ROHRABACHER: I hereby call this meeting of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee to order. Without objection, the chair will be granted authority to recess the committee at any time. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

When I was elected to Congress back in 1988, I was a big fan of vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing aircraft technology, and I have continued to be a supporter of that technology. It offered a vital new military capability.

On the civilian side, I thought that if we could build and operate aircraft independent of big airports we could change the nature of commercial air travel in the United States, making it more efficient, more flexible and more enjoyable.

Our current problems with the National Airspace System make getting away from choke points represented by hub and spoke systems even more critical today than it was when we embarked on the major vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing technology over a decade ago.

In 1988, the leading technology for widespread commercial vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing aircraft was the tiltrotor, and I backed that program. As I say, I backed that program for most of my career in Congress.

Indeed, NASA did some exceptional technology R&D in the XV-15 program, and I don't regret supporting the agency's work. We have examined that technology and moved forward, as it should have been examined and should have been developed and researched.

But in recent months we've learned that something is fundamentally wrong with tiltrotors as they are scaled up for routine military use. May not be wrong with it at a smaller level, but it appears that there's some fundamental problems when the tiltrotor technology is scaled up.

A series of crashes and lives lost convinced me we need to take another look at solving our airspace congestion with vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, but maybe a different approach.

Fundamentally, none of us who have supported this program should be spending our time with our heels dug in and saying, if we've made a mistake, we aren't going to admit a mistake. That's the very worst thing we can do. If we've made a mistake and this isn't the right direction to go, we owe it to the people who are flying the aircraft, we owe it to the public, the taxpayers, we owe it to our Marines to make sure that we admit a mistake and correct it or move on and just admit a mistake and go in a direction that we can succeed in.

Fortunately, technology keeps changing and there are new capabilities that can be coming evident and possible every day, and that changes the possibilities and the alternatives we have when it comes to vertical-takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft.

Where large turbine tiltrotors have failed, entrepreneurs and innovators have stepped in with basically jet technology. In recent years, the Office of Naval Research has been funding a small technology demonstration program to see how jet engines, using vectored thrust, could serve American aviation needs, which includes an enormous commercial application. Today we have a prototype for an operational vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing aircraft known as the DP-2.

When I was first introduced to this jet as a military program, I was immediately reminded of the civil and commercial benefits of this vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, which is, of course, what attracted me originally to the Osprey.

So that's why we're here today. We're going to take a fresh look at vertical-takeoff/vertical-landing technology, and we're going to talk about its role in solving our nation's and our national airspace needs. The potential of this is for keeping our country free and keeping our country at peace and keeping our country prosperous and ahead of the competition.

Experts at NASA and the FAA are going to explain how vertical takeoff and landing fits into our national air system. Representatives from DuPont Aerospace and the Office of Naval Research are going to review the state of vertical takeoff and landing jet technology.

And I expect that at the end of the hearing we'll be in a better position to pursue the right technologies for our future in aviation.

And Mr. Gordon is not with us today, the ranking member, but taking his place, Mr. Lampson, a very active member from Texas, takes this job very seriously.

And we're very happy to have you with us, and you may proceed with your opening statement.

LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Can't take the place of Mr. Gordon, but I can occupy the seat.

Good afternoon. And I do, indeed, want to welcome the witnesses to the hearing today.

The topic of the hearing is stated to be the application of vertical takeoff and landing, VTOL, technology and the National Airspace System. However, I understand that the main rationale for the hearing is the chairman's interest in the DuPont Aerospace Company's DP-2 military aircraft concept, and I have no problem with that and with that rationale. It's the chairman's right to hold hearings on subjects that interest him, and I look forward to the testimony of Mr. DuPont and the other witnesses.

I would note, however, that the administration's NASA budget request eliminates all funding for VTOL research and development related to rotorcraft. So I hope our witnesses will tell us what they think the cancellation of that research program will mean for the future of military and civilian rotorcraft in the United States. We need to understand whether that cancellation is a good idea or just an ill-considered result of an arbitrary budget cap imposed on NASA.

In addition, since funding for NASA's aeronautics program continues to decline in this administration's budget, I think we'll need to hear from a lot more folks before deciding that it makes sense for NASA to earmark $30 million of its remaining funds to help a company develop a new commercial aircraft as proposed by Mr. DuPont.

As Chairman Rohrabacher noted at the NASA posture hearing, we are going to have to set our priorities. And my priority is R&D that will benefit the nation as a whole, rather than promote the interests of a single company.

Finally, since I think we'll be hearing a lot about the DP-2 program today, I would just note that the DP-2 has been funded in the DOD budget solely through congressional earmarks over the last several years. My understanding is that President Bush has indicated that he does not wish to fund congressional earmarks in the future.

If the DP-2 turns out not to be a priority for the Pentagon and doesn't make it into this year's defense budget on its own merits, I imagine those members will have to decide whether to support the president or continue earmarking funds for this program. Fortunately, that is not a decision we have to make here today.

At this point, I'll conclude by again welcoming our witnesses, and I yield back my time.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Mr. Lampson. Well said.

Without objection, the opening statements of other members will be put into the written record so we can get right to the testimony. And hearing no objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent to insert at the appropriate place in the record the background memorandum prepared by the majority staff for this hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Today we have four witnesses who will present testimony examining issues concerning the level of developing involving vertical- takeoff/vertical-landing technology. But before I introduce our witnesses, we have a two-minute tape concerning this new vertical- takeoff/vertical-landing technology, and I would ask unanimous consent that we show the tape now so it can (inaudible). It's two minutes. Hearing none, so ordered. And we have the tape here. You may proceed.

(VIDEOTAPE PRESENTATION)

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much. I had a little trouble hearing that myself, but I hope all of you were able to hear it out there.

And before we hear any witnesses, let me just note for the record, this is not being built in my congressional district.

(LAUGHTER)

Just let everybody know that. This is not my congressional district. This is at least two hours away.

So before I introduce our witnesses, I'd like to ask you all if you could to summarize your points within a five minute framework. We will put your full witness statements in the hearing record.

First, we have Dr. John Zuk, who is the chief of Advanced Tiltrotor Technology Office at NASA Ames Research Center. His career at NASA spans research in aeronautics and technical management in both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft systems.

You may proceed, Doctor.

ZUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you on vertical and short takeoff and landing transport aircraft and their ability to revolutionize short-haul air transportation.

I call this class of aircraft "runway-independent aircraft." They offer an alternative to building costly new runways at airports, and can be located within many existing large hub airport boundaries.

I define "runway-independent aircraft" as a class of aircraft that can operate on runways less than 3,000 feet. They can be totally vertical like helicopters, extremely short takeoff and landing like tiltrotor, up to short takeoff and landing aircraft.

They have excellent low speed performance and control capabilities, and can operate under instrument meteorological conditions, IMC, independent of conventional jet transports at airports. They can land on stub runways, tarmacs and vertiports under IMC.

Today, these vehicles can only operate this way under visual meteorological conditions. These aircraft would operate in separate approach and depart corridors.

Typically, 40 percent of the aircraft operating at large hub airports are short-haul. That is, they travel less than 500 miles and carry less than 100 passengers. If these aircraft could be removed from the long, conventional jet runways, airport delays would be reduced and capacity increased.

Recent studies have found large benefits to these runway- independent aircraft operations. A 1999 Newark Airport task force study showed a big benefit for doing this. In the case of increasing the number of airport operations by 100,000 over today, the civil tiltrotor, a type of runway-independent aircraft, provided the greatest benefit next to a new runway. The annual delay reduction costs to the airlines was estimated to be $900 million, compared to a new runway's benefit of $1 billion. In the prepared text, a 64- airport network study also showed very large benefits for this kind of aircraft operation.

These vehicles could also operate to general aviation airports. Thus, the air transportation system could readily transform to a more distributed system and thus increase national mobility and accessibility.

To achieve these great benefits, however, requires the development of new procedures called "simultaneous and non- interfering." This procedure would allow productive use of currently unused air space over the airport. The procedure is possible today because of satellite-based communications, navigation and surveillance.

Using, for example, differential global positioning satellites and other new technologies, we are now able to fly with the precise navigation and guidance and surveillance that will be required for IMC operations by runway-independent aircraft at airports.

Also required in order to achieve this capability are some of the technical issues that I've mentioned in the text. Some of these issues that must be addressed include what types of aircraft are best suited for runway-independent aircraft operations; what is the relationship of the type of runway-independent aircraft performance to required runway length and the control airspace that is required in order to operate independently on a long jet aircraft; and how will the aircraft and its operation mitigate its environmental impact -- that is, low-noise operations will be critical.

By addressing these technical issues and others mentioned in the text, by developing simultaneous non-interfering procedures, and by implementing the satellite-based communications, navigation and surveillance systems, these potentially great benefits of runway- independent aircraft operations will be realized.

In the more distant future, runway-independent aircraft could completely bypass conventional airports and operate between very small landing areas such as vertiports, resulting in faster point-to-point travel that would include easy access to other modes of transportation.

We then would have a very efficient, totally integrated transportation system in this country.

This concludes my oral remarks.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Doctor.

Next we have Mr. William H. Wallace, who is a national resource specialist for rotorcraft operations at the Federal Aviation Administration, and for the past nine years has served as the FAA representative to the European Joint Aviation Helicopter Subcommittee.

Mr. Wallace -- and you just don't happen to have the name William Wallace -- I mean, this is not "Braveheart" in front of us, but I'm sure he's heard that many times before.

WALLACE: Just don't call me "Mulser." (ph)   (LAUGHTER)

ROHRABACHER: You may proceed. Thank you very much.

WALLACE: Chairman Rohrabacher, members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be here today to discuss the FAA's activities with regard to integrating modern vertical flight aircraft into the national airspace system and the benefits new technology might provide for the system's capacity.

With me today is my colleague Benjamin "Hooper" Harris, chairman of our agency's Vertical Flight Working Group.

On behalf of Administrator Garvey, I'd like to thank the committee for providing this opportunity to briefly outline the FAA's efforts to accommodate modern vertical flight technology, including advanced rotorcraft, as well as power-lift tiltrotor aircraft into the NAS.

This hearing is both timely and useful, given the challenge our aviation system is facing. With the demand of air travel going up about 3.5 percent annually, all of us in the aviation community are concerned about the growing demand in air traffic and the need for additional capacity through conventional means.

There are no easy answers to congestion and capacity limitations in the NAS. It's a complex situation that demands strategic planning and efforts from all segments of the aviation community. The FAA is working on a number of fronts to address these challenges, including modernization of the air traffic system, improved air traffic procedures through collaborative decision-making with the users of our system, a choke-point initiative to address particularly challenging areas of congestion, redesign of the airspace and development of free- flight technologies.

As you know, the current air transportation system is almost exclusively centered on fixed-wing airplanes, supported by an infrastructure that accommodates these operations.

Can vertical flight technology be a part of this equation? A definite answer must wait for current development of a commercially feasible enterprise. But I tell you that we believe that technology holds promise for increasing capacity of the NAS and improved transportation services to the public.

It is only prudent for us to begin to lay the groundwork for enabling efficient operations for both fixed-wing and vertical-flight aircraft. I can assure you that the FAA is prepared to integrate modern vertical-flight aircraft into the system.

Both civil and military aviation are introducing new technology vertical-flight aircraft with performance characteristics that are significantly different from existing airplanes. The tiltrotor concept, for example, takes advantage of the combined ability of vertical takeoff of a helicopter, while cruising at the speed of a turboprop. Proponents of this advanced technology cite improved performance, range and, in particular, operational flexibility, meaning the ability to function independent of a standard runway, as its advantages.

The theory is that a runway-independent aircraft would have the effect of reducing short-range fixed-wing operations on an airport's main runways, allowing for more large aircraft operations and increasing total capacity. The FAA is conducting research to make this happen.

However, the ultimate benefits to capacity will be tied to the aviation industry's business decisions on how to best take advantage of the new capacity. Our colleagues at the National Air and Space Administration and the Department of Defense have performed extensive study and research to support the development of new vertical flight technology. The FAA has been directly involved in sponsoring and improving research programs to ensure that they will be applicable to civil or commercial aviation needs.

The FAA, NASA, DOD, industry and academia have entered into a funded agreement to provide strategic guidance and joint funding for research projects through the National Rotorcraft Technology Center, thus enabling industry and academia wide access to government facilities and capabilities. This agreement will support the vertical flight community in meeting both global transportation and military superiority needs in the next decade, while increasing U.S. market share.

It is the FAA's responsibility to ensure that regulatory and operational standards that govern the NAS enhance the safety of the public and do not impede integration of viable advanced vertical flight aircraft into the aviation system. In this regard, we are already at work on the development of certification standards for both aircraft and airmen to accommodate powered-lift vertical flight operations within the NAS.

For example, we are working with a manufacturer of a civil tiltrotor to develop the pull (ph) certification standards of a new aircraft -- the Bell/Agusta 609. We're consolidating appropriate proven safety certification standards for both transport airplanes and helicopters, as well as developing new standards for those unique aspects of tiltrotor design. We have completed most of the certification standards, and the manufacturer has accepted these requirements.

The remaining standards involve performance and handling characteristics of this unique aircraft and will be developed during test flight. The first flight is scheduled for late in 2001, with full certification scheduled in 2003.

With regard to the pilot qualifications for power-lift vertical flight, the FAA has already developed the requirements for pilot certification, and in 1997 incorporated them into our regulations.

We also have a rulemaking project underway to develop air worthiness and operational flight rules.

And finally, we are currently working with the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, and the European Joint Aviation authorities toward establishment of international pilot certification and operational standards for advanced vertical flight operations.

Work is underway for the standards of airports and vertiport infrastructure to service rotorcraft operations, using a model developed by NASA. But significant progress awaits the final development of the aircraft itself.

The FAA is also responsible for conducting research into air navigation and air traffic control procedures and to implement these services where needed.

We believe that modern vertical-flight aircraft, when coupled with advances within the NAS, offer unprecedented opportunities for aviation system efficiency, improvement that will enable safe all- weather transportation and emergency services.

For example, satellite-based helicopter approach instrument procedures implemented over the past few years has resulted in significant benefits in the helicopter emergency services and to the Gulf of Mexico energy resource extraction operations.

Our research program is targeted at developing better standards and operating procedures to take maximum advantage of the superior flight characteristics of modern vertical-flight aircraft. We are exploring the feasibility of safely reducing separation standards and optimizing landing and takeoff profiles based upon aircraft performance and noise characteristics.

In our history, the FAA and its predecessor agencies have successfully transitioned many new and revolutionary aircraft types and systems into the NAS. Beginning in the late 1930s, we completed the U.S. certification of the first large-scale production airliner, the DC-3, then went on to certify the first pressurized airliner, the Boeing 307 in 1940, the first civil helicopter in 1946, the first turboprop in 1955, the first turbo-jet in 1958, as well as the supersonic Concorde in 1979, and the advanced wide-body jets of today, such as the Boeing 747, in 1989.

It seems appropriate that as we begin a new century and millennium, advances in aviation technology present us with another promising edition to the fleet -- a tiltrotor vertical-flight aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, the FAA is prepared to meet that challenge. We will continue to work closely with our partners in industry, the airport community and Congress to ensure that the national airspace system has the ability to take maximum advantage of the unique capabilities of vertical-flight aircraft.

That concludes my prepared remarks. My colleague and I will be happy to answer any questions.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, and we will come back to you in the question and answer period.

Next we have Mr. Anthony DuPont. He is founder and president of DuPont Aerospace Company located in El Cajon, California, which as I say, is not in my congressional district. And he holds an undergraduate degree from Yale and an MS in Aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, and he has an extensive background in the aerospace industry.

I first met Tony when I worked in the White House and he was working on some incredibly important high technology and secret programs for the government during the Reagan years.

We welcome you, Tony, and you may proceed with your testimony.

DUPONT: Good afternoon. I'm very honored to have this opportunity to talk about our DP-2 aircraft and how it can fit into the traffic problems that previous witnesses have described.

To address the problem of runway saturation at the large metropolitan airports, DuPont Aerospace is developing a high performance vertical and short field takeoff and landing airplane, which we call the DP-2.

The technology to produce this aircraft is available and well- proven. As you saw in the movie, two of the key features are the composite structure and the well-proven airline engines. Together with that, we have a simple mechanical control system that is powered by the pilot's hand. If you want help in hover to reduce the pilot's workload, you can clutch in an autopilot and of course it works like an ordinary autopilot in an up and away flight.

The highly (ph) swept (ph) wing (ph), having a simple, critical air foil, permits efficient cruise near sonic speeds, and the result is an aircraft that combines vertical takeoff with a high cruise efficiency.

DP-2 was originally designed to deliver and retrieve troops and equipment in a hostile environment. It was designed to fly with 10,500 pounds of payload in and out over 1,000 nautical mile radius at sea level, which would keep it below the radar horizon.

The same payload could be carried 5,000 nautical miles if the aircraft were flown at optimum cruising altitudes, starting at 32,000 feet at the beginning of the mission and landing at 42,000.

A full-scale thrust vector (ph) system has been successfully tested with a 30,000-pound thrust V-2500 (ph) turbo-fan engine at Pratt & Whitney's Florida facility.

A 53 percent-scale aircraft has been ground tested and is being prepared for hover and flight testing under Office of Naval Research, ONR, sponsorship.

DUPONT: The results of the full-scale and half-scale testing verify the performance predicted from testing previously conducted in the NASA Ames seven-by-ten-foot tunnel.

The DP-2 has short FAA runway requirements when operated with a conventional takeoff and vectored thrust to reduce the landing distance. A 3,000-foot FAA field (inaudible) permits the DP-2 to use special landing patterns at major airports, saving taxi time and avoiding interference with the other aircraft traffic, whereas a VTOL (ph) permits operation away from airports to service more locations and further relieve traffic congestion.

As you saw in the movie, the DP-2 cruises somewhat faster than conventional airliners, and this difference in block (ph) speed makes the 50-seat size competitive in cost, measured in cents per seat mile, with the current larger airliners.

The 50-seat capacity allows the DP-2 to operate nonstop over routes that will not support frequent nonstop service with 150-seat aircraft, such as San Diego to Washington -- something that I took yesterday.

The nonstop service is not only more convenient for the passenger, but is also more economical for the airline, and that result is faster nonstop service at the same or lower fares.

Within the government procurement process, a prototype of the DP- 2 can be available for testing 36 months after contract funding. Prototype flight testing would explore the full capability of the DP-2 concept and develop and evaluate new concepts of operation for the commercial and military users. Estimated cost is around $160 million for a three-aircraft program.

I want to look at production costs as an airliner. Airliners or business jet versions of the DP-2 would have first delivery to customers within 3 1/2 years after receiving enough firm orders to justify a production program. The preliminary price estimate is about $25 million.

The technology can be scaled up or down. It can be scaled up for 200 passengers using engines currently in airline service on the Boeing 777. A 53 percent-scale airplane that DuPont is currently building under ONR sponsorship could be developed into a transcontinental six-place business aircraft capable of cruising at altitudes up to 55,000 feet.

Specific NASA contributions that could move the DP-2 into the commercial arena are wind tunnel testing in the national transsonic facility; spin testing in the spin tunnel; purchase of two 53 percent- scale X (ph) aircraft similar to the one that ONR has built, with upgraded Pratt & Whitney engines; flight test of these two X (ph) aircraft to establish minimum airport space required; unconventional takeoff and approach patterns; and procedures to minimize community noise. These are the features that Dr. Zuk was talking about.

A longer-range research objective would be to develop engines optimized for VTOL aircraft. These would be quiet engines with a higher thrust-to-weight ratio lower fuel consumption at reduced power settings. With a VTOL airplane, the engines have a lot more thrust as required for cruise (ph) altitude. That can be taken advantage of.

The estimated funding to accomplish the first four items listed is $10 million a year for three years.

Development of the DP-2 and follow-on aircraft would once again put the United States in the forefront in aeronautics.  Thank you.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Tony.

Finally, we have Dr. Thomas Taylor, chief scientist and program manager of the Naval Expeditionary Warfare Science and Technology Office of Naval Research. Dr. Taylor was formerly a senior fellow at the Center of Naval Analysis and has been working closely with the FAA.

Dr. Taylor, you may proceed.

TAYLOR: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

As you mentioned, I manage this program, the DP-2. The DP-2 project is to develop the technology for a vertical takeoff transport aircraft that can be used in both military and civilian roles.

Current design of the DP-2, as mentioned earlier, is for 50 to 52 passengers, with a range of about 5,000 miles and a top speed of approximately 500 knots.

The possible use of the aircraft includes search and rescue, as well as special ops for military. In the commercial world, the aircraft could provide high-speed, long-range passenger service to airports with short runways or small landing areas.

The project was initiated in the Office of Naval Research in fiscal year 1997, with a goal of demonstrating the vertical takeoff system proposed by the DuPont Aerospace Corporation. The development plan was first to perform unmanned ground tests with a half-scale composite model, to understand the thrust-vectoring characteristics of the DP-2 aircraft.

These tests measure the vertical and horizontal thrusts for different settings of the louvered engine exhaust flow deflection system. In addition, they establish the reliability of the composite construction technology for the thrust-vectoring system.

Results to date indicate that the thrust-vectoring system appears to work as proposed for single-engine tests. Next, our testing must be completed for two-engine tests. From these results, one can estimate the system setting for free flight of the aircraft.

Further tests of the vehicle are planned to understand the stability of the aircraft in vertical flight. This will allow definition of the range of operation of the control system for vertical flight.

If the vertical hover test proves successful, the next step is to address the full flight characteristics of the aircraft. This requires detailed wind tunnel testing of the vehicle to define the conventional flight operational envelope, as well as the flight envelope in transition from hover to conventional flight. This is the most sensitive and critical part of the development.

In addition, the full operational control system to deal with hover transition and conventional flight needs to be developed and tested. As the plan and tests have progressed, it has become clear that the risk of manned flight of a half-scale DP-2 are great and the cost of testing to mitigate the risks are going to be greater than the available budget.

This allows us to use smaller free-flight models to reduce risk, minimize cost and gain understanding of the system performance. This approach has a promise of augmenting major aircraft development to reduce cost. (inaudible) need no longer be a disaster since a crash is not a big loss of equipment, time or life.

The model controls have advanced to the point that fly-by-wire on stable models are now possible. Also, small, low-cost turbo-jet engines are now available. As a result, model experiments can be run to examine critical stability and control problems before risking major equipment. This approach, however, will not replace the need for final full-scale testing.

At the time, the DP-2 development has not demonstrated any show- stoppers. The program has tethered (ph) hover tests with the half- scale, with two full-scale commercial engines at full power to happen in the next two months. This is critical to the success. This will be an unmanned test for safety reasons. This is a major milestone which will define the future of the development.

This program should be viewed as a proof of principle, and not an aircraft development program. The budget for the program has been about $4 million to $5 million a year, except for the first year when it was about $11 million. The budget allows for modest R&D, but it does allow for full-scale aircraft development.

There has been some discussion that this aircraft could be a replacement for existing operational aircraft. This cannot be shown at this time, because we are not far enough along in the testing. Assuming success, the time frame for a finished aircraft is five to 15 years, depending on the funding and the development approach used. Because of the uncertainty of this technology, the Navy has not yet indicated a requirement for this aircraft.

That concludes my testimony.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Doctor. And we'll go into some questions right now.

First of all, let me ask just the panel in general, the work that's been done -- evidently from the testimony, there's been a considerable amount of work done by the FAA and others to prepare for a system of vertical takeoff, vertical landing system, during which this last decade, of course, we believed it would be the V-22. And the Osprey would be that vehicle, that technology that would be using this.

Are many of the systems that have been looked into and researched and developed also applicable to the jet thrust system, if Mr. DuPont's plane is successful?

DUPONT: Mr. Chairman, the system that we're developing is for a vertical flight aircraft. It doesn't matter the type of propulsion system that would be provided to the aircraft. The system would be capable of absorbing, allowing the aircraft to be utilized within the system.

ROHRABACHER: Doctor, do you agree with that assessment?

ZUK: Well, if you recall in my oral and written testimony, I mentioned that one of the issues that has to be resolved is, really, what's the aircraft performance, particularly it's low-speed control? That will determine how much controlled airspace will be required.

With a satellite-based technology, I believe aircraft -- the vectored-thrust variety of Mr. DuPont's -- could be accommodated into the system.

ROHRABACHER: All right. And Dr. Taylor, do you think that a lot of the work that's gone on so far, and was aimed at vertical takeoff, vertical landing that's been -- first of all, we thought tiltrotor would be the technology -- would that also be applicable for vectored- thrust?

TAYLOR: Yes, there's been a big advance in technology over the last 10 years in control systems and the improvement of the thrust- away (ph) ratio for the aircraft engines and the materials for construction to reduce the weight. And things that might not have been possible 10 years ago, in this technology or this thrust- vectoring system, are on the edge of being possible.

I can't say until we've done the tests that we've done it all, but I can say that technology has advanced sufficiently to make an aircraft that's basically unstable, flyable with a computer, and the thrust-to-weight ratio of engines are such that you can, within 777 engines, you could basically fly a building around.  (LAUGHTER)

So you really have the ability to do a lot you couldn't do 10 years ago.

ROHRABACHER: Let us note that what I seem to be hearing is that even though there are serious questions being looked into about the Osprey program, that even if that technology proves that the margin of safety is not wide enough to justify a full-fledged program, that much of the work that's gone into vertical takeoff, vertical landing technology is applicable to perhaps another approach to vertical takeoff, vertical landing, which is what Mr. DuPont is proceeding with.

Our goal, as always, is to push the envelope technologically. That's what this subcommittee is all about and supposed to be all about. We don't want to develop technology that has already been proven. We want to research and develop and expand the capabilities of the United States within the commercial world, as well as in America's defense.

Mr. DuPont, what are the cost guesstimates? If you were to go into production, if your technology is proven correct, what would be the cost guesstimates, and comparing that to what the Osprey costs per unit would be?

DUPONT: We're estimating the airline cost at about $25 million a copy. That context assumes that you're going to produce a lot of airplanes and you're going to amortize the nonrecurring research and development costs as part of that $25 million.

ROHRABACHER: That's $25 million a copy, but that's if there was a large production.

DUPONT: Yes, that assumes a fairly high production program.

We've looked specifically at the combat CSAR aircraft. We were asked to respond to the request for information on that last year. And there, as I remember, we were estimating something over $30 million apiece in the military context, where the R&D is paid for separately and you buy the airplanes at this rate, you know, one a month or less. It was a very low production rate.

ROHRABACHER: One last question, and then I'll move on, and that is, how about the maintenance costs?

My father was a Marine pilot, and perhaps that's one of the reasons I take this whole thing so seriously. When I was 10 years old, I remember very well, my father was a squadron commander wearing a black arm band for a few days. And I happened to see my mother and my father go to other homes nearby and to tell families of Marine pilots that their loved one was not going to come home. And that was the price of the Cold War. That was the price of freedom. And when I think back on it, I'm very proud of my dad, but I know the tragedies to those families of those people who were lost, and I take this very seriously.

But my father told me something once, because I asked him. He had flow DC-3s first for quite a long time. He flew them all over the Pacific during the war. And then he went into jets in the '50s. And I said -- well, these jets, they're so complicated. I mean, they're new technologies in there. They must be so complicated that they're harder to maintain. And he said, "Oh, no, no, no. It's just the opposite. The jets are the easiest to maintain. All those other engines that we used to rely on, you had to have the overhauled all the time and they were always working on them."

Is your technology, with this thrust-vectoring system, less complicated than the alternative approaches?

DUPONT: That statement is quite true, that the turbine-powered airplanes are much easier to maintain, much longer intervals before in-flight shutdowns and shop visits and all that sort of thing.

And it's a very redundant airplane. There is almost nothing in that airplane that you can break and still not get home safely, which means that you can fix it after you get home, and it's not a fatal flaw. And that's even be useful in our last year's ground testing. We had enough redundancy in the airplane that, if something didn't work, we could keep on testing.

ROHRABACHER: But in terms of actually having a mechanic and the mechanical maintenance of the craft, is that less complicated or is it more complicated than the alternatives?

DUPONT: This is going to be competitive as an airliner and has a very low manhours per flight hour.

ROHRABACHER: OK. Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Lampson?  LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, the fiscal year 2002 NASA budget request would eliminate all funding for our rotorcraft research and development. And I'd like to know what R&D won't get done as a result.

So, Dr. Zuk, what rotorcraft R&D challenges still remain to be tackled? And if R&D funding were provided by Congress, how should the money be spent?

And I want to ask each of you to also tell me the impact of NASA's decision to terminate R&D, what it might be.

Dr. Zuk?  ZUK: Well, NASA, of course, has terminated rotorcraft research beginning in FY '02 due to budget constraints and to address higher NASA priorities and the feeling by the administrator and the administration that we should work on more revolutionary technologies.

We have conducted, as you're aware, excellent rotorcraft research. For example, we are ending the short haul civil tiltrotor program this year. It was an eight-year effort.

We believe we've been able to show that we could reduce the noise by 20 db. That's one-fourth the loudness level of the V-22. We've showed that to meet the transport category of safe airline operations -- to meet the transport category certification requirement that that is doable, that there are ways of flying the tiltrotor very easily.

Of course, there is much research that could be done, but the administration has chosen to address other priorities.

LAMPSON: As a technical person, what would your priorities be?

ZUK: Well, there are many areas that still require -- like, transport aircraft. There's still research being done in advancements. And as technology -- generic technology advances, it helps vertical flight aircraft.

And so there are many things we could do to make the rotorcraft safer, more reliable and lower noise. There are many promising new technologies in their infancy that we would mature more than they are today.

LAMPSON: I would love to have the benefit of some of that. If you wouldn't mind later providing some of it to my office, I would appreciate it.

ZUK: I will respond.    LAMPSON: Thank you very much.

Others of you want to make a short comment, because I have a couple of other questions that I want to -- Mr. Wallace, you want to tell me what you think?

WALLACE: I would just like to further expand on the question the chairman asked earlier about the system being able to accommodate a vehicle such as Mr. DuPont has talked about. And I would just like to reiterate the fact that the efforts that we have put forth so far have been based upon a tiltrotor type vehicle. All the performance work's been done. The development of vertiports (ph) are all based upon a tiltrotor vehicle.

So if there is a vehicle like this -- if it was proposed to the FAA, we would have to stay it through the certification process and then see how we could apply it into the system.

LAMPSON: Well, I have a question about that to follow that up in a second. So, keep that thought. But do you have a comment on this, as far as this other research is concerned?

WALLACE: Oh, yes. The budget with NASA, that was an internal decision made within the NASA agency, and I really don't have any comment on that.

LAMPSON: OK.  Mr. DuPont?   DUPONT: I'm not qualified to comment on the rotor research programs. The first time I heard about it was when I heard in the papers it was canceled.

LAMPSON: OK.  Dr. Taylor?

TAYLOR: My only observation is that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the jet engines has progressed, you know, from the first days they started the Harrier program to now, to where you have enough thrust- to-weight ratio that you can really consider using jet engines for vertical takeoff. Where really before your only option was tiltrotors that really you could make work.

So I would say, based on technology, not on the political considerations, that work that pushed into using high-powered thrust to weight ratio jet engines is really the thing to do.

LAMPSON: Thank you.

Mr. Wallace, are you familiar with any other projects, other than rotorcraft, other types of projects that are being done privately within our sector -- within the United States that could fit within this? And is FAA working with them to develop the parameters within which they might operate?

WALLACE: I've read some articles about some other vehicles. As far as I know, they haven't been -- I believe that's a home built aircraft, the one you're talking about.

LAMPSON: Well, I don't know what you mean by home built.

WALLACE: It's one of a kind. There has been no aircraft that I know of other than the aircraft that we're talking about today that have been submitted to the FAA for any certification.

LAMPSON: OK. That's, I think, in the process of being submitted.

But part of my point is that I wanted to make in that is there's about $150 million invested in that particular activity so far, privately. And I understand that there has been -- this work has been done along with the FAA so that the FAA is kept knowledgeable.

But I wanted to bring it over to Mr. DuPont. In your testimony about the DP-2, you state that the technology to produce this aircraft is available and well proven. And then you go on to describe tasks that NASA could undertake to help your company make the DP-2 into a commercial aircraft at maybe a cost of as much as $30 million.

Why should we spend any of NASA's shrinking aeronautics R&D budget to help your company do product development? And would you consider that corporate welfare?  

DUPONT: No, sir.   LAMPSON: Tell me why.

DUPONT: Because if you do something like this, that's technology that's available to anybody, unfortunately. But that's the way it would be if we take the government's dollar to do it. That's part of...

LAMPSON: How do we pick or prioritize which projects are going to get the money? Why shouldn't the man who spent $150 million developing something similar to what you're talking about not get some help from us as well?

DUPONT: Well, I can't speak to that because I'm not familiar with the project. But the justification for funding this one is that it's a good answer to the problem that was posed about the airport congestion and the lack of runways preventing the growth of air travel. You're going to have to go VSTOL vertical to get out of that box, seems to me.

LAMPSON: I'm taking way longer. Let's go to David. And if you don't mind, maybe we can catch up when it's -- thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ROHRABACHER: Second round.

Dr. Weldon, representing, of course, Florida, who has a key interest not only in space, but in aerospace technology.  Dr. Weldon, you may proceed.

WELDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses for your very interesting testimony. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer. And I'm just kind of curious about the high speeds, Mr. DuPont, that you're able to achieve. Is that because you're doing vertical takeoff and landing?

I guess my real question is if you designed a conventional aircraft with wings like this and that had a shape like this that could go this fast, it would be unstable at conventional takeoff and landing speeds. Is that why you're able to achieve the high speeds?

DUPONT: No, this is a stable airplane. The reason we're able to achieve the high speeds in addition to, you know, highly swept wings and all that is because we have more thrust than is conventionally put into an airliner, so we can get out in that corner of speed and altitude where the range factor is high and you'll get your best fuel consumption at a considerably higher speed.

This is something I believe and I'm...

WELDON: So you could come in and land on a regular runway using existing infrastructure?

DUPONT: Yes, you could. It's a 3,000 foot airplane if you operate it like a conventional airplane. The only thing you're using vector thrust for in that case is just to slow down you're landing speed so you can stay within the 3,000 feet.

WELDON: Why do you think composites -- most commercial airliners today, aren't they all made with aluminum? And I would ask some of the other witnesses to comment on this. Does that pose some certification concerns and stability of the air frame concerns?

I'll let you go first, Mr. DuPont.

DUPONT: OK. Well, just hasn't crept into the main load-bearing structure of airliners yet. But like to point out the horizontal tail of the 777 is all composite, so it's getting there.

The reason we used it was that it's a lot easier to develop an airplane using composite structure than aluminum because...

WELDON: You mean, the research and development, tooling costs?

DUPONT: Tooling is a lot cheaper. Aside from that, if you do it right, the material is lighter. And then when we use it in the thrust vectoring system, it doesn't change shape as it gets hot. So this was a problem with other previous schemes that used metal elements in the vector control system.

WELDON: So the composites are critical for your thrust vectoring system, as it's currently designed, to work. And to do that using conventional metals, aluminum or whatever, presents problems?

DUPONT: It'd be a lot heavier and a lot more difficult because of the change in shape when it gets warm.

WELDON: Mr. Wallace, did you want to comment on safety certification on an aircraft that was made entirely of composites, issues or concerns?

WALLACE: As Mr. DuPont has stated, there's a number of aircraft -- transport airliners that have composite features to them: the Airbus, 777, as you said. And we have certified one airplane that's completely composite.

WELDON: What airplane is that?

WALLACE: It's the Beech Starship.

WELDON: OK. So this is not that revolutionary using composites.

WALLACE: No. We also use composites on a number of rotorcraft. The new Sikorsky S-92, I believe will be mostly composite. A lot of the rotor systems are all composite.

WELDON: I just want to follow on, Mr. DuPont, with the, sort of the direction Mr. Lampson was going in. You laid out in your testimony some dollar figures on what it would cost to develop an airplane. I know there are some Boeing representatives sitting out there in the audience. Why doesn't industry just come along and fund you if this is really -- because it sound great. It sounds like a dream come true, actually.

We've got all these concerns in this committee and in the Transportation Committee about our overcrowded airline infrastructure. And to have the capability to bring a system like this on board, could solve a heck of a lot of problems. And to shorten the time duration to get from place to place certainly appeals to everybody, particularly U.S. congressman.  (LAUGHTER)

But why doesn't industry just pile on and fund this? I mean, if I were the chairman of Boeing or Airbus, I would be looking very closely at your little company and what you're doing. I mean, what's the problem here?

DUPONT: Well, I think the problem is the uncertainty whether it would work or not. I can remember an interview with the vice president of American Airlines. He says, "Tommy, don't tell me why the airplane's good. I'll tell you why it's good." And he did. And then he says, "Now you tell me it's real."

And I had a hard time answering that question. A lot better shape today because of the ONR project. But I think it was -- and we've talked to Boeing and we talked to Lockheed and we talked to Grumman and we talked to, in one way or another, almost everybody in industry years ago about doing exactly what you said -- Why don't you invest in this great idea and get rich? And nobody was willing to do it. And I think it was primarily because of skepticism that you could actually accomplish it.

WELDON: So the only investor remaining out there is Uncle Sam, I guess is what you're saying?

DUPONT: No, DuPont Aerospace.

WELDON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much.

And you're not looking for production, you're looking for just research and development. You don't expect the government just to manufacture all of these things.

DUPONT: No. I expect that when it's proven that hopefully the government will buy a bunch of them.

ROHRABACHER: OK.

Ms. Jackson Lee?

JACKSON LEE: I thank the witnesses for their testimony. And I think this is an important hearing because it's important for those of us who are concerned with technology in the 21st century to be engaged in the discussion.

However, I have always raised issues of safety as it relates to NASA programs, the international space station. And I would like to do so here for those of you who presented your testimony particularly.

If I am correct, this vertical takeoff follows somewhat the V-22 program. This is what we have come to know as the Osprey somewhat. I assume that it'd be used by the military.

And if that is the case, then let me say to you that I am looking at a report of the panel to review the V-22 program, which is a vertical takeoff that has been utilized by the Marines, of which we realize that we've had a number of unfortunate incidences with that.

And I'd like to read into the record this language: "Based on its findings, the panel recommends that the department proceed with the V-22 program but temporarily reduce production to a minimum sustaining level to provide funds for a developmental maturity phase. Various operational restrictions should be imposed until the development maturity phase has progressed to the point where known risk issues have been properly addressed and confidence in aircraft reliability and maintainability and logistics supportability have returned."

I imagine -- this was to former Secretary Cohen of the Department of Defense. I imagine this report is on the desk of the new secretary of Defense.

And I guess I'm, as I said, tracking some of the line of questioning of my colleagues. Why shouldn't we allow that process to take its will at the DOD with its funding and its review? Certainly, we want our men and women in the military to have safe travel. As opposed to having us engage in what is at best a shaky production and shaky research.

And I am certainly one that believes that we can use the government for innovative technologies and research. That's how we got the Internet. But why don't we let them finish their work before we begin to utilize civilian dollars in NASA when NASA is in need of so many additional dollars for human space flight and other research areas?

And I would hope that each of the gentlemen would answer the question.

ZUK (?): If I may begin? I would just like to quickly relate our experience with the XV-15 tiltrotor research aircraft.

The first flight took place back in May 1977, and one of the two aircraft is still flying in Arlington.

The tiltrotor itself has many safe features, including a wide conversion corridor -- that is, you can convert from vertical to horizontal flight over a wide speed range. That's an excellent feature.

Because it is what we call a low-disk-loading vehicle, it moves a large amount of air, it doesn't have to exhaust at a high velocity. And this minimizes the down wash and any type of ingestion into the engine.

For civilian applications, we will not have the demands that the military puts on vehicles. NASA itself carries the technology through the technology development stage and the research aircraft so that the technology is demonstrated.

Then, whoever develops the vehicle is involved in the details of the design, and the user determines how it'll be operated. The manufacturer determines how it would be maintained. That's really out of our hands.

In the tiltrotor's case, I feel that the extensive database we have for the XV-15 indicates that it's a very safe vehicle.

The same can be true for other concepts. And our experience through the NASA -- and actually beginning in 1950s, '60s, '70s and early '80s showed that many other short takeoff and landing concepts are viable, can be safe. We've also...

JACKSON LEE: Dr. Zuk, let me just try to get the other members in.

What I'm trying to find out is -- I understand the budget for R&D aviation is zeroed out for NASA. And I want to certainly correct that. You happen to be a particular project manager. I'm trying to find out whether we should let the Defense Department continue to do its work in research as opposed to taking needed funds for general aviation research out of NASA to do this kind of work when it's already been proven that this doesn't seem to be a very safe vehicle.

So if the other gentlemen could proceed with that so that my question could be answered, I'd appreciate it.

WALLACE: I cannot address the military side, the V-22 issue. What I can address is the civil aircraft that we're in the process of certifying right now. Since the civil tiltrotor, the power lift vehicle, the Bell-Agusta 609, the way we are certifying it is through transport category standards.

Now, what I mean by that is, when you go back to Texas and you go out here to Reagan and climb on the Airbus or whatever airplane it is, we're using the same transport category standards, safety standards, for that aircraft -- for the civil aircraft that has to meet the civil transport airplane and rotorcraft standards. That the certain portion, approximately 15 percent that are unique for tiltrotor aircraft, what we're doing is we're addressing special conditions for tiltrotor aircraft.

But again, those have to meet the highest standards equivalent to the transport standards.

JACKSON LEE: Mr. DuPont?

DUPONT: I'm not sure I'm answering the question you posed.

JACKSON LEE: To let DOD to do this work and get them to refine it to the point that they use their dollars as opposed to attempting to do this research in collaboration with NASA.

DUPONT: Are you talking about the rotorcraft program that was zeroed out, or are you talking about the DP-2?

JACKSON LEE: I'm talking about the vertical takeoff technology, which I assume you're involved in.

DUPONT: OK. Well, I think the reason that NASA would be a great participant is that they would focus on the civilian needs and the civilian applications. And some of the things that Dr. Zuk was talking about of how you operate this airplane to minimize the noise contours and still have a safe area around the airplane.

The military has a different set of requirements. They would only be incidentally addressed in a military program where they would be directly confronted by a NASA program.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you.

And I thank the chairman's indulgence. If Dr. Taylor could finish my question, I'd appreciate it very much.

TAYLOR: Being a technologist, I'll come at this from a technology side.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you.

TAYLOR: And again, I think you have to hearken back to the days of the vertical takeoff airplane for the Harrier. Or the other ideas were, 15, 20 years ago, everybody was all for this and they found out that they didn't have enough power.

And the long and short of it is, as we've advanced, we now have a whole lot of power in the jet engines. And we now have great control systems for flying airplanes that we just didn't have before.

So, I would say, based on my knowledge base and what I know, is that the safety factor of the vertical takeoff airplane has improved greatly over even the last three or four years.

So, I'm not here to judge existing aircraft, the technology in those aircraft. But I can tell you that we certainly have the ability to build a safe vertical takeoff airplane.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much. We're going to have a second round seeing as how there's only a couple of us left.

Let me just start out by saying, when we're talking about a $300 million investment that we've had from NASA in this last 10 years, $30 million a year for 10 years, in tiltorotor technology R&D. Dan Goldin suggested to me that very little was achieved for that $300 million investment. And that when you have to prioritize your spending that that was an easy decision for him to make because we'd come to the point where very little was coming out of the $30 million investment a year.

Although I can say that that's tiltrotor, that's -- again, we're not talking about vertical takeoff, vertical landing. We are talking about specifically tiltrotor approach to vertical takeoff, vertical landing.

Mr. DuPont has testified for a few years of a $30-million-a-year investment that he could come up with actually several craft that could be used -- experimental craft that would be available to totally test the technology and test this vectoring thrust system, and come up with some working models, which might well be a very good investment for $30 million, as compared to, as I say, Dan suggested that they weren't getting very much out of that $30 million a year now.

Let me ask -- Tony, let me ask you something. You've made some claims here. And you've got a lot of people listening here and you're on the record now.

How can you project that a plane that hasn't flown yet is going to be able to go as fast as it goes, and is going to be able to have the stability that you claim it has and such as that? I mean, what -- look, I'm not an engineer. How can you make a claim that it's going to be able to have a 5,000-mile range, for example?

DUPONT: OK, there are three things go into the range calculation. You have the empty weight of the airplane. And we've compared the empty weight projected for the DP-2 against some past airplanes. In the airline world, let's take the DC-930. In the military world, take an airplane that has a lot of fuel in it, namely the KC-135. Our empty weight fraction, as a takeoff gross weight, lies in between those two airplanes. So the empty weight fraction is reasonably expected that it'll make it. This has been checked by some other outside companies, including Sikorsky, we were a partner with at one time.

And the air dynamic data that gives you your stability and your drag and so forth, most of that was obtained in a NASA seven-by-10 wind tunnel with one of these power scale models that Dr. Taylor was talking about.

ROHRABACHER: Well, let me just put it this way. Those of us -- this hearing isn't to approve or disapprove your craft. I wanted to make sure that the word got out that there was a possible alternative here. And that because of the problems with the V-22 that people should not just say that vertical takeoff, vertical landing concepts are either going to win or die based on whether or not the Osprey was the right decision.

I think everyone would be excited and everybody can understand the commercial application of having a plane that can take off and land like a helicopter but can go 500, 600 miles an hour for a 5,000 mile range. I mean, that is clear has not only military application, but a tremendous commercial potential as well. So, we're going to be watching this.

I personally think this is what NASA should be doing. NASA should be pushing the envelope. And as you said, that you would expect a lot of airliners in the future, not only just from your company, but from many companies, to be utilizing this technology that you're pioneering.

With that said, I'm just going to let Mr. Lampson move forward with his questions.

LAMPSON: Thank you, sir.

Let me go to Dr. Taylor. I understand that the Office of Naval Research, ONR, DARPA, perhaps some others, may have spent as much as $50 million to date on the DP-2 in its earlier incarnation, the vector thrust technology project, is this correct?

TAYLOR: I think its a bit high. I think the number is in the twenties.

LAMPSON: And you -- there's been a lot of confusion presented to us. Because we've asked this of some different agencies and we've gotten different answers from different folks. Would you mind giving us the correct information, please, and dropping me a note?

TAYLOR: Well, I don't have it all...

LAMPSON: No, no, not now. Just send it to us at your convenience.

TAYLOR: Sure.

LAMPSON: I think that would be helpful to have.

An article in the April 16 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology quotes industry officials as saying that the NASA's announced plans to cut R&D have started an exodus of skilled workers from NASA Ames and Langley research centers. And one official goes on to state that, quote, "The damage in the area of personnel is already so large that it will take a long time to repair", unquote, even if funding is restored.

This committee has already expressed its concerns about the need to attract skilled men and women into aerospace if our nation is to remain competitive.

So, Dr. Zuk, what is the impact of aeronautics R&D cuts on the governments and industry's ability to attract good people into aerospace careers? And how concerned should we be about this?

ZUK: Well, living in the Silicon Valley, we had a concern -- we've had a long-time concern, really this past decade, of attracting the best students to lead our future in aerospace. And the cutback in funding in aeronautics research, of course, will harm that some more.

And we also have an impact of contractor personnel that are really key to operating our facilities, the wind tunnels and the simulators. And we've already seen the beginning of an exodus. To my knowledge, I don't think we've reached the critical point yet. But I'm sure we will soon -- where we won't have the capability to operate it sufficiently as we have in the past.

LAMPSON: I appreciate you telling us that. That really concerns me a great deal, as it has this committee, I know, for some time.

And perhaps we can spend some effort in the future, Mr. Chairman, to explore that particular point to a greater extent.

Actually, I find this fascinating. The technology, I truly love. And the work that you all are doing in these areas, no question about it, it's going to make life better for us all, and I think it's fantastic.

With that being said, let me just end, I guess. I have one more question of Dr. Zuk, if I can. And then I'll be quiet and let you have this thing back and we'll go on about our business.

The NASA budget cuts will result in the elimination of the National Rotorcraft Technology Center, which is located at the NASA Ames Research Center. What is the mission of the National Rotorcraft Technology Center? And who is a member, or are members?

ZUK: OK. I'm, I guess, peripherally involved with the National Rotorcraft Technology Center, so I can give you a better answer in writing. But just in general, I think it's been in operation now for over five years. It's members are the NASA -- the government funds 50 percent and the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association funds the other 50 percent.

The government side, it's been primarily NASA and the Army with some FAA and Navy involvement. And they've been addressing relatively near-term technology. It's been the pre-competitive type of technology.

I attended the last yearly review, and it has really been impressive, the work that NRTC has performed.

But I'll be happy to provide more information to you.

LAMPSON: Thank you. I appreciate that. Just, overall impact if it goes away, big?

ZUK: Well, I think a lot of people will be disappointed.

LAMPSON: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of you.

ROHRABACHER: Ms. Jackson Lee?

JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first of all say that the work of scientists should always be held in very high esteem.

I think the responsibilities that we have in this committee, as we would have if we were in the appropriations process, is prioritization. And so I am certainly concerned that aviation R&D -- as I understand the numbers and someone should correct me, I believe we've gone from $36 million in terms of funding. It's zeroed out, if I'm correct. And I certainly oppose that and want to see dollars utilized for aviation research.

Dr. Zuk, what I'm trying to find out with your particular program, how many dollars -- what are you utilizing? What did you utilize last fiscal year for your program?

ZUK: OK. Again, I'm the project manager for the short-haul civil tiltrotor program.

JACKSON LEE: I understand.

ZUK: That was $3 million last year. It actually ends this year. Now, the rotorcraft program was, I believe, $30 million a year.

And I might just add that even though rotorcraft itself is the name of the research, but there's a lot of generic research that applies to other concepts as well. In other words, it just doesn't apply to helicopters. There is certainly a percent that applies to all vertical and short-haul aircraft.

JACKSON LEE: My position would be to ensure that aviation R&D is funded. But before I conclude on what the other aspect of my position is, Mr. DuPont, what are you trying to get the government to do in cooperation, collaboration with your research?

DUPONT: Yes, there are so many things I mentioned. What I think are the most important things to do is we'd like to have a federal wind tunnel program in the National Transonic Facility, which we would pay for ourselves if we could have afforded it. And as I mentioned earlier, that data, one way or another, will be made available to everybody. So it's not like corporate welfare.

JACKSON LEE: And the cost of that would be?

DUPONT: I don't really know. But that's a pretty expensive facility. And the other wind tunnel facilities we priced out, they come to thousands of dollars an hour. So it's a fairly healthy bill.

The other thing that would contribute a lot to safety. One of the problems that we could address in a spin tunnel with one of these scale models is spin capabilities. How do you get into it? How do you get out of it? It's not an expensive program, but it's something very important to do.

And then most important of all, this thing is really going to make it into the commercial airline arena, we have to do that flight testing that Dr. Zuk has been doing for some of the other airplanes, which is to -- other types of airplanes -- to find out how you can get this into the smallest space safely and quietly. And to that end, we'd like NASA to acquire a couple of these 53-percent-scale airplanes that they could use for that purpose.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much.

As I said, the work that you do is to be applauded. I think that, as I indicated before, we have responsibilities, prioritization. I'd like to see Dr. Zuk continue his work and to have funding in R&D on aviation go from zero to the amount that we can adequately support.

I still maintain my position as it relates to research that's being done by the Department of Defense. I'd like to see them, even though it is defense and military based, spend some of those dollars and refine some of the issues that you just mentioned. Because I'm concerned that in prioritizing what we have monies to spend, I think that there is some remaining work to be done, for example, on the space station that has now been cut because of choices that have been made.

So I encourage the work. But my concern would be in the expending of dollars in technology that has been questioned as it relates to safety and I would be more inclined to be supportive of the Department of Defense pursuing it to its ultimate. And then, of course, then it translates and can be utilized prospectively for commercial use or civilian use.

So I thank the gentlemen very much for their work. And I hope that out of this hearing, we all have one common perspective is, and that is to refund, or to fund this fiscal year, the R&D for aviation under NASA. And I think that is a worthy cause to do.

I yield back.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson Lee.

And this subcommittee prides itself on the bipartisan nature of our work, and we try to work together. And to the degree that there's some competition between the two parties is a good thing. I mean it keeps everybody honest to make sure that everybody is watching out for everything.

And I just would like to thank the witnesses. We are proud of the research.

If we listen real carefully to what Mr. DuPont had to say, some of the NASA research that we've supported over these last 10 and 15 years have made it possible for his aircraft, which was impossible 20 years ago, through materials research and computers research and such. A lot of that work that was done by NASA, now is making his craft a possibility when it was an impossibility before in terms of -- especially in terms of the materials research that NASA's been doing with national aerospace plane and our space program. I'm sure that's where a lot of this composite research was done, which now makes his breakthrough possible.

I believe that the $30 million a year that we were spending on tiltrotor research -- perhaps that should be redesignated just research for vertical takeoff/vertical landing rather than just tiltrotor research. If it's going to be spent, it should be spent in a way that examines all the alternatives rather than just the one alternative.

But indeed, the helicopter industry -- and just as in all industries that are status quo, have a lot of power and interest in keeping the status quo. But that's not what this body should be about. This body should be about pushing the potential and the possibilities, creating a new status quo by funding, not what the people who are currently in power -- you know, there's big guys who run big businesses and big government and little guys like Tony DuPont. And quite often in our history, the little guys have been the ones who've come up with the big breakthroughs.

And if Mr. DuPont is successful, I believe what he has in mind will change the world. It'll certainly keep America -- again, it'll thrust America to the lead in commercial aviation, and will have important, significant contributions to make to our national security.

And finally, let me just say that I wish we didn't have to even look for a new craft. I wish that the $12 billion that have been spent on the V-22 program, the Osprey, which I supported all these years, I wish it would have been successful.

We've got 30 bodies that have been laying on the ground, and these are very brave men and women who defending their country. And if we're wrong, we, as I said in the beginning, let's have the courage to admit it if we're wrong and go another direction. And I know that it's very difficult to do in corporate America, to do that. But we owe it to those people who are risking their lives to be honest about it. And if there is an alternative that could be safer and be better for our country, let's go in that direction.

And with that said, vertical takeoff and vertical landing, I think, is still a major option. And perhaps we've got some alternatives here in front of us today that we should take a look at.

This hearing will be adjourned as soon as I say the last important legal words.

Witnesses are thanked. And please be advised that members of the subcommittee will request additional information for the record. And I would ask other members who are going to submit written questions to do so within one week of this hearing.

So that concludes the hearing, and we are now adjourned.

                      see also   testimony by Zuk  testimony by duPont