THE CASE of the C–5A by Marcelle Size Knaack Air Force Hist

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

THE CASE of the C–5A by Marcelle Size Knaack Air Force Hist RESEARCH STUDIES SERIES MILITARY AIRLIFT AND AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT: THE CASE OF THE C–5A By Marcelle Size Knaack Air Force History & Museums Program WASHINGTON, D.C. 1998 ii PREFACE This is the third in a series of research studies—historical works that were not published for various reasons. Yet, the material contained therein was deemed to be of enduring value to Air Force members and scholars. These were minimally edited and printed in a limited edition to reach a small audience that may find them useful. We invite readers to provide feedback to the Air Force History and Museums Program. The author, Marcelle S. Knaack, a member of the Office of Air Force History, undertook the research and writing of this book as a consultant, after she retired. Tragically, she passed away in November 1996, before she completed the manuscript. Her colleague, Bernard C. Nalty, also retired by that time, undertook to complete Ms. Knaack's work. At first glance, the history of the C–5A Galaxy seems to be nothing more than a compilation of contradictions. Ordered under a totally new procurement concept specifically designed to control costs, the C–5A aircraft ended up costing a small fortune. Its purchase in 1965 depended on achieving an initial operational capability no later than 1969, but the transport did not appear in South Vietnam in a truly operational capacity until August 1971. Although built by the Lockheed-Georgia Company, celebrated for its success with military transports like the C–130 Hercules and C–141 Starlifter, the C–5A program from the very start encountered serious technical problems, delays, and exorbitant cost overruns, which combined to trigger several congressional investigations. Although the program contracted in size under the pressure of these failings, it survived congressional opposition and began to demonstrate its unique value during the last year of the Vietnam War, even though operating under weight restrictions. In October 1973, moreover, the C–5A helped provide Israel with a constant flow of supplies to ensure victory over the attacking Egyptian and Syrian armies. Into the 1980s the C–5A operated under increasingly stringent flying restrictions because the flawed wing structure deteriorated until it had to be replaced. While under these restrictions, the C–5A could carry just 174,000 pounds of cargo, roughly 100,000 pounds more than the C–141, but 46,000 pounds less than the Galaxy's design objective. Although installation of the heavier new wing would probably prevent the airplane from ever attaining the design capacity of 220,000 pounds, the Military Airlift Command was determined to extend the service life of the C–5A because its performance remained so impressive even with a reduced load. The improvements that strengthened the structure of the C–5A were incorporated in a new version of the Galaxy, the C–5B, for which Lockheed-Georgia reopened its production line. The modified A-model and the new C–5B did everything expected of a heavy-logistics transport during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. Jacob Neufeld, General Editor August 1998 iii iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book was suggested by Gen. Duane H. Cassidy, Commander in Chief of the Military Airlift Command from 1985 to 1987, and by the late Lt. Gen. Ralph E. Havens, Commander of the Air University, when both were members of the Air Force Historical Advisory Committee during the years 1988 and 1989. Generals Cassidy and Havens believed that the Air Force needed an impartial account of the C–5A program. Dr. Richard H. Kohn, the Chief of Air Force History, launched the book, which came to fruition under his successor, Dr. Richard P. Hallion. In pursuing the objectives of accuracy and candor, I received advice and other assistance from several of my colleagues in the Air Force history program: Herman Wolk, Bernard C. Nalty, Jacob Neufeld, Wayne W. Thompson, Michael H. Gorn, R. Frank Futrell, and Michael Levy. Another Air Force historian, R. Cargill Hall, not only arranged the contract for completing the book but also offered comments and information that helped ensure the kind of product that Generals Cassidy and Havens wanted. Historians Richard K. Smith and Rene J. Francillon, also shared their extensive knowledge of the C–5A in particular and aerodynamics in general. v vi CONTENTS Preface ............................................................iii Acknowledgments ................................................... v Introduction ........................................................ ix I. Military Airlift and the Evolution of Aircraft Procurement ............ 1 Early Procurement Practice ........................................ 1 The Post-World War I Promotion of Aircraft Development ................. 3 The World War II Production Boom .................................. 6 Airlift for Berlin and Korea ......................................... 8 Continuing Wartime Aircraft Procurement Practices .................... 12 Reorganizing to Manage Technology ................................. 13 Contract Changes Add Costs ...................................... 15 Airlift at the Close of the Eisenhower Era ............................ 16 Notes ........................................................ 17 II. Flexible Response and the Beginning of the C–5A .................. 21 The Effects of Flexible Response on Airlift Requirements and Doctrine ....... 21 The Imprint of Project Forecast .................................... 27 The Total Package Procurement Concept ............................. 31 The C–5A Program Approved ...................................... 36 The Study of March 1965: Weight and Engines ......................... 38 Weight: A Frustrating Start ....................................... 40 Notes ........................................................ 43 III. Building the C–5A: Problems and Controversy ..................... 47 Source Selection Board Proceedings ................................. 49 Selection: The Low-Cost Bidder Prevails .............................. 53 Engine Development: Difficult at Best ............................... 57 An Old, Familiar Pattern ......................................... 59 A Tortuous, Downhill Road ........................................ 61 Playing Hard Ball ............................................... 63 Catching the Public Eye .......................................... 65 Notes ........................................................ 69 IV. Settlement of the C–5A Program and Another Procurement Reform .. 73 Money, A Continuous First Priority ................................. 74 The Unsolved Financial Dilemma ................................... 75 Cutting Losses ................................................. 76 Another Crisis ................................................. 81 Damage Control ................................................ 84 The C–5A Problems that Remained in 1972 ........................... 88 Notes ........................................................ 91 V. The End of the C–5A Program and the Beginning of the C–5B ........ 93 Overseas Deployment ............................................ 93 A Mixed Victory ................................................ 96 Rewinging the Fleet ............................................. 98 Facing New Challenges .......................................... 102 Notes ....................................................... 107 VI. An Assessment ............................................... 109 Notes ....................................................... 119 Appendices 1. Estimated Mission Performance Based on Contractor Revised Proposals of September 4, 1965 ...................................................... 123 2. C–5A Program Funding ......................................... 125 3. Lockheed Supplemental Agreement 1000, and General Electric's Restructured Contract ..................................................... 127 4. C–5A Yearly Production and Status ................................ 129 5. DOD Directives 5160.2 and 5160.22 ................................ 131 6. MAC Airlift Missions and Flying Hours ............................. 133 7. The Cost and Repricing Formulae .................................. 135 8. Serial Numbers, Acceptances, and Attrition .......................... 137 Bibliographic Note ................................................. 139 Abbreviations ..................................................... 141 INTRODUCTION Acquisition of the C–5A and C–5B transports manufactured by the Lockheed-Georgia Company between 1969 and 1989 embodied both the struggle to control the cost of weapon systems and the emergence of military airlift as a key element of national strategy. Even though the improved C–5B incorporated changes in engines and airframe typical of a second production model of the basic C–5A, the two versions symbolized different eras and the development of new procurement concepts. Both, however, reflected the growing importance of long-range air transport. The C–5A experienced a multitude of technical problems. Critical weakness in the wing, production slippage, and cost overruns nearly caused the program's cancellation in 1970. Yet, the new aircraft made a reality of the concept of flexible response by providing truly global reach for Air Force and the Army. The C–5A also signaled the beginning of drastic procurement reforms that sought to curb the cost of new weapon systems, though unsuccessfully since the new and highly publicized concept of total-package procurement was never pushed to its logical
Recommended publications
  • Theater Airlift Modernization Options for Closing the Gap
    Halvorsen loader pulls away from C-130J Super Hercules at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, where Airmen from aerial port and airlift squadrons support operations 24/7 at DOD’s busiest single runway airfield (U.S. Air Force/Brian Wagner) Theater Airlift Modernization Options for Closing the Gap By Robert C. Owen merica’s renewed strategic the Nation has and what it expects to whether the POR airlift fleet will be ade- emphasis on state-on-state con- acquire) presents serious shortfalls in quate to the demands likely to be placed A flict highlights significant gaps the ability to maneuver land forces on on it. The discussion then turns to the in the country’s theater airlift capa- the scale, to the destinations, or in the question of whether affordable opportu- bilities, particularly in the Asia-Pacific timeframes desired by Army planners. nities exist to mitigate the gaps identified. region. Quantitatively, there likely will Air commanders also have reason for not be enough airlift capacity available concern since the core aircraft of the Requirements to cover major conflict requirements. theater fleet, the C-17 and C-130, pose Many organizations articulate versions Qualitatively, the current program- capacity and operational risks in their of airlift requirements based on sub- of-record (POR) airlift fleet (what abilities to support high-volume combat jective guesses about future scenarios. operations at forward bases when Moreover, the details of the more threatened or damaged by attack. authoritative Department of Defense Given these gaps between capabilities (DOD) studies are classified. Therefore, Dr. Robert C. Owen is a Professor in the Department of Aeronautical Science at Embry- and requirements, this article considers this article asserts only that the steady Riddle Aeronautical University.
    [Show full text]
  • AIRLIFT RODEO a Brief History of Airlift Competitions, 1961-1989
    "- - ·· - - ( AIRLIFT RODEO A Brief History of Airlift Competitions, 1961-1989 Office of MAC History Monograph by JefferyS. Underwood Military Airlift Command United States Air Force Scott Air Force Base, Illinois March 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . iii Introduction . 1 CARP Rodeo: First Airdrop Competitions .............. 1 New Airplanes, New Competitions ....... .. .. ... ... 10 Return of the Rodeo . 16 A New Name and a New Orientation ..... ........... 24 The Future of AIRLIFT RODEO . ... .. .. ..... .. .... 25 Appendix I .. .... ................. .. .. .. ... ... 27 Appendix II ... ...... ........... .. ..... ..... .. 28 Appendix III .. .. ................... ... .. 29 ii FOREWORD Not long after the Military Air Transport Service received its air­ drop mission in the mid-1950s, MATS senior commanders speculated that the importance of the new airdrop mission might be enhanced through a tactical training competition conducted on a recurring basis. Their idea came to fruition in 1962 when MATS held its first airdrop training competition. For the next several years the competition remained an annual event, but it fell by the wayside during the years of the United States' most intense participation in the Southeast Asia conflict. The airdrop competitions were reinstated in 1969 but were halted again in 1973, because of budget cuts and the reduced emphasis being given to airdrop operations. However, the esprit de corps engendered among the troops and the training benefits derived from the earlier events were not forgotten and prompted the competition's renewal in 1979 in its present form. Since 1979 the Rodeos have remained an important training event and tactical evaluation exercise for the Military Airlift Command. The following historical study deals with the origins, evolution, and results of the tactical airlift competitions in MATS and MAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Rules for Nuclear Logistics Transport by the Prime Nuclear Airlift Force
    BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 91-115 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 1 AUGUST 1998 Safety SAFETY RULES FOR NUCLEAR LOGISTICS TRANSPORT BY THE PRIME NUCLEAR AIRLIFT FORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY NOTICE: This publication is available digitally on the SAF/AAD WWW site at: http://afpubs.hq.af.mil. If you lack access, contact your Publishing Distribution Office (PDO). OPR: HQ AFSC/SEWO Certified by: HQ USAF/SE (Lt Col Ronald E. Morin) (Maj Gen Francis C. Gideon, Jr.) Supersedes AFI 91-115, 1 October 1997. Pages: 7 Distribution: F This instruction implements AFPD 91-1, Nuclear Weapon Systems Surety and Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3150.2, Nuclear Weapon System Safety Program, December 23, 1996. It applies to Prime Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF) operations with C-141B, C-17A, and C-130E/E*/H aircraft trans- porting nuclear weapons. Section A assigns responsibilities. Section B contains the nuclear weapon sys- tem safety rules for PNAF operations. The safety rules in Section B may only be changed or supplemented using procedures in AFI 91-102, Nuclear Weapon System Safety Studies, Operational Safety Reviews, and Safety Rules. Paragraph 11.2. applies to the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS This revision adds the C-17A to the Nuclear Logistics Transport by the Prime Nuclear Airlift Force. A bar (|) indicates revisions from the previous edition. Section A—Authority and Responsibilities 1. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Direction. The JCS directs the Chief of Staff, US Air Force, to imple- ment the safety rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Think About a European Union Operated Airlift Capability? Laurent Donnet
    No. 62 April 2015 Time to think about a European Union operated airlift capability? Laurent Donnet The European Council of June 2015 will the development and availability of the assess concrete progress regarding its required civilian and military capabilities to do conclusions of December 2013 and so. Member States were also encouraged to provide further guidance in the most improve the EU rapid response capabilities as promising areas. This could be the right well as to be able to plan and deploy the right time to propose innovative solutions to civilian and military assets rapidly and long-lasting issues and shortfalls - effectively. Here reference to humanitarian aid strategic airlift being one of them – and and disaster response is rather obvious. increased civil/military synergies. Could For responding to natural and man-made the A400M become part of the answer? disasters the Union has an array of instruments, notably those managed by the In December 2013 the European Council European Commission. The European stressed the need to turn the financial crisis Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and and its impact on national defence budgets Civil Protection (DG ECHO) is responsible into an opportunity, to give a new impetus to for the delivery of Community humanitarian European military capability development in assistance and the Emergency Response order to meet its level of ambition. It also Coordination Centre (ERCC) has been invited its Member States to address remaining established to enable the EU and its Member shortfalls and to safeguard the defence States to respond to the disasters in a timely capabilities required to support the European and efficient manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Safety Digest May 1989
    The First Two Minutes The author reviews problems that have confronted flight crews during the critical takeoff phase and concludes that the accident record would improve considerably if as much attention is paid to the prevention of takeoff emergencies as to the response to them. by Gerard M. Bruggink Worldwide accident statistics show consistently that sented here. Nor does it follow that the recent primacy most air-carrier accidents occur in the approach and of takeoff accidents in the United States could not have landing phase of flight. In the same statistics, takeoff been duplicated elsewhere in the world; it so happens accidents are next in frequency of occurrence. Accord- that the U.S. accident data are the most-readily avail- ing to a recent study by Captain Caesar1, these two able for analysis — at least to this writer. phases of operation accounted for 80 percent of the 370 total losses of jet transports in the 1959-1987 period: Within the limited scope of this discussion it is suffi- 57 percent occurred during approach and landing; 23 cient to realize that the prominence of takeoff accidents percent during takeoff. as the greatest loss-producer in the United States during the past five years was brought about by two factors: The predominance of approach and landing (A&L) ac- cidents is confirmed by the fatal jet transport accident • The remarkable decline of A&L accidents over experience of U.S. air carriers over the last two decades the last 20 years, and (1968-1987). Of the 67 fatal accidents in that time frame, 33 (50 percent) were A&L accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Ntsb/Aas-64-Aa
    , I (j (. .1 u!) \J _l'·,· ~ABLE OF CONTENTS A. INT~ODUCTION 1 . Rcvie1-1 u f in;1'tents 2. T11,pl·:::r:cn ta ti on of Requirements b., Re.so luUoI~ of Conflicts c <· Consider a t,iorJ rif Avc:.ilable Research J, Considerat icn of Past Di.fficultie:3 et Aircraft CcckFits Accide~i/Incia2nt Re2ord 6 Conclusions C .. CREd COMP.LEHZ!~T l.. Review of 11.eq1.iirements ;::i, Views of the Industry a. Ma~uf2cturers ~~ Air Carriers c. 1·'!.:.:Uu.:·:J.l Avi at.ion Agency cL. .Pilot Organization e., Flisht Eng:inc:er Organization h. Conclusions .D. cnn·.r DUTIE.S 1. Review of ~equirements 2. Views of the Industry a. Manufacturers b .. Air Carriers c. FBricral Aviation Agency d, Military e, Flight Engi.near On.;..n] za ti on f. Pilot Organization 000002 Evalua 1:.ion Conclusions I l. e.. Fi..-:.. J.\.FI?ENDI CES II. TJ, S. J.._i-:: C:::.2'.'rie~ l~:.r..:i.Je'."'_t.s f'::.r 1J 1~riod cfo.:,.;:-::1v .July =...> ~964 - 'L-;_:rbcjet Aircr:;.ft J.11' r.·;.:;:: ~·=-:·:~-= B·::a_-l.:'..::::"~'.:':":. ~Tr: s -:~:; te1--,lis:-~:::d by BAC-ll.~. n:.:;. 9 E\r~.:il·;,s.T ~.or, Com~tr~:.t-_:.se- ::i.s p:cs.:_::,s~1ted by ..L;n~ pj_j_ot Org~r.. iz:-.. -.·. .ior; IV. Limi t:a·:::i..c:".::: f::i::.· T:·-cr:.1.::;por r:: Ai:t-::::.a.f~ Op.:::::-·:;.-:-.~~::.·":; w:i rh 1.;.r:..> '.!V:"':L!."1 crew ~L: p~~0:etJ.t:::l ty ~~1E: Fligl1t E11ginc('=Y O:t;ar,j_zg.-,l..Jn v.
    [Show full text]
  • Realignment and Indian Air Power Doctrine
    Realignment and Indian Airpower Doctrine Challenges in an Evolving Strategic Context Dr. Christina Goulter Prof. Harsh Pant Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs requests a courtesy line. ith a shift in the balance of power in the Far East, as well as multiple chal- Wlenges in the wider international security environment, several nations in the Indo-Pacific region have undergone significant changes in their defense pos- tures. This is particularly the case with India, which has gone from a regional, largely Pakistan-focused, perspective to one involving global influence and power projection. This has presented ramifications for all the Indian armed services, but especially the Indian Air Force (IAF). Over the last decade, the IAF has been trans- forming itself from a principally army-support instrument to a broad spectrum air force, and this prompted a radical revision of Indian aipower doctrine in 2012. It is akin to Western airpower thought, but much of the latest doctrine is indigenous and demonstrates some unique conceptual work, not least in the way maritime air- power is used to protect Indian territories in the Indian Ocean and safeguard sea lines of communication. Because of this, it is starting to have traction in Anglo- American defense circles.1 The current Indian emphases on strategic reach and con- ventional deterrence have been prompted by other events as well, not least the 1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, which demonstrated that India lacked a balanced defense apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2019
    Airbus A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2019 Contents Scope and definitions 02 1.0 2020 & beyond 05 Accidents in 2019 07 2020 & beyond 08 Forecast increase in number of aircraft 2019-2038 09 2.0 Commercial aviation accidents since the advent of the jet age 10 Evolution of the number of flights & accidents 12 Evolution of the yearly accident rate 13 Impact of technology on aviation safety 14 Technology has improved aviation safety 16 Evolution of accident rates by aircraft generation 17 3.0 Commercial aviation accidents over the last 20 years 18 Evolution of the yearly accident rate 20 Ten year moving average of accident rate 21 Accidents by flight phase 22 Distribution of accidents by accident category 24 Evolution of the main accident categories 25 Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) accident rates 26 Loss Of Control In-flight (LOC-I) accident rates 27 Runway Excursion (RE) accident rates 28 List of tables & graphs 29 A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958 / 2019 02 Scope and definitions This publication provides Airbus’ a flight in a commercial aircraft annual analysis of aviation accidents, is a low risk activity. with commentary on the year 2019, Since the goal of any review of aviation as well as a review of the history of accidents is to help the industry Commercial Aviation’s safety record. further enhance safety, an analysis This analysis clearly demonstrates of forecasted aviation macro-trends that our industry has achieved huge is also provided. These highlight key improvements in safety over the factors influencing the industry’s last decades.
    [Show full text]
  • \Aircraft Recognition Manual
    Jf V t 9fn I 4-'!- Vw'^ ' 'o | ^ renai; 408.$ /•> ,A1.AI / -3o FM DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FM 30-30 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NavWeps 00-80T-75 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AFM 50-40 MARINE CORPS NavMC 2522 \AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION MANUAL SI ISSUED BY DIRECTION OF\ CHIEF OF BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS \ \ I 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FM 30-30 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NavWeps 00-80T-75 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AFM 50-40 MARINE CORPS NavMC 2522 AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION MANUAL •a ISSUED BY DIRECTION OF CHIEF OF BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS JUNE 1962 DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE, WASHINGTON 25, D.C., 15 June 1962 FM 30-30/NAVWEPS 00-80T-75/AFM 50-40/NAVMC 2522, Aircraft Recognition Manual, is published for the information and guidance of all concerned. i BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND THE AIR FORCE: G. H. DECKER, General, Umted States Army, Official: Chief of Staff. J. C. LAMBERT, Major General, United States Army, The Adjutant General. PAUL D. STROOP Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Chief, Bureau of Naval Weapons. CURTIS E. LEMAY, Official: Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, R. J. PUGH, Colonel, United States Air Force, Director of Administrative Services. C. H. HAYES, Major General, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of Staff (Plans). H DISTRIBUTION: ARMY: Active Army : DCSPER (1) Inf/Mech Div Co/Btry/Trp 7-2 44-112 ACSI (1) (5) except Arm/Abn Div 7- 44-236 52 DCSLOG (2) Co/Trp (1) 8- 44-237 137 DCSOPS(5) MDW (1) 8-500 (AA- 44-446 ACSRC (1) Svc Colleges (3) AH) 44447 CNGB (1) Br Svc Sch (5) except 10-201 44^536
    [Show full text]
  • The Usaf C-17 Fleet: a Strategic Airlift Shortfall?
    AU/ACSC/0265/97-03 THE USAF C-17 FLEET: A STRATEGIC AIRLIFT SHORTFALL? A Research Paper Presented To The Research Department Air Command and Staff College In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements of ACSC by Maj. Randall L. Long March 1997 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense. ii Contents Page DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS..........................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................v PREFACE......................................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. vii STRATEGIC AIRLIFT TODAY.....................................................................................1 Introduction and Problem Definition............................................................................1 Thesis Statement.........................................................................................................3 Overview ....................................................................................................................3 STRATEGIC AIRLIFT
    [Show full text]
  • B-162897 Aircraft Owned Or Leased By
    Dear Mr, Thompson: Reference is made to your letter of February 10, 1970, requesting that we update information which we furnished to you in a report dated March 4, 1968, relative to aircraft owned or leased by the Federal Avia- 1 tion Administration (FAA). In accordance with this request, we are fur- nishing you the following information. 1. Inventory of active aircraft owned as of June 30, 1967, 1968, 1969, and January 1, 1970 (enclosure I). 2. Installed passenger capacity and cost of aircraft owned as of June 30, 1967, and January 1, 1970 (enclosure II). 3. Aircraft leased or on loan during the period July 1, 1967, through June 30, 1969 (enclosure III). 4. Aircraft mazntenance, maJor overhaul, and modification costs by aircraft type, for fiscal years 1968 and 1969 (enclosure IV). 5. Average cost per flxght hour by aircraft type, fiscal years 1968 and 1969 (enclosure V>. 6. Aircraft utilization by aircraft type and maJor cate- gories, fiscal years 1968 and 1969 (enclosure VI). 7. Utilization and cost of open market rental aircraft, fiscal years 1968 and 1969 (enclosure VII). In addition, you requested that we advise you of the progress that has been made in establishing a uniform maintenance and operating cost re- porting system for all FAA owned and leased aircraft. As shown zn our March 4, 1968, report, FhCl had 101 aircraft which cost approximately $46 mzlllon 1n its inventory of active aircraft as of June 30, 1967. On January 1, 1970, the number of active air craft had decreased Co 98; however, the cost of the aircraft in the inventory was approximately $52 million, This increase was the net result of.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft of Today. Aerospace Education I
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 068 287 SE 014 551 AUTHOR Sayler, D. S. TITLE Aircraft of Today. Aerospace EducationI. INSTITUTION Air Univ.,, Maxwell AFB, Ala. JuniorReserve Office Training Corps. SPONS AGENCY Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 71 NOTE 179p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS *Aerospace Education; *Aerospace Technology; Instruction; National Defense; *PhysicalSciences; *Resource Materials; Supplementary Textbooks; *Textbooks ABSTRACT This textbook gives a brief idea aboutthe modern aircraft used in defense and forcommercial purposes. Aerospace technology in its present form has developedalong certain basic principles of aerodynamic forces. Differentparts in an airplane have different functions to balance theaircraft in air, provide a thrust, and control the general mechanisms.Profusely illustrated descriptions provide a picture of whatkinds of aircraft are used for cargo, passenger travel, bombing, and supersonicflights. Propulsion principles and descriptions of differentkinds of engines are quite helpful. At the end of each chapter,new terminology is listed. The book is not available on the market andis to be used only in the Air Force ROTC program. (PS) SC AEROSPACE EDUCATION I U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO OUCH) EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN 'IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOU CATION POSITION OR POLICY AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC MR,UNIVERS17/14AXWELL MR FORCEBASE, ALABAMA Aerospace Education I Aircraft of Today D. S. Sayler Academic Publications Division 3825th Support Group (Academic) AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC AIR UNIVERSITY MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA 2 1971 Thispublication has been reviewed and approvedby competent personnel of the preparing command in accordance with current directiveson doctrine, policy, essentiality, propriety, and quality.
    [Show full text]