through high-angle-of-attack 

maneuvers like the Herbst J-Turn, the Kulbit, and Pugachev’s Cobra.67 The 

Raptor’s top speed is Mach 2.25, or 1,500 mph, and it is capable of supercruise, 

or extended supersonic flight, without the use of afterburners, thus consuming 

less fuel while racing through the sky at Mach 1.82, or 1,220 mph. The flat, 

two-dimensional shape of the nozzles also reduces infrared emissions from the 

engines and the chance of detection from heat-seeking missiles.

NASA played an important role in the development of the multidimensional inlet. All jet engines are circular in configuration; and, by extension, their 

exhaust nozzles follow that pattern for optimum efficiency. In the 1960s, new, 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

159

advanced, multirole twin-engine fighters like the F-111 and the F-15 suffered 

from drag problems related to the airflow at the back of the airplane where the 

angular boxy fuselage interacted with the round exhaust nozzles. To reduce that 

area of drag, the U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory worked closely 

with Bill Henderson of Langley to develop a series of two-dimensional nozzles 

beginning in the 1980s.68

Figure 5-10. Shown are the F/A-18 HARV, the X-31, and the F-16 MATV, all thrust-vectored 

research aircraft. (NASA)

Their work coincided with the Air Force’s new requirement for an Advanced 

Tactical Fighter (ATF) that incorporated composite materials, lightweight 

alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, 

and stealth technology. After a challenging design competition starting in 

1986, the team consisting of Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics won 

with its YF-22 in 1991.

The F-22 was the first aircraft to utilize the two-dimensional engine 

exhaust nozzle for both of its F119 engines. Lockheed became aware of the 
The Power for Flight

160

two-dimensional nozzle program and recognized its value to the overall mission 

of the fighter. Thrust vectoring provided more stability at high angles of attack 

during close-in maneuvering, or dogfighting, which accentuated the fighter’s 

long-range standoff missile capability. The faceted shape of the exhaust nozzles 

also enhanced the stealth characteristics of the F-22 because they generated less 

radar return from the back of the aircraft.69

Endnotes

1. Link C. Jaw and Sanjay Garg, “Propulsion Control Technology 

Development in the United States: A Historical Perspective,” NASA 

TM-2005-213978, October 2005, p. 2.

2. Ibid., p. 3.

3. Ibid., p. 4.

4. Ibid., p. 4.

5. Edward W. Otto and Burt L. Taylor III, “Dynamics of a Turbojet 

Engine Considered as a Quasi-Static System,” NACA TR 1011, 1950; 

Jaw and Garg, “Propulsion Control Technology Development in the 

United States,” p. 4.

6. James R. Ketchum and R.T. Craig, “Simulation of Linearized Dynamics 

of Gas-Turbine Engines,” NACA TN-2826, November 1952, pp. 2, 11.

7. Sanjay Garg, “Aircraft Turbine Engine Control Research at NASA 

Glenn Research Center,” NASA TM-2013-217821, April 2013, p. 9.

8. See James E. Tomayko, Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA’s 

Pioneering Digital Fly-By-Wire Project (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-4224, 2000).

9. Jaw and Garg, “Propulsion Control Technology Development in the 

United States,” p. 6.

10. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., and Peter G. Batterton, “Flight Experience 

with a Digital Integrated Propulsion Control System on an F-111E 

Airplane” (AIAA Paper 76-653, presented at the 12th Joint AIAA/

SAE Propulsion Conference, Palo Alto, CA, July 26–29, 1976), p. 1; 

Burcham et al., “Propulsion Flight Research at NASA Dryden from 

1967 to 1997,” pp. 2, 6, 21.

11. NASA obtained the F-15 from the U.S. Air Force in January 1976 

and modified it into a one-of-a-kind aircraft that featured extensive 

instrumentation and an integrated DEFCS to carry out complex and 

sophisticated research projects, including the ADECS, PSC, and PCA 

programs. Besides propulsion control, researchers used the former 

fighter in advanced research projects involving aerodynamics, control 

integration, flight-test techniques, human factors, instrumentation 
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

161

development, and performance. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 

Flight Research Facility,” fact sheet, December 3, 2009, available at 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-022-DFRC.html

(accessed February 19, 2012).

12. James F. Stewart, “Integrated Flight Propulsion Control Research 

Results Using the NASA F-15 HIDEC Flight Research Facility,” NASA 

Technical Memorandum 4394, June 1992, p. 9.

13. Mark Bushman and Steven G. Nobbs, “F-15 Propulsion System: 

PW1128 Engine and DEEC,” NASA Dryden Flight Research Center 

Document N95-33012, 1995, pp. 37–38.

14. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 Flight Research Facility.”

15. Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” p. 756.

16. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 Flight Research Facility.”

17. Ibid.

18. Jaw and Garg, “Propulsion Control Technology Development in the 

United States,” pp. 17–18.

19. Stewart, “Integrated Flight Propulsion Control Research,” pp. 3, 7; 

Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 Flight Research Facility.”

20. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 Flight Research Facility”; Pratt 

& Whitney, “F100 Engine,” n.d. [2013], available at http://www.pw.utc.

com/F100_Engine (accessed August 22, 2013).

21. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., John J. Burken, Trindel A. Maine, and C. Gordon 

Fullerton, “Development and Flight Test of an Emergency Flight 

Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 Transport 

Airplane,” NASA Technical Paper 97-203217, October 1997, pp. 3–5; 

Frank W. Burcham, Jr., C. Gordon Fullerton, and Trindel A. Maine, 

“Manual Manipulation of Engine Throttles for Emergency Flight 

Control,” NASA TM-2004-212045, January 2004, pp. 63–66; Tom 

Tucker, Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at 

NASA Dryden, Monographs in Aerospace History, no. 16 (Washington, 

DC: NASA, 1999), p. 12.

22. NTSB, Aircraft Accident Report: United Airlines Flight 232, McDonnell 

Douglas DC-10-10, Sioux Gateway Airport, Sioux City, Iowa, July 19, 

1989, NTSB/AAR-90/06 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 1990), http://www.

airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf (accessed January 30, 2014).

23. Ibid., pp. 1–5, 72–73, 102. See also David Young and George Papajohn, 

“3 Pilots Struggled to Keep Jet Aloft,” Chicago Tribune (July 22, 1989): 4.

24. NTSB, Aircraft Accident Report: United Airlines Flight 232, p. 76.

25. Ibid., p. 102.
The Power for Flight

162

26. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., Ronald J. Ray, Timothy R. Conners, and Kevin 

R. Walsh, “Propulsion Flight Research at NASA Dryden from 1967 to 

1997,” NASA TP-1998-206554, July 1998, p. 1.

27. Tucker, Touchdown, p. 1.

28. Ibid., pp. 1, 4.

29. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., and C. Gordon Fullerton, “Controlling Crippled 

Aircraft—With Throttles,” NASA TM-104238, September 1991, 

pp. 1, 3; Burcham et al., “Manual Manipulation of Engine Throttles for 

Emergency Flight Control,” p. 11.

30. Tucker, Touchdown, pp. 6–7.

31. Ibid., pp. 8, 10.

32. Ibid., pp. 9–10.

33. Ibid., pp. 10–11, 12.

34. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., Trindel Maine, and Thomas Wolf, “Flight 

Testing and Simulation of an F-15 Airplane Using Throttles for 

Flight Control,” NASA Technical Memorandum 104255, August 

1992, pp. 1–2; Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 Flight Research 

Facility”; Tucker, Touchdown, p. 14.

35. Burcham, quoted in “NASA F-15 Makes First Engine-Controlled 

Touchdown,” NASA News Release 93-75, April 22, 1993, NASA HRC, 

file 011664.

36. Tucker, Touchdown, pp. 15, 16, 22. For detailed excerpts from the 

PCA F-15 guest pilot program, see appendix D, Tucker, Touchdown, 

pp. 40–45.

37. Ibid., pp. 23–24.

38. Ibid., p. 24.

39. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., John J. Burken, Trindel A. Maine, and 

C. Gordon Fullerton, “Development and Flight Test of an Emergency 

Flight Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 

Transport Airplane,” NASA TP-97-206217, October 1997, p. 34; 

Tucker, Touchdown, pp. 25–26.

40. Burcham et al., “Development and Flight Test of an Emergency Flight 

Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 Transport 

Airplane,” pp. 35, 75; Tucker, Touchdown, pp. 27, 47.

41. Tucker, Touchdown, pp. 28–30.

42. Ibid., p. 30.

43. Tucker, Touchdown, p. 31; John Bull, Robert Mah, Gloria Davis, Joe 

Conley, Gordon Hardy, Jim Gibson, Matthew Blake, Don Bryant, and 

Diane Williams, “Piloted Simulation Tests of Propulsion Control as a 

Backup to Loss of Primary Flight Controls for a Mid-Size Jet Aircraft,” 

NASA TM-110374, December 1995, p. 1.
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

163

44. Frank W. Burcham, Jr., Trindel A. Maine, John J. Burken, and John 

Bull, “Using Engine Thrust for Emergency Flight Control: MD-11 and 

B-747 Results,” NASA TM-1998-206552, May 1998, pp. 1, 8; Tucker, 

Touchdown, pp. 30–31.

45. Tucker, Touchdown, p. 31.

46. Ibid., p. 31.

47. Burcham et al., “Manual Manipulation of Engine Throttles for 

Emergency Flight Control,” pp. 28–39.

48. Jonathan S. Litt, Dean K. Frederick, and Ten-Huei Guo, “The Case 

for Intelligent Propulsion Control for Fast Engine Response,” NASA 

TM-2009-215668/AIAA 2009-1876, p. 15.

49. Jim Matthews, “Thrust Vectoring,” Air & Space Smithsonian (July 2008), 

available at http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Thrust_Vectoring.

html (accessed September 4, 2012).

50. Albion H. Bowers, Joseph W. Pahle, R. Joseph Wilson, Bradley C. Flick, 

and Richard L. Rood, “An Overview of the NASA F/A-18 High Alpha 

Research Vehicle,” NASA TM-4772, 1996, pp. 2–4; Albion Bowers and 

Joseph W. Pahle, “Thrust Vectoring on the NASA F/A-18 High Alpha 

Research Vehicle,” NASA TM-4771, 1996, pp. 3–4.

51. The first phase generated experience in the aerodynamic measurement 

of high angles of attack and provided the baseline evaluation methodology for the F/A-18 from April 1987 through 1989. The third investigated the concept of using deployable winglike surface strakes in the 

nose for increased yaw control from March 1995 to September 1996. 

Dryden Flight Research Center, “F/A-18 High Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) 

Research Vehicle,” fact sheet, December 3, 2009, available at http://

www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-002-DFRC.html#.

UiNUsjaTiHM (accessed September 1, 2012).

52. Breck W. Henderson, “Dryden Completes First Flights of F/A-18 

HARV with Thrust Vectoring,” Aviation Week & Space Technology (July 

29, 1991): 25.

53. Bowers et al., “An Overview of the NASA F/A-18 High Alpha Research 

Vehicle,” pp. 24–28; Dryden Flight Research Center, “F/A-18 High 

Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) Research Vehicle.”

54. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 ACTIVE Nozzles,” November 

13, 1995, NASA HRC, file 011664.

55. “F-15 ACTIVE Achieves First-Ever Mach 2 Thrust-Vectoring,” NASA 

Dryden News Release 96-62, November 8, 1996, available at http://

www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-62_pf.html

(accessed September 4, 2012).
The Power for Flight

164

56. “NASA Tests New Nozzle To Improve Performance,” NASA News 

Release 96-59, March 27, 1996, NASA HRC, file 011664.

57. “NASA F-15 Being Readied for Advanced Maneuvering Flight,” NASA 

News Release 93-115, June 16, 1993, NASA HRC, file 011664.

58. James W. Smolka, Laurence A. Walker, Gregory H. Johnson, Gerard 

S. Schkolnik, Curtis W. Berger, Timothy R. Conners, John S. Orme, 

Karla S. Shy, and C. Bruce Wood, “F-15 ACTIVE Flight Research 

Program,” in 1996 Report to the Aerospace Profession: Fortieth Symposium 

Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, September 1996, 

available at https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/89247main_setp_

d6.pdf (accessed September 4, 2012); “NASA F-15 Being Readied 

for Advanced Maneuvering Flight,” NASA News Release 93-115, 

June 16, 1993; Dryden Flight Research Center, “F-15 ACTIVE 

Nozzles,” November 13, 1995; “Flight Research Reveals Outstanding 

Flying Qualities Result from Integrating Thrust Vectoring with Flight 

Controls,” NASA Dryden Flight Research Center News Release, January 

4, 1999, NASA HRC, file 011664.

59. “NASA Tests New Nozzle To Improve Performance,” NASA News 

Release 96-59, March 27, 1996, NASA HRC, file 011664.

60. “F-15 ACTIVE Achieves First-Ever Mach 2 Thrust-Vectoring.”

61. “Flight Research Reveals Outstanding Flying Qualities Result from 

Integrating Thrust Vectoring with Flight Controls,” NASA Dryden 

Flight Research Center News Release, January 4, 1999, NASA HRC, 

file 011664.

62. “NASA Researching Engine Airflow Controls To Improve Performance, 

Fuel Efficiency,” NASA News Release 97-183, August 27, 1997, NASA 

HRC, file 011664; Burcham et al., “Propulsion Flight Research at 

Dryden,” pp. 17–18.

63. “ACTIVE F-15,” X-Press (October 17, 1997): 4, NASA HRC, 

file 011664.

64. “NASA Researching Engine Airflow Controls To Improve Performance, 

Fuel Efficiency.”

65. Lori Rachul, “HISTEC To Boost Performance, Fuel Efficiency,” Lewis 

News (November 1997): 5, NASA HRC, file 011664.

66. Dryden Flight Research Center, “F/A-18 High Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) 

Research Vehicle.”

67. The Herbst J-Turn is a quick reversal of direction using a combination of high-angle-of-attack and rolling maneuvers. The Kulbit is an 

extremely small-diameter loop. Pugachev’s Cobra involves a drastic vertical rising of the nose of the aircraft that tips it slightly backward before 

quickly going back down to resume normal forward flight.
Propulsion Control Enters the Computer Era, 1976–1998

165

68. G. Keith Richey, interview by Squire Brown, August 31, 2006, interview no. 2, transcript, Cold War Aerospace Technology Project, Wright 

State University Libraries Special Collections and Archives, p. 9.

69. Ibid., p. 10.
166

Shown above is an inlet view of a proof-of-concept two-stage compressor evaluated during the 

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program at Glenn Research Center in 2005. (NASA)
167

CHAPTER 6

Transiting to a New Century,

1990–2008

Through the decade of the 1990s and into the first of the 21st century, NASA’s 

propulsion specialists continued their work on several important projects that 

had their origins in the 1960s. The refining of jet engines for increased efficiency, 

emissions and noise reduction, investigations into high-speed flight, and participation in large-scale joint propulsion projects cemented NASA’s role as not 

a competitor, but a collaborator, in both long- and short-term projects. Over 

those years, NASA pursued a diverse range of propulsion initiatives and projects.

Materials Research for Improved 

Propulsion Efficiency and Safety

While NASA researchers worked on aircraft-centered programs from the 1960s 

through the 1980s, their colleagues produced results from more basic research. 

One of the areas that had long-term applications in aircraft propulsion was 

advanced materials. Innovations in the use of superalloys, polymer-matrix 

composites, thermal barrier coatings, structural ceramics, and ceramic matrix 

composites facilitated the refinement of gas turbine engine components for 

long life, reliability, and higher performance. The joint aircraft engine development programs, as well as the individual manufacturers, increasingly applied 

this technology through the 1980s and 1990s.

New Advances in Materials

The turbine disks and blades undergo the harshest of conditions within a 

gas turbine engine, with temperatures ranging from 1,200 to 2,100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. NASA worked toward the introduction of Oxide Dispersion 

Strengthened (ODS) superalloys in the 1960s, especially in areas of formulating the required thermomechanical processes and failure prediction to increase 

durability, strength, and temperature resistance. In a collaborative effort with 

the International Nickel Company and several universities, NASA facilitated the 

introduction of two popular alloys in sheet and bar form: iron-based MA956 

and nickel-based MA754. They were contributions to the problem of sigma 
The Power for Flight

168

phase instability and the creation of alloys containing tantalum for turbine blade 

applications.1 NASA’s work to strengthen alloys by adding refractory metals 

became the industry standard by the late 20th century and could be found in 

the majority of all new engines being produced. Pratt & Whitney and GE went 

on to incorporate more advanced single-crystal orientation and gamma prime 

“rafting” behaviors in their latest-generation turbine blade alloys.2

New materials also facilitated lightweight solutions to aircraft engines. To 

reduce fuel consumption, weight, and emissions while increasing passenger and 

payload capability, NASA in the mid-1970s introduced a new family of hightemperature polymers, called Polymerization of Monomer Reactants (PMR).3

Manufacturers embraced the new materials for both military and commercial 

applications. The principal polyimide, PMR-15, offered 10,000 hours of use at 

temperatures reaching 550 degrees Fahrenheit and quickly became the state-ofthe-art material for engine bypass ducts, nozzle flaps, bushings, and bearings. 

GE used them for the F404 outer bypass duct and the GE90 center vent tube, 

while Pratt & Whitney incorporated PMRs into the F-100-229 exit flaps. Later 

PMR formulations could withstand higher temperatures—up to 650 degrees 

Fahrenheit—which opened up the range of applications to include engine aft 

fairings and a compressor case for a U.S. Air Force–U.S. Navy Joint Technology 

Demonstrator Engine (JTDE) program.4

Other materials advances NASA researchers introduced were thermal barrier 

coatings and structural ceramics. In 1976, Lewis researchers Curt H. Liebert 

and Francis S. Stepka discovered that the application of an insulating ceramic 

layer over metal components in the “hot” section of an engine, such as turbine 

blades, reduced temperature and the amount of coolant flow required, which 

permitted the use of cheaper and simpler materials.5 Their work extended 

component life and enabled a broader understanding of metallic coatings.6

The success with ceramic coatings led to new work in the late 1970s on monolithic ceramics, such as reaction-bonded silicon nitride (RBSN), that were 

capable of resisting 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. That work led to NASA’s collaborative work with DOE in the automotive-oriented Advanced Gas Turbine 

(AGT) and Advanced Turbine Technology Applications (ATTAP) programs 

in the 1980s. The Agency also investigated ceramic matrix composites in the 

1980s. The work led to the use of the material as the combustor liner design 

for two Government programs to reduce cooling flows and increase engine 

efficiency: the Enabling Propulsion Materials (EPM) effort within the HighSpeed Research (HSR) program and the Air Force’s Advanced Turbine Engine 

Gas Generator (ATEGG) engine as part of the Integrated High Performance 

Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program. Both the HSR and IHPTET 

programs are discussed subsequently.7
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

169

HITEMP: Advancing Materials and Structures

To further influence the development of UHB turbofans for the 21st century, 

NASA initiated the Advanced High Temperature Engine Materials Technology 

Program (HITEMP) in 1988 at Lewis. HITEMP endeavored to create advanced 

materials and structures, along with the necessary analytical and evaluation 

frameworks to increase fuel economy, reliability, and service life while reducing 

operating costs. The program placed the primary focus on developing advanced 

high-temperature composite materials for fan, compressor, and turbine rotor 

blades; stator vanes, disks, and shafts; thrust bearings, gearbox bearings, and 

linings; combustor cases and linings; nacelles; and thrust-reversers. Those new 

materials included polymer-matrix, metal-matrix, intermetallic-matrix, and 

ceramic-matrix composites.8

HITEMP placed a specific focus on materials and structures, but it was also 

an integrated program that reflected NASA’s fundamental research goals and 

supported the work of component development programs. It accomplished 

its work through direct NASA research as well as grants and contracts to academia and industry. NASA dispersed the information from the project through 

annual conferences and the annual publications HITEMP Review and Research 

& Technology, both published by Lewis Research Center. HITEMP research 

investigations involved coordination with other NASA and Government programs, primarily EPM, IHPTET, the Aerospace Industry Technology Program, 

and the Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST—to be discussed later in this 

chapter) program. Keeping communication open and sharing research with 

other programs ensured that HITEMP innovations could be applied to those 

efforts as well.9

The research generated during HITEMP made two valuable contributions 

to industry. The first was a minimally intrusive, high-temperature, thin-film 

strain gauge able to measure both dynamic and static stress and was adopted 

by GE, AlliedSignal, and the Ford Motor Company. The other was a new 

ultrasonic imaging method utilizing a single transducer. The R&D 100 Awards, 

long considered an indicator of excellence in technology innovation, recognized HITEMP for those two developments. Through release agreements, 

the aviation and software industries adopted HITEMP developmental codes, 

which included the ceramic matrix composite analyzer (CEMCAN) computer 

code. Lewis researchers used HITEMP analytical models to make recommendations on tooling and processing that enabled Textron Specialty Materials 

to produce defect-free titanium-matrix composite rings used in reinforcing 

engine components. A cooperative program between AlliedSignal, Lincoln 

Composites, and Lewis led to a collaborative investigation into the feasibility 

of using the Lewis-created Vehicle Charging And Potential (V-CAP) polyimide 

resin matrix for high-temperature jet engine applications.10 The contributions 
The Power for Flight

170

of HITEMP were many, but they were beneath the surface as industry adopted 

them and advanced the state of the art as they refined materials, design, and 

the processes needed to manufacture the new technology.

Two instances of research and development originated during HITEMP, 

and their direct application to the new UHB turbofans of the 21st century concern the GE GEnx engine. HITEMP researchers aimed to reduce the weight 

of low-pressure turbine blades. They identified titanium aluminide (TiAl) as 

an ideal solution due to the material’s low density and high-temperature properties that offered to reduce weight by 40 percent, but it did exhibit limited 

ductility. Lewis researchers Bradley Lerch, Susan Draper, J. Michael Pereira, 

Michael Nathal, and Curt Austin designed a laboratory impact test that simulated potential blade damage resulting from the ingestion of foreign objects. 

They revealed that TiAl alloys could withstand considerable impact damage 

without catastrophic failure.11 As a result, the designers of the GEnx utilized TiAl in the low-pressure turbine stages, specifically in the thick leading 

edges. GE materials and process engineering general manager Robert Schafrik 

remarked that after “years of research,” the use of TiAl alloys was a “key breakthrough” in minimizing the weight of the GEnx.12

Another HITEMP contribution to the GEnx involved NASA researchers 

in Cleveland and researchers with GE, who maintained a longstanding collaboration centered on developing a use for nickel aluminide (NiAl) alloys 

as structural materials. A team consisting of Ronald Noebe, Robert Miller, 

Anita Garg, and Ivan Locci of the University of Toledo redirected the focus 

toward using NiAl as a bond coat for high-pressure turbine blades. A bond coat 

served to promote adhesion between the blade structure itself and the thermal 

barrier coatings applied to increase high-temperature performance. HITEMP 

sponsored tests of pure and customized NiAl bond-coat alloys. Those evaluations led to various patents, including one jointly held by NASA and GE, and 

their application to the GEnx in the mid-2000s.13

EPM: Exploiting Materials Research for Lower Weight and Safety

The catastrophic failure of the fan on the center engine of the United Airlines 

Flight 232 DC-10 airliner and the subsequent loss of all hydraulic power in 

1989 was a chilling reminder of what happened when fan blades were not contained. Engine makers used metal alloys in their fan casings to deflect broken 

blades and contain them within the engine nacelle. Unfortunately, those casings were also very heavy due to the required high margins of safety, which 

translated into poor fuel efficiency, shorter flights, and decreased cargo capacity. 

They also required expensive and time-consuming physical testing. In order to 

advance the next generation of commercial aircraft, new solutions needed to 

provide a balance between safety and decreased weight to improve efficiency.14
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

171

NASA’s EPM program, begun in 1994, utilized ballistics research to 

investigate the use of composite casings for fan blade containment in 1994. 

Researchers first used flat composite material panels to assess their performance 

compared to that of aluminum in simulated blade-out events. They fired projectiles at the panels and analyzed the level of penetration for each material. 

The results revealed that composites experienced lower stress levels and were a 

promising replacement for heavy aluminum fan casings. Those initial experiments encouraged NASA researchers to investigate more precise and cheaper 

methods of simulating the use of composites in fan blade containment.15

The turbofan is the standard engine for the latest commercial airliners such 

as the 777. The crucial element of those systems is the fan, which contributes 

to the high efficiency, high thrust at low speeds, low fuel consumption, and 

reasonable noise levels. NASA researchers realized that the fan enclosure contributed extra weight and decreased fuel efficiency. The fan enclosure protected 

the engine and airframe in case a malfunction or unexpected obstruction led 

to one of the fan blades breaking off at very high speed, which is called bladeout. Engine manufacturers used heavy-metal alloys to build the fan casing so 

that it would be robust enough to absorb the blades. Additional stress to the 

fan casing caused by rotor imbalance occurred at engine shutdown. NASA 

recognized that decreasing that extra weight while retaining adequate levels of 

safety would contribute to a new generation of advanced commercial aircraft.16

NASA recognized that the large turbofan engines used on commercial airliners constituted a significant portion of the overall weight of the airplane. A 

single engine weighed approximately 10,000 to 15,000 pounds; thus, a fourengine aircraft could have 60,000 pounds in engine weight alone. By targeting 

the fan casing, used to contain failed blades and the largest component in these 

engines, NASA believed that further weight reductions could be made.

There were attempts to strike that balance. One concept, called the “hard 

wall” approach, minimized weight through the use of lighter metals, such as 

high-grade aluminum alloys, in the place of heavier and stronger materials 

like steel. The thick aluminum walls deflected stray fan blades and keep them 

within the engine. Another approach, first used on the GE CF34 turbofan 

engine during the early 1990s, relied upon a “soft wall” design that featured 

a thick, high-strength fabric wrapped around a thinner aluminum fan casing. 

The fabric absorbed the damaged blades until they could be removed by maintenance personnel. Commercial engine manufacturers incorporated both types 

of reinforced damage-tolerant fan casings through the 1990s and 2000s.17

Researchers at Glenn Research Center (formerly Lewis) investigated carbon 

fiber/polymer matrix composite materials, fiber architectures, and design concepts for use in the manufacture of lighter-weight fan casings starting in 1999. 

Their work was part of the Ultra Safe Propulsion Project, which was part of 
The Power for Flight

172

NASA’s larger Propulsion and Power Base Research and Technology Program. 

Advanced composites offered high strength, increased safety, low weight, and 

cheaper operational costs, and they were readily available to the aerospace 

industry. Glenn staff conducted comprehensive research along with extensive ballistic impact testing for concept validation that identified a promising 

approach for developing the all-composite fan case. Early on, NASA worked 

to overcome the challenges of structural strength and safety to bring the commercial aviation industry one step closer to improved fuel efficiency, increased 

payload, and greater aircraft range.18

Glenn and its industry and academic partners in the Jet Engine Containment 

Concepts and Blade-Out Simulation Team announced the results of 4 years of 

research in 2003. They introduced TEEK, a low-density, lightweight, flameresistant polyimide foam that provided high-performance structural support 

while serving as an excellent thermal and acoustic insulation material. The 

team also developed the first advanced composite jet engine fan blade containment system concept and explored new ways of manufacturing composite fan 

casings. Finally, team members also created new tools, primarily simulation 

software that could be used to study and predict the dynamics of blade-out 

occurrences without the use of real engines.19

NASA’s Aviation Safety Program pushed toward the next step, the actual 

development of composite fan casings for use on turbofan engines, with funding 

for Glenn scientists to investigate the possibility. As part of the process, Glenn 

issued a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant to A&P Technology, 

Inc., of Cincinnati, OH, to ensure industry involvement. A&P Technology was 

the ideal choice since it was a leader in the manufacture of braided composites 

and already had experience working with engine makers Williams International 

and Honeywell International. The grant from Glenn funded A&P Technology’s 

development of a new generation of carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) 

suitable for use in advanced lightweight fan casings. The new material provided increased strength and durability due to the use of T-700 12K carbon 

fiber and EPON 862 bisphenol F–based epoxy resin. Additionally, the triaxial 

braided fiber construction greatly reinforced the material’s structural integrity 

and increased its resistance to the formation of cracks.20

A&P Technology and Glenn researchers faced the challenge of automating the production process to make the technology efficient, reliable, and 

affordable. Their manufacturing of composite structures involved two main 

processes. Workers first laid out the pre-formed dry fibers, a difficult process 

when the structure was as large and complex as a cylindrical fan casing. The next 

step involved the impregnation of the fibers with resin using a transfer molding 

process. NASA desired a system that was adaptable to different engine designs. 

A&P Technology created a robust system that braided the fiber directly around 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

173

a capstan shaped to the profile of the particular containment case without any 

warping. The work facilitated the invention in 1997 of the A&P Technology 

Megabraider, the largest braiding machine in the world, with 800 individual 

carriers, in 1997.21

Glenn collaborated with researchers at the University of Akron to develop 

the software capable of replacing physical ballistics testing of fan casings. The 

work required an in-depth analysis of multiple blade-loss scenarios and the individual roles of angular acceleration, mass, orientation, and speed. With a better 

understanding of those dynamics, the research team used LS-DYNA, a unique 

analytical code developed by Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 

to program computers to simulate blade-out scenarios with different fan-case 

materials. The new software generated new insights while maintaining significantly lower costs than those of previous impact testing.22

Despite the promised low costs of computer simulation, the state of composites research reached a point where material testing fell behind. As a result, 

the lack of adequate material property data and validated material models limited the overall success of computer simulations. To push the research forward, 

Glenn worked with researchers from the University of Akron and ATK Space 

Systems to initiate impact testing of new tribraided composites. They started 

with small, flat panels and worked their way to full-scale fan-case models. The 

physical testing confirmed that A&P Technology’s composite materials were 

more than capable of resisting fan blade impacts. More importantly, the impact 

tests revealed that the new composite structures were stronger than traditional 

metal alloy fan casings.23

After an errant fan blade struck a fan casing, there was an additional, potentially destructive scenario for the engine. The fan casing endured secondary 

loads during the spool-down stage of the engine after the loss of the blade. 

Specifically, impact debris and the out-of-balance fan assembly could lead to 

the creation of cracks in the casing, which became a serious safety issue. Due 

to the tribraided fiber construction, composites exhibited a strong resistance 

to crack formation. That discovery, along with the successful impact testing of 

sample panels, encouraged the move toward full-scale testing.24

The certification of new composite fan casings began with full-scale engine 

blade-out tests. They confirmed that the new case safely contained the stray 

blade and retained its structural stability during the large dynamic loads generated during the engine’s spool-down stages as the rotation of the fan slowed 

down. The successful completion of those tests ensured that manufacturers 

would use composite fan casings in their new and lighter turbofan engines.25

A constant in the modern aviation industry is the quest to improve fuel efficiency to save money while continuing to provide the same service. Composite 

fan casings offered to reduce engine weight by up to 40 percent, which directly 
The Power for Flight

174

translated into longer flight distances, greater cargo capacity, improved fuel 

burn, and increased safety for new commercial aircraft. A decade of NASA 

investment and industry collaboration made that possible.26

GE recognized the benefits of composite fan casings and selected them 

for the revolutionary GEnx high-bypass turbofan engine, the first whose 

fan case and fan blades were made completely of composite materials. GKN 

Aerospace developed and manufactured the front fan containment case, which 

allowed for a weight reduction of up to 800 pounds for a two-engine aircraft. 

Final GEnx testing occurred in 2006, with certification in 2007. Boeing and 

Airbus used the new engines on their highly anticipated 787 Dreamliner and 

A350 aircraft.27

Figure 6-1. The advanced fan blades and composite fan casing of the GE GEnx-2B engine 

reflect NASA’s pioneering work. (General Electric)

The search for new and better materials to reduce the weight of aircraft has 

been a constant since 1903. Since their introduction in the 1960s, turbofan 

engines represented a significant portion of the weight of a commercial airliner. 

The increasing usability of advanced composite materials and the development of effective ballistics testing methods in the early 2000s contributed to 

new developments in composites manufacturing for large aerospace structures. 

NASA has recognized the benefit of replacing existing metal fan casings with 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

175

safer and stronger composite structures to reduce the weight of commercial aircraft engines. The improved safety, reduced fuel burn, increased aircraft range, 

and expanded cargo capabilities facilitated by composite fan-casing technology 

benefited both airlines and passengers.28

NASA’s award of an SBIR to A&P Technology indicated its commitment to 

work with industry to develop the materials and manufacturing techniques to 

make composite fan-casing technology a reality for commercial aviation. The 

NASA-industry-academic team responsible for the containment concepts and 

blade-out simulations received the NASA Turning Goals into Reality Award 

for its dedicated research in July 2004. With incorporation into the GEnx 

being the first step, composite fan-casing technology stood poised to benefit 

aviation for decades to come.29

Shape Memory Alloy Research

NASA and industry achieved their past improvements in gas turbine engine 

efficiency—performance, noise, and emissions—through a focus on combinations of new component designs and new and lighter materials capable of 

withstanding higher temperatures. NASA researchers believed that the key 

to increased performance in the future involved the removal of various static 

and heavy structures such as electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic actuators from 

the airplane. In their place, adaptive, or reconfigurable, components utilizing advanced shape memory alloys (SMAs) would permit lighter and more 

dynamic inlets, nozzles, flaps, variable-geometry chevrons, and blades. An 

SMA facilitated two configurations within a single component. At ambient 

temperature, the component was one shape; with the application of heat, 

it changed into another. Recognizing the potential for what shape-shifting 

components could do, NASA initiated a 5-year development effort on SMAs 

in 2003.30

High-temperature SMAs also have proven crucial to another new innovation, active flow control. Advanced sensors detect the onset of incipient stall in 

the compressor, which would then make small adjustments to the flow geometry that would achieve both improved efficiency and tolerance against stall 

conditions. In 2008, NASA announced that it had successfully demonstrated 

a design that utilized a high-temperature SMA wire to actuate a control rod 

to change airflow.31
The Power for Flight

176

Advancing Gas Turbine Technology

Integrated High-Performance Turbine Engine Technology

DOD established the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology 

(IHPTET) program in November 1987 to stimulate the development of 

21st-century high-performance military turbine engines. The program grew 

out of an earlier military-industry project sponsored by the Air Force’s Aero 

Propulsion Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, OH. 

DOD was so impressed that it expanded the program to include the Army, the 

Navy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and NASA. 

The program possessed a broad charter to study all engine components and 

work toward technological maturity through testing and demonstration, with 

an overall goal to double the power of military jet engines by 2005. Moreover, 

the IHPTET engines were to be robust and affordable and to exhibit high 

performance under all conditions.32

IHPTET was a coordinated, three-phase Government and industry initiative that served as the framework for practically all Government- and industrysponsored research and development on military turbine engines. Specifically, a 

joint DOD-NASA steering committee coordinated eight separate plans for the 

U.S. Government and individual industry participants, which included Pratt 

& Whitney, General Electric, Allison, Williams International, Teledyne Ryan 

Aeronautical, AlliedSignal Aerospace, and Textron Lycoming. There were component technology panels that addressed the following systems: compression, 

combustion, turbine, exhaust, control, mechanical, and demonstratorengines.33

The increasing costs and diminishing market share for aircraft engines 

in the late 20th century resulted in a push for advanced universal, or dualuse, technology—primarily materials, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

design codes, engine controls and logic, turbine cooling concepts, bearings, 

and structures.34 Still, there were major differences between military and commercial engines and in what direction innovations took them. Low-bypassratio military engines required reduced numbers of stages for lighter weight 

and increased reliability, thrust vectoring/reversing capability, stealth and 

low observable signatures, and expendable engines. Commercial high-bypass 

turbofans needed to be quiet and clean, and there was considerable interest 

in novel regenerative cycles and universal fuels. Addressing those solutions 

required different pathways in combustor design, operating temperatures, 

emissions, operational durability, and exhaust design.35

Within IHPTET, NASA performed three specific roles that were fundamental to development regardless of their final application. First, the Agency 

provided its unique testing and evaluation facilities as its researchers worked to 

innovate essential high-temperature, high-strength materials and devised new, 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

177

advanced design analysis capabilities. NASA worked to gain a broader understanding of durability, modeling, high-temperature materials and structures, 

increased fuel economy, and the reduction of emissions and noise. NASA’s 

Small Engine Component Test Facility (SECTF), located in Glenn’s Engine 

Research Building (ERB), which opened in 1992, was the main test facility 

for the IHPTET. The SECTF consisted of two individual cells dedicated to 

compressors and turbines. Both replicated the operating conditions of an actual 

engine over a broad range of speeds and temperatures.

Second, NASA utilized its long history in the development of advanced 

materials, like polymer matrix composites, superalloys, structural ceramics, 

ceramic matrix composites, and thermal barrier coatings, that led to lighter, 

stronger, and better engine components capable of operating in high temperatures. Those NASA-innovated materials easily crossed over into the new 

technology going into military jet engines.36

Finally, Glenn’s expertise in CFD code design led to the Center’s assuming 

the leadership of IHPTET’s CFD technology development panel. The use of 

computer codes led to NASA’s taking the lead in innovating new and effective tools for the component design, evaluation, and operational analysis of 

high-performance jet engines.37 Researchers used the NASA Average-Passage 

turbomachinery flow analysis code called “APNASA” to optimize the performance of a composite, forward-swept, shrouded fan. Created at Glenn by 

John Adamczyk in 1985, APNASA enabled the prediction of the interaction 

between stationary and rotating parts of multistage components such as the fan, 

compressor, and turbine.38 They also used the 3D Combustor Simulation Code 

to model liquid spray droplet fuel injection for improved combustor designs.39

Glenn’s hallmark Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) allowed 

the complete modeling of a running engine throughout a simulated flight. 

Initiated in 1994, NPSS served as a “virtual wind tunnel” that enabled engineers to explore multiple design options simultaneously in terms of performance, affordability, stability, operational life, and certification requirements. 

Those options centered on fluid mechanics, heat transfer, combustion, structural 

mechanics, materials, controls, manufacturing, and overall economics. The core 

of the system contained three main elements: engineering application models and 

two kinds of system software, for the simulation and high-performance computing environments respectively. With NPSS, designers did not have to resort to 

costly and time-consuming physical construction and tests of jet engines. The 

NASA/Industry Cooperative Effort agreement partnered Glenn with the Air 

Force’s aerospace engineering organizations and universities with GE, Pratt & 

Whitney, Boeing, Honeywell, Rolls-Royce, Williams International, and Teledyne 

Continental to develop NPSS for both military and commercial engines.40
The Power for Flight

178

NPSS offered to cut the development time and cost of a high-performance 

jet engine in half, from 10 years and $2 billion to 5 years and $1 billion. It 

became an attractive tool for the virtual design of other technologies, including airframes, rocket engines, fuel cells, and ground-based power systems. 

There was also the possibility that the software could support nuclear power, 

water treatment, biomedicine, chemical processing, and marine propulsion. 

The result was significant recognition for the program by 2001. The NPSS team 

received the NASA Office of Aerospace Technology Turning Goals into Reality 

Award and the Agency’s overall Software of the Year Award. The program itself 

was named a Top 16 Government Software Project and a finalist for the Journal 

of Defense Software Engineering’s Top 5 Projects.41

Figure 6-2. This image shows the Pratt & Whitney F119 Engine for the F-22. (Pratt & Whitney)

The three phases of IHPTET worked to maximize technology transition 

to both military and commercial users. Phase I research and development 

demonstrated a 30-percent increase in propulsion capability. Engines that 

benefited from that work included improved versions of Pratt & Whitney’s 

F100 and GE’s F101 for the F-15 and F-16, GE’s F414 for the F/A-18E/F, and 

Pratt & Whitney’s F119 engine for the F-22. Phase II targeted a 60-percent 

increase in propulsion capacity that facilitated the introduction of the 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

179

supersonic Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Short Takeoff and Vertical 

Landing (STOVL) aircraft. Phase III looked toward the future with a goal of 

100 percent maximized propulsion capability for larger and faster air superiority and STOVL aircraft, a large helicopter, and an intercontinental air-launched 

cruise missile (ALCM). IHPTET concluded in 2005 as a successful program, 

although it did not fully achieve all of its goals.42

The Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) program 

succeeded IHPTET and retained the organization structure. The Air Force 

continued its direction of the program as it worked with its partners to define 

goals and offered competitive bids to industry for the Army’s Advanced 

Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) for helicopters and the Air Force’s Adaptive 

Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program. The partnership allowed it 

to maximize evaluation and funding for specific tasks while relying on NASA’s 

fundamental research expertise to provide a sound technical foundation for 

the innovative work.43

The Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program, 1999–2003

Glenn continued to work toward its goal of developing and transferring enabling 

technologies to industry through the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology 

(UEET) Program beginning in October 1999. Under the management of 

Robert Shaw at Glenn, the 6-year, nearly $300 million program included 

participation from Ames, Langley, and Goddard Space Flight Center; engine 

manufacturers GE, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, Allison/Rolls-Royce, and 

Williams International; and aircraft builders Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

UEET continued the legacy of ECI, E3, QCSEE, ECCP, and ATP through 

its seven main component areas: low emissions, highly loaded turbomachinery 

for increased efficiency, high-temperature materials and structures, intelligent 

controls, propulsion-airframe integration, integrated component technology 

demonstrations, and the integration and assessment of the overall technology 

relevant to the program in general. Those projects led to the identification of 

areas that contributed to the two interrelated goals of reducing fuel consumption by 15 percent and carbon dioxide (CO2) and NOx emissions by 70 percent. 

They included advanced compressor, combustor, and turbine design and new 

alloy and ceramic materials and coatings. The program also included a management component that integrated and assessed the individual technologies 

and brought them together in workable systems.44

One of those legacy projects, turbine disks made from high-temperature 

materials, facilitated NASA’s contribution to the advanced turbofan engines of 

the early 21st century. Turbine disks are critical to safety, efficiency, and overall 

engine performance. Development of the ME3 turbine disk alloy began in 1993 

under the auspices of the EPM project by a team consisting of members from 
The Power for Flight

180

Glenn, GE, and Pratt & Whitney. Refinement during UEET and after led to 

a new alloy capable of withstanding temperatures of 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit, 

which was a 100-degree increase over the limits of operational turbine disks.45

ME3 first appeared on GE and Pratt & Whitney’s Engine Alliance GP7200 

engine in 2007 and became a central element of GE’s GEnx turbofan.46

UEET evolved into the NASA Office of Aerospace Technology’s Vehicle 

Systems Program in 2003. It coordinated its efforts with IHPTET and VAATE, 

as well as similar programs sponsored by DOE, the FAA, and the EPA to avoid 

duplication and maximize the resources of each organization.47

Programs like UEET kept Lewis operating through the 1990s and early 

21st century, but personnel could suffer the ups and downs of congressional 

funding. When the House Science Committee cut the funding, enthusiastic 

bipartisan and active lobbying by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) 

and others from the Cleveland area restored a minuscule $29.5 million of the 

overall $14 billion NASA budget, but they kept 3,000 jobs in Cleveland.48

There was a balance between pushing technology to keep American aviation 

competitive and keeping congressional districts employed and supported with 

Federal funding.

The AGATE and GAP Programs

The Advanced General Aviation Transportation Experiments (AGATE) program—a consortium of NASA, the FAA, industry, universities, and nonprofit 

groups—worked to revitalize the U.S. general aviation industry’s role in the 

global marketplace in the 1990s. Since its heyday in 1978, when annual airframe production reached 17,800, the industry suffered from a steady decline 

that bottomed out in 1993 with only 964 aircraft leaving factories. Moreover, 

the average general aviation aircraft flying in the early 1990s was of 1960s 

vintage with an outdated cockpit, airframe, and propulsion system. The impetus to improve the capability of general aviation was there. At the time, the 

American general aviation community served 18,000 airports, proved to be the 

only means of air transportations to many areas throughout the Nation and 

the world, and employed hundreds of thousands of people across the Nation.49

After NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin met with industry representatives at the Experimental Aircraft Association Convention in Oshkosh, WI, 

during the summer of 1994, the Agency convened AGATE the following 

spring. Before the conclusion of the program in December 2001, there were 

76 members in 31 states with overall direction provided by Bruce A. Holmes of 

the general aviation office at Langley. The technical portion of AGATE strove 

to create new approaches to advanced airframe, cockpit, and propulsion technologies that could be applied to the design and manufacture of safer and more 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

181

affordable small aircraft.50 AGATE’s propulsion component was the General 

Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, managed by Leo Burkhardt at Lewis.

To inaugurate the GAP, Goldin invited members of Congress, Government 

officials, and aviation industry executives to the Agency’s headquarters in 

Washington, DC, for a formal signing ceremony and press conference on 

December 16, 1996. At the event, NASA announced the selection of Teledyne 

Continental Motors of Mobile, AL, and Williams International of Walled 

Lake, MI, to develop new piston and gas turbine engine systems, respectively. 

Goldin stressed that the goal of the program was to develop the technology 

and manufacturing processes for “revolutionary, low cost, environmentallycompliant general aviation propulsion systems and test them on advanced 

aircraft” in the year 2000.51 GAP subsequently involved two efforts, one to 

develop a diesel engine and the other to develop a small turbofan.

The GAP Diesel

Four- and six-cylinder air-cooled opposed engines, meaning the cylinders were 

arranged horizontally across from each other, manufactured and serviced by 

Continental and Lycoming, were the standard for general aviation. Originating 

during the late 1930s, they were a step above the water-cooled engines that were 

in use at the time. Unfortunately, they were noisy, caused a lot of vibration, 

required periodic maintenance, and were expensive to purchase and operate. NASA’s GAP program promised a new generation of high-performance 

engines that were smooth, quiet, user-friendly, and, most importantly, affordable. Overall, the development of a new and innovative GAP system with the 

cockpit and airframe technologies developed under AGATE would contribute 

toward the establishment of a new small aircraft transportation system in the 

United States.52

The diesel aircraft engine had not been a serious possibility for American 

aviation since the NACA stopped its research into the system in 1940.53 There 

was continual interest rooted in the simplicity and reliability of the design in 

the decades that followed, but they were heavy, especially for general aviation applications. Additionally, there were late-20th-century concerns over the 

long-term availability of aviation gasoline, or avgas. The GAP program goal for 

piston engines was to reduce engine prices by half while eliminating the need 

for leaded gasoline and to substantially improve reliability, maintainability, 

ease of use, and passenger comfort. To achieve this goal, Teledyne Continental 

Motors and an industry team that included Hartzell Propeller, propulsion 

control specialist Aerosance, and airframe manufacturers Cirrus and Lancair 

partnered with NASA Glenn to develop a highly advanced piston engine, the 

GAP diesel engine.54
The Power for Flight

182

The intended airframe for the GAP diesel was the archetypal single-engine, 

four-seat monoplane—capable of cruising at speeds of up to 200 knots—that 

dominated general aviation. To compete with contemporary piston aircraft 

engines, the engine combined the two-stroke operating cycle with an innovative and lightweight modular construction that permitted low-cost massproduction manufacturing methods and a price tag half of what conventional 

engines cost. For operational economy and practicality, the new engine burned 

readily available jet fuel at a low rate of approximately 25 percent less than 

other engines. Advanced-design, low-speed propellers that benefited from joint 

research between NASA and Hartzell offered quiet operation for both passengers and airport neighbors.55

The GAP diesel engine also incorporated a single-lever power control 

(SLPC) system, a simplified engine control compared to that in older systems. 

General aviation pilots had to manipulate as many as five levers to control 

fuel-air mixture, propeller pitch, and other parameters in flight. Introduced 

by team member Aerosance of Farmington, CT, in 1999, the SLPC worked in 

tandem with a FADEC to control the propulsion system in a manner similar to 

depressing the gas pedal of a car with an automatic transmission on the road. 

Moving the power lever automatically set the amount of fuel flow, air flow, 

ignition timing, and propeller pitch to maximize the power of the engine and 

propeller during takeoff, cruise, and landing. Overall, the use of the SLPC 

increased fuel efficiency, decreased the time between overhauls, and ensured 

the best engine and propeller performance for all flight phases.56 The SLPC was 

not exclusive to the GAP diesel, and general aviation manufacturers embraced 

the technology for a new generation of aircraft.

NASA boasted in 2004 that the GAP diesel would provide “pilots and passengers with the same kind of quiet, easy-to-use power that we have come to 

expect in our automobiles.”57 Industry observer Mike Busch remarked that the 

GAP diesel was “what the future of piston general aviation should be.”58 In the 

end, however, the NASA-industry collaboration did not lead to a production 

engine. The manufacturer’s extra costs involved in making it practical for flight, 

the overwhelming dominance of the four-stroke gasoline aviation engine, and 

the wider availability of avgas in the largest general aviation market, the United 

States, negated the need for an alternative power plant. Nevertheless, the demonstration of the engine at important venues like the Experimental Aircraft 

Association’s AirVenture convention in Oshkosh, WI, acted as a bridge in 

the late 1990s to a new generation of innovators in the United States and 

Europe. They continued development and introduced aircraft diesels in the 

early 21st century.59
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

183

The GAP Small Gas Turbine Initiative

The other component of the GAP program was the development of a small 

gas turbine engine using low-cost manufacturing techniques. The use of turbine engines by the commercial aviation industry proved their desirability 

in terms of reliability, smooth operation, use of readily available jet fuel, and 

low noise and emissions. The limiting factor preventing the widespread use of 

turbine engines in the general aviation market was their high cost. Williams 

International of Walled Lake, MI, entered into a $37 million development 

program with NASA for the design, construction, and flight demonstration 

of a turbofan called the FJX-2. The small jet would be cheaper, lighter, and 

easier to manufacture than current engines in order to promote adoption by 

the general aviation industry. Williams and its team of industry partners shared 

the funding with NASA in a 60-/40-percent agreement. The GAP program 

endeavored to reduce the cost of small turbine engines by a factor of 10 and 

revolutionize the concept of personal air transportation with the introduction 

of a new class of general aviation aircraft that were safe, affordable, and fast.60

The FJX-2 was a high-bypass-ratio turbofan engine that produced 700 pounds 

of thrust while weighing only 100 pounds, which was approximately one-fourth 

the weight of a general aviation piston engine. The FJX-2 team applied many lessons learned from automotive gas turbine engines to reduce costs. Revolutionary 

design concepts included a shrouded fan rotor, a low-pressure fuel system, an electrically driven fuel pump, a blowdown scavenge lubrication system, a remotely 

mounted gearbox, and a high-speed starter/alternator. The team placed specific 

emphasis on simplifying the design and reducing the number of parts. Low-cost 

design techniques and advanced automated manufacturing methods made the 

FJX-2 the first turbine engine that was cost-competitive with piston engines.61

The core technology of the FJX-2 engine was the high-pressure compressor. 

It was the culmination of extensive cooperation between Glenn and Williams 

International aerodynamicists using the latest advancements in 3D viscous flow 

analysis tools. The availability of NASA’s APNASA CFD code, data from compressor rig testing, and the expertise of the NASA-industry team was invaluable 

in the advancement of the compressor design. The collaboration resulted in a 

compressor that was 85 percent efficient, the most capable component of its 

size ever designed.62

Glenn provided significant support to the FJX-2 throughout the development program. Design and analysis included combustor turbomachinery 

modeling using CFD, structural and control system analysis, and noise predictions. The first prototype engine was ready to run in December 1998. 

Testing included engine altitude testing in the PSL from March to April of 

2000. Overall, the FJX-2 fell well below FAA and EPA standards for noise 
The Power for Flight

184

and emissions.63 John Adamczyk, a 30-year-veteran of Lewis, recalled that his 

involvement in the FJX-2 project was “one of the high points” of his career.64

Figure 6-3. William Guckian of Williams and Ray Castner of NASA are pictured with the GAP 

FJX-2 Turbofan at Glenn Research Center in March 2000. (NASA)

An important byproduct of the program was the derivative 550-horsepower 

TSX-2 turboprop. It differed from its turbofan counterpart only by the removal 

of the fan assembly and installation of a gearbox and five-blade propeller. 

Williams believed that the commercial success of the FJX-2 would facilitate a 

low purchase price for the TSX-2.65

The FJX-2 was the culmination of a dream of Sam Williams, the head of 

Williams International, who had pioneered the concept of the small jet engine 

beginning in the 1950s. After a long and successful career innovating power 

plants for drones and cruise missiles, which garnered him the 1978 Collier 

Trophy, he shifted his focus toward the creation of a new generation of very 

light jets (VLJs) facilitated by the FJX-2. Williams contracted Burt Rutan of 

Scaled Composites to design and build a demonstrator aircraft called the V-Jet 

II. The flights of the V-Jet II at Oshkosh in 1997, powered by different engines, 

excited the crowds there, which included aviation entrepreneur Vern Raburn. 

The former Microsoft Corporation executive quickly acquired the exclusive 

rights to the commercial version of the FJX-2 called the EJ22 for his new 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

185

Eclipse 500 VLJ. Unfortunately, the EJ22 was not ready for FAA certification, 

and Eclipse quickly replaced the underpowered and temperamental engines.66

Despite winning the 2005 Collier Trophy for its proposed production VLJ, 

Eclipse faced continued problems as quality-control issues and weak financing 

led to the dissolution of the company in 2009.67

The Advanced Ducted Propulsor

In June 1993, Ames Research Center began tests of a new jet engine that 

promised to cut fuel consumption by 12 percent as well as dramatically reduce 

noise. Called the Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), the engine was a joint 

development between NASA and Pratt & Whitney. The ADP featured three 

innovative design elements. The approximately 10-foot (3-meter)-diameter 

variable-pitch fan system incorporated 18 fan blades able to adjust for the most 

efficient positions for takeoff, cruise, and reverse thrust at landing. The system 

permitted the removal of heavy, unreliable, and expensive conventional thrust 

reversers found on current operational engines. Finally, the 40,000-horsepower 

fan-drive gear system and a high-speed, low-pressure turbine facilitated a maximum forward thrust of more than 50,000 pounds.

Previously, Pratt & Whitney had tested a one-seventh-scale model of the 

ADP at Lewis in 1991 and at Langley in 1992. The Connecticut engine maker 

collaborated with MTU Aero Engines of Munich, Germany, and Fiat Avio of 

Turin, Italy, on design and construction of the actual demonstrator engine. 

Full-scale testing began at Pratt & Whitney’s West Palm Beach, FL, facility 

during the fall of 1992; that testing confirmed that the engine was operational. The only facility capable of evaluating the ADP’s variable-pitch fan at 

reverse thrust under simulated landing conditions was the National Full-Scale 

Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) wind tunnel at Ames. Tests of the ADP, the 

largest engine evaluated at the NFAC, continued for 12 weeks.68 Optimistic 

for the future, Project Director Clifton Horne believed that ADP-style engines 

would be available for use in 300- to 700-seat commercial airliners by the early 

21st century.69 NASA continued with follow-on investigations of scale-model 

versions of newer fan blade designs at Glenn in 1995 and 1996 that showed 

increased fan efficiency and low noise.

The ADP program did not lead directly to a production engine. The complex thrust-reversing fan blade mechanism and the extensive use of expensive composite materials were costly pitfalls that ended the program. Pratt 

& Whitney did use the experience to develop the Geared TurboFan, a new 

family of engines producing thrust in the range of 24,000 to 35,000 pounds, 

in partnership with MTU Aero Engines in Germany. The company engineers 

incorporated a planetary reduction gearbox that connected the core to the lowpressure system; a conventional thrust reverser mechanism; and an advanced 
The Power for Flight

186

fan with fixed, wide-chord blades. The gearbox between the fan and the lowpressure shaft allowed each to run at their optimum rotational speeds. That 

arrangement enabled fewer stages to be used in both the low-pressure turbine 

and the compressor.70

Figure 6-4. The Pratt & Whitney and NASA team prepare the Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP) 

for a flow visualization test in the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) 40- by 80-foot 

Wind Tunnel at the Ames Research Center. (NASA)

The latest version, designated the PurePower PW1000G, became the engine 

of choice for a new generation of narrow-body, medium-range jetliners manufactured by Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Irkut, and Mitsubishi that would 

go into production in 2013. Pratt & Whitney celebrated the attributes of its 

engines, which reflected the decades-long quest for fuel-efficient, clean, and 

quiet engines pursued so assiduously by NASA. The PW1000G was 16 percent 

more fuel-efficient, 50 percent cleaner, and 75 percent quieter than contemporary engines.71

Turning the Tide on Noise

As the 1990s began, there were indications of the payoff in noise-reduction 

efforts facilitated by NASA and the FAA. The proportion of quieter aircraft 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

187

used by American airlines increased from 52 percent (2,685 aircraft) to 59 percent (3,450 aircraft) in 1992. At the regulation level, acting FAA Administrator 

Joseph M. Del Balzo stated, “[T]he battle is far from over, but the figures 

clearly show that the tide is turning.” The Aviation Noise and Capacity Act 

enacted by Congress in 1990 directed the elimination of Stage 2 operations 

by the end of the decade. The requirements for Stage 3 aircraft reflected new 

approaches to noise suppression. Engine designers muffled noise at takeoff by 

reducing the speed of exhaust and installing sound-absorbing material in the 

large turbofan engines found on modern Stage 3 aircraft. Stage 3 technology 

created an improvement of up to 25 dB over first-generation Stage 1 aircraft, 

or an 80-percent reduction in perceived noise. Six years later, the FAA imposed 

Stage 4, which applied to all aircraft designed after January 2006.72 There were 

also increasingly strict international noise regulations. American airliners landing at European airports came under the authority of the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations agency responsible for 

worldwide noise standards and its Annex 16 regulations.

The Advanced Subsonic Technology Program

By the early 21st century, the aviation industry in the United States was 

accounting for annual sales in excess of $36 billion and employing nearly 

1 million workers. Ever-expanding globalization encouraged a travel boom that 

stood to increase the industry’s worldwide market share. The key to success for 

both American aviation and the country’s economy as a whole was remaining competitive regarding aircraft technology.73 With environmental concerns 

increasingly taking an equal priority alongside technical and economic factors 

in the shaping and adoption of new technology, quieter airplanes possessed an 

advantage in the aviation marketplace.

The challenge of overcoming aircraft noise persisted into the late 20th 

century. Previous NASA and industry jet noise research focused on either 

subsonic mixed-flow long-duct nozzle systems or supersonic low-bypass turbojet nozzle systems. There was little emphasis on the high-bypass-ratio, nonmixed, separate-flow, short-duct exhaust systems that were part of the GE, 

Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce turbofan engines found on wide-body airliners like the Boeing 747. They were not the major source of noise. As aircraft 

weights increased, the need for higher-thrust engines resulted in higher jet 

velocities, temperatures, and pressure ratios that were exponentially noisier.74

Increased air traffic and population growth into areas surrounding airports 

resulted in a larger percentage of communities being impacted by noise. As a 

result, the desire to reduce noise around airports intensified.

NASA estimated that the technology capable of reducing the “noise annoyance footprint” around an airport would not be available until 2024 at the 
The Power for Flight

188

earliest. In response, the Agency worked to accelerate that development of the 

required technologies in a much shorter timeframe—by 2000. The program 

was under the umbrella of the Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) program. 

AST originated in February 1992 as a partnership between NASA, the FAA, 

and the U.S. aviation industry. The program aimed to develop high-payoff 

technologies that enabled a safe, highly productive global air transportation 

system. At the core of the system was a new generation of environmentally 

compatible and economical aircraft and engines.75

NASA identified four distinct classes of airliners that permitted a thorough evaluation of noise-reduction technology over a broad range of technical 

parameters. They represented large four-engine aircraft like the Boeing 747, 

medium twin-engine airliners such as the Airbus A330, small twin-engine transports like the Boeing 737, and business jets like the Learjet 25. Aircraft engine 

manufacturers became involved according to their product specialties. GE and 

Pratt & Whitney participated in testing and analyses associated with the large, 

medium, and small airliners with engines that ranged in thrust from 30,000 to 

90,000 pounds. Rolls-Royce and Honeywell worked primarily on their power 

plants for business jets whose engines produced 15,000 pounds or less.76

Langley, Ames, and Lewis played a role in AST, with researchers at Langley 

evaluating and distributing reports on the overall progress of the program. 

They collaborated and managed the research through contracts and subcontracts with universities and the U.S. aviation industry. The organizations and 

individuals participating did change over the course of the AST program. The 

representation from industry was comprehensive; participants included GE, 

Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Honeywell, Rohr, Boeing, and Lockheed. A 

key element in guiding the AST was a working group composed of industry, 

NASA, and FAA membership. They identified technical needs, research activities, and team arrangements, and they coordinated between the myriad groups 

involved. Additionally, an industry steering committee provided manufacturer 

and airline experience to the process that facilitated a balance between partner 

needs, implementation, and program advocacy.77

AST’s immediate technical focus centered on the creation of noise-reduction 

technology that would enable the U.S. aviation industry to feed unrestrained 

market growth and secure its economic position while remaining compliant 

with international environmental standards. NASA’s answer was the cumulative reduction of subsonic aircraft noise by 30 EPNdB by the year 2000. 

NASA was confident that the AST noise-reduction program would accomplish 

that goal.78

The AST adopted NASA’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) methodology to measure progress in the development of individual technologies as well 

as comparing them with others. Researcher Stan Sadin at Headquarters in 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

189

Washington, DC, originated the first TRL scale in 1974 for space technology. 

The idea spread throughout Government and military research organizations 

and agencies through the 1980s. By 1995, a refined set of nine overlapping 

TRLs was in place to aid in the evaluation of the AST:

Tier TRL Description

System test and 

operations 

(TRLs 8–9)

9 Actual system “flight proven” in operational flight

8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through 

test and demonstration

System/subsystem 

development 

(TRLs 6–8)

7 System prototype demonstration in a flight environment

6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration 

in a relevant environment

Technology 

demonstration 

(TRLs 5–6)

5 Component and/or breadboard validation in 

relevant environment

Technology 

development 

(TRLs 3–5)

4 Component and/or breadboard test in a 

laboratory environment

3 Analytical and experimental critical function, or 

characteristic proof of concept

Research to prove 

feasibility 

(TRLs 2–3)

2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

Basic technology 

research 

(TRLs 1–2)

1 Basic principles observed and reported

The AST program set the target TRLs for the noise-reduction technology 

investigated to be 5 or 6, which reflected the demonstration phase of development. TRL 6 also marked the dividing line between the Government (1–6) 

and industrial (7–9) roles in the development of new technologies.79 It was 

clear where the responsibilities lay in terms of support, which offered clarity 

regarding NASA’s appropriate place within American aviation.

The AST divided its effort to make quieter aircraft into specific elements: 

engine, nacelle, airframe integration and system evaluation, interior environment, and community noise. With its expertise in aeropropulsion and recognition as a Center of Excellence in turbomachinery, Lewis (later Glenn) managed 

the Engine Noise Reduction Element of the AST program. The element’s goal 

was to develop technology that would reduce noise at the fan and exhaust by 

6 EPNdB by the program’s completion in 2000. That was no small feat since a 

10-EPNdB noise reduction was equivalent to lessening the noise level by 50 percent. The program originally aimed to improve the soon-to-be-introduced 

higher-bypass engines like the GE90 but modified that goal to include current 
The Power for Flight

190

turbofans to increase the chance of an immediate result. Approximately 75 percent of the AST program’s budget went to propulsion system noise reduction.80

Starting in 1992, Glenn and representatives from industry established a 

baseline centered on current technical capabilities and designs. GE, Pratt & 

Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and Honeywell submitted data based on the performance of their engines and the resultant noise produced. The team adopted a 

standard nomenclature for engine-component noise to assist in overall communication. Those abbreviations—inlet, aft fan, core, turbine, and jet—greatly 

facilitated a common point of departure for research. The team members then 

were able to investigate several concepts generated by NASA, industry, and 

academia to reduce overall engine noise for the four representative aircraft.81

The Engine Noise Reduction Element centered on six primary concepts. 

The development of advanced liners relied upon work in nacelle aeroacoustics that focused on refining the cowling that houses the engine below the 

wing. To meet the goal, researchers collaborating through the Boeing Nacelle 

Aeroacoustic System Technology Assessment worked on new designs that 

absorbed, canceled, or redirected engine noise. The avenues explored included 

the analytical modeling of nacelles to predict their effect on noise propagation; 

laboratory experiments in passive, adaptive, and active control treatment to 

improve duct noise; and scale-model and full-scale tests to validate the new 

designs.82 NASA identified that the best arrangement for inlet noise reduction was a scarf inlet, a design that featured a protruding lower lip to redirect 

noise away from the ground, combined with a seamless full acoustic liner 

that included the inlet lip. The reduction was 2.3 and 4.0 EPNdB at landing 

approach and cutback respectively.83

Another avenue of research involved work with Herschel-Quincke (HQ) 

tubes. They were passive devices that suppressed tone noise through the use 

of tubes tuned to specific frequencies. The adjustment of the length of an 

HQ tube allowed maximum suppression of targeted frequencies, primarily 

in the range of 2,500 to 3,100 Hertz. Researchers at Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) tested three HQ configurations 

on a JT15D inlet and found that a double array of 20 and 16 tubes tuned to 

different, but similar, frequencies provided effective noise reduction.84

Two concept investigations involved modified fans and stators (stationary 

blades that directed airflow) to minimize the wake interaction between the fan 

and stator to reduce noise at both the inlet and aft fan. The first incorporated 

stators that were swept aft. Glenn researchers tested them with a high-speed 

fan in 1999 and found that they yielded suppression levels at approach of 

1.4 EPNdB at the inlet. The second concept combined stators that were swept 

aft and leaned to the side to further minimize wake interactions with a forwardswept fan that delayed the onset of high-speed-rotor multiple pure tones. Tests 

in the Glenn 9- by 15-Foot wind tunnel of designs submitted by a GE-Allison 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

191

team and Honeywell revealed that the latter generated the best suppression 

levels. The work demonstrated that a forward-swept fan combined with swept 

and leaned stators reduced inlet and aft-fan noise levels at both the sideline 

and cutback certification points by 2.5 EPNdB.85

Evaluation of the acoustic liners, HQ tubes, and other noise-reduction solutions was made possible through NASA’s Engine Validation of Noise Reduction 

Concepts (EVNRC) program. Beginning in August 1997, the EVNRC provided the necessary funding for Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, and 

other contractors to validate noise-reduction concepts and technologies that 

evolved during the AST through engine testing.86 The contracts supported 

work at industrial research and development facilities through the 2000s.

NASA also saw the need for the acoustic and aerodynamic integration 

of turbofan engines with the high-lift flap-and-slot systems found on commercial airliners. Researchers aimed to reduce airframe noise by 4 dB at both 

takeoff/climb and approach/landing below 1992 levels while maintaining performance. The solution was the introduction of new subcomponent airframe 

noise-prediction codes that allowed for the proper evaluation of interrelationship between the disparate structures.87

The remaining two research elements centered on improving the overall 

noise environment for passengers inside the airliner and people on the ground. 

The research to reduce cabin interior noise by 6 dB relative to 1992 technology integrated studies in source identification (a combination of engine noise 

and vibration with the aerodynamic boundary layer and the turbofan jet flow) 

with interior sound prediction and new noise-control concepts. Researchers 

also endeavored to create technology that reduced the impact of noise on communities surrounding an airport. They concentrated on achieving a 3-EPNdB 

reduction through the application of new aircraft technologies and operational 

procedures, enhanced noise impact modeling and prediction, and a better 

understanding of the relationship between human response and aircraft noise.88

The majority of the aircraft and engine noise-reduction technologies created 

for the AST program reached the desired TRL of 5 by the program’s end. That 

accomplishment reflected efficient coordination between the Government, 

industry, and academia. The researchers evaluating the program acknowledged 

that the AST partnership prepared for “an orderly and effective transition” from 

research and development to operational use as NASA and industry carried 

the technology forward into the 21st century.89

Toward Active Noise Control

Active noise control was a new approach to reducing noise generated at the fan 

inlet. It was attractive as an enhancement option, or a complete alternative overall, to acoustic lining and HQ tubes due to the shorter inlet lengths found on 
The Power for Flight

192

the newer higher-bypass engines from Pratt & Whitney, GE, and Rolls-Royce 

with large-diameter fans. The concept was simple. Sensors detected noise disturbances in the engine. They triggered negative-noise generators that canceled 

out the undesirable sound waves. The end product was no noticeable noise. 

The creation of active noise-control technology was a multidisciplinary effort 

requiring expertise in duct acoustics, controls, and actuator/sensor design.90

NASA overall was optimistic regarding the “potentially high payoffs” of 

active noise control, which would be a major contribution to the overall 6-dB 

noise-reduction goal of the AST program. The Agency fully intended for the 

validated technology to be available for use by all U.S. engine manufacturers. 

The result would be a new generation of economical and environmentally 

friendly aircraft and engines.91

Both Pratt & Whitney and GE investigated active noise control as part 

of the AST program. Central to the evaluation of their new fans was Lewis’s 

unique testing facility, the 9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel. The Active 

Noise Control Fan, developed at Lewis, was a 4-foot-diameter low-speed fan. 

Several concepts, including an arrangement of two circumferential arrays of 

acoustic actuators developed with GE, successfully canceled selected acoustic 

modes.92 Pratt & Whitney’s 22-inch ADP low-speed fan model mounted in a 

nacelle provided the data for the AST’s analysis. Active noise control reduced 

inlet fan noise by 1.5 EPNdB at approach but increased noise at cutback. The 

work never reached the desired TRL of 5, so NASA removed active noise control from the overall evaluation process during the AST program.93

Nevertheless, the potential benefits to industry were obvious by the late 

1990s. Rob Howes, supervisor of acoustics and structural dynamics for Cessna, 

remarked that while the research at Lewis was “on the cutting edge,” what 

impressed him the most was the “timeliness” of the research and its direct 

applicability to the then-current market challenges.94 The next step was to go 

beyond the ground-based testing facilities of models and perform full-scale 

validation of the noise-reduction technology on full-scale turbofan engines. 

The most promising concepts from the model scale testing would be selected 

for real-environment demonstration.95 A concept using active noise control 

in an inlet of a PW4098 engine was tested at Pratt &Whitney’s static engine 

stand in West Palm Beach, FL. Unfortunately, mechanical problems prevented 

the successful completion of the validation test.

Chevrons: The Deceptively Simple Solution

During the 1980s, the United States Air Force started looking for ways to 

reduce aircraft infrared signature by mixing the engine exhaust with free stream 

air. NASA later observed that the same nozzles reduced noise emissions as 

well. The AST Program’s Steering Committee and Technical Working Group 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

193

created the Separate-Flow Nozzle (SFN) Jet Noise Reduction Test Program in 

1995 at Lewis. The program aimed to avoid higher aircraft noise levels without 

resorting to expensive and time-consuming engine and nacelle redesign. The 

source of the problem was the combination of the high-velocity gas flow, or jet, 

from the core engine (consisting of the high-pressure compressor, combustor, 

and high-pressure turbine); the slower air from the fan bypass duct; and the 

surrounding air. Some engine manufacturers, such as Rolls-Royce, resorted to 

heavy and expensive long fan duct mixed-flow nacelles with internal mixers to 

reduce jet noise. NASA’s solution was the development of lightweight external 

noise-suppression devices that were easily incorporated into existing separateflow exhaust nozzles with no noticeable loss in thrust. The goal was to mix 

the jet exhaust as it exited the engine with the free stream flow in a way to 

promote the suppression of the exhaust noise of the engine.96 The benchmark 

was a 3-decibel reduction in jet noise as compared to 1992 technology.97 The 

SFN program led to investigations into a range of new mechanical-suppression 

devices that would hold great promise for the future of jet noise reduction.98

Pratt & Whitney and GE received AST contracts to design and build scale 

models of separate-flow exhaust nozzles employing a range of experimental jet 

noise external suppression devices. Pratt & Whitney worked with data provided 

by two important subcontractors. Boeing’s phased array tests revealed that there 

were two distinct jet noise sources at low- to mid-frequencies. The first, called 

buzz saw noise, was upstream, at the nozzle exit; the other, called shockcell 

noise, was downstream, beyond the exhaust. The United Technologies Research 

Center (UTRC) used CFD analyses to investigate the flow fields of the nozzle 

concepts. The engine maker delivered nine suppression devices that relied 

upon varying types of tab, scarf, offset, and lobed configurations to reduce 

jet noise. GE’s submissions included vortex generator doublets and chevrons. 

Lewis researchers evaluated the models in the Nozzle Acoustic Test Rig (NATR) 

from March 20 to June 18, 1997, under static and simulated flight conditions 

(which included collecting far-field acoustic data) and analyzed the results. 

They concluded that Pratt & Whitney’s inward-facing chevrons and flippertabs on the primary and fan exhaust nozzles reduced suppression levels nearly 

to the 3-EPNdB goal of the SFN. As the AST program drew to a close, the 

chevron element reached the TRL goal of 6.99

The deceptively simple designs that required no modifications to existing short-duct, separate-flow, nonmixed nozzle exhaust systems that emerged 

from the SFN program effectively decreased the downstream noise with only 

a minimum increase in upstream noise.100 In other words, the jagged edges 

smoothed the mixing of both the hot air from the engine core and the cooler 

air blowing through the engine fan to reduce the turbulent hissing of the two 

flows shearing against each and creating noise.
The Power for Flight

194

As an outgrowth of testing derived from noise-suppressor concepts for military and civilian aircraft engines, the chevron nozzle had become a promising 

new concept, and research and refinement accelerated. Glenn researchers performed tests of 6 and 12 chevron nozzles on turbojet engines used on business 

jets in the spring of 2000. They achieved a 2-EPNdB reduction in noise over that 

of a standard conical nozzle. A NASA flight research team validated the results at 

full-scale in a Learjet 25 operating out of Estrella Sailport near Phoenix, AZ, in 

March 2001.101 The computational and experimental research sponsored by the 

AST developed an in-depth understanding of the fluid mechanics of the chevron 

nozzle concept. Work began on the practical implementation of chevrons as 

the ideal configuration. The period 2001–2005 witnessed the ground testing 

in engine stands and flight evaluation in relevant environments.102

The Quiet Technology Demonstrator Program

NASA continued its sponsorship of the development of noise-reducing technologies through the Quiet Technology Demonstrator (QTD) program initiated in 

early 2000. To support research performed by the Boeing Company and RollsRoyce, it provided the funding for new technologies that addressed the three 

primary sources of aircraft noise generated by the engine fan, the mixing of the 

engine and bypass exhaust with the surrounding air, and the airframe’s wings and 

landing gear.103 The QTD program built upon the work of NASA’s SFN program 

and conducted both static model testing and in-flight validation of chevrons 

installed on high-bypass-ratio turbofans found on large commercial airliners. 

During the fall of 2001, the 3-week flight-test program of a modified Rolls-Royce 

Trent 800 turbofan installed on an Boeing 777 airliner on loan from American 

Airlines led to significant results. The researchers investigated combinations of 

sawtooth chevrons mounted on the primary and secondary exhaust nozzles and 

an expanded acoustic lining of the inlet. The best arrangement yielded reductions 

of 13 dB at the inlet fan and 4 dB at the exhaust. Hoping to achieve only 7 dB 

and 3 dB respectively, Boeing noise specialist Belur Shivashankara concluded 

that the “test results came out better than we expected.”104

NASA Langley’s Quiet Aircraft Technology Initiative

The Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) team led by NASA Langley continued 

to address the difficult problem of reducing noise from flying aircraft beginning 

in 2001. With a budget of $45 million, the project aimed to achieve a reduction of one-half in perceived community noise by 2007 and a reduction of 

75 percent in 2020. They examined the persistent sources of noise addressed by 

the AST program. Airframe noise consisted of sound generated from wing slats 

and flaps and landing gear at takeoff and landing. Scarfed engine inlets, noiseabsorbing treatments in the inlet, and chevron engine nozzle exit concepts 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

195

addressed engine noise. Additionally, researchers scrutinized aircraft patterns 

around airports to determine new flight routes to lessen the noise impact on 

surrounding communities.105 NASA Glenn was responsible for engine noise 

and focused on the fan and jet.

NASA-Funded Chevron Studies

NASA went on to encourage further study into noise-reduction technologies 

through support and partnership with Boeing. Researchers in 2003 conducted 

comparison studies to determine the ideal configuration for internally mixed 

nozzles. They concluded that while traditional lobe mixers were quieter, their 

use also resulted in a higher loss of thrust. Chevron mixers, which up to that 

point had been used only for separate flow nozzles, suffered no appreciable loss 

in thrust and were lighter and easier to manufacture. Overall, the researchers 

believed that chevrons were a suitable replacement for lobe mixers.106 The following year, NASA Langley’s Aeroacoustics Branch collaborated with Boeing 

to examine the question of whether azimuthally varying chevrons could reduce 

total jet-related noise radiated toward the ground. The investigation centered 

on taking advantage of the asymmetric flow and acoustic environment created 

by the pylon, the wing, and the interaction of the exhaust jet with flaps on the 

wing. The team concluded that T-fan chevrons with deeper scallops at the top 

of the nozzle were superior to chevrons with a uniform azimuth.107

Another barrier to the widespread adoption of chevrons was the technology’s effect on overall aircraft fuel efficiency. The use of chevrons decreased 

noise at takeoff, which met the needs of regulators and communities in the 

vicinity of airports. When an airliner reached cruise altitude, those same devices 

degraded thrust efficiency because they protruded, or were immersed, into the 

jet flow. The resultant higher fuel costs would not satisfy the airline industry’s 

profit margins. Both NASA and Boeing investigated systems that optimized 

chevron immersion into jet flow at takeoff and cruise. Boeing produced variable chevrons that incorporated heat-activated nickel-titanium SMA actuators. The flight crew could control the amount of immersion or rely upon 

autonomous variation.108

According to one observer, NASA’s sponsorship of the QTD program and 

the additional industry research efforts had “led chevron technology to the 

brink of commercial application by 2005.”109 That same year, the first commercial engine with chevron exhaust nozzles was GE’s 20,000-pound-thrust 

CF34, introduced in 2005. Over 60 operators purchased over 1,400 CF34s 

and accumulated over 13 million flight hours and 9 million cycles in service, 

primarily on Embraer E190 and E195 airliners.110
The Power for Flight

196

The Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 Program

Ground and flight tests by NASA and its industry partners in 2005 and 2006 

under the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) program proved that the 

new scalloped chevron design reduced noise levels both in the passenger cabin 

and on the ground.111 The 3-week 777 flight-test program in August 2005 was 

a partnership between General Electric, Goodrich Corporation, Boeing, and 

All Nippon Airways conducted at Boeing’s facility at Glasgow, MT.

The tests validated the effectiveness of a number of significant airplane 

noise-reduction concepts developed in computer simulations and wind tunnels. The combination of acoustic liners and chevrons created an effective noisesuppression system and removed the need for several hundred pounds of sound 

insulation installed in the fuselage. For the airlines, less weight translated to 

greater operational efficiency and higher revenues for the airlines. The team also 

evaluated variable-geometry chevrons made with a temperature-reactive SMA. 

Called “smart,” or active, chevrons, they automatically warped in the jet exhaust 

flow to reduce noise at takeoff and landing and reverted to a streamlined position 

at cruise altitude. The new fan and engine core chevron exhaust configurations 

reduced “community noise” by 2 dB. The low-frequency rumble heard in the aft 

cabin by passengers at cruise altitude was reduced 4 to 6 dB. The new Goodrich 

“seamless” sound-absorbing liner inside the engine inlet reduced fan tones heard 

in front of the aircraft by up to 15 dB, to where they were “almost inaudible.”112

While chevrons reduced noise, they still imposed a cruise performance penalty. An adaptive-geometry chevron would lessen noise at takeoff and retract 

during cruising flight. Complementing Boeing’s work on “smart” chevrons, 

NASA further refined the new technology. Glenn developed a high-temperature 

SMA alloy that Continuum Dynamics, Inc., integrated into a new chevron 

design as the solution.113 In 2007, Langley researchers investigated two types 

of active chevrons that differed on when the power for the SMA actuators 

was applied, either during takeoff (immersed) or cruise (retracted). Their tests 

simulated flow conditions representing the bypass exhaust of commercial jet 

engines. They concluded that the power-off-retracted (POR) chevron was the 

better configuration. It exhibited precise and rapid control that used the very 

aerodynamic forces acting against it to immerse and retract at a rate of deflection greater than that of the power-off-immersed (POI) chevron.114 The challenges for the new design involved reaching the needed high actuation forces, 

limited volume for actuator placement, and high operating temperatures.

Chevron nozzles evolved from being a promising proof of concept in the 

mid-1990s to an undeniable part of a quieter future for aviation in the early 

21st century. GE incorporated a sawtooth-shaped nozzle on its revolutionary GEnx engine destined for the highly anticipated Boeing 787 Dreamliner 

in 2006. By 2011, NASA-influenced chevron technology existed on the 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

197

GE, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce engines powering the Airbus A321; 

Boeing 747-8; Boeing 787-8 and -9 Dreamliners; Embraer Lineage 1000 and 

170, 175, 190, and 195 series E-Jets; and the Bombardier Regional Jet CRJ700. 

Many manufacturers with aircraft currently in development are looking into 

the concept.115 Looking back on chevron development and their quick pace 

through the TRLs from the identification of the basic concept to flight-proven 

hardware, NASA manager Fay Collier remarked, “We had a bunch of smart 

NASA people pushing hard, and that gave us the momentum necessary to 

carry the technology all the way.”116

There was an additional step beyond the use of physical chevrons to reduce 

noise. Studies conducted by Boeing and Russian researchers used a series of 

small jets emerging from the fan nozzle cowl to simulate metal chevrons. They 

used NASA-developed high-bypass-ratio nozzles as their baseline. Their tests 

revealed the promise of increased noise reduction and flexibility for a variety 

of flight conditions and for a wide range of nozzle bypass ratios.117 NASA’s 

involvement in the development of the chevron opened up new possibilities 

for innovation in commercial propulsion technology.

Propulsion for Supersonic and Hypersonic Flight

NASA’s High-Speed Research Program, 1990–1999

In 1990, NASA initiated the High-Speed Research (HSR) program as a collaborative effort between NASA and industry to overcome the technical barriers 

that had been plaguing the successful development of a supersonic airliner in 

the United States since the 1970s. The idea of a 300-passenger High-Speed 

Civil Transport (HSCT) able to cruise at 1,500 miles per hour across entire 

oceans in half the time and cost of conventional subsonic airliners was a persistent and provocative concept for American aeronautics. Boeing, GE, and 

Pratt & Whitney represented the airframe and aircraft engine industries. 

Langley managed the HSR overall, with Ames, Dryden, and Glenn providing 

their aeronautical research expertise. Goddard Space Flight Center and the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory also contributed to the project overall.118

In December 1995, NASA contracted Boeing to undertake a study of the 

concept, which benefited from Agency-sponsored research from the 1980s. 

In this iteration, the end product, a Technology Concept Airplane (TCA), 

would lead to the introduction of an economically viable and environmentally 

friendly HSCT capable of cruising at Mach 2.4 in the early 21st century. HSR 

focused on two major development programs centered on airframe structures 

and propulsion technology. The former included high-temperature composite 
The Power for Flight

198

materials and structures and the windowless eXternal Visibility System for 

the cockpit.119

Figure 6-5. Pictured is a NASA study concept for an HSCT aircraft. (NASA)

The HSR team created the Critical Propulsion Components (CPC) element 

in 1994 to develop a commercially viable propulsion system for the HSCT. 

Glenn provided research assistance and managed a joint contract awarded to 

GE and Pratt & Whitney. They faced two overarching challenges. The first 

was to reduce NOx emissions at cruising altitude to an index of less than 5, or 

by a factor of 10 compared to other engines. Second, the HSCT had to meet 

the FAA’s increasingly stringent FAR 36 Stage 3 airport noise restrictions, 

which required a reduction of 4–6 EPNdB at the sideline, 8–10 EPNdB at 

cutback, and 5–6 EPNdB during landing approach.120 Jet noise research alone 

accounted for $75 million of the HSR budget.121

In 1994, NASA and industry partners chose two concepts to pursue for the 

HSR program that focused on the development of an economically and environmentally practical American supersonic airliner. The mixed-flow turbofan 

and fan-on-blade (FLADE) concepts promised to be the cheapest, quietest, 

cleanest, and easiest to develop. Creating an engine that was both quiet at 

takeoff and clean and efficient during supersonic cruise was a challenge. Both 

concepts reduced noise by mixing low-energy air with high-energy exhaust 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

199

flows during takeoff. The mixed-flow turbofan directed a secondary, slowermoving bypass airstream that rejoined the engine airflow before the exhaust 

nozzle. The FLADE employed an auxiliary fan that added a compression stage 

in its own flow stream at the fan tip that could be closed to reduce drag during 

supersonic cruise. The two concepts underwent comparative evaluation with 

the intention that the winner be selected in 1996. From there, focused development would have led to full-scale testing with enough data to contribute to 

an operational engine by 2001.122

Glenn’s capabilities and expertise proved central to the development of the 

HSCT’s propulsion system. Researchers used the promising new computer 

design tool, NPSS software, to create and run a model of the engine and then 

compare the results to Pratt & Whitney’s own proprietary program. The use 

of Glenn’s Abe Silverstein Supersonic 10- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel permitted 

the establishment of fan face pressure profiles in a model inlet. Other propulsion innovations included new turbine blade and disc materials, chevron mixer 

nozzles to reduce noise, and a powder-metal process used to fabricate the nozzle 

components. The anticipated conclusion of the CPC was 2002, but the cancellation of the HSR in 1999, due to the age-old debate over the Government’s 

appropriate role in the development of large-scale technologies, prematurely 

ended the program. That did not stop the GE and Pratt & Whitney engineers 

from announcing in 2005 that their NASA-funded program had proved that 

a Mach 2.4 commercial airliner was a practical possibility.123

In the wake of the cancellation of the HSCT program, advocates for supersonic air transportation modified their goals. They envisioned that the successful follow-on to the Anglo-French Concorde SST that had been in limited 

service since 1976 between Europe and North America would be a much 

smaller business jet. The challenge was the same: the elimination of the effects 

of the sonic boom. NASA funded the Advanced Supersonic Propulsion and 

Integration Research (ASPIRE) project in 2000 as a part of the Revolutionary 

Concepts in Aeronautics (RevCon) Flight Research Project. Under the direction of Principal Investigator David Arend at Glenn, team members aimed 

to install a mixed-compression supersonic inlet along with a low-sonic-boom 

nacelle/diverter/wing simulator on the back of NASA’s Lockheed SR-71 

Blackbird research vehicle for evaluation.

High-Supersonic and Hypersonic Research

In his February 4, 1986, State of the Union Address, President Ronald Reagan 

announced that the United States was “going forward with a new Orient 

Express that could, by the end of the next decade, take off from Dulles Airport, 

accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low earth orbit or flying 

to Tokyo within two hours.”124 The President was referring to an ambitious 
The Power for Flight

200

study effort by DARPA, in conjunction with the United States Air Force, for 

a radical single-stage-to-orbit hypersonic vehicle. This led to the formation of 

a Joint Service and NASA National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Project Office, 

the NASP Joint Program Office (JPO), at the Air Force System Command’s 

Aeronautical Systems Division located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

OH, headed by Major General Kenneth Staten. Eventually, not quite a decade 

later, the program came to an end, having failed to overcome the challenge of 

generating enough power to ensure orbital entry.125 Nevertheless, while the program ran, it significantly advanced the state of hypersonic knowledge, served as 

a focal point for facilities development, and encouraged advanced materials and 

fuels research that had tremendous benefits for subsequent efforts. Different 

mission profiles included its use as a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, a transpacific 

hypersonic airliner, a new military aircraft, experimental research vehicle, or 

the flying test bed for research and development program.126

The Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator Program

Even though the NASP did not succeed, the lure of hypersonic flight was 

pervasive through the 1990s.127 Advocates increasingly looked to combined 

propulsion systems with both gas turbine and turboramjet/scramjet technical 

approaches. GE began the development of a revolutionary high-speed turbine 

technology for a new Mach 4 jet engine in conjunction with NASA Glenn in 

July 2002. The Center selected GE for the development of a Revolutionary 

Turbine Accelerator (RTA) technology demonstrator for use in a thirdgeneration reusable launch vehicle. Glenn administered the RTA project for the 

Advanced Space Transportation Program managed by NASA’s Marshall Space 

Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. The goal of the 5-year, $55 million program 

was to produce a working demonstrator by 2006. Paul Bartolotta, RTA project 

engineer at Glenn, believed that very-low-cost space access could be realized by 

an affordable air-breathing propulsion system that provided aircraft-like operations. That capability facilitated expanded versatility beyond just space access 

to broaden economic revenues. For that reason, NASA selected the GE RTA 

concept, an engine capable of sustained high supersonic speeds that exhibited 

a quick-turnaround capability similar to that of a commercial airliner.128

NASA intended the RTA to be the first stage of a two-stage vehicle capable 

of hypersonic flight. At Mach 4, the second stage would take over and propel 

the vehicle into orbit. The hybrid propulsion system was a way to achieve safe, 

cost-effective access to space. The RTA featured an augmentor/ramburner, or 

hyperburner, a key component of the Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) 

engine. During takeoff and transition to supersonic flight, the device would 

serve as a conventional augmentor boosting the turbine engine thrust by 

approximately 50 percent. The augmentor would transition to a ramburner 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

201

between Mach 2 and 3 to accelerate the vehicle to speeds above Mach 4. 

GE worked to construct a fan to demonstrate the performance and efficiency 

of the new augmentor/ramburner.129 The advanced propulsion technologies 

introduced during NASA’s UEET and DOD’s IHPTET programs contributed to the knowledge base of the RTA project.130 Glenn engineers completed 

tests in their W8 facility and documented the results in various NASA and 

ASME reports.

X-43 and X-51 Prove the Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

NASA’s Hyper-X research program investigated hypersonic flight with the 

X-43A research vehicle, an airframe integrated with a new type of aircraft 

engine, a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet). Previous hypersonic 

craft—the X-15, the lifting bodies, various reentry vehicles, and the Space 

Shuttle—had relied upon rocket power for propulsion. A conventional airbreathing jet engine, which relied upon rotating machinery and the mixture 

of air and atomized fuel for combustion, could propel aircraft only to speeds 

between Mach 3 and 4. A conventional subsonic combustion ramjet could 

exceed Mach 4. But a scramjet could operate well past Mach 5 and, in theory, 

all the way into orbit. Its converging inlet compressed and accelerated the 

incoming air to supersonic speeds. From there, combustors ignited the fuel and 

air mixture to produce heat, and a diverging nozzle accelerated the heated air 

to produce thrust. The disadvantage of a scramjet was twofold. First, like the 

older subsonic ramjet, it was unable to propel a vehicle at very low subsonic 

speeds. Second, igniting a scramjet was no easy matter; it has been compared 

to lighting a match in a hurricane. Programs like the X-43 and the later X-51 

addressed two very fundamental questions: (1) Could a scramjet ignite? And 

if so, (2) could it produce positive thrust (i.e., more thrust than drag)? As the 

new century opened, the answer was by no means clear.

To get basic answers, Langley tested a spare flight engine on an X-43 wind 

tunnel model that accurately represented the size and shape of the full-scale 

vehicle. The model was tested in the Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel 

to verify the propulsion system performance at Mach 7 flight conditions. 

X-43A research vehicles subsequently made three flights from Dryden. For 

each, NASA used a modified first stage of a Pegasus winged rocket booster to 

get the X-43A up to speed after being dropped from a B-52 mother ship at 

40,000 feet. The first flight on June 2, 2001, was a disaster due to the failure 

of the booster control surfaces shortly after launch. Following a lengthy flight 

safety and flight review process, the X-43A flew successfully for the first time 

on March 27, 2004, on its second flight attempt. During the 10-second flight, 

the little engine demonstrated the first successful operation of a scramjet in 

history as it reached Mach 6.83. Later, on November 16, 2004, a second, 
The Power for Flight

202

Figure 6-6. The Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJX61-2 scramjet undergoes ground testing 

simulating Mach 5 flight conditions in the Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel. (NASA)
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

203

11-second flight achieved Mach 9.68, then the fastest speed ever attained by an 

air-breathing engine, flying over 6,600 mph. Those flights produced more data 

on scramjet engines at high Mach numbers than all flights during the previous 

four decades, including the first free-flight data and the validation of predictive 

design tools.131 NASA researchers had demonstrated that hypersonic flight was 

possible and pointed the way to the future of high-speed flight.

A follow-on program was the Boeing X-51A WaveRider hypersonic flight 

demonstrator, a cooperative effort between the Air Force, NASA, Boeing, 

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, and DARPA, with overall management responsibility by the Propulsion Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. The X-43 was simply an experiment to 

see if a scramjet engine could function. The X-51A aimed at developing a thermally balanced production-quality scramjet engine that was capable of operating for minutes, not just seconds, while using a conventional hydrocarbon fuel 

rather than an exotic propellant like liquid hydrogen. Indeed, the X-51A used 

JP-7, the same fuel as the legendary Lockheed Blackbird. Glenn provided the 

CFD expertise that allowed the accurate prediction of airflow. Langley validated the WaveRider’s SJX61-2 scramjet at Mach 5 in its uniquely important 

8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel during the period 2006 to 2008.132

For its flight on May 26, 2010, the X-51A accelerated over the coast of 

southern California to Mach 4.87 for 143 seconds, almost two and a half 

minutes, which became the longest hypersonic flight in history.133 But subsequent tests were not successful. On June 13, 2011, the X-51A experienced 

“unstart” following engine ignition, resulting in changes to its fuel-injection 

system. On August 14, 2012, a fin failed during boost—as had earlier happened on the first X-43 flight—dooming the craft from the outset. Thus, the 

long-term success of scramjet engines remained in doubt.134 But then, on 

May 1, 2013, the X-51A’s fourth and final flight, it dropped away from an 

Air Force Boeing B-52H Stratofortress at an altitude of 50,000 feet over the 

Pacific Ocean, accelerating under its booster to over Mach 4.5. At that point, 

the booster separated and the scramjet ignited, accelerating the X-51A from 

Mach 4.8 to Mach 5.1 in 26 seconds.135 The powered portion of the flight 

lasted 240 seconds and constituted a milestone in flight propulsion—what 

might be termed the “Lindbergh moment” of scramjet propulsion, the point 

where the scramjet proved itself capable of operating over hundreds of miles 

in predictable and reliable fashion.136 Much like the engines created by the 

Wrights, as well as Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain’s turbojets, scramjets 

offered the promise of a new revolution in aviation—in this particular case, 

high-speed global-ranging travel at Mach 5 and above.
The Power for Flight

204

Endnotes

1. John C. Freche, “Progress in Superalloys,” NASA TN D-2495, October 

1964, pp. 1–2, 6.

2. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, pp. 416–

417; Glenn Research Center, “Turbine Disk Alloys,” June 20, 2012, 

at http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/StructuresMaterials/AdvMet/research/

turbine_disks.html (accessed September 5, 2012).

3. T.T. Serafini, “PMR Polymide Composites for Aerospace Applications,” 

in Polymides: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications, vol. 2 (New 

York: Plenum Press, 1984), pp. 957–975.

4. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, p. 416.

5. Curt H. Liebert and Francis S. Stepka, “Potential Use of Ceramic 

Coating as a Thermal Insulation on Cooled Turbine Hardware,” NASA 

TM X-3352, 1976, p. 1.

6. Robert A. Miller, “History of Thermal Barrier Coatings for Gas Turbine 

Engines: Emphasizing NASA’s Role from 1942 to 1990,” NASA TM 

2003-215459, March 2009, pp. 6, 22.

7. Conway, High-Speed Dreams, p. 271; St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas 

Turbine Engine Development, pp. 417–418.

8. Joseph R. Stevens, “NASA’s HITEMP Program for UHBR Engines” 

(AIAA Paper 90-2395, presented at the 26th AIAA/SAE/ASME/

ASEE [American Society for Engineering Education] Joint Propulsion 

Conference, Orlando, FL, July 16–18, 1990), p. 1; NASA, “Advanced 

High-Temperature Engine Materials Technology Progresses,” n.d. 

[1995], available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/

20050169149.pdf (accessed October 4, 2014). Superalloys were also 

part of HITEMP’s materials focus.

9. NASA, “Advanced High-Temperature Engine Materials Technology 

Progresses,” n.d. [1995].

10. Ibid.; NASA, “Advanced High-Temperature Engine Materials 

Technology Progresses,” n.d. [1996], available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050177123.pdf (accessed October 5, 

2014); “About the R&D 100 Awards,” R&D Magazine (2014), available at http://www.rd100awards.com/about-rd-100-awards (accessed 

October 5, 2014).

11. Bradley A. Lerch, Susan L. Draper, J. Michael Pereira, Michael V. 

Nathal, and Curt Austin, “Resistance of Titanium Aluminide to 

Domestic Object Damage Assessed,” in Research & Technology, 1998, 

NASA TM-1999-208815, April 1, 1999, p. 124.
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

205

12. Guy Norris, “Power House,” Flight International (June 13, 2006), available at http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/power-house-207148/

(accessed October 4, 2014).

13. Michael Nathal, “Glenn Takes a Bow for Impact on GEnx Engine,” 

July 11, 2008, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/news/AF/2008/July08_

GEnx.html (accessed September 22, 2014).

14. Malcolm Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings: Increasing Safety and Fuel 

Efficiency for Commercial Aircraft,” in NASA Innovation in Aeronautics: 

Select Technologies That Have Shaped Modern Aviation, Clayton J. 

Bargsten and Malcolm T. Gibson, NASA TM-2011-216987, 2011, pp. 

27–28.

15. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 24; Banke, “Advancing Propulsive 

Technology,” p. 766.

16. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 24.

17. Ibid., pp. 24–25.

18. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 25; Nathal, “Glenn Takes a Bow 

for Impact on GEnx Engine.”

19. Membership in the Jet Engine Containment Concepts and BladeOut Simulation Team included Glenn, the FAA, Rolls-Royce, Boeing, 

GE, Honeywell, A&P Technology, Williams International, North 

Coast Composites, North Coast Tool and Mold, Cincinnati Testing 

Laboratories, MSC Software, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, Ohio State 

University, and the University of Akron. NASA Aeronautics Research 

Mission Directorate, “Technical Excellence 2004: New Material 

Improves Rotor Safety,” September 7, 2007, http://www.aeronautics.

nasa.gov/te04_rotor_safety.htm (accessed August 22, 2013).

20. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 26.

21. NASA Office of the Chief Technologist, “NASA Spinoff: DamageTolerant Fan Casings for Jet Engines,” 2006, http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Spinoff2006/T_1.html (accessed August 23, 2013); Gibson, “Composite 

Fan Casings,” p. 26; Gary D. Roberts, J. Michael Pereira, Michael 

S. Braley, and William A. Arnold, “Design and Testing of Braided 

Composite Fan Case Materials and Components,” ISABE-2009-1201, 

available at http://www.braider.com/pdf/Papers-Articles/Design-andTesting-of-Braided-Composite-Fan-Case-Materials-and-Components.

pdf (accessed March 17, 2013); Bob Griffiths, “Composite Fan Blade 

Containment Case,” High Performance Composites, May 2005, available at http://www.braider.com/pdf/Papers-Articles/Composite-Fan-BladeContainment-Case.pdf (accessed March 17, 2013).

22. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 28.
The Power for Flight

206

23. G.D. Roberts, R.K. Goldberg, W.K. Binienda, W.A. Arnold, J.D. Littell, 

and L.W. Kohlman, “Characterization of Triaxial Braided Composite 

Material Properties for Impact Simulation,” NASA TM-2009-215660, 

September 2009; Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 28.

24. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 28.

25. Ibid., p. 28.

26. Ibid., p. 29.

27. Ibid., p. 29; A&P Technology, “GEnx Engine,” 2013, http://www.

braider.com/Case-Studies/GEnx-Engine.aspx (accessed August 23, 2013); 

GE Aviation, “New GEnx Engine Advancing Unprecedented Use of 

Composites in Jet Engines,” December 14, 2004, http://www.geaviation.

com/press/genx/genx_20041214.html (accessed August 23, 2013).

28. Gibson, “Composite Fan Casings,” p. 30.

29. Ibid., p. 30.

30. Spinoff 2008: Fifty Years of NASA-Derived Technologies (1958–2008)

(Washington, DC: NASA Center for Aerospace Information, 2008), 

pp. 178–179.

31. Ibid., pp. 178–179.

32. U.S. Department of Defense, “Integrated High Performance Turbine 

Engine Technology (IHPTET),” n.d. [2000], available at http://web.

archive.org/web/20060721223255/http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/divisions/

prt/ihptet/ihptet.html (accessed January 28, 2016); St. Peter, History of 

Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, pp. 383, 385.

33. St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, 

pp. 384–385.

34. Ibid., pp. 425–426.

35. Ibid., pp. 396, 398, 402, 410, 425–426.

36. Richard A. Brokopp and Robert S. Gronski, “Small Engine Components 

Test Facility Compressor Testing Cell at NASA Lewis Research Center” 

(AIAA Paper 92-3980, presented at the 17th AIAA Aerospace Ground 

Testing Conference, Nashville, TN, July 6–8, 1992); St. Peter, History 

of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, pp. 383, 396, 416, 422.

37. IHPTET and VAATE, “Turbine Engine Technology: A Century of 

Power for Flight,” 2002, at http://web.archive.org/web/20060715190755/

http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/divisions/prt/ihptet/ihptet_brochure.pdf 

(accessed January 28, 2016); St. Peter, History of Aircraft Gas Turbine 

Engine Development, pp. 416, 419.

38. Turbomachinery and Heat Transfer Branch, Glenn Research Center, 

“APNASA: Overview,” August 14, 2007, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/

WWW/RTT/Codes/APNASA.html (accessed September 21, 2014).

39. Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” pp. 761–762.
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

207

40. John K. Lytle, “The Numerical Propulsion System Simulation: An 

Overview,” NASA TM 2000-209915, June 2000, p. 1; P.T. Homer 

and R.D. Schlichting, “Using Schooner To Support Distribution 

and Heterogeneity in the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation 

Project,” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 6 

(June 1994): 271.

41. “Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS): An Award Winning 

Propulsion System Simulation Tool,” in Research and Technology, 2001, 

NASA TM-2002-211333, 2002, pp. 228–229; Banke, “Advancing 

Propulsive Technology,” pp. 761–762.

42. U.S. Department of Defense, “Integrated High Performance Turbine 

Engine Technology (IHPTET),” n.d. [2000]; St. Peter, History of 

Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development, pp. 383–385.

43. National Research Council of the National Academies, Recapturing 

NASA’s Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities (Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press, 2012), pp. 58–59.

44. Robert J. Shaw, “NASA’s Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) 

Program/Aeropropulsion Technology Leadership for the 21st Century” 

(paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Aeronautical 

Sciences [ICAS], Harrogate, U.K., August 27–September 1, 2000), 

available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a547568.pdf (accessed 

September 5, 2012); Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” 

pp. 763–765.

45. Timothy P. Gabb, Anita Garg, David L. Ellis, and Kenneth M. 

O’Connor, “Detailed Microstructural Characterization of the Disk 

Alloy ME3,” NASA TM-2004-213066, May 2004, p. 1.

46. Nathal, “Glenn Takes a Bow for Impact on GEnx Engine.”

47. Robert J. Shaw, “Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project Integrated 

into NASA’s Vehicle Systems Program,” in Research and Technology 

2003, NASA TM-2004-212729, May 2004, n.p., available at http://

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050192140.pdf (accessed 

August 31, 2013).

48. Sabrina Eaton, “NASA Programs on Jet Efficiency, Noise Survive 

Attempted Fund Cuts,” [Cleveland] Plain Dealer (May 20, 1999): 15A.

49. Aircraft Owner’s and Pilot’s Association, “General Aviation Statistics,” 

March 30, 2011, http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Statistical-ReferenceGuide/General-Aviation-Statistics (accessed August 31, 2013).

50. The AGATE program also directed considerable effort toward air traffic 

control, advanced avionics, and the creation of a new and modern infrastructure for general aviation. Langley Research Center, “Affordable 

Alternative Transportation: AGATE—Revitalizing General Aviation,” 
The Power for Flight

208

Release FS-1996-07-02-LaRC, July 1996, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/

langley/news/factsheets/AGATE.html (accessed August 31, 2013); “NASA 

Langley Research Center: Contributing to the Next 100 Years of Flight,” 

NASA Release FS-2004-02-84-LaRC, February 2004, http://www.nasa.

gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/FS-2004-02-84-LaRC.html (accessed 

July 7, 2013).

51. “Signing Ceremony To Initiate Development of Revolutionary Aircraft 

Engines,” NASA News Release N96-80, December 10, 1996, NASA 

HRC, file 011151.

52. Glenn Research Center, “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here,” 

Release FS-2000-04-001-GRC, November 22, 2004, http://www.nasa.

gov/centers/glenn/about/fs01grc.html (accessed July 7, 2013).

53. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 37.

54. Glenn Research Center, “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here.”

55. Ibid.

56. Glenn Research Center, “General Aviation’s New Thrust: Single Lever 

Technology Promises Efficiency, Simplicity,” NASA Release FS-1999-

07-002-GRC, July 1999, available at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/

pdf/84789main_fs02grc.pdf (accessed July 7, 2013).

57. Glenn Research Center, “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here.”

58. Mike Busch, “GAP Engine Update,” AVweb, July 27, 2000, http://www.

avweb.com/news/reviews/182838-1.html (accessed August 31, 2013).

59. Alan Dron, “GA Engine Manufacturers Line Up Diesel Options,” Flight 

International (April 12, 2011), available at http://www.flightglobal.com/

news/articles/ga-engine-manufacturers-line-up-diesel-options-355474/

(accessed August 31, 2013).

60. Williams International’s partners included California Drop Forge, 

Cessna Aircraft, Chichester-Miles Consultants, Cirrus Design, Forged 

Metals, New Piper Aircraft, VisionAire, Producto Machine, Scaled 

Composites, and Unison Industries. “NASA Cooperative Engine 

Testbed Aircraft on Schedule,” Aerospace Propulsion (July 7, 1997): 

2, NASA HRC, file 011151; Glenn Research Center, “Small Aircraft 

Propulsion: The Future Is Here.”

61. Williams International, “The General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) 

Program,” NASA CR-2008-215266, July 2008, p. 5; Glenn Research 

Center, “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here.”

62. Williams International, “The General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) 

Program,” p. 18.

63. Ibid., pp. 26, 34–38, 44–45.

64. John Adamczyk, quoted in David Noland, “The Little Engine That 

Couldn’t,” Air & Space/Smithsonian (November 2005), available at 
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

209

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-little-engine-that-couldnt6865253/?no-ist (accessed January 29, 2016).

65. Williams International, “The General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) 

Program,” pp. 40–43.

66. Noland, “The Little Engine That Couldn’t.”

67. A reformed Eclipse Aerospace continued to service, modify, and manufacture VLJs in the wake of the original company’s bankruptcy beginning in September 2009.

68. Drucella Andersen and Michael Mewhinney, “NASA Testing New, 

Powerful ‘Ducted Fan’ Engine for Civil Tests,” NASA Release 93-103, 

June 3, 1993, at http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1993/93-103.txt

(accessed September 23, 2014).

69. “Ames Tests New Jet Engine,” NASA News (June 1993): 4, NASA HRC, 

file 011151.

70. Guy Norris, “P&W Prepares for Geared Fan Launch,” Flight 

International (February 18, 1998), available at http://www.flightglobal.

com/news/articles/pw-prepares-for-geared-fan-launch-32908/ (accessed 

August 19, 2013).

71. Pratt & Whitney, “PurePower PW1000G Engine,” 2010, available at 

http://www.purepowerengine.com (accessed January 29, 2016).

72. “Airlines Continue To Reduce the Use of Noisy Aircraft,” FAA News 

Release 21-93, June 10, 1993, NASA HRC, file 012336; Banke, 

“Advancing Propulsive Technology,” p. 739; U.S. Congress, Office of 

Technology Assessment, Federal Research and Technology for Aviation, 

OTA-ETI-610 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1994), pp. 78–79.

73. Glenn Research Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter: 

Glenn Effort Will Reduce Engine Noise,” NASA Release FS-1999-07-

003-GRC, July 1999, available at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/

pdf/84790main_fs03grc.pdf (accessed July 7, 2013).

74. John K.C. Low, Paul S. Schweiger, John W. Premo, and Thomas J. 

Barber, “Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Separate-Flow HighBypass Ratio Nozzle Noise Reduction Program Test Report,” NASA 

CR-2000-210040, December 2000, p. 1.

75. Robert A. Golub, John W. Rawls, Jr., and James W. Russell, “Evaluation 

of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program Noise Reduction 

Benefits,” NASA TM-2005-212144, May 2005, p. 1; Glenn Research 

Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter.”

76. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” p. 4.

77. Ibid., pp. 4–5, 7.
The Power for Flight

210

78. Glenn Research Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter.”

79. Jim Banke, “Technology Readiness Levels Demystified,” November 

19, 2013, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.

html#.VDAA7vldUeg (accessed October 4, 2014); John C. Mankins, 

“Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper,” April 6, 1995, available 

at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf (accessed October 4, 

2014); Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology 

Program Noise Reduction Benefits,” pp. 10, 12.

80. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” pp. 4–5, 23.

81. Ibid., p. 23.

82. G. Bielak, J. Gallman, R. Kunze, P. Murray, J. Premo, M. Kosanchick, 

A. Hersh, J. Celano, B. Walker, J. Yu, H.W. Kwan, S. Chiou, J. Kelly, 

J. Betts, J. Follet, and R. Thomas, “Advanced Nacelle Acoustic Lining 

Concepts Development,” NASA CR-2002-211672, August 2002, 

pp. i, 1.

83. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” pp. 2, 24, 26. “Cutback” is a sound-reducing 

procedure performed at takeoff. The flightcrew takes off with full power, 

climbs rapidly, and then cuts the thrust to a predetermined value at a 

specified altitude. The airliner continues to climb at a slower, quieter 

rate until it reaches an altitude where sound is no longer an issue.

84. Ibid., pp. 24–25.

85. Ibid., pp. 25–27.

86. Jia Yu, Hwa-Wan Kwan, and Eugene Chien, “PW 4098 Forward Fan 

Case Acoustic Liner Design Under NASA EVNRC Program” (AIAA 

Paper 2010-3827, presented at the 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics 

Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010), p. 2; Douglas C. Matthews, 

Larry A. Bock, Gerald W. Bielak, R.P. Dougherty, John W. Premo, Dan 

F. Scharpf, and Jia Yu, “Pratt & Whitney/Boeing Engine Validation of 

Noise Reduction Concepts: Final Report for NASA Contract NAS3-

97144, Phase 1,” NASA CR-2014-218088, February 2014, p. iii.

87. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” p. 2.

88. Ibid., pp. 3, 13. The interior noise-reduction program was the only element that did not survive the cancellation of the AST program because 

it only reached a TRL of 4.

89. Ibid., pp. 1, 13.

90. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology 

Program Noise Reduction Benefits,” p. 25; Glenn Research Center, 

“Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter.”
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

211

91. Glenn Research Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter.”

92. Ibid.

93. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” p. 25.

94. Kristin K. Wilson, “Quieting the Skies: Cessna Benefits from Lewis 

Noise Reduction Know How,” Lewis News (February 1998): 5.

95. Glenn Research Center, “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter.”

96. K.B.M.Q. Zaman, J.E. Bridges, and D.L. Huff, “Evolution from ‘Tabs’ 

to ‘Chevron Technology’: A Review,” in Proceedings of the 13th Asian 

Congress of Fluid Mechanics (Dhaka, Bangladesh: Engineers Institute of 

Bangladesh, 2010), pp. 47–63; Springer, “NASA Aeronautics: A HalfCentury of Accomplishments,” pp. 200–201.

97. Low et al., “Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Separate-Flow HighBypass Ratio Nozzle Noise Reduction Program Test Report,” pp. 1, 3.

98. Malcolm T. Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle: A Novel Approach to 

Reducing Jet Noise,” in NASA Innovation in Aeronautics, p. 4.

99. Golub et al., “Evaluation of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 

Noise Reduction Benefits,” p. 13.

100. Low et al., “Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Separate-Flow HighBypass Ratio Nozzle Noise Reduction Program Test Report,” pp. 1–2; 

Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 5.

101. Clifford Brown and James Bridges, “An Analysis of Model Scale Data 

Transformation to Full Scale Flight Using Chevron Nozzles,” NASA 

TM-2003-212732, December 2003, pp. 1–7; Zaman et al., “Evolution 

from ‘Tabs’ to ‘Chevron Technology’,” pp. 47–63; Gibson, “The 

Chevron Nozzle,” pp. 6–7.

102. Thomas Edwards, “The Future of Green Aviation” (NASA paper 

ARC-E-DAA-TN5136, presented at the Future of Flight Foundation 

Celebrate the Future Conference, Mukilteo, WA, April 22, 2012), p. 67.

103. Peter Bartlett, Nick Humphreys, Pam Phillipson, Justin Lan, Eric 

Nesbitt, and John Premo, “The Joint Rolls-Royce/Boeing Quiet 

Technology Demonstrator Programme” (AIAA Paper 2004-2869, presented at the 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Manchester, 

U.K., May 10–12, 2004).

104. Guy Norris, “Chevron Tests ‘Better Than Expected’,” Flight International

160 (November 20–26, 2001): 10; Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 7.

105. “Alleviating Aircraft Noise: The Quiet Aircraft Technology Program,” 

NASA Destination Tomorrow, program 9, 2003, available at http://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=3vFSpW-zC2U (accessed July 7, 2013); Charlotte 

E. Whitfield, “NASA’s Quiet Aircraft Technology Project,” NASA 

TM-2004-213190, 2004; Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 7.
The Power for Flight

212

106. Vinod G. Mengle, “Jet Noise Characteristics of Chevrons in Internally 

Mixed Nozzles” (AIAA Paper 2005-2934, presented at the 11th AIAA/

CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Monterey, CA, May 23–25, 2005); 

Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 7.

107. Vinod G. Mengle, Ronen Elkoby, Leon Brusniak, and Russ H. Thomas, 

“Reducing Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustic Interactions with Uniquely 

Tailored Chevrons: 1. Isolated Nozzles” (AIAA Paper 2006-2467, presented at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Cambridge, 

MA, May 8–10, 2006); Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 7.

108. Frederick T. Calkins, George W. Butler, and James H. Mabe, “Variable 

Geometry Chevrons for Jet Noise Reduction” (AIAA Paper 2006-

2546, presented at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 

Cambridge, MA, May 8–10, 2006); Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” 

pp. 7–8.

109. Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 9.

110. Zaman et al., “Evolution from ‘Tabs’ to ‘Chevron Technology’,” p. 47; 

General Electric Aviation, “CF34-10E Turbofan Propulsion System,” 

May 2010, available at http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/commercial/

datasheet-CF34-10E.pdf (accessed July 1, 2014); General Electric Aviation, 

“CF34-10E Engines Outperforming Expectations,” May 13, 2014, 

available at http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf34/cf34_20140513b.html

(accessed July 1, 2014).

111. Springer, “NASA Aeronautics: A Half-Century of Accomplishments,” 

pp. 200–201.

112. Bob Burnett, “Ssshhh, We’re Flying a Plane Around Here: A BoeingLed Team Is Working To Make Quiet Jetliners Even Quieter,” Boeing 

Frontiers Online 4 (December 2005/January 2006), http://www.boeing.

com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/december/ts_sf07.html (accessed July 13, 

2013); Eric J. Bultemeier, Ulrich Ganz, John Premo, and Eric Nesbitt, 

“Effect of Uniform Chevrons on Cruise Shockcell Noise” (AIAA 

Paper 2006-2440, presented at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics 

Conference, Cambridge, MA, May 8–10, 2006).

113. Spinoff 2008, pp. 178–179.

114. Travis L. Turner, Randolph H. Cabell, Roberto J. Cano, and Richard 

J. Silcox, “Testing of SMA-Enabled Active Chevron Prototypes Under 

Representative Flow Conditions,” in Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 6928,

Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems 2008, ed. 

Mehdi Ahmadian (May 2008), available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/

nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080014174.pdf (accessed September 15, 2014); 

Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 8.
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

213

115. Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” pp. 8, 10; Springer, “NASA Aeronautics: 

A Half-Century of Accomplishments,” pp. 200–201.

116. Banke, “Technology Readiness Levels Demystified.”

117. Stanley F. Birch, P.A. Bukshtab, K.M. Khritov, D.A. Lyubimov, V.P. 

Maslov, A.N. Secundov, and K.Y. Yakubovsky, “The Use of Small Air 

Jets to Simulate Metal Chevrons” (AIAA Paper 2009-3372, presented 

at the 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Miami, FL, May 

11–13, 2009); Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 9.

118. Langley Research Center, “NASA’s High-Speed Research (HSR) 

Program—Developing Tomorrow’s Supersonic Passenger Jet,” April 22, 

2008, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HSR-Overview2.

html (accessed September 25, 2014).

119. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, “High-Speed Civil Transport Study: 

Summary,” NASA CR-4234, September 1989, pp. 1–10.

120. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric Aircraft Engines, “Critical 

Propulsion Components, Volume 1: Summary, Introduction, and 

Propulsion Systems Studies,” NASA CR-2005-213584, May 2005, 

pp. iii, 1–2; Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at NASA 

Glenn Research Center,” p. 212; FAA, “Noise Abatement Departure 

Profiles,” Advisory Circular 91-53A, July 22, 1993, available at http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/

AC%2091-53A/$FILE/ac91-53.pdf (accessed September 1, 2012).

121. Gibson, “The Chevron Nozzle,” p. 4.

122. “High Speed Engine Cycles Tapped for Further Research,” NASA News 

Release 94-41, March 14, 1994, NASA HRC, file 011151.

123. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric Aircraft Engines, “Critical 

Propulsion Components, Volume 1,” pp. 150, 169; Conway, HighSpeed Dreams, pp. 297–300.

124. “President Reagan’s Speech Before Joint Session of Congress,” New York 

Times (February 5, 1986): A20.

125. Larry Schweikart, The Quest for an Orbital Jet, vol. 3 of The Hypersonic 

Revolution, ed. R.P. Hallion (Washington, DC: Air Force History and 

Museums Program, 1996), pp. 48, 363.

126. Curtis Peebles, “Learning from Experience: Case Studies of the Hyper-X 

Project” (paper presented at the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 

Orlando, FL, January 5–8, 2009), pp. 4–5.

127. Richard P. Hallion, “The History of Hypersonics; or, ‘Back to the 

Future—Again and Again’” (AIAA Paper 2005-0329, presented at the 

AIAA 43rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 

10–13, 2005).
The Power for Flight

214

128. GE Aviation, “GE Aircraft Engines Pursuing Mach 4 Jet Engine at 

NASA Research Center,” July 22, 2002, http://www.geaviation.com/

press/other/other_20020722aa.html (accessed June 6, 2013).

129. Jinho Lee, Robert J. Buehrle, and Ralph Winslow, “The GE-NASA RTA 

Hyperburner Design and Development,” NASA TM-2005-213803, 

June 2005, pp. 1–2.

130. GE Aviation, “GE Aircraft Engines Pursuing Mach 4 Jet Engine at 

NASA Research Center”; Guy Norris, “GE Wins High-Mach Turbine 

Work,” Flight International (July 30, 2002), available at http://www.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-wins-high-mach-turbine-work-152266/

(accessed May 1, 2012).

131. Warren E. Leary, “NASA Jet Sets Record for Speed,” New York Times

(November 17, 2004): A24; Curtis Peebles, “Learning from Experience: 

Case Studies of the Hyper-X Project” (paper presented at the 47th 

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 5–8, 2009); 

Curtis Peebles, “The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned 

on the Road to Mach 10” (unpublished paper, Dryden Flight Research 

Center, 2007); Springer, “NASA Aeronautics: A Half-Century of 

Accomplishments,” pp. 198–199.

132. James L. Pittman, John M. Koudelka, Michael J. Wright, and Kenneth 

E. Rock, “Hypersonics Project Overview” (paper presented at the 2011 

Technical Conference, Cleveland, OH, March 15–17, 2011), available 

at http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/hypersonics_project.pdf (accessed 

December 26, 2012).

133. Boeing Phantom Works, “Boeing X-51A WaveRider Breaks Record 

in First Flight,” May 26, 2010, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.

php?s=43&item=1227 (accessed December 26, 2012); Boeing Defense, 

Space and Security, “Backgrounder: X-51A WaveRider,” September 

2012, http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/waverider/

docs/X-51A_overview.pdf (accessed January 29, 2016).

134. Sharon Weinberger, “X-51 WaveRider: Hypersonic Jet Ambitions Fall 

Short,” August 15, 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120815-

hypersonic-ambitions-fall-short (accessed January 29, 2016).

135. Daryl Mayer, “X-51A WaveRider Achieves History in Final Flight,” 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base News Release, May 3, 2013, http://

www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/153475/x-51a-waveriderachieves-history-in-final-flight/ (accessed May 31, 2013); Guy Norris, 

“X-51A WaveRider Achieves Hypersonic Goal on Final Flight,” Aviation 

Week & Space Technology (May 2, 2013), available at http://aviationweek.
Transiting to a New Century, 1990–2008

215

com/defense/x-51a-waverider-achieves-goal-final-flight (accessed May 31, 

2013); details also from Dr. Richard P. Hallion.

136. The term “Lindbergh moment” was coined by Air Force Chief Scientist 

Dr. Mark J. Lewis in a conversation with Dr. Richard P. Hallion.
216

Seen from the rear in this photo, the DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory generates exhaust 

contrails for the ACCESS project in 2013. (NASA)
217

CHAPTER 7

Toward the Future

Figure 7-1. Pictured is former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. (NASA)

On August 14, 2013, NASA Administrator (and former Shuttle astronaut) 

Charles Bolden addressed the Nation’s leading aeronautical engineers, managers, 

and other professionals at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(AIAA) Aviation 2013 conference held in Los Angeles. He announced a “new 

strategic vision” for NASA’s aeronautics work, buttressing his remark with a statistical review of the Nation’s aeronautical health. In 2011, civil and general aviation had accounted for $1.3 trillion of American economic activity in general, 

with 10.2 million jobs generated both directly and indirectly. Passenger revenue 

and airfreight brought in $636 billion and $1.5 trillion respectively. To meet the 

Nation’s—indeed, the globe’s—seemingly insatiable demand for air transport, 

NASA was tackling six emerging challenges at the “bold, anticipatory edge” 
The Power for Flight

218

that could alter both the perception and use of aviation during the next two 

to four decades.

Three of those challenges addressed aircraft propulsion directly or indirectly: commercial supersonic aircraft that emitted few or no sonic booms, 

ultra-efficient commercial transports that incorporated effective and environmentally pioneering technology, and a transition to low-carbon propulsion 

and alternative fuels that would stimulate the economy and protect Earth. The 

other three research thrusts were safe, efficient growth in global operations; 

real-time, systemwide safety assurance; and assured autonomy for aviation 

transformation. Bolden believed that NASA specifically, and aviation in general, was undergoing a Renaissance in the sky and on the ground and that the 

critical factors of safety, energy efficiency, the environment, innovation, and 

responsible management all complemented each other.1

Bolden’s statements coincided with the Agency’s issuing a white paper titled 

“Transforming Global Mobility” and were a clarion call for the American aviation industry.2

 As he stressed that the changes to advance the future of flight 

were a communal endeavor, many NASA programs from the early 2000s that 

reflected those issues were coming to fruition. They also reflected the organizational changes implemented by the former Aeronautics head, Lisa Porter, in 

early 2006, which had refocused NASA Aeronautics back toward in-house fundamental research, with the addition of strengthening relationships between 

industry and academia.3 Some of the Agency’s new and renewed initiatives are 

discussed below.

2007: The Open-Rotor Revival

A revival of prop-fan and unducted fan technology, now called the “open rotor,” 

by NASA, GE, and Rolls-Royce, reflected ongoing concerns over fuel efficiency 

and new priorities based on reducing the environmental impact of engine 

emissions in the early 21st century.4 Since the late 1980s, aircraft configurations, engine technology, noise requirements, and economic requirements 

have changed. With higher fuel prices and a restricted economic environment, 

NASA reestablished its interest in open-rotor propulsion. The target application was short- to medium-range, twin-engine, narrow-body jet airliners. The 

type constituted a considerable section of the global airline fleet in the form of 

the Boeing 737, the Airbus A320, and what was projected to be 69 percent of 

new aircraft produced between 2010 and 2030. Work toward the reduction of 

fuel consumption, noise, and emissions in these aircraft would minimize the 

future environmental impact of aviation.5
Toward the Future

219

Figure 7-2. The open-rotor concept undergoes testing in the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel at Glenn. (NASA)

The renewed investigations explored methodologies for aircraft-level sizing, 

performance analysis, and system-level noise analysis in 2012. A Glenn-GE 

team applied those methods to an advanced single-aisle aircraft using openrotor engines, where, in the spirit of the UDF from the 1980s, the power 

plants featured external rotating blade forms from the ATP program. Their 

results indicated that open-rotor engines had the potential to provide reduced 

fuel consumption and emissions at high levels. The initial noise analysis indicated that then-current noise regulations could be met with old blade designs, 

whereas modern, noise-optimized blade designs were expected to result in 

significantly lower noise levels. There still remained a lot of work to do to bring 

the correct method of analysis for proper evaluation up to the same level as 

turbofan capabilities before an actual engine would take to the air.6

Other investigations of open rotors stressed the fuel efficiency and emissions 

merits of open-rotor engines. There were still problems of noise, which was 

becoming increasingly important as new noise regulations shaped the design 

of aircraft.7

 One observer simply stated, “Want to save the planet?” Then “put 

up with noisier airports.”8
The Power for Flight

220

2009: The Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project

While efficiency and environmental concerns had been important since the 

1960s in terms of aircraft propulsion systems, the latter became even more 

important in a new era of green aviation. NASA created the Environmentally 

Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project in 2009 to explore aircraft concepts and 

technologies that reduced the impact of aviation on the environment in terms 

of fuel efficiencies, lower noise levels, and reduced harmful emissions for the 

next 30 years. ERA was part of the Integrated Systems Research Program sponsored by the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). The overall 

goal of ERA was to develop the technologies that made aircraft safer, faster, 

and more efficient, which would help transform the national air transportation 

system. Each of the major NASA research centers contributed to the effort. 

Agency leaders were quick to stress that the key to the success of ERA was 

industry partnerships. The joint collaboration and funding moved the project 

forward and gave each member of the team a voice in shaping the technology.9

Phase one of ERA evaluated and nurtured new manufacturing techniques, 

structural materials, and advanced engines in NASA’s laboratories. Phase two, 

which began in late 2012, placed more emphasis on ground and flight tests. The 

challenge to creating very quiet aircraft with low carbon footprints, according 

to project manager Fay Collier, was the integration of the various ideas as a 

practical system. NASA chose eight large-scale, integrated technology demonstrations to generate ERA research. Four of them were propulsion projects:

• The highly loaded front block compressor demonstration was to show 

advanced turbofan efficiency improvements in a transonic highpressure compressor using two- and three-stage model tests.10

• The second-generation ultra-high-bypass (UHB) propulsor integration

reflected the continued development of a geared turbofan engine to 

help reduce fuel consumption and noise.

• The low–nitrogen oxide fuel flexible engine combustor integration demonstrated a full ring-shaped engine combustor that produced very low 

emissions.

• Finally, there was work toward UHB engine integration for a hybrid 

wing body that would lead to the verification of power plant and airframe integration concepts that would allow fuel-consumption reductions in excess of 50 percent while reducing noise on the ground.

Within those major projects, NASA and industry researchers delved into 

five areas of research, three of which centered on propulsion: advanced fuelefficient and quiet engines; engine combustors with improved emissions; and 

innovative airframe and engine integration designs that reduced fuel consumption and community noise.11
Toward the Future

221

Figure 7-3. Pratt & Whitney’s Geared TurboFan technology became the basis for the 

PurePower engine series. (Pratt & Whitney)

Funding from ERA reaped benefits quickly and complemented other 

Government environmental programs. Pratt & Whitney announced that 

its Geared TurboFan ultra-high-bypass system, marketed as the PurePower 

engine, which had its origins in the ADP project of the 1990s, had successfully completed 275 hours of fan rig testing in Glenn’s 9- by 15-Foot 

Low Speed Wind Tunnel in June 2013. The manufacturer credited ERA 

with paving the way for the development of its advanced ultra-high-bypass 

turbofan technology that reduced fuel consumption, emissions, and noise. 

The next step was to complete ground and flight testing under the auspices 
The Power for Flight

222

of the FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) program. Alan Epstein, vice president for technology and environment at Pratt & 

Whitney, remarked, “Our partnerships with NASA and the FAA are the key 

to completing the necessary testing to advance the technology for the second 

generation of the Geared TurboFan system.”12

Built in 1968, the 9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel became a premier 

facility for the aerodynamic and acoustic evaluation of fans, nozzles, inlets, 

propellers, and STOVL propulsion systems. To this day, researchers can use the 

tunnel to investigate engine system noise reduction, fan noise prediction codes 

and measurement methods, low-speed light applications for aircraft, advanced 

propulsion system components, high-speed and counter-rotating fans, and airport noise at speeds of up to 175 mph. Recent (as of this writing) programs and 

projects supported in the facility include the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology 

(UEET), the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT), and the Versatile Affordable 

Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE). For the United States, it is the only propulsion research facility capable of simulating takeoff, approach, and landing 

in a continuous, subsonic flow, wind tunnel environment.13

The Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) Project of NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics 

Program and the ERA Project of NASA’s Integrated System Research Program 

established a series of design goals for future subsonic transport technology. 

They centered on the successive reduction of noise; landing, takeoff, and cruise 

emissions; and fuel and energy consumption with tiered completion dates of 

2015, 2020, and 2025. NASA held the opinion that although manufacturers 

and airlines always wanted quieter, more efficient, and cleaner engines, the 

aviation industry’s inherently conservative nature prevented it from making 

the technological and economic investments required to adopt the new and 

radical innovation necessary to meet those goals.14

NASA Generational Goals for Subsonic Aircraft15

Benefits N+1 (2015) N+2 (2020) N+3 (2025)

Noise –32 decibels –42 decibels –52 decibels

Landing and Takeoff Emissions –60 percent –75 percent –80 percent

Cruise Emissions –55 percent –70 percent –80 percent

Fuel/Energy Consumption –33 percent –50 percent –60 percent
Toward the Future

223

2010: Electric Propulsion

The problems confronting environmentally compatible aviation led NASA 

engineers to go beyond traditional propulsion systems. Echoing changes in 

the automobile on the road, the electric airplane represented a viable possibility. The challenges involved specific energy and power requirements regarding the development of fuel cells and batteries. Flight-weight electric motors 

and methods for distributing large amounts of power were needed. Hybrid 

gas turbine and electric propulsion systems were also under consideration. 

On the airplane, engineers envisioned a turboelectric distributed propulsion 

system. Large engines at each wingtip would drive superconducting generators 

to power small, motor-driven propulsors.16

An important precedent was the development of a solar propulsion system 

for High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). 

Between 1994 and 2003, the joint NASA-industry Environmental Research 

and Aircraft Sensor Technology (ERAST) program worked to make such craft 

practical by evaluating their payload capacity and use as a sensor platform in 

atmospheric research and their overall value to the scientific, Government, 

and civilian communities. Four generations of flying wing–shaped HALE 

UAVs (Pathfinder, Pathfinder Plus, Centurion, and Helios), built in collaboration with cutting-edge aeronautical firm AeroVironment, relied upon solar 

cells, electric motors, and composite construction to achieve flights at recordbreaking altitudes of up to 96,000 feet. An important byproduct of the alliance with industry was the availability of more efficient and mass-produced 

solar cells from SunPower Corporation. Nevertheless, the design of a backup 

power system that allowed the operation of HALE UAVs in periods of darkness remained a persistent challenge. The Glenn-sponsored Low Emissions 

Alternative Power program worked to overcome that limitation through the 

successful demonstration of a lightweight regenerative fuel cell system in 

September 2003 and July 2005.17

Electric propulsion also provides an avenue for a longstanding desire in 

aviation, the personal air vehicle. The proposed Puffin is a 300-pound, 12-footlong, 14.5-foot-wingspan personal air vehicle powered by two 30-horsepower 

electric motors; it appeared in 2010. It resulted from a cooperative program 

between Langley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Georgia 

Institute of Technology, and the National Institute of Aerospace (NIA). The 

Puffin would have a cruising speed of 150 mph and a battery life of 50 miles.18

During the summer of 2011, NASA and Internet corporation Google sponsored the “Green Flight Challenge.” Teams of aeronautical engineers competed 

for a grand prize of $1.35 million. Team Pipistrel-USA.com, the winning 

group, designed and built an electric-powered aircraft capable of flying four 
The Power for Flight

224

people for approximately 200 miles nonstop. The team’s Taurus G4 electric 

aircraft accomplished the flight on the equivalent of a half-gallon of fuel.19

Figure 7-4. The Puffin is designed to be a personal aircraft. (NASA/Mark Moore)

2011: The Future of Green Aviation

NASA also worked with green-energy advocacy groups to promote its new 

message. Thomas Edwards, director of aeronautics at Ames Research Center, 

was the keynote speaker at the Future of Flight Foundation’s celebration of 

Earth Day on Sunday, April 22, 2012, north of Seattle.20 He called for the 

development of “environmentally progressive” aircraft. He acknowledged that 

designers could “cherry pick” advances in other modes of transportation, such 

as electric-car battery technology, for new aircraft. Doing so would accelerate 

the development of higher-power batteries that would serve as the platform 

for innovating electric-powered aircraft. Edwards also identified the reduction of airport noise and carbon and other chemical emissions from engines 

as target areas.21

To Edwards and other advocates, the prospect of transforming aviation was 

intoxicating; as he remarked, “It is a really exciting time for aerospace engineers.... Just when people are saying that aircraft [technology] has been the 
Toward the Future

225

same for the past 50 years...there is a fusion of information technology and 

traditional aerospace engineering that is making the field evolve very rapidly.”22

Figure 7-5. The Team Pipistrel-USA Taurus G4 aircraft is shown here. (NASA)

Edwards argued that the aviation industry seriously impacted the environment and energy usage in the United States. Worldwide aviation fuel use made 

up fully 8 percent of the total 1.3 trillion gallons of refined fossil fuels used 

in 2011. Fuel accounted for 20 percent of the operating costs for the 18,000 

commercial airplanes operated by American-based airlines. Aviation released 

600 million tons of CO2 per year. While aviation contributed only 3 percent 

of greenhouse gases, it accounted for 13 percent of overall climate impact. 

The impacts of aviation-produced water vapor and oxides of nitrogen were 

still unknown. On the ground, communities still complained of aircraft noise 

despite the FAA’s $5 billion investment in abatement programs since 1980.23

There were two possible future directions. Echoing the trends that began 

in the 1970s, the reduction of noise pollution and the improvement of energy 

efficiency persisted as driving forces in aircraft development. A new priority 

was alleviating the impact of aviation on global climate change. The nature of 

the work in the future of green aviation would be an extensive collaborative 

effort between Government, industry, and academia centered on environmental compatibility and renewable sources of energy.24

Edwards also discussed the component development for ever-greener aircraft engines. There would be new and better high-temperature materials used 
The Power for Flight

226

for combustors and liners, electronic controls, and high-output fuel-delivery 

systems. Advanced adaptive fan blades changed their shape to adapt to required 

airflow characteristics for an engine embedded within a fuselage.25

NASA continued looking into synthetic fuels as it worked toward an understanding of alternative aviation fuels overall. Conducted in partnership with 

the U.S. Air Force, those investigations led to the first test of synthetic fuel 

derived by the Fischer-Tropsch process at Dryden in February 2009. Evaluation 

included burning the new fuel, a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen to produce liquid hydrocarbons, in a DC-8 and comparing the data to 

preexisting information from similar tests using conventional fuel.

Another avenue was biofuels, which offered the promise of even cleanerburning fuels. Staff at Glenn established the Greenlab Research Facility in 2009 

to investigate better ways of growing seawater algae and arid land halophytes, 

both promising platforms for biofuels. The combination of an indoor laboratory with an outdoor greenhouse permitted the basic study of the biology of 

renewable energy sources that could lead to customizable solutions to future 

fuel needs.26 But the future of the Greenlab was soon left in doubt due to 

NASA’s intention to stay committed to fundamental testing rather than developing outright new biofuels.

2013: Reducing Contrails and Cruise Emissions

Alternate biofuels offered the hope of a safe and effective way to reduce aviation’s impact on the environment. NASA initiated the Alternative Fuel Effects 

on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) study in late 2012. It was a 

joint project involving researchers at Dryden, Langley, and Glenn. ACCESS 

was a follow-on study to Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment studies conducted in 2009 and 2011. For those tests, researchers measured the exhaust 

emissions of NASA’s DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory as it burned alternative fuels while parked on the ramp at the Palmdale, CA, facility. The Fixed 

Wing Project within the Fundamental Aeronautics Program of NASA’s ARMD 

managed ACCESS.27

The ACCESS study took NASA’s investigations into burning biofuels and 

their effects on engine performance, emissions, and aircraft-generated contrails 

at altitude in late February 2013. Flying from Dryden’s Aircraft Operations 

Facility in Palmdale, the research team used two aircraft. They filled the tanks 

of Dryden’s DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory with either conventional JP-8 

jet fuel or a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and an alternative fuel of hydroprocessed esters 

and fatty acids derived from camelina plants. Bruce Anderson, a senior research 

scientist at Langley, described the new alternative fuel as “flower power.” As 

the DC-8 flew high over the restricted airspace of Edwards Air Force Base, 
Toward the Future

227

researchers in Langley’s HU-25 Falcon jet followed in its wake to monitor over 

20 scientific and navigation-related instruments designed to detect and record 

20 different parameters of the DC-8’s exhaust at various distances, altitudes, 

and engine power settings. Those first flights generated the best methodology 

to conduct the emissions sampling using the combination of the DC-8 and 

Falcon jets.

Figure 7-6. The researchers of the ACCESS project used Langley’s heavily instrumented HU-25 

Falcon to measure the chemical composition of the DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory’s exhaust 

contrail generated by a 50-50 mix of conventional JP-8 jet fuel and a plant-derived biofuel. 

(NASA/Lori Losey)

The second phase, called ACCESS II, took place in May 2014. It focused 

on compiling and adding to the research data obtained during the initial 

ACCESS experiment. The program included international involvement from 

the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada and the German Aerospace 

Center (DLR). The research fleet included NASA’s Falcon and DC-8, joined by 

similar aircraft from both the NRC and the DLR. With the preliminary results, 

Anderson and his colleagues estimated that alternative fuel blends reduced 

black carbon emissions by more than 30 percent on the ground. Identifying 

such dramatic results in the air was more difficult, and the effect of alternative 
The Power for Flight

228

fuels on contrail formation was still unclear. Nevertheless, work toward gaining a broader understanding of fossil fuel substitutes and how they could 

become more readily available and competitive in cost with conventional jet 

fuels was worthwhile.28

A Challenging Future...

NASA’s propulsion specialists have worked for over 50 years to improve the 

overall operating efficiency of piston engines, propellers, gas turbine engines, 

and (recently) electric and other hybrid systems. As world events shaped the 

use of the airplane on the global stage, the specialists learned to recognize the 

importance of the environmental compatibility of aircraft propulsion systems 

and their effect on the quality of life on Earth. In many ways, work in the 

latter areas gave NASA an unprecedented opportunity to contribute to the 

development of aeronautics.

In the process, the style of NASA’s engineering changed over time. During 

World War II and the early years of the Cold War, NACA researchers got away 

from wartime-derivative development work on the first generations of subsonic 

and supersonic gas turbines and ramjets and settled down to innovating and 

experimenting with the latest turbojet, turboprop, and advanced turbofan and 

afterburning/ram technology. They worked to make American military aircraft 

fly higher, faster, and farther as international tensions fueled development.

After the brief distraction of initial participation in the space program, the 

new NASA led the way in improving the efficiency and reducing the noise and 

emissions of the airliners of the Jet Age while it tried to do the same for the 

general aviation community. Federal funding of NASA’s propulsion projects 

provided vital subsidiary funding support to aircraft manufacturers who would 

not have made the investment otherwise. This was an added benefit on top 

of the data that they received from NASA testing and analysis. Additionally, 

large-scale projects like the ACEE marshaled the resources of the Agency as it 

tried to redefine aircraft propulsion technology through technology transfer.

Throughout its history, NASA has seen its role as promoting and brokering unconventional ideas that could meet shared goals through investment in 

research and development. NASA’s propulsion community still endeavors to 

change the airplane in ways that will make an impact on modern, everyday 

life. As aviation progresses onward into the era of scramjets, electric engines, 

and alternative fuels, it will take the continued vision and energy of NASA to 

bring new developments to maturity.
Toward the Future

229

Endnotes

1. Charles Bolden, “Embracing a World of Change: NASA’s Aeronautics 

Research Strategy” (address at AIAA Aviation 2013, Los Angeles, 

CA, August 14, 2013), available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/

files/bolden_aiaa_aviation.pdf (accessed September 1, 2013). The 

video of the address can be viewed at http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/

video?clipId=pla_08bf0b46-2019-4db0-997b-aacf7029b61b.

2. The official press release echoing Bolden’s remarks is titled “Aeronautics 

Research Strategic Vision: A Blueprint for Transforming Global Air 

Mobility,” NASA white paper NF-2013-04-563-HQ, n.d. [2013], available at http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/armd_strategic_vision_2013.

pdf (accessed September 1, 2013).

3. Lisa Porter, “Reshaping NASA’s Aeronautics Program” (presentation 

given at AIAA Aerospace Sciences Conference, Reno, NV, January 

12, 2006).

4. John Croft, “Open Rotor Noise Not a Barrier to Entry,” Flightglobal

(July 5, 2012), available at http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/openrotor-noise-not-a-barrier-to-entry-ge-373817/ (accessed July 20, 2012).

5. Mark D. Guynn, Jeffrey J. Berton, Eric S. Hendricks, Michael T. Tong, 

William J. Haller, and Douglas R. Thurman, “Initial Assessment of 

Open Rotor Propulsion Applied to an Advanced Single-Aisle Aircraft” 

(paper presented at the 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, 

and Operations [ATIO] Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, September 

20–22, 2011), pp. 2–3.

6. Ibid., pp. 2–3.

7. Bruce Dorminey, “Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation?” 

Pacific-Standard Magazine (February 9, 2012), available at http://www.

psmag.com/business-economics/prop-planes-the-future-of-eco-friendlyaviation-39649/ (accessed June 7, 2012).

8. Lewis Page, “NASA Working on ‘Open Rotor’ Green (But Loud) 

Jets,” Register (June 12, 2009), available at http://www.theregister.

co.uk/2009/06/12/nasa_open_rotor_trials/ (accessed June 21, 2012).

9. Kathy Barnstorff, “NASA Researchers Work To Turn Blue Skies Green,” 

February 27, 2013, at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/

blue_skies_green.html#.Udi-Z_mThDA (accessed August 11, 2013).

10. The airflow through the engine casing is 10 times greater than the flow of 

air going through the compressor and combustion chamber on an ultrahigh-bypass turbofan. Banke, “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” p. 751.
The Power for Flight

230

11. The other four technology demonstrations were the Active Flow Control 

Enhanced Vertical Tail Flight Experiment, the Damage Arresting 

Composite Demonstration, the Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge 

Flight Experiment, and the Flap and Landing Gear Noise Reduction 

Flight Experiment. The other two research areas were aircraft drag reduction through innovative flow control concepts and weight reduction 

from advanced composite materials. Barnstorff, “NASA Researchers 

Work To Turn Blue Skies Green.”

12. Pratt & Whitney, “Pratt & Whitney and NASA Demonstrate Benefits 

of Geared TurboFan System in Environmentally Responsible Aviation 

Project,” June 19, 2013, http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-

0800/2013/All%20Categories (accessed August 19, 2013).

13. Glenn Research Center, “9'×15' Low-Speed Wind Tunnel,” November 

30, 2011, http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/9x15/ (accessed August 20, 2013); 

NASA Aeronautics Test Program, “9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind 

Tunnel,” n.d. [2013], http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/TOPS/

Top9x15.pdf (accessed August 20, 2013).

14. Guynn et al., “Initial Assessment of Open Rotor Propulsion Applied 

to an Advanced Single-Aisle Aircraft,” pp. 1–2; Banke, “Advancing 

Propulsive Technology,” p. 770.

15. Ed Envia, “Progress Toward N+1 Noise Goal” (paper presented at 

the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 12-Month Program Preview, 

Washington, DC, November 5–6, 2008); National Academy of 

Engineering of the National Academies, Technology for a Quieter America

(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010), p. 58.

16. Thomas Edwards, “The Future of Green Aviation” (NASA paper ARC-EDAA-TN5136, presented at the Future of Flight Foundation Celebrate 

the Future Conference, Mukilteo, WA, April 22, 2012), pp. 20, 36, 42.

17. Bruce I. Larrimer, “Good Stewards: NASA’s Role in Alternative Energy,” 

in NASA’s Contributions to Flight, vol. 1, Aerodynamics, ed. Richard P. 

Hallion (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010), pp. 

849–872.

18. Edwards, “The Future of Green Aviation,” p. 51; Kathy Barnstorff, “The 

Puffin: A Passion for Personal Flight,” February 8, 2010, http://www.

nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html (accessed May 5, 2012); 

Charles Q. Choi, “Electric Icarus: NASA Designs a One-Man Stealth 

Plane,” Scientific American (January 19, 2010), available at http://

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-one-man-stealth-plane

(accessed May 5, 2012).
Toward the Future

231

19. Clay Dillow, “NASA Awards the Largest Prize in Aviation History to 

an All-Electric, Super-Efficient Aircraft,” Popular Science (October 4, 

2011), available at http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-10/

nasa-awards-largest-prize-aviation-history-all-electric-super-efficientaircraft (accessed August 31, 2013).

20. Established in 2003, the Future of Flight Foundation provides exhibits, 

education programs, and student exchange programs using commercial 

aviation to inspire innovative thinking and to explore solutions to critical global issues. The foundation changed its name to the Institute of 

Flight in December 2015. Institute of Flight, “About,” 2016, https://

www.futureofflight.org/about (accessed December 2, 2016).

21. Elizabeth Griffin, “Earth Day Celebration Highlights Environmentally 

Progressive Aircraft,” Journal: Your Community Magazine 37 (April 

2012): 18. 

22. Ibid.

23. Edwards, “The Future of Green Aviation,” pp. 7, 60.

24. Ibid., pp. 9, 52.

25. Ibid., pp. 19, 28.

26. Kathleen Zona, “Experience NASA’s Green Lab Research Facility,” 

January 27, 2012, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/events/tour_green_

lab.html (accessed October 6, 2014); Edwards, “The Future of Green 

Aviation,” p. 29; Harrington, “Leaner and Greener: Fuel Efficiency 

Takes Flight,” pp. 815–817.

27. Jim Banke, “NASA Researchers Sniff Out Alternate Fuel Future,” May 13, 

2013, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/access_fuel.html#.

Udi9WvmThDA (accessed August 11, 2013).

28. Karen Northon, “NASA Signs Agreement with German, Canadian 

Partners To Test Alternative Fuels,” NASA News Release 14-089, April 

10, 2014, at http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-signs-agreementwith-german-canadian-partners-to-test-alternative-fuels/#.VB9MJPldUeh

(accessed September 21, 2014); Banke, “NASA Researchers Sniff Out 

Alternate Fuel Future.”

233

Abbreviations

AATE Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine

ACCESS Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions

ACEE Aircraft Energy Efficiency

ACTIVE Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles

ADECS Adaptive Engine Control System

ADP Advanced Ducted Propulsor

ADVENT Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AERL Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory

AGARD Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development

AGATE Advanced General Aviation Transportation Experiments

AGT Advanced Gas Turbine

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

ALCM air-launched cruise missile

ARMD Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

ASEE American Society for Engineering Education

ASME American Society for Mechanical Engineers

ASPIRE Advanced Supersonic Propulsion and Integration Research

AST Advanced Subsonic Technology

ATEGG Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator

ATF Advanced Tactical Fighter

ATIO Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations

ATP Advanced Turboprop Project

ATT Advanced Transport Technology

ATTAP Advanced Turbine Technology Applications

avgas aviation gasoline

AWT Altitude Wind Tunnel

BAC British Aircraft Corporation

C-MAPSS Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation

CARD Civil Aviation Research and Development

CEMCAN ceramic matrix composite analyzer

CFD computational fluid dynamics

CFRP carbon fiber–reinforced polymer
The Power for Flight

234

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CPC Critical Propulsion Components

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

dB decibels

DEEC Digital Electronic Engine Control

DEFCS Digital Electronic Flight Control System

DLR German Aerospace Center

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

E3, or EEE Energy Efficient Engine

ECCP Experimental Clean Combustor Program

ECI Engine Component Improvement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPM Enabling Propulsion Materials

EPNdB effective perceived noise in decibels

ERA Environmentally Responsible Aviation

ERAST Environmental Research and Aircraft Sensor Technology

ERB Engine Research Building

ETAF Energy Trends and Alternate Fuels

ETOPS Extended Range Twin Operations

EVNRC Engine Validation of Noise Reduction Concepts

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FADEC full-authority digital electronic control

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

FCC flight control computer

FLADE fan-on-blade

FPS Flight Propulsion System

FSER Full-Scale Engine Research

GAP General Aviation Propulsion

GE General Electric

HALE High-Altitude Long-Endurance

HARV High Alpha Research Vehicle

HATP High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program

HIDEC Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control

HISTEC High Stability Engine Control

HITEMP Advanced High Temperature Engine Materials Technology

Program
Abbreviations

235

HPT High Pressure Turbine

HQ Herschel-Quincke tubes

HRC Historical Reference Collection

HSCT High-Speed Civil Transport

HSR High-Speed Research

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ICAS International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences

IDEEC Improved Digital Electronic Engine Controller

IHPTET Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology

ILS instrument landing system

ILTV Inner Loop Thrust Vectoring

IPCS integrated propulsion control system

IRAC Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control

JPO Joint Program Office

JTDE Joint Technology Demonstrator Engine

LAP Large-Scale Advanced Propfan

LDV Laser Doppler Velocimetry

MATV Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mph miles per hour

NAA National Aeronautic Association

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NAFEC National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASM National Air and Space Museum

NASP National Aero-Space Plane

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATR Nozzle Acoustic Test Rig

NEPA Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft

NFAC National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex

NIA National Institute of Aerospace

NiAl nickel aluminide

NOx oxides of nitrogen

NPSS Numerical Propulsion System Simulation

NRC National Research Council

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NVFEL National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

OART Office of Advanced Research and Technology

OAST Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

ODS Oxide Dispersion Strengthened
The Power for Flight

236

ONERA Office National d’Etudes et Recherches Aérospatiales

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

Pan Am Pan American World Airways

PCA propulsion-controlled aircraft

PI Performance Improvement

PMR Polymerization of Monomer Reactants

PNdB perceived noise in decibels

POI power-off-immersed

POR power-off-retracted

PRT Propeller Research Tunnel

PSC Performance Seeking Control

PSL Propulsion Systems Laboratory

PTA Propfan Test Assessment

Q-Fan Quiet-Fan

Q/STOL Quiet-STOL

QAT Quiet Aircraft Technology

QCGAT Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan

QCSEE Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul Experimental Engine

QEP Quiet Engine Program

QSRA Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft

QTD Quiet Technology Demonstrator

QTD2 Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2

QUESTOL Quiet Experimental Short Takeoff and Landing

RBSN reaction-bonded silicon nitride

RevCon Revolutionary Concepts in Aeronautics

RG record group

rpm revolutions per minute

RTA Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SAM Sound Absorption Material

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SCAR Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research

scramjet supersonic combustion ramjet

SECTF Small Engine Component Test Facility

SFC Specific Fuel Consumption

SFN Separate-Flow Nozzle (Jet Noise Reduction Test Program)

SFW Subsonic Fixed Wing

SLPC single-lever power control

SMA shape memory alloy

SPO System Program Office

SR single-rotation (propfan)
Abbreviations

237

SST supersonic transport

STOL Short Takeoff and Landing

STOVL Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing

TBCC Turbine Based Combined Cycle

TCA Technology Concept Airplane

TFX Tactical Fighter Experimental

THC unburned hydrocarbons

TiAl titanium aluminide

TN Technical Note

TOC Throttles Only Control

TR Technical Report

TRL Technology Readiness Level

UAL United Airlines

UART universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UDF Unducted Fan

UEET Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology

UHB ultra-high-bypass

UTRC United Technologies Research Center

V-CAP Vehicle Charging And Potential

V/STOL Vertical and Short Takeoff and Landing

VAATE Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine

VCE variable cycle engine

VDT Variable-Density Tunnel

Virginia Tech Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

VLJ very light jet

Vorbix vortex burning and mixing

239

Bibliography

Books and Monographs

Aerospace Industries Association. Aerospace Facts and Figures 2008. Arlington, 

VA: Aerospace Industries Association of America, 2008.

Anderson, Jr., John D. Introduction to Flight. 7th edition. New York: McGrawHill, 2012.

Arrighi, Robert S. Pursuit of Power: NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 

and 2. Washington, DC: NASA, 2012.

Becker, John V. The High Speed Frontier: Case Histories of Four NACA Programs, 

1920–1950, NASA SP-445. Washington, DC: NASA, 1980.

Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA, 

1915–1990, NASA SP-4406. Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and 

Technical Information Division, 1989.

Bowles, Mark D. The “Apollo” of Aeronautics: NASA’s Aircraft Energy Efficiency 

Program, 1973–1987, NASA SP-2009-574. Washington, DC: NASA, 2010.

——. Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station, 1955–

2005, NASA SP-2006-4317. Washington, DC: NASA, 2006.

Boyne, Walter J., and Donald S. Lopez, eds. The Jet Age: Forty Years of Jet 

Aviation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1979.

Conner, Margaret. Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight. Reston, VA: AIAA, 2001.

Connors, Jack. The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History. Reston, 

VA: AIAA, 2010.

Constant, Edward W. The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Baltimore: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1980.
The Power for Flight

240

Conway, Erik M. High-Speed Dreams: NASA and the Technopolitics of Supersonic 

Transportation, 1945–1999. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 

2005.

Coulam, Robert F. Illusions of Choice: The F-111 and the Problem of Weapons 

Acquisition Reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.

Crouch, Tom D. A Dream of Wings: Americans and the Airplane, 1875–1905. 

New York: Norton, 1981; reprint, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution 

Press, 1989.

Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American 

Propulsion Technology, NASA SP-4306. Washington, DC: NASA, 1991.

Dick, Steven J., ed. NASA’s First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives, NASA 

SP-2010-4704. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010.

Ethell, Jeffrey L. Fuel Economy in Aviation, NASA SP-462. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1983.

Ferguson, Robert G. NASA’s First A: Aeronautics from 1958 to 2008, SP-2012-

4412. Washington, DC: NASA, 2013.

Garvin, Robert R. Starting Something Big: The Commercial Emergence of GE 

Aircraft Engines. Reston, VA: AIAA, 1998.

Gray, George. Frontiers of Flight: The Story of NACA Research. New York: 

Knopf, 1948.

Gunston, Bill. The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines. 2nd edition. 

Somerset, England: Patrick Stephens, Ltd., 1997.

Hager, Roy D., and Deborah Vrabel. Advanced Turboprop Project, NASA 

SP-495. Washington, DC: NASA, 1988.

Hallion, Richard P., ed. NASA’s Contributions to Flight, vol. 1. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office, 2010.

——. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–1981, NASA SP-4303. 

Washington, DC: NASA, 1984.
Bibliography

241

——. Supersonic Flight: Breaking the Sound Barrier and Beyond—The Story 

of the Bell XS-1 and the Douglas D-558. New York: The Macmillan Co., 

in association with the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian 

Institution, 1972.

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical 

Laboratory, 1917–1958, NASA SP-4305. Washington, DC: NASA, 1987.

Jakab, Peter L. Visions of a Flying Machine: The Wright Brothers and the Process 

of Invention. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife, 1990.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 

Research Airplane, NASA SP-2000-4518. Washington, DC: NASA, 2000.

Kinney, Jeremy R. Airplanes: The Life Story of a Technology. New York: 

Greenwood, 2006; reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2008.

Launius, Roger D., ed. Innovation and the Development of Flight. College 

Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1999.

Leyes, Richard A., II, and William A. Fleming. The History of North American 

Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines. Reston, VA: AIAA, 1999.

Mead, Cary Hoge. Wings over the World: The Life of George Jackson Mead. 

Wauwatosa, WI: Swannet Press, 1971.

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979. 

Washington, DC: NASA History Division, 2002.

NASA Acoustically Treated Nacelle Program: A Conference Held at Langley 

Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, October 15, 1969, NASA SP-220. 

Washington, DC: NASA, 1969.

National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies. Technology for a 

Quieter America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.

National Research Council of the National Academies. Recapturing NASA’s 

Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 2012.
The Power for Flight

242

Nayler, J.L., and E. Ower. Aviation: Its Technical Development. London: Peter 

Owen/Vision Press, 1965.

Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 

1915–1958, NASA SP-4103. Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and 

Technical Information Division, 1985.

Rolt, R.T.C. The Aeronauts: A History of Ballooning, 1783–1903. New York: 

Walker and Co., 1966.

Rosen, George. Thrusting Forward: A History of the Propeller. Windsor Locks, 

CT: United Technologies Corporation, 1984.

Schlaifer, Robert, and Samuel D. Heron. Development of Aircraft Engines and 

Aviation Fuels. Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of Business 

Administration, 1950.

Spinoff 2008: Fifty Years of NASA-Derived Technologies (1958–2008). 

Washington, DC: NASA Center for Aerospace Information, 2008.

St. Peter, James. The History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development in the 

United States: A Tradition of Excellence. Atlanta: International Gas Turbine 

Institute of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999.

Taylor, C. Fayette. Aircraft Propulsion: A Review of the Evolution of Aircraft 

Piston Engines. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at 

NASA Dryden. Washington, DC: NASA History Office, 1999.

Weick, Fred E. Aircraft Propeller Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book 

Co., 1930.

Williams, Louis J. Small Transport Aircraft Technology. Washington, DC: 

NASA, 1983; reprint, Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2001.
Bibliography

243

Reports and Papers

Abdalla, K.L., and J.A. Yuska. “NASA REFAN Program Status,” NASA TM-X71705. 1975.

“Aeropropulsion ’87: Proceedings of a Conference Held at NASA Lewis 

Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, November 17–19, 1987,” NASA 

CP-3049. 1990.

Albers, James A. “Status of the NASA YF-12 Propulsion Research Program,” 

NASA TM-X-56039. 1976.

Albright, A.J., D.J. Lennard, and J.A. Ziemanski. “NASA/General Electric 

Engine Component Improvement Program,” paper presented at the 14th 

AIAA/SAE Joint Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, NV, July 25–27, 1978.

Bargsten, Clayton J., and Malcolm T. Gibson. “NASA Innovation in 

Aeronautics: Select Technologies That Have Shaped Modern Aviation,” 

NASA TM-2011-216987. 2011.

Bartlett, Peter, Nick Humphreys, Pam Phillipson, Justin Lan, Eric Nesbitt, 

and John Premo. “The Joint Rolls-Royce/Boeing Quiet Technology 

Demonstrator Programme,” AIAA Paper 2004-2869, presented at the 

10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Manchester, U.K., May 

10–12, 2004.

Bielak, G., J. Gallman, R. Kunze, P. Murray, J. Premo, M. Kosanchick, 

A. Hersh, J. Celano, B. Walker, J. Yu, H.W. Kwan, S. Chiou, J. Kelly, 

J. Betts, J. Follet, and R. Thomas. “Advanced Nacelle Acoustic Lining 

Concepts Development,” NASA CR-2002-211672. August 2002.

Birch, Stanley F., P.A. Bukshtab, K.M. Khritov, D.A. Lyubimov, V.P. Maslov, 

A.N. Secundov, and K.Y. Yakubovsky. “The Use of Small Air Jets To Simulate 

Metal Chevrons,” AIAA Paper 2009-3372, a presented at the 15th AIAA/

CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Miami, FL, May 11–13, 2009.

Bloomer, Harry E., and Carl E. Campbell. “Experimental Investigation of 

Several Afterburner Configurations on a J79 Turbojet Engine,” NACA RM 

E57I18. 1957.
The Power for Flight

244

Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “High-Speed Civil Transport Study: Summary,” 

NASA CR-4234. 1989.

Bolden, Charles. “Embracing a World of Change: NASA’s Aeronautics Research 

Strategy,” address at AIAA Aviation 2013, Los Angeles, CA, August 14, 

2013. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/bolden_aiaa_aviation.pdf. 

Accessed September 1, 2013.

Bowers, Albion H., and Joseph W. Pahle. “Thrust Vectoring on the NASA F-18 

High Alpha Research Vehicle,” NASA TM-4771. 1996.

Bowers, Albion H., Joseph W. Pahle, R. Joseph Wilson, Bradley C. Flick, and 

Richard L. Rood. “An Overview of the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research 

Vehicle,” NASA TM-4772. 1996.

Braithwaite, Willis M., John H. Dicus, and John E. Moss. “Evaluation with a 

Turbofan Engine of Air Jets as a Steady-State Inlet Flow Distortion Device,” 

NASA TM-X-1955. 1970.

Brokopp, Richard A., and Robert S. Gronski. “Small Engine Components Test 

Facility Compressor Testing Cell at NASA Lewis Research Center,” AIAA 

Paper 92-3980, presented at the 17th AIAA Aerospace Ground Testing 

Conference, Nashville, TN, July 6–8, 1992.

Brown, Clifford, and James Bridges. “An Analysis of Model Scale Data 

Transformation to Full Scale Flight Using Chevron Nozzles,” NASA 

TM-2003-212732. December 2003.

Bull, John, Robert Mah, Gloria Davis, Joe Conley, Gordon Hardy, Jim Gibson, 

Matthew Blake, Don Bryant, and Diane Williams. “Piloted Simulation 

Tests of Propulsion Control as a Backup to Loss of Primary Flight Controls 

for a Mid-Size Jet Aircraft,” NASA TM-110374. 1995.

Bultemeier, Eric J., Ulrich Ganz, John Premo, and Eric Nesbit. “Effect of 

Uniform Chevrons on Cruise Shockcell Noise,” AIAA Paper 2006-2440, 

presented at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Cambridge, 

MA, May 8–10, 2006.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., and C. Gordon Fullerton. “Controlling Crippled 

Aircraft—With Throttles,” NASA TM-104238. 1991.
Bibliography

245

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., C. Gordon Fullerton, and Trindel A. Maine. “Manual 

Manipulation of Engine Throttles for Emergency Flight Control,” NASA 

TM-2004-212045. 2004.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., John J. Burken, Trindel A. Maine, and C. Gordon 

Fullerton. “Development and Flight Test of an Emergency Flight Control 

System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 Transport Airplane,” 

NASA TP-97-206217. 1997.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., and Peter G. Batterton. “Flight Experience with a 

Digital Integrated Propulsion Control System on an F-111E Airplane,” 

AIAA Paper 76-653, presented at the 12th Joint AIAA/SAE Propulsion 

Conference, Palo Alto, CA, July 26–29, 1976.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., Ronald J. Ray, Timothy R. Conners, and Kevin R. 

Walsh. “Propulsion Flight Research at NASA Dryden from 1967 to 1997,” 

NASA TP-1998-206554. 1998.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., Trindel A. Maine, John J. Burken, and John Bull. 

“Using Engine Thrust for Emergency Flight Control: MD-11 and B-747 

Results,” NASA TM-1998-206552. 1998.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr., Trindel Maine, and Thomas Wolf. “Flight Testing and 

Simulation of an F-15 Airplane Using Throttles for Flight Control,” NASA 

TM-104255. 1992.

Burrus, D.L., C.A. Chahrour, H.L. Foltz, P.E. Sabla, S.P. Seto, and J.R. Taylor. 

“Combustion System Component Technology Performance Report,” 

NASA CR-168274. 1984.

Bushman, Mark, and Steven G. Nobbs. “F-15 Propulsion System: PW1128 

Engine and DEEC,” NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Document 

N95-33012. 1995.

Calkins, Frederick T., George W. Butler, and James H. Mabe. “Variable 

Geometry Chevrons for Jet Noise Reduction,” AIAA Paper 2006-2546, 

presented at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Cambridge, 

MA, May 8–10, 2006.

Ciepluch, C.C. “Preliminary QCSEE Program Test Results,” SAE Paper 

771008. 1977.
The Power for Flight

246

——. “A Review of the QCSEE Program,” NASA TM-X-71818. 1975.

Crowl, R., W.R. Dunbar, and C. Wentworth. “Experimental Investigation of 

Marquardt Shock-Positioning Control Unit on a 28-Inch Ramjet Engine,” 

NACA RM E56E09. 1956.

Davis, D.Y., and E.M. Stearns. “Energy Efficient Engine: Flight Propulsion 

System Final Design and Analysis [GE Design],” NASA CR-168219. 1985.

Draley, Eugene C., Blake W. Corson, Jr., and John L. Crigler. “Trends in the 

Design and Performance of High-Speed Propellers,” in NACA Conference on 

Aerodynamic Problems of Transonic Airplane Design: A Compilation of Papers 

Presented, September 27–29, 1949, NASA TM-X-56649. 1950.

Dryden, Hugh L. “Jet Engines for War,” January 23, 1951. NASA Historical 

Reference Collection, file 40958.

——. “Research and Development in Aeronautics,” Publication No. L49-25. 

October 4, 1948.

Durand, William F. “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers,” NACA TR 

14. 1917.

——. “Interaction Between Air-Propellers and Airplane Structures,” NACA 

TR 235. 1926.

Durand, William F., and E.P. Lesley. “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers, 

II,” NACA TR 30. 1918.

——. “Experimental Research on Air-Propellers, V,” NACA TR 141. 1922.

——. “Comparison of Tests on Airplane Propellers in Flight with Wind Tunnel 

Model Tests on Similar Forms,” NACA TR 220. 1925.

Edwards, Thomas. “The Future of Green Aviation,” NASA paper ARC-EDAA-TN5136, presented at the Future of Flight Foundation Celebrate 

the Future Conference, Mukilteo, WA, April 22, 2012.

Ellis, Jr., Macon C., and Clinton E. Brown. “NACA Investigation of a JetPropulsion System Applicable to Flight,” NACA TR-802. 1943.
Bibliography

247

Envia, Ed. “Progress Toward N+1 Noise Goal,” paper presented at the 

Fundamental Aeronautics Program 12-Month Program Review, 

Washington, DC, November 5–6, 2008.

Federal Aviation Administration. “Noise Abatement Departure Profiles,” 

Advisory Circular 91-53A, July 22, 1993. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091-53A/$FILE/

ac91-53.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2012.

——. “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification,” 

Advisory Circular 36-4C, July 15, 2003.

Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Defense, and NASA. “A 

National Program for a Commercial Supersonic Transport,” NASA 

TMX-50927. 1960.

Fiock, Ernest F., and H. Kendall King. “The Effect of Water Vapor on Flame 

Velocity in Equivalent CO-O2 Mixtures,” NACA TR 531. 1935.

Fishbach, L.H., and Michael J. Caddy. “NNEP: The Navy-NASA Engine 

Program,” NASA TM-X-71857. 1975.

Freche, John C. “Progress in Superalloys,” NASA TN D-2495. 1964.

Gabb, Timothy P., Anita Garg, David L. Ellis, and Kenneth M. O’Connor. 

“Detailed Microstructural Characterization of the Disk Alloy ME3,” NASA 

TM-2004-213066. May 2004.

Gaffin, W.O. “NASA ECI Programs: Benefits to Pratt & Whitney Engines,” 

paper presented at the 27th ASME International Gas Turbine Conference 

and Exhibit, London, England, April 18–22, 1982. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

search.jsp?R=19820051913. Accessed August 18, 2013.

Garg, Sanjay. “Aircraft Turbine Engine Control Research at NASA Glenn 

Research Center,” NASA TM-2013-217821. 2013.

German, J., P. Fogel, and C. Wilson. “Design and Evaluation of an Integrated 

Quiet Clean General Aviation Turbofan (QCGAT) Engine and Aircraft 

Propulsion System,” NASA CR-165185. 1980.
The Power for Flight

248

Golub, Robert A., John W. Rawls, Jr., and James W. Russell. “Evaluation of 

the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program Noise Reduction Benefits,” 

NASA TM-2005-212144. May 2005.

Guyn, Mark D., Jeffrey J. Berton, Eric S. Hendricks, Michael T. Tong, William 

J. Haller, and Douglas R. Thurman. “Initial Assessment of Open Rotor 

Propulsion Applied to an Advanced Single-Aisle Aircraft,” paper presented 

at the 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) 

Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, September 20–22, 2011.

Hallion, Richard P. “The History of Hypersonics: Or, ‘Back to the Future—

Again and Again,’” AIAA Paper 2005-0329, presented at the AIAA 43rd 

Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 10–13, 2005.

Hammack, Jerome B., Max C. Kurbjun, and Thomas C. O’Bryan. “Flight 

Investigation of a Supersonic Propeller on a Propeller Research Vehicle at 

Mach Numbers to 1.01,” NACA RM L57E20. 1957.

Hammack, Jerome B., and Thomas C. O’Bryan. “Effect of Advance Ratio 

on Flight Performance of a Modified Supersonic Propeller,” NACA TN 

4389. 1958.

Harper, Charles W. “Introductory Remarks,” in Progress of NASA Research 

Relating to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft: A Conference Held 

at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, October 8–10, 1968, NASA 

SP-189. 1968.

Hassell, Patrick. “A History of the Development of the Variable Pitch Propeller,” 

paper presented before the Royal Aeronautical Society Hamburg Branch, 

Hamburg, Germany, April 26, 2012.

Heldenbrand, R.W., and W.M. Norgren. “AiResearch QCGAT Program,” 

NASA CR-159758. 1979.

Hughes, Donald L., Jon K. Holzman, and Harold Johnson. “Flight-Determined 

Characteristics of an Air Intake System on an F-111A Airplane,” NASA 

TN D-6679. 1972.

Jaw, Link C., and Sanjay Garg. “Propulsion Control Technology Development 

in the United States: A Historical Perspective,” NASA TM-2005-213978.

2005.
Bibliography

249

Johnsen, Irving A., and Robert O. Bullock, eds. Aerodynamic Design of AxialFlow Compressors, NASA SP-36. Washington, DC: NASA, 1965.

Ketchum, James R., and R.T. Craig. “Simulation of Linearized Dynamics of 

Gas-Turbine Engines,” NACA TN 2826. 1952.

Kinney, J.R. “Starting from Scratch?: The American Aero Engine Industry, the 

Air Force, and the Jet, 1940‒1960,” AIAA Report 2003-2671, July 2003.

Klineberg, J.M. “Technology for Aircraft Energy Efficiency,” American 

Society of Civil Engineers Paper A79-14126 03-03, in Proceedings of the 

International Air Transportation Conference, Washington, D.C., April 4–6, 

1977. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1977.

Koenig, R.W., and G.K. Sievers. “Preliminary QCGAT Program Test Results,” 

NASA TM-79013. 1979.

Kramer, J.J., and F.J. Montegani. “The NASA Quiet Engine Program,” NASA 

TM-X-67988. 1972.

Krebs, J.N. “Advanced Supersonic Technology Study Engine Program 

Summary: Supersonic Propulsion, 1971 to 1976,” in Proceedings of the 

SCAR Conference Held at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 

November 9–12, 1976, NASA CP-001. 1977.

Lee, Jinho, Robert J. Buehrle, and Ralph Winslow. “The GE-NASA RTA 

Hyperburner Design and Development,” NASA TM-2005-213803. 2005.

Lewis Research Center. “The Propulsion Systems Laboratory,” Brochure 

B-0363, March 1991. http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/PSL_Assets/History/

E%20PSL%20No%203%20and%204/Propulsion%20Systems%20Lab%20No.

%203-4%20brochure%20(1991).pdf. Accessed August 15, 2013.

Lesley, E.P., and B.M. Woods. “The Effect of Slipstream Obstructions on AirPropellers,” NACA TR 177. 1923.

Liebert, Curt H., and Francis S. Stepka. “Potential Use of Ceramic 

Coating as a Thermal Insulation on Cooled Turbine Hardware,” NASA 

TM-X-3352. 1976.
The Power for Flight

250

Litt, Jonathan S., Dean K. Frederick, and Ten-Huei Guo. “The Case for 

Intelligent Propulsion Control for Fast Engine Response,” NASA TM-2009-

215668/AIAA 2009-1876, 2009.

Low, John K.C., Paul S. Schweiger, John W. Premo, and Thomas J. Barber. 

“Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Separate-Flow High-Bypass Ratio 

Nozzle Noise Reduction Program Test Report,” NASA CR-2000-210040. 

December 2000.

Lytle, John K. “The Numerical Propulsion System Simulation: An Overview,” 

NASA TM-2000-209915. June 2000.

Mankins, John C. “Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper,” April 6, 1995. 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2014.

Martin, Richard A. “Dynamic Analysis of XB-70-1 Inlet Pressure Fluctuations 

During Takeoff and Prior to a Compressor Stall at Mach 2.5,” NASA TN 

D-5826. 1970.

Matthews, Douglas C., Larry A. Bock, Gerald W. Bielak, R.P. Dougherty, John 

W. Premo, Dan F. Scharpf, and Jia Yu. “Pratt & Whitney/Boeing Engine 

Validation of Noise Reduction Concepts: Final Report for NASA Contract 

NAS3-97144, Phase 1,” NASA CR-2014-218088. February 2014.

McAulay, John. E. “Engine Component Improvement Program: Performance 

Improvement,” AIAA Paper 80-0223, presented at the 12th AIAA Aerospace 

Sciences Meeting, January 14–16, 1980.

Mehalic, Charles M., and Roy A. Lottig. “Inlet Temperature Distortion on the 

Stall Limits of J85-GE-13,” NASA TM-X-2990. 1974.

Mengle, Vinod G. “Jet Noise Characteristics of Chevrons in Internally Mixed 

Nozzles,” AIAA Paper 2005-2934, presented at the 11th AIAA/CEAS 

Aeroacoustics Conference, Monterey, CA, May 23–25, 2005.

Mengle, Vinod G., Ronen Elkoby, Leon Brusniak, and Russ H. Thomas. 

“Reducing Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustic Interactions with Uniquely 

Tailored Chevrons: 1. Isolated Nozzles,” AIAA Paper 2006-2467, presented 

at the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Cambridge, MA, 

May 8–10, 2006.
Bibliography

251

Merlin, Peter W. “Design and Development of the Blackbird: Challenges and 

Lessons Learned,” AIAA Paper 2009-1522, presented at the 47th AIAA 

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 5–8, 2009.

Miller, Cearcy D. “A Study by High Speed Photography of Combustion and 

Knock in a Spark-Ignition Engine,” NACA TR 727. 1942.

Miller, George P. “NASA,” in Congressional Record, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 

vol. 117s. December 14, 1971, p. H12545.

Miller, Robert A. “History of Thermal Barrier Coatings for Gas Turbine 

Engines: Emphasizing NASA’s Role from 1942 to 1990,” NASA TM-2003-

215459. 2009.

Munk, Max M. “Analysis of W.F. Durand’s and E.P. Lesley’s Propeller Tests,” 

NACA TR 175. 1923.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Aeronautics Research 

Strategic Vision: A Blueprint for Transforming Global Air Mobility,” NASA 

White Paper NF-2013-04-563-HQ, n.d. [2013]. http://www.aeronautics.

nasa.gov/pdf/armd_strategic_vision_2013.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2013.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Conference on V/STOL 

Aircraft: A Compilation of the Papers Presented at Langley Research Center, 

Langley Field, Virginia, November 17–18, 1960. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/

nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630004807.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2015.

Niedzwiecki, Richard W. “The Experimental Clean Combustor Program: 

Description and Status to November 1975,” NASA TM-X-71849. 1975.

Niedzwiecki, Richard W., and C.C. Gleason. “Results of the NASA/General 

Electric Experimental Clean Combustor Program,” AIAA Paper 76-76, 

presented at the 12th AIAA/SAE Joint Propulsion Conference, Palo Alto, 

CA, July 26–29, 1976.

Niedzwiecki, Richard W., and R. Jones. “The Experimental Clean Combustor 

Program: Description and Status,” SAE Technical Paper 740485. February 1, 

1974.
The Power for Flight

252

“Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS): An Award Winning 

Propulsion System Simulation Tool,” in Research & Technology, 2001, NASA 

TM-2002-211333, 2002.

Otto, Edward W., and Burt L. Taylor III. “Dynamics of a Turbojet Engine 

Considered as a Quasi-Static System,” NACA TR 1011. 1950.

Peebles, Curtis. “Learning from Experience: Case Studies of the Hyper-X 

Project,” paper presented at the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 

January 5–8, 2009.

——. “The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to 

Mach 10,” unpublished paper, Dryden Flight Research Center, CA, 2007.

Pittman, James L., John M. Koudelka, Michael J. Wright, and Kenneth E. Rock. 

“Hypersonics Project Overview,” paper presented at the 2011 Technical 

Conference, Cleveland, OH, March 15–17, 2011. http://www.aeronautics.

nasa.gov/pdf/hypersonics_project.pdf. Accessed December 26, 2012.

Porter, Lisa. “Reshaping NASA’s Aeronautics Program,” presentation given at 

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Conference, Reno, NV, January 12, 2006.

Pratt & Whitney and General Electric Aircraft Engines. “Critical Propulsion 

Components, Volume 1: Summary, Introduction, and Propulsion Systems 

Studies,” NASA CR-2005-213584. 2005.

Putnam, Terrill W., and Ronald H. Smith. “XB-70 Compressor-Noise 

Reduction and Propulsion Performance for Choked Inlet Flow,” NASA 

TN D-5692. 1970.

Rhines, Thomas B. “Summary of United Aircraft Wind Tunnel Tests of 

Supersonic Propellers,” in NACA Conference on Aerodynamic Problems of 

Transonic Airplane Design: A Compilation of Papers Presented, September 

27–29, 1949, NASA TM-X-56649. 1949.

Richey, G. Keith. “F-111 Systems Engineering Case Study,” Center for Systems 

Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology, March 10, 2005. 

http://www.afit.edu/docs/0930AFIT14ENV125%202-2.pdf. Accessed 

February 2, 2016.
Bibliography

253

——. Interview by Squire Brown, August 31, 2006. Interview no. 2, transcript. 

Cold War Aerospace Technology Project, Wright State University Libraries 

Special Collections and Archives.

Roberts, G.D., R.K. Goldberg, W.K. Binienda, W.A. Arnold, J.D. Littell, and 

L.W. Kohlman. “Characterization of Triaxial Braided Composite Material 

Properties for Impact Simulation,” NASA TM-2009-215660. 2009.

Roberts, R., A. Peduzzi, and R.W. Niedzwiecki. “Low Pollution Combustor 

Designs for CTOL Engines: Results of the Experimental Clean Combustor 

Program,” AIAA Paper 76-762, presented at the 12th AIAA/SAE Joint 

Propulsion Conference, Palo Alto, CA, July 26–29, 1976.

Rothrock, Addison M., Alois Krsek, and Anthony W. Jones. “The Induction 

of Water to the Inlet Air as a Means of Internal Cooling in Aircraft Engine 

Cylinders,” NACA TR 756. 1943.

Rothrock, A.M., and Arnold E. Biermann. “The Knocking Characteristics 

of Fuels in Relation to Maximum Permissible Performance of Aircraft 

Engines,” NACA TR 655. 1940.

Ryan, William F. “Aircraft Noise Abatement at JFK International Airport,” 

in Congressional Record, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., vol. 117s. June 14, 1971, 

pp. E5783–E5784.

Schey, Oscar, Benjamin Pinkel, and Herman H. Ellerbrock, Jr. “Correction of 

Temperatures of Air-Cooled Engine Cylinders for Variation in Engine and 

Cooling Conditions,” NACA TR 645. 1939.

Schmittman, Craig. “Ultra High Bypass (UHB).” Aerospace-Defense News, 1989. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxVAaIsfPIY. Accessed May 3, 2016.

Schwartz, Ira, ed. “Third Conference on Sonic Boom Research Held at NASA, 

Washington, D.C., October 29–30, 1970,” NASA SP-255. 1971.

Shaw, Robert J. “NASA’s Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) Program/

Aeropropulsion Technology Leadership for the 21st Century,” paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 

August 27–September 1, 2000, Harrogate, U.K. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

tr/fulltext/u2/a547568.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2012.
The Power for Flight

254

——. “Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project Integrated into NASA’s 

Vehicle Systems Program,” in Research and Technology 2003, NASA 

TM-2004-212729. May 2004, n.p. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.

ntrs.nasa.gov/20050192140.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2016.

Shovlin, M.D., and J.A. Cochrane. “An Overview of the Quiet Short-Haul 

Research Aircraft Program,” NASA TM-78545. November 1978.

Silverstein, Abe, and Newell D. Sanders. “Concepts on Turbojet Engines for 

Transport Application,” paper presented at the SAE Aeronautic Meeting, 

New York, April 10, 1956. NASA HRC, file 41567.

Sinnette, John T., Oscar W. Schey, and J. Austin King. “Performance of NACA 

Eight-Stage Axial-Flow Compressor Designed on the Basis of Airfoil 

Theory,” NACA TR 758. 1943.

Smolka, James W., Laurence A. Walker, Gregory H. Johnson, Gerard S. 

Schkolnik, Curtis W. Berger, Timothy R. Conners, John S. Orme, Karla 

S. Shy, and C. Bruce Wood. “F-15 ACTIVE Flight Research Program,” 

in Report to the Aerospace Profession: Fortieth Symposium Proceedings of the 

Society of Experimental Test Pilots, September 1996. https://www.nasa.gov/

centers/dryden/pdf/89247main_setp_d6.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2016.

Sokolowski, Daniel E., and John E. Rohde. “The E3 Combustors: Status and 

Challenges,” NASA TM-82684. 1981.

Stack, John. “Tests of Airfoils Designed to Delay the Compressibility Burble,” 

NACA TN 976. December 1944.

Staff of the NASA Research Centers. “Summary of NASA Support of the F-111 

Development Program, Part I-December 1962-December 1965,” NASA 

Langley Working Paper 246. October 10, 1966.

“Statement of Dr. Mike J. Benzakein,” in Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, The 

Future of Aeronautics at NASA, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Serial No. 109-8. 

March 16, 2005. Available at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/

hsy20007.000/hsy20007_0.HTM. Accessed February 2, 2016.
Bibliography

255

Stevens, Joseph R. “NASA’s HITEMP Program for UHBR Engines,” AIAA 

Paper 90-2395, presented at the 26th AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Joint 

Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, July 16–18, 1990.

Stewart, James F. “Integrated Flight Propulsion Control Research Results 

Using the NASA F-15 HIDEC Flight Research Facility,” NASA TM-4394. 

June 1992.

Stewart, Warner L. “Introduction: Session III-Propulsion,” in Proceedings of 

the SCAR Conference held at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 

November 9–12, 1976, NASA CP-001. 1977.

Szuch, John R., James F. Soeder, Kurt Seldner, and David S. Cwynar. “F100 

Multivariable Control Synthesis Program—Evaluation of a Multivariable 

Control Using a Real-Time Engine Simulation,” NASA TP 1056. 

October 1977.

Taylor, D.W. “Some Aspects of the Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Tests,” 

NACA AR 1925. 1926.

Turner, Travis L., Randolph H. Cabell, Roberto J. Cano, and Richard J. Silcox. 

“Testing of SMA-Enabled Active Chevron Prototypes Under Representative 

Flow Conditions,” in Proceedings of SPIE, Volume 6928: Active and Passive 

Smart Structures and Integrated Systems 2008, ed. Mehdi Ahmadian, May 

2008. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080014174.pdf. 

Accessed September 15, 2014.

U.S. Congress. House Committee on Science and Technology. “Aircraft Noise 

Abatement Technology.” 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976. S. Rept. W.

——. Office of Technology Assessment. Federal Research and Technology 

for Aviation, OTA-ETI-610. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1994.

——. Senate. Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, United States 

Senate, 1958–1976. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977.

——. Senate Committee on Government Operations. TFX Contract 

Investigation (Second Series), Part 2, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., March 25–26, 

April 7, 9, 14, 1970.
The Power for Flight

256

——. Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology. “Aircraft Fuel Conservation 

Technology Task Force Report,” NASA TM-X-74295. 1975.

U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. Aircraft Accident Report: United 

Airlines Flight 232, July 19, 1989, NTSB/AAR-SO/06. Washington, DC: 

NTSB, 1990.

Vasu, George, Clint E. Hart, and William R. Dunbar. “Preliminary Report on 

Experimental Investigation of Engine Dynamics and Controls for a 48-Inch 

Ramjet Engine,” NACA RM E55J12. 1956.

Ware, Marsden. “Description and Laboratory Tests of a Roots Type Aircraft 

Engine Supercharger,” NACA TR 230. 1920.

——. “Description of the NACA Universal Test Engine and Some Test 

Results,” NACA TR 250. 1920.

Waters, M.H., T.L. Galloway, C. Rohrbach, and M.G. Mayo. “Shrouded 

Fan Propulsors for Light Aircraft,” SAE Paper 730323, presented at the 

Society of Automotive Engineers Business Aircraft Meeting, Wichita, KS, 

April 3–6, 1973.

Weick, Fred E., and Donald H. Wood. “The Twenty-Foot Propeller Research 

Tunnel of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,” NACA TR 

300. 1929.

Werner, Roger A., Mahmood Abdelwahab, and Willis M. Braithwaite. 

“Performance and Stall Limits of an Afterburner-Equipped Turbofan Engine 

With and Without Inlet Flow Distortion,” NASA TM X-1947. 1970.

Whitfield, Charlotte E. “NASA’s Quiet Aircraft Technology Project,” NASA 

TM-2004-213190. 2004.

Williams International. “The General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) Program,” 

NASA CR-2008-215266. 2008.

Witcofski, Robert D. “Comparison of Alternate Fuels for Aircraft,” NASA 

TM-80155. 1979.

Wydler, John W. “Noise,” in Congressional Record, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 

116. June 1, 1970, pp. E4989–E4991.
Bibliography

257

Yu, Jia, Hwa-Wan Kwan, and Eugene Chien. “PW 4098 Forward Fan Case 

Acoustic Liner Design Under NASA EVNRC Program,” AIAA Paper 

2010-3827, presented at the 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 

Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.

Articles and Chapters

“1962–1972: The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis News (October 20, 

1972): 4–5. http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/PSL_Assets/History/C%20Rockets/

First%20Decade%20of%20Centaur%20article%20(1972).pdf. Accessed 

August 15, 2013.

A&P Technology. “GEnx Engine,” 2013. http://www.braider.com/Case-Studies/

GEnx-Engine.aspx. Accessed August 23, 2013.

“About the R&D 100 Awards,” R&D Magazine 2014. http://www.rd100awards.

com/about-rd-100-awards. Accessed October 5, 2014.

“Active F-15,” The X-Press (October 17, 1997): 4.

Aircraft Owner’s and Pilot’s Association. “General Aviation Statistics,” March 

30, 2011. http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Statistical-Reference-Guide/

General-Aviation-Statistics. Accessed August 31, 2013.

“Airlines Continue To Reduce the Use of Noisy Aircraft,” FAA News Release 

21-93, June 10, 1993. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“Alleviating Aircraft Noise: The Quiet Aircraft Technology Program,” 

NASA Destination Tomorrow, program 9, 2003. http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=3vFSpW-zC2U. Accessed July 7, 2013.

“Ames Tests New Jet Engine,” NASA News (June 1993): 4.

Andersen, Drucella, and Michael Mewhinney. “NASA Testing New, Powerful 

‘Ducted Fan’ Engine for Civil Tests,” NASA Release 93-103, June 3, 1993. 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1993/93-103.txt. Accessed September 

23, 2014.
The Power for Flight

258

Arrighi, Robert S. “Propulsion Systems Laboratory: PSL No. 1 & 2, 1952–1979,” 

December 3, 2012. http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed 

September 25, 2013.

Banke, James. “Advancing Propulsive Technology,” in NASA’s Contributions 

to Aeronautics, vol. 1, Aerodynamics, ed. Richard Hallion, pp. 734–783. 

Washington, DC: NASA, 2010.

——. “NASA Researchers Sniff Out Alternate Fuel Future,” May 13, 

2013. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/access_fuel.html#.

Udi9WvmThDA. Accessed August 11, 2013.

——. “Technology Readiness Levels Demystified,” November 19, 2013. 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html#.

VDAA7vldUeg. Accessed October 4, 2014.

Barnstorff, Kathy. “NASA Researchers Work To Turn Blue Skies Green,” 

February 27, 2013. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/blue_

skies_green.html#.Udi-Z_mThDA. Accessed August 11, 2013.

——. “The Puffin: A Passion for Personal Flight,” February 8, 2010. http://

www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html. Accessed May 5, 2012.

Benzakein, M.J., S.B. Kazin, and F. Montegani. “NASA/GE Quiet Engine ‘A’,” 

Journal of Aircraft 10 (February 1973): 67–73.

Boeing. “Boeing 777-300ER Performs 330-Minute ETOPS Flight,” October 

15, 2003. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boeing-777-300erperforms-330-minute-etops-flight-72530852.html. Accessed June 30, 2013.

Boeing Defense, Space, and Security. “Backgrounder: X-51A WaveRider,” 

September 2012. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/

waverider/docs/X-51A_overview.pdf. Accessed December 26, 2012.

Boeing Phantom Works. “Boeing X-51A WaveRider Breaks Record 

in First Flight,” May 26, 2010. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.

php?s=43&item=1227. Accessed December 26, 2012.

“Boeing Studies Refanned 727 Benefits,” Aviation Week & Space Technology

102 (January 13, 1975): 24–25.
Bibliography

259

Bowles, Mark D., and Virginia P. Dawson. “The Advanced Turboprop Project: 

Radical Innovation in a Conservative Environment,” in From Engineering 

Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy Research Project 

Winners, ed. Pamela E. Mack. Washington, DC: NASA, 1998, pp. 320–343.

Burnett, Bob. “Ssshhh, We’re Flying a Plane Around Here: A Boeing-Led 

Team Is Working To Make Quiet Jetliners Even Quieter,” Boeing Frontiers 

Online 4 (December 2005/January 2006). http://www.boeing.com/news/

frontiers/archive/2005/december/ts_sf07.html. Accessed July 13, 2013.

Busch, Mike. “GAP Engine Update,” AVweb, July 27, 2000. http://www.avweb.

com/news/reviews/182838-1.html. Accessed August 31, 2013.

Choi, Charles Q. “Electric Icarus: NASA Designs a One-Man Stealth Plane,” 

Scientific American (January 19, 2010). http://www.scientificamerican.com/

article.cfm?id=nasa-one-man-stealth-plane. Accessed May 5, 2012.

Ciepluch, Carl C., Donald Y. Davis, and David E. Gray. “Results of NASA’s 

Energy Efficient Engine Program,” Journal of Propulsion and Power 3 

(November–December 1987): 560–568.

Croft, John. “Open Rotor Noise Not a Barrier to Entry,” Flightglobal (July 

5, 2012). http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/open-rotor-noise-not-abarrier-to-entry-ge-373817/. Accessed July 20, 2012.

Dillow, Clay. “NASA Awards the Largest Prize in Aviation History to an 

All-Electric, Super-Efficient Aircraft,” Popular Science (October 4, 2011). 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-10/nasa-awards-largest-prizeaviation-history-all-electric-super-efficient-aircraft. Accessed August 31, 2013.

Dorminey, Bruce. “Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation?” PacificStandard Magazine (February 9, 2012). http://www.psmag.com/businesseconomics/prop-planes-the-future-of-eco-friendly-aviation-39649/. Accessed 

June 7, 2012.

“DOT and NASA and Noise,” Washington Post (August 29, 1971): B6.

“DOT/NASA Noise Abatement Office Established,” NASA News Release 

71-213, October 21, 1971, NASA HRC, file 012336.
The Power for Flight

260

Douglas, Donald W. “The Development and Reliability of the Modern MultiEngine Air Liner,” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society 40 (November 

1935): 1042–1056.

Dron, Alan. “GA Engine Manufacturers Line Up Diesel Options,” Flight 

International (April 12, 2011). http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/

ga-engine-manufacturers-line-up-diesel-options-355474/. Accessed August 

31, 2013.

Dryden Flight Research Center. “F-15 ACTIVE Nozzles,” November 13, 

1995. NASA HRC, file 011664.

Eaton, Sabrina. “NASA Programs on Jet Efficiency, Noise Survive Attempted 

Fund Cuts,” [Cleveland] Plain Dealer (May 20, 1999): 15A.

“F-15 ACTIVE Achieves First-Ever Mach 2 Thrust-Vectoring,” NASA Dryden 

News Release 96-62, November 8, 1996. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/

news/NewsReleases/1996/96-62_pf.html. Accessed September 4, 2012.

“F-15 Flight Research Facility,” Dryden Flight Research Center Fact Sheet, 

December 3, 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/

FS-022-DFRC.html. Accessed February 19, 2012.

“F-18 High Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) Research Vehicle,” Dryden Flight 

Research Center Fact Sheet, December 3, 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/

dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-002-DFRC.html#.UiNUsjaTiHM. Accessed 

September 1, 2012.

“FAA Issues Noise Regulations for Older Jets,” Department of Transportation 

News Release 76-121, December 28, 1976. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“The Fan-Compressor Flutter Team,” Lewis News (February 3, 1978). http://

pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/PSL_Assets/History/F%20Turbofan%20Engines/

Full%20Scale%20Engine%20Program%20article%20(1978).pdf. Accessed 

August 16, 2013.

Feaver, Douglas B. “Ford Pledges To Abate Airport Noise,” Washington Post

(October 22, 1976): A19.

Field, David. “Engine Makers in Three-Sided ‘War’ To Provide Power for 

Boeing 777,” Washington Times (May 17, 1994): B7, B12.
Bibliography

261

“First Quiet Engine Noise Tests,” NASA News Release 71-156, August 27, 

1971. NASA HRC, file 012336.

Fitzpatrick, Mary. “Highlights of 1979 Activities: Year of the Planets,” NASA 

News Release 79-179, December 27, 1979.

“Flight Research Reveals Outstanding Flying Qualities Result from Integrating 

Thrust Vectoring with Flight Controls,” NASA Dryden Flight Research 

Center News Release, January 4, 1999. NASA HRC, file 011664.

Friedlander, Paul J.C. “Jet Age Prospect,” New York Times (October 26, 

1958): X25.

“General Aviation Technology Program,” NASA News Release 75-65, 

March 1975.

General Electric Aviation. “Aircraft Engine History and Technology,” 2009. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lip8lPWFLo. Accessed July 2, 2013.

——. “CF34-10E Engines Outperforming Expectations,” May 13, 2014. 

http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf34/cf34_20140513b.html. Accessed 

July 1, 2014.

——. “CF34-10E Turbofan Propulsion System,” May 2010. http://www.

geaviation.com/engines/docs/commercial/datasheet-CF34-10E.pdf. Accessed 

July 1, 2014.

——. “The CF6 Engine Family,” 2012. http://www.geaviation.com/engines/

commercial/cf6/. Accessed August 18, 2013.

——. “GE Aircraft Engines Pursuing Mach 4 Jet Engine at NASA 

Research Center,” July 22, 2002. http://www.geaviation.com/press/other/

other_20020722aa.html. Accessed June 6, 2013.

——. “The GE90 Engine Family,” 2012. http://www.geaviation.com/engines/

commercial/ge90/. Accessed June 30, 2013.

——. “New GEnx Engine Advancing Unprecedented Use of Composites in 

Jet Engines,” December 14, 2004. http://www.geaviation.com/press/genx/

genx_20041214.html. Accessed August 23, 2013.
The Power for Flight

262

Glenn Research Center. “9' × 15' Low Speed Wind Tunnel,” November 30, 

2011. http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/9x15/. Accessed August 20, 2013.

——. “Flying on the Ground: The Wind Tunnels of Glenn Research Center,” 

NASA Release FS-2002-06-005-GRC, 2002. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/

glenn/about/fs05grc.html. Accessed July 7, 2013.

——. “General Aviation’s New Thrust: Single Lever Technology Promises 

Efficiency, Simplicity,” NASA Release FS-1999-07-002-GRC, July 1999. 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/pdf/84789main_fs02grc.pdf. Accessed 

July 7, 2013.

——. “Making Future Commercial Aircraft Quieter: Glenn Effort Will 

Reduce Engine Noise,” NASA Release FS-1999-07-003-GRC, July 1999. 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/pdf/84790main_fs03grc.pdf. Accessed 

July 7, 2013.

——. “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here,” Release FS-2000-04-

001-GRC, November 22, 2004. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/

fs01grc.html. Accessed July 7, 2013.

——. “Turbine Disk Alloys,” June 20, 2012. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/

WWW/StructuresMaterials/AdvMet/research/turbine_disks.html. Accessed 

September 5, 2012.

Griffin, Elizabeth. “Earth Day Celebration Highlights Environmentally 

Progressive Aircraft,” Journal: Your Community Magazine 37 (April 

2012): 18. 

Griffiths, Bob. “Composite Fan Blade Containment Case,” High Performance 

Composites (May 2005). http://www.braider.com/pdf/Papers-Articles/

Composite-Fan-Blade-Containment-Case.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2013.

“Halving of Fuel Needs for Jetliners Is Seen,” Washington Post (February 7, 

1975): A9.

Hamilton, Martha M. “Firms Give Propellers a New Spin,” Washington Post

(February 8, 1987): H1.
Bibliography

263

Henderson, Breck W. “Dryden Completes First Flights of F/A-18 HARV with 

Thrust Vectoring,” Aviation Week & Space Technology (July 29, 1991): 25.

“High Speed Engine Cycles Tapped for Further Research,” NASA News Release 

94-41, March 14, 1994. NASA HRC, file 011151.

Hines, William. “NASA’s Quiet Engine Still a Long Way in Future,” Chicago 

Sun-Times (June 7, 1970). Reprinted in NASA Current News (June 10, 

1970). NASA HRC, file 012336.

Homer, P.T., and R.D. Schlichting. “Using Schooner To Support Distribution 

and Heterogeneity in the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation Project,” 

Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 6 (June 1994): 

271–287.

Huff, Dennis L. “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft Noise Research,” 

Journal of Aerospace Engineering 26 (April 2013): 218–250.

IHPTET and VAATE. “Turbine Engine Technology: A Century of Power 

for Flight,” 2002. http://web.archive.org/web/20060715190755/http://

www.pr.afrl.af.mil/divisions/prt/ihptet/ihptet_brochure.pdf. Accessed August 

25, 2013.

Johnsen, Katherine. “Congress Leaves Noise Control to FAA,” Aviation Week 

& Space Technology (October 23, 1972): 19–20.

Johnson, Greg. “Something New for Airliners: Propellers,” Los Angeles Times

(June 16, 1986): SD-C1.

Kocivar, Ben. “QUESTOL: A New Kind of Jet for Short Hops,” Popular Science

200 (May 1972): 78, 80, 84.

“Kramer Heads Jet Noise Research Program,” NASA News Release 71-170, 

September 7, 1971. NASA HRC, file 012336.

Langley Research Center. “Affordable Alternative Transportation: AGATE—

Revitalizing General Aviation,” Release FS-1996-07-02-LaRC, July 1996. 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/AGATE.html. Accessed 

August 31, 2013.
The Power for Flight

264

——. “NASA’s High-Speed Research (HSR) Program—Developing Tomorrow’s 

Supersonic Passenger Jet,” April 22, 2008. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/

langley/news/factsheets/HSR-Overview2.html. Accessed September 25, 2014.

——. “Wind Tunnels at NASA Langley Research Center,” FS-2001-04-

64-LaRC, April 2008. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/

windtunnels.html. Accessed September 17, 2002.

——. “World War II and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,” 

FS-LaRC-95-07-01, July 1995. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/

factsheets/WWII.html. Accessed May 1, 2012.

Leary, Warren E. “NASA Jet Sets Record for Speed,” New York Times (November 

17, 2004).

Lerch, Bradley A., Susan L. Draper, J. Michael Pereira, Michael V. Nathal, 

and Curt Austin. “Resistance of Titanium Aluminide to Domestic Object 

Damage Assessed,” in Research & Technology, 1998, NASA TM-1999-

208815, April 1, 1999.

Levintan, R.M. “Q-Fan Demonstrator Engine,” Journal of Aircraft 12 (1975): 

658–663.

“Lowenstein Says FAA Won’t Curb Jets’ Noise,” New York Times (February 

21, 1970).

Matthews, Jim. “Thrust Vectoring,” Air & Space Smithsonian (July 2008). 

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Thrust_Vectoring.html. Accessed 

September 4, 2012.

Mayer, Daryl. “X-51A WaveRider Achieves History in Final Flight,” WrightPatterson Air Force Base News Release, May 3, 2013. http://www.afmc.

af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/153475/x-51a-waverider-achieveshistory-in-final-flight/. Accessed May 31, 2013.

“NACA: The Force Behind Our Air Supremacy,” Aviation 43 (January 1944): 

175, 364.

NASA. “Advanced High-Temperature Engine Materials Technology 

Progresses,” n.d. [1995]. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.

gov/20050169149.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2014.
Bibliography

265

——. “Advanced High-Temperature Engine Materials Technology 

Progresses,” n.d. [1996]. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.

gov/20050177123.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2014.

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. “Technical Excellence 2004: 

New Material Improves Rotor Safety,” September 7, 2007. http://www.

aeronautics.nasa.gov/te04_rotor_safety.htm. Accessed August 22, 2013.

NASA Aeronautics Test Program. “9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel,” 

n.d. [2013]. http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/TOPS/Top9x15.pdf. 

Accessed August 20, 2013.

“NASA Aircraft Test Engines Promise Noise, Pollution Reduction,” NASA 

News Release 78-138, September 11, 1978. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“NASA Chief Welcomes Jet Noise Challenge,” NASA News Release 71-222, 

November 3, 1971. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“NASA Cooperative Engine Testbed Aircraft on Schedule,” Aerospace Propulsion

(July 7, 1997): 2. NASA HRC, file 011151.

“NASA F-15 Being Readied for Advanced Maneuvering Flight,” NASA News 

Release 93-115, June 16, 1993. NASA HRC, file 011664.

“NASA F-15 Makes First Engine-Controlled Touchdown,” NASA News 

Release 93-75, April 22, 1993. NASA HRC, file 011664.

“NASA Langley Research Center: Contributing to the Next 100 Years of 

Flight,” NASA Release FS-2004-02-84-LaRC, February 2004. http://www.

nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/FS-2004-02-84-LaRC.html. Accessed 

July 7, 2013.

“NASA Noise Conference Planned,” NASA News Release No. 77-221, 

October 14, 1977. NASA HRC, file 012336.

NASA Office of the Chief Technologist. “NASA Spinoff: Damage-Tolerant 

Fan Casings for Jet Engines,” 2006. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2006/T_1.

html. Accessed August 23, 2013.
The Power for Flight

266

“NASA Researching Engine Airflow Controls To Improve Performance, Fuel 

Efficiency,” NASA News Release 97-183, August 27, 1997. NASA HRC, 

file 011664.

“NASA Tests New Nozzle To Improve Performance,” NASA News Release 

96-59, March 27, 1996. NASA HRC, file 011664.

Nathal, Michael. “Glenn Takes a Bow for Impact on GEnx Engine,” July 11, 

2008. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/news/AF/2008/July08_GEnx.html. 

Accessed September 22, 2014.

“Noise Suit,” Washington Post (September 10, 1970): A24.

Noland, David. “The Little Engine That Couldn’t,” Air & Space Smithsonian 

(November 2005). http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-littleengine-that-couldnt-6865253/?no-ist. Accessed April 1, 2016.

Nored, D.L. “Propulsion,” Astronautics and Aeronautics 16 (July–August 

1978): 47–54, 119.

Norris, Guy. “Chevron Tests ‘Better Than Expected’,” Flight International 160 

(November 20–26, 2001): 10.

——. “GE Wins High-Mach Turbine Work,” Flight International (July 30, 

2002). http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-wins-high-mach-turbinework-152266/. Accessed May 1, 2012.

——. “P&W Prepares for Geared Fan Launch,” Flight International (February 

18, 1998). http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-prepares-for-gearedfan-launch-32908/. Accessed August 19, 2013.

——. “Power House,” Flight International (June 13, 2006). http://www.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/power-house-207148/. Accessed October 4, 2014.

——. “X-51A WaveRider Achieves Hypersonic Goal on Final Flight,” Aviation 

Week & Space Technology (May 2, 2013). http://aviationweek.com/defense/x51a-waverider-achieves-goal-final-flight. Accessed May 31, 2013.
Bibliography

267

Northon, Karen. “NASA Signs Agreement with German, Canadian Partners 

To Test Alternative Fuels,” NASA Release 14-089, April 10, 2014. http://

www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-signs-agreement-with-german-canadianpartners-to-test-alternative-fuels/#.VB9MJPldUeh. Accessed September 

21, 2014.

“OMB Impounds NASA Noise Research Funds,” Aviation Week & Space 

Technology 97 (October 23, 1972): 19.

Page, Lewis. “NASA Working on ‘Open Rotor’ Green (But Loud) Jets,” Register

(June 12, 2009). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/nasa_open_rotor_

trials/. Accessed June 21, 2012.

Povinelli, L.A., and B.H. Anderson. “Investigation of Mixing in a Turbofan 

Exhaust Duct, Computer Code Application and Verification,” AIAA Journal

22 (April 1984): 518–525.

Pratt & Whitney. “F100 Engine,” n.d. [2013]. http://www.pw.utc.com/F100_

Engine. Accessed August 22, 2013.

——. “JT8D Engine,” n.d. [2013]. http://www.pw.utc.com/JT8D_Engine. 

Accessed August 30, 2013.

——. “Pratt & Whitney and NASA Demonstrate Benefits of Geared TurboFan 

System in Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project,” June 19, 

2013. http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0800/2013/All%20

Categories. Accessed August 19, 2013.

——. “PurePower PW1000G Engine,” 2010. http://www.purepowerengine.

com. Accessed April 1, 2016.

Pratt & Whitney Media Relations. “JT8D Engine Family: The Low-Cost 

Performer,” October 2012. http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/JT8D_Engine/

pdf/B-1-7_commercial_jt8d.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2013.

——. “Pratt & Whitney’s JT9D Engine Family,” October 2012. http://

www.pw.utc.com/Content/JT9D_Engine/pdf/B-1-8_commercial_jt9d.pdf. 

Accessed August 18, 2013.
The Power for Flight

268

“President Reagan’s Speech Before Joint Session of Congress,” New York Times

(February 5, 1986).

“Press Briefing: NASA Aircraft Noise Abatement Research,” NASA News

(March 31, 1972). NASA HRC, file 012336.

“Problems in Propeller Design,” Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering 4 (June 

1918): 108.

“Q-Fan Undergoing Aerodynamic Testing,” Aviation Week & Space Technology

(October 16, 1972): 59.

“Quiet-STOL Program Started,” NASA News Release 71-146, August 4, 1971. 

NASA HRC, file 012336.

“Quieter Engines for Small Aircraft Possible, Tests Show,” Aviation Week & 

Space Technology 16 (March 16, 1979): 1.

Rachul, Lori. “HISTEC To Boost Performance, Fuel Efficiency,” Lewis News

(November 1997): 5.

Reddy, Dhanireddy, R. “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at NASA 

Glenn Research Center,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering 26 (April 2013): 

202–217.

Roberts, Gary D., J. Michael Pereira, Michael S. Braley, and William A. 

Arnold. “Design and Testing of Braided Composite Fan Case Materials 

and Components,” ISABE-2009-1201, 2009. http://www.braider.com/

pdf/Papers-Articles/Design-and-Testing-of-Braided-Composite-Fan-CaseMaterials-and-Components.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2013.

Salpukas, Agis. “Advances: Rebuilding Planes To Cut Noise,” New York Times

(November 18, 1987): D8.

Schefter, Jim. “New Blades Make Prop Liners as Fast as Jets,” Popular Science

226 (March 1985): 66–69.

Scott, Phil. “Busting the Boom,” New Scientist (August 18, 2001): 26–29.
Bibliography

269

Serafini, T.T. “PMR Polymide Composites for Aerospace Applications,” in 

Polymides: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications, vol. 2. New York: 

Plenum Press, 1984, pp. 957–975.

“Shhh...” Forbes (March 15, 1970): 31.

“Signing Ceremony To Initiate Development of Revolutionary Aircraft 

Engines,” NASA News Release N96-80, December 10, 1996. NASA HRC, 

file 011151.

Smith, George E., and David E. Mindell. “The Emergence of the Turbofan 

Engine,” in Atmospheric Flight in the Twentieth Century, ed. Peter Galison 

and Alex Roland, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 107–155.

Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. “Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird,” 

November 11, 2001. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lockheed-sr71-blackbird. Accessed September 4, 2012.

——. “Pratt & Whitney PW 4098 Turbofan Engine,” 2007. Registrar’s File 

20070002000.

Springer, Anthony M. “NASA Aeronautics: A Half-Century of 

Accomplishments,” in NASA’s First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives, ed. 

Steven J. Dick, NASA SP-2010-4704. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 2010. 

“STOL Conference at Ames,” NASA News Release 72-201, October 11, 1972. 

NASA HRC, file 012336.

Stuart, Peter C. “Congress Raises Voice To Soften Noise,” Christian Science 

Monitor (March 3, 1972): n.p. Copy available in the NASA HRC, 

file 012336.

Syvertson, C.A. “Civil Aviation Research and Development (CARD) Policy 

Study,” in Proceedings of the Northeast Electronics Research and Engineering 

Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, November 2–5, 1971. Newton, MA: Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 1971.

Tanners, James C. “Fueling Inflation: Sharp Increases Seen in Prices of Gasoline 

and Most Other Fuels,” Wall Street Journal (October 31, 1973): 1.
The Power for Flight

270

Terman, Frederick E. “William Frederick Durand (1859–1958),” in Aeronautics 

and Astronautics: Proceedings of the Durand Centennial Conference Held at 

Stanford University, 5–8 August 1959, ed. Nicholas J. Huff and Walter G. 

Vincenti. New York: Pergamon Press, 1960.

“Test Engines Promise Less Noise from Small Aircraft,” NASA News Release 

79-24, March 2, 1979. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“Three Contracts Let for Quiet Engines,” NASA News Release 72-166, August 

15, 1972. NASA HRC, file 012336.

“Too Many Decibels Are Making Us Ding-a-Lings,” Washington News (June 8, 

1972): 2.

Tracy, Charles. “New Quiet Engine To Cut Jet Noise,” Cleveland Press (May 15, 

1972): 8.

Turbomachinery and Heat Transfer Branch, Glenn Research Center. “APNASA: 

Overview,” August 14, 2007. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RTT/Codes/

APNASA.html. Accessed September 21, 2014.

U.S. Department of Defense. “Integrated High Performance Turbine 

Engine Technology (IHPTET),” n.d. [2000], http://web.archive.org/

web/20060721223255/http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/divisions/prt/ihptet/ihptet.

html. Accessed July 12, 2012.

Vincenti, Walter G. “Air-Propeller Tests of W.F. Durand and E.P. Lesley: A Case 

Study in Technological Methodology,” Technology and Culture 20 (1979): 

712–751.

Wald, Matthew L. “A Cleaner, Leaner Jet Age Has Arrived,” New York Times

(April 9, 2008): H2.

Weinberger, Sharon. “X-51 WaveRider: Hypersonic Jet Ambitions Fall Short,” 

August 15, 2012. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120815-hypersonicambitions-fall-short. Accessed April 1, 2016.

“Whatever Happened to Propfans?” Flight International (June 12, 2007). http://

www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/whatever-happened-to-propfans-214520/. 

Accessed July 2, 2013.
Bibliography

271

Wheeler, Keith. “Building the XB-70,” LIFE 58 (January 15, 1966): 74–80, 84.

——. “The Full Story of the 2.8 Seconds That Killed the XB-70,” LIFE 61 

(November 11, 1966): 126–130, 132, 135–136, 139, 141, 143.

Wilkinson, Stephan. “ZWRRWWWBRZR: That’s the Sound of the PropDriven XF-84H, and It Brought Grown Men to Their Knees,” Air & Space (July 

2003). http://www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/zwrrwwwbrzr-4846149/. 

Accessed April 1, 2016.

Wilson, Kristin K. “Quieting the Skies: Cessna Benefits from Lewis Noise 

Reduction Know How,” Lewis News (February 1998): 5.

Wilson, Michael. “Hamilton Standard and the Q-Fan,” Flight International

103 (April 19, 1973): 617–619.

Winter, William. “Has the Propeller a Future?” Popular Mechanics 89 (February 

1948): 171–173.

Witkin, Richard. “Government Control of Jet Fuel May Lead to 10 Percent 

Cut in Flights,” New York Times (October 13, 1973): 36.

Young, David, and George Papajohn. “3 Pilots Struggled To Keep Jet Aloft,” 

Chicago Tribune (July 22, 1989): 4.

Zaman, K.B.M.Q., J.E. Bridges, and D.L. Huff. “Evolution from ‘Tabs’ to 

‘Chevron Technology’: A Review,” in Proceedings of the 13th Asian Congress 

of Fluid Mechanics. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Engineers Institute of Bangladesh, 

2010, pp. 47–63.

Zona, Kathleen. “Experience NASA’s Green Lab Research Facility,” January 

27, 2012. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/events/tour_green_lab.html. 

Accessed October 6, 2014.

273

About the Author

Jeremy R. Kinney curates the air 

racing, aircraft propulsion, and 

American military aviation (1919–

1945) collections at the Smithsonian 

National Air and Space Museum. 

Part of that work includes overseeing and interpreting one of the 

world’s largest and most significant 

collections of aircraft piston and 

gas turbine engines and propellers. 

His research and exhibitions focus 

on technology in the United States 

and Europe during the 20th century. 

He is the author of Reinventing the 

Propeller: Aeronautical Specialty and 

the Triumph of the Modern Airplane

(Cambridge University Press, 2017) 

and Airplanes: The Life Story of a 

Technology (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008). Kinney is a contributor to the multivolume work The Wind and Beyond: A Documentary Journey 

into the History of Aerodynamics in America, published by NASA. He was a 

corecipient of the inaugural Eugene Ferguson Prize (given by the Society for 

the History of Technology) for volume 1 of The Wind and Beyond. Kinney 

earned a B.A. from Greensboro College and an M.A. and Ph.D. in history 

from Auburn University.

275

Index

Page numbers in bold indicate pages with illustrations.

A reference to an endnote is indicated with an “n” after an entry’s page number.

8-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 10, 12

16-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 10

24-Inch Jet Tunnel, 10

500 VLJ aircraft, 185

720 simulator, 149

727 airliner, 75, 81–84, 107, 108, 114, 122

727 demonstrator, 114, 122

737 airliner, 75, 81–84, 107, 112, 188, 218

747 jumbo jet, 77, 80, 86, 107–108, 109, 

187–188

747 jumbo jet (Japan Airlines Flight 123), 146

747 jumbo jet (PCA program), 153

747-8 Dreamliner, 197

747-8 jumbo jet, 197

747-9 Dreamliner, 197

747-100 jumbo jet, 84

747-200 jumbo jet, 75

757 airliner, 75, 108, 143

757 airliner (PCA program), 153

767 airliner, 108, 110, 113, 113

777 airliner, 112–113, 125, 171, 194, 196

777-200 Extended Range, 113

777-300 Extended Range, 113

787 Dreamliner, 174, 196

A

A&P Technology, Inc., 172–173, 175, 205n19

A3J-1 Vigilante, 36

A-12 aircraft, 56

A-37 Dragonfly, 63

A300/A300-600 airliner, 107, 113

A310 airliner, 108, 113

A319 airliner, 75

A320 airliner, 218

A321 airliner, 197

A330 airliner, 113, 188

A350 airliner, 174

accidents, 145–147, 153

Adamczyk, John, 177, 184

Adamson, A.P., 92

Adaptive Engine Control System (ADECS), 

143–144, 160n11

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156, 156–160

Advanced Gas Turbine (AGT), 168

Advanced General Aviation Transportation 

Experiments (AGATE), 180–181, 208n50

Advanced Space Transportation Program, 200

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) program, 

169, 187–190, 194, 211n88

Advanced Supersonic Propulsion and Integration 

Research (ASPIRE) project, 199

Advanced Transport Technology (ATT), 132n8

Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator (ATEGG) 

program, 168

Advanced Turbine Technology Applications 

(ATTAP) program, 168

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 179, 219

aerial congestion, 91–92, 187

Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, 6–7, 9

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD), 220, 226
The Power for Flight

276

Aeroproducts Propeller Company, 35, 46n119

Aerosance, 181–182

Aerospace Industry Technology Program, 169

air defense, 32, 61, 103

Air Force, U.S., 30, 35, 117

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156

Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), 159

Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator 

(ATEGG) program, 168

Aero Propulsion Laboratory, 65, 94, 176

Arnold Engineering Development Center, 62

C-5/C-5A Galaxy transport, 106–107, 146

collaboration with NASA, 57, 66

F-15 series, 143

F-22 Raptor, 158

F-111A, 59, 59–61

F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review 

Committee, 60–61

Flight Dynamics Laboratory, 159

Flight Test Center, 156

Full-Scale Engine Research (FSER), 65

High Stability Engine Control (HISTEC) 

project, 157

Joint Technology Demonstrator Engine 

(JTDE) program, 168

NPSS team, 177

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

152

Quiet-STOL (Q/STOL) aircraft program, 89

single-stage-to-orbit hypersonic flight, 200

SR-71 Blackbird, 56

synthetic fuels, 226

Systems Command, 66

TFX program, 58

Triple Plow II inlet, 61

turbofan preference over turbojet, 64

Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) 

program, 179

V/STOL development, 88

X-5 research aircraft, 59

X-51A WaveRider, 203

XB-70 Valkyrie program, 53

XJ79-GE-1 afterburning turbojet, 36

air pollution, 86–87, 92, 126–127, 224–225

Airbus Industrie, 73

A300/A300-600 airliner, 107, 113

A310 airliner, 108, 113

A319 airliner, 75

A320 airliner, 218

A321 airliner, 197

A330 airliner, 113, 188

A350 airliner, 174

CF6 turbofan, 107

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

152

PurePower PW1000G engine, 186

Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) program, 

104–126, 125, 131–132, 228. See also

Energy Efficient Engine (E3); Engine Component 

Improvement (ECI) Program

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL), xii, 

19, 20, 28

creation of, 16

development teams, 20

jet propulsion research, 30

piston engine design, 18–22, 25

propeller research, 25

renamed Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 

32

schematic drawing, 21

V-1710 V-12 engine research, 20

airfoils, 125–127

16-series, 10, 12

Clark Y, 10, 12

cuffs, 11

DC-1 aircraft, 15

defined, 4

laminar-flow, 29

and propellers, 3–4
Index

277

RAF-6, 10, 12

supercritical, 132n8

air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), 179

airships, 3, 40n14

air-to-air interceptors, 54

All Nippon Airways, 196

AlliedSignal, Inc., 169, 176

Allis-Chalmers, 27

Allison Engine Company, 20, 27

570 engine, 118

571 industrial gas turbine engine, 123

578-DX demonstrator engine, 123–124, 123

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115

relationship with NACA, 19

stator design, 190–191

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

XT38 turboprop engine, 46n119

alloys, 159, 167–168, 175

Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment studies, 226

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise 

Emissions (ACCESS) study, 216, 226–227, 

227

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), 18, 21, 24, 30, 34, 

35–36

American Airlines, 103, 152, 194

American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics (AIAA), 217

American Society for Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), 201

Ames Research Center, 66, 224

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 

185–186, 186

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–116

collaboration with Lockheed Aircraft 

Corporation, 57

Concepts and Missions Division, 91

F-111A/F-111B design, 60

F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review 

Committee, 61

High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program 

(HATP), 154

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 197

National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex 

(NFAC), 185, 186

“PCA Lite”/”PCA Ultralite,” 153

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

153

STOL conference, 90

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

YF-12A/C program, 58

Anderson, Bruce, 226–227

Arab-Israeli war, 103

Arend, David, 199

Armstrong, Neil A., 37

Armstrong Flight Research Center, 54. See also

Dryden Flight Research Center; NASA Flight 

Research Center

Army, U.S., 29

Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) 

program, 179

Air Forces, 19, 21, 26, 30

airfoils (16-series), 10

Engineering Division, 8

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176

Arnold, Henry H. (“Hap”), 19, 27–28, 30

AT-5A Hawk fighter (Curtiss), 15

ATK Space Systems, 173

Atlantic Richfield Company, 94

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 38

Austin, Curt, 170

Avco-Lycoming, 91, 93, 127, 129

Aviation, 22

Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, 7

Aviation Week, 152

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 124
The Power for Flight

278

B

B-1 Lancer, 59, 61

B-2 stealth aircraft, 103

B-17 Flying Fortress, 26

B-29 Superfortress, 11, 21, 25, 32

B-47 Stratojet, 32, 140

B-52/B-52H Stratofortress, 33, 50, 201, 203

B-58/B-58A aircraft series, 36, 51

B-70 aircraft series, 51

Bartolotta, Paul, 200

Beech Aircraft, 116

Beggs, James. M., 81

Bell Aircraft Corporation, 22–23, 28–30, 44n78, 

59, 88

Bellis, Benjamin, 66

Benzakein, Meyer J., 125

Bibliography of Aeronautics, 1, 39n4

“bizjets,” 128–130. See also business jets

Blanchard, Jean-Pierre, 40n14

Bloomer, Harry E., 85

Boeing Company

707 airliner, 34, 75–77, 79–81, 84, 86, 93

720 airliner, 84

720 simulator, 149

727 airliner, 75, 81–82, 84, 107, 108, 114

727 demonstrator, 114, 122

737 airliner, 75, 81–84, 107, 112, 188, 218

747 jumbo jet, 77, 86, 93, 107–108, 109, 

187–188

747 jumbo jet (PCA program), 153

747-8/9 jumbo jet, 197

747-100 jumbo jet, 84

747-200 airliner, 75

757 airliner, 75, 108, 143, 153

767 airliner, 108, 110, 113

777 airliner, 112–113, 125, 194

787 Dreamliner, 174, 196

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–117

B-17 Flying Fortress, 26

B-29 Superfortress, 11, 21, 25, 32

B-47 Stratojet, 32, 140

B-52 Stratofortress, 50

chevron studies, 195–197

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 111

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 106–107

Engine Validation of Noise Reduction 

Concepts (EVNRC) program, 191

F-111A/F-111B design, 60

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 197

IM-99 Bomarc, 37, 37

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 205n19

Model 2707, 52–53, 52

Nacelle Aeroacoustic System Technology 

Assessment, 190

noise abatement, 76

noise frequencies, 193

NPSS team, 177

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

151–152

QSRA development, 93

Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) 

program, 196

Quiet Technology Demonstrator (QTD) 

program, 194

Refan program, 82–83

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

wind testing, 120, 121

X-51A WaveRider, 203

YF-22 (ATF program), 159

Boeing Phantom Works, 157

Bolden, Charles, 217, 217–218

Bombardier, 186

Regional, CRJ700 jet, 197
Index

279

Bradley International Airport, 78

Bresket, David, 86

British Aerospace, 130

British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), 84

Brocket, Paul, 1

Bruckmann, Bruno, 54

Bull, John, 153

Burcham, Frank W. (“Bill”), 147–154, 148

Bureau of Standards, 8, 27

Burkhardt, Leo, 181

Busch, Mike, 182

Bush, Vannevar, 18

business jets, 116, 118–119, 126–130, 188, 

194, 199. See also “bizjets”

C

C-5A Galaxy transport, 85, 106–107

C-17 Globemaster III transport, 153

California Institute of Technology, 3

Campini, Secondo, 29

Cape Kennedy Regional Airport, 78

Capp, Al, 56

Caproni N.1 aircraft, 29

CARD Policy Study, 80–81, 89, 126

Castner, Ray, 184

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 56

Centurion unmanned aerial vehicles, 223

Cessna, 63, 128, 192, 208n60

Champion, C.C., Jr., 14

Chance Vought, 27

chevrons, 175, 192–197, 199

Chicago Sun-Times, 84–85

Ciepluch, Carl C., 110, 112

Cirrus, 181, 208n60

Civil Aviation Research and Development (CARD) 

Policy Study, 80–81, 89, 126

Clark Y (airfoil), 10, 12

Clarke Thomson Research Group, 2

Cold War, 31–33, 35–37, 49, 56–57, 228

“coldwall” heat transfer pod, 48

Collier, Fay, 197, 220

Collier Trophy

Eclipse 500 VLJ aircraft, 185

General Electric and Lockheed Aircraft 

Corporation, 36

NACA, 15

NASA, 114–115, 123

Packard Motor Car Company, 14

Stack, John, 88

Williams, Sam, 184

“Compressor Bible,” 33

computational fluid dynamics (CFD), 55, 63, 

154, 176–177, 183, 193, 203

Concorde supersonic transport, 199

Congress (U.S.)

aeronautics research, 73

aircraft noise legislation, 75

Aviation Noise and Capacity Act, 187

engine noise, 74–78, 80

House Committee on Science and 

Astronautics, 73, 78, 82

House Committee on Science and 

Technology, 83

House Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, 125

Jet Aircraft Noise Control Bill, 78

NACA appropriations, 1, 18

Senate Committee on Aeronautical and 

Space Sciences, 104–105

sonic boom regulation, 52–53

Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation 

Research and Development, 83

supersonic program, 52–54

TFX program, 60

XB-70 Valkyrie program, 54

Conley, Joe, 149

Continental Motors, Inc., 181

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise 

(CLEEN) program, 222

Continuum Dynamics, Inc., 196

Convair, 32–33, 36, 51, 58, 62–63, 84

Craig, R.T., 141
The Power for Flight

280

Crawford, Frederick C., 18

Critical Propulsion Components (CPC), 198–199

CRJ700 jet, 197

Cross, Carl, 54

Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, 15, 20, 25

Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 33

“cutback,” 190–193, 198, 210n83

D

Dankhoff, Walter F., 81

Dassault Falcon, 130

David, Edward E., Jr., 81

Davis, Donald Y., 111–112

DC-1 aircraft, 15, 17

DC-2 aircraft, 16

DC-3 aircraft, 16

DC-8 airliner (noise of), 84–86

DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory, 216, 

226–227, 227

DC-8 airliner, 34, 63, 75–77, 79–81

DC-9 airliner, 75, 81–84, 107, 109, 116

DC-10 airliner, 75, 77, 85–86, 93, 106–109, 

107, 151

DC-10 airliner (loss of), 146–147, 170

decibels (db), 73, 76, 128, 196

defined, 74

effective perceived noise in decibels 

(EPNdB), 78–79, 82, 84–86, 91, 93, 

188–197

effective perceived noise in decibels 

(EPNdB), defined, 74

perceived noise in decibels (PNdB), 84, 129

perceived noise in decibels (PNdB), defined, 

74

subsonic (chart), 222

Deets, Dwain, 150–151

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), 176, 200, 203

Del Balzo, Joseph M., 187

DeLaat, John, 158

Delta Air Lines, 146, 152–153

Department of Defense (DOD), 51–52, 58, 94, 

176–179, 201

Department of Energy (DOE), 67, 168, 180

Department of Transportation (DOT), 78, 80–81, 

83

Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC), 138, 

141–143, 149

Digital Electronic Flight Control System (DEFCS), 

142, 147, 160n11

Doolittle, James (“Jimmy”), 25

Dornheim, Michael A., 124

Douglas Aircraft Company, 15–16, 34

drag, 12, 32, 159, 201

lift-to-drag characteristics, 120

low-drag wing shapes, 104

reduction of, 15, 60, 78, 156, 199, 230n11

Draper, Susan, 170

Dreamliner series, 174, 196–197

Drinkwater, Fred, 88

Dryden, Hugh L., 32–33

Dryden Flight Research Center, 54, 57–58. See 

also Armstrong Flight Research Center; NASA 

Flight Research Center

Adaptive Engine Control System (ADECS), 144

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–116

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and 

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) study, 226

Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC), 138

flight and propulsion control system 

development, 147

High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program 

(HATP), 154–155

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 197

instrument landing system (ILS), 149

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142

“PCA Ultralite,” 153
Index

281

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

147–154, 148, 150–151, 153

synthetic fuels, 226

X-43A research aircraft flights, 201

Drzewiecki, Stefan, 3–4, 7

Dulles Airport, 199

Durand, William F., 9, 42n42

background, 5

career of, 40–41n19

NACA Chair, 5–6

propeller experiments, 7–10

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 27, 29

Dvorak, Dudley J., 146–147

E

E.28/39 aircraft, 22–23, 28, 44n78

Eastern Airlines, 106

Eckert, Ernst, 33

Eclipse Aerospace, 185, 209n67

Edwards, Thomas, 224–225

Edwards Air Force Base, 22, 142, 152, 226

EF-111A “Sparkvark,” 59

Eiffel, Gustave, 4, 6, 41n25

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 96n10

E-Jets, 197

electric propulsion, 49–50, 223–224

Embraer, 186, 195, 197

Enabling Propulsion Materials (EPM), 168–169, 

170–175

Energy Crisis, 104–106. See also fuel, supply of

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 102, 105–108, 

110–113, 115, 125, 179

Energy Efficient Transport, 105–106, 132n12. 

See also Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) 

program

Energy Trends and Alternative Fuels (ETAF) 

program, 132n8

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) Program, 

105–110, 125, 179. See also Aircraft Energy 

Efficiency (ACEE) program

engine knock, 13–14, 20

Engine Noise Reduction Element, 188–190

engines, 20, 114

570 engine series, 118

571 industrial gas turbine, 123

578-DX demonstrator engine, 123, 123

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185–186

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 105–106

afterburner, 30

afterburning turbofan design, 228

air-cooled opposed, 181

augmentor, 200–201

axial-flow, 140

CF6 turbofan, 85, 87, 93, 105–107, 109

CF6 turbofan tri-jet, 146

CF6-50C engine, 111

CF34 turbofan, 171, 195

CJ805-23 aft-fan, 63

combustion (defined), 13

compound, 31

control systems, 4, 139–145, 154

cooling, 20, 33, 108, 127, 168, 176, 181

CRP-X1 tractor propfan, 120–121

diagnostic systems, 139

diesel, 13–14, 181–182

double annular axially parallel engine design, 

87

ducted fan (variable-pitch), 128

E3 demonstrator, 102

E3 turbofan program, 105–108, 110

efficiencies, 104, 167

EJ22, 184–185

electric, 223–224, 228

emissions, 99n55, 167, 218

emissions reduction, 86–87, 92–93, 

104–105, 126–127

Energy Efficient Transport, 105, 132n12

Engine Alliance GP7200, 180

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 105–110
The Power for Flight

282

“engine war,” 112

F-1, 49

F100, 65–66, 67, 143, 178

F-100-229 engine, 168

F100-PW-229, 158

F101, 92, 178

F119, 159–160, 178

F119-PW-100, 145

F404 turbofan, 121, 168

fan-on-blade (FLADE) concept, 198–199

fast engine response, 154

GAP diesel engine, 181–182

GAP FJX-2 turbofan, 183–184, 184

GAP small gas turbine initiative, 183–185

gas turbine, 27–29, 33, 175, 200, 228

gas turbine (hybrid), 223

GE F404 turbofan, 155

GE4 turbojet, 52–53, 55

GE36 UDF UHB, 114, 114, 121, 123

GE90 engine series, 112–113, 125, 168, 189

GE90-115B, 113

Geared TurboFan, 185–186, 221, 222

GEnx turbofan, 169, 174–175, 196

GEnx-2B engine, 174

helicopter, 89

HeS 3/3B turbojet, 22, 24

high-bypass-ratio turbofan, 187, 189, 194

higher-thrust, 93, 187

high-lift flap-and-shot turbofan, 191

Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control 

(HIDEC), 142–145

hydrogen injection, 127

I-16, 30

I-40, 30

I-A (Whittle), 28, 31, 139–140

inlet incompatibility, 60

J-5 Whirlwind, 25–26

J42, 33

J47 turbojet, 140

J48, 33

J57 turbojet, 33–34, 141

J58 turbo-ramjet, 56–57, 104

J75, 58

J79, 36, 54

J85 turbojet, 58, 63, 65

J85-21, 65

J93, 50

“Jake’s Jeep,” 29–30

jet noise test, 72

jet performance, 143

Joint Technology Demonstrator Engine 

(JTDE) program, 168

JP-4, 94

JP-5/Jet A, 94

JT3 turbojet, 34, 63

JT3D turbofan, 63, 86

JT3D turbofan (noise from), 75, 81–82

JT8D turbofan, 86, 98n34, 105–106, 

108–109, 122

JT8D turbofan (low-bypass), 107–108

JT8D turbofan (noise from), 81–83

JT8D-115 refan, 83

JT8D-200 refan series, 84

JT8D-217 refan, 83–84

JT8D-219 refan, 83

JT9D turbofan, 87, 105–108, 109, 112

JT9D-7A engine, 111

JT15D, 190

Jumo 004 axial-flow turbojet, 24, 28

L-1000 turbojet, 26

laminar flow control, 105

Large-Scale Advanced Propfan (LAP) project, 

116

life of, 145

low-bypass-ratio, 176

Merlin, 20

modification program, 86, 127

Nene turbojet, 33

“open rotor,” 218–219, 219

optimized rotor, 92
Index

283

overwing pod installation, 93

Pegasus, 87

piston, 2, 13–22, 25, 29, 31, 115, 181–182

piston (emissions), 127

propfan, 114–125, 116, 126

propfan (gearless), 121–122

propfan (single-rotation), 115, 117, 120, 125

Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) project, 

118–119

propfans, perceptions of, 124

PT-1, 26

PurePower engine, 186, 221–222

PW100 series, 126

PW1128 turbofan, 142

PW2000 turbofan, 108

PW2037 turbofan, 123

PW4000 engine series, 112–113, 125

PW4000 turbofan, 113

PW4084, 112–113

PW4096, 192

PW4098, 113

Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan 

(QCGAT) program, 128–131

Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul Experimental Engine 

(QCSEE), 92–93

Quiet Engine Program (QEP), 76, 78, 81, 82, 

84–86, 92

Quiet Experimental Short Takeoff and 

Landing (QUESTOL), 92

Quiet-Fan (Q-Fan), 91

R-3350 turbosupercharged radials, 25

radial air cooled, xii, 2, 15–17, 21, 33

ramburner, 200–201

ramjet, 31–33, 37, 37–38, 201, 228

reciprocating, 2, 31, 92

Refan program, 82–83

reverse-thrust capability, 122

Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator (RTA), 

200–201

RJ43 engine, 37, 38

rocket, 32–33, 33, 35, 37

Roots supercharger, 13–14, 19

rotary combustion, 92

scramjet, 200–201, 203, 228

SJX61-2 scramjet, 202

SR-7L propfan, 117–118

STOL quiet engine, 89

supercharged, 18, 20, 29

supersonic, 31

T55-L-11 turboshaft, 91

TF30, 60–61, 64–66

TF30 afterburning turbofan, 64

TF39 turbofan, 85, 106

TFE731 turbofan, 130

TG-100 turboprop, 27

TG-180 (J35), 29

Throttles Only Control (TOC), 148–150

Trent 800 turbofan, 194

Trent engine series, 112

TSX-2 turboprop, 184

Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC), 

200–201

Turbodyne, 26

turbofan, 60, 66, 87, 89, 94–95, 103, 107, 

171

turbofan (advanced), 132, 179, 220, 228, 

229n10

turbofan (afterburning), 142, 145

turbofan (Distortion Tolerant Control 

program), 158

turbofan (general aviation), 129

turbofan (high-bypass), 110–113, 141

turbofan (hydrogen-injected), 127

turbofan (mixed-flow), 198–199

turbofan (modified), 189–190

turbofan (weight of), 174

turbofan characteristics, 55

turbofan market, 73

turbofan noise, 74–76

turbofan reduction gearbox, 92
The Power for Flight

284

turbojet, 25, 27–33, 36, 60, 89, 115, 194, 228

turbojet (modified), 110–113

turbojet (single-shaft), 141

turbojet (single-spool), 140

turbojet (twin-spool), 141

turbojet (von Ohain), 203

turbojet characteristics, 55

turbojets, commercial airlines, 63

turboprop, 27, 31–35, 34, 115–116, 124, 

126, 228

turboprop (counter-rotating), 120–121

turboprop (tilt-wing), 89

turboramjet, 200

turbosupercharged, 14, 19–21, 28, 31

ultra-high-bypass (UHB), 114, 121, 124, 

169–170, 220–222, 229n10

underwing pod installation, 93

Unducted Fan (UDF), 114, 121–123, 

122–124, 126

Universal Test Engine, 2

“unstart,” 58, 203

V-1400, 25

V-1710 V-12, 20

variable-cycle (VCE), 55

V-Jet II, 184

Vorbix axial series, 87

V/STOL (noise from), 89

W.1X (Whittle), 28

W.2B (Whittle), 28

Wasp radial, 26

Wasp supercharger, 14–15

water injection, 13–15

Whittle, 27–28, 30

wind testing, 18

XJ-37, 26

XJ79-GE-1 afterburning turbojet, 36

XLR99 rocket, 50

XRJ47, 38

XT38, 46n119

YF-102 high-bypass turbofans, 93

YJ93 turbojet, 53, 54

Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability program, 158

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 74, 93, 

180

1979 Standard Parameters, 86

emissions requirements, 112, 183–184

NASA compliance, 127

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions 

Laboratory (NVFEL), 127

Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) 

Project, 220–222

Epstein, Alan, 222

Euler solution, 121

Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), 180, 

182, 184

Experimental Clean Combustor Program (ECCP), 

55, 87, 111, 179

“Experimental Research in Air-Propellers,” 8–9

Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS), 

112–113

F

F4H-1 Phantom II, 36

F4U-1 Corsair aircraft, 27

F-5 fighter series, 63

F-5E/F Tiger II, 65

F9F Panther, 33

F-14/F-14A Tomcat, 59, 64, 64–66

F-15 Eagle, 61, 138, 149–150

F-15 HIDEC, 142–145, 144

F-15 series, 65–66, 138, 143, 150, 159, 178

F-15 simulator, 148–149

F-15A Eagle, 65–66, 65

F-15B two-seat aircraft, 156–158

F-16 (MATV program), 159

F-16 Fighting Falcon, 61, 65–66, 158, 178

F-16A Fighting Falcon, 65

F-22 Raptor, 145, 145, 158–160, 178

F-86 Sabre, 32, 140, 140

F-86D, K, and L interceptors, 140

F-94 interceptor, 30

F-100 Super Sabre, 33
Index

285

F-101A Voodoo, 35

F-102 Delta Dagger, 33

F-104/F-104A Starfighter, 36, 54

F-106 Delta Dart, 58, 62

F-111 supersonic fighter bomber, 58–59, 64, 142

F-111 twin engine, 159

F-111A supersonic fighter bomber, 59–61

F-111B supersonic fighter bomber, 59–61

F-111C bomber, 61

F-111E test aircraft, 143

F-111F Aardvark, 59

F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review 

Committee, 60–61

F-117 aircraft, 103

F119-PW-100 turbofan, 145, 158

F/A-18 Hornet High Alpha Research Vehicle 

(HARV), 155, 159, 163n51

F/A-18 Hornet (PCA program), 153

F/A-18E/F, 178

Fairey Gannet antisubmarine aircraft, 12

fan-on-blade (FLADE) concept, 198–199

FB-111A bomber, 61

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 180

Advanced General Aviation Transportation 

Experiments (AGATE), 180–181

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

certification, 185

collaboration with NASA, 83, 89, 120, 

126–128

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and 

Noise (CLEEN) program, 222

FAR 36 noise regulations, 75, 82–84, 110, 

123, 129, 198

Jet Aircraft Noise Control Bill, 78

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 205n19

Joint Office of Noise Abatement, 81–82

National Aviation Facilities Experimental 

Center (NAFEC), 127

noise abatement, 186–187, 225

noise abatement retrofitting, 76

noise regulations, 73–75, 77–79, 84, 93, 

183–185

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

152–153

Quiet-STOL (Q/STOL) aircraft program, 89

Refan program, 83

supersonic transport (SST), 51–53

two-segment landing approach, 78–80

Ferguson, James, 66

FG-1 Corsair aircraft, 27

FH-1 Phantom aircraft, 27

Fiat Avio, 185

First National Defense Appropriations Act, 18

Fishbach, Larry H., 55

Fitch, Dennis E., 146–147

“flameout,” 55, 57, 60, 140

Fletcher, James C., 66, 77, 81, 104

flight control, 141, 143, 145–159

flight control computer (FCC), 149

Flight Propulsion System (FPS), 110–111

Fokker, 75

Forbes, 76

Ford, Gerald R., 84

Ford Motor Company, 169

fuel, 203

alternative, 218, 224–228

biofuels, 226–227

consumption of, 36, 49, 63, 93, 119

consumption rate, 134n22, 145

control system, 38

distribution/preparation, 87

efficiency, 32, 63–64, 73–74, 83–84, 

94–95, 102, 103–106, 131–132

efficiency (chevron studies), 195

efficiency (general aviation), 126–127

engine knock, 13, 20

fossil, 225

gasoline, 23–24

high octane, 13–14

hydrogen, 23
The Power for Flight

286

injection, 19

metering valve, 140

prices, 103–106, 124, 218

Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC), 108

supply of, 103–106. See also Energy Crisis

synthetic, 226

full-authority digital electronic control (FADEC), 

112, 123, 144, 152, 182

Fullerton, C. Gordon, 149–152, 154

Full-Scale Engine Research (FSER), 65

Full-Scale Tunnel, 11, 88

Future of Flight Foundation, 224, 231n20

G

Gallup, D.L., 4

Garg, Anita, 170

Garrett AiResearch Manufacturing Company, 

129–130

Gates, Thomas S., Jr., 51

Gatlin, Donald H., 155–156

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) diesel engine, 

181–182

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) gas turbine 

initiative, 180, 183–184

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, 

180–184

General Dynamics

EF-111A “Sparkvark,” 59

F-16/F-16A Fighting Falcon, 61, 65–66, 143

F-111 supersonic fighter bomber, 58–60, 

64, 142

F-111A, 59

F-111A/F-111B design, 60

F-111F “Aardvark,” 59

TF30 engine, 60–61

Triple Plow I inlet, 61

YF-22 (ATF program), 159

General Electric (GE), 22, 25, 64

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188–193, 192–193

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115

afterburning turbofan design, 140–141

aircraft testing, 188

airliner market, 112

alloys, 168, 180

CF6 engine, 85

CF6 turbofan, 87, 93, 105–110, 109

CF6 turbofan tri-jet, 146

CF6-50C engine, 111

CF34 turbofan, 171, 195

chevron-enhanced engines, 197

CJ805-23 aft-fan, 63

computational fluid dynamics (CFD), 63

Critical Propulsion Components (CPC), 198

double annular axially parallel engine design, 

87

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 112, 125

Energy Efficient Engine (E3) demonstrator, 

102

Engine Alliance GP7200 engine, 180

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 106, 110–113

engine-component noise nomenclature, 190

Experimental Clean Combustor Program 

(ECCP), 111

F101 engine, 92, 178

F404 turbofan, 121, 168

F414 engine, 178

“fan” (propfan), 124

Flight Propulsion System (FPS), 110–111

fuel efficiency, 132n8

GE F404 turbofan, 155

GE4 turbojet, 52–53

GE36 UDF UHB engine, 114, 114, 121, 123

GE90 engine series, 112–113, 125, 168

GEnx turbofan, 169, 174–175, 196

GEnx-2B engine, 174

High Temperature Engine Materials 

Technology Program (HITEMP), 169

high-bypass-ratio engines, 93, 187, 192
Index

287

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 

197–199

I-A (Whittle) engine, 139–140

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176

J47 turbojet, 140–141

J75 engine, 58

J79 engine, 54

J85 turbojet, 58, 63, 65

J93 engine, 50

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 205n19

NPSS team, 177

nuclear propulsion research, 38

“open rotor” engine, 218–219

Polymerization of Monomer Reactants (PMR), 

168

propfan, 121–122, 124

QCSEE program, 92–93

Quiet Engine Program (QEP), 84, 87

Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) 

program, 196

Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator (RTA), 200

stator design, 190–191

TF39 turbofan, 85, 106

turbofan market, 73

turbofan reduction gearbox, 92

turboprop (counter-rotating), 120–121

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

underwing pod installation, 92–93

Unducted Fan (UDF), 126

Unducted Fan (UDF) engine, 122–124

variable-cycle engine (VCE), 55–56

YJ93 turbojet, 53, 54

General Electric (Schenectady), 29

I-16, 30

I-A engine (Whittle), 28, 31

J79, 36

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 27

TG-100 turboprop, 27

TG-100A, 34

TG-180 (J35), 29

Whittle engine, 30

XJ79-GE-1 afterburning turbojet, 36

Georgia Institute of Technology, 223

German Aerospace Center (DLR), 227

Germany

influence on American technology, 33, 37, 

62, 117

jet propulsion, 22, 25, 29, 30

Kochel high speed wind tunnels, 62

ramjet design, 37

rockets, 27

GKN Aerospace, 174

Glenn Research Center, 93, 184, 189. See also

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185

alloys, 180, 196

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and 

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) study, 226

chevron studies, 194

Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion 

System Simulation (C-MAPSS), 154

computational fluid dynamics (CFD), 177, 203

computer software, 173

Critical Propulsion Components (CPC), 

198–199

engine-component noise nomenclature, 190

GAP diesel engine, 181

GAP FJX-2 turbofan, 183, 184

Greenlab Research Facility, 226

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 

197–199

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 172, 205n19

Low Emissions Alternative Power program, 

223

Low Speed Wind Tunnel, 221–222

Megabraider, 172–173
The Power for Flight

288

Numerical Propulsion System Simulation 

(NPSS), 177

“open rotor” engine, 219

Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT), 195

Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator (RTA), 

200–201

stator design, 190–191

Supersonic Wind Tunnel, 199, 219

Ultra Safe Propulsion Project, 171–172

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 166, 179–180

Glennan, T. Keith, 51

Gloster Aircraft Company, 22–23, 28, 44n78

Goddard Space Flight Center, 179, 197

Goldin, Daniel S., 180–181

Goldwater, Barry M., 104

Goodrich Corporation, 196

Goodyear, 27

Google, 223–224

Gough, Melvin N., 10

Gray, David, 112

Gray, George, 12

Great Britain, 22, 25, 30, 88. See also United 

Kingdom

Grubb, H. Dale, 76

Grumman Corporation. See also Northrop 

Grumman

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 116–117

F9F Panther, 33

F-14 Tomcat, 61

F-14A series, 66

F-14A Tomcat, 64, 64

Gulfstream business jet, 116

Gulfstream II business jet, 116–119, 

118–119, 119

XF10F-1 Jaguar, 59

GTD-21 reconnaissance drone, 56

Guckian, William, 184

Guinness Book of World Records, 113

Gulf War (first), 59

Gulfstream, 115–119

H

Hamilton Standard, 35

578-DX demonstrator engine, 123–124, 123

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115

CRP-X1 tractor propfan engine, 120–121

Large-Scale Advanced Propfan (LAP) project, 

126

propellers, xii, 115

propellers (variable-pitch), 125

QCSEE program, 92

Quiet-Fan (Q-Fan) program, 91–92

SR-7L propfan, 117–118

turboprop (counter-rotating), 120

Hartzell Propeller, 125, 181–182

Hawker Aircraft, 87–88

Hawker Siddeley Harrier reconnaissance/strikefighter, 87–88

Hawks, Frank, 15

Haynes, Alfred C., 146–147

He 178 aircraft, 22

Heinkel, Ernst, 22–23

Helios unmanned aerial vehicles, 223

Henderson, Bill, 159

Herschel-Quincke (HQ) tubes, 190–191

Hibbard, Hall L., 26

High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV), 155, 

155–156, 158, 159

high supersonic flight, 57, 200. See also

supersonic flight

High Temperature Engine Materials Technology 

Program (HITEMP), 169–170

High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) vehicles, 

223

High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program 

(HATP), 154–155

Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control 

(HIDEC) program, 142–145, 147, 149

High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT), 156, 197–199

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 168, 

197–199, 198

Hines, Williams, 84–85
Index

289

HITEMP Review, 169

Hobbs, Leonard S., 26

Hobbs, Luke, 14

Holmes, Bruce A., 180

Honeywell Inc.

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

business jet engines, 188

Engine Validation of Noise Reduction 

Concepts (EVNRC) program, 191

engine-component noise nomenclature, 190

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 205n19

NPSS team, 177

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

152–153

stator design, 191

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

Honeywell International Inc., 172

Hooker, Stanley, 87

Horne, Clifton, 185

Housing and Urban Development and 

Transportation, 78

Howes, Rob, 192

HU-25 Falcon jet, 227

“hush kit,” 79

hybrid propulsion, 37–38

hypersonic flight, 50, 154, 199–203

I

IM-99 Bomarc, 37, 37–38, 

inlets, 144, 154, 166, 192, 222

engine incompatibility, 60

F-111 design, 60

guide vanes, 83

multidimensional, 158–159

noise from, 75, 190–192

scarf, 190

temperature/pressure, 63, 145

Triple Plow I/II, 61

“unstart” (defined), 58

variable-geometry, 142

vortex generators, 60

Inner Loop Thrust Vectoring (ILTV), 156

instrument landing system (ILS), 149, 152

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 168–170, 

176–180, 201

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142–143

intercontinental ballistic missiles, 38

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 

86, 187

International Nickel Company, 167

Irkut, 186

Israeli-Arab war, 103

J

Jacobs, Eastman N., 10, 29–30

“Jake’s Jeep,” 29–30, 33

Japan Airlines, 146, 152

Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory, 29, 197

jet-propelled aircraft, 22, 22–32, 31, 34

Jetstar aircraft, 116

John F. Kennedy International Airport, 77–78

Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 178

Journal of the Franklin Institute, 5

Junkers Motoren Werke, 24

Jumo 004 axial-flow turbojet, 28

K

Kahler, Jeff, 153

Kalitinsky, Andrew, 26

Keirn, David, 28–29

Kemper, Carlton, 2–3

Kennedy, John F., 52

Kennedy International Airport, 77–78

Ketchum, James R., 141

Klimov VK-1 aircraft, 33
The Power for Flight

290

knock, 13–14, 20

Korean War, 32, 35, 140

Kramer, James J., 85–86

Kramer Commission, 115

Kucinich, Dennis, 180

L

L-133 aircraft, 26

Lancair International, Inc., 181

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, 66, 

180

24-Inch Jet Tunnel, 10

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 

115–116

AERL, 2–3

aircraft noise conference, 75

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and 

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) study, 226

axial-flow compressor research, 29

chevron studies, 195–196, 196

drag reduction, 159

8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel, 201, 202, 

203

F-111A/F-111B design, 60

fuels research, 94

Full-Scale Tunnel, 11, 88, 128

High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program 

(HATP), 154

HU-25 Falcon jet, 227

Nacelle Acoustic Treatment program, 76–77, 

81

Power Plants Division, 19

propeller research airplane, 35

Propeller Research Tunnel (PRT) creation, 

9–10

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

150–151

Puffin (personal air vehicle), 223, 224

Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT), 194–195

radial air-cooled engines, 15

relationship with NACA, 2–3, 7–10

role, 2–3

Supercharger Division, 19

Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research (SCAR) 

Program, 55

transonic region testing, 88

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

VDT tests, 10

V/STOL development, 89

XV-6A Kestrel testing, 88

Learjet, 120, 122, 128, 128–129, 188

Lerch, Bradley, 170

Lesley, Everett P., 5, 7–10, 41n25

Levintan, Richard M., 91

Lewis, George W., 2, 16, 30, 32

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 30–31, 35, 

171, 180. See also Glenn Research Center

Active Noise Control Fan, 192

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188–189

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–116, 

125

afterburning turbofan design, 140–141

Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) program, 

131

Aircraft Noise Reduction Conference, 85

alloys, 168

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), xii, 140–141

Anechoic Low Speed Wind Tunnel, 121

computer-based aeronautics, 141

Distortion Tolerant Control, 158

emissions reduction, 127

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 110, 112, 125

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 106, 110, 125–126
Index

291

Engine Noise Reduction Element, 188–190

Experimental Clean Combustor Program 

(ECCP), 87

F-15 design, 66

F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review 

Committee, 61

fuels research, 94, 94–95

GAP FJX-2 turbofan, 184

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, 

181

High Stability Engine Control (HISTEC) 

project, 157

High Temperature Engine Materials 

Technology Program (HITEMP), 169–170

independence, loss of, 67

Joint Office of Noise Abatement, 81–82

Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor Facility, 

130, 130–131

Low-Speed Wind Tunnel, 192

Nozzle Acoustic Test Rig (NATR), 193

nuclear propulsion research, 38

propfan, 115

PSL propulsion program, 66–67

QCSEE funding, 92–93

QUESTOL funding, 91

Quiet and Clean Turbofan Engine (QCGAT) 

program, 129–131

Quiet Engine Program (QEP), 76, 81, 85

rocket research, 49

Separate-Flow Nozzle (SFN) Jet Noise 

Reduction Test Program, 193

successes of, 67

Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research (SCAR) 

Program, 55

Supersonic Wind Tunnel, 128

Transonic Wind Tunnel, 119, 121

turbojet design, 33

turbojet engines (single-shaft), 141

wind testing, 121

YF-12A/C program, 58

Lewis Research Center, 49, 62–63, 72, 105

Liebert, Curt H., 168

Li’l Abner, 56

Lincoln Composites, 169

Lindbergh, Charles, 17, 25

“Lindbergh moment,” 203, 215n136

Locci, Ivan, 170

Lockheed Air Express (1929), 15

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 15

A-12, 56

Advanced Cargo Aircraft Study, 116

Advanced Development Projects division, 56. 

See also “Skunk Works”

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–117

C-5/C-5A Galaxy transport, 85, 106–107, 

146

collaboration with Ames Research Center, 57

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 111

F-94 interceptor, 30

F-104/F-104A Starfighter, 36, 54

F-117 aircraft, 103

GTD-21 reconnaissance drone, 56

Jetstar aircraft, 116

L-133 aircraft, 26

L-1000 turbojet, 26

L-1011 aircraft, 75, 77–78, 146

M-12 aircraft, 56

P-38 Lightning, 20

P-80 Shooting Star, 30, 32

SR-71 Blackbird, 56–58, 104, 199, 203

SR-71 series, 58

T-33 trainer, 30

U-2, 56

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

Vega, 15

XJ-37, 26

YF-12 Blackbird, 48, 57

YF-12A/C program, 56–58

YP-80A Shooting Star, 30
The Power for Flight

292

Lockheed Georgia

570 engine series, 118

Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) project, 

118–119, 126

Lockheed Martin

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

F-22A Raptor, 145

F-22/F-22A Raptor, 145, 158

Martin F-35 Lightning II STOVL aircraft, 

178–179

YF-22 (ATF program), 159

Logan International Airport, 77

Lowenstein, Allard K., 77–78

Lundin, Bruce, 67

Lycoming Engines, 181

M

M-12 aircraft, 56

Marquardt Aircraft, RJ43 engine, 37, 38

Martin F-35 Lightning II STOVL aircraft, 

178–179

Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd., 64

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 3, 

17, 26, 128, 223

Massachusetts Port Authority, 77

materials, 167–175, 225–226

McAulay, John E., 106

McCook Field, 17

McDonnell Aircraft

F4H-1 Phantom II, 36

F-101A Voodoo, 35

FH-1 Phantom, 27

XF-88B, 35

McDonnell Douglas

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115–116

C-17 Globemaster III transport, 153

DC-8 airliner, 75–77, 79–81, 84, 86

DC-9 airliner, 75, 81–84, 107, 116

DC-10 airliner, 75, 77, 85–86, 93, 106–108, 

107, 151

DC-10 airliner (loss of), 146–147

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 111

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 106–107

F-15A Eagle, 65

F-15/F-15A Eagle, 61, 65–66, 149–150

F/A-18 Hornet, 153, 155

MD-11 airliner, 113, 151, 151–152

MD-80 airliner, 75, 83–84, 107, 110, 116, 

122, 123, 124

MD-91 aircraft, 114

noise abatement, 76

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

151–152

“propulsor” (propfan), 124

ultra-high-bypass (UHB) demonstrator 

program, 122–123

Unducted Fan (UDF) engine, 122–124

McKinney, Marion (“Mack”), 88

McNamara, Robert, 58, 60

MD-11 airliner, 113, 151, 151–152

MD-80 airliner, 75, 83–84, 107, 110, 122, 123, 

124

MD-91 aircraft, 114

Me 262 aircraft series, 22, 29

Me 262-A-1a Schwalbe (“Swallow”), 24

Mead, George, 17, 25

Menasco Manufacturing Company, 26

Messerschmitt AG, 22, 24, 29

Meusnier, Jean Baptiste Marie, 40n14

MiG-15 series, 33

MiG-23 aircraft, 59

Mikkelson, Daniel, 115

Milford, Dale, 83

Miller, Cearcy D., 13–15

Miller, George P., 49, 73

Miller, Robert, 170

Mitsubishi, 186

Moore, Charles Stanley, 19–20
Index

293

Morrill, William, 81

Moss, Frank E., 104

MTU Aero Engines, 185

Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring (MATV) program, 158

Munk, Max M., 8

N

NA-17 aircraft, 20

Nahigyan, Kervork K., 29–30

Nathal, Michael, 170

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

(NACA), 85

aerodynamics research, 15

aeronautics research, 73

afterburning turbofan design, 140–141

airfoil theory, 29

airfoils (16-series), 10

annual report, 5

axial-flow compressor research, 29

Collier Trophy, 15

committee structure, 1, 8

cuffs, 11, 11

DC-1 aircraft, 15

diesel engine research, 181

dissolved, 49

Durand at, 5

engineering parameter variation, 15

fuels research, 94

fundamental research, 1–2, 16, 18, 31, 35

jet propulsion, 25–30

Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory, 30

laboratory plan for agency research, 31

Lewis at, 2, 16

Mead at, 17–18

NACA cowling, 15, 16

National Aeronautical Research Policy, 31

noise-reduction studies, 96n10

piston engine design, 13–22

propeller experiments, 7–10

propeller research, 1–12

propulsion research, 1–38, 228

relationship with Langley, 2–3, 7–10

relationship with Stanford University, 5–10

role, 1

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 27

Subcommittee on Propellers for Aircraft, 35

successes of, 22

turbojet research, 30

Universal Test Engine, 2

water injection tests, 13–14

wind testing, 60

women at, 20, 22

X-5 research aircraft, 59

National Aeronautic Association (NAA), 15, 124

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA)

Adaptive Engine Control System (ADECS), 

143–144

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156–160

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185

Advanced Gas Turbine (AGT), 168

Advanced General Aviation Transportation 

Experiments (AGATE), 180–181

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program,169 188–190

Advanced Supersonic Propulsion and 

Integration Research (ASPIRE) project, 199

Advanced Turbine Technology Applications 

(ATTAP) program, 168

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 105–106, 

114–118, 179

aeronautics research, 73, 217, 228

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD), 226

Aerospace Industry Technology Program, 169

afterburning turbofan design, 66

aircraft analytics, 65

Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) program, 

104–126, 131
The Power for Flight

294

Aircraft Fuel Conservation Technology Task 

Force, 104–105

aircraft noise conference, 75

Airworthiness Committee, 119

alloys, 167–168, 179–180

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and 

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) study, 

226–227

Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and 

Cruise Emissions II (ACCESS II) program, 

227

APNASA code, 176, 183

Aviation Safety Program, 154, 172

Bell X-14 aircraft, 88

budget cuts, 55–56, 67, 180

chevron studies, 192–197

Civil Aviation Research and Development 

(CARD) Policy Study, 80–81, 89

collaboration with FAA, 83, 89, 120, 

126–128

collaboration with U.S. Air Force, 57, 66

Collier Trophy, 114–115, 123

composite fan casings, 174, 174–175

computational fluid dynamics (CFD), 63

Concepts and Missions Division, 91

contact with EPA, 127

creation of, 49

Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC), 138

Distortion Tolerant Control, 158

electric propulsion, 49–50, 223–224

emissions reduction, 73, 104–105, 125, 

224–225

Enabling Propulsion Materials (EPM), 

168–169, 171–175

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 105–108, 

110–111, 115, 125

Energy Efficient Transport, 105

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 105–110, 125

engine development, 61

engine modification, 86

engine noise, 105

Engine Validation of Noise Reduction 

Concepts (EVNRC) program, 191

engine-component noise nomenclature, 

190

Environmental Research and Aircraft Sensor 

Technology (ERAST) program, 223

Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) 

Project, 220–222, 230n11

EPA emissions standards, 86–87

F-15 aircraft, 142, 150, 160n11

F-15 HIDEC, 143–145

F-15 simulator, 148–149

F-111A/F-111B design, 60

F-111E test aircraft, 143

five-stage compressor design, 63

flight and propulsion control system 

development, 147

free-flight research, 88

fuel efficiency, 104–106, 110, 125

fuel prices, 104

fuels research, 94–95

Full-Scale Engine Research (FSER), 65

Fundamental Aeronautics Program, 222

fundamental research, 169

GAP diesel engine, 182

GAP small gas turbine initiative, 183–185

gas turbine research, 74, 130, 175

general aviation, 126

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, 

181–185

Green Flight Challenge, 223–224

Gulfstream business jet, 116

High Temperature Engine Materials 

Technology Program (HITEMP), 169–170

High-Angle-of-Attack Technology Program 

(HATP), 154–155

Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control 

(HIDEC) program, 142–145
Index

295

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 168, 

197–199

hypersonic research, 50, 203

Hyper-X research program, 201

Improved Digital Electronic Engine Controller 

(IDEEC) system, 156

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176–179

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142

Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC), 

154

Integrated System Research Program, 222

J85 turbojet experimental nozzle, 58

Joint Office of Noise Abatement, 81

Joint Technology Demonstrator Engine 

(JTDE) program, 168

Large-Scale Advanced Propfan (LAP) project, 

116

Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV), 117

Learjet, 120, 122, 128

multidimensional inlet, 158–159

Nacelle Acoustic Treatment program, 76–77, 

81

NASP Joint Program Office, 200

National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Project 

Office, 200

Navy-NASA Engine Program, 55

noise abatement, 73–87, 125, 186–197

noise abatement budget, 85–86

noise abatement retrofitting, 79, 82, 84–86

noise test, 72

nuclear propulsion, 49–50

Office of Advanced Research and Technology 

(OART), 90

Office of Aerospace Technology Vehicle 

Systems Program, 180

“open rotor” engine, 218

overwing pod installation, 93

P.1127 Kestrel testing, 88

Performance Seeking Control (PSC) program, 

144–145

Polymerization of Monomer Reactants (PMR), 

168

propeller research, 127–128

propfan, 114–125, 124

Propulsion and Power Base Research and 

Technology Program, 172

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), 62

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

149, 152–154

QCSEE development, 92–93

QSRA development, 90, 93

QUESTOL development, 92

Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT), 194–195

Quiet and Clean Turbofan Engine (QCGAT), 

128–131

Quiet Engine Program (QEP), 76, 78, 81, 82, 

84–86, 92

Quiet Experimental Short Takeoff and 

Landing (QUESTOL), 91–92

Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) 

program, 196–197

Quiet Technology Demonstrator (QTD) 

program, 194–195

Quiet-Fan (Q-Fan) program, 91–92

Quiet-STOL (Q/STOL) aircraft program, 89–90

Refan program, 82–84, 129

resignation of Director of Lewis, 67

Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator (RTA), 

200–201

rocket propulsion, 49–50

role, 61, 88

Separate-Flow Nozzle (SFN) Jet Noise 

Reduction Test Program, 194

space program, 50, 52

SR-71 Blackbird, 57, 199

STOL development, 88–92

Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research (SCAR) 

Program, 55–56, 87
The Power for Flight

296

supersonic transport (SST), 50–55

support for, 73

synthetic fuels, 226

Technology Readiness Level (TRL), 188–189, 

191

Throttles Only Control (TOC), 154

“Transforming Global Mobility” white paper, 

218

transonic region testing, 88

turbofan development, 63, 73, 94, 102

Turning Goals into Reality Awards, 175, 178

two-segment landing approach, 78–79

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 201

Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine 

(VAATE), 179

V/STOL development, 87–92

Wallops Flight Facility, 119–120

wind testing, 118–119, 121–122, 128

X-15 flight research program, 50

X-51A WaveRider, 203

XB-70 Valkyrie program, 53, 54–55

XV-6A Kestrel, 88

YF-12 Blackbird, 48

National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), 200

National Air and Space Act, 49

National Research Council (NRC), 227

National Sonic Boom Program, 55

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 147

Navy, U.S.

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 116–117

airfoils (16-series), 10

Bureau of Construction and Repair, 8

F-14 aircraft, 65

F-111B, 59–61

F-111C, 61

F-111/TF-30 Propulsion Program Review 

Committee, 60–61

FB-111A, 61

fuels research, 94–95

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176

Naval Air Development Center, 55

Naval Appropriation Act, 1

Navy-NASA Engine Program, 55

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

152

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 27

TFX program, 58

Towing Tank, 5

turbofan preference over turbojet, 64

V/STOL development, 92

Neumann, Gerhard, 36

New York Daily News, 86

New York University, 3

Nixon, Richard E., 81–82, 103

Noebe, Ronald, 170

noise, 73–87, 92

airport noise, 77–80, 79, 90–93, 219

engine noise, 90–91, 102, 218–219, 225

explained, 75–76

“footprint,” 93, 129

inlet, 191–192

“noise annoyance footprint,” 187

passenger cabin noise, 122–123, 191, 196

speed sensor, 141

V/STOL engine, 89

Nored, Donald, 105

North American Aviation

A3J-1 Vigilante, 36

B-70 aircraft series, 51

F-86 Sabre, 32, 140

F-86D, K, and L interceptors, 140

F-100 Super Sabre, 33

NA-73, 20

P-51 Mustang, 11, 20

SM-64 Navaho cruise missile, 37–38

T-2 Buckeye, 63

T-39 Sabreliner, 94

X-15 aircraft, 37, 50, 51
Index

297

XB-70 Valkyrie, 53

XB-70/A Valkyrie, 50, 53–55

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 95

Northrop Aircraft, 26, 37, 63, 65

Northrop Grumman, 103. See also Grumman 

Corporation

nuclear bomber aircraft, 38, 50, 54

Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft 

(NEPA), 38

nuclear propulsion, 37–38, 49–50, 54

Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) 

program, 177–178, 199

O

Office National d’Etudes et Recherches 

Aérospatiales (ONERA), 117

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology 

(OAST), 151

Office of Aerospace Technology Vehicle Systems 

Program, 180

O’Hare International Airport, 78

Ohio State University, 125, 128, 205n19

Operation Babylift, 146

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 

(OPEC), 103

Orient Express, 199

Otto, Edward W., 141

Oxide Dispersion Strengthened (ODS) 

superalloys, 167

P

P-38 Lightning, 20

P-51 Mustang, 11, 11, 20

P-59 Airacomet, 30

P-61C Black Widow, 37

P-80 Shooting Star, 30, 32

P.1127 Kestrel aircraft, 88, 88

Packard Motor Car Company, 14

Pan American Airlines, 106, 108

Pappas, Drew, 151

Parker, Jack, 63–64

Pathfinder unmanned aerial vehicles, 223

Pavlecka, Vladimir H., 26

“PCA Lite”/”PCA Ultralite,” 153. See also

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program

Pereira, J. Michael, 170

Performance Seeking Control (PSC) program, 

144–145, 160n11

personal air vehicle, 183, 223, 224

Pinkel, Benjamin, 19–20

Pinkel, I. Irving, 95

Plum Brook Station, 38

Polymerization of Monomer Reactants (PMR), 168

Popular Science, 124

Porter, Lisa, 218

Power Jets, Ltd., 23

power plants. See engines

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

578-DX demonstrator engine, 123–124, 

123

Advanced Control Technology for Integrated 

Vehicles (ACTIVE) program, 156

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP), 185

Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP) low-speed 

fan, 186, 192

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188–193, 192–193

Advanced Turboprop Project (ATP), 115

aircraft testing, 188

airliner market, 112

alloys, 168, 180

chevron studies, 193

chevron-enhanced engines, 197

computer software, 199

creation of, 17, 26

Critical Propulsion Components (CPC), 198

Energy Efficient Engine (E3), 110–113, 125

Engine Alliance GP7200 engine, 180

Engine Component Improvement (ECI) 

Program, 106–110
The Power for Flight

298

Engine Validation of Noise Reduction 

Concepts (EVNRC) program, 191

engine-component noise nomenclature, 190

F100 engine, 65–66, 67, 178

F-100-229 engine, 168

F100-PW-229 engine, 158

F119 engine, 178

F119-PW-100 turbofan, 145, 158

Flight Propulsion System (FPS), 110–112

fuel efficiency, 132n8

Geared TurboFan, 185–186, 221, 222

High Stability Engine Control (HISTEC) 

project, 157

high-bypass-ratio engines, 93, 192

high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, 187

High-Speed Research (HSR) program, 

197–199

Hornet series, 17

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176

integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) 

program, 142

J42 engine, 33

J48 engine, 33

J57 engine, 33–34, 141

J58 turbo-ramjet, 56–57, 104

JT3 turbojet, 34

JT3D turbofan, 63, 75, 86

JT8D refan series, 83–84

JT8D turbofan, 86, 98n34, 105–106, 

108–109, 122

JT8D turbofan (low-bypass), 107–108

JT8D turbofan (noise of), 75, 105

JT9D turbofan, 87, 105–108, 109, 112

JT9D-7A engine, 111

Large Military Engines Division, 156

NPSS team, 177

nuclear propulsion research, 38

Polymerization of Monomer Reactants (PMR), 

168

PurePower PW1000G engine, 186

PW2000 turbofan, 108

PW2037 turbofan, 123, 143

PW4000 engine series, 112–113, 125

PW4000 turbofan, 113

PW4084 engine, 112–113

PW4098 engine, 113, 192

Quiet Engine Program (QEP), 87

Refan program, 83

relationship with NACA, 19

RL-10 liquid-fueled rocket, 49

Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet, 33

TF30 turbofan, 60, 64–66

Throttles Only Control (TOC) tests, 149–150

turbofan design, 81

turbofan market, 73

turboprop design, 26

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

variable-cycle engine (VCE), 55–56

Vorbix axial series, 87

Wasp series, 14–15, 17

XRJ47 engine, 38

Pratt & Whitney Canada, 126

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, 202, 203

President’s Aircraft Board, 5

Price, Nathan C., 26

“propeller research airplane,” 35

Propeller Research Tunnel (PRT), 9–10, 15, 16, 

42n44

propeller-driven aircraft, 1–22, 25–32, 34–35, 

40n14, 46n119

propellers, 4, 7

as airfoils, 3–4

blade-element theory, 3

constant-speed, 26

counter-rotating (defined), 120

cuffs, 11

design versus airplane design, 6

development, 3–4
Index

299

as dominant propulsion system, 2

efficiencies, 10–12

experimental engines, 26

first, 4

function of, 6

general aviation, 127–128

helicopter, 8

lack of data for, 5

low tip speed, 89

low-speed, 182

paddle blades, 12

propfan, 115–125, 119

single-rotation (SR) propfan, 120, 125

transonic, 35

variable-pitch, 7–8, 91, 125

wind testing, 18, 19

Wright-Patterson Propeller Laboratory, 117

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), 35–38, 

49

engine research, 62

GAP FJX-2 turbofan, 183

PSL No. 1, 35–36, 36, 37, 64–67

PSL No. 2, 35, 62, 66–67

PSL No. 3, 66

PSL No. 4, 66, 67

ramjet research, 37–38

rocket research, 49

turbojet tests, 36

propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) program, 

147–154, 148, 151, 160n11. See also “PCA 

Lite”/“PCA Ultralite”

Pucinski, Roman C., 76

Puffin (personal air vehicle), 223, 224

Purifoy, Dana, 152

Q

Quesada, Elwood R., 51

Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul Experimental Engine 

(QCSEE), 92–93, 179

Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT), 194, 222

Quiet and Clean Turbofan Engine (QCGAT), 

128–131

Quiet Experimental Short Takeoff and Landing 

(QUESTOL), 87, 91–92

Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (QSRA), 90, 

90, 92–93

Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) 

program, 196–197

Quiet Technology Demonstrator (QTD) program, 

194–195

Quiet-STOL (Q/STOL) aircraft program, 87, 

89–90

R

R&D 100 Awards, 169

R3C-2 Racer aircraft, 25

Raburn, Vern, 184–185

RAF-6 (airfoil), 10, 12

Reaction Motors, 50

Reagan, Ronald, 199

Records, William R., 146–147

Reeder, Jack, 88

Rentschler, Frederick B., 17

Republic Aviation Corporation, xii, 11, 29, 35

Research & Technology, 169

rocket propulsion, 27, 31–32, 35, 38, 49–50, 

85

Rocketdyne, 49, 202, 203

rockets, 27, 37–38, 49–50, 85, 178, 201

Rockwell International, B-1 Lancer, 61

Rohr Industries, 115, 118–119, 188

Rohrbach, Carl, 115

Rolls-Royce, Ltd., 73

Rolls-Royce Corporation, 20. 

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 

program, 188

airliner market, 112

business jet engines, 188

chevron-enhanced engines, 197

engine-component noise nomenclature, 190
The Power for Flight

300

high-bypass-ratio engines, 187, 192

Jet Engine Containment Concepts and 

Blade-Out Simulation, 205n19

Nene turbojet, 33

noise abatement, 193

NPSS team, 177

“open rotor” engine, 218

Pegasus engine, 87

Quiet Technology Demonstrator (QTD) 

program, 194

Trent 800 turbofan, 194

Trent engine series, 112

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 179

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 17

Roots supercharger, 13–14, 19

Rosen, Robert, 131

Rostock airfield, 22

Rothrock, Addison M., 3, 19–20

Rowe, Brian, 124

Royal Aeronautical Society, 6

Royal Air Force (Great Britain), 22–23, 27–28

Royal Australian Air Force, 61

Royal Flight of Saudi Arabia, 152

Rutan, Burt, 184

Ryan, William F., 74

S

S1MA Continuous-Flow Atmospheric Wind 

Tunnel, 117–118

Sadin, Stan, 188–189

Sanders, Newell D., 34

Scaled Composites, 184, 208n60

Schey, Oscar W., 3, 19–20

Schkolnik, Gerard S., 157

Schmittman, Craig, 114

Schneider Trophy, 25

“Screw Propeller: With Special Reference to 

Aeroplane Propulsion, The,” 5

Selfridge Air Force Base, 58

Separate-Flow Nozzle (SFN) Jet Noise Reduction 

Test Program, 193–194

Sewell, Charles “Chuck,” 64

Shaffer, John H., 76–77, 81

shape memory alloys (SMAs), 175, 195–196

Shaw, Robert J., 179

Shivashankara, Belur, 194

Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) program, 

88–92, 89

Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) 

program, 179, 222

Sievers, G. Keith, 129

Silverstein, Abe, 30, 34, 38, 199

single-lever power control (SLPC) systems, 182

“Skunk Works,” 56. See also Lockheed Aircraft 

Corporation Advanced Development Projects 

division

SM-64 Navaho cruise missile, 37–38

Smith, C.R., 103

Smolka, James W. “Jim,” 157

sonic booms, 52–53, 55, 199, 218

Soucek, Apollo, 14

Sound Absorption Material (SAM), 83

Soviet Union, 32–33, 37–38, 49

space program, 49–52, 60, 228

Space Shuttle, 56, 149, 201, 217

Spirit of St. Louis aircraft, 25

Sputnik, 1, 49

SR-71 Blackbird, 56–58, 104, 199, 203

Stability Management Control, 158

Stack, John, 10, 12, 60, 88

stall, 55, 60–61, 65, 142–144, 158

Stanford University, 3, 5–10

Stanley, Robert M., 28

Stapleton International Airport, 146

Staten, Kenneth, 200

statorlike turbine, 76

stators, 36, 54, 76, 83, 92, 141, 190

Stepka, Francis S., 168

Stewart, Jim, 147
Index

301

Strategic Air Command, 54, 140

Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) Program, 222

SunPower Corporation, 223

Supermarine Seafire fighters, 12

Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Research (SCAR) 

Program, 55–56, 87

supersonic flight, 50–62, 199, 218, 228. See 

also high supersonic flight

high supersonic (defined), 57

supersonic transport (SST), 50–51, 55, 73, 199

surface-to-air missiles, 38, 54

Swissair, 152

Systems Control, Inc., 66

Szalai, Ken, 149, 153

T

T-2 Buckeye, 63

T-33 trainer, 30

T-38 Talon, 63

T-39 Sabreliner, 94

Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program, 

58–61

Tan Son Nhut Air Force Base, 146

Taurus G4 electric aircraft, 224, 225

Taylor, Burt L. III, 141

Taylor, C. Fayette, 14

Team Pipistrel-USA.com, 223–224, 225

Technology Concept Airplane (TCA), 197–198

Technology Readiness Level (TRL), 188–189, 

191–193, 197, 211n88

Teledyne Continental Motors, 127, 177, 181

Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, 176

Textron Lycoming, 176

Textron Specialty Materials, 169

Theodorsen, Theodore, 10

Théorie Générale de l’Hélice Propulsive, 3

Thompson Products, 18

Thomson, Clarke, 2

Throttles Only Control (TOC), 148–150, 154

thrust vectoring, 154–160

Tokyo International Airport, 146

Trans World Airlines (TWA), 106

transonic flight, 32, 35, 87–88, 220

Tri-Service XV-6A Kestrel Evaluation Squadron, 

88

turbulence, 55, 76

U

U-2 spyplane, 56

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Program 

(UEET), 166, 179–180, 201, 222

Unducted Fan (UDF), 114, 121–124, 126, 219

United Aircraft Corporation, 2

United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, 17

United Airlines (UAL), 83, 106, 146–147

United Airlines (UAL) Flight 232, 153, 170

United Kingdom, 87. See also Great Britain

United Nations, 86, 187

United Technologies, 120–121

United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), 

120–121, 193

universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter 

(UART), 142–143

University of Akron, 173, 205n19

University of Michigan, 3

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 223

U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, 90, 90

V

Variable-Density Tunnel (VDT), 10

Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine 

(VAATE), 179–180, 222

Vertical and Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) 

program, 73, 87–89, 88, 92

Vietnam War, 65, 146, 154

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

(Virginia Tech), 190

VK-1 aircraft, 33

Volpe, John A., 81

von Ohain, Hans, 22–24, 203
The Power for Flight

302

W

Walker, Joe, 54

Ware, Marsden, 2, 13–14

Warsitz, Erich, 22

Washington News, 73–74

Washington Post, 80

Wasielewski, Eugene W., 29

Weick, Fred E., 10, 15

Westinghouse, 27, 30

Wheeler, Keith, 54

Whitcomb, Richard, 32, 127

White, Kevin H., 77–78

Whitehead, Bob, 151

Whittle, Frank, 22–23, 27–28, 203

Whittle Unit (W.U.), 23

Williams, Sam, 184

Williams International, 172, 176–179, 181–184, 

205n19, 208n60

Wilson, Eugene E., 2

women, 20, 28

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 4

World Health Organization, 73–74

World War II, 16–22, 25–28, 62

Wright (Wilbur) Memorial Lecture, 6

Wright, Orville, 3–5, 22, 203

Wright, Wilbur, 3–5, 22, 203

Wright Aeronautical 17, 19, 25–27, 33

Wright Field, 14

Wright Flyer, 4

Wright-Martin Company, 17

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 61

Aeronautical Systems Division, 200

Air Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory, 65, 

94, 176

Air Force Research Laboratory, 203

High Stability Engine Control (HISTEC) 

project, 157

Integrated High Performance Turbine Energy 

Technology (IHPTET) program, 176

Propeller Laboratory, 117

Wydler, John W., 78

X

X-5 research aircraft, 59

X-15 aircraft, 37, 50, 51, 201

X-31 (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability 

program), 158, 159

X-43A research aircraft, 201, 203

X-51 WaveRider, 201

X-51A WaveRider, 203

XB-70/XB-70A Valkyrie, 50, 53, 53, 54–55

XF3W-1 Apache, 14

XF10F-1 Jaguar, 59

XF-84H aircraft, 35

XF-88B aircraft, 35

XP-59A Airacomet, 22–23, 23, 28–29, 29, 

44n78

XP-84 Thunderjet, 29

XV-6A Kestrel aircraft, 88

Y

YF-12/YF-12A Blackbird, 48, 56–58, 57

YF-12C aircraft, 57–58

YF-22 (ATF program), 159

YF-102 fighter, 32
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC

NASA SP-2017-631