Viewing page 256 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM               247

that was coming up the side of the building was caught by this large vane — it is quite large, some 7 feet in distance — and it was only about a 2½-foot opening.
All of that air was caught and turned as it would be in a turbine vane, or as you, sir, are familiar, with the slot on a wing. It was turned into a jet that ran across the roof.
This jet right away entrained the upper air in a smooth fashion, and in that way got away from this turbulent condition. This apparently is true in quite high wind as well as in ordinary wind. 
An interesting bonus that we got on this, that we must be frankly honest and say we didn't design for, because we didn't know it, is that this jet, in its travel across the roof, gradually loses its velocity. So that in the center of the roof where the passengers are about to board the aircraft, they do not lose their hats and scarves and papers because there is very little wind at all.
Since about 2 weeks, more that 30 landings have taken place on the roof. I have inquired of the pilots, Mr. Carter and others, how about this? Do they really notice this vane effect? Their conclusion is unanimously that they do. So we arrive at the conclusion that a rooftop heliport is certainly as good as a ground heliport and in many ways might be considerably better. This I feel needs correction.
Senator MONRONEY. It does indeed. This is a very helpful bit of information for the committee, particularly funneling the air so that it would be helpful instead of harmful to the operation of helicopters from rooftop levels.
Mr. LOENING. I wrote this up in the form of an article which I should like to submit to you, not for the record, but for the confidential information of your committee.
Senator MONRONEY. Couldn't it be in the record?
Mr. LOENING. It is not available to the record as yet.
Senator MONRONEY. We will hold it, then, in the file. It will be held in the files of the committee. Perhaps we can include the published document when it is published, if you will so advise us.
Mr. LOENING. Thank you.
As has been already indicated, some of this technique was already used by the Navy in their construction of aircraft carriers. It has not as yet been disclosed enough for the use of other people who wish to build rooftop heliports. But it is a development of considerable importance because the higher the roof the better, particularly now that we have the Decca system to navigate with, even if the roof is in a high overcast.
Another question I raise is not with you, sir, but with a pretty high quarter—with the President and the Budget Bureau—on this question of why the sudden stoppage of the helicopter subsidy.
It can be shown by their books, and by the CAB's exhaustive reviews—that in the many millions of dollars that have been spent since 1952 or earlier, in the case of Los Angeles Airways, the pioneer—money has not been wasted.
Apparently nowhere in helicopter subsidy history has there been a question about money being wasted.
If the money has not been wasted, it would seem to me that the American public would be inclined to think that this money was better spent on further helicopter development than on, unfortunately, wasteful items like libraries in Indonesia. Perhaps in his zealous

Transcription Notes:
Make sure to include the page number