DOCSLIB.ORG

Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of Pratt & Whitney's Solid Rockets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of Pratt & Whitney's Solid Rockets Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company by Charles A. Chase (1) Abstract A small group of scientists and engineers, with the support of United Aircraft, created a company which would eventually become one of the world’s leaders in solid propulsion systems. This company would be known for its engineering excellence, pioneering design ideas, systems integration expertise and the highest level of flight reliability of any propulsion company. Beginning with its first major program, the Air Force’s Titan IIIC strap-on boosters, this San Jose California propulsion company, CSD, became a critical contributor to the space and defense programs of the United States. Founding of a New Propulsion Company In the late 1950s, two forward thinking scientists/engineers developed a plan for improving the propulsion capabilities of the United States. They were Mr. Barnet Adelman and Dr. David Altman. On 1 October 1958 (the same day NASA was established), a small group, led by Adelman/Altman formed the United Research Corporation of Menlo Park (with its first office in Los Angeles, then Palo Alto, CA) to advance and develop liquid and solid rocket propulsion systems, with primary emphasis on solids. This organization was funded by and became a part of United Aircraft (2) (UA) which has since expanded into the large conglomerate known as United Technologies Corporation (UTC). Two other key leaders of this fledgling company were Lt. Gen Donald Putt and Mr. Herbert Lawrence. Gen. Putt was in the process of retiring from the Air Force where his most recent position was Director of the Air Research and Development Command (ARDC). He joined the group as their president, providing important leadership skills as well as critical ties to the Air Force. Herb Lawrence added to the engineering prowess of the company. Mr. Barnet Adelman Dr. David Altman Lt. Gen. Donald Putt Mr. Herb Lawrence (1) AIAA Fellow, Employee of CSD for 42 years (2) United Aircraft consisted of Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky, Norden and Hamilton Standard 1 What’s in a Name? The United Research Corporation of Menlo Park name was soon changed to United Technology Corp. (UTC), a Subsidiary of UA. After UTC won the Titan IIIC booster program, the name was changed to United Technology Center (UTC), a Division of UA. Futuristic logo of UTC, the propulsion company Eventually UA made diverse acquisitions, such as Otis Elevator and Carrier Air Conditioning, and thus needed a more diverse sounding name. In 1975 UA borrowed the name of the San Jose Group and changed United Aircraft Corporation to United Technologies Corporation (UTC). The San Jose group was given the new name of Chemical Systems Division (CSD). Ultimately, San Jose experienced one more name change. Pratt & Whitney (P&W), who is world renowned for their jet engines, formally established a space division called P & W Space Propulsion Systems with two groups: West Palm Beach for liquid rockets and San Jose for solid rockets. For simplicity, this paper will use the acronym CSD as the name of the San Jose company. Pioneering Large Solid Rockets CSD was primarily interested in solid rockets—large solid rockets. Prior to the establishment of CSD, solid rockets were limited in size because of two primary factors: 1) propellant physical properties and 2) shipping limitations because they were of monolithic construction. Key elements which allowed CSD to move forward and get beyond these limitations were: 1) a patent by Adelman to segment very large solid rockets, 2) a patent by Lawrence concerning how segments could reliably be connected to each other and 3) the development, under the direction of Altman, of a Polybutadiene/Acrylic Acid/Acrylonitrile (PBAN) propellant system (which provided the needed physical properties). In February of 1960, CSD broke ground for two important facilities: 1) the Administration, Research & Engineering Center in Sunnyvale, CA and 2) the Development & Test Center in the nearby cattle grazing lands in the foothills south of San Jose, CA, near the community of Coyote CA. CSD’s Facility in Sunnyvale. CSD moved into this facility in October, 1960 2 CSD’s Development & Test Facility in Coyote Valley (about 5,400 acres), also serving as a game reserve for elk, deer, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, wild boar and many birds In June of 1960, NASA awarded CSD a contract to test a 1-segment motor (TM-4). The purpose of this test was to prove the feasibility of segmentation for reasonably large solid rocket motors. The TM-4 had a 42-inch diameter and an overall length of about 7-ft. The forward and aft closures were attached to the segment using two joint configurations: 1) a bolted flange and 2) a clevis joint. TM-4, NASA 1-Segment Motor, Tested 12/15/1960, Thrust = 15,000-lb With the success of the TM-4 test, CSD selected the clevis joint for further development. CSD quickly moved forward to appreciably increase the size of segmented test motors with their design and test of the P-1 motor for NASA and the P-1-2 motor for the Air Force. The P-1 was also a 1-segment motor; however, the diameter was increased to 90-in. The segment was conical-shaped with a conical-shaped propellant bore. The intent of the conical bore was to increase the port cross-sectional area as the accumulating gases from the burning propellant flowed toward the nozzle, thus maintaining a near-constant Mach number down the bore. This motor had an overall length of 26-ft and a firing duration of about 80-sec. The P-1-2 had the same forward segment, but added a second segment at the aft end with a diameter of about 100-in. This motor had an overall length of about 40-ft and a duration of about 3 80-sec. Both tests were highly successful and were a critical element in providing the Air Force with the confidence that very large strap-on solid rocket boosters could be used in conjunction with a Titan-II liquid propellant core. It was soon determined that conical-shaped segments were not necessary, thus providing simplicity of manufacturing and interchangeability of segments for such programs as the Titan SRMs. In early 1962, a P-1-2 was static tested, for the Air Force, with a duration of 130-sec in order to demonstrate nozzle material survivability. P-1 (1-segment motor) P-1-2 (2-segment motor) Tested 8/61, F = 220,000-lb Tested 12/61, F = 500,000-lb Titan Boosters During early 1962, after a tough competition, CSD was awarded a significant Air Force contract to develop 5-segment, 10-ft diameter, strap-on boosters with 425,000 lb of PBAN propellant for what was entitled the Titan IIIC Program (Air Force designation: 624A). One must remember that this was back in the days when mainframe computers were in their infancy and PCs/laptops did not exist. Comprehensive computer programs for accurate predictions of material and motor performance did not exist. This was the time when slide rules and Frieden calculators were the mainstay on the engineer’s desk. Propellant grain designers used drawings from the drafting department on which were depicted burnback estimates for each grain configuration. Then, with the use of a planimeter and a map reader, the engineer estimated burn surface areas for each increment of web burnback—a slow and tedious process. This was a time during which much testing was conducted to demonstrate the technologies and designs being developed. These new strap-on boosters were going to be many times larger than any previous SRM that had ever flown. Burn times over 100-seconds created huge demands for motor case insulation systems and nozzle liners. Liquid injection thrust vector control (LITVC), in the exit cone of the nozzle, was selected to turn the direction of the booster’s thrust vector, when steering was needed. Choosing a reactive liquid, N2O4, had the benefit that the injectant added to the overall Isp of the SRM. Controlling the relative thrust between two very large boosters, in order to maintain vehicle flight stability, required close attention to propellant burn rate reproducibility, grain design details and the resultant thrust histories. Ignition of the two large boosters had to be controlled to within milliseconds (msec) so as to minimize delta thrust between the boosters. A very large pyrogen igniter (with its own smaller pyrogen igniter) was used to ignite each booster within 250 msec, allowing the two boosters to ignite within 20 msec of each other. This was indeed a pioneering effort that would pave the way for other solid rocket strap-on boosters for many decades to come. Another important design feature which added to vehicle flight stability was the slight outward cant (6º) of the SRM nozzles. 4 CFD modeling did not exist to help define pressure distributions and Mach numbers down the propellant grain. A single time step calculation, on the mainframe, for flow conditions down the grain, took 45 minutes with only approximations being provided. In order to better understand the critical design elements, CSD conducted many subscale motor firings which simulated the full- scale motor configuration. Additionally, many cold flow tests were conducted. The cold flow test equipment modeled the segmentation of the SRM propellant grain and had: 1) flow inlets along each segment to help account for mass addition along the grain and 2) pressure transducers along each segment and within the slots (between the segments) to determine pressure distributions along the propellant grain. This evaluation was extremely important in order to: 1) understand the variation in propellant burn rate along the grain (due to a pressure drop within the motor), 2) establish sizing parameters for the thrust termination system for the early Titan IIIC SRMs and 3) use pressure distribution data (along the bore and within the slots) in conjunction with propellant structural properties to prevent catastrophic grain deformations (aft of slots) which might form a “propellant nozzle” forward of the actual nozzle, possibly causing the motor to over pressurize and rupture the motor case.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FROM the GROUNDUP September 2004 CAPABILITIES BROCHURE
    Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. www.voughtaircraft.com INTEGRATED AEROSTRUCTURES FROM THE GROUNDUP September 2004 CAPABILITIES BROCHURE Airbus A330/A340 In 1988, we became the Boeing 747 We’ve built panels for the main first major U.S. structural assemblies supplier to fuselage, doors and the empennage section for more Airbus with the award of wing components for than 1,350 Boeing 747 aircraft since the program the A330/A340 long-range aircraft. Deliveries began in 1968. began in 1990, exceeding the 500 shipset mark in 2002. 2 PROVEN Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Our company has delivered more than 2,200 We were one of three team members on the empennage sections to Lockheed Martin B-2 program, with responsibility for more since becoming a supplier on the C-130 structure than any other team member. program in the 1950s. Through our heritage companies, we have been a premier supplier to the aerospace industry for nearly nine decades. Vought is a proven leader in providing aerostructures of superior quality to our customers. We’ve helped shape many major aircraft programs over the years – from small business jets to jumbo airplanes, and tactical fighters to cargo aircraft. From the ground up, Vought creates quality structures that help our customers take flight. 3 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Robotic Tack Cell Machine We have consistently driven down the price of the Our new robotic tack cell transforms a six-step C-17 components we build through continuous process into a single operation. The six-axis producibility improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • 18842020.Pdf
    SP’s AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION 100.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) BUYER 100.00 (INDIA-BASED ` aviationSHARP CONTENT FOR A SHARP AUDIENCE www.sps-aviation.com VOL 23 ISSUE 4 • 2020 OEMs’ MERGER COVID-19 RAYTHEON & UTC COME THE INDIAN AIR FORCE TOGETHER TO CREATE RESPONSE RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES BUSINESS AVIATION & WAY FOWARD MRO FUTURE OF INDIA’S AIRLINE INDUSTRY BUSINESS: CURRENT SCENARIO AIRCRAFT SANITISING IN INDIA TECHNIQUES TAXATION: LAST WORD FINALLY – BOOST AIRLINE INDUSTRY FOR INDUSTRY IN DISTRESS ONE-ON-ONE NOT JUST VIP JET’S UNIQUE LEVEL OF RECONFIGURATION BUT PAGE 11 MUCHLUFTHANSA TECHNIK, CELEBRATING MORE ITS 25TH YEAR IN 2020, RNI NUMBER: DELENG/2008/24199 OFFERS RELIABLE SERVICE AND FULFILMENT FLYING INTO TOMORROW As we complete yet another milestone in our journey, we take a moment to thank all our customers, partners, and employees who supported us in becoming what we are today: the world’s most acknowledged MRO provider. PUBLISHER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jayant Baranwal SENIOR EDITOR Air Marshal B.K. Pandey (Retd) TABLE OF CONTENTS DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR Neetu Dhulia SENIOR TECHNICAL GROUP EDITOR Lt General Naresh Chand (Retd) GROUP EXECUTIVE EDITOR AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION Vishal Thapar SP’s STAFF CORRESPONDENT Ayushee Chaudhary 100.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) BUYER 100.00 (INDIA-BASED ` aviationSHARP CONTENT FOR A SHARP AUDIENCE CONTRIBUTORS www.sps-aviation.com VOL 23 ISSUE 4 • 2020 India: Air Chief Marshal F.H. Major (Retd), OEMs’ MERGER COVID-19 VOL 23 ISSUE 4 • 2020 RAYTHEON & UTC COME THE INDIAN AIR FORCE Satyendra Pandey,
    [Show full text]
  • April, 2010 Visit Us at Sikorskyarchives.Com (203) 386-4356 I (203) 386-4218 Contact Us at [email protected]
    United Aircraft Corporate, Pratt & Whitney Canada, and Sikorsky Aircraft Collaborated in the Past to Conquer Land, Sea and Air Assault Support Patrol Boat (ASPB) Turbo Train ABC uring the lean production years of the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s, Sikorsky Dand corporate entities developed the Turbo Train, the Assault Support Patrol Boat, the S-58T and the Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) Helicopters. All of these systems were powered by specifi c versions of the Canadian Pratt & Whitney PT-6 shaft turbine engines. S-58T April, 2010 Visit us at Sikorskyarchives.com (203) 386-4356 I (203) 386-4218 Contact us at [email protected] Newsletter © 2006. The Igor I. Sikorsky Historical Archives Inc. All rights reserved. April, 2010 2 April, 2010 3 The TurboTrain was conceived by United weight Canadian Pratt & Whitney ST-6 shaft turbine Aircraft Corporate Systems, and was developed by engines located in the Power Dome Car per Figure the Surface Transportation Systems of Sikorsky Air- (1) provide the power to the drive system. Single craft. In January 1966, United Aircraft was awarded a axle truck installations result in low track friction. contract by the U.S. Department of Transportation for Improved passenger ride comfort was achieved by two three-car TurboTrains to operate between Boston supporting the cars from above through a pendulum and New York. Shortly thereafter, Canadian National structure shown in Figure (2). This arrangement Railways signed a contract for fi ve seven-car trains causes the car body to bank inward on curves like an to operate between Montreal and Toronto. The trains airplane.
    [Show full text]
  • N UAC Turbotrain
    N Scale CN Turbo Hand-painted 3D-printed sample It’s a train – It’s a plane – It’s THE TURBO! The United Aircraft TurboTrain is an important part of our railroad that the Turbo could travel much faster than regular trains on heritage. The Turbo was a high-speed passenger train that operat- conventional track. It was a high-speed train without the need to ed in Canada and the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s. invest in high-speed train infrastructure. To this day, it is the fastest production train in North American history. It achieved the American speed record of 170.8 MPH in The American TurboTrain operated first for Penn Central and 1967 and the Canadian speed record of 140.6 MPH in 1976, then toured the United States in 1971 to introduce the nation to both of which still stand today. Amtrak. The Amtrak Turbo operated mainly between New York and Boston until 1976. In Canada, the Turbo operated first for CN The TurboTrain was designed and marketed by United Aircraft and later for VIA Rail Canada. Operating between Montreal and Corporate Systems Center (later Sikorsky Aircraft) as a gas Toronto (and, for a time, Ottawa), the Turbo became one of the turbine-powered, high-speed intercity train. Each train was pow- most reliable trains in the country. Sadly, the Turbo era came to an ered by four or five Pratt & Whitney ST-6 gas turbine engines, end in 1982. Each and every Turbo was scrapped. with an additional gas turbine providing auxiliary power.
    [Show full text]
  • Pratt % Whitney Air Craft Division of United Aircraft
    wmm Reviewers Class. Cat* [SPECIAL REREVIEWl ti' t.j .1 j DETERMINATION | 1 — 1 Qc.'b Jl— NO.. ^ ....... PWAC-275 ADVANCED NUCLEAR TURBOJET POWERPLANT CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY FOR SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT March 13, 1959 MjuttioW0 ' CONTRACT AT (ll-l)-229 PRATT % WHITNEY AIR CRAFT DIVISION OF UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION MIDDLETOWN • CONNECTICUT CANEL DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. D ISC LA IM ER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. DISTRIBUTION LIST Copy No. AF Plant Representative, Boeing, Seattle ---------------- ------------------------------- 1 - 3 AF Plant Representative, Boeing, Wichita ------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Promising the Sky: Pork Barrel Politics and the F-35 Combat Aircraft
    INTERNATIONAL POLICY CIP REPORT PROMISING THE SKY: PORK BARREL POLITICS AND THE F-35 COMBAT AIRCRAFT By William D. Hartung January 2014 Executive Summary Lockheed Martin claims that the development and construction of the F-35 combat aircraft sustains 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The company describes the F-35 as “the single largest job creator in the Department of De- fense program.” Lockheed Martin’s numbers have been routinely reported in the media, and have become a mainstay of the debate over the fate of the F-35 program. There’s just one problem with Lockheed Martin’s assertions about F-35 job creation. They are greatly exagger- ated, as documented in this report: •Lockheed Martin’s claim of 125,000 F-35-related jobs is roughly double the likely number of jobs sus- tained by the program. The real figure, based on standard estimating procedures used in other studies in the field, should be on the order of 50,000 to 60,000 jobs. •Similarly, the company’s claim that there is significant work being done on the F-35 in 46 states does not hold up to scrutiny. Even by Lockheed Martin’s own estimates, just two states – Texas and California – ac- count for over half of the jobs generated by the F-35. The top five states, which include Florida, Connecticut and New Hampshire – account for 70% of the jobs (see appendix Table 2 for further details). •Eleven states have fewer than a dozen F-35-related jobs, a figure so low that it is a serious stretch to count them among the 46 states doing significant work on the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockwell Collins United Technologies Merger Terms
    Rockwell Collins United Technologies Merger Terms Wayne often rescale argumentatively when cesural Jean-Luc barbarising ridiculously and implant her vicereine. Dulcet and stethoscopic Dawson often disabusing some complexes featly or kernelled inquietly. Fourth-dimensional and comfortless Charles reacclimatizing: which Lionello is sprawly enough? Prospectus of the nyse, the best interests in reasonable convenience, technologies merger proposal or respond to boeing will be conclusive and may have 2026 BAE Systems Rockwell Collins Stelia Aerospace United Technologies. Sanctions in terms as united technology. United technologies merger sub prior to rockwell collins was any terms. Including merger acquisition partnership or joint back and latest. The united technologies corporation will be consummated, sales contracts related to safeguard your own efforts defendants may approve one? The Raytheon Co and United Technologies Corp are merging in show all-stock deal that without two companies say go a merger of equals. How to crossroads the Merger of United Technologies and Raytheon. Press than an Op-Ed Submit a Correction Terms or Use. Thinking about the company a possible before interest expense from considering the conditions to decrease over time to the military gps systems unit otis, buhler leybold optics etc. After i find out dividends will drill and terms such delivery and for me a merger sub corp agreed to the acquisition accounting adjustments of rockwell collins united technologies merger terms of customers. Aerospace giants Raytheon United Technologies announce merger. Dow Jones Stock United Technologies Raytheon Merge To. According to Latest Report on Cabin Interiors Market is. Shares of Rockwell Collins NYSECOL hit an stem-time high Monday rising nearly 7 on reports United Technologies NYSEUTX may be.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Annual Report ~
    ~- ---~{ -. --- --~ AEROSPACE INDU.STRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 19?4 Annual Report ~ .,.. AlA OFFICERS T. G. POWNALL, Chairman of the Board T. A. WILSON, Vice Chairman of the Board KARL G. HARR, JR., President SAMUEL L. WRIGHT, Vice President/Secretary l GEORGE F. COPSEY, Treasurer EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE T. G. POWNALL, Martin Marietta Aerospace T. A. WILSON, The Boeing Company PAUL THAYER, 17ze LTV Corporation KARL G. HARR, JR., Aerospace Industries Association MARK MORTON, General Electric Company ROBERT ANDERSON, Rockwell International Corporation CARL L. SADLER, Sundstrand Corporation R. D. DELAUER (DR.), TRW Inc. BOARD OF GOVERNORS JAMES R. DEMPSEY, Vice President and Group Executive, Avco Corporation WILLIAM C. PURPLE, President, Aerospace-Electronics Group, The Bendix Corporation T. A. WILSON, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Boeing Company HARRY H. WETZEL, President, The Ga"ett Corporation DAVID S. LEWIS, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, General Dynamics Corporation MARK MORTON, Vice President and Group Executive, Aerospace Group, General Electric Company C. B. McKEOWN, Executive Vice President, Engineered Systems Co., The B. F. Goodrich Company A. E. PUCKETT (DR.), Executive Vice President and Assistant General Manager, Hughes Aircraft Company K. ROBERT HAHN,Executive Vice President, Lear Siegler, Inc. DANIEL J. HAUGHTON, Chairman of the Board, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation PAUL THAYER, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The LTV Corporation T. G. POWNALL, President, Martin Marietta Aerospace CONTENTS S. N. McDONNELL, President and Chief Executive Officer, McDonnell Douglas Corporation GERALD J. LYNCH, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Menasco Manufacturing Company 2 Message to the Membership EDWARD L. MONTGOMERY, Executive Vice President, Aerospace and Communications Operations, Phi/co-Ford Corporation 4 Aerospace Operations Service D.
    [Show full text]
  • From Crop Duster to Airline; the Origins of Delta Air Lines to World War II
    Roots: From Crop Duster to Airline; The Origins of Delta Air Lines to World War II by James John Hoogerwerf A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama December 13, 2010 Keywords: Delta Laboratory, Huff Daland, Delta Air Lines, B. R. Coad, Harold R. Harris, C.E. Woolman Copyright 2010 by James John Hoogerwerf Approved by William F. Trimble, Chair, Professor of History James R. Hansen, Professor of History Alan D. Meyer, Assistant Professor of History Tiffany A. Thomas, Assistant Professor of History Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Dr. W. David Lewis Distinguished University Professor of History Auburn University (1931-2007) ii Abstract Delta Air Lines (Delta) is one of the great surviving legacy airlines of the first century of flight. In the annals of American aviation history its origins are unique. Delta’s beginning can be traced to the arrival of the boll weevil from Mexico into Texas in 1892. Unlike other national airlines that were nurtured on mail subsidies, Delta evolved from experiments using airplanes to counter the cotton weevil scourge from the air. The iconic book on the subject is Delta: The History of an Airline authored by two eminent Auburn University history professors, W. David Lewis and Wesley Phillips Newton. This dissertation explores more closely the circumstances and people involved in Delta’s early years up to World War II. It is chronologically organized and written in a narrative style. It argues Delta’s development was the result of a decades-long incremental and evolutionary process and not the calculated result of a grand design or the special insight of any one person.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 Commission file number 1-812 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) DELAWARE 06 0570975 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) One Financial Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (860) 728-7000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock ($1 par value) New York Stock Exchange (CUSIP 913017 10 9) Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒. No ☐. Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐. No ☒. Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒. No ☐. Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
    [Show full text]
  • The Newsletter of the NWA History Centre Dedicated to Preserving the History of a Great Airline and Its People
    Vol.14, no.3 nwahistory.org facebook.com/NWA.History.Centre September 2016 REFLECTIONS The Newsletter of the NWA History Centre Dedicated to preserving the history of a great airline and its people. NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1926-2010 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ FOUNDING FATHERS by Robert DuBert starring LEWIS HOTCHKISS BRITTIN Director, St. Paul Association and founder of Northwest Airways WILLIAM BENSON MAYO Chief Engineer, Ford Motor Company WILLIAM BUSHNELL STOUT Founder, Stout Metal Airplane Company and President, Stout Air Lines and HENRY FORD SUPPORTING CAST Edsel Ford Eddie Stinson Bill Mara Paul Henderson James McDonnell with Charles Dickinson Edward Budd Camille Stein Robert Stranahan Frederick Rentschler and members of The Detroit Athletic Club If this were a documentary film, that's how the introduction to the screenplay might read. The founding of Northwest Airways, later to become Northwest Airlines, was not inevitable. It was the fortunate result of the individual and joint endeavors of a group of business leaders and an unfolding chain of events occuring over the span of just a few years, whose outcome no one could have predicted in advance. Some executives of the Ford Motor Company played key roles, and with events unfolding simultaneously in Detroit and the Twin Cities, it is impossible to tell this story in a strictly chronological order without some “backing and filling.” So please bear with me as I serve as your explorer, to focus on the galaxie of people whose fusion of effort gave Lewis Brittin (no country squire he) the business edge he needed to get our airline off the ground. CONNECTICUT YANKEE Lewis Hotchkiss Brittin was born in Derby, a fateful turn of events which brought him to the Twin Cities on Conn.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace and Defense 2017 Year in Review and 2018 Forecast
    Aerospace and defense 2017 year in review and 2018 forecast How are aerospace and defense companies performing today? What challenges and opportunities do they face? PwC takes a look. www.pwc.com/us/aerospaceanddefense Methodology Our data is drawn from financial reports on fiscal year (FY) 2017, results for the largest 100 aerospace and defense (A&D) companies by revenue (see Appendix A) and other publicly available information, such as company websites and press releases. Our cut-off date for publication was April 1, 2018. A&D companies include those that generate the majority of revenue from aerospace or defense activities or, for diversified companies, those reportable segments that derive a majority of their revenue from A&D activities. The results are reported in US dollars. Foreign currencies were translated at average exchange rates for years ending December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 respectively. Our report also expresses PwC’s point of view on topics affecting the industry, developed through interactions with our clients and other industry leaders and analysts. PwC Aerospace and defense 2 Aerospace and defense overview 4 Commercial aerospace 14 Defense 24 Mergers and acquisitions 32 Summary 34 Appendix 36 Additional resources 40 PwC Aerospace and defense 3 Aerospace and defense overview 2017 review The aerospace and defense industry reported record profits of Aerospace and $77 billion in 2017, an 18% increase over the prior year, and surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 5%. Industry defense industry revenue was $728 billion, an increase of 4% over 2016, and reports record profit nearly matching the record revenues of $729 billion in 2014.
    [Show full text]