Research Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center
Skip to content
Home
Key Personnel
Areas of Expertise
Branches
Facilities & Capabilities
Wind Tunnel Testing Guide
Contact Us
Customer Exit Survey
Customer Exit Survey
Dropdown
0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel (0.3-M TCT)
4-Foot Supersonic Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT)
8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel (8FT HTT)
14 by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14x22)
20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel (VST)
20-Inch Supersonic Wind Tunnel (SWT)
Combined Loads Test System (COLTS)
Landing and Impact Research Facility (LandIR)
Low Speed Aeroacoustics Wind Tunnel (LSAWT)
National Transonic Facility (NTF)
Scramjet -- Arc-Heated Scramjet Test Facility
Scramjet -- Combustion-Heated Scramjet Test Facility
Scramjet -- Direct-Connect Supersonic Combustion Test Facility
Scramjet -- Mach 4 Blow-Down Facility
Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT)
LAL -- 15-Inch Mach 6 High Temp Air Tunnel
LAL -- 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel
LAL -- 20-Inch Mach 6 CF4 Tunnel
LAL -- 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel
Test Number
Test Point of Contact
Date
Customer Name/ Job Title/ Organization
Phone Number
Facility Work Areas:
Working spaces/ amenities met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Security Provisions met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Comments
Costs:
Facility Costs were reasonable
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Comments
Schedule:
Schedule development met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Achieved the agreed upon test start date
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Maintained test schedule
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Achieved the agreed upon test completion date
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Comments
Test Performance: Planning
Test Agreement process was efficient
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Facility requirements were defined and understood
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Test requirements were defined and understood
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Technical support met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Communications during planning were effective
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Test Performance: Test Execution
Test article buildup and installation met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Flexibility to accommodate change met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Technical support met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Facility reliability/ availability met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Instrumentation systems met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Data acquisition/ reduction systems met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Data quality met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Data delivered in a timely manner
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Communications during test execution were effective
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Comments
Bottom Line:
Overall -- Facility Operations were conducted safely
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Overall -- Test Performance met expectations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Percentage of your Test Objectives met?
If less than 100%, please comment:
What was the deciding factor for you to conduct your test at this facility?
What improvements or changes would you recommend at the facility?
Other comments
