Viewing page 259 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

250      HELICOPTER AND AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

In the case of the Sikorsky design, which is also now being followed, at least the philosophy of it, by Lockheed--Lockheed has introduced two very, very interesting developments, the most important of which is the use of gyroscopic forces to enable a rigid rotor to be used rather than the flexible ones, which will be even easier to fold.

This tip-jet design reduces the number of maintained parts--bearings, arms, little pieces that can crack due to vibrations and other things that are very multitudinous in the complex rotor head of the ordinary helicopter, and it is these that are so expensive to maintain and so expensive to run--far above the estimates that any of us have made to date, and why subsidy is needed. We do see daylight coming, due to these new designs.

If I may venture to do so, I will take issue with Dr. Harold Brown, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering of the Department of Defense.

During hearings on V/STOL subjects in a House committee, he made some statements which I think are a little bit beyond what can be condoned at present. He states, for example, "You are 'always' going to have to pay something for the additional capability of taking off vertically." I don't agree with that, for this very simple reason: The extra weight of your vertical takeoff addition can almost every time, particularly on large aircraft, be met by the saving in weight of the landing gear, which does not have to be designed to crash into the ground at 200 miles an hour, but is designed to land like a feather, like a helicopter.

Senator MONRONEY. That is a very important point. Only an aircraft engineer would think of that.

Mr. LOENING. Further, in Dr. Brown's lecture, which I am quoting from, he says, "Therefore, you see that you are always going to be paying a penalty in weight on V/STOL." And then he states, "That penalty may get smaller, but it will never disappear."

I venture to suggest to Dr. Brown that the two words in the aviation vocabulary that lecturers and testimony witnesses on aviation had better keep away from are "always" and "never". The rapid history of aircraft improvement obsoletes them so quickly.

Senator MONRONEY. Your point is well taken.

Mr. LOENING. The value of these helicopter airline services has been pretty well covered in what hearings I have heard today. I merely call to your attention the new issue of Verti-Flite in your library, which shows the naval military version of the same New York Airways V-107. The civil version of the 107, exactly the same, was built 21 months before any of these military helicopters were delivered to the Navy.

During these 21 months this Navy Copter, which at the moment of the photo is engaged off Vietnam in lifting important stores to a torpedo boat destroyer, which has a small helicopter landing pad on it, that plane includes 21 months of bug chasing, troubleshooting, and changes not by the dozens but literally by the hundreds, that were developed in the use of this exact type by New York Airways before the military even got its first delivery.

This has been stated, but I question whether it has been stated strongly enough yet. In other words, we can't say it too often, that the military has profited greatly by the experience and the learning curve of the commercial helicopter airways.