Pursuit of Power

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2

By Robert S. Arrighi

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA History Program Office

Public Outreach Division

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

SP–2012–4548

2012
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Arrighi, Robert S., 1969-

 Pursuit of Power : NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory, No. 1 & 2 / Robert S. Arrighi.

 p. cm. -- (NASA history series) (NASA SP ; 2012-4548)

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 1. Propulsion Systems Laboratory (U.S.)--History. 2. Wind tunnels. 3. Hypersonic wind tunnels. 

4. Aerodynamics--Research--United States--History--20th century. 5. Propulsion systems--United 

States--History--20th century. 6. NASA Glenn Research Center. I. United States. NASA History Division. 

II. Title. III. Title: NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory, No. 1 & 2. IV. Title: Propulsion Systems 

Laboratory, No. 1 & 2. 

 TL568.P75A77 2012

 629.1’1072--dc23

 2011032380
• Table of Contents •

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ vii

 Condensed History of the PSL ......................................................................................................... ix

 Preserving the PSL Legacy ................................................................................................................. ix

 Endnotes for Introduction .................................................................................................................. xi

Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter 1: Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research ........................................................................................ 3

 Flying High with Feet on the Ground ............................................................................................... 3

 A Call for Nationalization ................................................................................................................... 4

 Low-Pressure System ........................................................................................................................... 5

 Producing Results ................................................................................................................................. 6

 Barometer of the Future ...................................................................................................................... 6

 Engine Studies in Cleveland ................................................................................................................ 7

 Pulling Ahead........................................................................................................................................ 9

 Endnotes for Chapter 1 .....................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: The Next Big Thing ................................................................................................................13

 NACA’s Panel of Experts ..................................................................................................................14

 Congressional Authorization ............................................................................................................15

 The Designers .....................................................................................................................................16

 Eugene Wasielewski ...........................................................................................................................17

Propulsion Systems Laboratory Rising ................................................................................................19

 Executing the Plans ............................................................................................................................28

 Assembling the Crew .........................................................................................................................28

 Endnotes for Chapter 2 .....................................................................................................................30

Chapter 3: Harnessing PSL’s Muscle .......................................................................................................33

 Making Research a Reality ................................................................................................................34

Conducting a Test at the Propulsion Systems Laboratory ...................................................................37

 Endnotes for Chapter 3 .....................................................................................................................51

Chapter 4: Cold War Weapons .................................................................................................................53

 The Nuclear Navaho ..........................................................................................................................54

 Navaho’s 48-Inch-Diameter Powerplants ........................................................................................54

 Bob Walker ..........................................................................................................................................56

 Getting the Damn Engine to Ignite ..................................................................................................57

 Taking Advantage of the Opportunity .............................................................................................61

 Self-Immolation ..................................................................................................................................63

 Coda .....................................................................................................................................................63

 Defense Missiles .................................................................................................................................64

 Howard Wine .....................................................................................................................................66

 Testing the Turbojets .........................................................................................................................67

iii
Pursuit of Power 

 General Electric 1950s Successes

iv
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

 Pulling PSL Down

v
.
• Introduction •

As the Sun set on a pleasant late September evening 

in 1952, the exterior lights of the new Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) were illuminated. A photographer and his assistant set up their tripod and camera 

at several locations around the facility, attempting to 

capture the sprawling tangle of steel, pipes, and valves. 

By the time that they had made it across the street to 

snap the two wide-angle shots, darkness had fallen and 

the most modern engine testing facility in the country 

shone brightly against the night sky over the National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Lewis 

Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio.

There were others gazing into the Midwestern darkness that evening. The Cold War had firmly taken 

root, and world tensions were elevated. Local teams 

of “skywatchers” from the Ground Observation Corps 

were scanning the night sky for enemy aircraft. The 

range and destructiveness of weaponry had increased 

dramatically in the 11 years since Pearl Harbor. “For 

the first time in our history,” one NACA Lewis skywatcher declared, “a potential enemy has the power to 

make sudden, devastating attacks on any part of our 

country.”1

In just weeks, United Nations forces would launch the 

ill-fated Battle of Triangle Hill—the last major offensive of the Korean War; General Dwight Eisenhower 

would be elected President, and the first hydrogen 

bomb would be detonated in the Marshall Islands.

Aerospace development also was advancing dramatically. Jet engines were demonstrating tremendous

increases in power, U.S. and Soviet engineers were racing to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 

Harvey van Allen was beginning to circulate his bluntbody theory for atmospheric reentry. In addition, the 

International Geophysical Year had been set for 1957, 

and Colliers had captivated the public’s imagination 

with a cover story titled “Man on the Moon.”2

In Cleveland, construction of the PSL, the nation’s 

largest facility for testing full-scale engines in simulated flight conditions, was completed. As the photographers documented the shining exterior on that 

September evening, a ramjet for the Navaho Missile 

program and a General Electric J73 turbojet for the 

F86H Sabre fighter were being installed inside its two 

test chambers. 

Image 1: PSL No. 1 and 2 on the evening of 24 September 1952. (NASA C–1952–30764)

Introduction vii
Pursuit of Power 

There were several ways to test engines, but test stands 

provided the most efficient and useful method. A single stand could be used to study many types of engines 

in an environment that was safer and more efficient 

than that on research aircraft. Efficiency improved

because installing instrumentation and measuring 

thrust is more difficult in flight research.3

Pilots found early on that engines behave differently 

in altitude conditions than at sea level, and engineers 

quickly determined that the test stands needed to 

simulate altitude conditions in order to properly test

engines. In general, this meant reducing the temperature and pressure of the air and creating velocity. Removing moisture from the air and expelling the

engine’s exhaust were also important.

Unlike wind tunnels, these altitude chambers were 

generally used to study only the engines, not the

engine cowlings or mounts. Another difference was 

that the amount of power and air required was far 

less than for tunnels because the air was ducted only 

through the engine—not through the surrounding test 

section.

PSL’s two chambers, referred to as “PSL No. 1

and 2,” could simulate the internal airflow conditions 

experienced by the nation’s most powerful engines over 

a full range of power and altitude levels. This allowed 

researchers to analyze the engine’s thrust, fuel consumption, airflow limits, combustion blowout levels, 

acceleration, starting characteristics, and an array of 

other parameters. The range of PSL’s studies was later 

expanded to include noise reduction, flutter, inlet distortions, and engine controls.

There were three distinct eras during PSL No. 1

and 2’s operating years, each with its own group

of researchers: NACA Lewis’s Engine Research Division managed the ramjet and turbojet period of the 

1950s, the Chemical Rocket Division conducted most

of PSL’s research in the 1960s, and the Airbreathing

Engines Division assumed control for the turbofan and 

supersonic inlet studies of the late 1960s and 1970s. 

The researchers and test engineers in these divisions 

developed and ran the tests. The mechanics and technicians in the Test Installations Division maintained 

the PSL and integrated the test equipment into the 

facility throughout the years.

Image 2: The PSL No. 1 and 2 facility viewed from the west on 9 June 1959. The Shop and Access Building containing the two test chambers is 

to the left, and the larger Equipment Building containing the exhausters and compressors is behind and to the right. (NASA C–1959–50861)

viii
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Condensed History of the PSL

NACA management initiated its plans for the PSL in 

November 1947, and construction started two years 

later. When the facility began operating in October 

1952, PSL No. 1 was used for turbojet studies while 

PSL No. 2 concentrated on ramjets. 

By the late 1950s, Pratt & Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, and the U.S. Air Force began building their 

own propulsion labs and altitude facilities. The PSL 

remained a vital resource by continually upgrading 

its two chambers, control room, and air-handling system. The installation of a pebble bed heater in the late 

1950s permitted hypersonic studies, and the installation of a flamespreader in the mid-1960s allowed more 

powerful engines to be tested without damaging the 

cooling equipment. 

By the 1960s rocket systems of increasing complexity were being studied in both chambers, including an

extensive investigation of the Pratt & Whitney RL-10 

in PSL No. 1. In the late 1960s, the PSL again turned 

to airbreathing engines for aircraft. Unlike the studies 

in the 1950s, this new effort included propulsion systems for civilian aircraft.

In 1967, construction was undertaken on a new PSL 

building with two additional, more powerful altitude 

chambers, referred to as “PSL No. 3 and 4.” All four 

PSL chambers were used for turbojet and turbofan 

studies from 1972 to 1979. Budget concerns led to the 

ultimate shuttering of PSL No. 1 and 2 in 1979.

After years of idleness that included the installation

of temporary office space around the test chambers, the NASA Glenn Research Centera

 decided to

remove the original facility in 2004. Five years

later, the PSL No. 1 and 2 facility was demolished.

The PSL No. 3 and 4 facility and the Equipment

a

The Cleveland laboratory began operation in 1942 as the NACA 

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL). In 1947 it was

renamed the NACA Flight Propulsion Laboratory to reflect the 

expansion of the research. In September 1948, following the death 

of the NACA’s Director of Aeronautics, George Lewis, the name 

was changed to the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory. 

On 1 October 1958, the lab was incorporated into the new NASA 

space agency, and it was renamed the NASA Lewis Research

Center. Following John Glenn’s flight on the space shuttle, the

center name was changed again on 1 March 1999 to the NASA 

Glenn Research Center. 

Building, since renamed the Central Air and

Equipment Building, continue to operate today.

The PSL remains the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s (NASA’s) sole facility for

testing full-scale aircraft engines in simulated flight 

conditions. 

The PSL proved to be a robust test facility that could 

keep pace with the relentless advance of aerospace 

technology over the decades. The original chambers 

were versatile enough to study emerging propulsion 

systems such as the turbojet, ramjet, chemical rocket, and turbofan engines. Work in the PSL on the

RL-10 rocket engine was essential to the success of

the Centaur Program. The PSL served as a key

component in the center’s 65-year history of testing

engines at altitude conditions.

Preserving the PSL Legacy

The NASA Glenn History Office has undertaken

the task of documenting many of its historic facilities. 

Histories of the Icing Research Tunnel, Plum Brook 

Reactor Facility, Rocket Engine Test Facility, and

Altitude Wind Tunnel have been published. These 

books demonstrate the significance of each facility to the nation’s aerospace community while sharing 

personal stories of some of the unsung researchers, 

mechanics, and technicians who performed groundbreaking research and made the giant facilities run. It 

is hoped that this publication continues this tradition.

The PSL No. 1 and 2 facility was determined to be 

eligible for, but was not listed on, the National Register for Historic Places. Glenn’s History Program and 

Historic Preservation Officer worked with the Ohio 

State Historic Preservation Officer to develop a plan 

to document PSL’s contributions and distribute that 

information to the public.4

 This effort included collecting documents from Glenn Records Management 

holdings, the History Office archives, retirees, and 

other sources. Hundreds of photographs, films, and 

documents were digitized. In addition, a thorough 

photographic survey was performed, and two graphical renderings of the facility were created. 

The collected information was distilled for the public and NASA communities into this publication, an

exhibit display, and a website to be shared with the 

Introduction ix
Pursuit of Power 

Image 3: This 7- by 10-foot exhibit display created in 2009 describes PSL No. 1 and 2 and some of the tests conducted there. 

(NASA P–0931 PSL 1 2)

x
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

public and NASA employees. For more detailed

information, research materials, and hundreds of additional photographs and videos visit http://pslhistory.

grc.nasa.gov.

Endnotes for Introduction

1. “Skywatchers Needed,” Wing Tips (19 September 

 1952).

2. “Man on the Moon,” Collier’s Weekly (18 October 

 1952).

3. “Propulsion Systems Laboratory Test Chambers 

 #3 & #4 Facility Description,” June 1982, NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

4. Leslie Main, Dallas Lauderdale, and Mark Epstein, 

 Memorandum of Agreement between the National 

 Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Ohio 

 State Historic Preservation Office regarding the 

 Demolition of Propulsion Systems Laboratory, 

 Cell No. 1 and Cell No. 2, 4 September 2007, NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH. 

Introduction xi
.
• Acknowledgments •

This publication completes the 2005 agreement 

between NASA Glenn’s Logistics and Technical

Information Division and the Facilities Division 

to document the Propulsion Systems Laboratory

No. 1 and 2 and the Altitude Wind Tunnel prior to

their demolition.  Former Glenn History Officer

Kevin Coleman and Historic Preservation Officer

Joe Morris were instrumental in forging this

agreement with the assistance of former contract

manager Ralph Bevilacqua. 

Anne Mills and Les Main have long since stepped 

into the respective positions of History Officer and

Historic Preservation Officer and have been the guiding forces behind this publication. Anne’s enthusiastic 

support for not only this project but all of the Glenn 

History Office activities is greatly appreciated. Anne 

also graciously serves as the History Office’s public

face so that I can concentrate on research and the

archives. Les has generously supported a number 

of historical preservation projects and has provided

insight and assistance with numerous nonmitigation 

issues. I am grateful for Les’s guidance over the years 

and look forward to continued collaboration with him 

in the future.

This publication would not have been possible without the assistance of fellow Wyle Information Services

employees on the Technical, Information, Administrative and Logistics Services (TIALS) contract. Their 

efforts are deeply appreciated. Nancy O’Bryan, Kelly 

Shankland, and Lorraine Feher once again provided 

excellent copy editing, design/layout, and proofreading for the book. Debbie Demaline helped locate 

documents in the Records Management System, and 

Suzanne Kelly returned hundreds of negatives to 

storage. Mark Grills and Michelle Murphy scanned 

these negatives, while Bridget Caswell and Quentin

Schwinn photographed the facility prior to and during 

its demolition. Don Reams and Caroline Rist provided 

oversight for the project, particularly in its critical final 

stages. 

I thank Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, whose 

previous research contributed significant scholarly 

insights and source material regarding the history of 

the center. I also thank former Garrett Corporation 

engineers Jerry Steele and John Evans for taking such 

a keen interest in my out-of-the blue inquiry regarding 

the ATF3 tests.

Thanks go to Tina Norwood and the anonymous peer 

reviewers who took the time to thoroughly review the 

manuscript and make constructive suggestions that

elevated the quality. The efforts of Steve Garber as the 

liaison for the reviews and coordinator for the printing 

are appreciated, as are the efforts of Bill Barry and Julie 

Ta, all from the NASA History Program Office.

Although it has been several years since I have spoken 

to some of the retired NASA employees noted here, I 

remain grateful for their time and generosity. Thanks 

go to Bob Walker, Howard Wine, Bill Harrison,

Frank Holt, and John Kobak. I particularly thank

Neal Wingenfeld for not only discussing his experiences with me several times, but taking time to thoroughly review the manuscript. 

Most importantly, I thank my wife Sarah and my

family Bob Sr., Gerri, Michele, Dan, Autumn, and 

Kim for their continued love and support throughout the years.

Acknowledgments xiii
.
.
Image 4: An engine is tested in the Engine Propeller Research Building (“Prop House”) on 15 April 1944. The Prop House was the 

first in a long line of engine test facilities at the NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) in Cleveland, Ohio. 

(NASA C–1944–04598)
• 1 •

Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research

Lanky U.S. Army pilot Major Rudolph Schroeder 

guided his Lepere C-11 biplane ever higher over 

Southwestern Ohio on 27 February 1920. As the 

aircraft neared a record-breaking altitude of 31,000 

feet, Schroeder began losing consciousness. The veteran pilot quickly removed his goggles to examine the 

malfunctioning oxygen regulator but was confronted 

with another peril. His eyeballs instantly froze in the 

–63°F air found at the high altitude. Blacking out and

nearly blind, Schroeder put the aircraft into a 300-

mile-per-hour, 6-mile dive. At the very last moment,

Schroeder awoke and regained control. He somehow 

pulled the aircraft out of its plummet and blindly

navigated to the McCook Field airstrip.1

Schroeder’s near-calamity was not the first

time that altitude had affected pilots or aircraft.

Schroeder himself had noted previously that highaltitude flights left him feeling sleepy, tired, cross, and

hungry.2

 Aircraft engines had a similar reaction in the

frigid, oxygen-deprived atmosphere above 10,000

feet. Fuels coagulated, spark plugs developed carbon

deposits, and combustion efficiency decreased. In

general, the climb rate decreased as altitude increased

until the aircraft could climb no more.3

Schroeder’s breathtaking 1920 mission was also

notable because it was the first flight of a turbosupercharger. The innovative technology ushered in 

a new era of high-altitude flight. In 1917 the NACA 

asked General Electric to develop a device to enhance 

high-altitude flying. General Electric developed the 

turbosupercharger in response to a 1917 request 

from the NACA to develop a device to enhance highaltitude flying. The device pushed larger volumes of

air into the engine manifold. The extra oxygen allowed 

the engine to operate at its optimal sea-level rating 

even when at high altitudes. Thus, the aircraft could 

maintain its climb rate, maneuverability, and speed as 

it rose higher into the sky. The technology proved itself 

on Schroeder’s 1920 flight.4

Flying High with Feet on the Ground 

Aeronautical engineers had been exploring methods 

of testing their engines in altitude conditions for several years. It appears that the first altitude testbeds 

were built by German engineers on mountain sides 

at elevations of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. Frequent inclement weather and the relatively low altitudes, however, 

tempered the usefulness of these facilities. The Italian 

manufacturer Fiat advanced the field by creating a sealevel engine testbed that could simulate altitudes up to 

16,000 feet.5

By 1916 Germany’s Zeppelin Aircraft Works had built 

an engine test facility that could simulate the low pressures of altitudes up to 20,000 feet. A valve-regulated 

blower evacuated air from the room, cooling water was 

carefully controlled, and the hot exhaust was removed.6

Image 5: The 6-foot, 3-inch “Shorty” Schroeder stands next to his 

Lepere C-11 biplane, the nation’s first aircraft dedicated solely to 

research. Schroeder broke four altitude records between 1918 and 

1920. The eye injury on the February 1920 flight ended his flying 

career. (U.S. Air Force Museum)

 Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research 3
Pursuit of Power 

An NACA report noted that the altitude facility “is 

the result of long and costly experiments. Considering 

that it would scarcely be worthwhile for the majority 

of aviation engine manufacturers to construct altitude 

benches of their own, though future needs will make it 

urgently advisable to investigate engines with regard to 

altitude requirements, the Zeppelin Dirigible Works 

have offered their vacuum chamber and its measuring 

installation for rent for such purposes.”7

A Call for Nationalization 

Germany, France, Russia, and Britain had established 

publicly funded aeronautical research programs in

the first decades of flight. The resulting cooperation 

between European governments and their research 

institutions helped the European aviation industry 

outpace the Americans. As early as 1911, some in the 

U.S. aviation field were clamoring for a coordinated 

research effort, but at the outset of World War I, the 

nation’s aviation efforts remained unorganized.

On 3 March 1915 Congress decided to act. It was just 

nine weeks before the sinking of the Lusitania, and war 

clouds were gathering over the capitol. The NACA 

was established through a U.S. Navy appropriation to 

remedy the situation. The NACA’s unpaid Executive 

Image 6: William Stratton, Chair of the NACA’s 

Powerplants Committee from 1916 to 1931 at the first 

meeting of the NACA on 23 April 1915. (NASA 

A-6786; image was cropped to just show Stratton)

Committee, consisting of military, industry, university, 

and other aviation experts, did not perform research 

itself but advised existing entities on future research 

trends.8

 One of its board members was William

Stratton, head of the National Bureau of Standards 

(NBS). 

Image 7: The NBS campus in Washington, DC, just 3 miles northwest of the White House. The NBS, founded in 1901, tested 

virtually every imaginable type of technology. In the 1910s and 1920s it investigated almost all components of an aircraft, including 

powerplants. (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

 4
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

The NBS served as the military’s primary research 

laboratory at the time. A torrent of research requests 

flooded into the NBS following the nation’s entry into 

the war in April 1917. No requests were more important than those regarding flight. The United States

was lagging far behind both the Germans and the

Allies in aeronautics. The small fleet of aircraft that the 

United States did possess relied largely on European 

technology.9

The NBS tested aircraft components that involved 

aerodynamics, materials, instrumentation, and most 

importantly, propulsion. Although nearly every element of the U.S. aircraft needed improvement, the

engines and their behavior at altitude required particular attention.

In June 1917 a military board assigned industry

engineers the task of quickly designing a new

American aircraft engine, the Liberty. Just one month 

later the NBS commenced several months of testing

of 8- and 12-cylinder Liberty engines. The Liberty-12 

was the nation’s first standardized and mass-produced

aircraft engine, the first to use a turbosupercharger, 

and America’s most important contribution to World 

War I aviation.10 

Low-Pressure System

Special emergency wartime funding in April 1917 

permitted the expansion of the staff and facilities at 

the NBS’s Washington, DC, campus. The new facilities included a wind tunnel, a dynamometer, and an 

Altitude Laboratory for operating an aircraft engine in 

simulated altitude conditions.11

Stratton asked Hobart Cutler Dickinson, a refrigeration and insulation specialist, to lead the NBS aircraft 

engine studies and design the new altitude chamber.12 

The basic design of Dickinson’s Altitude Laboratory, 

the nation’s first, was similar to the Zeppelin facility. 

The temperatures and pressures within the chamber, 

however, could be altered to simulate an altitude of 

35,000 feet.13

The 6- by 15-foot facility was designed to handle the 

largest engines currently available. The 1-foot-thick 

reinforced-concrete walls were lined in cork. Doors on 

either side allowed researchers to work on the engine 

between runs. They could view the engine during the 

tests through three windows in each door. 

Image 8: A Liberty-12 engine inside the NBS Altitude Laboratory, which has one of its side doors open. The chamber 

was originally in a temporary stucco building. It was later moved and placed with a second chamber in a permanent brick 

structure named the Dynamotor Laboratory. (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

 Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research 5
Pursuit of Power 

The engine was mounted on a 300-horsepower dynamometer test stand to measure its thrust. A centrifugal 

blower removed the engine’s exhaust and maintained 

the chamber’s low atmospheric pressure. A refrigeration unit cooled the air entering the chamber, and fans 

provided circulation.14

Cables and wires connected the spark, throttle, and

instrumentation devices to an external control

panel. Oil, gasoline, cooling water, and carburetor

air were fed to the engine. This basic concept would

be expanded on at several NACA facilities, including

the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL).15

Producing Results

In December 1917 the NBS commenced a series

of tests of the Liberty engine in its new Altitude

Laboratory. The War Department assigned an NACA 

representative to oversee the project. The Liberty-8

engine gave out several weeks later after just seven

problematic runs at a simulated 25,000 feet. It was

replaced in late January 1918 by a Hispano-Suiza

engine. In just one week, the Suiza was run almost

1,000 times at altitudes up to 30,000 feet. The NBS

thus completed the nation’s first comprehensive set of

observations of a functioning aircraft engine in simulated altitude conditions.16

The Altitude Laboratory continued testing throughout 

the year on the Liberty-12 and additional HispanoSuiza engines. The altitude investigations of the 1920s 

demonstrated the performance of the carburetor, 

compressors, radiator, fuels, oils, and superchargers at 

higher altitudes. It was also the first time that different 

types of gasoline were analyzed for their performance. 

The NBS studies provided basic understanding of the 

engine performance at high altitudes.17-20

The NACA established its own research laboratory 

at Langley, Virginia, in 1919; but the NBS continued 

to oversee almost all U.S. aircraft engine research. The 

NACA created a Powerplants Committee, chaired by 

Stratton from 1916 to 1931, to address propulsion 

concerns, but the NACA performed comparatively 

little engine research. 

As aircraft engines grew more powerful, there was an 

increased need to study them in altitude conditions. 

The NBS’s Altitude Laboratory yielded excellent

results, but newer engines were exceeding its

capabilities. The development of turbosuperchargers 

in the early 1920s only increased the need for better 

altitude test facilities. Again the Europeans led the way.

Barometer of the Future 

In 1933 the Germans created a test facility at BerlinAldershof capable of partially simulating altitudes 

of 62,000 feet with independently controlled temperature and pressure. A second German facility at

Rechlin could create a pressure altitude of 59,000 feet. 

A unique refrigeration method autonomously reduced 

the inlet temperature to –60°C.21

NACA Executive Committee members Charles

Lindbergh and John Jay Ide resided in Europe during 

the interwar years and reported on Germany’s technological advances. In the mid-1930s George Lewis, the 

NACA’s Director of Aeronautical Research, toured 

German research laboratories several times. Lewis 

was amazed at the size and complexity of the research 

agencies, which, unlike the NACA, focused on aircraft 

engines as well as aerodynamics. He noted one facility that was able to test water and air-cooled engines

under simulated altitude conditions. The intake air 

and exhaust were kept at pressure and temperature 

levels that corresponded to the altitude conditions.22

The German technological advances were coupled 

with political blustering and militarization. George 

Lewis noted, “Everything in Germany is considered 

first from the military point of view.”23 He and his

fellow NACA Executive Committee members realized that the United States needed to quickly expand 

its own aeronautical research efforts. In response to the 

NACA’s recommendation, Congress authorized the 

creation of a new NACA lab at Sunnyvale, California,b

in 1939 to study aspects of high-speed flight. Almost 

immediately thereafter, it approved a third laboratory to concentrate entirely on aircraft engines and

propulsion. 

b

It was called the NACA Ames Aeronautical Laboratory

until 1958 and the NASA Ames Research Center thereafter. 

 6
 Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research 7

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Construction of this new Aircraft Engine Research 

Laboratoryc

 (AERL) in Cleveland, Ohio, began in 

early 1941. Unbeknownst to the NACA, the Germans 

had flown the first jet aircraft in August 1939, and the 

nature of aviation would be forever changed before the 

AERL was complete.

Engine Studies in Cleveland

Although late to the field of propulsion, the NACA 

soon surpassed not only the NBS but many of the 

foreign research centers. The AERL emerged from 

its construction in 1944 as the nation’s predominant 

c

The Cleveland laboratory began operation in 1942 as the NACA 

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL). In 1947 it was

renamed the NACA Flight Propulsion Laboratory to reflect the

expansion of the research. In September 1948, following the death 

of the NACA’s Director of Aeronautics, George Lewis, the name 

was changed to the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory.

On 1 October 1958, the lab was incorporated into the new NASA 

space agency, and it was renamed the NASA Lewis Research Center. Following John Glenn’s flight on the space shuttle, the center 

name was changed again on 1 March 1999 to the NASA Glenn 

Research Center. 

aircraft engine testing laboratory. Its massive facilities dwarfed the NBS engine facilities. Former AERL 

thermodynamicist, Benjamin Pinkel, told historian 

Virginia Dawson in 1991, “We had one of the best 

[engine] laboratories in the world from the equipment 

standpoint...It was the first one in our country.”24

The AERL’s first major facility to come online was 

the Engine Propeller Research Building, or “Prop 

House,” in May 1942. The Prop House contained four 

24-foot-diameter test stands to test 4,000-horsepower 

piston engines in ambient conditions. Although the 

Prop House yielded some useful data, it was only a 

larger version of test stands located at other research 

laboratories. (For a complete history of the lab, see 

Dawson.25) 

Another facility, the Engine Research Building (ERB), 

contained over 60 smaller test cells and rigs for studying engine components and single cylinders. This 

type of research required only a limited amount of 

Image 9: Crew at work on an Allison V-1710 engine mounted on a dynamotor rig in the east wing of the ERB on 19 March 1943. The building 

had many test cells for studying engine components. (NASA C–1943–01345)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 10: An NACA-designed ramjet engine with afterburner is installed in the AWT on 7 February 1946. To produce the proper settings, 

researchers changed the design so that the conditioned air was ducted directly to the engine’s inlet. (NASA C–1946–14244)

combustion airflow. Both the Prop House and ERB 

were markedly affected by the arrival of the new 

turbojet technology. Former AERL civil engineer

Harold Friedman explained, “Jet engines didn’t come 

in single cylinders. You had to test the whole engine. 

So they needed new air supply and exhaust supply.”26

The AERL’s next major engine testing facility, the

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), was truly revolutionary. The AWT took the concept of the altitude chamber and incorporated the benefits of a wind tunnel. The 

facility could operate full-scale engines in conditions 

that replicated the speed, altitude, and temperature of 

actual flight. The facility included a massive refrigeration system, large exhauster equipment, an air dryer, 

exhaust scoop, and a 20-foot-diameter test section. 

Although designed for piston engines, from its very 

first runs in February 1944, the AWT was adapted to

accommodate turbojets. The key alteration was the 

ducting of the conditioned airflow directly to the

engine inlet.27

It soon became apparent that altitude affected jet

engines even more than piston engines. Pinkel

explained, “We had to have a way to test these engines 

at high speeds and at high altitudes on the ground

because it made a big difference in their performance, 

particularly with regard to the performance of the 

combustion chamber, because they had a tendency to 

blow out (flameout) at high altitudes. When they blew 

out, it was serious because restarting in the thin air of 

high altitudes could be difficult.”28

The AWT was the most advanced engine testing

facility in the nation and an indispensable tool for 

the new technology. The massive influx of requests to 

 8
 Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research 9

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 11: One of the two 10-foot-diameter altitude chambers in the Four Burner Area in the ERB on 31 January 1956. The facility served as the 

bridge between the AWT and PSL. (NASA C–1947–19780)

study different turbojet engines in the AWT resulted

in an 8- to 12-month backlog following World

War II. To alleviate this problem, a new facility,

referred to as the “Four Burner Area,” was constructed

inside the ERB. The Four Burner Area contained two 

10-foot-diameter test cells in which full-scale engines 

could be run at simulated altitudes of 50,000 feet.29

The facility engineers forewent the wind tunnel

design in favor of test chambers. This meant that the 

researchers would not be able to study the engine’s

integration with the wing or nacelle. The chamber

design was more efficient for engine testing, however.

Pinkel explained, “A wind tunnel is awfully expensive 

and costly to run. The wind tunnels handled much 

more air than was needed for the engine. [In contrast,] 

the altitude chambers restricted their power expenditure to just the air needed by the engine being tested.”30 

Although only one cell could be run at a time, the 

two chambers in the Four Burner Area allowed

two engines to be installed concurrently. When it

became operational in 1947, the Four Burner Area

not only eased the AWT’s burden, but its compressors increased the capabilities of the AERL’s overall 

central-air-handling system.31

Pulling Ahead

NACA researchers used the Four Burner Area altitude 

tanks extensively during the late 1940s and 1950s to 

study early generations of the turbojet. However, the 

size and capabilities of jet engines had increased dramatically since NACA engineers first began designing 

the facility in 1945.

The early turbojets handled only 25 pounds of air per 

second and produced 1,500 pounds of thrust. By the 
Pursuit of Power 

early 1950s engines were handling over 100 pounds 

of air per second and generating over 6,000 pounds 

of thrust. The new 10,000-pound-thrust engines were 

just around the corner.32

Almost immediately after the Four Burner Area chambers began operating in 1947, the NACA’s Cleveland 

laboratory undertook an effort to upgrade its airhandling systems and construct a new and even

larger altitude test facility to accommodate these

ever-growing engines. The new altitude facility was 

originally referred to as the “Propulsion Science

Laboratory” but would soon become the “Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory (PSL).”

Former PSL Crew Chief Bob Walker remembered, 

“We had the [Four Burner Area] test cells at Lewis 

that were pretty modern and they performed a lot of 

good work, but they were under capacity for the kind 

of jet engines and airflows that were required. So the 

PSL No.  1 and 2 was the big step at that particular 

time.”33

In fact, PSL’s strong capabilities eventually led to the 

repurposing of the AWT. Howard Wine, another former PSL crew chief, explained, “I think that at the time 

PSL promised the opportunity to get into various jet 

and rocket engines that AWT didn’t have. It wasn’t 

hooked up to the compressors and exhaust system to 

the degree that PSL was, and PSL could handle larger 

engines, larger volumes of flow than AWT.”34

The PSL would be the preeminent facility for full-scale 

engine testing, not only at the NACA’s Cleveland lab 

but in the entire nation. “We were supposed to be the 

propulsion guys,” Walker explained. “We were building 

propulsion facilities, and [PSL] was definitely a propulsion facility.”35

Image 12: General Electric J73 in PSL No. 1 on 16 October 1952. The 14-foot-diameter PSL chambers could test full-scale engines at simulated 

altitudes of up to 70,000 feet. (NASA C–1952–30959)

 10
 Legacy of Aircraft Engine Research 11

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Endnotes for Chapter 1 

1. Robert van Patten, “Pioneers at High Altitude,” 

Air Force Magazine, April 1991. 

2. van Patten, “Pioneers at High Altitude.” 

3. General Electric, “The Turbosupercharger and 

 the Airplane Power Plant” (General Electric Technical 

 Manual TM 1-404, 1943) formatted by Randy Wilson 

 (1997), http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/ 

 geturbo.htm (accessed 15 May 2011). 

4. General Electric, “The Turbosupercharger and the 

 Airplane Power Plant.”

5. Kyrill von Gersdorff, “Aeroengines—Altitude Test 

 Beds,” Aeronautical Research in Germany: From

 Lilienthal Until Today, 147, Ernst-Heinrich Hirschel, 

 Horst Prem, and Gero Madelung, editors (Berlin: 

 Springer-Verlag, 2004). 

6. W.G. Noack, Tests of the Daimler D-Iva Engine at a 

 High Altitude Test Bench (Washington, DC: NACA 

 TN 15, 1920).

7. Noack, Tests of the Daimler D-Iva Engine.

8. Alex Roland, Model Research, Volumes 1 and 2 

 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–1403, 1985), chap. 1.

9. Rexmond Cochrane, Measures for Progress: A 

 History of the National Bureau of Standards 

 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

 1966).

10. Cochrane, Measures for Progress.

11. Cochrane, Measures for Progress.

12. Robert Zarr, “The Testing of Thermal Insulators,” A 

 Century of Excellence in Measurements, Standards, 

 and Technology, A Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST 

 Publications, 1901–2000, David R. Lide, editor 

 (Washington, DC: NIST SP–958, 2001), pp. 10–13.

13. Cochrane, Measures for Progress.

14. “Third Annual Report of the National Advisory 

 Committee for Aeronautics, 1917” (Washington, 

 DC: NACA AR–3, 1918).

15. Hobart C. Dickinson and H. G. Boutell, “The Altitude 

 Laboratory for the Test of Aircraft Engines” (Washing- 

 ton, DC: NACA No. 44, 1920).

16. Dickinson and Boutell, “The Altitude Laboratory 

 for the Test of Aircraft Engines.”

17. Cochrane, Measures for Progress. 

18. Hobart C. Dickinson, “Performance of Aeronautic 

 Engines at High Altitudes,” Third Annual Report of 

 the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 

 1917 (Washington, DC: NACA AR-3 Report 

 No. 23, 1918).

19. NACA, “Fourth Annual Report of the National 

 Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1918” 

 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).

20. Eugene M. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics: 

 An American Chronology of Science and Technology 

 in the Exploration of Space, 1915–1960 (Washington, 

 DC: NASA Headquarters, 1961), pp. 1–11.

21. Kyrill von Gersdorff, “Aeroengines—Altitude Test 

 Beds,” p. 221.

22. George W. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and 

 Russia: September-October 1936,” Historical

 Collection File 11059 (Washington, DC: NASA 

 Headquarters, 1936). 

23. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia. 

24. Benjamin Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

 Virginia Dawson, 4 August 1985, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Oral History Collection,

 Cleveland, OH.

25. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

 Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

26. Harold Friedman interview, Cleveland, OH, 

 2 November 2005, NASA Glenn History Col- 

 lection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

27. Robert S. Arrighi, Revolutionary Atmosphere: The 

 Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the Space 

 Power Chambers (Washington, DC: NASA 

 SP–2010–4319, 2010).

28. Pinkel interview, 1985.

29. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight Propul- 

 sion Laboratory, NACA, Cleveland, Ohio, Engine

 Research Building,” 17 July 1956, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

30. Pinkel interview, 1985.

31. Carlton Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk at Morning 

 Session of First Annual Inspection,” Annual Inspection 

 at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 8–10 

 October 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

32. NACA, “Thirty-Eighth Annual Report of the National 

 Advisory Committee for Aeronautics” (Washington, 

 DC: Government Printing Office, 1954), p. 4.

33. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

34. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 4 September 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

35. Walker interview, 2005.
Image 13: Construction of PSL No. 1 and 2 on 25 January 1951. The two primary coolers for the altitude exhaust are in place within the framework near the center of the photograph. The Shop and Access Building is being built to the left. (NASA C–2009–00180)
• 2 •

The Next Big Thing

Edward “Ray” Sharp, the Director and congenial

father figure of the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion 

Laboratory, was a bit tense as he rode downtown on

3 October 1952 to pick up Congressman Albert 

Thomas at the Hotel Carter. The Texas representative, considered to be “the locus of opposition to the 

[NACA] in the 1950s,” was in town to personally

assess the Cleveland laboratory for waste and duplication of services.1

Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 to reduce federal spending in order 

to fund the Korean War. There was pressure to trim 

the federal deficit and reduce spending on research 

and development. Thomas, Chairman of the Appropriation Subcommittee, had halved the NACA’s 1950 

request for its Unitary Plan wind tunnels, blocked an 

effort to reestablish a European office, and verbally

battled with NACA Chairman Jerome Hunsaker during a 1951 appropriations hearing.2

Early in 1952 Thomas initiated a formal assessment 

of the NACA. A team of young auditors was sent to 

Lewis in September to scour the financial, property, 

and personnel records.3 Now Thomas was in town to 

make a personal inspection of NACA’s Cleveland lab.4

Sharp noted that, upon exiting the vehicle, Thomas 

immediately commented on the cracks in the Administration Building facade.5

 It figured to be a long day.

Once inside, Sharp called upon his brilliant technical 

partner, Abe Silverstein, to assist. Sharp managed the 

lab operations, but Silverstein directed the research

activities. The two confidants fielded the Congressman’s polite, but multitudinous, inquiries as they

explored the lab throughout the morning.6

Image 14: Abe Silverstein (left) and Ray Sharp (right) host a more relaxed tour of the laboratory in 1953. 

(NASA C–1953–34030)

 The Next Big Thing 13
Pursuit of Power 

At the end of the tour, Sharp and Silverstein made a 

point of taking Thomas to their newest facility, the 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), where technicians were preparing for the facility’s very first tests. 

There Silverstein explained the necessity for testing 

full-size engines in simulated altitude conditions, and 

the benefits of remedying problems before the engines 

went into production. Sharp later remarked, “I think 

[Thomas] realized for the first time the potentialities 

of this work since he commented that it was obvious 

that large savings could be made if the engines were 

proven before they were put into production.”7

The cantankerous Congressman left Cleveland with 

a favorable impression. The PSL provided a tangible 

real-world example of how NACA research could

benefit the nation. The lab had a number of unique 

facilities, but the PSL was the latest and most influential. It was an investment that would pay dividends 

for years to come—an investment that had begun five 

years earlier in 1947.

NACA’s Panel of Experts

The performance of jet engines began to increase

dramatically in the years following the end of World 

War II. It was clear that the Cleveland lab would have 

to invest in new engine test facilities to stay ahead of 

the curve. A new “high-use-factor” facility was needed 

for fundamental research on engines for aircraft and 

missiles.8

A Research Facilities Panel was assembled to determine the requirements and infrastructure needed for 

this new engine facility. The panel included several of 

the lab’s most influential leaders: Silverstein, the wind 

tunnel expert; Ben Pinkel, the thermodynamicist;

Oscar Schey, the compressor and turbine authority; John Collins, engine performance specialist; and

Carlton Kemper, the executive engineer.9

NACA engineers knew that they wanted to study 

larger engines in a chamber that could recreate flight 

Image 15: Back row, left to right: Abe Silverstein and Oscar Schey. Middle row, left to right: Benjamin Pinkel, Jesse Hall, and John 

Collins. Ray Sharp is in front of Hall and Collins. Pinkel, Silverstein, Schey, Collins, and Carlton Kemper (not pictured) were members of the Research Facilities Panel. (NASA C–1949–22821)

 14
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 16: Model of PSL No. 1 and 2. The Equipment Building is to the left, and the Shop and Access Building housing the test cells and control 

room is to the right. (NASA C–1954–37139)

conditions, but many questions remained unanswered: 

How powerful would future engines be? Exactly what 

conditions did the facility have to simulate? What

infrastructure and systems would be needed to accomplish the simulation?

The panel convened on 3 November 1947 to discuss 

these issues. Pilot Chuck Yeager had recently broken 

the sound barrier at Muroc Lake, and the Four Burner 

Area was about to begin operation at the Cleveland 

lab. The panel, under Pinkel’s leadership, deemed three 

elements to be necessary: the ability to expand in the 

future, the proximity to electrical supplies, and the 

ability to operate around the clock seven days a week. 

The group was able to establish the broad parameters 

that would guide the design team.10

Congressional Authorization

The NACA had requested more than $12 million for the PSL construction.11 In 1948 Congress

authorized $10 million for the project, including

$3 million for architectural and engineering services.12

It appears that the timing of the budget request was

perfect. If the management at NACA’s Cleveland lab

had delayed even a year or two, the request might have 

been rejected.

As previously mentioned, the lab was entering a difficult phase brought on by the onset of the Korean War 

in June 1950. World War I led to the creation of the 

NACA, and World War II spurred the establishment 

of two new NACA laboratories. The Korean conflict, 

however, resulted in cutbacks across the federal government, including a three-year budgetary regression for 

the NACA. Ninety NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion 

Laboratoryc

 employees were laid off in January 1952, 

and budgets for new facilities and research programs 

were reduced.13 The PSL was largely spared from the 

cutbacks because its funds had been approved before 

the war.

On 20 November 1950 the commercial architects

estimated PSL’s total cost of construction at roughly 

$11.8 million. By far the largest line item was the 

$1.872 million Exhauster System.14

 The Next Big Thing 15
Pursuit of Power 

A two-phase approach was implemented to expedite 

PSL’s construction. The first phase sought to have the 

facility operating by 1 January 1951 in order to test 

existing engines. The second phase would upgrade its 

capabilities to accommodate the larger engines of the 

future. All elements of the design had to be adaptable 

to this future expansion.15

The $10 million Phase I included the combustion air 

supply, altitude exhaust, and process water systems.16 

The PSL was designed to simulate altitudes of 50,000 

feet and to handle engines of up to 15,000 pounds of 

sea-level thrust, which was more thrust than produced 

by any engines available in 1948.17 Phase II would 

increase the combustion air capability to simulate an 

altitude of 80,000 feet and add a refrigeration system. 

Funds for this phase were approved in July 1952 at the 

height of Congressman Thomas’s crusade against the 

NACA.18 PSL’s capabilities were further improved 

over the years.

The Designers

The PSL was composed of three major components: 

a combustion air system, an altitude exhaust system, 

and altitude tank equipment. The basic concept was 

relatively simple. Pinkel explained to historian Virginia 

Dawson, “Well, you start off with a chamber. You logically take a cylindrical shape. You then need enough 

room for the man to work in it. You need a cover that 

opens up. You need to set it up on some sort of stand 

where you can measure thrust of the engine....Then 

you need the compressors and coolers that you need 

to simulate the altitude conditions. In spite of the fact 

that it looks impressive, it is a pretty straightforward 

thing.”19

Eugene Wasielewski was responsible for converting 

Pinkel’s vision for the PSL into engineering specifications. With the assistance of Dan Williams, Bruce 

Lundin, and refrigeration specialist Achille Gelalles, 

Wasielewski was able to accomplish the bulk of PSL’s 

engineering work within five months. Construction 

Administrator James Braig’s staff then provided the 

detailed design work. Once Wasielewski approved, 

the construction specifications were put out for bids.20

Local architectural firm Burns and Roe, Inc., was hired 

to expedite the final design process.21

Despite the overall simplicity of the altitude tank concept, the specifics of the PSL design were complex. 

Burns and Roe worked with NACA Lewis engineers 

to continually modify and update the plans as the project progressed.22 Other specialists were brought in 

to create various components. The compressors were 

designed by the Elliott Company, the exhausters by 

Roots-Connersville Corporation, the primary and secondary coolers by Ross Heater Company, and the two 

altitude chambers by Treadwell Construction.23,24

The struggle to develop a thrust-measuring mechanism for the test sections was one example of the

difficulty of the final design. The original thrust stand 

design was unsatisfactory, but the engineers were

unable to develop an alternative. After much

debate, the existing design was used with several

modifications.25 

Burns and Roe promised to complete the design work 

by May 1950, but difficulties in coordinating the bevy 

of contractors delayed the effort.26 Nonetheless Lewis 

Director Ray Sharp was pleased with the company’s 

work when it concluded in January 1951.27

 16
 The Next Big Thing 17

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Eugene Wasielewski 

Wasielewski arrived at the NACA’s Cleveland lab 

in 1947 and quickly established himself as one of 

the NACA’s central figures of the 1950s. Almost

immediately, he was tasked with the design of the

most powerful altitude tanks in the nation, the PSL.

Afterward he became a leader of the design team for 

the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, the most 

powerful propulsion wind tunnel in the nation.

Wasielewski earned his mechanical and aeronautical

engineering degree (1934) and a masters in engineering mechanics (1935) from the University of

Michigan. Upon graduation, he took a position at

engine manufacturer Allis-Chalmers. By 1937,

however, Wasielewski had joined the NACA at

Langley Field.28 

There Wasielewski and Eastman Jacobs undertook an 

effort to improve General Electric’s supercharger. They 

employed a new type of compressor design—an eightstage axial-flow compressor. Although the axial-flow 

design did not prove practical for the supercharger 

application, it would influence the future design of jet 

engines in the United States.29

Wasielewski left Langley in 1941 for a position at 

Ranger Aircraft Engines. He rejoined the NACA in 

1947 at its Cleveland lab.30 There he was a crucial figure in the design of the lab’s two major projects of the 

1950s—the PSL and the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic 

Wind Tunnel. 

In just a few years Wasielewski was promoted 

to the highest ranks at the NACA Lewis Flight

Propulsion Laboratory. He was named Chief of the

Engine Research Division in 1949, Assistant Chief 

of the Technical Services Division in November 

1952, Chief of the Unitary Plan Activity in 1954, and

Assistant Director of the entire lab in 1955. He

retired the following year.

Wasielewski had left the NACA to design the Altitude Facility at Curtiss-Wright Corporation’s WoodRidge, New Jersey, site. Three years later he was named

Curtiss-Wright’s Chief Engineer. In that role he

helped design additional test facilities and engines.31

In October 1960 Wasielewski returned to government 

service at NASA’s newly established Goddard Space 

Flight Center. Abe Silverstein, Wasielewski’s former 

boss at Lewis, was then serving at NASA Headquarters. Silverstein not only directed all spaceflight

programs but planned the Goddard laboratory and 

served as its first Director. 

Wasielewski came on board shortly thereafter 

and served, until his second retirement in 1967, 

as the principal institutional manager for the new

Director, Harry Goett.32 Wasielewski, his wife

Virginia, and their five children permanently relocated 

to the Washington, DC, area. He passed away in 1972 

at the age of 60.

Image 17: Wasielewski at the opening of the 10- by 10-Foot 

Supersonic Wind Tunnel on 22 May 1956. (NASA C–1956–

42127) 
.
 The Next Big Thing 19

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

•Propulsion Systems Laboratory Rising •

Image 18: These two stands were erected to hold PSL’s two primary coolers on 26 April 1950. Construction at the site had been under way 

for approximately six months at this point. (NASA C–2009–00175)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 19: H.K. Ferguson Company constructs an overhead air pipe for the PSL site in August 1949. The pipe joined PSL’s combustion air 

system with the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) and Engine Research Building. (NASA C–2009–00181)

Image 20: Future site of the PSL as it appeared in October 1949. A process air line is seen being built from the Engine Research Building to 

the PSL site. The AWT is near the upper right corner of this photograph. (NASA C–1949–24972)

 20
 The Next Big Thing 21

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 21: Early phases of construction in late December 1949. The steel structure to the left would support one of the large exhaust coolers. 

The shell of one of the coolers is sitting in the background. By the early spring of 1950, the Shop and Access Building was up, and the massive 

steel stands for the two primary coolers were in place behind. (NASA C–2009–00151)

Image 22: Excavations for the Equipment Building were begun in June 1950. This photograph shows the progress in February 1951 

(NASA C–2009–00183)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 23: Installation of one of the primary coolers in June 1950. When operational, the vertical fins were filled with cooling water that 

removed heat from the exhaust flowing through the fins. The cooling water carried the heat to the cooling tower where it was dissipated. 

(NASA C–2009–00177)

 22
 The Next Big Thing 23

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 24: Early stages of construction of the Shop and Access Building in August 1950. The two altitude chambers and control room would 

be added to the second floor later. (NASA C–2009–00179)

Image 25: This late September 1950 photograph shows the framework for the two primary coolers for the altitude exhaust near the center 

of the photograph. The Shop and Access Building is being built to the right, and excavation for the Equipment Building has begun in the 

background to the left. (NASA C–2009–00184)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 26: A caravan of large steel castings manufactured by the Henry Pratt Company arrived on 5 January 1951 for the PSL altitude 

chambers. The massive pieces were delivered to the area by rail and then loaded on a series of flatbed trucks that transported them to Lewis. 

The nearest vehicle has one of the clamshell access hatches. (C–2009–00173) 

Image 27: The inlet section of one of the PSL altitude chambers is unloaded from a flatbed at the construction site on 5 January 1951. Air 

would enter the tank through an opening on the right side during operation. (NASA C–2009–00171) 

 24
 The Next Big Thing 25

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 28: The Shop and Access Building during construction in May 1951. The two portals on the front would later permit conditioned air 

to be piped into the two altitude chambers inside. (NASA C–2009–00195) 

Image 29: Construction of the PSL Equipment Building viewed from the north in July 1951. This structure housed the exhausters and 

compressors. (NASA C–2009–00166) 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 30: Elliott Company compressors being installed in the Equipment Building during April 1952. The Roots-Connersville exhausters 

can be seen on the far side of the room near the top of the photograph. (NASA C–1952–29500) 

 26
 The Next Big Thing 27

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 31: Construction of the gas-fired air heaters outside the Equipment Building on 29 August 1951. (NASA C–2009–00163)

Image 32: Construction of the wooden PSL Cooling Tower in a wooded area across the road from the PSL in September 1949. 

(NASA C–2009–00161)
Pursuit of Power 

Executing the Plans

Wasielewski and James Braig segregated the construction into four areas: electrical and power systems,

mechanical equipment, research and control equipment, and utilities and infrastructure.33

Construction began late in the summer of 1949,

although the design work would stretch out almost 

a year and a half longer. By the summer of 1951 the

structure of the Shop and Access Building was nearly 

complete. The intercooler and air heaters were installed

in August, and work on the Equipment Building

and Circulating Water Pump House progressed over 

the next year. The compressors and exhausters were

installed in the spring of 1952.34–37

The exhaust, compressor, and other systems were calibrated throughout the spring and summer of 1952. 

The airflow and altitude limits had to be determined 

before any actual tests were run. Bob Walker explained, 

“On one end you had the big after-cooler and exhaust 

system...on the other end you had the compressors 

that were blowing the air in the front. You tried to

establish the airflow and altitude that would be necessary for whatever test you wanted to run. We calibrated the whole facility like that.”38

Assembling the Crew

As the construction of the PSL progressed, NACA 

Lewis began making arrangements to staff the facility and integrate it into the lab’s existing framework. 

In July 1951 Lewis’s Engine Research Division was 

restructured to incorporate the new PSL facility. 

The division included Lewis’s top veteran propulsion

experts. Gene Wasielewski was named division chief 

and Bruce Lundin his assistant. Researchers were scattered over several branches. AWT Chief Alfred Young 

was selected to oversee the division’s technical operations at both the AWT and PSL, with assistant Elmo 

Farmer directly responsible for the PSL. The division 

was responsible for initiating the tests and documenting their findings in technical reports.39

Bill Egan’s Test Installations Division was responsible 

for preparing the test equipment, installing it in the 

facility, and sometimes running the actual tests. The 

no-nonsense section head Erwin “Bud” Meilander 

oversaw all of the PSL mechanics and was responsible 

for making the researchers’ visions into a reality in the 

PSL test chambers. Paul Rennick and Carl Betz were 

the day-shift supervisors, and Lyle Dickerhoff was “the 

unseen member” running the tests at night. 

Images 33–35: Left to right: Bud Meilander, Lyle Dickerhoff, and Carl Betz. (NASA C–1966–01760, NASA C–1958–48725, and 

NASA C–1956–42477)

 28
 The Next Big Thing 29

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

In October 1952, almost five years after it was first

envisioned, the PSL was ready to tackle the propulsion problems of the Cold War. It was also ready for

Congressman Thomas’s 3 October visit. The Cold 

War was at the forefront of Thomas’s mind at the time.

During his tour he not only talked about cost savings 

but about the nation’s standing with the Soviet Union. 

He was particularly interested in the field of long-range 

missiles.40 At the PSL, technicians were finalizing the 

setup to study the powerful XRJ47 ramjet for the

Navaho Missile program. 

Image 36: PSL No. 1’s primary cooler as it appeared on 24 September 1952, just after completion. After months of calibration, the PSL was 

about to commence testing. (NASA C–1952–30767)
Pursuit of Power 

Endnotes for Chapter 2 

1. Alex Roland, Model Research, Volumes 1 and 2 

 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–1403, 1985), chap. 11.

2. Roland, Model Research.

3. Eugene Braig, “Memorandum for Files, General 

 Accounting Office Survey and Investigation of the 

 NACA Lewis Laboratory,” 5 November 1952, Glenn 

 History Collection, Dawson Collection, Cleveland, 

 OH.

4. Roland, Model Research.

5. Edward Sharp, “Memorandum for Director, NACA, 

 Visit of Congressman Albert Thomas and Mr. A. H. 

 Skarin, Friday, Oct 3, 1952,” Glenn History Collection, 

 Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

6. Sharp, “Memorandum for Director, ...Visit of 

 Congressman Albert Thomas....”

7. Sharp, “Memorandum for Director, ...Visit of 

 Congressman Albert Thomas....”

8. Carlton Kemper, et al., “Memorandum for Director, 

 Report of the Special Panel Appointed to Study 

 General Requirements of the Propulsion Sciences 

 Laboratory,” 18 March 1948, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

9. “Cleveland—Lewis” organizational list, 30 September 

 1948, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

 OH.

10. “Cleveland—Lewis” organizational list, 1948.

11. Jesse Hall, “Division Chief Staff Conference,” 

 3 November 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

12. “Design Specifications for Architect-Engineer Services 

 for the Propulsion Sciences Laboratory Equipment 

 Building, Project No. 794,” 28 November 1949, NASA

 Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

13. Roland, Model Research.

14. Burns and Roe, Inc., “Estimated Cost of Propulsion 

 Science Laboratory as of November 20, 1950,” NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

15. “Specifications for Furnishing Architect-Engineer 

 Services for the Propulsion Sciences Laboratory 

 Phase I Project No. 794, NACA Lewis Propulsion 

 Research Laboratory,” 5 August 1948, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Test Facilities Collection,

 Cleveland, OH.

16. “Specifications for Furnishing Architect-Engineer 

 Services.”

17. Kemper, et al., “Memorandum for Director, ...Special 

 Panel...Propulsion Sciences Laboratory.”

18. C. S. Moore, “Appendix A, Proposal for Propulsion 

 Sciences Laboratory,” NASA Glenn History Collec- 

 tion, Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

19. Benjamin Pinkel interview, Cleveland, by Virginia 

 Dawson, 4 August 1985, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

20. Edward R. Sharp, “Appointment of Propulsion 

 Sciences Laboratory Project Engineer,” 17 March 1948,

 NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors’ Collec-

 tion, Cleveland, OH.

21. Kemper, et al., “Memorandum for Director, ...Special 

 Panel...Propulsion Sciences Laboratory.”

22. Edward R. Sharp to R.C. Roe, “Contract NAw-5652, 

 Architect Engineer Services for Propulsion Systems 

 Laboratory,” 29 December 1950, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, 

 OH.

23. Burns and Roe, Inc., “Progress Report No. 22 for 

 Propulsion Science Lab Phase I Part II,” 6 October 

 1949, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

24. Burns and Roe, Inc., “Progress Report No. 20 for 

 Propulsion Science Lab Phase I Part II.” 8 September 

 1949, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

25. Burns and Roe, Inc. “Progress Report No. 24 for 

 Propulsion Science Laboratory Phase I Part II,” 

 2 November 1949, NASA Glenn History Collec- 

 tion, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

26. Burns and Roe to Contracting Officer at NACA Lewis 

 Flight Propulsion Laboratory, “Contract NAw-5652, 

 Architect Engineer Services for Propulsion Systems 

 Laboratory,” 15 March 1950, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

27. Sharp to Roe, “Contract NAw-5652.”

28. “Eugene W. Wasielewski Named Associate Director of 

 Goddard Space Flight Center,” Goddard News,

 17 October 1960.

29. James Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the 

 Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Wash- 

 ington, DC: NASA SP–4305, 1987), chap. 8.

30. “Wasielewski Honored at Farewell Party,” Wing Tips 

 (12 September 1966).

31. “Wasielewski Named Associate Director of Goddard 

 Space Flight Center.”

32. “Wasielewski Named Associate Director of Goddard 

 Space Flight Center.”

 30
 The Next Big Thing 31

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

33. Edward R. Sharp to Staff, “Organization and Respon- 

 sibilities of the Staff of Project Engineer, Propulsion 

 Sciences Laboratory,” 14 June 1948, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Test Facilities Collection,

 Cleveland, OH.

34. Burns and Roe, “Progress Report No. 20 for Propul- 

 sion Science Lab Phase I Part II.”

35. “Construction of Propulsion Systems Laboratory 

 (PSL) Shop and Access Building,” May 1951, 

 C–2009–00195. NASA Glenn Imaging Technology 

 Center, Cleveland, OH. (Image 28).

36. “Construction of Cooling Tower for Propulsion

 Systems Laboratory (PSL),” 1950, C–2009–00186, 

 NASA Glenn Imaging Technology Center, Cleveland, 

 OH.

37. “Elliott Company Compressors Being Installed in the 

 Equipment Building,” Apr. 1952, C–1952–29500, 

 NASA Glenn Imaging Technology Center, Cleveland, 

 OH. (Image 30).

38. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

39. Abe Silverstein, memorandum, “Organizational 

 Changes Within the Engine Research Division,” 

 26 July 1951, Glenn History Collection, Directors’ 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

40. Sharp, “Memorandum for Director, ...Visit of 

 Congressman Albert Thomas....”
Image 37: One-tenth-inch to one-foot scale model of the PSL created by Ed Calmer, George Perhala, and Dick Schulke. The 

model, seen here on 19 November 1954, amalgamated all the drawings from various contractors for the first time.1

 This 

model was used in the NACA Lewis 1954 Inspection. A film was created afterward using arrows to demonstrate the airflow 

pattern. (NASA C–1954–37141)
• 3 •

Harnessing PSL’s Muscle

Three spotlights glared down on Martin Saari as he 

stood before 60 of the nation’s most prominent aerospace professionals and a forest of missile and turbojet 

models. The group listened intently as the propulsion 

research veteran explained the importance of full-scale 

engine testing—engine components may seem to

operate flawlessly on their own, but they can manifest 

problems when integrated with other engine components. Saari then described the direct-connect and 

free-jet methods used to study full-scale engine systems: “The newest and largest facility in which these 

two techniques are used is the Propulsion Systems 

Laboratory [PSL] in which you are now seated,” he 

explained as he strode across the stage to a mounted 

model of the facility.2

The crowd, seated between the two open test chambers, took note as Saari indicated the chambers on the 

cutaway model. The PSL was the state of the art—

the most advanced facility in the nation for studying 

full-scale engine systems, and the NACA’s Triennial

Inspection in June 1954 was the first time that the

larger aerospace community was seeing it. Every year, 

one of the three NACA labs opened its doors to

industry representatives and the military for an

“Inspection.” It was the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory’s turn in 1954, and the visitors were 

eager to hear how the unique new facility worked.

PSL’s immense air-handling system differentiated the 

PSL from other altitude facilities like the Altitude 

Wind Tunnel. Moving his pointer to a second, larger 

Image 38: Seymour Himmel at the PSL display for the NACA Inspection at Lewis on 17 June 1954. The previous speakers, Martin Saari 

and Bill Conrad, had explained how the PSL worked using the facility model hanging in the upper left corner of this photograph. 

(NASA C–1954–36018)

 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 33
Pursuit of Power 

Image 39: Layout of the 1954 Inspection presentation held between the PSL’s two test chambers. The display ran between the two test 3 sections with rows of chairs in front. The control room to the left was behind the display. (NASA)

building on the model, Saari explained, “All of this 

remaining equipment is used to provide the proper 

environment for the test engines. The air is delivered 

at high pressure by several compressors located in this 

Equipment Building. Also located in this building are 

air driers, refrigeration turbine and air heaters. The 

low pressure in the test chamber required for altitude 

simulation is provided by several large suction pumps 

or exhausters in this building.”4

The visitors could not view the control room, which 

was behind the stage, but the chambers had their 

hatches open so that the engines, thrust stands, and 

extensive instrumentation were on display. 

During the tests, the engines generated large quantities of high-temperature gases that had to be mitigated. Saari pointed to the two massive cylinders

behind the test chambers and explained, “The extremely

hot exhaust gases from the engine are cooled by these 

large coolers before passing into the exhausters.”5

In just a few sentences, Saari had explained how the 

nation’s most modern engine research facility was run. 

Of course, there was more to conducting a test than 

just powering up the facility.

Making Research a Reality

Conducting a test program required a great deal of 

coordination between the researchers, the mechanics, the technicians, and the technical engineers. There 

were a few rivalries between some of the groups, but 

they were friendly on a personal basis and dedicated to 

making the test program succeed.

The research divisions generally consisted of different specialized branches of researchers with a separate

operations branch for test and electrical engineers. The 

research engineers would work with the test engineers 

to determine the overall objectives for the test. The

researchers would tell the test engineers what controls, 

set points, and instrumentation they wanted. The 

test engineers would design the test plan, work with 

 34
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 40: Layout of PSL No. 1 and 2. The Shop and Access Building is at the front left, and the Equipment Building is behind to the right. 

Arrows indicate the airflow. (2009; NASA CD–09–83168)

 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 35
Pursuit of Power 

the technicians and electricians to install it, and verify

that it worked properly.6

The mechanics, electricians, and electronics technicians from the Test Installation Division were responsible for maintaining the facility and installing the 

equipment for the tests. The mechanics had their own 

supervisors within the Test Installations Division, but 

they worked closely with the research divisions. 

“It’s one of the strange things about the setup of the 

lab here,” Neal Wingenfeld recalled. “They work with 

us [research engineers] all day long, these technicians. 

We told them what to do. When they had technical 

difficulties they came to us. Their supervisor came 

around and checked on them. Told them how much 

sick leave and annual leave they had. They filled out 

their time sheets, and gave them their safety talks, 

but other than that, they worked for us. So we called 

ourselves their technical supervisors, and actually

99 percent of the time we told them what to do. We set 

up their schedules, we gave them their workloads, we 

supplied their Kleenex, their tools, and their technical 

help, and trained them.”7

The test engineers were also responsible for managing 

and running the actual tests. For each day of testing, 

the test engineer had to coordinate with the mechanics and technicians, the lab’s data acquisition team,

the operators in the Equipment Building, the electric company engineers, those responsible for the fuel

supply, and any representatives from the engine

manufacturer.8

The tests were run overnight, so many times the

researchers were not present. Thus the mechanics and 

test engineers often had a much better understanding of the tests than did the researchers, who were

debriefed first thing in the morning.

“Well, some of the documents could be somewhat 

misleading,” explained Howard Wine. “You had many, 

many instances where the engineers [would] come in 

with a proposal to run some tests that night and they 

didn’t get the results they wanted for one reason or

another, and they say, ‘well, we’ve got to change this 

now, through this nozzle-area or do something.’...

And we [mechanics] would always say, ‘well, why

don’t you go back to the office and come back at five

and maybe we’ll come up with something.’ So they 

would go back to their office, and we would start 

getting the hammers and cutting torches and welding machines and everything cranked up and make 

the modifications. And they would come back and 

say, ‘that’s great, now wait a minute, let me copy that 

down so I [can] put that on the drawing.’ You know so

sometimes the drawing came after the fact.” 9

 36
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 37

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

• Conducting a Test at the Propulsion Systems Laboratory •

 •

Image 41: Research engineers, such as Martin Saari (on the left), responded to requests submitted to the NACA by the military 

or engine manufacturers by developing a suite of tests for the particular engine. The engineers then determined the proper test 

facility to conduct the investigations. In the 1950s, Lewis had three facilities for conducting full-scale engine tests, but by the 

1960s, the PSL had become the only facility in the Agency capable of performing this type of work. (NASA C–1957–45797)

Image 42: The Test Installations Division would review the researcher’s request, coordinate with the manufacturer to obtain 

the engine and equipment, and fit the test into the facility’s schedule. The engine would then be shipped to the facility and 

instrumented for the test in the first-floor shop area, seen here. Thermocouples, pressure rakes, and other measurement equipment were prepared in the first-floor Instrument Shop. (NASA C–1967–01582)
Pursuit of Power 

 38

Image 43: An overhead crane transported the engine to the second floor where final preparations were made before it was placed into one of 

the two chambers through the chamber’s large clamshell hatch. (NASA C–1955–40070)

Image 44: Test engineers and mechanics installed the engine and altered the configuration for the particular type of test. This required coordination between the researcher, facilities engineers, and technicians. (NASA C–1957–45798)
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 39

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Images 45–46: The PSL could be configured in either a direct-connect or free-jet mode. Left: The direct-connect was the simplest way 

of studying the internal performance of the engine. The engine was mounted on the thrust stand with the airflow connected directly to 

the engine inlet. (NASA C–1955–40235) Right: The free-jet setup was more beneficial because the entire engine system, including 

the inlet duct, could be studied. A nozzle was used to create a supersonic jet of air that enveloped the engine inlet in supersonic altitude 

air. (NASA C–1954–36894)

Image 47: To obtain useful data from the tests, technicians and electricians had to place instrumentation in both the engine and the 

test chamber. It could take weeks or even months to install the multitude of thermocouples, rakes, and other instruments. Sometimes 

each compressor stage had to have its own readings. The engine itself was atop a thrust stand that measured the thrust and drag. In 

this photograph, mechanics check the instrumentation on a J85 turbojet on 19 August 1977. (NASA C–1977–03128)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 48: Cutaway of the second floor of the Shop and Access Building where the technical staff spent most of its time. The test chambers, control room, and tool crib were located in the area. (NASA 8090EL)

Image 49: The first and second shift worked with the research engineers to repair any damage from the previous night’s test, make 

modifications to the setup, and prepare for the next test runs. The mechanics frequently rectified problems with the test program. 

(NASA C–1953–33436) 

 40
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 41

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 50: The third shift would come in overnight to actually run the tests. The facility required so much electricity that the NACA 

had an agreement with the local electric company to operate the facility only at night. Many of the researchers did not care for the 

late-night testing and sought out operational engineers to run the tests. (NASA C–1952–30766)

Image 51: “PSL 1 and 2 had lots and lots of pipes and big valves,” remembered Howard Wine. “It could take you about an hour 

just to check the facility out every night prior to running to make sure the valves were all [in the] right sequence....You checked 

everything, climbed the ladders up to the top, and [made] sure the flow-out disks were all in place and so forth. So it was quite an 

operation we went through running the facility here.”10 (NASA C–1952–30768)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 52: Once the large clamshell lid was closed and the chamber was sealed, the altitude conditions were introduced, and the engine 

was ignited. This 2008 photograph shows PSL No. 1 with the lid closed. The large gear wheels behind the closed lid raised the large lid 

mechanically. (NASA C–2008–04129)

Image 53: Facility engineers in the Equipment Building coordinated with the electric company and the main air-handling control room 

in the Engine Research Building (ERB) basement. The equipment was linked to Lewis’s central air system, which allowed the PSL 

system to augment the compressors in other test facilities. Slowly the facility engineers began bringing all the air-handling systems online. 

(NASA C–1953–31863)

 42
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 43

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 54: These 16,500-horsepower Elliott Company compressors in the Equipment Building, seen on 7 May 1954, supplied high-speed air 

to the PSL altitude chamber to simulate flight speeds. (NASA C–1954–35700)

Image 55: After passing through temperature-adjusting equipment, the combustion airflow was pumped through a pipe to one of the test 

chambers on the second floor of the Shop and Access Building, seen here on 3 February 1953. In 1957 a two-story shop section was added to 

the front of the building. The pipes remained but were not visible on the exterior. (NASA C–1953–31941)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 56: Depending on the type of test being run, the airflow into the engine would have to be either heated or refrigerated. Ramjets 

operated at supersonic speeds and needed to be tested in hot conditions to simulate the heat generated by their velocity. Ambient air 

was taken into these two heaters and passed through natural-gas-heated vertical tubes. Each heater warmed 125 pounds of air per 

second degree Fahrenheit.11 (NASA C–1952–30936)

Image 57: Jet engines traveling at subsonic speeds had to be tested in cold conditions to simulate the high-altitude air temperature. The 

air flowed upward through a vertical tank and over cascade trays cooled with cooling tower water and then with Freon-chilled water 

supplied by the compressors shown in this 21 July 1953 photograph. The air at high altitudes is also very dry, so after the air was 

cooled, as it made its way to the test section, the airflow passed through an air dryer with 190,000 pounds of activated alumina that 

absorbed moisture.12 (NASA C–1953–3228)

 44
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 45

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 58: The PSL’s two 100-foot-long altitude chambers ran parallel to one another inside the Shop and Access Building. Each 

chamber comprised three sections: the inlet section, test section, and exhaust section. An engine platform inside the test section held the 

engine and measured its thrust loads and drag. (NACA RM E53I08, figure 3, 1954)

Image 59: Overall view of PSL No. 2 on 16 October 1952. Vanes in the section to the right straightened the airflow as it entered. The 

flow was accelerated to supersonic speeds through a bellmouth cowl in the bulkhead then passed through the engine in the test section. 

The engine’s exhaust was ejected to the left into a cooler outside of the building. (NASA C–1952–30962) 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 60: Howard Wine (on the left) monitors temperature readings on 26 July 1957. From these control panels, operators could 

run an engine in PSL No. 2 at various speeds and adjust the altitude conditions to the desired levels. The center station controlled 

the engine, and the controls at the right monitored the air-handling and altitude systems. (NASA C–1957–45647)

Image 61: PSL Crew Chief Bob Walker at the control board (foreground) on 9 June 1954. Banks of manometer boards are set 

up in the rear of the room. Cameras on pedestals photographed the manometers to record the different dynamic pressure readings 

for later analysis. Obtaining the desired test conditions could be a difficult process; once they were achieved, the operators would 

continue running the test as long as possible.13 (NASA C–1954–35900)

 46
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 47

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 62: The control room was located between the PSL No. 1 and 2 chambers on the second floor of the Shop and Access 

Building. The chambers were located just through the doors shown in this 12 April 1973 photograph. The control room remained 

relatively quiet during the tests despite the large engines running just outside its doors. (NASA C–1973–01519)

Image 63: Entrance to the control room. In the foreground, an operations engineer inspects the setup for an engine test in PSL No. 2. 

Former electrical engineer Neal Wingenfeld recalled how surprisingly quiet it was, “Even though we were sitting only fifty feet from 

the actual engine you didn’t hear it...not the engine running.”14 (NASA C–1963–63291)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 64: The large Roots-Connersville exhauster equipment thinned the air in the test chambers to simulate high altitudes, and 

it removed hot gases generated by the test engines. “All that equipment you see in the PSL Equipment Building, every one of those 

exhausters was running. If you really needed it they had a tie line to the ERB, and they would start everything in the ERB basement,” 

remembered Walker.15 The No. 43 exhauster is being repaired in this 6 January 1959 photograph. (NASA C–1959–49428)

Image 65: An equipment operator examines an exhauster on 15 August 1963. The original configuration could remove the gases at 

a rate of 100 pounds per second when the simulated altitude was 50,000 feet. Each of the thirteen 5,100-horsepower exhauster units 

contained two J33 compressor wheels that could be adapted to work in tandem or parallel. The number of units used could be varied 

to control the power load.16 (NASA C–1963–65822)

 48
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 49

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 66: Each test chamber had a large primary cooler to reduce the temperature of the extremely hot engine exhaust before the 

air reached the exhauster equipment. The airflow exited the test section, passed through the chamber’s 37-foot-long exhaust section, 

and then entered the cooler. PSL No. 2’s primary cooler is seen here on 24 September 1952. (NASA C–1952–30771)

Image 67: Narrow fins or vanes inside the cooler were filled with water. As the 1,000°F to 2,000°F airflow passed between the 

vanes, heat was transferred from the air to the cooling water. The cooling water was cycled out of the system, carrying with it much 

of the exhaust heat. This photograph shows the vanes inside PSL No. 2’s cooler on 20 January 1959. (NASA C–1959–49583)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 68: The airflow was then pumped through a secondary cooler, seen here on 8 October 1952. This secondary cooler cooled 

and scrubbed the exhaust gases from both test chambers to reduce explosion hazards before the gases were pumped through the 

exhausters in the Equipment Building and expelled into the atmosphere.17 (NASA C–1952–30937)

Image 69: The cooling water for the primary and secondary coolers was circulated by the Circulating Water Pump House located 

across the street. The pump house, seen here in the foreground on 8 October 1952, contained the large water pumps and watersoftening units. The water carrying the heat was sprayed down into the large, adjacent cooling tower. Roof fans in the wooden tower 

ceiling exhausted the hot air out as the water was diffused into the pools at the bottom. (NASA C–1952–30938) 

 50
 Harnessing PSL’s Muscle 51

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Endnotes for Chapter 3 

1. “PSL Model Now on Display in Cafeteria, ” Wing Tips 

 (23 February 1951).

2. M. J. Krasnican, et al., “Propulsion Research for 

 Hypersonic Flight,” NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion 

 Laboratory Inspection October 7–10, 1957. NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Inspections Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH, p. 4.

3. E. W. Conrad and Martin Saari, Jr., “Full-Scale Engine 

 Research, Part I—Research Techniques and Facilities,” 

 NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory Inspec- 

 tion, 1954, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

4. Conrad and Saari, “Full-Scale Engine Research, Part I .”

5. Conrad and Saari, “Full-Scale Engine Research, Part I.”

6. Neal Wingenfeld interview, Cleveland, OH, 15 Septem-

 ber 2008, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

 Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

7. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

8. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

9. Howard Wine interview, 4 September 2005, NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

10. Wine interview, 2005.

11. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight Propul- 

 sion Laboratory, NACA Cleveland, Ohio, Engine

 Research Building,” 17 July 1956, NASA Glenn 

 History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

12. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight 

 Propulsion Laboratory.”

13. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

14. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

15. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

16. C. S. Moore, “Appendix A, Proposal for Propulsion 

 Sciences Laboratory,” NASA Glenn History Collection, 

 Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH, p. 7.

17. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight 

 Propulsion Laboratory.”
Image 70: An NACA Lewis researcher examines the massive General Electric J79 turbojet engine on 21 June 1956. One of the engine’s applications was the Convair B-58 Hustler, the first operational supersonic jet bomber. (C–1956–42401)
• 4 •

Cold War Weapons

Carlton Kemper, executive engineer of the NACA 

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) in 

Clevelandc boarded a DC-4 on 18 April 1945 and 

emerged in Europe at the dawn of the Cold War.1 It 

was the eve of the bloody assault on Berlin, but the

Allies were already fighting a new internal political 

battle, a battle for German technology. 

The U.S. government initiated the secret Alsos Mission in 1943 to determine the extent of Germany’s 

atomic weapon development program. In February 

1945, the mission was expanded to assess advances in 

German technology of all types. With the fall of Berlin 

in sight, the United States and the Soviet Union raced 

to appropriate German expertise and intelligence for 

their own use.2

The effort, renamed Operation Paperclip, famously led 

to the capture and expatriation of German rocket scientists to the United States. What is less known is that 

a new team under the code name Operation LUSTY 

commenced work on 22 April 1945 to secure as 

much information and hardware as possible regarding

German aircraft development for the U.S. Office of 

Scientific Research and Development.3

The operation included a contingent from the 

NACA, including Kemper from NACA’s AERL and

Russell Robinson, Henry Reid, and William Ebert 

from NACA’s Langley Field. The mission proceeded 

in jeeps across the war-torn fields of France and into 

Germany in the wake of advancing Allied forces. The 

NACA team inspected secret laboratories, interrogated scientists, and seized troves of documents.

Kemper concentrated his efforts on propulsion issues

and engine test facilities. Another group collected aircraft and equipment for shipment back to the United

States. At one laboratory, the NACA team found

records hidden in a remote well.4

Two German aerospace advances were of particular importance: the axial-flow turbojet engine and 

the guided missile. The Germans had three types of

turbojets, two rockets, and a pulse-jet aircraft in operation during the war.5

 The United States had acquired 

an early centrifugal turbojet from the British in 1942 

and integrated it into a Bell airframe, but as a 1945 

Alsos report stated, the United States was “very much 

behind the Nazis.”6

Kemper was also impressed by German test facilities for turbojets. Several projects under construction 

would have surpassed the AERL’s capabilities. Upon 

his return to the Cleveland lab in October 1945,

Kemper warned, “Unless maximum use of our research 

equipment is made and unless we continue to expand 

our research facilities, when necessary, our present lead 

may be lost.”7

The AERL began studying axial-flow and ramjet

engines in 1945. Studies on rocket fuels and engine 

components began shortly thereafter. Although late 

Image 71: Carlton Kemper was the AERL Executive 

Engineer when he left for six months on the Alsos 

Mission. The NACA capitalized on the wealth of 

information obtained during the mission, but it cost 

Kemper personally. Others, including Abe Silverstein 

and Addison Rothrock, stepped up during the transitional period, and Kemper’s position became largely 

honorary. (NASA C–1943–01297) 

 Cold War Weapons 53
Pursuit of Power 

to these fields, the lab’s contributions helped U.S. 

development progress rapidly in the late 1940s. Yet,

Kemper’s words remained fresh in everyone’s minds. 

The lab embarked upon a nearly 20-year period of

almost constant expansion and development that had 

its roots at the very inception of the Cold War. The 

creation of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) 

and its studies during the 1950s vividly reflect this 

situation. 

The Nuclear Navaho

As World War II came to its final shuddering end in 

August 1945, the military created the requirements 

for a postwar missile program to deliver nuclear warheads. Industry was invited to bid on the program in 

late October. The following spring, the U.S. Air Force

accepted North American Aviation’s proposal to

develop a reusable, winged, supersonic surface-tosurface long-range cruise missile. The weapon, known 

as Weapon System 104A, or the Navaho, added

wings and improved rocket engines to the basic

German V-2 rocket. The proposed 3,000-mile range 

was not sufficient for intercontinental travel, but it was 

more than adequate to hit Moscow from Britain or 

West Germany. The mysterious Navaho would prove 

to be a significant link between supersonic aircraft and 

rocketed space vehicles.8

The Navaho was a two-stage vehicle that relied on 

liquid-propellant rocket engines to boost it to altitude 

and two large ramjets to power it to its destination. Its 

unique navigation system allowed the missile to return 

to its base and land. 

North American Aviation concentrated initially on 

the rocket engines for the booster. In his article, “The 

Navaho Inheritance,”9

 Russ Murray refers to North 

American’s factory near Los Angeles as “America’s 

Peenemunde.”d He adds that North American’s

redesign of the liquid rocket propulsion system

between 1948 and 1950 even superseded the German 

wartime development and provided the direction for 

the future progress on rocket engines for space. By 

1950 this technology, along with the rapid advances in

guidance and other subsytems, was integrated into the

new Navaho missile.10

The program was broken into three phases with

increasing ranges and propulsion systems: the 500-

mile X-10 test vehicle powered by two Westinghouse 

J40 turbojets; the 1,500-mile G-26, or Navaho II,

with two Wright XRJ47W5 ramjets; and the final 

68-foot-long, 3,000-mile-range G-38 with two more 

powerful XRJ47-W-7 ramjets.11

Image 72: North American Aviation’s Navaho Missile was an early 

attempt at a long-range cruise missile. (NASA C–1956–43440) 

Navaho’s 48-Inch-Diameter Powerplants

As work on the rocket engines for the booster progressed, North American contracted Curtiss-Wright’s 

Wright Aeronautical Division in October 1950 to

create the two powerful XRJ47 ramjets for the actual 

missile. 

Ramjets were “just a big ugly tube that looked like

an old afterburner,” according to Bob Walker.12 They 

are, indeed, among the simplest type of propulsion 

devices. Like other airbreathing engines, they were 

powered by combustion gases that were heated to 

high temperatures under pressure then exhausted. The 

ramjet’s straightforwardness led to its efficiency. It was

basically a tube with no moving parts. Fixed grated

devices, referred to as “flameholders,” produced a

constant ignition source for the air passing through 

d

Peenemunde was the secret German rocket facility where

Wernher von Braun and his associates created the V-1 and V-2 

missiles in the early 1940s. 

 54
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

the ramjet. The downside was that ramjets could only 

be ignited at high speeds. This meant that they had 

to either be launched from an aircraft or with booster

engines.13

The Navaho’s 30,000 pounds of cruising thrust was 

provided by two 48-inch-diameter ramjets that Flight 

magazine claimed were “the most powerful airbreathing engine[s] yet made.”14 It is somewhat curious that 

Wright Aeronautical was contracted to develop these 

behemoths. Wright had been out of the nation’s initial efforts in the early 1940s to develop turbojets so 

as to not inhibit the company’s production of large 

reciprocating engines during World War II. After the 

war, Wright struggled to join the jet engine field with 

its J65 and compound engines but would give up its

efforts by 1959.15

North American provided Wright with the specifications for the XRJ47 in July 1951. The engines were 

among the largest ever attempted, so it was not surprising that they were fraught with problems. Wright 

constructed an altitude test stand at its Wood-Ridge

facility in 1949 specifically for ramjets, but its

capability was limited.16 In 1951 the military solicited 

the assistance of the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion

Laboratory in Cleveland and its brand new PSL

facility. The project was classified 1-A, “An item

designed to meet a potential threat against this nation, 

the lack of which would result in a national destruction and disaster in the event of war.”17

PSL test engineers and mechanics began installing the 

XRJ47-W-5 for the G-26 in PSL No. 2 as the facility began its calibration tests in the spring of 1952. 

The Engine Research Division’s massive, multifaceted 

XRJ47 test program formally began in October and 

lasted five years. The studies addressed specific XRJ47 

performance issues, general ramjet concerns, and the 

advantages of different fuel types. The engine was

tested in conditions that simulated the highaltitude cruising portion of its flight using both

direct-connect and free-jet setups. The focus was on 

different elements of the combustion process.

Walker remembered being impressed, “It was designed 

to light at about [Mach] 1.6 or 1.8, something like 

that. And then it was designed to travel at Mach 3, 

which, we’re talking 1950s here. It was pretty far out 

at that time.”18

Image 73: The Navaho X-10 vehicle shown in this 1954 photograph was flight powered by two Westinghouse 

turbojets. The larger G-26 and G-38 versions would use the Wright ramjets for flight. (NASA M–9142273)

 Cold War Weapons 55
Pursuit of Power 

Bob Walker

Walker was an ardent aircraft model maker while

attending high school in the mid-1940s. Local aviation 

writer Charles Tracy had noted one of Walker’s model 

competition victories in his weekly newspaper column.

Upon graduation in 1948, Walker was hired into

Republic Steel’s metrology lab. One of his classmates, 

however, was hired into the wood shop at the NACA 

Lewis lab. The classmate was getting paid to build the 

models, the very thing he enjoyed. When Walker heard 

about all the work being carried out on jet engines, he 

decided to send the NACA an application with a copy 

of Charles Tracy’s article.

Lewis Director Ray Sharp appreciated the potential of 

young untrained model builders and had an established 

tradition of hiring them into the lab. Walker recalled, 

“I don’t know whether that helped me or not, but at 

any rate, I got a chance to take the test and passed the 

test. I started in May of 1949, May the 16th, 1949.”19

Walker was immediately enrolled in Lewis’s Apprentice Program. The school had been started in the early 

1940s but was suspended during the war. Walker’s 

1949 class was the first since its reinstitution. The 

school taught a variety of trades, and the students were 

assigned 90-day details at various facilities. 

“The object was to work in every facility where a

mechanic would work on the whole lab. In addition to 

that, they included the instrumentation organization, 

so you learned how to make pressure rigs and thermocouples, things you’d be installing and taking apart.

I got a real thrill, a broad education.”20

Once Walker had proven himself, he was asked where 

he would prefer to be assigned. He jumped at the PSL. 

“It was the newest, hottest facility not only at the Lab, 

but probably in the world. It was ahead of all those 

other pressure tank units.... It seemed to me to be a 

good time to get in on the ground floor.”21

Walker spent six months assisting in the initial calibration of the facility when PSL No. 2 Crew Chief Nick 

Ricciardi was drafted into the Korean War. Walker 

received his first promotion. “I wasn’t able to take the 

Image 74: Bob Walker. (NASA C–1953–34978)

job officially because I was still an apprentice, but they 

gave me the job anyway and didn’t pay me the rate.”22

Walker continued as the PSL No. 2 Crew Chief after 

his apprentice class graduated in 1953. Ricciardi later 

returned to the division and enjoyed a lengthy career 

at the lab. 

Walker worked his way up through the Test Installations Division in the 1960s. By 1971 he became head of 

the Electric Propulsion and Environment Test Branch 

and was part of the Advanced Test Satellite program.

By 1973 Walker transferred to the Technical Services 

Directorate, where his career would change dramatically. Over the next decade he oversaw Lewis’s safety 

operations, equipment and supply, and the fabrication 

shop. Walker had risen to the division chief level by the 

time of his retirement in 1983.

 56
 Cold War Weapons 57

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Getting the Damn Engine to Ignite

The initial studies analyzed the combustion performance of a heavy-duty version of the XRJ47 using 

both the direct-connect and free-jet assemblies. The 

efficiency of variations on the combustor’s internal

geometry was investigated. The optimal combustor 

configuration was then installed on a flight-weight

version of the engine and studied in a free jet by Henry 

Welna and Dwight Reilly. They found that the combustion efficiency matched what was found on the 

heavy engine and could be used as a baseline.23

Ramjets produced a tremendous amount of heat. 

Walker remembered, “It would throw out a pillar of 

blue flame, four feet in diameter at the beginning but 

spreading out as it went down the tank, just kind of 

fill that cooler with like a welding beam down through 

there.” 24

This heat threatened to burn up the entire engine, so 

NACA engineers developed a thin corrugated steel 

liner to prevent damage to the engine’s external surfaces. The airflow between the two walls kept the

engine shell from burning out.25 “Occasionally, it didn’t 

work,” Walker added, “and we would be in there patching it up, rewelding the liner, changing the flameholder 

configurations for the fuel bars.”26

Welna and Reilly analyzed three types of cooling liners 

or burner shells. They determined the optimal length, 

type of corrugation, and fasteners. Lewis engineers 

designed a new 0.030-inch-thick corrugated stainless 

steel liner with “hat” sections for extra support where 

the retaining rods held the shell to the engine.27

Welna and Reilly also examined three types of ignition 

using the existing flameholder. The ignition problem 

was a major concern. Walker explained, “Obviously, 

you throw this thing up into the air, one of the main 

things is you want the damn engine to ignite.”28 Welna 

determined that sparkplugs were useless during a previous XRJ47 test. They now tried electrically activated 

flares along the flameholder and the use of two special 

types of fuels. 

“The one I hated the most was the flares,” Walker 

remembered. The mechanics would have to climb 

through the cross-shaped temperature rake at the

Image 75: Damage to an XRJ47-W-5 combustion liner on 21 March 

1955. (NASA C–1955–37979)

exhaust to install the flares inside the 48-inchdiameter engine. “[It was] kind of roomy in there,

but you have the flameholder and then you have [a] 

box of squibs which were like flares with...little electrical exciters that set them off. You would have to

wire these all on to the flameholder and bring the wires 

out and put it on the side.” The test engineer would 

activate the flares to ignite the ramjet at the start of 

the test. “I always worried about one of those suckers

going off while you were inside wiring it onto the

flameholder,” Walker reminisced. “You know, we

didn’t have much option then. It was all live; it was all 

a dream.”29

Welna and Reilly tried different quantities and locations for the flares but concluded that the method was 

unreliable. The earlier tests on the heavy-duty XRJ47 

had similar results. They then investigated the injection of boron triethyl and aluminum triethyl fuels into 

the combustor. Walker described loading a glass vial 
Pursuit of Power 

of one of the fuels into a stainless steel tube that ran 

through the chamber’s view port and into the flameholder. “We loaded it in this tube like a rifle. At the 

appropriate time, we pulled a pin on it, and the vacuum would suck that glass tube down into it.” The vial 

would smash against the flameholder and ignite the 

engine.30 In the end, the injection of aluminum trimethyl into the flameholder’s combustor proved to be 

the only consistent method of igniting the ramjet.31

A wide variety of different flameholder designs were 

studied by other ramjet researchers over the years.

Two variations were analyzed on the XRJ47, an

annular-piloted baffle-type flameholder and an

annular can-type flameholder. Warren Rayle and

Carl Wentworth compared the designs using three 

combustor lengths and presented their results graphically and tabularly.32,33

Welna teamed with Ivan Smith to study the XRJ47-

W-5’s fuel control system. The system used a control 

signal pressure to correct the flow during changes in 

altitude, speed, and angle of attack. An oscillograph 

recorded the step-changes for the fuel flow, inlet pressure, and fuel system pressure.34

Preliminary tests revealed that the XRJ47’s side inlet 

produced flow separation and distorted flow profiles. 

Wright used a small-scale diffuser to develop some 

modifications to combat the distortions. Ivan Smith 

and John Farley tested the technique for the first 

time on a full-scale engine in the PSL during the fall

of 1953 and early 1954. The modifications, which

included a screen at the diffuser outlet and three

arrangements of vortex generators in the diffuser duct,

all improved efficiency. The greatest improvement,

however, was obtained with the 12-stage vortex-generator

configuration.35

Image 76: A view through the bellmouth cowl of the installation of the Wright 48-inch-diameter ramjet on 16 October 1952. The mechanic in the 

background has crawled through the cross-shaped temperature rake to work on the flameholder. (NASA C–1952–30950)

 58
 Cold War Weapons 59

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 77: Researcher Dwight Reilly examines the instrumentation on the XRJ47-W-5 in PSL No. 2 on 14 August 1953. He and Henry 

Welna were key researchers on the XRJ47 program. Reilly temporarily left Lewis in 1956 but returned the following year. In the early 1960s he managed testing and operations for the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office. In 1970 he was named Chief of the Space Power Facility.36

(NASA C–1953–33390) 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 78: Some of the different flameholder and combustor chamber designs for the Wright XRJ47-W-5 tested in the PSL between 1952 and 

1955. The optimal efficiency for each configuration was determined. (NASA C–1954–35354, C–1952–31065, C–1954–36486, C–1952–

31248, C–1955–39035, C–1952–31066, C–1954–36745, C–1952–31064, C–1955–40072, C–1954–35888, C–1956–41467, and 

C–1954–35889)

 60
 Cold War Weapons 61

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Taking Advantage of the Opportunity

Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, the Engine

Research Division was conducting general investigations into the altitude performance of ramjet

engines. Previous tests had been performed on

16- and 28-inch-diameter ramjets in the Altitude 

Wind Tunnel and Four Burner Area. The researchers seized upon the opportunity presented by XRJ47

because of its unprecedented size and the fact that it 

was already installed in PSL No. 2. 

One study sought to determine the most efficient 

method of combustion for long-range cruise missiles. 

It was determined that optimal fuel-air ratios are best 

maintained by confining the fuel injection to a specific portion of the combustor air. Henry Welna and 

Carl Meyer sought to test this procedure on the larger 

XRJ47. They analyzed the technique using two cantype flameholders and one baffle-type flameholder. The 

baffle configuration proved to be the most efficient.37

Warren Rayle, Ivan Smith, and Carl Wentworth

modified the size of the exhaust nozzle of this

combustor configuration to increase its efficiency

from 90 to 100 percent and tested it in a freejet setup. They analyzed performance using three 

combustor lengths and four fuel-distribution systems. They determined that the longer lengths 

produced the highest efficiency at lower fuel-toair ratios, but that could be improved if the fuel 

was concentrated to the outer region of the burning 

stream.38

Image 79: Bob Walker examines a free-jet setup in PSL No. 2. Ferris Seashore and George Hurrell designed the Mach 1.75 installation specifically for the XRJ47 tests. Free jets provided simulated internal airflows for full-scale engines at a fraction of the cost of supersonic wind tunnels.39

(NASA C–1953–33387)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 80: A Wright 48-inch-diameter ramjet is installed in PSL No. 2 on 12 October 1952. A cast-iron mock-up of the inlet was used as 

researchers sought to establish a shock across the inlet to light the ramjet at supersonic speeds. (NASA C–1952–30961)

Performance-enhancing modifications to the ramjet 

combustor diffuser were developed at the NACA and 

elsewhere in the early 1950s. Welna and John Farley 

studied conical and reverse-bellmouth diffusers with 

variations of guide vanes, vortex generators, and splitter cones in the XRJ47 combustor inlet diffuser. The 

tests were run with a direct-connect configuration in 

PSL No. 2. Welna and Farley determined the optimal 

efficiencies for each modification and found that the 

combination of vortex generators and splitter cones 

was the most efficient.40

Researchers were also interested in studying elements 

that affected the control of the ramjet. This included 

diffuser shock movement and the recovery control 

performance range. Hurrell concentrated on controlling the ramjet’s flight, first with a 16-inch-diameter 

ramjet in the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel. 

Hurrell then studied indicial and frequency-response 

controls on the 48-inch-diameter ramjet. It was run

in PSL No. 2 at simulated altitudes of 68,000 to 

82,000 feet. Hurrell found that a fuel flow produced a 

varying period of dead time before the engine began its 

normal linear response.41 In a separate study, George 

Vasu, Clint Hart, and William Dunbar also found 

dead time in the response.42

Lewis began exploring high-energy propellants such

as liquid hydrogen, fluorine, and pentaborane in the 

early 1950s. Pentaborane had a 50-percent higher

efficiency than JP-4. The researchers were looking to

test the fuel on full-scale engines, and the XRJ47-W-5 

ramjet that had been installed in PSL No. 2 for several

years offered an excellent opportunity. During the two 

1955 studies with different length combustors, the 

pentaborane produced 80- to 89-percent combustion 

efficiencies.43

 62
 Cold War Weapons 63

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 81: Relegated to serving as a museum exhibit, a 

Navaho missile and its booster are on display at the U.S. 

Space and Missile Museum in Florida. (Bob Walker)

Self-Immolation 

While the XRJ47 tests were being performed in the 

PSL during 1953 and 1954, the Navaho X-10 with 

its two J40 turbojets was successfully flown from Cape 

Canaveral 27 times. It was the first turbojet to fly at 

twice the speed of sound.44 Meanwhile, Wright began

issuing the production version of the XRJ47 in

1956. A total of 59 XRJ47 engines were built in 1956 

and 1957.45

Flight testing of the second Navaho phase, the G-26, 

began in late 1956 as the PSL tests were winding down. 

The first G-26 launch ended after only 26 seconds on 

6 November. The next two launches yielded another 

booster failure and a massive launch pad explosion. 

The program was clearly in trouble. During the next 

attempt on 26 June 1957, the mission ended after only 

4 minutes when the ramjets failed to ignite.46

The program was canceled almost immediately

afterward, despite the fact that the initial G-38 vehicles were being manufactured. The successful test

flight of an Atlas intercontinental missile in late

1956 had rendered the program superfluous, and

the shift to intercontinental ballistic missiles would

be accelerated after the space era was kick-started

by the Sputnik launch in October 1957.47

The five remaining Navaho missiles in production 

were launched after the program was canceled. Two 

of these launches were exceptional: one traveled 500 

nautical miles at Mach 3, and another, using only its 

autonavigator, traveled over 1,000 nautical miles.48

James Gibson summarized the program’s legacy,

“Navaho...was both a failure and a major triumph. 

The technology it developed actually made possible 

the vehicle that made the Navaho obsolete before [the] 

Navaho could be deployed.”49 The Navaho rocket 

system was used on the Redstone missile, its original propulsion system was used on Thor and Atlas

boosters. These three missiles would be the backbone of the early space program. In addition,

the Navaho guidance system was used by the USS

Nautilus nuclear submarine on its groundbreaking

journey underneath the polar ice cap.50

Coda

Before the program’s cancellation, the air force

requested that Lewis undertake similar studies for the 

Wright XRJ47 W-7

ramjets that were to

power the final G-38

Navaho. The studies 

would determine the

effect of high Mach 

numbers on engine 

structure, burner performance, shock positioning controls, and 

component efficiencies.51 North American officials were also 

interested in using 

Lewis’s supersonic

wind tunnels for inlet 

Image 82: Gene Wasielewski. 

(NASA C–1955–39823)
Pursuit of Power 

and internal flow studies.52 Neither of these programs 

was carried out, however. 

It is also interesting to note that Curtiss-Wright was 

so impressed with PSL’s performance during the 

XRJ47 tests, that it sought to build a similar facility 

at its new 85-square-mile site at Wood-Ridge, New 

Jersey. Curtiss-Wright decided to hire an expert, Gene 

Wasielewski. Wasielewski left Lewis in 1956 to take 

on the $7.7 million project. Like the PSL, the facility contained two altitude test cells for testing large

engines. Curtiss-Wright claimed that the facility, 

which could simulate speeds of 3,500 miles per hour 

and an altitude of 95,000 feet, was the largest privately 

operated supersonic ramjet laboratory in the nation.53

Defense Missiles

Missiles were not only being developed to attack but 

also defend. The Bomarc was the first U.S. long-range 

interceptor missile for combating Soviet bombers.

In 1949 the air force contracted with Boeing to research 

the possibility of a supersonic anti-aircraft missile.

The University of Michigan Aeronautical Research 

Center was soon brought in as a partner, and the

program was named Bomarc. Development officially 

began in January 1951, and the first test flight was

on 10 September 1952, just as the PSL was being 

completed.54

The Bomarc was launched vertically using an Aerojet 

rocket engine. Its final climb to 60,000 feet and cruising speed of Mach 2.5 were powered by two 28-inchdiameter Marquardt RJ43-MA-3 ramjet engines.

Marquardt was a California-based company that 

had focused exclusively on ramjets since 1944. Its

Ogden, Utah, plant produced over 1,200 ramjets for 

the Bomarc program.55

Marquardt had its own test facilities at Van Nuyes, 

California, including altitude test cells, but the Bomarc 

program required outside consultation and testing. 

Image 83: Squadron of Bomarc missiles in the 1960s, each with its two 24-inch-diameter Marquardt ramjets visible. Ten missile sites with a total 

of 500 weapons were deployed around the perimeter of the United States, including two Canadian sites. (U.S. Air Force)

 64
 Cold War Weapons 65

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 84: A 28-inch-diameter Marquardt RJ43 ramjet engine being readied by two technicians on 5 October 1954 for a free-jet test in PSL 

No. 1. It was tested at Mach 2.5 and at altitudes up to 65,000 feet. (NASA C–1954–36898)

Their engineers studied Mach number tables from the 

U.S. Navy’s Project Bumblebee, university information 

on flame stabilization and spread during combustion, 

and performance curves and charts generated by the 

NACA.56

Lewis’s Engine Research Division took on a broad 

study of the RJ43’s altitude performance throughout 

1954 and 1955. The small size of the engine made 

it suitable for combustion studies in the 10-footdiameter cells in the Four Burner Area. Carl

Wentworth, William Dunbar, and Robert Crowl,

however, used PSL No. 1 to study the engine’s

shock-positioning control unit and dynamic response. 

The pneumatic shock-positioning control unit was 

used to keep the ramjet on the correct flight path.57

The researchers also examined and plotted the dynamic response of the engine at varying speeds and altitudes.58 The PSL test data were then turned over to 

Marquardt to verify their design.

The U.S. Air Force originally intended to deploy 6,300 

Bomarc missiles at over 50 launch sites. This number 

of sites was reduced to 40 by the time of the first production unit flight in 1955. The missile flew 250 miles 

and successfully hit its target. The number of potential 

sites was further reduced to 22 in 1956. In a 2 October 

1957 test firing, a Bomarc missile was able to intercept 

one of the turbojet-powered Navaho missiles travelling in excess of Mach 2.59

Fiscal disagreements continued, however, as new missile types became available in the late 1950s. When 

final deployment was completed in 1962, there were 

only 10 Bomarc sites.60 The program was canceled 

by Congress in 1970, and the last missile was retired

two years later. Despite the political infighting,

Boeing emerged from its first missile program as

experts in large-scale systems integration. They

would soon be involved with the Minuteman Missile 

program.61
Pursuit of Power 

Howard Wine 

Wine’s four years as a flight engineer in the air force 

gave him an advantage as he was hired at NACA

Lewis. Wine had been out of the service nearly a year 

when his sister-in-law, a Lewis chemist, encouraged 

Wine to apply at the lab. He was one of only three 

journeymen when he was hired in January 1954. This 

meant that Wine, unlike his contemporaries, could 

forgo the standard apprentice training.62

After his midday interview, Wine was introduced to 

his new supervisor at the PSL, Paul Rennick. Wine

recalled Rennick telling him, “Since you are already 

here, why don’t you stay until 4:30...and then tomorrow, start second shift.” The crews rotated between first 

and second shifts every other week, while the overnight 

crew remained on third shift. Wine had been unaware 

that Lewis’s facilities operated at night, but he overcame his reluctance for shift work and formally began 

his 33-year career the next day.63

Wine always had an eye on advancement and regularly 

petitioned PSL Section Head Bud Meilander for one 

of the already-filled crew chief positions. At the time, 

the research engineers were increasingly balking at 

coming in on third shift to run the PSL tests, so a new 

protocol was instituted. Meilander called a meeting to 

inform the staff that the crew chiefs would assume the 

engineers’ responsibility for running the tests. Wine

recalled chasing Meilander out the door after the 

meeting. “Gee, Bud, I’ve been sitting in with the engineers. I know how to go ahead and do this.” Meilander 

cautioned Wine, “Well, slow down, Howard. We’ve got 

to give the crew chief a chance, but you can sit in with 

them and kind of help them along.”64

Wine decided to pursue an engineering degree at 

Baldwin-Wallace College, which had a long relationship with Lewis. He switched to third shift and took 

morning classes for two years. By the late 1950s he was 

appointed as a crew chief at the PSL, however, and was 

running out of available morning courses at school. He 

remembered frankly asking the new division chief, 

Bill Egan, whether to finish his engineering degree or 

continue his career in the technical field. Egan replied, 

Image 85: Howard Wine. (NASA C–1965–01796)

“Well, Howard, I tell you, we think you’ve got a lot of 

potential here in the area that you are in, and that you 

know you are making as much money now as a starting 

engineer. So if you are looking at the money progression, I think you would be better off just staying right 

where you are at.”65

Wine forewent his degree, and returned to his crew 

chief post at the PSL. “PSL 1 and 2 by now I knew 

backwards and forwards,” he recalled, “just loved coming up and punching buttons and climbing around, 

blowing up engines and things like that.”66

In the early 1960s, Meilander was promoted and 

Wine was selected to take his place as section head.

Rennick and Carl Betz remained as PSL shift supervisors. Wine remembered, “I could imagine them 

thinking, ‘This young punk coming in here and he’s 

going to be our boss,’ but any rate we had [a] great

[relationship].”67 Wine went on to work his way up to 

assistant division chief and later served as an assistant 

to the director. Wine retired in 1987. 

 66
 Cold War Weapons 67

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Testing the Turbojets 

The PSL was built to test jet engines. Despite periodic 

ramjet and rocket studies, the PSL was primarily used 

to test jet engines throughout most of its operational 

life. Yet, the turbojet research in the 1950s seemed 

a bit bland compared with the emerging missile and

rocket fields. Bob Walker recalled that PSL No. 2

tested “rockets and weird stuff ” in the 1950s, while 

PSL No. 1 performed more conventional turbojet 

studies. “We [the missile people] always considered 

their [jet engine] work, kind of, you know...[laughs 

and gestures]. It was funny in those days, everything 

was competitive.”68

The first American turbojets had been built by

General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse in 1942.

NACA’s Cleveland lab performed an immense amount 

of work in developing these engines and their successors 

during World War II and in the immediate aftermath. 

At the request of the military and engine manufacturers, 

the Altitude Wind Tunnel was used to analyze almost

every turbojet design of the period. As the development of the turbojet progressed, so did the test

requirements. The PSL was designed specifically to 

handle the larger jet engines of the 1950s and 1960s.

Full-scale aircraft engine testing had been a primary 

strength of the lab since its inception. Engine components such as the compressor, turbine, combustor, and 

exhaust nozzle may operate flawlessly when isolated, 

only to malfunction when integrated into an engine 

system. For example, distorted airflow from the compressor may hamper the combustor’s operation. Other 

complete engine system problems included combustor 

blowout at high altitudes, component overheating, and 

unstable control systems.

General Electric 1950s Successes

GE’s Schenectady, New York, plant began developing 

a series of axial-flow engines in the mid-1940s, including the 5,800-pound-thrust J47. The J47 became a

tremendous success. It was used to power the successful F-86 Sabre fighter and later became the first jet

engine used in a commercial aircraft.69

GE soon developed the 9,500-pound-thrust successor, the J73, for the air force’s F-86H Sabrejet. The

F-86H was a low-altitude bomber version of the F-86

fighter. The J73 was the first engine tested in PSL

No. 1. Between 1952 and 1954 the performance

Image 86: Martin Saari points to a GE J79 turbojet engine model at the PSL during an NACA Inspection talk on 8 October 1957. The talk is 

about full-scale engine testing in Lewis’s large facilities. (NASA C–1957–46136) 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 87: GE J73 compressor stator blades seen on 10 November 

1953. (NASA C–1953–34173)

characteristics of the J73-GE-1A (the first in a series of

J73 production engines) were studied extensively in 

the PSL over a range of altitudes and speeds.

Lewis researchers tracked the engine performance 

characteristics and combustion efficiency.70 Other 

Lewis researchers examined the range of combustion 

and compressor efficiency using a 10-percent larger 

turbine nozzle to avoid compressor surge.71

Another J73 model, the YJ73-GE-3, was run almost 

200 times in the PSL using a normal turbine nozzle. 

The overall engine performance, as well as that of its 

various components, were studied and graphically 

mapped.72

Although the J73 was more powerful than its predecessor, the limitations of the F-86H airframe prevented the engine from performing at its optimal

capacity. GE was also having difficulty producing 

enough of the engines and spare parts to satisfy the 

F-86H program. Although the bomber version of the 

F-86 was canceled by 1956, the J47-powered F-86 

fighter set a world’s speed record at the September 

1948 National Aircraft Show in Dayton and played a 

key role in the Korean War.73

GE’s next-generation turbojet was the Collier-Trophywinning 11,900-pound-thrust J79.e

 It was designed 

with customized variable stator vanes to process the 

massive airflow encountered during supersonic flight. 

The variable stator vane concept allowed new fighter

jets to fly at twice the speed of sound for the first

time.74

The U.S. Air Force requested that Lewis improve 

the J79’s afterburner performance. PSL testing demonstrated that modifications to the fuel system and 

flameholder increased the combustion efficiency and 

reduced the pressure drop.75 Researchers also collected performance data from a J79’s independently 

controlled variable ejector assembly.76

The J79 was a significant accomplishment for GE. 

It powered key Vietnam-era aircraft such as the F-4 

Phantom, the F-104 Starfighter, the B-58 Hustler, and 

a number of civil transport aircraft.77

Image 88: F-4 Phantom powered by two J79 turbojets, 2005. 

(U.S. Air Force)

Ill-Fated Avro Project

Canada’s Avro Aircraft Limited began design work on 

the CF-105 Arrow jet fighter in 1952. The company’s 

Orenda branch suggested building a titanium-based 

PS.13 Iroquois engine following development problems with the British engines that Avro had originally 

intended to use. The 10-stage, 20,000-pound-thrust 

Iroquois would prove to be more powerful than any 

contemporary U.S. or British turbojet. It was also

significantly lighter and more fuel efficient.78

e

The Robert J. Collier Trophy is awarded annually “for the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America, with 

respect to improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air 

or space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year.” 

 68
 Cold War Weapons 69

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

The new Avro aircraft and engine were developed

simultaneously. The design began in March 1954 and 

proceeded rapidly. The Iroquois engine was ground 

tested thousands of times between its first run in

December 1954 and 1958. This testing included 

studies at the new Arnold Engineering Development

Center, flight tests under a B-47, inlet studies in

Lewis’s 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, and 

141 hours of investigations at the PSL.79

The air force asked Lewis to study the basic performance of an Iroquois engine. An Iroquois was sent 

to Cleveland in April 1957. John Groesbeck, John 

McAulay, and Daniel Peters of the Engine Research 

Division were the primary researchers for the Lewis 

testing. Early studies demonstrated severe compressor 

stall at high altitudes.

Initial PSL studies determined the Iroquois’s windmilling and ignition characteristics at high altitude. 

The tests were run over a wide range of speeds and 

altitudes with variations in exhaust-nozzle area.

After operating for 64  minutes, the engine was

reignited at altitudes up to the 63,000-foot limit of

the facility. The researchers found that decreasing

the nozzle area reduced windmilling.80 Peters and 

Groesbeck also made a brief study of two afterburner 

configurations with different fuel-injection patterns.81

The manufacturer modified two engines by adding a 

set of variable guide vanes at the high-pressure compressor inlet and minor alterations to the compressor. 

McAulay and Groesbeck studied the operating limits 

of the original engine in the PSL to better understand 

the problem. They then studied the two modified

engines. They found that severe radial flow distortions 

at the compressor inlet reduced the high-pressure

compressor stall limit. Various modifications were 

studied that reduced the occurrence of stall but did not 

totally eradicate the problem.82

The Arrow jet fighter made its initial flight in March 

1958 powered by a substitute engine. In February 

1959, however, both the engine and the aircraft programs were canceled. As with the Navaho and many 

other military programs of the mid-1950s, the transition of the superpowers’ weaponry to ballistic missiles 

had rendered the Avro Arrow prematurely obsolete.83 

The Iroquois had been run for over 7,200 hours, but it 

had never been integrated into the Arrow aircraft and 

flown.84

The cancellation left over 200 Canadian aerospace

engineers out of work. Twenty-five of them immediately joined the new U.S. space agency. Many others 

joined later or took positions with large U.S. contractors working on the human space program.85

Image 89: Brake testing of the Avro Arrow fighter with substitute engines. The aircraft, without the Iroquois engine, was tested extensively in 

the mid-1950s, including on missile boosters launched from the NACA Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. (Canadian Department of National 

Defense)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 90: John McAulay (to the right) and a technician install the Orenda Iroquois engine on 29 April 1957. (NASA C–1957–45206)

The Avro story provides an excellent example of the 

state of the field of aviation at a critical transitional 

point. Turbojet and ramjet engine capabilities had 

grown exponentially over the past decade, and in the 

Iroquois case, had become more efficient. The civilian 

airline industry would soon be adding jet engines to its 

fleets. Yet, in many ways the success was overshadowed 

by the emergence of rocket systems in the mid-1950s. 

This new technology would dominate both Lewis and 

the PSL for the next 10 years. 

Endnotes for Chapter 4 

1. “Kemper Reports on Foreign Labs,” Wing Tips

 (2 November 1945).

2. Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second 

 World War (Westport, CT; Praeger Security Interna- 

 tional, 2007). 

3. “Operation LUSTY,” National Museum of the United 

 States Air Force, http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ 

 factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1608 (accessed 27 April 

 2011).

4. “Kemper Reports on Foreign Labs.”

5. Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War.

6. Alsos Mission Report, 4 March 1944, National 

 Archives, Intelligence Division, Alsos Mission File 

 1944–1945, Entry 187, Box 137, as referenced by 

 Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

 Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

7. “Kemper Reports on Foreign Labs.”

8. Russ Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” American 

 Aviation Historical Society, 19, no. 1 (Spring 1974): 17.

9. Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” 17.

10. Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” 18.

11. James N. Gibson, The Navajo Missile Project

 (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1996).

12. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

13. Abe Silverstein, “Ramjet Propulsion,” c. later 1940s, 

 NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

14. “Guided Missiles 1956,” Flight, (7 December 1956).

15. “Aero Engines 1959, The Propulsion Spectrum,” Flight 

 (20 March 1959).

16. “History and Organization of Wright Aeronautical 

 Division Curtiss-Wright Corporation,” http://www. 

 scribd.com/doc/12467677/History-of-Curtis-Wright- 

 Aeronautical-Company 

 70
 Cold War Weapons 71

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

17. Harold Robbins to Abe Silverstein, “Priority of Power 

 Plant Laboratory Projects,” 28 January 1951, NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Directors’ Collection,

 Cleveland, OH.

18. Walker interview, 2005.

19. Walker interview, 2005.

20. Walker interview, 2005.

21. Walker interview, 2005.

22. Walker interview, 2005.

23. Henry Welna and Dwight Reilly, Preliminary Evalu- 

 ation of Flight-Weight XRJ47-W-5 Ram-Jet Engine 

 at a Mach Number of 2.75 (Washington, DC: NACA 

 RM E55G22, 1954).

24. Walker interview, 2005.

25. Welna and Reilly, Preliminary Evaluation of Flight- 

 Weight XRJ47-W-5 Ram-Jet Engine.

26. Welna and Reilly, Preliminary Evaluation of Flight- 

 Weight XRJ47-W-5 Ram-Jet Engine.

27. Welna and Reilly, Preliminary Evaluation of Flight- 

 Weight XRJ47-W-5 Ram-Jet Engine.

28. Walker interview, 2005.

29. Walker interview, 2005.

30. Walker interview, 2005.

31. Welna and Reilly, Preliminary Evaluation of Flight- 

 Weight XRJ47-W-5 Ram-Jet Engine.

32. Warren Rayle, Ivan Smith, and Carl Wentworth, 

Preliminary Results From Free-Jet Tests of a 48-Inch 

 Diameter Ramjet Combustor With an Annular- 

 Piloted Baffle-Type Flameholder (Washington, DC: 

 NACA E54K15, 1955). 

33. Carl Wentworth, Wilbur Dobson, and Warren Rayle, 

Preliminary Results From Free-Jet Tests of a 48-Inch 

 Diameter Ramjet Combustor With an Annular 

 Can-Type Flameholder (Washington, DC: NACA 

 RM E54L07, 1955).

34. Henry Welna and Ivan Smith, Preliminary Transient 

 Performance Data on the Fuel Control of the XRJ47- 

 W-5 Ramjet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM 

 E54A25, 1954).

35. John Farley and Ivan Smith, Preliminary Performance 

 Data Obtained in a Full-Scale Free-Jet Investigation 

 of a Side-Inlet Supersonic Diffuser (Washington, DC: 

 NACA RM SE54J22, 1954).

36. “Reilly Appointed SPF Chief,” Lewis News (14 August 

 1970).

37. Carl Meyer and Henry Welna, Investigation of Three 

 Low-Temperature-Ratio Combustor Configurations 

 in a 48-Inch Diameter Ramjet Engine (Washington, 

 DC: NACA RM E53K20, 1954).

38. Rayle, Smith, and Wentworth, Preliminary Results... 

 Annular Piloted Baffle-Type Flameholder.

39. Ferris Seashore and Herbert G. Hurrell, Starting and 

 Performance Characteristics of a Large Asymmetric 

 Supersonic Free-Jet Facility (Washington, DC: NACA 

 RM–E54A19, 1954).

40. John Farley and Henry Welna, Investigation of Conical 

 Subsonic Diffusers for Ramjet Engines (Washington, 

 DC: NACA RM–E53L15, 1954).

41. Herbert Hurrell, Experimental Investigation of 

 Dynamic Relations in a 48-Inch Ramjet Engine 

 (Washington, DC: NACA RM E56F28, 1957).

42. George Vasu, Clint Hart, and William Dunbar, 

Preliminary Report on Experimental Investigation of 

 Engine Dynamics and Controls for a 48-Inch Ramjet 

 Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM E55J12, 1956).

43. Warren Rayle, Dwight Reilly, and John Farley, 

Performance and Operational Characteristics of 

 Pentaborane Fuel in 48-Inch Diameter Ramjet Engine 

 (Washington, DC: NACA RM E55K28, 1957).

44. Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” 20.

45. Aircraft Engine Historical Society, “Summary Curtiss- 

 Wright Engine Shipments All Plants, All Models, 

 All Licensees Except Curtiss Commercial Production 

 Prior To 1931 Not Included” (Transcribed from a 

 Curtiss-Wright document of the early 1960s), 

http://www.enginehistory.org/Wright/WrightProd.pdf 

 (accessed 10 May 2011).

46. Ed Kyle, “Pilotless Bomber: US Space Technology 

 Incubator,” Space Launch Report (2005), http://www. 

 spacelaunchreport.com/navaho1.html (accessed

 10 April 2011).

47. Jack Raymond, “Navaho Missile Being Discarded,” 

New York Times (12 July 1957).

48. Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” 18.

49. James Gibson, “The Navaho Project—A Look Back,” 

 North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin (Summer 

 2007).

50. Murray, “The Navaho Inheritance,” 18.

51. Trygve Blom, “Propulsion Projects Allocation and 

 Priority Group,” 7 April 1955, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

52. Smith deFrance to NACA Lewis, “Possibility of Expe- 

 diting the Inlet Development of Several Military 

 Aircraft by the Transfer of Some Investigations From 

 the Ames Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel to Lewis Wind 

 Tunnels,” 27 December 1955, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

53. “History and Organization of Wright Aeronautical 

 Division Curtiss-Wright Corporation.” 

54. Michael Lombardi, “Reach for the Sky: How the 

 Bomarc Missile Set the Stage for Boeing to Demon- 

 strate Its Talent in Systems Integration,” Boeing

 Frontiers (2 June 2007).
Pursuit of Power 

55. Carl R. Stechman and Robert C. Allen, History of 

 Ramjet Propulsion Development at the Marquardt 

 Company—1944 to 1970 (Reston, VA, AIAA–2005– 

 3538, 2005), p. 2. 

56. Stechman and Allen, History of Ramjet Propulsion 

 Development at the Marquardt Company.

57. R. Crowl, W. R. Dunbar, and C. Wentworth, Experi- 

 mental Investigation of a Marquardt Shock-Positioning 

 Control Unit on a 28-Inch Ram-Jet Engine 

 (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E56E09, 1956).

58. Carl Wentworth, William R. Dunbar, and Robert J. 

 Crowley, Altitude Free-Jet Investigation of Dynamics 

 of a 28-Inch Diameter Ramjet Engine (Washington, 

 DC: NACA RM–E56F28b, 1957). 

59. Richard P. McMullen, History of Air Defense Weap- 

 ons, 1946–1962, Air Defense Command Historical 

 Study Number 14 (Historical Division, Office of 

 Information, HQ Air Defense Command, 1963), 

 chap. 6.

60. McMullen, History of Air Defense Weapons, 1946– 

 1962.

61. Lombardi, “Reach for the Sky.”

62. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 4 September 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

63. Wine interview, 2005.

64. Wine interview, 2005.

65. Wine interview, 2005.

66. Wine interview 2005.

67. Wine interview, 2005.

68. Walker interview, 2005.

69. “The History of Aircraft Engines,” GE Aviation 

 (2010), http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/history.html 

 (accessed 10 December 2010).

70. Carl E. Campbell and E. William Conrad, Altitude 

 Performance Characteristics of the J73-GE-1A Turbo- 

 jet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E53I25, 

 1954).

71. Carl E. Campbell and Adam Sobolewski, Altitude- 

 Chamber Investigation of J73-GE-1A Turbojet Engine 

 Component Performance (Washington, DC, NACA 

 RM–E53I08, 1954).

72. Harold R. Kaufman and Wilbur F. Dobson, Perfor- 

 mance of YJ73-GE-3 Turbojet Engine in an Altitude 

 Test Chamber (Washington, DC: NACA RM 

 E54F22, 1955).

73. “North American F-86 (Day-Fighter A, E and F 

 Models),” National Museum of the United States 

 Air Force (2011), http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ 

 factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2297 (accessed 10 

 December 2010).

74. Harry E. Bloomer and Carl E. Campbell, Experimental 

 Investigation of Several Afterburner Configurations 

 on a J79 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA 

 RM–E57I18, 1957).

75. Bloomer and Campbell, Experimental Investigation of 

 Several Afterburner Configurations.

76. William Greathouse and Harry Bloomer, Preliminary 

 Internal Performance Data for a Variable-Ejector 

 Assembly on the XJ79-GE-1 Turbojet Engine, I— 

 Nonafterburning Configurations (Washington, DC: 

 NACA RM–56E23, 1956).

77. “The History of Aircraft Engines.”

78. John McAulay and Donald Groesbeck, Investigation 

 of a Prototype Iroquois Turbojet Engine in an Altitude 

 Test Chamber (Washington, DC: NACA RM 

 SE58E26, 1958).

79. “Aero Engines 1959.”

80. Daniel Peters and John McAulay, Some Altitude

 Operational Characteristics of a Prototype Iroquois 

 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM– 

 SE58F17, 1958).

81. Donald Groesbeck and Daniel Peters, Altitude Perfor- 

 mance of the Afterburner on the Iroquois Turbojet 

 Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–SE58G01, 

 1958).

82. McAulay and Groesbeck, Investigation of a Prototype 

 Iroquois Turbojet Engine.

83. Emmanuel Gustin, “Interceptor Rex—the Avro 

 CF-105 Arrow” (1996), http://www.avro-arrow.org/ 

 Arrow/written_history.html (accessed 10 December 

 2010).

84. “Aero Engines 1959.”

85. Chris Gainor, Arrows to the Moon: Avro’s Engineers 

 and the Space Race (Burlington, Ontario: Collector’s 

 Guide Publishing Inc., 2001).

 72
.
Image 91: John Kobak and an engineer examine a drawing and model of the Atlas/Centaur while a technician inspects the setup of a Pratt & 

Whitney RL-10 rocket engine in a PSL test chamber on 13 November 1962. Two of the 15,000-pound-thrust engines were used to power the 

Centaur second-stage rocket. (NASA C–1962–62465)
• 5 •

The Rocket Era

A still quietness settled as the laboratory’s strangely 

shaped shadows grew longer. Evening was falling, 

and most of the staff had already left the campus 

when the lab’s squad cars rolled up to the Propulsion

Systems Laboratory (PSL). The officers purposely

placed the wooden roadblocks in the streets surrounding the facility. They then methodically walked the 

hallways of the nearby buildings evicting anyone still 

at their desk. 

Those inside the PSL, however, remained. “We were 

locked up in the control room,” Neal Wingenfeld

recalled, “We were not allowed to leave...They would 

barricade the roads and nobody was allowed in or 

out. We were in here, so we were goners if anything

happened.”1

The technicians and test engineers were hunkered in 

an unpressurized control room, just feet away from a 

blazing rocket engine and hundreds of gallons of liquid 

hydrogen and liquid oxygen. 

John Kobak recalled working all day and returning in 

the evening. “I’d go home and eat and come back. As 

soon as people go home, we’d bring all that stuff in. 

And about seven o’clock we’d lock down and run until 

about eleven o’clock...or however long it took. We’d do 

that at least two or three times a week. It was fun.”2

It was early 1961, and the first liquid-hydrogen rocket 

engine, the Pratt & Whitney RL-10, was under investigation in PSL No. 1. Two RL-10s would power the 

Centaur second-stage rocket, a key element of the early 

Apollo Program. These early PSL tests were critical 

to resolving many of the engine’s operating problems 

and led to NASA Lewis Research Center’sc greater

involvement in the space program. 

Cleveland Rockets 

The Cleveland lab’s interest with rockets had started 

15 years before. By the mid-1940s a small group of 

researchers in the Fuels and Lubrication Division had 

begun working with a variety of high-energy propellants, oxidizers, and small rocket engines. A series of 

cinderblock test cells, referred to as the “Rocket Lab,” 

were built behind protective earthen mounds in a

far corner of the Cleveland lab. The group’s efforts

began producing significant results in the early 1950s, 

and Abe Silverstein promoted the group to a division branch. Design work began in 1952 on a larger 

dedicated static rocket stand, the Rocket Engine Test

Facility. (For a complete history of the lab, see

Dawson.3

)

The military, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, universities, and commercial firms such as Aerojet were 

feverishly developing rocket engines and experimenting with propellants in the 1940s, including the cryogenic liquid hydrogen. By 1950 the military became 

frustrated with the difficulties associated with liquid

hydrogen and cut research funding. The NACA Lewis 

Flight Propulsion Laboratory was also interested in 

high-energy propellants and took up the cryogenic 

mantle. For more indepth histories of Glenn’s liquidhydrogen work, see Dawson and Sloop.4,5)

By 1955 Lewis researchers had demonstrated that a 

combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen was 

the most efficient propellant and were confident that 

performance problems could be resolved.6

 Silverstein 

immediately became an enthusiastic advocate. At the 

air force’s request, the lab undertook a one-year crash 

program to demonstrate that liquid hydrogen could be 

used for aircraft engines. The project yielded several 

liquid-hydrogen-powered flights of a B-57B Canberra 

over Lake Erie in early 1957.

 The Rocket Era 75
Pursuit of Power 

Image 92: The PSL, partially obscured by a cloud of steam, was located in a densely populated area of NACA’s Cleveland lab. The 8- by 6-Foot 

Supersonic Wind Tunnel is in the foreground, the Chemistry Lab, the PSL Operations Building, and Instrument Lab are in the background. 

Other nearby facilities, including the Engine Propeller Research Building and the Engine Components Research Laboratory, are not visible. 

(NASA C–1955–38660)

Meanwhile, the NACA’s Triennial Inspection was 

to be hosted by Lewis in October 1957. Over 2,000 

military, scientific, and industry representatives visited 

during the four-day open house. Lewis was anxious 

to demonstrate its rocket engine and fuels work, but 

NACA Secretary John Victory had ordered them to 

downplay those efforts. Congressman Albert Thomas’s 

crusade was still fresh in Victory’s mind, and he feared 

recriminations from the congressional and military 

visitors who might think the NACA should be concentrating on aeronautics and leave rocket weaponry 

to the military.7

On 4 October, however, just days before the Inspection opened, the Soviet Union sent Sputnik I sailing 

around the Earth. Public and congressional outcry 

over the nation’s weak space program changed everything. The rocket talks were reinserted into the Inspection agenda, and the event was a watershed moment in 

Lewis’s history.8

Full-scale engine research veterans William Fleming 

and Martin Saari gave presentations at the PSL on

recent propulsion research for hypersonic flight and 

full-scale engine testing. Speakers at other stops

described high-energy fuels and rocket component

research.9 The Lewis Inspection proved to be a bright 

spot for the nation’s aerospace engineers in the Sputnik 

aftermath. Not only was rocket research acceptable, 

it was demanded. Lewis, including the PSL, quickly

refocused almost its entire research effort toward space 

issues. 

Transformation 

According to Howard Wine, Sputnik had an almost 

immediate effect on the PSL. “They were running the 

Iroquois engine...and on the night that the Sputnik 

went up, we were scheduled to run that again. And [the 

supervisor] said, ‘Hold that off. We’re going to change 

over and get into rocket testing.’ So we didn’t even run 

that night. That very night we just changed it.”10

 76
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 93: In the late 1950s the PSL turned its attention away from jet engines and ramjets to small rockets. Many small rockets and rocket components were tested in the PSL between 1957 and 1963.11 This 30 September 1958 photograph shows a technician installing an isentropic rocket 

nozzle in PSL No. 2. (NASA C–1958–48831)

NACA records indicate that the last run of an airbreathing engine in the PSL was on 8 March 1958, 

but there is little doubt that planning for a long-term 

study of rocket nozzles in simulated altitudes began 

the previous October. The newly formed Propulsion 

Systems Division took over most of the PSL research. 

The changeover from airbreathing engines to rockets 

in 1958 resulted in the PSL’s lowest annual usage rate 

to date, but that would soon change.12

NASA was officially established on 1 October 1958. 

NASA expanded from NACA’s handful of research 

laboratories to a dozen centers specializing in spaceflight. The NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory became the NASA Lewis Research Center. 

The staff and facilities at all of the centers expanded. 

In addition, NASA moved into the management of 

large projects and the oversight of work performed by

industry contractors. 

After leading the center for 20 years, Ray Sharp retired 

in December 1960. He passed away seven months

later. In October 1961 Abe Silverstein, Sharp’s

trusted partner, returned from a three-year detail at 

NASA Headquarters to assume Sharp’s former position of Center Director.

Hypersonic Heating 

Lewis researchers were frustrated with their inability 

to simulate normal atmosphere at high temperatures 

in their facilities. As early as 1956, Lewis engineers 

sought ways to increase combustion air to hypersonic 

temperatures.13

Lewis’s increased efforts to enable supersonic and

hypersonic speeds for missiles and space travel meant 

that many of its existing facilities needed improvement. Nineteen facilities were built or reassigned for 

space-related testing during the Apollo Program.14 

 The Rocket Era 77
Pursuit of Power 

PSL modifications included cryogenic fuel-pumping 

capabilities, an upgraded control room, and the installation of a pebble bed heater in PSL No. 2. 

The pebble bed heater simulated the high temperatures produced at supersonic and hypersonic speeds 

by creating 3,500°F airflows through a 24-inchdiameter test section. The heater was a cylindrical

brick structure filled with 10 tons of aluminumoxide pebbles that stood vertically beneath PSL

No. 2. A gas-fired heater initially brought the bed up 

to proper temperature. The flame was then closed, 

and cool air was passed through the bed. The hot 

pebbles warmed the airflow as it passed through 

the bed. The heated air expanded through a nozzle into the test section. This resulted in a small

hypersonic wind tunnel inside the PSL chamber.15

This hypersonic tunnel was used to study cooling and 

dissociation on 16-inch-diameter ramjet engines for 

durations from 3 to 5 minutes.16

The temperamental device required a couple of hours 

to generate enough heat for a run of several minutes. 

Walker explained, “It was kind of hectic thing to run, 

and you were never quite sure how it was going to 

run.”17

A thrust rig was built in PSL No. 2 to complement 

the pebble bed heater. Researchers used the rig to 

study nozzle configurations for thrust vectoring tests 

in 1961.18

Image 94: The PSL pebble bed heater shown in this diagram was constructed by a blast 

furnace manufacturer, Norton Company. The core was lined with harder bricks, and softer 

bricks were used around the exterior. (NASA)19

 78
 The Rocket Era 79

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 95: Work on the pebble bed heater’s inlet nozzle on 15 November 1958. The heater was active in May, and the tunnel was operational in 

July. (NASA C–1958–49138)
Pursuit of Power 

John Kobak 

Kobak worked at Ford and Chevrolet during the summer breaks while pursuing his degree at the Case

Institute of Technology. He had intended to accept an 

automotive plant engineering position after graduating in 1958 but was persuaded by one of his instructors 

to apply at Lewis. The NACA Lewis lab had a strong

affiliation with Case in the 1950s, and his instructor had 

worked at the NACA.20

Like many recent graduates in the late 1950s and early 

1960s, John Kobak took a position at the lab on a temporary basis only to become enthralled with the work 

and spend his entire career there. “I was already prepared 

to go to Detroit and work for Ford. At the last minute, I

decided to come here and stay a few years until I got married and moved on. I liked it so much that I stayed—I 

stayed my whole career. It was a great place to work. I really

enjoyed it.”21 He would spend the next 36 years at the lab.

Kobak used his facilities engineering training by

becoming a project engineer stationed at the PSL. “PSL 

was a really fun place to work....The research people 

wrote the reports. I was not a report-type person. I was 

a hands-on person, so it worked out good.”22

Initially Kobak worked on rocket installations under

Gene Baughman. This included the set of RL-10

engine investigations. By October 1963 Baughman had

relocated to Pasadena to oversee Aerojet’s work on the 

M-1 engine, and Kobak assumed his responsibilities 

at the PSL. 

The Centaur Program was transferred to the Lewis

Research Center in October 1962. The entire center

focused on exorcising the rocket’s operating problems.

Many of those associated with the RL-10 testing transferred to the high-profile Centaur Program Office,

including Kobak’s fellow operations engineer Bill

Goette. “I chose to remain in the PSL and do that.

So like I said, [I made] a lot of bad choices in my career as

far as getting promoted sooner. [Goette] became an

instant branch chief because he’s the only one in the

office who knew anything about the engine.”23

The Airbreathing Engines Division took over the

PSL in 1967, and Kobak moved on to the Rocket

Laboratory—a series

of small test cells that 

had been used for

Lewis’s earliest rocket 

work. He recalled, 

“[At the Rocket 

Lab we] worked at 

all sorts of small

engines that nobody

cared about. I mean 

we worked at fluorine

mixed with oxygen.

We did methane. 

But still we kept

doing ablative stuff.

We were doing ablative 

with hydrogen-oxygen in PSL, and then the program 

basically continued.”24

The center entered into new areas of research in the 

1970s, however. Kobak and the operations engineers 

worked for two different divisions on a variety of earth 

resource programs for the Department of Energy.

Former rocket researchers and engineers now focused 

on projects like the fluidized coal bed at the Rocket Lab.

Kobak explained, “Actually I wrote my first report on

how to design a whole control system [for the coal bed].”25

In 1975 Kobak was named head of the Systems

Operations Section of the Chemical Energy Division. 

His group took over work in the Engine Research Building on the Stirling engine for Chrysler and in setting up 

a bank of solar arrays for battery testing. Several years 

of work were completed, but the industry was not interested in the technology. “It was a lot of work but nothing 

came out of it,” Kobak lamented.26

In 1987 Kobak undertook his largest and final project 

at NASA. He was responsible for building the Power 

Systems Facility, the first facility built specifically for the 

Space Station Freedom program. The 26,000-squarefoot PSF was designed to develop, test, and monitor 

the space station’s electric power system. It contained a 

100-foot-square, 63-foot-high class-100,000 clean room. 

Under Kobak’s guidance, the facility was successfully 

brought online in 1993.

Image 96: John Kobak. (C–1962–64266)

 80
 The Rocket Era 81

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Neal Wingenfeld

Wingenfeld had been a classmate of John Kobak’s at 

the Case Institute of Technology. “He was a fraternity 

brother at Case,” remembered Kobak. “He graduated 

with me, but he went to Republic Steel and was working there.”27 At a party during the summer of 1963, 

Wingenfeld let his friends know that he was looking 

to find a new job. 

The Chemical Rocket Division had only one electrical 

engineer at the time, so Kobak informed his managers 

that Wingenfeld might be available. “I got a phone call 

the next week,” he reminisced, “and they asked me if 

I’d come in to interview. And that was the beginning 

of a process. I ended up with three jobs—two new job 

offers and my old job.” Wingenfeld decided to join his 

friend at NASA.28 

Wingenfeld was impressed with the NASA staff. He 

described them as, “Dedicated, hard-working people, 

conscientious, very very cooperative. Especially with 

me. I was the greenhorn on the job so-to-speak there 

for awhile. It was privilege and a pleasure to work with 

those people.”29

“[Fred Looft, the senior electrical engineer at the PSL] 

was having heart problems,” Wingenfeld continued. 

“They hired me to relieve him off the RL-10 engine 

project. They didn’t want him working at night. Sometimes we would test all night long and have to come 

back at eight in the morning....We would test probably 

two or three times a week. So I took over for Fred, and 

Fred moved over to Cell 2.”30

Looft trained Wingenfeld for about six months and 

continued to be his mentor for several years. “Throughout the Sixties there it was just Fred Looft and myself. 

We were the only two. So we satisfied all the projects 

in the division....But Fred and I worked together. We 

got along very well together. We were office mates.”31

The RL-10 program was under way when Wingenfeld arrived. “They were having all kinds of problems 

[with] the controllers [for] the valves that throttled

the fuel flows into the engine. And we were doing the 

gimballing, setting up the control system to do the 

gimballing and the gimbal controllers. So I immediately got involved with those problems.”32

Image 97: Neal Wingenfeld. (NASA C–1982–

01508)

The RL-10 testing was critical to the nation’s space 

program, and the PSL staff dedicated long hours to 

resolving its problems. During one stretch Wingenfeld 

accumulated over 600 hours of compensated time off 

that he could not use. “You had to be here. And I never went on vacation for three years. I just couldn’t get 

away, was so tied up here I just couldn’t get away. It was 

a hot project. So my first three years here I never took 

annual leave, and I built up my max instantaneously.”33

The use of liquid hydrogen was dangerous, but Wingenfeld had spent several years in the perilous conditions at the steel mill, so he was not overly concerned 

about the PSL. “It’s funny, I think the safety people 

would never allow us to do and operate the way we 

did back then now. Especially in an unpressurized control room. I never thought much about it. We were so

absorbed in what we were doing.”34

Like Kobak, Wingenfeld left the PSL with the Chemical Rocket Division in 1967. He spent the majority of 

his next 35 years at NASA Lewis’s Rocket Engine Test 

Facility.
Pursuit of Power 

Homemade Rockets

The initial rocket testing at the PSL between 1957 and 

1963 involved a number of small rockets and rocket 

components built by Lewis’s fabrication and machine 

shops. These included rockets fueled by hydrogen peroxide and by isentropic or storable propellants.35 The 

first studies were on a water-cooled engine fueled by 

JP-4 and oxygen. John Kobak explained, “In order to 

make a large-area-ratio nozzle flow full, you have to 

[run] it at altitude, or you have to have an ejector that 

will eject it to that altitude.”36 The PSL afforded this 

ability. 

Researchers and technicians discovered as much from 

failures as from a successful run. Kobak explained, 

“The way you learn anything is that something fails, 

and you figure out how not to have it fail again.”37 The 

work was both exciting and dangerous. “Fun years for 

me, for a guy who used to like to blow up things,” added 

Kobak. “We had lots of explosions, lots of blowups.”38

One 1960 liquid-hydrogen test in PSL No. 1 was

particularly memorable. Researchers were testing a Lewis-designed engine in which the cryogenic

hydrogen propellant also cooled the nozzle. The test 

engineers were not sure if the engine needed to be prechilled before it was ignited. Kobak explained, “I was 

afraid that if we just lit the thing, and we had gas going 

through there, it would just burn up.”39 Unaware that 

the engine was built of shock-sensitive material, they 

decided to precool it.

“Soon as we lit it, it just broke off right there, and 

it went shooting down the tunnel.” Kobak recalled 

watching the 1960s-era monitors, which had a bit of 

persistence, “We lost chamber pressure, then the picture is still there with the engine, and then all of a

sudden it just faded away.”40

Image 98: Display showing some of the rocket components manufactured by the Lewis Fabrication Division. (NASA C–1954–35975)

 82
 The Rocket Era 83

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 99: John Kobak examines the remains of a failed liquid-hydrogen-cooled engine on 14 June 1960. (NASA C–1960–53702)

Image 100: Monitors in the control room allowed the test operators to view both the liquid-hydrogen storage units and the 

engine inside the test chamber. (NASA C–1964–69528)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 101: Tanking of the Atlas/Centaur-3 rocket at Cape Kennedy on 25 March 1964. The Centaur second stage is behind the white insulation panels near the top. The payload is in the conical nose fairing. (NASA C–1964–68973)

 84
 The Rocket Era 85

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 102. Ali Mansour and Ned Hannum, engineers in the 

Chemical Rocket Division, pose with a Pratt & Whitney RL-10 

engine on 17 April 1963. (NASA C–1963–64329)

Star of the Rocket Engine Era

NACA Lewis researchers were forced to alter their 

studies to address the immediate propulsion needs 

of NASA’s space program.41 For the PSL, this 

meant investigating performance problems with the

Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engine. In 1955 the military had asked Pratt & Whitney to develop hydrogen

engines specifically for aircraft. The program was canceled in 1958, but Pratt & Whitney decided to use the 

experience to develop a liquid-hydrogen rocket engine, 

the RL-10.42

Two of the 15,000-pound-thrust RL-10 engines were 

used to power the new Centaur second-stage rocket. 

Centaur was designed to carry the Surveyor spacecraft 

on its mission to soft-land on the Moon. The criticality of the Surveyor missions to the ensuing Apollo 

Program resulted in a high profile and tight schedule 

for Centaur. (For a history of the Centaur Program, 

see Dawson and Bowles.43) “The RL-10 was the

star of the rocket engine era here,” recalled Neal

Wingenfeld. “That was the star program that we had 

here in PSL.”44

General Dynamics had already begun conceptualizing 

an upper stage for the Atlas missile. The design was 

modified in 1957 as a space vehicle and submitted initially to the NACA and then to the U.S. Army. The 

army accepted the proposal in 1958, and the Centaur 

rocket was born. The program was supervised by the 

Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville (incorporated into NASA in March 1960). In mid-1958

General Dynamics learned of Pratt & Whitney’s 

hydrogen engine work. The RL-10 engines significantly improved the overall Centaur design and

performance.45

Image 103: Centaur second-stage rocket. (NASA 

C–1953–34978) 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 104: Lead Test Engineer John Kobak (to the right) and a technician use an oscilloscope to test the installation of an RL-10 engine in the 

PSL No. 2 on 13 April 1962. (NASA C–1962–60071)

 86
 The Rocket Era 87

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 105: Left to right: John Kobak and Gene Baughman examine the first installation of the RL-10 engine in PSL No. 1 on 3 February 1961. 

The two were in the Rocket and Aerodynamics Division’s Rocket Installations Section. Baughman was the operations project engineer for the 

program. (NASA C–1961–55596)

The RL-10 Gets Worked Over

Centaur was the first cryogenic stage ever attempted 

and was designed to restart its engines in space. These 

two features presented a number of design problems. 

Pratt & Whitney fired the RL-10 over 200 times on 

a test stand at its Florida facility. On the basis of this 

success, a series of ignition tests were canceled. The 

cancellation resulted in two engine explosions the

following year. 

NASA Headquarters assigned Lewis the responsibility for investigating the RL-10 problems because of 

the center’s long history of liquid-hydrogen development. Lewis began a series of tests to study the RL-10 

in March 1960. Two RL-10s exploded during Pratt & 

Whitney tests in the fall of 1960 and spring of 1961.46

The first series of RL-10 tests in early 1961 involved 

gimballing, or steering, the engine as it fired. The

engine mount system had a bearing system that

allowed the engine to rotate up to 2° in either direction. Pratt & Whitney was able test the engine at their

facility in Florida, but their setup required the rocket to 

be direct-connected to the exhaust ejector. They were 

unable to gimbal the engine.47 At Lewis, researchers 

were able to yaw and pitch the engine in the PSL as it 

was firing to simulate its behavior during a real flight. 

Over the course of several months, they were able to 

test and evaluate the performance of the gimballing 

system. 

Pratt & Whitney altered the original RL-10 design to 

allow throttling to produce different levels of thrust. 

Again, the PSL was needed to test the engine. A team 

of Chemical Rocket Division researchers studied the 

RL-10’s performance when throttled from 1,500 to 

15,000 pounds of thrust. Despite some low-frequency 
Pursuit of Power 

fuel oscillations, they found that, overall, the engine 

performed well throughout the throttling range.48

Kobak remembered, “We burned out some of the

engines finding problems. We found problems with 

the engines at low thrust going into this chugging 

mode, and we had to develop a way to prevent that.”49

This led to another key improvement of the RL-10 in 

the PSL, the resolution of the low-frequency combustion instability in the fuel system, or chugging. In most 

rocket engine combustion chambers, the pressure, temperature, and flows are in constant flux. The engine is 

considered to be operating normally if the fluctuations 

remain random and within certain limits.50 Lewis

researchers used high-speed photography to study and 

define the RL-10’s combustion instability by throttling 

the engine under the simulated flight conditions. They 

found that the injection of a small stream of helium 

gas into the liquid-oxygen tank immediately stabilized 

the system.51

The low-frequency oscillations at low thrust levels 

were a little more difficult to resolve. Ultimately it 

was determined that the abrupt change in the propellant’s density as its temperature increased in the cooling jacket caused the instability. This was combated 

with the injection of gaseous helium or hydrogen just

upstream from the cooling jacket.52

Another issue with chemical rocket engines is screech, 

an increasingly loud tone that causes a damaging rise 

of component temperatures. Screech is caused by the 

speed of gas oscillations during combustion. These 

oscillations erode the boundary layer until the temperature of the walls begins increasing. Screech can 

severely melt or burn out the rocket components in a 

very short amount of time. Lewis researchers explored 

various methods of acoustic damping to suppress 

the oscillations. The use of resonators to successfully

reduce screech was demonstrated in the PSL.53

In order to keep the engine system at cryogenic temperatures before launch, the engine’s turbopumps were 

flooded with liquid hydrogen. Kobak explained, “So 

they’re wasting a full-flow of liquid hydrogen, which 

is not going to help the mission. They’re just wasting 

it before they light the engine.”54 Lewis researchers

decided to try to cool the pump with helium and 

wait to flow the hydrogen into the engine until it 

was time to ignite.55 Insulation was also installed 

to keep the system cold until the upper stage was

ignited. The method of chilling the system with

helium before launch was first demonstrated in the

PSL on an RL-10. This precooling was one of

Lewis’s most important modifications to Centaur and 

is still used today.56

The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center initially 

managed the Centaur and RL-10 programs but generally did not care for the spacecraft’s balloonlike structure or the use of liquid hydrogen as the propellant. 

Marshall Director Wernher von Braun called for the 

cancellation of the program even before the failure of 

the first launch in May 1962. Congressional hearings 

and internal debate at NASA lasted most of the summer. In September the Centaur Program was transferred to Lewis. Marshall retained oversight on the 

RL-10 program until 1966.

One of the primary reasons for the transfer was that 

the PSL had been testing the RL-10 engines since 

1961. Former Centaur manager Larry Ross explained, 

“[Center Director Abe Silverstein] knew that we were 

running RL-10s out of PSL, hot-firing RL-10s out 

of PSL. So he had a great deal of confidence that we 

had the kind of expertise that it took to make Centaur 

work reliably. And he’s right; there were the kind of 

people here who could do it.”57

Sitting on Top of All That Hydrogen

PSL’s liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen were stored 

in temperature-controlled tanks outside the Shop and 

Access Building. Nitrogen, which was used to move 

the propellants through the lines, was trucked in to

the site. 

Early in the RL-10 test program, liquid hydrogen 

was still used to prechill the engine. This initial blast 

of hydrogen would not always be completely burned 

when the engine was ignited. One time some of the 

fuel passed through the coolers and exhaust system and into the Equipment Building. The resulting

explosion damaged the massive equipment. Operations

engineers quickly designed a system that vented

that initial flow of hydrogen to the PSL roof and 

burned it off into the atmosphere.58

 88
 The Rocket Era 89

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 106: Liquid-oxygen and liquid-hydrogen tanks brought in for a PSL rocket test on 16 April 1963. The control room is inside the building 

to the right of the awning. (NASA C–1963–64268)

Image 107: An engineer monitors the high-pressure fuel-pumping system in the rear of the PSL control room on 9 December 1963. 

(NASA C–1963–67414)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 108: Several large-area-ratio nozzles are lined up on 1 May 1964 in front of PSL No. 1 for tests with “storable” propellants. Nozzles (left to 

right): 15° conical, Apollo Space Propulsion System contour, and U.S. Air Force Titan transtage contour. The veteran mechanic Bill Neidengard is 

examining the nozzles with a young researcher. (NASA C–1964–69633)

 90
 The Rocket Era 91

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

John Kobak recalled, “[It was] a lot of fun and we

were so absorbed trying to do a good job that we didn’t 

think of the dangers. Until later on when people were 

saying, ‘You were sitting on top of all that hydrogen 

and oxygen.’ Those tanks were right outside, the control room’s right there. I mean now, like up at Plum 

Brook, the control room for B-2 is like half a mile away. 

We were fifty feet away.”59

In May 1966 the RL-10 program was officially transferred to Lewis from Marshall and placed under the 

Centaur Program Office. By that time, Lewis had 

successfully resolved most of Centaur’s problems 

and turned it into a reliable space vehicle. After six

Lewis-managed Centaur test missions, the first

Surveyor launch attempt on 2 June 1966 was successful. Centaur performed perfectly, and Surveyor became 

the first spacecraft to land on another celestial body.

Rocket Division Arrives

The Chemical Rocket Division was created in 1963 

and took over all testing in the PSL. Its immediate 

predecessor at the PSL, the Propulsion Systems Division, contained only 25 engineers and 25 technicians in 

1956.60 Division Chief Irving Johnsen managed over 

100  engineers scattered across 15 sections. Frequent 

PSL researchers Ned Hannum, Ali Mansour, and

Image 109: Wayne Thomas in PSL No. 2. (NASA 

C–1958–49066)

John Wanhainen were in the Engine Systems Section

under Harry Bloomer. Others such as Carl

Auckerman and Art Trout were in Carl Meyer’s

Engine Components Section. Neal Wingenfeld,

Kobak, and PSL No. 2 test engineer Wayne Thomas

were in the Engine Operations Section under Al Ross.

The Test Installations Division was still responsible for 

installing the equipment and running the facility. Bud 

Meilander continued to oversee the PSL mechanics.

Primitive Propulsion 

By the early 1960s the development cost of advanced 

chemical rockets was increasing to the point of

being prohibitive. It was not uncommon to retest large 

engines 50 to 100 times to investigate modifications. 

Lewis’s role was to study broader concepts such as 

materials, cooling, propellant feed systems, and combustion instability. NASA sought to improve rocket 

engine performance while reducing size, costs, and

development time for the entire industry.61

In this vein, Lewis conducted a wide-ranging storable 

propellant program during late 1963 and 1964 that 

focused on a 9,000-pound-thrust engine. Storable 

propellants, such as nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, 

are appealing because they do not require any special 

temperature- or pressure-control measures. NASA 

planned on using storable propellants for the upper 

stages of the Saturn V rocket. Although this type of 

fuel had been studied for several years, combustion 

instability, ablative thrust chamber durability, and 

nozzle efficiency had to be investigated before storable 

propellants could be used for the space program. The

PSL was selected to conduct these investigations

because of its ability to test large engines in an altitude

environment.62

Researchers sought to determine the impulse value of 

the propellant mix, improve the performance, and correlate the results with other analytical tools. A number 

of ejector and combustion chamber designs were studied with both low- and high-area-ratio nozzles. Two 

contour nozzles were machined specifically for the 

PSL.63 In addition, two specially manufactured contour nozzles—one from the Apollo Space Propulsion 

System and one for the U.S. Air Force Space Systems 

Division’s Titan transtage engines—were tested with 

various injectors.64
Pursuit of Power 

By not using a flame collector tube, NASA researchers were able to forgo the usual problems of firing

low-area-ratio nozzles in an altitude chamber. For 

the high-area-ratio nozzle tests, a 72-inch-diameter

diffuser tube was used to exhaust the flame.

The researchers found that the nozzle performance 

was unaffected by combustion instability, but that 

the measurement of combustion chamber pressures 

was not a reliable indicator of the chamber or nozzle 

performance. Although valuable information was

obtained during the tests, attempts to improve the

engine performance were not successful.65

NASA became increasingly interested in solid rockets 

for heavier payloads as the costs of the space program 

escalated in the mid-1960s. Solid rockets are significantly less complicated and expensive than chemical 

rockets. They contain only a nozzle, the propellant, 

and an igniter. The rocket’s shell serves as the pressure 

chamber.66 Not all payloads required the sophisticated rocket concepts originally developed for missiles. 

Solid rocket proponents believed that larger, “dumber” 

rockets could perform many of the same missions at a 

much lower cost.67

In June 1963 Aerojet began developing a 260-inchdiameter engine for the air force at its specially

constructed test facility in the Florida Everglades. In 

March 1965 NASA assigned Lewis the responsibility for a feasibility study of Aerojet’s 3.25-millionpound-thrust rocket. The massive rocket had 

260-inch-diameter nozzles and contained 1.6 million 

pounds of solid propellant.68

The lack of existing data caused Aerojet to struggle 

with the steering system for the motor’s aft end.

Aerojet systematically created these data as well as an 

analytical model to predict the ignition motor pressure 

levels.69 Shortly thereafter, Lewis researchers Salmi 

Reino and James Pelouch performed a series of smallscale model tests of the engine in the PSL. 

Reino and Pelouch decided the best method to

improve the aft thrust vector control was to have a 

gimballing nozzle. The new design relied on a bearing 

that sat directly in the nozzle’s smallest diameter area 

and the insertion of the nozzle further into the actual

engine. The new hot-gas flow patterns raised concern 

regarding the nozzle’s structural integrity, particularly 

in the high-velocity annular region.

During the summer of 1966 Lewis used a 0.07-scale 

model of the engine in the PSL at altitude conditions 

with compressed airflow to study the velocity and

direction of the annular channel flow. High-speed

color motion pictures helped researchers to determine 

the causes of the flow. After several attempts, Lewis was 

able to modify the model so that the nozzle’s integrity 

was bolstered by increased insulation and the annular 

airflow was lower than in the design before gimballing. 

This configuration was verified during ambient conditions inside the former Altitude Wind Tunnel.70,71

Image 110: An Apollo contour engine is installed in PSL No. 1 on 

13 March 1964. Cylindrical and conical combustion chambers were 

used on the engines. Large-area-ratio nozzles with 15° conical skirts 

could be used with any of the combustion chambers. Two contour 

nozzles were machined specifically for a particular chamber. 

Several injectors were studied, and three were selected for in-depth 

investigation. (NASA C–1964–68789)

 92
 The Rocket Era 93

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 111: A full-size Aerojet 260-inch-diameter rocket and its motor case during a 25 October 1965 investigation of a hydrostat 

failure. Shipbuilders were contracted to construct the unique large engine chambers.72 (NASA C–1965–03064)

Image 112: Bill Neidengard inspects the PSL No. 2 installation of a scale model of a large high-energy solid rocket engine in 1963. 

The majority of the nozzle was cut away to facilitate instrumentation.73 (NASA C–1965–1037)
Pursuit of Power 

By 1966 two half-scale versions of the motors had 

been fired at an Aerojet facility in Florida, generating 

1.6 million pounds of thrust. The 2.67 million pounds 

of thrust generated by a third engine test was the largest amount of thrust ever produced by any type of 

rocket.74 A full-scale, nongimballing test was scheduled for mid-1967.75

The program successfully ended in 1967, and several new cost-saving technologies were demonstrated. 

Lewis continued with other solid rocket activities to 

further reduce launch costs, investigate problem areas, 

and improve reliability. Like other space technologies that had no immediate application, however, the 

260-inch-diameter rocket program was canceled as 

NASA’s budgets dried up in the late 1960s.76

End of an Era

The NACA Lewis 1957 Inspection signaled the start 

of Lewis’s space program, and the 1966 Inspection 

marked the end. The talks at the PSL station dealt 

almost exclusively with the advanced chemical rocket 

studies of the previous eight years. The RL-10 studies produced critical advances that led to the success of 

the Centaur rocket. A General Electric J85 jet engine

installed in PSL No. 2, however, portended the

impending transition of both the PSL and the

NASA Lewis Research Center back to airbreathing 

engine work.

Image 113: Setup for a PSL Inspection talk on 7 October 1966. A Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engine is at the left of the stage, an injector plate is at 

the right, and a GE J85 turbojet is in the test cell at the far right. (NASA C–1966–03902)

 94
 The Rocket Era 95

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Endnotes for Chapter 5 

1. Neal Wingenfeld interview, Cleveland, OH, 15 Sep- 

 tember 2008, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

 History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

2. John Kobak interview, Cleveland, OH, 1 September 

 2009, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

3. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Labo- 

 ratory and American Propulsion Technology (Washing-

 ton, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

4. Virginia P. Dawson, “Ideas Into Hardware: A History 

 of the Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA Glenn 

 Research Center,” NASA Glenn, Cleveland, OH, 

 2004, http://history.nasa.gov/retfpub.pdf.

5. John Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as Propulsion Fuel, 

1945–59 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4404, 1978).

6. V.F. Hlavin, E.R. Jonash, and A.L. Smith, Low Pressure 

 Performance of a Tubular Combustor With Gaseous 

 Hydrogen (Washington, DC: NACA RM– E54L30A, 

 1955), pp. 9–10.

7. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, chap. 8.

8. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, chap. 8.

9. “1957 Inspection October 7–10, 1957,” Wing Tips

 (11 September 1957).

10. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 4 September 

 2005. NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

11. Propulsion Systems Division, “Data Tabulation, Alti-

 tude Chambers, PSL-1.”

12. Propulsion Systems Division, “Data Tabulation, Alti-

 tude Chambers, PSL-1,” NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

13. M. J. Krasnican, et al., “Propulsion Research for

 Hypersonic and Space Flight,” NACA Lewis Flight 

 Propulsion Laboratory Inspection, 7–10 October 

 1957, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

 OH. 

14. Eugene Manganiello to I. H. Abbott and E. W. 

 Conlon, 20 January 1960, NASA Glenn History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

15. Krasnican, et al., “Propulsion Research for Hypersonic 

 and Space Flight,” p. 4.

16. Hypersonic Tunnel Facilities,” 23 September 1957, 

 NASA Glenn History Collection, Director’s Collec- 

 tion, Cleveland, OH. 

17. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

18. Propulsion Systems Division, “Data Tabulation, Alti- 

 tude Chambers, PSL-1.”

19. Nancy Barron, “Pebble Bed Enables High-Temperature 

 Research,” Wing Tips (26 February 1958).

20. Kobak interview, 2009.

21. Kobak interview, 2009.

22. Kobak interview, 2009.

23. Kobak interview, 2009.

24. Kobak interview, 2009.

25. Kobak interview, 2009.

26. Kobak interview, 2009.

27. Kobak interview, 2009.

28. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

29. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

30. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

31. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

32. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

33. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

34. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

35. Propulsion Systems Division, “Data Tabulation, Alti- 

 tude Chambers, PSL-1.”

36. Kobak interview, 2009.

37. Kobak interview, 2009.

38. Kobak interview, 2009.

39. Kobak interview, 2009.

40. Kobak interview, 2009.

41. Virginia P. Dawson, “Ideas Into Hardware.” 

42. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

43. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid

 Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958– 

 2002 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4230, 2004).

44. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

45. Dawson and Bowles, Taming Liquid Hydrogen.

46. R. F. Holsten, “Centaur Propulsion Systems Testing 

 Volume I,” 7 December 1962 (Pratt & Whitney 

 FR–431).

47. Kobak interview, 2009.

48. John P. Wanhainen, et al., Throttling Characteristics of 

 a Hydrogen-Oxygen, Regeneratively-Cooled, Pump- 

 Fed Rocket Engine (Washington, DC: NASA 

 TM X–1043, 1964).

49. Kobak interview, 2009.

50. “Advanced Chemical Rockets: Presented at 1966 

 Inspection of the Lewis Research Center,” 4 October 

 1966, NASA Glenn History Collection, Inspections 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

51. William E. Conrad, Ned P. Hannum, and Harry E. 

 Bloomer, Photographic Study of Liquid-Oxygen 

 Boiling and Gas Injection in the Injector of a Chugging 

 Rocket Engine (Washington, DC: NASA TM X– 

 948, 1964).

52. Conrad, Hannum, and Bloomer, Photographic Study 

 of Liquid-Oxygen Boiling and Gas Injection.

53. “Advanced Chemical Rockets.”

54. Kobak interview, 2009.
Pursuit of Power 

55. Kobak interview, 2009.

56. “1962–1972: The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis 

 News (20 October 1972).

57. Larry Ross interview, Cleveland, OH, 1 March 2007, 

 NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

58. Kobak interview, 2009.

59. Wingenfeld interview, 2008.

60. Propulsion Systems Division, “Data Tabulation,

 Altitude Chambers, PSL-1.”

61. “Advanced Chemical Rockets.”

62. Carl Auckerman and Arthur Trout, Experimental 

 Rocket Performance of Apollo Storable Propellants 

 in Engines With Large Area Ratio Nozzles (Washing- 

 ton, DC: NASA TN D–3566, 1966). 

63. Auckerman and Trout, Experimental Rocket Perfor- 

 mance of Apollo Storable Propellants. 

64. Auckerman and Trout, Experimental Rocket Perfor- 

 mance of Apollo Storable Propellants. 

65. Auckerman and Trout, Experimental Rocket Perfor- 

 mance of Apollo Storable Propellants. 

66. “Advanced Chemical Rockets.”

67. Lionel Johns, Ray Williamson, and Richard DalBello, 

 “Big Dumb Boosters: A Low-Cost Space Transporta- 

 tion Option?: AN OTA Background Paper,” February 

 1989, Workshop on Low-Technology, Low-Cost Space 

 Transportation Options, 1 December 1987.

68. 260-Inch Diameter Motor Feasibility Demonstration 

 Program (Sacramento, CA: Aerojet General Corpora- 

 tion, 1966).

69. Carl Ciepluch, Status of the 260-Inch Diameter Solid 

 Rocket Motor Program (Washington, DC: NASA 

 TM X–52275, 1967).

70. Reino Salmi and James Pelouch, Jr., Investigation of a 

 Submerged Nozzle for Solid Rockets (Washington, 

 DC: NASA TM X–52285, 1967).

71. Reino J. Salmi and James J. Pelouch, Jr., 1/14.2-Scale 

 Investigation of Submerged Nozzle for SL-3 260-Inch 

 Solid Rocket (Washington, DC: NASA TM X–1546, 

 1968).

72. “Advanced Chemical Rockets.”

73. Salmi and Pelouch, Investigation of a Submerged Nozzle 

 for Solid Rockets.

74. “Advanced Chemical Rockets.”

75. Salmi and Pelouch, Investigation of a Submerged Nozzle 

 for Solid Rockets.

76. J. D. Hunley, The Development of Propulsion Technology 

 for U.S. Space-Launch Vehicles, 1926-1991 (College

 Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2007), 

 p. 270.

 96
.
Image 114: A close-up of the Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan engine with instrumentation installed on 11 August 1967. 

(NASA C–1967–02827)
• 6 •

Jet Engines Roar Back

Abe Silverstein made a daring move in January 1966 

that would transform the NASA Lewis Research

Center for the next decade. Although the Apollo Program was ramping up, and the nation was captivated 

with the space program, Silverstein decided to steer 

the center away from space research and back into aircraft propulsion. The sharp break had its antecedents 

at the center with equally harsh adjustments for the jet 

engine in 1945 and the space program in 1957. Silverstein felt that individuals performed best when thrown 

into unfamiliar areas.

“So many people, when they get immersed in a given 

field, aren’t willing to move out of it because it becomes 

comfortable,” Silverstein later explained. “And if we 

hadn’t done it sharply, we would have been slipping, 

sliding around in a lot of old projects for a long time 

and losing effectiveness on things that weren’t really 

new and going anywhere.”1

The move made some anxious because the staff had 

been consumed by space activities for the last decade, 

and the Apollo Program was about to come to fruition. In addition, the center’s powerful test facilities, 

including the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), 

now found themselves competing with those in private 

industry and at the Arnold Engineering Development 

Center (AEDC).2,f,3 

A host of new aeronautical challenges had arisen 

during the previous decade. Europeans were making strong advances with the long-awaited supersonic 

transport (SST) technology. The French prototype 

was being assembled at the time and the Russian SST 

would make its initial flight in 1968.4 Meanwhile, the 

United States struggled vainly throughout the 1960s 

to develop its own version.

Unlike their groundbreaking engine work in the 1940s 

and 1950s, Lewis’s new studies were not only for the 

military but also for the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. The 

increase in commercial flights and airport congestion resulted in new problems that needed Lewis’s

expertise, including noise abatement and emissions

reduction. 

The revolutionary growth of the airlines in the

mid-1950s was powered by a new type of engine: the 

turbofan. Turbofans pass most of the airflow around 

the engine core. This reduces noise levels, decreases 

fuel consumption, and generates additional thrust at 

low velocities. The turbofan was more efficient and 

powerful than the turbojet, but it had its own set of 

design problems. In addition, modern engines were 

increasingly susceptible to compressor flutter and

required more sophisticated control systems. Clearly, 

there was an abundance of new problems for Lewis to 

resolve.

Silverstein outlined some of the issues facing engine

manufacturers during a September 1966 talk in

London. He credited the expansion of the airline

industry to the lighter, longer-lasting, and more

efficient engines, then went on to describe some of the 

problems.

“These requirements lead to complex engine machinery which must be compromised to provide, not only 

effective and economical performance and operations, 

but which must also operate quietly. Further, the need 

for efficiency generally conflicts with the requirement 

that the aircraft be tolerant of [the] flight environment 

and forgiving of error in design, construction, and

handling.”5

f

Herbitus, Germany’s first modern altitude chamber and the first 

altitude testbed for jet engines, was operating by 1944.  At the end 

of the war, the Herbitus was dismantled by American troops and 

shipped to the United States. It was reassembled at the new AEDC 3 in 1954. 

 Jet Engines Roar Back 99
Pursuit of Power 

Airbreathing Research Personnel

After 10 years of rocket studies, the PSL would play

a major role in the new aeronautical program. In

1967 Lewis created the Airbreathing Engines Division

to address these new propulsion issues. Its Chief, 

J. Howard Childs, was among the first to work on 

jet propulsion at the Cleveland lab in 1943. The

Airbreathing Engines staff, which consisted entirely

of operation engineers, was housed in the PSL

Operations Building. Many of the PSL Chemical

Rocket Division personnel were integrated into the 

new division and remained at the facility. 

Others, like John Kobak and Neal Wingenfeld,

remained with the rocket group and moved on to 

other facilities.6 Howard Wine remembered being

reassigned to the new Zero Gravity Facility. “[I] knew 

every nut and bolt in the place [PSL] for I think about 

10 years and all of a sudden my boss came to me and 

said, ‘we would like you to go over and kind of get in 

on the ground work of Zero-G’....They asked me if I 

would be interested in going over there. I said, ‘yeah,’ 

even though I hated to leave PSL.”7

Frank Kutina oversaw the section of the Airbreathing Engine Division’s Research Operations Branch 

that worked with the PSL researchers to develop the 

test configurations and setup.8

 The Test Installations

Division’s mechanics, electricians, and electrical technicians continued to be responsible for building up the 

test facilities and setting up tests. The Test Installations

Division personnel worked closely with Kutina and

his crew.

The General Electric (GE) J85 airflow distortion program elucidated the interaction of the different divisions for a single PSL investigation. The Airbreathing 

Engines Division was responsible for designing 

and fabricating the instrumentation, preparing the

Image 115: A Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan engine about to be installed in PSL No. 1 on 6 October 1967. Left to right: PSL Electrical 

Engineer Fred Looft and Engineering Services Chief Robert Godman. (NASA C–1967–03560)

 100
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 116: Diverse types of engineers from several divisions coordinate to install a GE engine in PSL No. 1 on 8 May 1967. 

(NASA C–1967–01584)

Image 117: Frank Kutina, seen here in 1957, served 

as head of PSL operations engineers a decade later. He 

retired in 1994 with 53 years of NASA service and an 

Exceptional Service Medal. (NASA C–1957–44592)

engine, overseeing its installation into the test cell, and

providing support during the test runs. The Fluid

System Components Division selected and fabricated 

the experimental equipment and consulted on the

instrumentation and data acquisition. 

The Wind Tunnels and Flight Division coordinated 

the PSL testing with other facilities, selected the

experimental equipment, and provided the project 

engineer.9

 The Test Installations Division technicians 

worked with these groups to integrate the equipment 

for the test into the facility.

An emerging trend during this period was the study

of different research topics using a single engine

already under investigation for different purposes.

Over the next decade, the GE J85 and Pratt &

Whitney’s F100 and TF30 would each be used for a 

variety of different tests.

 Jet Engines Roar Back 101
Pursuit of Power 

Image 118: Bud Meilander views the flamespreader in PSL No. 2 on 18 May 1967. As the engines being tested in the PSL increased in size, 

the primary cooler became damaged by the higher temperature exhaust flows. The flamespreader slowed the flow of hot gases at the cooler inlet by 

spreading the exhaust over a larger area. This increased the cooler’s heat-transfer capabilities and prevented damage to the cooler tubing.10

(NASA C–1967–01733)

 102
 Jet Engines Roar Back 103

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 119: Lewis’s new F-106B Delta Dart aircraft on 14 June 1968 showing the two research nacelles with J85 engines beneath its delta wings. 

One nacelle housed a “reference engine” and the other the modified test engine. Both were operated under identical conditions and had identical 

drag profiles. Load cell differences could then be attributed to characteristics of the research engine.11 (NASA C–1969–02871)

Supersonic Calibration

Boeing led the nation’s effort in the late 1960s to 

develop an SST aircraft powered by four massive 

65,000-pound-thrust GE4 turbojets. The amount of 

fuel required to reach supersonic speeds and engine 

noise levels were two of the larger problems besetting the program. In order to provide a better general

understanding of these issues, the NASA Lewis

Research Center undertook extensive drag and noisereduction studies from 1967 to 1977. The programs 

focused on the inlets and nozzles for advanced propulsion systems. 

Jet engines can be deafening, but only a small amount 

of a turbojet’s in-flight noise is created by the engine 

itself. The primary cause is the interaction of the hot 

exhaust gas with the surrounding atmosphere. Lewis 

had first studied the use of noise-suppressing nozzles 

and ejectors in the late 1950s. The new studies focused 

on nozzle performance in the transonic range. The goal 

was to determine the change in noise and thrust created by supersonic airflow at the exhaust nozzle.12

GE’s relatively small but potent J85-13 turbojet was 

selected for this study because its “reasonable size”

enabled it to be mounted under the wings of the flight 

research vehicle and reduced fuel consumption during 

the tests.13 GE still claims that the 18-inch-diameter 

J85 provides the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any 

engine in its class.14

Two GE engineers traveled to Cleveland in May 1967 

to prepare the engine for its initial runs in the PSL. 

The men praised the technicians for their setup of

the PSL chamber. They claimed it was one of the

best tank installations they had witnessed despite 

Lewis’s paucity of recent jet engine work. The GE and 

Lewis engineers proceeded to collaborate on several 

small improvements to the installation throughout the 

summer.

15

Different nozzle configurations were first explored

in the center’s two large supersonic wind tunnels.

Because the tunnels’ size limitations precluded complete engine testing, a full-scale version was then 

checked out in the PSL. The modified engine was 

then flown at transonic and supersonic speeds on the 

F-106B. Mounting the research engines under the

F-106B’s delta wings provided researchers with a subscale facsimile of the SST.16
Pursuit of Power 

The 1968 and 1969 runs in the PSL ensured flight 

worthiness, verified the performance of the engine 

and nozzle, and determined pressure and temperature

profiles.17 This engine calibration was performed prior 

to any modifications to the engine’s noise-reduction 

treatment, nozzle, or compressor. The engine’s inlet 

pressure, temperatures, and rate of gas flow had to be 

determined at transonic speeds in order to define the 

characteristics of a nozzle.18

William Latto, Jr., a veteran of Lewis’s early rocket 

work, was able to use the PSL test data to calculate 

the engine’s inlet thrust and specific fuel consumption 

within a 0.06-percent error margin.19,20 These measurements served as the basis for future engine and 

nozzle tests in the PSL, on the center’s F-106 research 

aircraft, and in the supersonic tunnels.21

Over the course of forty F-106B research flights 

in 1970, six variable-geometry supersonic-cruise 

variations and two inlets were analyzed.22,23 These

included variable-flap ejectors and plug and auxiliary 

inlet ejector nozzles. The plug nozzle was first acoustically tested while the aircraft sat on the airport tarmac.

Afterward, a series of passes were made 300-feet above 

the audio-recording equipment.24 At subsonic cruise, 

the variable-flap ejector appeared to be the most promising, with the plug nozzle next best. However, from 

ground test results, the plug nozzle appeared to be

less noisy than others.25 The regimen continued in 

1971 and included a plug nozzle cooled by compressor 

bleed air.26

Boeing’s SST never made it past the drawing board. 

Congress canceled the program in October 1971 as 

the public became increasingly wary of its noise, sonic 

booms, and the possible ozone depletion over U.S.

territory. The SST was not economical to fly at the

subsonic speeds required to reduce noise levels.

Interestingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

approved the Concorde for overland flights weeks after 

canceling Boeing’s program.27

Although Lewis’s SST noise-reduction efforts were 

disappointing overall, researchers did make abatement 

strides by using the plug nozzle and relocating the

engine underneath the wing.28 The F-106B completed 

its last flight for Lewis on 8 January 1977. In the eight 

Image 120: Lee Wagoner examines the 4,080-pound-thrust J85-13 setup in PSL No. 2 on 26 May 1967. GE engineers had recently 

arrived to assist with the installation. (NASA C–1967–02128)

 104
 Jet Engines Roar Back 105

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

and a half years at Lewis, the aircraft flew over 300

test flights, and the research contributed to 45 technical reports.29

Artificial Distortion 

The design and performance of aircraft engines and 

inlets continually evolved to meet escalating expectations. The constant battle to increase thrust while 

decreasing overall weight created additional stress on 

jet engine components, particularly compressors. As 

speed and maneuverability were enhanced, the strain 

on the engines and inlets grew. This strain was primarily a result of inlet flow distortions and lower Reynolds 

numbers. This thorny combination reduced compressor stability and led to increased stall margins.30

The distortions are produced by shifts in either pressure or temperature. Generally, pressure distortions 

are generated by strong winds, high angles of attack, 

aircraft wakes, or boundary layer interactions. The 

temperature distortions, which are less common,

arise from the exhaust of other aircraft or the firing of 

weapons.31

In 1968 Lewis undertook a wide-ranging, long-term 

study of airflow distortion. The goal was to collect a 

large amount of data and combine it in analytical models. The 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel was 

used to study the compatibility and control of different 

inlets and engines under simulated flight conditions at 

the compressor. The PSL was more suitable for simulating the conditions at the engine inlet.32

Two very different engines would be the primary testbeds for the distortion program—the GE J85-13

turbojet and the Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan. 

The TF30, which emerged in the early 1960s as the 

nation’s first 25,000-pound-thrust engine, dwarfed 

the J85 in size and power. The TF30 powered the 

U.S. Air Force’s F-111 Aardvark and the U.S. Navy’s 

F-14A Tomcat fighter jets. The 4,080-pound-thrust 

J85 became one of GE’s most enduring and successful 

engines, particularly on the Northrop T-38 Falcon and 

F-5 Freedom Fighter.

Lewis conducted a number of tests in 1969 and

1970 to examine the airflow distortion on the Pratt &

Whitney TF30-P-1 and TF30-P-3 engines in

Image 121: A Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine being prepared on 

10 August 1967 for a test in PSL No. 1. (NASA C–1967–02809)

PSL No. 1. Similar studies were run concurrently on 

the GE J85-13 in PSL No. 2. The engines were first 

tested without any distortion to establish baseline

parameters.33

Engineers in the PSL employed different methods of 

distorting the airflow to simulate disturbances found 

during flight. During the early studies, screens were

inserted into the inlet duct to create the distortions. 

The TF30-P-1 compressor proved impervious to four 

different flow-distortion patterns used in one study.34

Altering the screen setup was a time-intensive chore, 

however. Lewis researchers devised a distortion device 

in PSL No. 1 with a series of 54 air jets that systematically fired into the airstream. A test of the new system 

on the TF30-P-1 demonstrated that the air jets were 

just as effective as the screens, and by their very nature, 

the air jets were more versatile and easier to install.35

The Lewis researchers were then able to map the

engine’s likeliness to stall when it was subjected to 

different pulses or distortions. It was found that the

duration of a stall-inducing pulse was the inverse of its 

amplitude.36,37
Pursuit of Power 

A TF30-P-3 also underwent an overall checkout in 

PSL No. 1. Attention was focused on the afterburner 

performance and engine operating limits.38 The PSL 

tests established that the increased speeds and altitudes produced inlet flow distortions that, along with 

decreased Reynolds numbers, reduced the stability of 

the engine’s compressor. In addition, afterburner performance decreased as altitude increased.39

During the summer of 1969 a gaseous hydrogen

burner was set up in front of both the TF30-P-1 and 

TF30-P-3 to create temperature disturbances. The 

individual sections of the burner were independently 

controlled to produce a number of different distortion 

patterns. The researchers discovered that inlet temperature distortion had a significant effect on engine

stability.40 Compressor stall occurred with temperature changes of 14 to 20 percent.41

The third phase of the studies analyzed different combinations of pressure and temperature distortions. The 

systematically mapped engine results showed effects 

similar to those predicted by computer models.42

Treatments

The distortion research provided a better understanding of the effect of transient distortions on engine

behavior.43 The PSL studies were performed in parallel with Lewis’s computer modeling efforts. The engine 

tests were used to refine the virtual models, which the 

flow specialists used to develop strategies for combating inlet distortion. One technique involved carving 

slots or grooves in the compressor casing to guide the 

tips of the compressor blades. This was referred to as 

“treatments.”44

The Lewis researchers who studied various casing 

treatments on single-stage compressors found that the 

treated compressors had increased flow range, distortion tolerance, and operating envelope. Leon Wenzel 

led a team that investigated the effects of the treatments on multistage compressors at the PSL. It was 

a cooperative program involving the Airbreathing

Engine, Fluid System Components, and Wind

Tunnels and Flight divisions.45

The Lewis team selected the J85-13 for the investigation because of the staff ’s familiarity with the engine. 

GE thinned the engine’s stator segments and designed 

Image 122: Leon Wenzel (seen here in 1957) of the Systems Dynamics Section in the Wind Tunnels and Flight Division led the compressor casing treatment studies. (NASA C–1957–45544)

an almost entirely new casing to accommodate the 

treatments.46 Stress fatigue studies confirmed that the 

modified blades were as strong as GE’s original stator design.47 The casing included removable inserts 

so that different treatment types could be installed 

and tested. GE provided three sets of treatments—an

angled blade slot, a circumferential groove, and no 

treatment.48

In late 1973 and 1974 Wenzel’s researchers examined the treatment types, the optimal combination 

of compressor stages to treat, and possible decreases 

in efficiency in PSL No. 2. Each of the engine’s eight 

compressor stages was individually instrumented to 

provide undistorted inlet conditions.49,50 

The researchers began by mapping the engine with and 

without treatments for the blade tips. Then all eight 

stages were outfitted with circumferentially grooved 

rings and were tested. The engine was run again with 

the rings only on the last three stages. Rings with

angled slots were then tested in a similar fashion. The 

PSL studies, however, found that the treatments did 

not improve performance and that, in some cases, they 

 106
 Jet Engines Roar Back 107

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

actually reduced pumping capability.51,52 Research into 

the use of treatments has continued over the years, and 

they have been incorporated into some engine designs 

with some degree of success.

Slower, Better, Cheaper

One of the new initiatives emerging from Lewis in the 

late 1960s was a small 650-pound-thrust low-cost jet 

engine. Jet engines had proven themselves on military 

and large transport aircraft, but cost precluded their 

use on small general aviation aircraft. Lewis undertook 

a multiyear effort to develop a less expensive engine to 

fill this niche.53

The Low Cost Engine was to be 75-percent less expensive than normal jet engines and was to use less fuel 

and emit fewer pollutants than did the reciprocating 

engines then in use. In addition, they would increase 

the aircraft’s speed, range, and safety.54 Performance 

sacrifices were necessary because of the temperature 

and pressure limitations required to fabricate the

engine from low-cost materials.55

“Our mission was not to invent a new type of engine,” 

explained project manager Harold Gold, “but to find 

ways to simplify small gas turbine engines, reducing 

the production costs.”56

The navy became interested in using the technology as 

a possible alternative to the rockets that powered their 

expendable drone aircraft. The navy began cosponsoring the program in 1970, and Lewis altered the engine 

design to meet their specifications.57

The four-stage, axial-flow Low Cost Engine was constructed from sheet metal. It was only 11.5 inches in 

diameter and weighed 100 pounds.58 The final design 

specifications were turned over to a manufacturer in 

1972. Four engines were created, and as expected, the 

fabrication and assembly of the engine were comparatively inexpensive.59

During sea-level tests on a test stand in the

Special Projects Laboratory, low compressor efficiencies prevented the Low Cost Engine from meeting

Image 123: Researchers Robert Cummings and Harold Gold on 2 February 1972 with the small Low Cost Engine in the shadow of the 

much larger Quiet Engine being tested in PSL No. 3. (NASA C–1972–00577)
Pursuit of Power 

its 600-pound-thrust limit.60 The researchers found 

that operating the engine at 107 percent of its rated 

corrected engine speed produced 700 pounds of 

thrust.61

In 1973 the Low Cost Engine had its first realistic 

analysis in PSL No. 2. It was installed in the altitude 

chamber with a direct-connect setup and successfully 

operated at speeds up to Mach  1.24 and simulated

altitudes of 30,000 feet. The engine was restarted several times at altitude and demonstrated the ability to 

perform continuously for 1 hour.62 Follow-up tests 

were run at the Special Projects Laboratory the next 

year, and the program successfully concluded.

Lewis succeeded in creating a small turbojet with estimated production costs of around $3,000.63 The navy 

flight-tested the engine at the Naval Weapons Center 

in California for its drone aircraft.64

NASA released the engine to private industry in the 

hope that design elements would be incorporated in 

future projects and reduce the overall cost of small

jet aircraft.65 Small jet and turboprop engines had

become relatively common in general aviation aircraft 

by the late 1970s, and the center continued to pursue 

the field with its General Aviation Program engines.66

The Compass Cope

At the same time that the Low Cost Engine was

being studied in PSL No. 2, another engine was being 

studied in PSL No. 1 for a different drone vehicle—the 

Teledyne Ryan Compass Cope. Development of a new 

generation of high-altitude, unpiloted reconnaissance 

aircraft to penetrate Chinese territory was instituted 

in 1971. The Compass Cope was similar to Lockheed’s 

U-2 with its 81-foot wingspan, its high-altitude and 

long-distance flights, and its ability to take off and land 

on runways. The Compass Cope, however, would be 

deployed on missions too dangerous for a pilot.67

Boeing created an initial prototype in 1971, the

YQM-94 B-Gulls, but Teledyne Ryan developed its 

own version, the YQM-98A Compass Cope Tern, the 

following June. Although the original Tern met all of 

the air force’s specifications except 24-hour endurance, 

Teledyne Ryan decided to completely redesign the

vehicle.68

Image 124: An early version of the Teledyne Ryan YQM-98A Compass Cope Tern with its 81-foot wingspan at Edwards 

Air Force Base in 1975.69

 108
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 125: Original ATF3 SN 16 engine in the PSL on 18 January 1973. This engine was later rebuilt and was available for spare parts for the 

Compass Cope program. The SN 17 served as the prototype for Garrett’s 5,450-pound-thrust ATF3-6.70 (NASA C–1973–00344)

The new Tern included a different engine and could 

perform 24-hour missions without any groundbased control. Teledyne Ryan looked to Garrett

Corporationg for the new powerplant. Garrett had

recently developed its ATF3 and TFE 731 turbofans

to power several business transport aircraft.71 The

4,050-pound-thrust ATF3 first ran in 1968, but 

it did not undergo flight-rate testing until January

1974. Garrett’s 3,500-pound-thrust TFE 731-2 was

designed in 1970 and was expeditiously flight certified 

in 1973.72

During the Tern’s redesign, the air force requested 

the use of Lewis’s PSL facility from 1971 to 1973 to 

compare the ATF3 and TFE 731-2 engines in altitude 

conditions. “Our Air Force Contract Administrator for 

the test managed to keep us thinking there were other 

competitors,” Garrett engineer Jerry Steele recalled, 

“but I don’t know if there really were any.”73

The PSL tests would ensure that the two Garrett 

engines would perform throughout the aircraft’s

entire flight envelope.  The TFE 731-2 was installed 

in PSL No. 1 in October 1971. The engine failed 

several weeks later and had to be rebuilt. When testing resumed in March 1972, the TFE 731-2 met the

Tern’s performance specifications but was unable to 

generate any additional thrust.74

The ATF3 tests began in early 1973. Jerry Steele, 

John Huber, and Jack White, respectively, served as

Garrett’s ATF3 test engineer, performance engineer, 

and controls engineer for the PSL tests.75

Garrett had produced two versions of the ATF3 specifically for the Tern vehicle: the SN 16 and the SN 17. 

The 4,050-pound-thrust SN 16 was installed in PSL 

No. 1 and run at a pressure-simulated 60,000 feet 

in January 1973. The engine performed well at that

altitude, but the engineers found that the engine would 

g

Honeywell International, Inc., today. 

 Jet Engines Roar Back 109
Pursuit of Power 

stall when the power was reduced. “Thus it could go up 

but not come down,” explained Steele.76

Modifications were made to the turbine nozzle, inlet 

guide vanes, fuel control schedules, and inlet compressor bleed system. The updated SN 16 was successfully 

retested at altitudes throughout the flight envelope.77

The SN 17 engine was then analyzed. It easily covered 

the proposed flight envelope, and the engineers were 

able use the SN 17’s Electronic Engine Control. It

was the first complete locked-throttle climb of any

turbofan.78

As the program was nearing completion, the

Garrett engineers decided to try to maximize the 

SN 17’s capabilities on the last night of testing.

Huber recalled the PSL operations engineer claiming

that it was the first time that an engine was still

generating thrust at the chamber’s maximum

100,000-foot ceiling. “The inlet pressure and airflow 

were so low,” explained Steele, “that the heavily insulated facility ducts could not prevent the outer part 

of the airflow next to the duct walls from heating up, 

causing a severe inlet temperature gradient and a very 

high average inlet temperature.”79

The tests were considered to be successful, and the air 

force selected the ATF3 for the program. Both ATF3 

engines had demonstrated the ability to cover the 

Compass Cope’s flight envelope and had outperformed 

the TFE 731. In the end, the SN 16 ATF3 

was chosen over the SN 17 because there was 

enough existing hardware to create three of 

the engines.80

Huber recalled, “After the tests were over, the 

Air Force Contracts Officer told us ours was 

the only engine in the competition to reach 

the minimum Mach number, maximum altitude and still have any thrust.”81 The ATF3 

also had the built-in design advantage of

expelling the hot exhaust through eight

ejectors near the fan flow. The gases were 

comparably cool and quiet as they exited the 

nozzle. This was a valuable asset for a stealth 

aircraft.82

Flight testing of the Tern with the ATF3 engine

began in August 1974. The aircraft could cruise at

Mach 0.6 at 55,000 feet for more than 24  hours.83

That November the aircraft set an endurance record 

for an unpiloted, unrefueled aircraft: over 28 hours. 

According to John Evans, a postflight fuel inspection 

revealed that roughly another 6 hours of propellant

remained in the tanks.84

Nonetheless, the Boeing version was selected as the 

production aircraft the following year. Teledyne Ryan 

had outperformed Boeing in every category except 

cost. The program was canceled in July 1977 before 

the legal arguments between Teledyne Ryan and

Boeing were resolved.85,86

The TFE 731 became the dominant engine in the

midsized business jet market between 1973 and 1977. 

It had almost no competition in its size and power. In 

addition, its low noise levels and fuel efficiency coincided perfectly with the times.87 The ATF3 went on to 

a successful career powering the Dassault Falcon business jets. 

Hazards Exposed

It was midnight, and the third-shift crew had just

arrived on duty at PSL’s Equipment Building. The airhandling system was running to support a combustor 

rig test in the Engine Research Building. The crew was 

shorthanded, and there was some confusion as the 

Image 126: An overpressurization in the exhausters in PSL’s Equipment Building 

caused a serious explosion. This 7 April 1971 photograph shows windows blown 

out on the exterior of the building. (NASA C–1971–01269)

 110
 Jet Engines Roar Back 111

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 127: Overall interior view on 7 April 1971 of damage from the PSL Equipment Building explosion. Note the broken windows in the far 

wall, the hole in the roof, and the raised heater at the floor level surrounded by debris. (NASA C–1971–01272)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 128: Close-up of the 96-inch-diameter header that failed in the 

explosion. (NASA C–1971–01283)

foreman sought to staff all the required stations. In the 

few minutes of disorder, a valve between the exhausters and the exhaust stack was mistakenly sealed.

The sound of the overpressurization of the exhausters 

sent the operators scrambling to reduce the load. At 

12:15 a.m. two men in the control room saw a large 

cloud of dust appear and immediately sought shelter on the floor as an explosion ripped through the

building.88

The men were uninjured, but two others, 150  feet 

away from the building, were wounded by falling

debris. The rupture of a large inverted dished head 

in the basement had destroyed the 6-inch-thick

reinforced-concrete floor above it, damaged I-beam 

supports, and tore a 30-foot hole in the roof 35 feet 

above the floor. There was extensive damage to the 

equipment, piping, and windows.89

An Accident Investigation Board was established the 

following morning. One week later, after several meetings and discussions, the board presented its findings 

to Center Director Bruce Lundin. The investigators found that an operator had inadvertently closed 

a 72-inch-diameter butterfly valve, which caused the

exhausters to begin perform as compressors. This soon 

caused the pressure in the line to increase until the 

large valve gave out.90

As a result, the PSL system was modified to incorporate several large check valves. The accident, in conjunction with another overpressurization incident 

several months earlier, led to NASA’s implementation 

of a Recertification Program for test engineers.91

Endnotes for Chapter 6 

1. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, conducted 

by John Mauer, 10 March 1989, Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

2. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991), chap. 9. 

3. Kyrill von Gersdorff, “Aeroengines—Altitude Test Beds,” 

Aeronautical Research in Germany: From Lilienthal 

Until Today, 147, Ernst-Heinrich Hirschel, Horst 

Prem, and Gero Madelung, editors (Berlin: SpringerVerlag, 2004), p. 221.

4. “High-Speed Research—The Tu-144LL A Supersonic Flying Laboratory,” FS–1996–09–18-LaRC 

(September 1996), http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ 

langley/news/factsheets/TU-144.html (accessed

23 May 2011).

5. Abe Silverstein, Progress in Aircraft Gas Turbine 

Engine Development (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–52240, 1966).

6. Neal Wingenfeld interview, Cleveland, OH, 15 September 2008, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

7. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 4 September 

2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

8. “Their Testing Talent Advances Jet Engines,” Lewis 

News (9 October 1970).

9. Leon Wenzel to the Record, “Tip-Treated J-85 

Program,” 31 January 1973, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

10. James DeRaimo, “Flame Spreader for Cell #2 at PSL,” 

12 August 1968, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

 112
 Jet Engines Roar Back 113

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

11. Fred Wilcox to the Record, “Definition of F-106 

Research Program and Results of Study of Accuracy,” 

8 December 1967, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

12. “Jet Aircraft Noise Reduction,” Annual Inspection at 

NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 7–10 

October 1957, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

13. Paul Colarusso to Procurement Division, “NonCompetitive Procurement for PF 442436, Design and 

Fabrication of Modifications to a General Electric J-85 

Jet Engine to Provide Blade Tip Treatment,” 7 April 

1971, Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

14. General Electric Company, “Model J85” (2011), 

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/j85/index.html

(accessed June 2011).

15. M. H. Campbell to Fred Wilcox, “PSL Testing of 

J85-13 Engine,” 6 June 1967, Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

16. Fred Wilcox, “F106B Retirement, Comments on Its 

Tour of Duty at Lewis,” 17 May 1991, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Test Facilities Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

17. Nick Samanich and Sidney Huntley, Thrust and 

Pumping Characteristics of Cylindrical Ejectors Using 

Afterburning Turbojet Gas Generator (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–52565, 1969).

18. “PSL Calibration Program” notes, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Test Facilities Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

19. W. T. Latto, Jr., “In-Flight Thrust Calculation for the 

J85-13 Engine,” 8 February 1967, Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

20. John Smith, Chi Young, and Robert Antl, Experimental Techniques for Evaluating Steady-State Jet Engine 

Performance in an Altitude Facility (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–2398, 1971).

21. Smith, Young, and Antl, Experimental Techniques for 

Evaluating Steady-State Jet Engine Performance. 

22. Charles Tracy, “SST Concepts are Tested Here,” The 

Cleveland Press, 7 May 1969.

23. Samanich and Huntley, Thrust and Pumping Characteristics of Cylindrical Ejectors.

24. “Exhaust Nozzle Key to Quieter Jets,” Lewis News

(11 September 1970).

25. “Exhaust Nozzle Key to Quieter Jets.” 

26. “Center Recounts 1970 Progress,” Lewis News

(29 January 1971).

27. Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971 (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–4016, 1972).

28. Fred Wilcox, “F106B Retirement.”

29. “Final Flight,” Lewis News (4 February 1977).

30. John McAulay and Mahmood Abdelwahab, Experimental Evaluation of a TF-30-P-3 Turbofan Engine in 

an Altitude Facility: Afterburner Performance and

Engine-Afterburner Operating Limits (Washington, 

DC: NASA TN D–6839, 1972).

31. Edwin Graber and Willis Braithwaite, Summary of 

Recent Investigations of Inlet Flow Distortion Effect on 

Engine Stability (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–71805, 1974).

32. Ross Willoh, et al., “Engine Systems Technology,” 

Aeronautical Propulsion (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–381, 1954).

33. Willis Braithwaite and William Vollmar, Performance 

and Stall Limits of a YTF30-P-1 Turbofan Engine 

with Uniform Inlet Flow (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–1803, 1969).

34. Roger Werner, Mahmood Abdelwahah, and Willis

Braithwaite, Performance and Stall Limits of an 

Afterburner-Equipped Turbofan Engine With and 

Without Engine Flow (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–1947, 1970). 

35. Willis Braithwaite, John Dicus, and John Moss, Evaluation With a Turbofan Engine of Air Jets as a SteadyState Inlet Flow Distortion Device (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–1955, 1970).

36. Braithwaite, Dicus, and Moss, Evaluation With a 

Turbofan Engine of Air Jets.

37. Leon Wenzel, Experimental Investigation of the Effects 

of Pulse Pressure Distortions Imposed on the Inlet of a 

Turbofan (Washington, DC: NASA TM X–1928, 

1969).

38. McAulay and Abdelwahab, Experimental Evaluation of 

a TF-30-P-3 Turbofan Engine.

39. McAulay and Abdelwahab, Experimental Evaluation of 

a TF-30-P-3 Turbofan Engine.

40. Thomas Biesiadny, et al., Summary of Investigations of 

Engine Response to Distorted Inlet Conditions (Washington DC: NASA TM–87317, 1986).

41. Experimental Evaluation of the TF30-P-3 Turbofan 

Engine in an Altitude Facility: Effect of Steady-State 

Temperature Distortion (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–2921, 1973).

42. Willis Braithwaite and Ronald Soeder, Combined Pressure and Temperature Distortion Effects on Internal Flow 

Through a Turbofan Engine (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–79136, 1979).

43. “Lewis Recounts Year’s Progress, Looks Ahead,” Lewis 

News (15 January 1971).

44. Edward Milner and Leon Wenzel, Performance of a 

J85-13 Compressor With Clean and Distorted Inlet Flow

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–3304, 1975).
Pursuit of Power 

45. Leon Wenzel, John Moss, and Charles Mehalic, Effect 

of Casing Treatment on Performance of a Multistage 

Compressor (Washington, DC: NASA TM X–3175, 

1975).

46. Colarusso to Procurement Division, 1971.

47. J.S. Shannon to Wayne Park, “Transmittal of 

Technical Memo No. 73–240,” 23 March 1973, Glenn 

History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

48. John Moss, Effect of Slotted Casing Treatment on Performance of a Multistage Compressor (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–3350, 1976).

49. Wenzel to the Record, 1973.

50. Shannon to Park, 1973.

51. Moss, Effect of Slotted Casing Treatment.

52. Wenzel, Moss, and Mehalic, Effect of Casing Treatment.

53. Robert Cummings and Harold Gold, Concepts for 

Cost Reduction on Turbine Engines for General Aviation

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–52951, 1971).

54. M. R. Barber and Jack Fischel, “General Aviation: The 

Seventies and Beyond,” Vehicle Technology for Civil 

Aviation (1971): 317–332.

55. Robert Cummings, Experience With Low Cost Jet 

Engines (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–38085, 

1972).

56. “Center Tests Small Low Cost Jet Engine,” Lewis News

(24 March 1972).

57. “Center Tests Small Low Cost Jet Engine.”

58. Cummings, Experience With Low Cost Jet Engines.

59. Robert Dengler and Lawrence Macioce, Small, 

Low-Cost , Expendable Turbojet Engine—II Performance Characteristics (Washington DC: NASA TM 

X–3463, 1976).

60. Cummings, Experience with Low Cost Jet Engines.

61. Dengler and Macioce, Small, Low-Cost, Expendable 

Turbojet Engine—II.

62. Dengler and Macioce, Small, Low-Cost, Expendable 

Turbojet Engine—II.

63. Cummings and Gold, Concepts for Cost Reduction on 

Turbine Engines.

64. Cummings, Experience with Low Cost Jet Engines.

65. “Center Tests Small Low Cost Jet Engine.”

66. Richard Leyes and William Fleming, The History of 

North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines

(Reston, VA, AIAA and the Smithsonian Institution, 

1999).

67. Bill Yenne, Attack of the Drones: A History of 

Unmanned Aerial Combat (St. Paul, MN: Zenith 

Press, 2004).

68. John C. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM98A R-Tern,” The Garrett AiResearch ATF3 Online 

Museum (2011), http://web.me.com/jcefamily/ATF3/

Ryan_Compass_Cope_2.html (accessed 15 May 2011).

69. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

70. Jerry Steele to Robert Arrighi, “Re: Altitude Testing,” 

23 May 2011, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test 

Facilities Collection.

71. Ken Fulton, “Competition Among the 5000 Pound 

Fans,” Flight International (17 January 1976).

72. “Turbine Engines of the World,” Flight International

(2 January 1975).

73. Steele to Arrighi, 2011.

74. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

75. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

76. Steele to Arrighi, 2011.

77. Steele to Arrighi, 2011.

78. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

79. Steele to Arrighi, 2011.

80. Steele to Arrighi, 2011.

81. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

82. “Powerplants on Show,” Flight International (12 June 

1975).

83. Yenne, Attack of the Drones.

84. Evans, “Teledyne-Ryan Compass Cope YQM-98A 

R-Tern.”

85. John Evans to Robert Arrighi, “Re: Altitude Testing,” 

31 May 2011.

86. Yenne, Attack of the Drones.

87. Leyes and Fleming, The History of North American 

Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines.

88. Jack Esgar, “Narrative Factual Description of Mishap,” 

1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

89. Jack Esgar, “NASA Industrial Mishap Report,” 27 

April 1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test 

Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

90. Esgar, “NASA Industrial Mishap Report,” 1971.

91. Vincent Verhoff, “Pressure System Safety: 1971 Bldg. 

64 Explosion,” 22 June 2005, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

 114
.
Image 129: Installation of one of the two new 24-foot-diameter test chambers at the PSL No. 3 and 4 facility on 1 August 1969. (NASA 

C–1969–02672)
• 7 •

The Third Step

The NASA Lewis Research Center’s return to aeronautics in 1967 breathed new life into Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory (PSL) No. 1 and 2, but it also 

portended its eventual demise. Twenty years after 

planning began for the original PSL test chambers, 

the center began preparing to add two additional and 

more powerful altitude chambers. The expansion was 

a key component of the center’s return to aeronautics. 

The original PSL chambers had been an improvement on the Four Burner Area, and the new chambers, 

PSL No. 3 and 4, would be an improvement on PSL

No. 1 and 2. Bob Walker explained, “[It] was kind 

of like three steps....The engines got bigger than the

facility.”1

The new 40-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter test sections 

were designed to handle engines twice as powerful as 

any available at the time and to test larger engines with 

higher temperature turbines. New compressors and 

exhausters, which originally could produce speeds up 

to Mach 3 and altitudes up to 70,000 feet, were added 

to the existing PSL Equipment Building.2 This capability was expanded over the years. 

Unlike PSL No. 1 and 2, the new chambers would 

vent their exhaust through a shared 30-foot-long,

50-foot-diameter cooler with a large davit valve to seal 

off the chamber not being used. This gave the new

facility a Y-shape. The cooling system could reduce

the temperature of the engine exhaust from 3,500°F

to 150°F.3

 The hot exhaust gas passed through

17-foot-diameter water ducts then into the larger

50-foot-diameter cooler. The air was cooled as it 

passed through 2,700 water-filled tubes. Three banks 

of nozzles discharged 50 gallons of water per second to 

further cool the exhaust.4

A new heater building was built to house three heat 

exchangers that increased inlet air temperatures to 

1,200°F for certain tests. The 165-pounds-per-squareinch air was generated by three Pratt & Whitney J57 

jet engines.5

Another Giant Emerges

The PSL site was originally a ravine that had been filled 

in the 1920s to build the Cleveland Municipal Airport. 

After the NACA built its lab in 1942, the grassy rectangular area became known as Wright Park. The PSL 

No. 1 and 2 facility and its Equipment Building took 

over the northern half of the park in the late 1940s. 

Now, the PSL No. 3 and 4 facility would occupy the 

remainder of the area. 

Excavation of the 35-foot-deep, 200-foot-wide, and 

500-foot-long hole for the PSL No. 3 and 4 facility was completed in October 1967. The fill dirt was

removed from the site, and pilings for the new building 

were extended down into the bedrock.6

Gilmore-Olson Construction had erected the building’s 700-ton steel skeleton by the end of August

1968. The installation of the electrical, plumbing, and 

other infrastructure would continue throughout the 

next year.7 In September 1968 the Pittsburgh-Des 

Moines Steel Company was hired to manufacture 

and install the two new test chambers and associated 

infrastructure.8 Work commenced on the electrical, 

combustion air system, and cooling water piping in 

September 1970.9

The PSL No. 3 and 4 facility was completed in late 

1972, and testing began in early 1973.10 Center

Director Bruce Lundin held a recognition ceremony 

for the 230 NASA Lewis personnel who brought the 

new facility to fruition. The various division chiefs 

spoke, emphasizing the coordination and teamwork 

required. At the end, Lundin formally dedicated PSL 

No. 3 and 4.11

 The Third Step 117
Pursuit of Power 

Image 130: The large open area in the 

middle of the NACA’s Cleveland lab, seen 

here on 10 September 1945, was known 

as Wright Park. It was reserved for future 

expansion. (NASA C–1945–13061)

Image 131: Wright Park seen on 

29 April 1957 with the PSL No. 1 

and 2 facility toward the north end 

and the Equipment Building near the 

center. (NASA C–1957–44883)

Image 132: The area was completely built 

up by this 16 October 1987 photograph. 

The PSL No. 1 and 2 and PSL No. 3 

and 4 facilities occupy the former park 

area. (NASA C–1987–09393)

 118
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 133: On 26 June 1967 the grassy area between the PSL No. 1 and 2 facility and the cafeteria building was bulldozed for the new PSL 

No. 3 and 4 facility. (NASA C–1967–02211)

Image 134: This diagram shows the design of the new PSL No. 3 and 4 facility. The two test chambers to the right shared the common cooler at 

the left. The three J57 engines that supplied combustion air are near the top. (NASA Drawing)12

 The Third Step 119
Pursuit of Power 

Image 135: Construction of the massive primary cooler for the new PSL No. 3 and 4 facility on 17 November 1967. The Engine Test 

Building is in the background to the right. (NASA C–1969–03898)

Image 136: In this 1 June 1970 photograph, workers are placing a valve that will lead from the test chamber to the cooler. 

(NASA C–1970–01642)

 120
 The Third Step 121

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 137: Construction of the two new 24-foot-diameter altitude chambers, PSL No. 3 and 4, on 6 May 1970. (NASA C–1970–01312)

Image 138: The PSL No. 3 and 4 facility seen from the air on 22 September 2005. The two altitude test chambers are located in the building to 

the right. The hot exhaust gas was expelled through the common plenum at the left. The Equipment Building with the exhausters and compressors 

is located out of sight to the left. (NASA C–2006–01485)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 139: The PSL No. 1 and 2 control room shown in this 2 July 1970 photograph was frequently updated, and the control panels were rearranged periodically. The manometers had been replaced with electronic units by the early 1960s. A number of television 

consoles were installed so that the test engineers could view the engine in the chamber during the test. Temporary data-recording 

equipment was installed for certain tests and later removed. (NASA C–1970–01743)

Image 140: In 1955 a fourth line of exhausters was added. The total inlet volume of the four-stage exhausters was 1.65 million 

cubic feet of gas per minute. The exhausters were continually improved and upgraded over the years, and they remain in operation 

today.13 This photograph shows the new exhausters and compressors as they appeared on 1 April 1974. (NASA C–1974–01139)

 122
 The Third Step 123

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 141: PSL complex. (NASA CD–11–83305, adapted from a NASA report drawing).14
Pursuit of Power 

Image 142: The newly expanded PSL complex viewed from the southeast on 1 October 1974. The PSL No. 3 and 4 facility is in the foreground, 

the Equipment Building is near the center, and the PSL No. 1 and 2 facility is at the rear. (NASA C–1974–03577)

The Lewis aeronautics program was in full swing 

when PSL No. 3 and 4 became operational in 1973. 

The center initially planned to terminate operations in 

PSL No. 1 and 2 when the new test chambers came 

online. PSL No. 1 and 2 continued operating, however, 

to meet the high demand for testing aircraft engines in 

altitude conditions. The Garrett and Low Cost Engine 

studies were under way, and the Airbreathing Engines 

Division was about to embark on several long-term, 

multifaceted engine studies that would use all four test 

chambers. 

Flutter

Lewis had been investigating the effects of airflow distortions on engine inlets and compressors since the 

center’s return to aeronautics in 1967. The nation’s 

early jet engines were sturdy pieces of equipment that 

were relatively impervious to the effects of airflow 

distortions. Axial-flow compressor engines grew in 

power and sophistication during the 1950s and 1960s,

increasing the number of compressor stages and

incorporating dual-spool configurations. These complex powerplants brought with them a new set of

operating problems, including flutter. 

In order to improve performance, the stator blades 

were made thinner and thinner. This not only augmented the engine’s capabilities under normal

operating situations but resulted in a propensity to 

stall from flutter during abnormal conditions.

Flutter is the self-induced vibration of the compressor 

stator blades due to irregular airflow or distortions. 

The vibrations can weaken or damage the stators, 

which will eventually inhibit the engine’s performance. 

Eradicating flutter from the entire flight envelope was 

time consuming and expensive. It could take a year or 

two to redesign and retest an engine in which flutter 

was found. The military grappled with this issue while 

developing several of its engines.15

 124
 The Third Step 125

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Full-Scale Engine Programs

In the mid-1970s, Lewis and the U.S. Air Force collaborated on two broad programs that studied a variety of design problems on full-scale engines. The first, 

the Full-Scale Engine Research (FSER) program,

utilized surplus air force engines as testbeds for a

variety of research purposes, including flutter, inlet 

distortion, and electronic controls. The goal was to 

produce technological achievements, not to resolve 

hardware problems on specific engines. The data were 

aggregated so that they could be used for future engine 

development efforts.16

The second program, the Aeroelasticity of Turbine 

Engines, included several projects aimed at improving 

compressor blade design and analysis. A better understanding of flutter was expected to lead to flutter-proof 

engine designs and to prevent the eventual development

delays and costs.17

Image 143: The F-16 Falcon was powered by the 27,000-pound-thrust 

F100-PW-200 turbofan. It flew more sorties than any other aircraft during 

18 Operation Desert Storm. (2003, U.S. Air Force)

The Aeroelasticity of Turbine Engines program used 

computer simulations to create analytical models 

but required full-scale engine testing to validate the 

codes. The Fluid System Components Division’s Fan 

and Compressor Branch coordinated 9 projects at 

Lewis and contracted for another 19. Together the 

projects formed a comprehensive collection of data to

assist engine designers in building their own analytical 

models.19

During the validation tests, the fully instrumented 

engine was installed in the PSL and operated at conditions where the problems previously occurred. 

The researchers then destabilized the airflow using

screens and mapped the engine performance. 

Several engines were tested during the 1970s

using this technique. From the tests, the researchers 

hoped to determine the effects of temperature and 

pressure on flutter.20 Data on stall flutter, choke flutter, and system-mode instability were compiled into a

repository to create and validate computer models.21

In the late 1970s, engineers from the Airbreathing Engines Division’s Engine Research

Branch studied two air force engines for the FSER in 

the PSL—the Pratt & Whitney F100 and the General 

Electric (GE) J85-21. 

Pratt & Whitney F100

Pratt & Whitney’s 23,770-pound-thrust F100 turbofan was developed in the mid-1960s almost 

concurrently with their TF30, and it powered

modern fighters such as the North American X-15

Eagle and the Lockheed Martin X-16 Falcon.22 In 

1972 the air force began having problems with flutter 

in the engine, so they selected the F100 for the first 

FSER study in the PSL. The air force supplied Lewis 

with an early prototype of the engine, a YF100.23

PSL No. 1 had to be renovated to accommodate 

the 10-stage turbofan. Because the F100 was similar to the TF30, however, PSL mechanics were able 

to adapt and reuse much of the existing test hardware.

24 Pratt & Whitney technicians traveled to Lewis 

to assist with the instrumentation and to brief the

researchers on the engine’s flow instabilities.25 Air 

force personnel made regular trips from Dayton to 

oversee and coordinate the Lewis testing.
Pursuit of Power 

Image 144: Technicians in PSL No. 1 connect wiring on an F100 engine on 14 February 1978. The F100 had a very high thrust-to-weight ratio, 

and its modular construction allowed easy modifications. (NASA C–1978–00476)

The flutter investigations began in the fall of 1974. 

A major component of the testing was mapping the 

airflow through the engines to identify flutter. The 

researchers purposely induced flutter as the engine 

neared its stall limits and then mapped the flutter

envelope. The tests used improved instrumentation 

and optical devices to measure flutter.26

Lewis researchers later analyzed the collected flutter data, and several hypotheses were offered to

explain the phenomenon.27 Although breakthroughs 

to a completely flutter-free engine did not occur,

several improved design techniques were developed. A 1981 Ad Hoc Aeronautics Assessment

Committee concluded, “This prompts confidence

in finding solutions for flutter in other operating

regimes.” The committee recommended expanding 

the aeroelasticity program to include forced vibration: 

“This program needs to be planned as a long-term fundamental effort.”28

J85-21

A GE J85-21 turbojet, a 5,000-pound-thrust variant

of the J85-13, was obtained from the air force in early

1975 for the FSER program. Lewis technicians began

installing the J85-21 in PSL No. 2 during the fall

after GE updated the engine to meet its current

production standards. The engine was used for two

series of investigations: internal compressor aerodynamics and mechanical instability, or flutter.29

During one study, Lewis researcher Roger Werner 

examined the effect of instrumentation on the airflow 

through the compressor. Werner analyzed the flow 

distortions caused by different combinations of rakes 

and vanes. A pressure rake failed during an early test 

run, resulting in disassembly of the engine. The tests 

resumed without the rakes in the compressor stages. 

Werner concluded that the instrumentation produced 

only minor distortions.30

 126
 The Third Step 127

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 145: The J85-21 was a relatively small engine in comparison to the large TF30 and F100 turbofans. It is seen here on 22 March 1974 in 

PSL No. 2. (NASA C–1974–01012)

The researchers focused on two types of stall flutter, 

choke flutter, and system-mode instability. The distortion variations differed from each other, and the

researchers assembled a collection of data from each 

type of instability.31 The tests were interrupted, however, to perform inlet tests for the J85-21’s applications.

Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology 

Engineers at the NASA Ames Research Center, 

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, and Rockwell 

International devised two subscale Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) vehicles in the 

mid-1970s as safe post-wind-tunnel-test vehicles. The 

HiMAT vehicles would be used to study the behavior 

of fighter aircraft in the transonic realm to expedite the 

transition from the design phase to flight testing. These 

unpiloted vehicles could use new design concepts that 

might be too risky for a piloted vehicle.32

Rockwell took particular care to provide backup systems for each component while constructing the two 

vehicles for NASA.33 The HiMAT aircraft were flown 

sequentially, the first between mid-1979 and 1981 and 

the second from mid-1981 to early 1983.

One aircraft focused on expanding the operating

envelope and the other on data collection.34 Specifically, they sought to perform an 8-G maneuver at 

Mach 0.9 and 25,000 feet.35 Contemporary fighters 

had only half of that capability.36 The aircraft used

sophisticated technologies such as advanced aerodynamics, composite materials, digital integrated propulsion control, and digital fly-by-wire control systems.37

The HiMAT was fairly small and launched at 45,000 

feet from underneath a B-52. The GE 5,000-poundthrust J85-21 turbojet provided the HiMAT propulsion. The engine’s standard hydromechanical 

propulsion controls were replaced with a multimode 

digital system. NASA pilots controlled the vehicle 

from a realistic cockpit in the ground station.38 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 146: This photograph of one of the two HiMAT vehicles demonstrates its 0.44-scale size. (NASA C–1980–03906)

The J85-21 aerodynamics test program in the PSL

was interrupted so that the engine could be used

in a stall investigation for the HiMAT program.

Researchers worried that distortion from the J85-21’s 

short turning inlet would stall or hinder the HiMAT’s

performance. In late 1977 Lewis’s Leo Burkardt and 

the air force’s George Bobula studied the engine in 

PSL No. 2. They charted the inlet quality for various 

combinations of five screens.39 An inlet model was 

also studied in Lewis’s 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind

Tunnel in 1979.

The two HiMAT aircraft performed 11 hours of flying over the course of 26 missions from mid-1979 to 

January 1983 at Dryden and Ames.40 The program 

demonstrated advanced fighter technologies that

have been used in developing many modern highperformance military aircraft. The two vehicles provided data on the use of composites, aeroelastic

tailoring, close-coupled canards, and winglets. The

data were used to investigate the interaction of these 

then-new technologies on each other.41

Although the HiMAT vehicles were considered to be 

overly complex and expensive, the program yielded a 

wealth of data that would validate computer-based

design tools. The program also demonstrated that 

multisystem technologies were beneficial.42

Fly-by-Wire

Since the inception of turbojets in the 1940s, engineers have been simultaneously advancing both engine

performance and control. Engine control systems

determine the fuel required to produce the specific 

levels of desired thrust. The thrust must be available 

despite the presence of turbulence or other abnormal 

flight conditions.43

Veteran Lewis control system researchers Sanjay Garg 

and Link Jaw identified four phases of control system development: the inception during the 1940s, an

expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, the use of electronics in the 1970s and 1980s, and a final integration in 

the 1990s.44

 128
 The Third Step 129

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

The center was particularly involved in developing the 

new electronics systems in the 1970s, and the PSL 

was used to verify the performance of several of these

systems in simulated altitude conditions. 

Early jet engines were regulated by hydromechanical 

fuel-control devices with separate vacuum tube controls for the afterburners. The mechanical controls 

often drove the overall aircraft design, and redundancy was difficult to incorporate.45 In the late 1940s 

the Cleveland lab’s Altitude Wind Tunnel was used 

to resolve vacuum tube failures on the GE J47. The

researchers determined that fuel flow and engine speed 

could be calculated linearly against a constant time.46

The larger turbojets and turbofans of the 1960s led to 

advances in the control systems. Aircraft engines traditionally used fixed-geometry components with variable 

fuel flow and nozzle areas. The new engines implemented variable-shape compressor and fan blades. 

The dependable hydromechanical control systems 

could not keep up with the increasingly complex and 

powerful engines. These new types of engines required 

more sophisticated control systems that could handle 

multiple parameters and additional variables while 

increasing the accuracy and response of the engine.47 

Digital control technology developed for the Apollo 

Program was slowly taken on for aircraft propulsion. 

The new “fly-by-wire” electronic controls were lighter 

and more reliable, and they allowed greater design 

flexibility.48 Variable-geometry controls included new 

methods for managing the compressor stators, intake, 

and nozzle. 

Researchers began investigating multivariable control 

designs in the mid-1950s, but they were not perfected 

for another decade. The frequency response method 

used the gain and phase margins to maintain stability. The air force teamed with NASA Dryden in 1969 

to commence a long-term digital control program.49 

Dryden acquired a Vought F-8 Crusader in 1969 and 

replaced its mechanical controls with a computer and 

wiring from the Apollo digital control system. The F-8 

flew the first-ever digitally controlled flight on 25 May 

1972. It went on to demonstrate the feasibility of the 

system over 40 flights.50

Image 147: NASA research pilot Gary Krier beside the Dryden F-8 

Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft. He flew the first fly-by-wire flight on 

25 May 1972. (NASA ECN–3091)

Remote Control

NASA researchers next sought to integrate all engine 

components through a single digital computer. Digital 

systems would facilitate the control of future multivariable engines and reduce hardware update costs. 

During its pursuit of the supersonic transport design, 

Boeing engineers realized that the industry’s tradition 

of integrating propulsion and flight controls in a single system could not be automatically applied to new 

high-performance engines. A different philosophy was 

needed. The first step would be creating a digital control system for all of the engine’s components.51,52 

The air force initiated the Integrated Propulsion 

Control System (IPCS) program in March 1973 to 

demonstrate the digital control of the engine inlet,

afterburner, and nozzle. Lewis developed a novel 

method to integrate the control of the inlet and engine, 

and Dryden led the effort to flight-test the system.53
Pursuit of Power 

Image 148: Chart outlining the PSL validation of computer-simulated concepts such as digital engine controls. (NASA C–1983–02762)

The Lewis IPCS was installed on a Pratt & Whitney 

TF30-P-9 engine and tested on sea-level test stands at 

Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.54 Dryden acquired 

an F-111 Aardvark fighter jet in mid-1974 to flighttest the system. The IPCS was installed on one of the 

aircraft’s two TF30 engines. As a safety precaution, the 

other engine remained manually controlled. According to historian Richard Hallion, there was tension

between the Lewis and Dryden personnel regarding the IPCS for almost a year before the installation

began in March 1975.55

The final engine checkout before the flight tests was 

a verification of the IPCS in PSL’s simulated altitude 

conditions. From April to August 1975 the TF30-P-9 

was run in PSL No. 2 at Mach 1.9 and at high-altitude 

low-speed flight conditions.56 Lewis engineers used 

PSL data to make final adjustments to the analog inlet 

simulation.57

On 4 September 1975 the F-111 completed the first 

IPCS flight at Dryden. Over the next six months, 14 

additional IPCS flights were successfully completed. 

The system was not perfect, but it did perform as

efficiently as the mechanically controlled engine.58

Multivariable Control

Early electronic controls used closed-loop systems for 

a small number of variables. It was difficult for these 

systems to manage the many variables of modern

engines, particularly vertical and/or short takeoff and 

landing engines. Research into multivariable control 

systems (MVCS) began in the early 1970s. There were 

two main fields: the frequency domain and the time 

domain. Researchers devised a linear quadratic equation in an early time-domain attempt to resolve the 

problem. As early as 1973 the air force began applying 

MVCS to the GE J85 engine.59

 130
 The Third Step 131

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

In 1975 the air force asked Lewis to build on the earlier linear quadratic regulator work and to create a

realistic MVCS for the F100 engine. Pratt & Whitney 

provided the initial F100 computer simulations, and 

Systems Control, Inc., developed the computer logic 

for the system.60 The Lewis researchers worked with 

the Systems Control engineers to develop a series of 

time-domain linear quadratic regulators to produce 

the desired transient controls. These equations would 

convert the pilot’s input into optimal engine performance. A Lewis computer then provided the data to 

answer the equations. This was the MVCS.

Project manager Bruce Lehtinen said at the time, “The 

aim of the project was to develop and demonstrate a 

design procedure, not a piece of hardware.”61

The design of the Lewis system, referred to at the time 

as a “smart carburetor,” took only 10 months. The primary component of the MVCS was a computer with 

an array of control system conditions for any flight

operating condition. The MVCS controlled the

engine’s fuel flow, exhaust nozzle, compressor bleed, 

and fan and compressor vanes.62 

The MVCS was verified for nearly two years using 

computer simulations in Lewis’s Hybrid Computer 

Laboratory. Then it was tested in mid-1977 on an 

F100 engine in the PSL.63 The main computer in the 

computer lab was linked to the PSL test chamber by 

1,000-foot-long underground cables. Thus, the remote 

MVCS could operate the F100 throughout its entire 

flight envelope in PSL’s altitude chamber.64

The linear quadratic regulator proved itself applicable 

to flight design digital computers.65 The digital system was more accurate than traditional mechanical 

controls. The system provided increased reliability, 

precision, responsiveness, ease of replication, and life 

span.66

Complete Control 

The final phase in the evolution of digital control system technology was Full Authority Digital Engine 

Control (FADEC). FADECs control every aspect of 

an aircraft engine for maximum efficiency without

pilot override. The U.S. Navy requested that Lewis 

develop an engine-mounted propulsion control system for fighter jets. They sought to reduce replacement 

costs while advancing system functionality, reliability, 

and performance.67

Lewis worked with Pratt & Whitney to develop a 

FADEC system for the FY-401 turbofan, a variation 

of the F100 originally intended for the navy’s F-14 and 

F-15 programs. The navy dropped its contract for the 

F-401s in 1973, but it kept the door open for future 

implementation.68

The system included microelectronics, extensive fault 

tolerance, and high-speed digital communication. It 

was the first time that optical digital data communication had been incorporated into an engine.69

Pratt & Whitney performed the initial bench testing 

and sea-level afterburner tests of the F-401. In the 

spring of 1979 the engine and FADEC system were 

Image 149: Dryden’s F-15A was equipped with its Digital Electronic Engine Control system. In 1981 it became the first aircraft to employ a 

FADEC system. (NASA ECN–18899)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 150: Page from a schedule book showing testing in PSL No. 1 and 2 during 1972–74. (NASA)70

run in PSL No. 2 at nine simulated altitudes from 

7,000 to 50,000 feet.71 Dryden acquired an F-15

Eagle afterward and installed a FADEC system on 

its F100 powerplant. The F-15 flew the first flight of 

a FADEC system in 1981. Because of the success of 

these tests, the air force decided to put the system into 

production.72

FADEC systems are a mainstay of current aircraft

engines. They allow economical and reliable operation 

of the engine by receiving and instantly responding 

to an array of sensor inputs. FADEC systems are so 

prevalent that the use of mechanical systems would be 

nearly impossible on modern engines.73

Glory Days

“The 1960s were glory days of aircraft engine development,” proclaimed William Hong and Paul Collopy in 

a 2005 paper. Strides in design techniques flourished, 

and almost all modern aircraft engine technology

matured during this period. The nation’s first turbofans emerged, influencing engine design for almost

30 years. The relationship between the air force, industry, and NASA was the closest that it had ever been.74

The 1960s and 1970s were also the glory days for

the PSL. The use of full-scale engine models was

crucial to the understanding of system integration, 

the perfection of technologies, and the determination of which technologies to pursue. Lewis’s full-scale

engine programs vetted new propulsion technologies. 

The PSL was NASA’s only facility capable of carrying

out tests of these full-scale engines in simulated flight 

conditions. 

The full-scale programs were cresting when PSL

No. 3 and 4 came online in 1972. The four PSL chambers demonstrated that they could work together in 

a complementary way on a single program. The new 

chambers were also used to study the TF30, F100, and 

J85 during this period. 

Although the PSL was busier than ever, the 1970s 

were the center’s bleakest years with budget and staff 

levels falling. As programs were cut, the transfer of

engine component technology from NASA to industry nearly came to a standstill. In addition, engine

development decreased from two projects each year in 

the 1960s to virtually none in the 1990s.75 As PSL’s 

most intense period of study came to an end, the

future of the original test chambers began to cloud.

 132
 The Third Step 133

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Endnotes for Chapter 7 

1. Robert Walker interview, Cleveland, OH, 2 August 

2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

2. “PSL Expansion Building 70% Complete Mark,” 

Lewis News (25 September 1970).

3. “The Propulsion Systems Laboratory” (Cleveland, 

OH, NASA B–0489, 1992).

4. “$3.29 Million Contract Let for PSL Expansion,” 

Lewis News (13 September 1968).

5. “PSL Expansion Building 70% Complete Mark.”

6. “Work on PSL Expansion in Early Stages,” Lewis 

News (18 August 1967). 

7. “PSL Expands Out and Up,” Lewis News (27 September 1968).

8. “$3.29 Million Contract Let for PSL Expansion.”

9. “PSL Expansion Building 70% Complete Mark.”

10. Robert Godman, “Engineering Services,” Lewis News

(29 December 1972).

11. “Awareness Group Honors PSL Team,” Lewis News 

(22 February 1974).

12. “$3.29 Million Contract Let for PSL Expansion.”

13. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, NACA Cleveland, Ohio, Wind

Tunnels—Propulsion Systems Laboratory,” 19 July 

1956, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

14. “Plans for Buildings and Structures,” NASA Lewis 

Research Center, 1985.

15. Ad Hoc Aeronautics Assessment Committee, NASA’s 

Aeronautics Program: Systems Technology and Experimental Programs (Washington, DC: NASA CR–

164642, 1981).

16. W. J. Deskin and H. G. Hurrell, Summary of NASA/

Air Force Full Scale Engine Research Using the F100 

Engine (New York, NY: AIAA 79–1308, 1979).

17. “The Fan-Compressor Flutter Team,” Lewis News 

(3 February 1978).

18. “F-16 Fighting Falcon,” National Museum of the 

United States Air Force (2009), http://www.af.mil/ 

information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103 

(accessed 10 April 2011).

19. “The Fan-Compressor Flutter Team.”

20. Ross Willoh, et al., “Engine Systems Technology,” 

Aeronautical Propulsion (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–381, 1954).

21. Joseph Lubomski, Characteristics of Aeroelastic 

Instabilities in Turbomachinery: NASA Full Scale 

Engine Test Results (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–79085, 1979).

22. “Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220,” National 

Museum of the United States Air Force (2009), 

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/ 

factsheet.asp?id=15985 (accessed 10 April 2011).

23. Deskin and Hurrell, Summary of NASA/Air Force 

Full Scale Engine Research.

24. Walter Bishop to Chief of Engineering Design Division, “Full-Scale Engine Program for PSL Cell #2,” 

14 September 1973, Glenn History Collection, Test 

Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

25. Deskin and Hurrell, Summary of NASA/Air Force 

Full Scale Engine Research.

26. “The Fan-Compressor Flutter Team.”

27. Deskin and Hurrell, Summary of NASA/Air Force 

Full Scale Engine Research.

28. Ad Hoc Aeronautics Assessment Committee, NASA’s 

Aeronautics Program.

29. Roger Werner, Steady-State Performance of a J85-21 

Compressor at 100 Percent of Design Speed With and 

Without Interstage Rake Blockage (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–81451, 1980).

30. Werner, Steady-State Performance of a J85-21 

Compressor.

31. Lubomski, Characteristics of Aeroelastic Instabilities in 

Turbomachinery.

32. Dwain Deets, V. Michael DeAngelis, and David Lux, 

HiMAT Flight Program: Test Results and Program 

Assessment Overview (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–86725, 1988).

33. Robert Kempel and Michael Earls, Flight Control 

Systems Development and Flight Test Experience 

With the HiMAT Research Vehicles (Washington, 

DC: NASA TP–2822, 1988).

34. Deets, DeAngelis, and Lux, HiMAT Flight Program.

35. Kempel and Earls, Flight Control Systems Development 

and Flight Test Experience.

36. Ken Atchison, “NASA HIMAT Craft to Test 

Advanced Aircraft Maneuverability,” NASA News, 

No. 78–99, 12 July 1978.

37. Kempel and Earls, Flight Control Systems Development 

and Flight Test Experience.

38. Kempel and Earls, Flight Control Systems Development 

and Flight Test Experience.

39. George Bobula and Leo Burkardt, Effects of SteadyState Pressure Distortion on the Stall Margin of a J85-21 

Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–79123, 1979).

40. Kempel and Earls, Flight Control Systems Development 

and Flight Test Experience.
Pursuit of Power 

41. Dryden Flight Research Center, “Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) Aircraft Photo 

Gallery Contact Sheet” (12 May 2000), 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/ 

HiMAT/HTML/index.html (accessed 25 May 2011).

42. Deets, DeAngelis, and Lux, HiMAT Flight Program.

43. Link Jaw and Sanjay Garg, Propulsion Control Technology Development in the United States (Washington, 

DC: NASA/TM—2005-213978, 2005).

44. Jaw and Garg, Propulsion Control Technology Development in the United States.

45. Richard Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research 

at Dryden, 1946–1981 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–4303, 1984).

46. Jaw and Garg, Propulsion Control Technology Development in the United States.

47. John Szuch, et al., F100 Multivariable Control 

Synthesis Program—Evaluation of a Multivariable 

Control Using a Real-Time Engine Simulation 

(Washington, DC: NASA TP–1056, 1977).

48. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden.

49. Jaw and Garg, Propulsion Control Technology

Development in the United States.

50. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden.

51. L. O. Billig, J. Kniat, and R. D. Schmidt, IPCS

Implications for Future Supersonic Transport Aircraft 

(Washington, DC: N76–31135 22–01, 1976). 

52. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, “Advanced 

Control Technology and its Potential for Future 

Transport Aircraft” 453–475.

53. Billig, Kniat, and Schmidt, IPCS Implications for 

Future Supersonic Transport Aircraft.

54. Billig, Kniat, and Schmidt, IPCS Implications for 

Future Supersonic Transport Aircraft. 

55. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden.

56. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden.

57. Billig, Kniat, and Schmidt, IPCS Implications for 

Future Supersonic Transport Aircraft.

58. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden.

59. Szuch, et al., F100 Multivariable Control Synthesis 

Program.

60. F100 Multivariable Control System: Engine Models/ 

Design Criteria (West Palm Beach, FL: United 

Technologies Corp. AFAPL–TF–7674, 1976).

61. “Progress Noted in Jet Engine Control Study,” Lewis 

News (14 September 1979).

62. “Progress Noted in Jet Engine Control Study.”

63. Jaw and Garg, Propulsion Control Technology Development in the United States.

64. “Progress Noted in Jet Engine Control Study.”

65. Szuch, et al., F100 Multivariable Control Synthesis 

Program.

66. “Progress Noted in Jet Engine Control Study.”

67. “International Turbine Engine Directory,” Flight 

International, 7 January 1978.

68. “International Turbine Engine Directory.” 

69. R. W. Vizzini, T. G. Lenox, and R. J. Miller, Full 

Authority Digital Electronic Control Turbofan Engine 

Demonstration (Los Angeles: SAE–801199, 1980).

70. Ronald Blaha, “Completed Schedules of NASA Lewis 

Wind Tunnels, Facilities and Aircraft 1944–1986,” 

February 1987, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

71. Vizzini, Lenox, and Miller, Full Authority Digital 

Electronic Control Turbofan Engine.

72. Jaw and Garg, Propulsion Control Technology Development in the United States.

73. D. Kurtz, Dr. J. W. H. Chivers, and A. A. Ned Kulite, 

Sensor Requirements for Active Gas Turbine Engine 

Control (Leonia, NJ: Kulite Semiconductor Products, 

Inc., 2001).

74. William Hong and Paul Collopy, “Technology for 

Jet Engines: Case Study in Science and Technology 

Development,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, 21, 

no. 5 (September-October 2005).

75. Hong and Collopy, “Technology for Jet Engines.”

 134
.
Image 151: NASA Glenn demolished PSL No. 1 and 2 during the summer of 2009. The destruction is nearly complete in this 1 July 2009 

photograph. Only one primary cooler remains standing. (C–2009–02016)
• 8 •

No Tomorrow

Clouds were general all over Cleveland. A breeze

gathered and blew through every part of the NASA

Glenn Research Center,h

 blowing past the flags in 

front of the Administration Building, blowing the 

hair of those on their way to the cafeteria, and farther 

westward, blowing over the large wind tunnels and the 

block houses of the Rocket Lab. It was blowing, too, 

on the dusty wasteland where the steel carcass that 

had been the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) 

lay temporarily frozen in its final throes.

It was 1 July 2009, and NASA photographer Bridget 

Caswell stood amongst the dusty aftermath with her 

camera. She was documenting PSL’s final days. Almost 

59 years after her predecessors had snapped photographs of the gleaming new PSL, the facility looked 

as if it had been battered by the very enemy bombers 

that the skywatchers had vigilantly guarded against 

in 1952. However, it was budgets, not bombs, that 

brought the PSL down.

The Long Winter

NASA Lewis Research Center’s funding was drastically cut in the post-Apollo years. NASA had canceled the nuclear propulsion and power programs and 

reallocated funds to other centers more involved with 

the design of the space shuttle. After large reductionin-force actions in 1973 and 1974, Lewis’s funding 

and staffing levels continued to decline throughout 

the decade. Lewis successfully moved into the fields of

renewable energy, Earth resources, and energy-efficient 

engines. Nonetheless, Lewis continued to struggle for 

allocations from NASA’s ever-shrinking budgets. 

Center Director Bruce Lundin retired in 1977, severing Lewis’s connection to its early NACA era. His 

replacement, outsider Eugene McCarthy, reorganized 

h

The center name was changed on 1 March 1999 to the NASA 

John H. Glenn Research Center.

the center in 1978. The Airbreathing Engines Division 

was disbanded, with some of the duties being taken up 

by the new Propulsion Systems Division. 

Staffing the test facilities continued to be a struggle. 

The center decided to reduce the number of technicians and mechanics to trim operating costs. This led 

to the consolidation of the crews for the PSL and the 

two large supersonic wind tunnels. In addition, these 

main test facilities were once again limited to overnight 

operations.1 In 1978 Lewis management decided to 

shutter PSL No. 1 and 2 and several smaller facilities so that the 20 technicians that had been stationed 

there could operate other facilities.2 The PSL made its 

final runs in late 1979.

Contractors were given the first floor area of the Shop 

and Access Building where the thermocouple and

instrument departments had been located. The second 

floor was soon utilized as office space for engineering 

and maintenance staff. Temporary offices were crudely 

wedged in between and around the two test chambers. 

These makeshift office areas were used right up until 

2008, but the test facility itself sat idle for 40 years.

Over the years, the countless pipes, access platforms, 

and other equipment began suffering from lack of 

maintenance. “I think they turned the whole building 

over to contractors because they started disassembling 

some of the piping to make room for offices,” remembered Neal Wingenfeld.3

It is important to note, however, that the Equipment 

Building, now referred to as the “Central Air and 

Equipment Building,” and PSL No. 3 and 4 continued 

to operate and be upgraded over the years. They are 

still critical to the center’s operations.

 No Tomorrow 137
Pursuit of Power 

Image 152: Interior of the Shop and Access Building on 22 August 2005 from above PSL No. 2. Temporary offices can be seen to the left of the 

chamber in the foreground. (NASA C–2008–04155)

Demolition Decision

NASA Glenn began reexamining its facilities and 

infrastructure in 2003. NASA Headquarters had

offered the NASA centers funding to remove their

unused structures. Glenn responded with a list of nine 

buildings that it wanted to demolish. Two of these,

the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the PSL No. 1 and 2 

facility, had played significant roles in advancing the 

nation’s propulsion technology. 

Although it was once a premier facility, reactivation 

was not an option. The piping and air systems for

the original test chambers would have had to be

recertified; the mechanical, electrical, and safety

equipment was obsolete; and the control room and 

all the instrumentation had been cannibalized.4

 In

addition, PSL No. 3 and 4 seemed capable of handing 

NASA’s engine testing requirements.

Glenn was thus spending $76,000 annually to maintain an underutilized office space. NASA Headquarters agreed to the $3.17 million proposal to raze the 

facility, and Glenn spent the next two years creating 

a demolition plan and soliciting bids to do the work.5

 138
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 153: Interior of the atmospheric air vent behind the test chambers on 9 September 2008. The facility had been inactive for 30 years. 

(NASA C–2008–04148)

 No Tomorrow 139
Pursuit of Power 

Image 154: Cannibalized control room for PSL No. 1 and 2 on 9 September 2008. The control panels, data systems, and equipment have 

been removed. The only indication of the room’s original function is the combustion air system indicator board hanging on the far wall. 

(NASA C–2008–04125)

Pulling PSL Down

The demolition of a government facility requires

extensive planning and recordkeeping. NASA Glenn 

began by creating a requirements document in

September 2004 and a Statement of Work in 2005. 

The Ohio Historic Preservation Office was notified

in May 2004 that the center was removing a significant 

structure. A Section 106 report was submitted to the 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office in July 2006 and 

approved in September 2007. Design services were 

obtained, and demolition plans were created. Bids to 

perform the work were solicited, and the contract was 

awarded in 2007.6

The demolition consisted of three phases: relocation of 

the utilities, lead paint and asbestos remediation, and 

the actual demolition of the facility. 

The first step was the installation of perimeter fencing around the site in the spring of 2008. This was followed by the abatement process, and the removal of 

small amounts of mercury and lubricating oils. That 

September, the facility’s transite walls were removed.7

The main demolition began in May 2009 with the

removal of the Service Support Building and external pipes. Work ramped up quickly in June. The bulldozers tore into the Shop and Access Building and

methodically ripped the two altitude tanks into pieces 

as the workers hosed down the dust. 

The interior of the massive primary coolers stood

exposed for the first time in 60 years as the rubble 

piled up around them. The cooling vanes lay in tangled 

piles like an industrial haystack. By August it was all 

over. The coolers had been knocked down, and the 

debris had been loaded into trucks and hauled away.

Approximately 1,000 tons of steel had been removed

and recycled.8

 Crews had removed the concrete foundations, graded the area, and slowly transformed the 

site into a parking lot and grassy area.9

 140
 No Tomorrow 141

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 155: PSL wasteland on 1 July 2009. In just over two months, the wrecking crew leveled a facility that had been part of the center’s landscape for nearly 60 years. (NASA C–2009–02018)

Image 156: The PSL emerging in September 1952 as the nation’s premier engine testing facility. (NASA C–1952–30764)
Pursuit of Power 

Image 157: As an early sign of the impending demolition on 15 December 2008, the combustion air piping entering the Shop and Access 

Building has been marked for removal. (NASA C–2008–04472)

Image 158: The Service Support Building’s exterior walls are removed in September 2008 as one of the first steps in the demolition of PSL 

No. 1 and 2. (NASA C–2008–04132)

 142
 No Tomorrow 143

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 159: A steam shovel tears apart the PSL Shop and Access Building on 3 June 2009. (NASA C–2009–01660)

Image 160: Steel cooling vanes from the primary cooler lie in a pile in the foreground on 22 July 2009. A crane tears into the primary 

cooler in the background. (NASA C–2009–02021)
Pursuit of Power 

Images 161–162: PSL No. 2 is ripped out by the demolition crew on 3 June 2009. The massive steel chambers and reinforced concrete 

were no match for the machine. (Top: NASA C–2009–01688; Bottom: NASA C–2009–01692)

 144
 No Tomorrow 145

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 163: On 22 August 2005, Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer Lisa Adkins met with NASA Glenn officials to 

tour two sites scheduled for demolition—the PSL No. 1 and 2 facility and the Altitude Wind Tunnel. Adkins talks with 

Glenn Chief Architect Joe Morris in the PSL control room. (NASA C–2008–04153)

Historical Mitigation

The PSL No. 1 and 2 facility was considered to be

eligible for, but was not listed on, the National

Register of Historical Places for its contributions 

to aeronautics and spaceflight in the United States, 

particularly in the development of turbojet engines 

and the RL-10 rocket engine. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act mandates that, 

for all demolitions of historical structures at federal agencies, including NASA, formal notification 

of the State Historic Preservation Office is required 

before the start of the project. The agency and the 

State Historic Preservation Office must reach an 

agreement on an appropriate level of documentation or mitigation of the facility prior to any work

being performed. In addition, the public must be given 

an opportunity to comment on the project prior to the 

demolition work. This meeting was held at the center 

on 27 April 2006.

Glenn’s Historic Preservation Officer, History Program, and Facilities Division worked with the Ohio

State Historic Preservation Office to develop a plan

to create a permanent documentary record of PSL

No. 1 and 2 that would increase public awareness of

the center’s contributions to society, provide educational resources, and create a collected body of

materials for future researchers.

Glenn began this process for the PSL by informing

the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office of its 

plans. An agreement was made that permitted NASA 

to go forward with the demolition if they funded

historic documentation of the facility. 

The center undertook a broad effort to both physically document the PSL and compile the history of 

its construction, research, and contributions to the 
Pursuit of Power 

Image 164: Howard Wine in one of the PSL’s chambers on 16 April 1962. (NASA C–1962–60068)

 146
 No Tomorrow 147

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Image 165. Screen capture from interactive piece showing photographs from different areas at the PSL complex. (NASA, available at 

http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov)

nation’s aerospace community. The facility was extensively photographed prior to its removal. Documents, 

photographs, blueprints, films, and oral histories were 

gathered. These materials were used to create this publication, facility drawings, a website (http://pslhistory.

grc.nasa.gov), and an exhibit display.

PSL Legacy 

PSL No. 1 and 2 served as a major component of the 

center’s advanced propulsion legacy that began in 1942 

and continues today. The facility was a technological 

combination of the old static sea-level test stands and 

the complex Altitude Wind Tunnel, which recreated 

actual flight conditions on a larger scale. 

PSL’s significance lies in the size and power of the

engines it tested. When it became operational in

1952, the PSL was the nation’s only facility that could 

run these large full-size engine systems in controlled 

altitude conditions. The ability to control the test

environment was imperative in advancing the everincreasing and complex turbojet systems. Today,

PSL No. 1 and 2’s successor, PSL No. 3 and 4, is

NASA’s only facility with this capability. 

Much of PSL’s significance and history has faded during the years since the original chambers were closed. 

Although the facility is now gone, it is hoped that this 

book and related research will restore appreciation 

of PSL’s contributions to complex programs such as 

the Navaho Missile, RL-10 rocket engine, and F100 

turbofan; serve as a reminder of the significant boost 

to the capabilities of many of the center’s other facilities provided by PSL’s infrastructure; and preserve the 

legacy of the facility operators and technicians who 

repeatedly brought the massive tangle of steel to life 

as well as that of the researchers whose investigations 

yielded a wealth of propulsion knowledge.
Pursuit of Power 

Endnotes for Chapter 8 

1. James Connors, “Technical Services,” Lewis News

(4 January 1980).

2. “Answer Line,” Lewis News (26 May 1978).

3. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 4 September 

 2005, Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collec- 

 tion, Cleveland, OH.

4. Leslie Main, “Recordation of the Glenn Research 

 Center Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2, 

 Section 106 Check Sheets,” 11 October 2004, NASA 

 Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities Collection, 

 Cleveland, OH.

5. “Project Requirements Document for Demolition of 

 the Propulsion Systems Laboratory Cells 1 & 2 at 

 Glenn Research Center. Project No. 630, ” 24 May 

 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

 Collection, Cleveland, OH.

6. Main, “Recordation of...Section 106 Check Sheets.”

7. “Project Requirements Document for Demolition of 

 the Propulsion Systems Laboratory.”

8. Main “Recordation of...Section 106 Check Sheets.”

9. “Project Requirements Document for Demolition of 

 the Propulsion Systems Laboratory.”

 148
• Bibliographic Essay •

Much of the information for this manuscript was 

gleaned from materials in the NASA Glenn History 

Collection. Historical correspondence and reports 

from our Director’s office, talks given at the NACA’s 

Triennial Inspections, the complete run of our center newspaper, and oral history transcripts provided

material for a significant portion of the manuscript. 

The source material used by Virginia Dawson to 

write Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and 

American Propulsion Technology (NASA SP–4306, 

1991) is archived in the NASA Glenn History

Collection and contributed greatly to the early

chapters of this work. In addition, many materials 

gathered for Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story of the

Altitude Wind Tunnel and the Space Power Chambers

(NASA SP–2010–4319) were also applicable to this 

manuscript.

Glenn’s Imaging Technology Center provided access to 

the center’s extensive photograph and film collections. 

The photographs were used not only to highlight the 

text but to establish the chronology and structure of 

the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) story. 

The massive archive of NACA and NASA technical 

reports in the Aeronautics and Space Database provided much of the information regarding the actual 

tests in the PSL. Over 65 of these reports were used 

for this publication.

A great deal of information was obtained from

Les Main, NASA Glenn’s Historic Preservation

Officer. In addition, six interviews were conducted

with retirees: Howard Wine and Bob Walker were

familiar with the 1950s and 1960s testing; Neal

Wingenfeld, John Kobak, and Larry Ross were experts

on the Centaur period; and former Garrett

Corporation engineers Jerry Steele and John Evans 

were helpful regarding the ATF3 tests. Transcripts 

of these interviews are available in the Glenn History 

Collection.

Approximately 30 secondary resources were consulted

for contextual information. The most important

were Dawson’s previously mentioned Engines and

Innovation, Alex Roland’s Model Research v1-2

(NASA SP–4103), Russ Murray’s “The Navaho

Inheritance,” Richard McMullen’s “History of Air

Defense Weapons,” Rexmond Cochrane’s Measures for 

Progress: A History of the National Bureau of Standards,

and Richard Hallion’s On the Frontier of Flight: Flight 

Research at Dryden, 1946–1981. Others included 

Carl Stechman and Robert Allen’s History of Ramjet

Propulsion Development at the Marquardt Company—

1944 to 1970; Chris Gainor’s, Arrows to the Moon:

Avro’s Engineers and the Space Race; Ernst-Heinrich

Hirschel, Horst Prem, and Gero Madelung’s

Aeronautical Research in Germany: from Lilienthal

Until Today; and the National Museum of the

Air Force.

 Bibliographic Essay 149
.
• Interview List •

Friedman, Harold, 2 Nov. 2005 (Beachwood, OH)

Kobak, John, 1 Sept. 2009 (Cleveland, OH)

Ross, Larry, 1 Mar. 2007 (Cleveland, OH)

Walker, Robert, 2 Aug. 2005 (Cleveland, OH)

Wine, Howard, 4 Sept. 2005 (Cleveland, OH)

Wingenfeld, Neal, 15 Sept. 2008 (Cleveland, OH)

 Interview List 151
.
• Website •

The documentation of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) included the gathering of historical

materials and information regarding the facility and 

its history. Many of these are available on the website 

http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov. The website includes an 

overview of PSL’s history from its construction, study 

of ramjets and missiles, rocket engine testing, return to 

aeronautics, addition of PSL No. 3 and 4, and eventual 

demolition.

An interactive media piece highlights the facility’s layout with photographs from the construction,

operation, and final years. It comprises four sections: 

The Facility section of the website describes the PSL’s 

physical characteristics and operation in detail, including descriptions of the combustion air system, test 

equipment, control room, exhaust system, and support buildings. The Mitigation section illustrates the 

historical mitigation performed prior to demolition of 

the facility and includes related documents and photographs. The Research section contains almost 50 

scanned documents and links to 20 related technical 

reports. The Students section includes a timeline of 

related events, timelines of testing at both PSL No. 1 

and 2 and PSL No. 3 and 4, and a concise synopsis of 

how the PSL worked with a glossary of related terms.

 Website 153
.
• NASA History Series •

Reference Works, NASA SP–4000 Series:

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology. NASA SP–4001, 1963.

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini Technology and

Operations: A Chronology. NASA SP–4002, 1969.

Link, Mae Mills. Space Medicine in Project Mercury. NASA SP–4003, 1965.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4004, 1964.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4005, 1965.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4006, 1966.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4007, 1967.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4008, 1968.

Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume I, Through November 7, 

1962. NASA SP–4009, 1969.

Morse, Mary Louise, and Jean Kernahan Bays. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume II, November 8, 

1962–September 30, 1964. NASA SP–4009, 1973.

Brooks, Courtney G., and Ivan D. Ertel. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume III, October 1, 1964– 

January 20, 1966. NASA SP–4009, 1973.

Ertel, Ivan D., and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, 

Volume IV, January 21, 1966–July 13, 1974. NASA SP–4009, 1978.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1968: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4010, 1969.

Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Skylab: A Chronology. NASA SP–4011, 

1977.

Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume I: 

NASA Resources, 1958–1968. NASA SP–4012, 1976; rep. ed. 1988.

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume II: Programs and Projects, 1958–1968. NASA

SP–4012, 1988.

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III: Programs and Projects, 1969–1978. NASA

SP–4012, 1988.

Gawdiak, Ihor, with Helen Fedor. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume IV: NASA Resources, 1969–1978. 

NASA SP–4012, 1994.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume V: NASA Launch Systems, Space Transportation, 

Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1979–1988. NASA SP–4012, 1999.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI: NASA Space Applications, Aeronautics and Space 

Research and Technology, Tracking and Data Acquisition/Support Operations, Commercial Programs, and 

Resources, 1979–1988. NASA SP–4012, 1999.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VII: NASA Launch Systems, Space Transportation, 

Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1989–1998. NASA SP–2009–4012, 2009.

There is no SP–4013.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4014, 1970.

 NASA History Series 155
Pursuit of Power 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4015, 1972.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4016, 1972.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1972: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4017, 1974.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1973: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4018, 1975.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1974: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4019, 1977.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1975: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4020, 1979.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1976: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4021, 1984.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1977: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4022, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1978: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4023, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1979–1984: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4024, 1988.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1985: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP–4025, 1990.

Noordung, Hermann. The Problem of Space Travel: The Rocket Motor. Edited by Ernst Stuhlinger and J. D. 

Hunley, with Jennifer Garland. NASA SP–4026, 1995.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1986–1990: A Chronology. NASA SP–4027, 1997.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1991–1995: A Chronology. NASA SP–2000–4028, 2000.

Orloff, Richard W. Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA SP–2000–4029, 2000.

Lewis, Marieke, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 1996–2000. NASA SP–2009– 

4030, 2009.

Ivey, William Noel, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 2001–2005. NASA

SP–2010–4031, 2010.

Management Histories, NASA SP–4100 Series

Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963. NASA SP–4101, 1966.

Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. NASA SP–4102, 1982.

Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915–1958. NASA SP–4103, 

 1985.

Fries, Sylvia D. NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo. NASA SP–4104, 1992.

Glennan, T. Keith. The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan. Edited by J. D. Hunley. NASA SP–4105, 

1993.

Seamans, Robert C. Aiming at Targets: The Autobiography of Robert C. Seamans. NASA SP–4106, 1996.

Garber, Stephen J., ed. Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of Human Spaceflight Symposium 

NASA SP–2002–4107, 2002.

Mallick, Donald L., with Peter W. Merlin. The Smell of Kerosene: A Test Pilot’s Odyssey. NASA SP–4108, 2003.

Iliff, Kenneth W., and Curtis L. Peebles. From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a NASA Engineer. NASA

SP–2004–4109, 2004.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People, Volume I. NASA SP–2005–4110, 2005.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Creating a Rocket Industry, Volume II. NASA SP–2006–4110, 2006.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Hot Days of the Cold War, Volume III. NASA SP–2009–4110, 2009.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: The Moon Race, Volume IV. NASA SP–2011–4110, 2011.

 156
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Laufer, Alexander, Todd Post, and Edward Hoffman. Shared Voyage: Learning and Unlearning from Remarkable 

Projects. NASA SP–2005–4111, 2005.

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Realizing the Dream of Flight: Biographical Essays in Honor of the 

Centennial of Flight, 1903–2003. NASA SP–2005–4112, 2005.

Mudgway, Douglas J. William H. Pickering: America’s Deep Space Pioneer. NASA SP–2008–4113, 2008.

Project Histories, NASA SP–4200 Series

Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New Ocean: A History of Project 

Mercury. NASA SP–4201, 1966; rep. ed. 1999.

Green, Constance McLaughlin, and Milton Lomask. Vanguard: A History. NASA SP–4202, 1970; rep. ed. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.

Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini. NASA

SP–4203, 1977; rep. ed. 2002.

Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations. NASA SP–4204, 1978.

Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned 

Lunar Spacecraft. NASA SP–4205, 1979.

Bilstein, Roger E. Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles. NASA

SP–4206, 1980 and 1996.

There is no SP–4207.

Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson. Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab. NASA

SP–4208, 1983.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. 

NASA SP–4209, 1978.

Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP–4210, 1977.

Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. NASA SP–4211, 1980.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958–1978. NASA 

SP–4212, 1984.

Pitts, John A. The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Program to 1980. NASA SP–4213, 1985.

Compton, W. David. Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar Exploration Missions. NASA 

SP–4214, 1989.

Naugle, John E. First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science Experiments. NASA SP–4215, 1991.

Wallace, Lane E. Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Langley’s 737 Flying Laboratory. NASA

SP–4216, 1994.

Butrica, Andrew J., ed. Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite Communications. NASA SP–4217, 1997.

Butrica, Andrew J. To See the Unseen: A History of Planetary Radar Astronomy. NASA SP–4218, 1996.

Mack, Pamela E., ed. From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy Research 

Project Winners. NASA SP–4219, 1998.

Reed, R. Dale. Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story. NASA SP–4220, 1998.

Heppenheimer, T. A. The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. NASA SP–4221, 

1999.

 NASA History Series 157
Pursuit of Power 

Hunley, J. D., ed. Toward Mach 2: The Douglas D–558 Program. NASA SP–4222, 1999.

Swanson, Glen E., ed. “Before This Decade Is Out . . .” Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program. NASA

SP–4223, 1999.

Tomayko, James E. Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA’s Pioneering Digital Fly-By-Wire Project. NASA 

SP–4224, 2000.

Morgan, Clay. Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History’s Highest Stage. NASA SP–2001–4225, 

2001.

Leary, William M. “We Freeze to Please”: A History of NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for Safety. 

NASA SP–2002–4226, 2002.

Mudgway, Douglas J. Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space Network, 1957–1997. NASA SP–2001–

4227, 2001.

There is no SP–4228 or SP–4229.

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958–

2002. NASA SP–2004–4230, 2004.

Meltzer, Michael. Mission to Jupiter: A History of the Galileo Project. NASA SP–2007–4231, 2007.

Heppenheimer, T. A. Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics. NASA SP–2007–4232, 2007.

Tsiao, Sunny. “Read You Loud and Clear!” The Story of NASA’s Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network. NASA 

SP–2007–4233, 2007.

Meltzer, Michael. When Biospheres Collide: a History of NASA’s Planetary Protection Programs. NASA

SP–2011–4234.

Center Histories, NASA SP–4300 Series

Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA SP–4301, 1985.

Hartman, Edwin P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–1965. NASA SP–4302, 

1970.

Hallion, Richard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–1981. NASA SP–4303, 1984.

Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–1976. NASA SP–4304, 

1985.

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958. NASA

SP–4305, 1987.

Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology. NASA

SP–4306, 1991.

Dethloff, Henry C. “Suddenly Tomorrow Came . . .”: A History of the Johnson Space Center, 1957–1990. NASA 

SP–4307, 1993.

Hansen, James R. Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo. NASA

SP–4308, 1995.

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight Research Center. NASA

SP–4309, 1996.

Herring, Mack R. Way Station to Space: A History of the John C. Stennis Space Center. NASA SP–4310, 1997.

Wallace, Harold D., Jr. Wallops Station and the Creation of an American Space Program. NASA SP–4311, 1997.

 158
 NASA History Series 159

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Wallace, Lane E. Dreams, Hopes, Realities. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center: The First Forty Years. NASA

SP–4312, 1999.

Dunar, Andrew J., and Stephen P. Waring. Power to Explore: A History of Marshall Space Flight Center, 1960–

1990. NASA SP–4313, 1999.

Bugos, Glenn E. Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research Center. NASA SP–2000–4314, 

2000.

There is no SP–4315.

Schultz, James. Crafting Flight: Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributions of the Men and Women of NASA Langley 

Research Center. NASA SP–2003–4316, 2003.

Bowles, Mark D. Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station, 1955–2005. NASA SP–2006–

4317, 2006.

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight Research Center. NASA

SP–2007–4318, 2007. Revised version of NASA SP–4309.

Arrighi, Robert S. Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the Space Power 

Chambers. NASA SP–2010–4319, 2010.

General Histories, NASA SP–4400 Series

Corliss, William R. NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958–1968: A Historical Summary. NASA SP–4401, 1971.

Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins of NASA Names. NASA SP–4402, 1976.

Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915–1980. NASA SP–4403, 

1981.

Sloop, John L. Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945–1959. NASA SP–4404, 1978.

Roland, Alex. A Spacefaring People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight. NASA SP–4405, 1985.

Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA, 1915–1990. NASA SP–4406, 

1989.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren Findley, Ray A. Williamson, and Dwayne A. Day. 

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume I: Organizing for 

Exploration. NASA SP–4407, 1995.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Dwayne A. Day and Roger D. Launius. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents 

in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume II: External Relationships. NASA SP–4407, 1996.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius, David H. Onkst, and Stephen J. Garber. Exploring the Unknown: 

Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume III: Using Space. NASA SP–4407, 

1998.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Ray A. Williamson, Roger D. Launius, Russell J. Acker, Stephen J. Garber, and 

Jonathan L. Friedman. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 

Volume IV: Accessing Space. NASA SP–4407, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Amy Paige Snyder, Roger D. Launius, Stephen J. Garber, and Regan Anne 

Newport. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume V: 

Exploring the Cosmos. NASA SP–2001–4407, 2001.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Stephen J. Garber, Roger D. Launius, and Ray A. Williamson. Exploring the 

Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VI: Space and Earth Science. 

NASA SP–2004–4407, 2004.
Pursuit of Power 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the 

U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VII: Human Spaceflight: Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. NASA

SP–2008–4407, 2008.

Siddiqi, Asif A., Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945–1974. NASA SP–2000–4408, 

2000.

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of Aerodynamics in America, Volume 1: The 

Ascent of the Airplane. NASA SP–2003–4409, 2003.

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of Aerodynamics in America, Volume 2: 

Reinventing the Airplane. NASA SP–2007–4409, 2007.

Hogan, Thor. Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative. NASA SP–2007–4410, 2007.

Vakoch, Douglas A., editor. Psychology of Space Exploration: Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective. 

NASA SP–2011–4411, 2011. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, SP–4500 Series

Launius, Roger D., and Aaron K. Gillette, comps. Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 1, 1992.

Launius, Roger D., and J. D. Hunley, comps. An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 2, 1994.

Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 3, 1994.

Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar–Orbit Rendezvous Concept. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 4, 1995.

Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Dryden’s Career in Aviation and Space. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 5, 

1996.

Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center from 1946 to 1995. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 6, 1997.

Portree, David S. F., and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 7, 1997.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958: Proceedings of 

an Oral History Workshop. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 8, 1998.

Rumerman, Judy A., comp. U.S. Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 1961–1998. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 9, 1998.

Portree, David S. F. NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 10, 

1998.

Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Cooperation in the Space Station. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 11, 1998.

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA Langley Research Center. Monographs 

in Aerospace History, No. 12, 1998.

Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 13, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons Learned from Apollo. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 14, 1999.

 160
 NASA History Series 161

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars Exploration in the Soviet Union. Monographs 

in Aerospace History, No. 15, 1999.

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at NASA Dryden. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 16, 1999.

Maisel, Martin, Demo J. Giulanetti, and Daniel C. Dugan. The History of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft: 

From Concept to Flight. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 17, 2000. NASA SP–2000–4517.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 Research Airplane. Monographs 

in Aerospace History, No. 18, 2000. NASA SP–2000–4518.

Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Langley Research Center to U.S. Military Aircraft of 

the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 19, 2000. NASA SP–2000–4519.

Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASA’s Flight Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 20, 2000. NASA SP–2000–4520.

Portree, David S. F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 21, 2001. NASA SP–2001–4521.

Thompson, Milton O., with J. D. Hunley. Flight Research: Problems Encountered and What They Should Teach Us. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 22, 2001. NASA SP–2001–4522.

Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 23, 2001. NASA SP–2001–4523.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 24, 2002. NASA SP–2002–4524.

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 25, 2001. NASA SP–2001–4525.

Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames Research Center: 1940–1970. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 26, 2002. NASA SP–2002–4526.

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary 

of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 27, 2002. NASA 

SP–2002–4527.

There is no monograph 28.

Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA Langley Research Center to U.S. Civil Aircraft 

of the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 29, 2003. NASA SP–2003–4529.

Peebles, Curtis, ed. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History, The Early Years. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 30, 2003. NASA SP–2003–4530.

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles: An Inventory—X-1 to X-50. Monographs 

in Aerospace History, No. 31, 2003. NASA SP–2003–4531.

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Chronology Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary 

of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 32, 2003. NASA 

SP–2003–4532.

Bowles, Mark D., and Robert S. Arrighi. NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Research Reactor. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 33, 2004. NASA SP–2004–4533.

Wallace, Lane, and Christian Gelzer. Nose Up: High Angle-of-Attack and Thrust Vectoring Research at NASA 

Dryden, 1979–2001. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 34, 2009. NASA SP–2009–4534.
Pursuit of Power 

Matranga, Gene J., C. Wayne Ottinger, Calvin R. Jarvis, and D. Christian Gelzer. Unconventional, Contrary,

and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 35, 2006. NASA 

SP–2004–4535.

McCurdy, Howard E. Low-Cost Innovation in Spaceflight: The History of the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous 

(NEAR) Mission. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 36, 2005. NASA SP–2005–4536.

Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 37, 2005. 

NASA SP–2005–4537.

Lambright, W. Henry. NASA and the Environment: The Case of Ozone Depletion. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 38, 2005. NASA SP–2005–4538.

Chambers, Joseph R. Innovation in Flight: Research of the NASA Langley Research Center on Revolutionary 

Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 39, 2005. NASA SP–2005–4539.

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey into Space Research: Continuation of a Career at NASA Langley Research Center. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 40, 2005. NASA SP–2005–4540.

Rumerman, Judy A., Chris Gamble, and Gabriel Okolski, comps. U.S. Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 1961–2006. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 41, 2007. NASA SP–2007–4541.

Peebles, Curtis. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History Beyond the Sky. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 42, 2011. NASA SP–2011–4542.

Dick, Steven J., Stephen J. Garber, and Jane H. Odom. Research in NASA History. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 43, 2009. NASA SP–2009–4543.

Merlin, Peter W. Ikhana: Unmanned Aircraft System Western States Fire Missions. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 44, 2009. NASA SP–2009–4544.

Fisher, Steven C., and Shamim A. Rahman. Remembering the Giants: Apollo Rocket Propulsion Development. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 45, 2009. NASA SP–2009–4545.

Gelzer, Christian. Fairing Well: From Shoebox to Bat Truck and Beyond, Aerodynamic Truck Research at 

NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 46, 2011. NASA SP–2011–4546.

Electronic Media, SP–4600 Series

Remembering Apollo 11: The 30th Anniversary Data Archive CD–ROM. NASA SP–4601, 1999.

Remembering Apollo 11: The 35th Anniversary Data Archive CD–ROM. NASA SP–2004–4601, 2004. This is an 

update of the 1999 edition.

The Mission Transcript Collection: U.S. Human Spaceflight Missions from Mercury Redstone 3 to Apollo 17. NASA 

SP–2000–4602, 2001.

Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History’s Highest Stage. NASA SP–2001–4603, 2002.

U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission Presents Born of Dreams—Inspired by Freedom. NASA SP–2004–4604, 

2004.

Of Ashes and Atoms: A Documentary on the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility. NASA SP–2005–4605, 2005.

Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket Interactive CD-ROM. NASA SP–2004–4606, 2004.

Fueling Space Exploration: The History of NASA’s Rocket Engine Test Facility DVD. NASA SP–2005–4607, 2005.

Altitude Wind Tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center: An Interactive History CD-ROM. NASA SP–2008–4608, 

2008.

A Tunnel Through Time: The History of NASA’s Altitude Wind Tunnel. NASA SP–2010–4609, 2010.

 162
 NASA History Series 163

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Conference Proceedings, SP–4700 Series

Dick, Steven J., and Keith Cowing, eds. Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and the Stars. NASA SP–2005–4701, 

2005.

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. NASA SP–2006–4702, 2006.

Dick, Steven J., ed. Remembering the Space Age: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Conference. NASA

SP–2008–4703, 2008.

Dick, Steven J., ed. NASA’s First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives. NASA SP–2010–4704, 2010.

Societal Impact, SP–4800 Series

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. NASA SP–2007–4801, 2007.

Dick, Steven J., and Mark L. Lupisella. Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context. NASA

SP–2009–4802, 2009.
.
• List of Images •

Cover: A NASA technician examines a propellant tank for the Weightless Analysis Sounding Probe (WASP) 

setup inside the PSL No. 2 test chamber. (NASA C–1962–60067)

Introduction

1. PSL No. 1 and 2 exterior at night (NASA C–1952–30764), p. vii.

2. PSL aerial from the west (NASA C–1959–50861), p. viii.

3. Exhibit display describing PSL’s history (NASA P0931 PSL 1 2), p. x

Chapter 1

4. Test of an engine in the Prop House (NASA C–1944–04598), p. 2.

5. Pilot Shorty Schroeder (U.S. Air Force Museum), p. 3.

6. William Stratton (NASA A–6786), p. 4

7. National Bureau of Standards campus (National Institute of Standards and Technology), p. 4.

8. NBS Altitude Laboratory (National Institute of Standards and Technology), p. 5.

9. Dynamometer in Engine Research Building (NASA C–1943–01345), p. 7.

10. Ramjet in Altitude Wind Tunnel (NASA C–1946–14244), p. 8.

11. Four Burner Area in Engine Research Building (NASA C–1947–19780), p. 9.

12. General Electric J73 engine in PSL No. 1 (NASA C–1952–30959), p. 10. 

Chapter 2

13. PSL construction (NASA C–2009–00180), p. 12.

14. Abe Silverstein and Ray Sharp (NASA C–1953–34030), p. 13.

15. Abe Silverstein, Oscar Schey, Benjamin Pinkel, Jesse Hall, and John Collins (NASA C–1949–22821), 

 p. 14.

16. Model of PSL No. 1 and 2 (NASA C–1954–37139), p. 15.

17. Eugene Wasielewski (NASA C–1956–42127), p. 17.

18. Construction of cooler stands (NASA C–2009–00175), p. 19.

19. Assembling of overhead air pipe (NASA C–2009–00181), p. 20.

20. Aerial view of site before PSL construction (NASA C–1949–24972), p. 20.

21. Support for exhaust cooler (NASA C–2009–00151), p. 21.

22. Excavations for the Equipment Building (NASA C–2009–00183), p. 21.

23. Building of an exhaust gas cooler (NASA C–2009–00177), p. 22.

24. Construction of Shop and Access Building (NASA C–2009–00179), p. 23.

25. Long view of construction site (NASA C–2009–00184), p. 23.

26. PSL altitude chambers arrive on trucks (NASA C–2009–00173), p. 24.

27. Chamber inlet section hoisted on crane (NASA C–2009–00171), p. 24.

28. Construction of Shop and Access Building (NASA C–2009–00195), p. 25.

29. Construction of Equipment Building (NASA C–2009–00166), p. 25.

30. Elliott compressors being installed (NASA C–1952–29500), p. 26.

31. Construction of air heaters (NASA C–2009–00163), p. 27.

32. Wooden framework for the cooling tower (NASA C–2009–00161), p. 27.

33. Bud Meilander (NASA C–1966–01760), p. 28.

34. Lyle Dickerhoff (NASA C–1958–48725), p. 28. 

35. Carl Betz (NASA C–1956–42477), p. 28.

36. PSL exterior at night (NASA C–1952–30767), p. 29. 

List of Images 165
Pursuit of Power 

Chapter 3

37. Model of PSL No. 1 and 2 (NASA C–1954–37141), p. 32.

38. Seymour Himmel at 1954 Inspection (NASA C–1954–36018), p. 33.

39. Floor plan for PSL 1954 Inspection talks (NASA), p. 34.

40. Three-dimensional drawing of PSL No. 1 and 2 (NASA CD–09–83168), p. 35.

41. Martin Saari and another research engineer (NASA C–1957–45797), p. 37.

42. Test Installations Division staff with engine (NASA C–1967–01582), p. 37.

43. Engine beside PSL test chamber (NASA C–1955–40070), p. 38.

44. Test engineer and mechanic (NASA C–1957–45798), p. 38.

45. Direct-connect setup in chamber (NASA C–1955–40235), p. 39.

46. Free-jet setup in chamber (NASA C–1954–36894), p. 39.

47. Mechanic installing instrumentation on engine (NASA C–1977–03128), p. 39.

48. Cutaway drawing of PSL Shop and Access Building (NASA 8090EL), p. 40.

49. First shift engineers in PSL chamber (NASA C–1953–33436), p. 40.

50. Third shift operators outside the PSL (NASA C–1952–30766), p. 41.

51. Exterior of the PSL at night (NASA C–1952–30768), p. 41.

52. PSL No. 1 with lid closed (NASA C–2008–04129), p. 42.

53. Equipment Building control room (NASA C–1953–31863), p. 42.

54. Elliott compressors in Equipment Building (NASA C–1954–35700), p. 43.

55. Exterior of PSL Shop and Access Building (NASA C–1953–31941), p. 43.

56. Air heaters outside Equipment Building (NASA C–1952–30936), p. 44.

57. Refrigeration equipment inside Equipment Building (NASA C–1953–3228), p. 44.

58. Diagram of PSL test chamber (NACA RM E53I08, fig. 3), p. 45.

59. PSL No. 2 with doors open (NASA C–1952–30962), p. 45.

60. Howard Wine and operators in the control room (NASA C–1957–45647), p. 46.

61. Wide view of control room with Bob Walker (NASA C–1954–35900), p. 46.

62. Control room in 1973 (NASA C–1973–01519), p. 47.

63. Control room entrance (NASA C–1963–63291), p. 47.

64. Exhausters inside Equipment Building (NASA C–1959–49428), p. 48.

65. Technician examines exhauster (NASA C–1963–65822), p. 48.

66. Exterior of a primary cooler (NASA C–1952–30771), p. 49.

67. Fins inside a primary cooler (NASA C–1959–49583), p. 49.

68. Exterior of secondary cooler (NASA C–1952–30937), p. 50.

69. Cooling tower (NASA C–1952–30938), p. 50. 

Chapter 4

70. Researcher with a J79 turbojet (NASA C–1956–42401), p. 52.

71. Carlton Kemper (NASA C–1943–01297), p. 53.

72. Drawing of Navaho missile in flight (NASA C–1956–43440), p. 54.

73. Navaho X-10 in flight (NASA M–9142273), p. 55.

74. Bob Walker (NASA C–1953–34978), p 56.

75. Damaged combustion liner (NASA C–1955–37979), p. 57.

76. View through chamber showing mechanics inside (NASA C–1952–30950), p. 58. 

77. Dwight Reilly examining XRJ47 setup (NASA C–1953–33390), p. 59.

78. Collage of different flameholder designs (NASA C–1954–35354, C–1952–31065, C–1954–36486, 

 C–1952–31248, C–1955–39035, C–1952–31066, C–1954–36745, C–1952–31064, C–1955–40072, 

 C–1954–35888, C–1956–41467, and C–1954–35889), p. 60.

79. Bob Walker examines free-jet setup for XRJ47 tests (NASA C–1953–33387), p. 61.

80. 48-inch-diameter ramjet in PSL No. 2 (NASA C–1952–30961), p. 62.

 166
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

81. Navaho missile on display (Bob Walker), p. 63.

82. Gene Wasielewski (NASA C–1955–39823), p. 63.

83. Squadron of Bomarc missiles (U.S. Air Force), p. 64.

84. 28-inch-diameter ramjet in PSL No. 1 (NASA C–1954–36898), p. 65.

85. Howard Wine (NASA C–1965–01796), p. 66.

86. Martin Saari with J79 Inspection display (NASA C–1957–46136), p. 67.

87. J73 compressor blades (NASA C–1953–34173), p. 68.

88. F-4 Phantom in flight (U.S. Air Force), p. 68.

89. Avro Arrow fighter brake testing (Canadian Department of National Defense), p. 69.

90. John McAulay and technician install the Iroquois in the PSL (NASA C–1957–45206), p. 70.

Chapter 5

91. John Kobak and engineer examine drawing next to test chamber (NASA C–1962–62465), p. 74.

92. The PSL with surrounding buildings (NASA C–1955–38660), p. 76.

93. Technician with rocket in test chamber (NASA C–1958–48831), p. 77.

94. Diagram of pebble bed heater (NASA), p. 78.

95. Pebble bed heater installation in the PSL (NASA C–1958–49138), p. 79.

96. John Kobak (NASA C–1962–64266), p. 80.

97. Neal Wingenfeld (NASA C–1982–01508), p. 81.

98. Rocket component display (NASA C–1954–35975), p. 82.

99. John Kobak with wrecked rocket engine (NASA C–1960–53702), p. 83.

100. PSL control room for RL-10 tests (NASA C–1964–69528), p. 83.

101. Atlas/Centaur on the launch pad (NASA C–1964–68973), p. 84.

102. Ali Mansour and Ned Hannum pose with RL-10 engine (NASA C–1963–64329), p. 85.

103. Diagram of Centaur structure (NASA C–1953–34978), p. 85.

104. John Kobak and a technician examine RL-10 setup (NASA C–1962–60071), p. 86.

105. John Kobak and Gene Baughman examine RL-10 in PSL No. 1 (NASA C–1961–55596), p. 87.

106. Propellant tanks outside the PSL facility (NASA C–1963–64268), p. 89.

107. Engineer in PSL control room (NASA C–1963–67414), p. 89.

108. Large area ratio nozzles on display in the PSL (NASA C–1964–69633), p. 90.

109. Wayne Thomas (NASA C–1958–49066), p. 91.

110. Apollo contour nozzle inside PSL No. 1 (NASA C–1964–68789), p. 92.

111. 260-inch-diameter rocket engine assembly (NASA C–1965–03064), p. 93.

112. Bill Niedergard inspects solid rocket engine in PSL No. 2 (NASA C–1965–1037), p. 93.

113. Inspection display inside the PSL (NASA C–1966–03902), p. 94.

Chapter 6

114. Stator vanes in TF30 turbofan engine (NASA C–1967–02827), p. 98.

115. TF30 turbofan next to the PSL test chamber (NASA C–1967–03560), p. 100.

116. Engineers in the PSL (NASA C–1967–01584), p. 101.

117. Frank Kutina (NASA C–1957–44592), p. 101.

118. Bud Meilander examines flamespreader in PSL No. 2 (NASA C–1967–01733), p. 102.

119. F-106B Delta Dart (NASA C–1969–02871), p. 103.

120. Lee Wagoner examines J85-13 engine setup in PSL No. 2 (NASA C–1967–02128), p. 104.

121. Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan (NASA C–1967–02809), p. 105.

122. Leon Wenzel (NASA C–1957–45544), p. 106.

123. Robert Cummings and Harold Gold with Low Cost Engine (NASA C–1972–00577), p. 107.

124. Compass Cope Tern drone aircraft, p. 108.

125. ATF3 engine in the PSL (NASA C–1973–00344), p. 109.

List of Images 167
Pursuit of Power 

126. Exterior of Equipment Building showing explosion damage (NASA C–1971–01269), p. 110.

127. Interior of Equipment Building showing explosion damage (NASA C–1971–01272), p. 111.

128. Blown header inside Equipment Building (NASA C–1971–01283), p. 112.

Chapter 7

129. Installation of test chamber in the new PSL facility (NASA C–1969–02672), p. 116.

130. Aerial of PSL site in 1945 (C–1945–13061), p. 118.

131. Aerial of PSL site in 1957 (NASA C–1957–44883), p. 118.

132. Aerial of PSL site in 1987 (C–1987–09393), p. 118.

133. Bulldozing of Wright Park for the new PSL facility (NASA C–1967–02211), p. 119.

134. Drawing of PSL No. 3 and 4 (NASA Drawing), p. 119.

135. Construction of primary cooler for PSL No. 3 and 4 (NASA C–1969–03898), p. 120.

136. Valve for new primary cooler for PSL No. 3 and 4 (NASA C–1970–01642), p. 120.

137. Overall view of construction of new test chambers (NASA C–1970–01312), p. 121.

138. Aerial of PSL No. 3 and 4 (NASA C–2006–01485), p. 121.

139. Updated PSL control room (NASA C–1970–01743), p. 122.

140. New line of exhausters (NASA C–1974–01139), p. 122.

141. Drawing of entire PSL complex (NASA CD–11–83305), p. 123.

142. Aerial view of entire PSL complex (NASA C–1974–03577), p. 124.

143. F-16 Falcon in flight (2003, U.S. Air Force), p. 125.

144. Technicians work on F100 engine in the PSL (NASA C–1978–00476), p. 126.

145. J85-21 in PSL No. 2 (NASA C–1974–01012), p. 127.

146. HiMAT aircraft (NASA C–1980–03906), p. 128.

147. Dryden pilot Gary Krier (NASA ECN–3091), p. 129.

148. PSL validation test chart (NASA C–1983–02762), p. 130.

149. Dryden’s F-15A aircraft (NASA ECN–18899), p. 131.

150. PSL No. 1 and 2 test schedule for 1972–74 (NASA), p. 132.

Chapter 8

151. Primary cooler being demolished (NASA C–2009–02016), p. 136.

152. Overall view of interior of Shop and Access Building (NASA C–2008–04155), p. 138.

153. Atmospheric air vent in decay (NASA C–2008–04148), p. 139.

154. Cannibalized PSL control room (NASA C–2008–04125), p. 140.

155. Rubble at former PSL site (NASA C–2009–02018), p. 141.

156. PSL as it appeared in 1952 (NASA C–1952–30764), p. 141.

157. PSL piping prior to demolition (NASA C–2008–04472), p. 142.

158. Service Support Building (NASA C–2008–04132), p. 142.

159. Demolition of Shop and Access Building (NASA C–2009–01660), p. 143.

160. Demolition of primary cooler (NASA C–2009–02021), p. 143.

161. Demolition of PSL test chamber (NASA C–2009–01688), p. 144.

162. Demolition of PSL test chamber (NASA C–2009–01692), p. 144. 

163. Joe Morris and Lisa Adkins tour PSL control room (NASA C–2008–04153), p. 145.

164. Howard Wine inside a PSL test chamber (NASA C–1962–60068), p. 146.

165. Interactive media piece showing PSL layout (NASA, available at http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov), p. 147.

 168
• Index •

A

Access Building. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory, support buildings, Shop and Access Building 

Ad Hoc Aeronautics Assessment Committee 126

Adkins, Lisa 145

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. See Historical preservation

Aeroelasticity of Turbine Engines 125

Aerojet 64, 75, 92, 94

 M-1 engine 80

 Test facilities 80, 92, 94

 260-inch rocket 92, 93, 94

Afterburner. See Engine components (aircraft)

Airbreathing engines. See Engines; Engine components (aircraft); Engine problems (aircraft)

Aircraft

 Commercial 68, 70

 General aviation 107, 108

 Hypersonic 76, 77

 Supersonic 68, 77, 104. See also Convair, B-58 Hustler

 Vertical and/or short takeoff and landing 130

See also Avro Aircraft Limited; Boeing; Grumman; Lockheed; McDonnell Douglas; 

 North American Aviation; Northrup; Rockwell International; Teledyne Ryan Technologies Inc.; Vought

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL). See Glenn Research Center, former names

Aircraft engines. See Engines; Engine components (aircraft); Engine problems (aircraft)

Air Force, U.S. 63, 65, 68, 75, 92, 105, 109, 110, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132

 Aircraft. See General Dynamics

 Edwards Air Force Base 108

Aldershof. See Germany, test facilities

Allison

 V-1710 7

Alsos Mission (battle for German technology) 

 Operation LUSTY (documents and hardware) 53

 Operation Paperclip (scientists) 53

Altitude research

 Pilots 3

 Problems. See Engine problems (aircraft), altitude; flameout (blow out); ignition 

 Records 3

 Test chambers viii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT). See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Ames Research Center (Ames Aeronautical Laboratory) 6, 127, 128

Apollo digital control system 129

Apollo Program 75, 77, 85, 99, 129, 137

Apollo Space Propulsion System 90, 91

Army, U.S. 3, 85

Army Ballistic Missile Agency. See Marshall Space Flight Center

Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) 69, 99

Atlas (rocket) 63, 74, 84, 85

Index 169
Pursuit of Power 

Atomic weapons. See Alsos Mission

Auckerman, Carl 91

Avro Aircraft Limited 69, 70

 Arrow fighter 68, 69

 Orenda Branch 68

 PS.13 Iroquois engine 68, 69, 70, 76

AWT. See Glenn Research Center, facilities, Altitude Wind Tunnel

B

Baldwin-Wallace College 66

Baughman, Eugene 80, 87

Betz, Carl 28, 66

Bloomer, Harry 91

Bobula, George 128

Boeing 64, 65, 103, 104, 129

 B-47 69

 B-52 127

 Bomarc (missile) 64, 65

 Supersonic Transport Technology (SST) 99, 103, 104

 YQM-94 B-Gulls 108

Braig, James 16, 28

Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 13, 15

Burkardt, Leo 128

Burns and Roe, Inc. 16

C 

Calmer, Edward 32

Canadian aerospace engineers. See Avro Aircraft Limited

Cape Kennedy 84

Case Institute of Technology 80, 81

Caswell, Bridget 137

Centaur (upper-stage rocket) 74, 75, 84, 85, 87, 88, 94

 Centaur missions 85, 91

 Centaur Program 80, 91

 Failures 88

Central Air and Equipment Building. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory, support buildings, Equipment 

 Building

Chemistry Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Childs, J. Howard 100

Chrysler 80

Cleveland vii, 7, 75

Cleveland Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center

Cleveland Municipal Airport 117

Cold War vii, 29, 53-54, 64

Collier Trophy 68

Collier’s Magazine vii

Collins, John 14

Collopy, Paul 132

Compass Cope. See Teledyne Ryan Technologies Inc., YQM-98 A Compass Cope Tern

 170
NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Computer simulations 125, 130

Congress 4, 6, 15, 65, 104

Conrad, William 33

Convair

B-58 Hustler 52, 68

F-106B Delta Dart 103, 104

Crowl, Robert 65

Cryogenic. See Fuels, high energy, liquid hydrogen; liquid nitrogen

Cummings, Robert 107

Curtiss-Wright 17, 54, 64. See also Wright Aeronautical Division

D

Dassault

Falcon 110

Dawson, Virginia 7, 16, 149

Department of Energy. 80

Department of Transportation 99

Dickerhoff, Lyle 28

Dickinson, Hobart Cutler 5, 6

Documentation. See Historical preservation

Drag. See Engine problems (aircraft)

Drone aircraft 107, 108. See also Teledyne Ryan Technologies Inc., YQM-98 A Compass Cope

Tern; Rockwell International, HiMAT

Dryden Flight Research Center 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132

Muroc Lake 15

Dunbar, William 62, 65

Dynamotor Laboratory. See National Bureau of Standards

E

Ebert, William 53

Egan, William 28, 66

Eisenhower, Dwight vii

Elliott Company 16, 26, 43

Employees. See Glenn Research Center, staff; Propulsion Systems Laboratory, staff

Engine components (aircraft) 53

Afterburner 68, 69, 106, 129, 131

Axial-flow compressor. See Turbojet engines, axial flow

Combustor 61, 67

 Diffuser 62, 91

Communications (digital) 131

Compressor 67, 69, 105, 106, 124, 125, 129

 Compressor casing “treatments” 106

Controls 128, 129. See also Pratt & Whitney

 Digital controls 127, 129, 130

 Digital Electronic Engine Control system 131

 Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) 131, 132

 Electronic Engine Control 110, 124, 129

 Fly-by-wire 127, 128-129

 Hydromechanical control 127, 129

Index 171
Pursuit of Power 

Engine components (aircraft) cont.

Controls cont.

 Integrated Propulsion Control System (IPCS) 129, 130 

 Linear quadratic regulator 130, 131

 Variable-geometry controls 129 

 Multivariable control systems (MVCS or “smart carburetor”) 129, 130, 131

Cooling liner (burner shell) 57

Ejector assembly 68, 104, 110

Flameholder 54-55, 57, 58, 60, 68

 Types of 58, 60, 61

Fuel-distribution system 61, 68, 69, 110

Igniter 57, 92

Inlets 103, 104, 105, 110, 128, 129

 Resonators 88

Nozzles 103, 104, 110, 129

 Supersonic. See General Electric

Stator blades 68, 124, 129

Turbine 67

Turbosupercharger 3, 5, 6, 17

Engine components (rocket) 82

Combustion chamber 91, 92

Ejector assembly 68, 91

Hydrostat 93

Injectors 91, 92, 94

Nozzles 67, 68, 69, 92

 Contour 91, 92

 Gimballing 92

 Aft thrust vector control 92

 Thrust vectoring 78, 92

 Isentropic 77

 Large-area-ratio 82, 90, 91, 92

 Low-area-ratio 91, 92

Pressure chamber 92

Turbopump 88

Engine problems (aircraft)

Altitude viii, 3, 5, 6, 8, 108

Component overheating 67

Compressor aerodynamics 126

Compressor efficiency 68, 107

Compressor stability 105, 106, 125, 127

Compressor stall 69, 105, 106, 110, 124, 126, 127

Controls viii, 67, 99

 Indicial and frequency response 62

Cost 107. See also Low Cost Engine

Distortion (distorted airflow) viii, 58, 67, 69, 100, 105, 106, 124, 126, 128. See also Pratt & Whitney

Drag 103

Emissions 99, 107

Flameout (blow out) 8, 67

Flutter viii, 99, 124, 125, 126, 127. See also Pratt & Whitney; General Electric

 172
Index 173

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Engine problems (aircraft) cont. 

 Fuel consumption and control 6, 61, 99, 103, 104, 107, 110, 129. See also Fuels 

 High Mach numbers 63

 Hot gases 34, 88, 92

 Ignition, 57, 58, 63, 69

 Low Reynolds numbers 105, 106

 Noise viii, 99, 103, 104, 110 

 Pressure drop 68

 Thrust 104, 128

 Vacuum tube failure 129

 Windmilling 69

Engine problems (rocket)

 Ablative thrust chamber durability 91

 Annular channel flow 92

 Chugging 88

 Combustion instability 88, 91, 92

 Fuel consumption and control 88. See also Fuels 

 Gimballing (steering) 87, 92

 Nozzle efficiency 91, 92

 Oscillations at low thrust 88

 Prechilling 88

 Screech 88

 Throttling 88

 Thrust 94

 Turbopumps, 88

Engine Propeller Research Building. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Engine Research Building. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Engines. See Allison; Garrett Corporation; General Dynamics; General Electric; Jet engines; Low Cost 

 Engine; Marquardt; Pratt & Whitney; Quiet Engine; Ramjets; Reciprocating engines; Rockets, chemical 

 rockets, solid rockets; Stirling engine; Turbofan engines; Turbojet engines; Westinghouse; Wright 

 Aeronautical Division

ERB. See Glenn Research Center, facilities, Engine Research Building

European aerospace research 4. See also France, aircraft industry; Germany; Italy; Soviet Union

Evans, John 110, 149

F

F-4. See McDonnell Douglas

Failures. See Engine problems (aircraft); Engine problems (rocket)

Farley, John 58, 62

Farmer, Elmo 28

Federal Aviation Administration 99, 104

Fleming, William 76

Flight Propulsion Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, former names

Fluorine. See Fuels

Four Burner Area. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

France,

 aircraft industry 99

Friedman, Harold 8
Pursuit of Power 

Fuels 53, 54, 55 

High-energy 62, 75, 76, 93

 Fluorine 62, 80

 Liquid hydrogen 62, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91

 Danger 75, 76, 81, 88, 89

 Development 75, 82, 83

 Project Bee 75

 See also Centaur Program; Pratt & Whitney, RL-10; Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), 

 components, fuel-handling system

 Liquid oxygen 75, 80, 82, 88, 89, 91

 Methane 80

 Pentaborane 62

Hydrogen peroxide 82

JP-4 (jet fuel) 62, 82

Liquid nitrogen 88, 91

Solid 75, 92, 93, 94

Isentropic (storable) 82, 90, 91

Full-Scale Engine Research (FSER) 125-127, 132

G

Garg, Sanjay 128

Garrett Corporation (Ryan Aeronautical Corporation) 109

ATF3 109, 110, 124

TFE 731 109, 110

Gelalles, Achille 16

General Dynamics 85

F-16, 125

F-111 Aardvark (U.S. Air Force) 105, 130

General Electric 3, 17, 67

GE4 103

J47 67, 129

J73 vii, 10, 67, 68

J79 52, 67, 68

J85 94, 100, 101, 103, 105, 125, 130, 132

 J85-13 39, 94, 103, 104, 105, 106, 126

 J85-21 125, 126, 127

Schenectady plant 67

Germany 4, 5, 6

Aeronautics and space technology 53

 V-1 and V-2. See Missiles

 See also Alsos Mission

Test facilities 6

 Berlin-Aldershof 6

 Herbitus 99

 Peenemunde 54

 Rechlin 6

 Zeppelin 3, 4, 5

Gibson, James 63

Gilmore-Olson Construction 117

 174
Index 175

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Glenn, John 7

Glenn Research Center 137, 138 

Accident Investigation Board 112

Apprentice Program 56, 66

Budgets and funding ix, 15, 132, 137

Central air-handling system 9, 10, 42

Construction 7, 17, 118

Divisions

 Airbreathing Engines Division viii, 80, 99, 100, 106, 124, 125, 137

 Chemical Energy Division, 80

 Chemical Rocket Division viii, 81, 85, 87, 91, 100

 Electric Propulsion and Environment Test Branch 56

 Engine Research Division viii, 17, 28, 55, 61, 65, 69

 Fabrication and Property Division 56, 82

 Facilities Division 145

 Fluid System Components Division 101, 106, 125

 Fuels and Lubrication Division 75

 History Office ix, xiii, 145

 Propulsion Systems Division 77, 91, 137

 Research Facilities Panel 14, 15

 Rocket and Aerodynamics Division 87

 Technical Services Division 17

 Test Installations Division viii, 28, 36, 37, 56, 91, 100, 101

 Wind Tunnels and Flight Division 101, 106

Facilities ix

 Administration Building 13, 137

 Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) ix, 8, 9, 10, 20, 33, 61, 67, 92, 129, 138, 145, 147

 B-2 (at Plum Brook) 91

 Chemistry Laboratory 76

 Engine Components Research Laboratory 76

 Engine Propeller Research Building (Prop House) 2, 7, 76

 Engine Research Building (ERB) 7, 9, 20, 42, 48, 80

 Dynamotor rig 5, 7

 Fabrication shop 82

 Four Burner Area 9, 10, 15, 61, 65, 117

 Hybrid Computer Laboratory 131

 Icing Research Tunnel ix

 Instrument Laboratory 76

 Machine shop 82

 Plum Brook Reactor Facility ix

 Power Systems Facility 80

 Propulsion Science Laboratory. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory (main entry)

 Propulsion Systems Laboratory. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory (main entry)

 Rocket Engine Test Facility ix, 75, 81

 Rocket Laboratory 75, 80, 137

 Space Power Facility 59

 Space research facilities 77

 Special Projects Laboratory 107, 108

 Zero Gravity Facility 100
Pursuit of Power 

Glenn Research Center cont.

Facilities cont.

 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 62, 69, 76, 103, 128, 137

 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 17, 103, 105, 137

Former names

 Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) ix, 7-9, 53-54, 118

 Flight Propulsion Laboratory 7, 13

 Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory vii, 7, 13, 15, 17, 33, 55, 75, 77

 Lewis Research Center 7, 75, 77, 80, 94, 99, 103, 117, 137

Inspections 13, 14, 32, 33, 34, 67, 76, 94, 149

Reorganizations 28, 53, 75, 77, 91, 99, 137

Staff

 Apprentices 56, 66

 Glenn Historic Preservation Officer ix, 145, 149

 Management ix

 Model builders 56

 Photographers vii, ix, 137, 147

 Pilots 127

 See also Propulsion Systems Laboratory, staff

Visitors 33, 76

Goddard Space Flight Center 17

Godman, Robert 100

Goett, Harold 17

Goette, William 80 

Gold, Harold 107

Groesbeck, John 69

Ground Observation Corps vii, 137

Grumman

F-14 Tomcat (U.S. Navy) 105, 131

H

Hall, Jesse 14

Hallion, Richard 130, 149

Hannum, Ned 85, 91

Hart, Clint 62

Hazardous materials remediation. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory, demolition, abatement

Henry Pratt Company 24

Herbitus. See Germany, test facilities

Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT). See Rockwell International, HiMAT

Himmel, Seymour 33

Hispano-Suiza 6

Historical preservation ix, 140, 145, 147

 Documentation xiii, ix, 145, 147, 151, 153

 Glenn Historic Preservation Officer. See Glenn Research Center, staff

 History Office. See Glenn Research Center, divisions

 National Historic Preservation Act 140, 145

 Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer ix, 145

 Publications ix, x, 145, 147, 149, 153, 155-163

H.K. Ferguson Company 20

 176
Index 177

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Honeywell International 109, 130

Hong, William 132

Huber, John 109, 110

Hunsaker, Jerome 13

Hurrell, George 61, 62

Hybrid Computer Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Hydrogen. See Fuels

I

Icing Research Tunnel. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Ide, John Jay 6

Inspections. See Glenn Research Center

International Geophysical Year vii

Iroquois engine. See Avro Aircraft Limited 

Italy

Fiat research facilities 3

J

Jacobs, Eastman 17

Jaw, Link 128

Jet engines 9, 10, 14, 44, 56, 67, 77, 99-112, 124, 129

See also Engines; Engine components (aircraft); Engine problems (aircraft); Turbojet engines

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 75

Johnsen, Irving 91

K

Kemper, Carlton 14, 53, 54

Kobak, John 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 91, 100, 149

Korean War vii, 13, 15, 56, 68

Krier, Gary 129

Kutina, Frank 100, 101

L

Langley Research Center (Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory) 6, 53

Latto, William, Jr. 104

Lehtinen, Bruce 131

Lewis, George 6

Lewis Research Center. See Glenn Research Center, former names

Liberty engine. See National Bureau of Standards

Lindberg, Charles 6

Linear quadratic regulator. See Engine components (aircraft), controls 

Lockheed (and Lockheed Martin)

F-16 Falcon 125

F-104 Starfighter 68

U-2 108

X-16 Falcon 125

Looft, Fred 81, 100

Low Cost Engine 107, 108, 124

Lundin, Bruce 16, 28, 112, 117, 137
Pursuit of Power 

M

Main, Leslie 149

Mansour, Ali 85, 91

Marquardt

RJ43 ramjet 64, 65

Test facilities at Van Nuyes 64

Marshall Space Flight Center 88, 91

Army Ballistic Missile Agency 85

Martin

B-57B Canberra 75

McAulay, John 69, 70

McCarthy, Eugene 137

McCook Field 3

McDonnell Douglas

F-4 Phantom 68

Meilander, Erwin “Bud” 28, 66, 91, 102

Meyer, Carl 61, 91

Missiles

Defense 29, 53, 54, 64, 67, 76

Interceptor 64. See also Navaho Missile Program; Boeing, Bomarc missile

Intercontinental 61, 63, 69. See also Navaho Missile Program

Minuteman 65

V-1 and V-2 54

Mitigation. See Historical preservation 

Morris, Joseph 145

Muroc Lake. See Dryden Flight Research Center

Murray, Russ 54, 149

N

NACA. See National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 3, 4

Budget 13, 15

Executive Committee 4, 6

Powerplants Committee 4, 6

European Office 6, 13

National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA)

Budget ix, 94

Established 77

Foundation of 69, 77

Headquarters 138

History Publications ix, 7, 149, 155-163

See also Ames Research Center; Dryden Flight Research Center; Glenn Research Center; Jet Propulsion

Laboratory; Marshall Space Flight Center

National Aircraft Show in Dayton 68

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 4, 5, 6, 7

Altitude Laboratory 5, 6

Dynamotor Laboratory 5

Liberty engine 5, 6

 178
Index 179

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

National Register for Historic Places ix, 145

Nationalization of aeronautical research 4

Navaho Missile Program vii, 29, 54, 63, 65, 69, 147

Canceled 63

Failures 63

G-38 54, 55, 63

Navaho II (G-26) 54, 55, 63

X-10 54, 55, 63

Navy, U.S. 4, 65, 105, 107, 108, 131

Aircraft. See Grumman

Naval Weapons Center 108

NBS. See National Bureau of Standards

Neidengard, Bill 90, 92, 93

Nitrogen. See Fuels

Noise reduction. See Engine problems (aircraft)

North American Aviation 54, 63

F-15 Eagle 131, 132

F-86 Sabre fighter 67, 68

F-86H Sabrejet vii, 67, 68

X-15 Eagle 125

See also Navaho Missile Program

Northrop

F-5 Freedom Fighter 105

T-38 Falcon 105

Norton Company 78

Nozzles. See Engine components (aircraft); Engine components (rocket)

O

Ohio Historic Preservation Office. See Historical preservation

Open House. See Glenn Research Center, inspections; visitors

Operation Desert Storm 125

Operation LUSTY. See Alsos mission

Operation Paperclip. See Alsos mission

P

Pearl Harbor vii

Pelouch, James 92

Pentaborane. See Fuels, high-energy

Perhala, George 32

Peters, Daniel 69

Pinkel, Benjamin 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16

Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company 117

Plum Brook Reactor Facility. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Power Systems Facility. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Pratt & Whitney ix, 87, 125, 130, 131

F100 101, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 147

FY-401 and F-401 131

RL-10 ix, 74, 75, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 94, 145, 147

 Development 85
Pursuit of Power 

Pratt & Whitney, cont.

RL-10, cont.

 PSL testing 86-88

Test facilities 87

TF30 98, 100, 101, 105, 125, 132

 TF30-P-1 105, 106

 TF30-P-2 105

 TF30-P-3 106

 TF30-P-9 130

Project Bee. See Fuels, high-energy, liquid hydrogen

Project Bumblebee. See Ramjets

Prop House. See Glenn Research Center, facilities, Engine Propeller Research Laboratory

Propulsion Science Laboratory. See Propulsion Systems Laboratory

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) vii, viii, x, 10, 15, 33, 35, 56, 99, 118, 123, 124, 132, 141, 145, 147, 149

Altitude simulation viii, 16, 34, 48

Components

 Combustion air system 10, 16, 20, 33, 42, 43, 110, 111, 117, 119, 138, 140, 142, 153

 Air dryer 44

 Hypersonic temperatures 77-78

 Compressors 16, 26, 28, 34, 43, 121, 122

 Control room 34, 40, 46, 47, 78, 81, 83, 89, 91, 122, 140, 153

 Quiet 47

 Unpressurized (dangerous) 75, 81. See also operation and test procedures

 Cooling system 16, 27, 28, 34, 49, 50

 Cooling tower. See support buildings

 Cooling vanes 140, 143

 Primary coolers 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29, 49, 102, 120, 123, 136, 140, 143

 PSL No. 3 and 4 cooling system 117, 119, 120

 Secondary cooler 50, 123

 Desiccant air dryer 123

 Electrical power 36, 41, 42, 117, 138. See also test schedule

 Exhaust system viii, 10, 15, 16, 28, 34, 49, 88, 153

 Atmospheric air vent 139

 Common plenum (PSL No. 3 and 4) 121

 Exhausters 26, 48, 112, 121, 122

 Fuel-handling system 36, 78, 89

 Heating (air) 27, 28, 34, 43, 44

 Instrumentation (thermocouples, pressure rakes, etc.) 34, 37, 39, 45, 58, 59, 93, 98, 101, 126, 138

 Pipes and valves 41, 43, 81, 117, 120, 137, 138

 Refrigeration (air) 16, 34, 44

 Safety equipment 138

 Test chambers 10, 23, 24, 34, 35, 40, 42, 45, 62, 65, 74, 79, 101, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 

 127, 139, 144, 146

 Cowl, bellmouth 45, 58

 Direct-connect mode 39, 55, 57, 62

 Free-jet mode 39, 55, 57, 61, 65

 Flamespreader. See modifications

 Lid (clamshell hatch) 24, 38, 40, 42, 61

 Thrust stand 16, 39, 45, 78, 87

Construction vii, ix, 12, 16, 19-28, 117

 180
Index 181

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) cont.

Construction cont.

 Budget 15, 16

 Design 16, 17, 117

 Phases 16

Damage 88

Demolition ix, 136, 140, 141-144, 145

 Abatement 140

 Decision 117, 138, 139, 140

 Plan 138, 140

Model and drawings 15, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 119, 123

Modifications

 Compressors and exhausters updated 117

 Conversion to office space 137, 138

 Electronic units to replace manometers 122

 Flamespreader ix, 102

 Gaseous hydrogen burner 106

 Large check valves 112

 Pebble bed heater ix, 78-79

 Screen at diffuser outlet 58, 125, 128

 Vortex generator 58

Need for and plans for ix, 10, 14, 33, 54, 67, 147

 Importance of full-scale testing 33-34, 37, 67, 76, 147

Operation and test procedures 33, 34, 35, 37-50, 75

 Dangerous 75, 81, 82, 88, 89, 91

 Failures 82, 83, 88

 Overnight and shift work. See test schedule

Shutdown ix, 137

Staff

 Aircraft model makers 56

 Coordination 34, 36

 Electricians 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 58, 65, 70, 77, 81, 86, 90, 91, 100

 Mechanics 28, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 47, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66, 90, 91, 100, 103, 137

 Operations engineers 41, 42, 48, 74, 88, 89, 91, 101, 110, 147

 Researchers viii, ix, 8, 9, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 52, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75, 77, 80, 82, 85,

 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 103, 105, 106, 107, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 147

 Shift supervisor 28, 36, 66, 76

 Technicians viii, ix, 14, 29, 34, 36, 65, 70, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86, 91, 125, 126, 137, 147

 Test engineers 34, 36, 38, 40, 46, 47, 55, 57, 74, 75, 82, 86, 91, 100, 101, 112

Support buildings 153

 Circulating Water Pump House 28, 50

 Cooling tower 27, 50

 Equipment Building viii, ix, 15, 32, 35, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 137

 Equipment Building components 43, 44, 48, 50, 117

 Construction 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28

 Explosion 88, 110, 111-112

 Operation 36, 42

 Fuel Storage Building 123

 Heater Building 117, 123

 Operations Building 37, 76, 100
Pursuit of Power 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) cont.

Support buildings cont.

 Service Support Building 15, 32, 35, 123, 140, 142

 Shop and Access Building vii-viii, 15, 28, 32, 35, 40, 43, 45, 47, 76, 89, 123, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143

 Construction 12, 21, 23, 25

 Control Room. See components

 Test area 38, 45, 47, 90, 94

 Test chambers. See components

 Shop 37, 52

Test Programs

 Avro Iroquois PS.13. See Avro Aircraft Limited

 Garrett ATF3. See Garrett Corporation

 Garrett TFE21. See Garrett Corporation

 General Electric J73. See General Electric

 General Electric J79. See General Electric

 General Electric J85. See General Electric

 Hydrogen peroxide rocket. See Fuels

 Low Cost Engine. See Low Cost Engine 

 Marquardt XRJ47 (Bomarc missile). See Marquardt

 Pratt & Whitney F100. See Pratt & Whitney

 Pratt & Whitney RL-10 rocket. See Pratt & Whitney

 Pratt & Whitney TF30. See Pratt & Whitney

 Storable propellant. See Fuels, solid, isentropic (storable)

 Wright Aeronautical XRJ47 (Navaho Missile). See Wright Aeronautical Division; Navaho Missile 

 Program

 260-inch solid rocket. See Aerojet

Test schedule (overnight testing, shift work, no time off) 36, 40, 41, 42, 66, 75, 81, 110, 132, 137

Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 3 and 4 118, 119-124, 132, 137, 138, 147

Construction ix, 116, 119-122

Design 117, 119

Need for 117

Operations ix

Q

Quiet Engine 107

R

Ramjets 8, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 67, 70, 77

Cooling and dissociation 78

Design 54-55

Dynamic response 62

Fuel types 56

Project Bumblebee 65

Shock positioning 63, 65

See also Wright Aeronautical Division, XRJ47; Marquardt

Rayle, Warren 58, 61

Rechlin. See Germany, test facilities

Reciprocating engines 55

Redstone booster 63

 182
Index 183

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Reid, Henry 53

Reilly, Dwight 57, 59

Reino, Salmi 92

Rennick, Paul 28, 66

Republic Steel 56, 81

Restarting at high altitude. See Engine problems (aircraft), flameout

Ricciardi, Nicholas 56

RL-10. See Pratt & Whitney

Robinson, Russell 53

Rocket Engine Test Facility. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Rocket fuels. See Fuels

Rocket Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Rockets 53, 54, 67, 70, 75-77-79, 99

 Chemical rockets 82-94

 Component testing 76

 Performance 91

 Solid rockets 91, 92, 93, 94

See also Atlas; Centaur; Pratt & Whitney, RL-10; Redstone; Saturn V; Thor; Titan

Rockwell International 127

 HiMAT (fighter technologies) 127, 128

Roots-Connersville Corporation 16, 26, 48

Ross, Al 91

Ross, Larry 88, 149

Ross Heater Company 16

Rothrock, Addison 53

Russia. See Soviet Union

Ryan Aeronautical Corporation. See Garrett Corporation

S

Saari, Martin 33, 34, 37, 67, 76

Saturn V (rocket) 91

Schey, Oscar 14

Schroeder, Rudolph 3

Schulke, Richard 32

Seashore, Ferris 61

Sharp, Edward “Ray” 13, 14, 16, 56, 77

Silverstein, Abe 53, 75

 Center Director 77, 88, 99

 Director of Research 13, 14, 17

 Headquarters 17

Skywatchers. See Ground Observation Corps

Smith, Ivan 58, 61

Solar power 80

Soviet Union vii, 29, 53

 Aeronautics 4, 64, 99

 Space program 76

See also Cold War

Space Station Freedom 80

Special Projects Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities
Pursuit of Power 

Sputnik I 63, 76

State History Preservation Officers. See Historical preservation 

Steele, Jerry 109, 110, 149

Stirling engine 80

Stratton, William 4, 5, 6

Supersonic Transport Technology (SST). See Boeing

Surveyor 85, 91

Systems Control, Inc. 131

T 

Teledyne Ryan Technologies Inc. 111

 YQM-98 A Compass Cope Tern 108, 109, 110

Test chambers. See Altitude research; Propulsion Systems Laboratory, components

Thomas, Albert 13, 14, 16, 29, 76

Thomas, Wayne 91

Thor (booster) 63

Titan (rocket) 90, 91

Treadwell Construction 16

Trout, Arthur 91

Turbofan engines ix, 98, 99, 105, 109, 111, 129, 132

 Design 99, 109-110, 129, 132

See also Pratt & Whitney, TF30; Garrett Corporation

Turbojet engines 99, 103, 105, 128, 129, 145, 147

 Axial-flow 53, 54, 67, 124

 Centrifugal 53

 Development ix, 8, 9, 55, 67, 68, 70, 127-128, 132 

Turbosupercharger. See Engine components (aircraft)

U

Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan 13, 17

University of Michigan Aeronautical Research Center 64

U.S. Space and Missile Museum 63

USS Nautilus 63

V

Van Allen, Harvey vii

Variable-area exhaust nozzle. See Engine components (rocket)

Vasu, George 62

Victory, John 76

Vietnam War 68

von Braun, Wernher 54, 88

Vought

 F-8 Crusader 129

W

Wagoner, Lee 104

Walker, Robert 10, 28, 46, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 67, 117, 149

Wanhainen, John 91

Wasielewski, Eugene 16, 17, 28, 63, 64

Weapon System 104A. See Navajo Missile Program

 184
Index 185

NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 

Welna, Henry 57-62

Wentworth, Carl 58, 61, 65

Wenzel, Leon 106

Werner, Roger 126

Westinghouse 55, 67

 J40 54, 63

White, Jack 109

Williams, Dan 16

Wind tunnels 63-64

 Cost 61

 Design viii, 9

 Hypersonic (in PSL) 78

 Supersonic 103, 105

 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

See also Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan

Wine, Howard 10, 36, 41, 46, 66, 76, 100, 146, 149

Wingenfeld, Neal 36, 47, 75, 81, 85, 91, 100, 137, 149

World War I 4, 5, 15

World War II 14, 15, 53, 54, 55, 67

Wright Aeronautical Division

 J65 55

 Wood-Ridge facility 55, 64

 XRJ47 29, 54, 55, 57-58, 59, 60, 61, 62-64

 Damage to liner 57

 Development 54-55

 Flameholders. See Engine components (aircraft)

 Ignition. See Engine problems (aircraft)

 PSL testing 57-62

 1-A classification 55

 48-inch ramjet 58, 62

See also Curtiss-Wright; Navajo Missile Program 

Wright Park 117, 118

X

XRJ47. See Wright Aeronautical Division

Y

Yeager, Charles 15

Young, Alfred 28

Z

Zeppelin Aircraft Works. See Germany, test facilities

Zero Gravity Facility. See Glenn Research Center, facilities